The following text is the transcript by V. S. of Robert Stark’s interview with Greg Johnson about the New Right and the Old Right. This interview first published at the Voice of Reason network on June 22, 2012 but is no longer online there.
Robert Stark: Good evening, everyone! I’m joined here with Greg Johnson. We’re going to be discussing his essay called “New Right vs. Old Right .” I think to start things off, what do you mean by the “old Right”? There’s this idea when people think of the New Right . . . We’ve talked extensively on this show about the New Right, but I guess some people think of neo-cons vs. paleo-cons or traditional conservatives. What we’re talking about is completely different.
But I guess to start things off, what is your basic definition of what the old Right is?
Greg Johnson: Well, first of all, Robert, thank you for having me on the show again. I really appreciate it.
The “New Right vs. Old Right” piece is my attempt to lay out the differences between what the North American New Right and the European New Right are all about and the old Right.
First of all, by New Right and old Right I’m actually talking about something very specific. The Right-wing in general as I want to define it is all about inequality, the philosophical and political doctrine of inequality. Human beings are not equal in any significant way, and what separates the Right from the Left is basically the attitude that people take towards egalitarianism. The Left is all egalitarian; the Right is inegalitarian.
Now, much of the Right today, however, pays lip-service to egalitarianism. As Jonathan Bowden would point out sometimes, even though people defend ideas and systems that lead to de facto inequality they will never defend it as such. They will always talk about freedom and opportunity and things like that, but they will never defend inequality as a good whereas I think that inequality actually is a good thing for the simple reason that human beings are not equal; inequality is a fact of life, and, therefore, if you’re going to have a system that is just, you’re going to have to treat unequal people unequally.
The ancient Greeks had this notion, you see this in Aristotle’s Ethics, of proportional inequality. Aristotle believed that people were not equal, and, therefore, it would be an injustice to treat unequal people in an equal way. However, he also believed in a notion of equity, so that it would be improper to treat unequal people in dramatically unequal ways. So, for instance, if someone is twice as meritorious as the next guy, proportionate inequality would be to give him twice as many rewards or twice as much honor, where it would be unproportional to give him one hundred times as much honor. So, the good life, politically speaking, has to be in accordance with nature, and if man is unequal then political, social inequality in some way has to be a good thing and has to be defended as a good thing.
I think the true Right plants its flag in the defense of inequality as a fact and as a norm whereas the phony Right and the Left are united in their egalitarianism. The New Right vs. the old Right distinction has to be understood in that context.
So, for instance, when I talk about the old Right I am specifically talking in the 20th century about explicitly inegalitarian Right-wing movements like Fascism and National Socialism in Europe and other kinds of Right-wing populist movements around the world, including in the United States. These movements were explicitly anti-egalitarian, and the New Right is explicitly anti-egalitarian as well, but what differs between the old Right and the New Right in my view is simply this: the old Right was very much caught up with totalitarianism, party politics, one party politics in particular, and in that sense they were very much like the old Left, the Communist Left. So, the old Right and the old Left in the Communist sense were united in their model of having a hierarchical, revolutionary political party that would seize power either electorally or by force of arms, and was organized to do both, and then the creation of a one party state that would basically force people to do what is right according to their own definitions and would engage in tactics like terrorism and even genocide in dealing with their enemies.
I think that just as the New Left after the Second World War repudiated the old Left’s harshness, its totalitarianism, its genocides, its camps, its party politics, and so on and so forth, the New Right has repudiated the old Right’s totalitarianism, terrorism, party politics, and all of that kind of stuff, but it has maintained the focus of the old Right which is the defense of inequality and the idea that a society that is in harmony with nature and that is just is therefore going to be in harmony with human inequality, and that’s both racial and sexual and between individuals. People are all unequal, people are different, the races are different, the sexes are different, and if you’re going to have justice you’re going to have to take all of those differences into account.
The North American New Right is basically just taking up the politics of the European New Right and trying to apply it in the North American context. So, the basic distinction between New Right and old Right is strictly analogous as the distinction between New Left and old Left. The New Left repudiates the harshness, the slaughter, the genocide, the meanness, the one party politics, the cults of personality, and things like that associated with the old Left, but maintains its commitment to its ideals and tries to bring those ideals about in a new way. In the same way, the New Right maintains the inegalitarian ideals of the old Right, but repudiates the means by which these things were realized in the earlier part of the 20th century and instead seeks to bring these about in a different way.
RS: Well, the thing about the present day phony Right, as you described it, I wouldn’t say they’re egalitarian. They’re politically correct, and they speak out in favor of racial egalitarianism and much of the agenda of the politically correct Left. But on economic issues they’re far from being egalitarian.
GJ: Yeah, that’s true. They’re quite inegalitarian, and yet at the same time they will never defend inequality as such. They always defend instead things that lead inexorably to inequality like equal opportunity or capitalism, freedom, things like that. So, they will defend it on those grounds, but they won’t defend it on the grounds of inequality. They’ll defend it on the grounds of freedom and procedural notions of rights and things like that.
In that sense, I think that is a sign that they are morally cowed by the Left. So, they feel that they can only advance the Right-wing values that their hold dear by encoding them in the language of the Left and in terms of the values of the Left, squaring them with Left-wing values. Of course, that can only go so far, and of course they are always being hoist by their own petard when they start doing that because the Left is always calling their bluff and demanding that they live up to the values that they profess.
But they do have a strong egalitarian element to them though, but it’s more in terms of their sentiments. They wax all gooey and sentimental about especially issues like racial equality. They’ve really gone completely over to the Left on matters of racial difference. I’m talking about the mainstream phony Right in America and the sort of center Right parties that you have in Europe as well.
RS: So, you say that the true Right has three species: traditional society, the old Right, and the New Right. How is traditional society different than the old Right?
GJ: That’s a good question. Every society in human history up until modernity has been Right-wing by modern standards. By Right-wing I mean inegalitarian and fairly openly so. This is just based on nature. It’s based on the necessities of social evolution over time always gives rise to inequality. Traditional society, however, has been under attack systematically all over the world since the 18th century, since the rise of the Enlightenment and the reactionary defenders of traditional society have been in steady retreat since the 18th century.
What happened at the beginning of the 20th century is what I call the old Right now, which was an attempt to resuscitate and restore pre-modern, traditional, inegalitarian social forms within the context of modernity. By that I mean modern technology, modern mass society, capitalism and so forth. And really the template of that, the first successful form of that was Fascism in Italy.
Italian Fascism was inegalitarian in its aims, but it was remarkably modern in its means and the fact that it accepted things like universal suffrage, that it was a mobilization of the masses and things like that. It was an attempt within the context of modern mass society to reassert certain pre-modern, traditional, inegalitarian, healthy, biologically harmonious, biologically-based social institutions.
Now, that of course went along with a certain number of totalitarian tendencies, and I do think it is important to understand that the genus totalitarianism is somewhat misleading. For instance, it is very misleading to say that National Socialism and Stalinism are totalitarian in the same way. Superficially, they might be totalitarian in the same way. You’ve got the same kind of art, same kind of cults of personality, and so forth. However, as a matter of fact, Fascism and National Socialism never interfered in private human life to the extent that something like Stalinism did or Maoism. They never went so far.
I was reading recently Hitler’s Table Talk, and one of the most amusing parts of the table talk is a conversation between Hitler, I think Keitel, who was one of his generals, and Himmler where they were complaining about bureaucracy, and they were talking about how they needed to get rid of bureaucracy and streamline things, and Himmler was talking about how in the past the government was so arrogant with the citizens and how when the SS demanded people to appear before them, he redrafted these summonses. He was quoting them, and they were very, very gentle. “You are cordially invited to show up at the SS for some inquiries.” That kind of thing, and then if they didn’t show up he said, “We’d send them a reminder.” And I was thinking, “This simply isn’t the totalitarianism of something like the USSR. They’re just in a completely different category.
However, still, the term totalitarianism comes out of Fascism: either Mussolini coined it, or certainly popularized it. So, the tendency of the old Right though is to depend on one party politics and state force to bring about its ends, and I think that there are other better ways of doing that, and that’s really what differentiates the New Right and the old Right. The New Right maintains the same values, the same ends, and a lot of the same analytical framework as the old Right, and I’m quite open about the debts that we bear to figures like Hitler and Mussolini and Codreanu. People like that. I think that their deeds and their words were very useful and provide a lot of insight, a lot of guidance. Yet at the same time I think that the whole apparatus by which they tried to realize their ends is unnecessary and counter-productive in the world today and so what separates us from them is really we embrace a different means of realizing the same values and the same social goals.
RS: So, you say that the old Right means Fascism and National Socialism and other populist nationalist movements, and you say that their attempt was to restore traditional hierarchical social forms, which are the total antithesis of egalitarianism.
I think it’s important to differentiate populism with egalitarianism. The perception of populism is the common good rather than the good of a few.
GJ: Right. Populism as I define it. There’s a certain picture you have of populism. You think of William Jennings Bryan or something like that. You think of the KKK, or you think of populist appeals by the Democrat Party whenever they want to hornswoggle White working class people into voting for them one more time.
Populism doesn’t mean crude populism. It doesn’t mean necessarily the anti-intellectual populism of America. I want to use that word in a completely different sense. Although I think that they are related in some way. Populism as I want to define it is simply this: it is this idea that the common good of a society should trump factional interests, and the individual good wherever these things actually conflict. A populist society is a kind of norm for evaluating different social institutions and laws. Populism is a normative principle, and it allows you to eliminate forms of government that really are only conducive to the interests of one group, one class in society.
So, my definition of what populism is really comes from Aristotle’s Politics. He doesn’t use the term populism, but Aristotle says that lawful, just rule is always oriented towards the common good of the society whereas unlawful rule is oriented towards the good of an individual or the good of a particular social class or faction. I think that it is possible to be populist in that sense and also to realize that there is a real human inequality and that the interests of the whole are not necessarily served by, say, universal suffrage or just direct democracies.
I think that a certain amount of elitism is necessary to serve the interests of all. However, there need to be checks against the elites just serving their own interests.
RS: Yeah, elitism and inequality. Is it earned or is it just or is it unjust? Some people, based on their merits, will obviously do better, but then you have societies where there are injustices where some people . . . In our society, a lot of the people who have the most are obviously degenerate or parasitic individuals who are undeserving of what they have and there are people who obviously have good qualities who have faced disadvantages. There’s just blanket egalitarianism where everyone deserves the same. Then you bring up the discussion of elitism and egalitarianism, about injustices and unearned elitism.
GJ: Right. Aristotle said that government by the few for the common good is aristocracy, government by the few for the interests of their own class is what he called oligarchy. What we have today is a largely oligarchical society where you do have people in power who are governing basically in the interests of people like them. And that’s as true of the Democrats as it is of the Republicans. We have a tightly oligarchical society, I believe, and the solution to that form of oligarchy is to have a kind of society where talent can rise. Where there are no impediments to talented people from humble backgrounds. So, you have a way of recruiting the best people from all classes of society, from all walks of life.
But the other thing you have to have, and very few societies have ever institutionalized this, is a way of eliminating the people who are in positions of power who are unworthy. You have to have a way of allowing the wastrel children of the rich to fail.
My great objection to the first President George Bush was that in the end he loved his son more than he loved his country, because no man who really cared about the common good would have wanted George W. Bush to be president. He was a person who was raised far above his just station in life because of his connections and that’s the kind of thing that a good society needs to address. There has to be a way of allowing these people to be shuffled off the stage of history and neutralized. Certainly not to become leaders in and of themselves. As far as I know the only aristocracy that ever institutionalized that kind of selection was the Venetian Republic. They actually had ways of eliminating from the ranks of the aristocracy people who were found unworthy of it.
RS: Well, obviously we don’t have that today. The thing about today is that people who have power or extreme wealth aren’t necessarily the better people but they have the right connections or are born into it. That’s an oligarchy or a plutocracy, but what you’re advocating in the New Right . . . What are the New Right’s solutions to these issues?
GJ: What I would advocate is something like this: one of the main ways that oligarchy or plutocracy perpetuates itself in the United States is through educational institutions. You have very expensive prep schools, and then you have Ivy League colleges that are prohibitively expensive and very, very difficult to get into unless you are already part of the elite.
What these do is they give the people who attend them a huge leg up socially that sort of can compensate for their lack of objective merits often times. What I would do is have a system where you would basically abolish those kinds of exclusive educational institutions and simply have them open to everybody on the basis of objective merit.
So, at Harvard, the smartest home school children, the smartest kids from trailer parks, and the smartest kids from Manhattan and so forth from the moneyed elites would all be able to go there if they’re objectively the smartest. You would abolish the tuition, which they actually don’t need to function, because they have massive endowments, and you would just turn this into a strict meritocracy. I think that would be an excellent way of dealing with that.
What the National Socialists did was ultimately they had that strict meritocracy. The SS was a strictly meritocratic organization, and they looked at it as the way they were going to create the elite that would run Germany in the future. That elite included the best people of the old aristocracy, but also the best of the peasantry, the best of the middle classes. Anybody who could get in and prove himself worthy was taken in. So they were replacing an old aristocracy of blood and also the bourgeois aristocracy of money with a new meritocratic system. I think that’s a very reasonable reform.
RS: It’s time for a break. Please stay with us.
Welcome back! I’m joined here with Greg Johnson. We’re discussing his essay on Counter-Currents titled “New Right vs. Old Right.”
Greg, before the break you were discussing the meritocracy that existed in National Socialist Germany.
GJ: Well, I think that the SS was an attempt to create a new kind of meritocratic elite that would run the society. That was their attempt. That was their aim. Similar meritocratic institutions existed in Italy.
I think military kinds of institutions and also the Catholic Church are models of meritocracies where obviously status is not inherited. If you’re in the military and there is a war, there might be social prejudices that determine where you go, how high you can rise and things like that. However, in the conditions of a war it is still possible based on sheer performance and sheer merit to rise very high.
The Catholic Church for a very long time was a meritocratic institution. They would recruit the brightest people from all castes of society and try to bring them into the Church. One of the models of the SS was the Jesuits. Hitler actually said that he believed that Himmler was the Ignatius Loyola of National Socialism.
So, the West has been served very well by both hereditary aristocracies throughout our history, but also by non-hereditary, meritocratic orders, and I think that is something that is deeply rooted in our traditions.
RS: It’s important to emphasize meritocracy. So, a true meritocracy rejects both plutocracy and egalitarianism at the same time.
GJ: Exactly. And also to an extent it has to reject hereditary caste system. I do think that heredity is very, very important. However, it is not an infallible way of determining quality.
There is this phenomenon that Philippe Rushton talks about called regression towards the mean where you have extraordinary people, and if an extraordinary man meets an extraordinary woman the law of averages will tend to dictate that their children will be less outstanding than they are. They might work very, very hard with all their connections and wealth to make sure their children have a leg up in the world, but chances are there are brighter kids out there from humbler backgrounds and therefore you can’t just have heredity as a factor either.
So, I think that meritocracy has to reject the aristocracy of blood, it has to reject the aristocracy of money, and it has to reject any kind of egalitarianism, the idea that we’re all good enough in some way. If we’re really going to mobilize the best people then quality alone has to be the main criterion.
RS: Back to the North American New Right. The North American New Right is based upon the European New Right, but it’s basically a very new and small movement. I would almost say a movement within a movement. The greater movement, I guess, being the alternative Right. You’re saying that the American New Right doesn’t really have any thinkers of the caliber of Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye. Who would you consider to be the top thinkers of the North American New Right?
GJ: Well, it is kind of awkward what I’m doing. Basically, anybody today can go out on the internet and declare himself a journalist. Anybody on the internet can declare himself the leader of a movement. You create yourself as these things, and then you hope that it sticks.
I decided that one of the things that we truly need in the United States, or North America in general, including Canada — Mexico not so much — is we need something analogous to the European New Right. We need a metapolitical movement that will challenge the hegemony of egalitarian anti-White ideas and eventually work to replace it with a different hegemony, a counter-hegemony, whereby White self-assertion, White preservation, and a kind of relaxed and unapologetic inegalitarianism become the common sense of society.
We need that to happen. Nobody else was doing it, so I said, “OK. I’m going to run up the banner and declare myself the leader of the North American New Right until somebody body comes along to take the banner away from me.”
The people I think who have done the most so far to contribute to this project are Michael O’Meara and Collin Cleary. They have written the highest level material, I think, the most intellectually sophisticated material. I think that I’ve done some pretty good work myself, but I don’t think it measures up to what Collin Cleary or Michael O’Meara have done. They’re the two guys that I look to the most. I think they’ve done the most to prepare the way for this.
But in all humility, we need to think of ourselves as just creating the space. We’re creating an intellectual space. We’re creating an intellectual infrastructure. We’ve got an online journal with the Counter-Currents website. That’s counter-currents.com. We’ve got North American New Right, which is our print journal. The first volume of which is now being shipped to me. I got an email about that today. We’ve put out thirteen books so far.
The goal of this is to create a welcoming, intellectually exciting milieu in which we hope we will attract or cultivate talents like the ones we have in Europe. That’s the goal. In all humility, that’s what we’re hoping to do.
Matt Parrott said something to me really profound a couple years back. He said, “Sometimes you’ve just got to put aside your humility and lead.” And I decided, yeah, that’s what I need to do. I need to put aside my humility and just try to get this thing started. My real hope is that better people will come along and turn this into a large, vital world-transforming intellectual movement just as the Left has transformed the world. We want to transform the world back, or we want to transform the world forward; we want to transform it forward and recoup some of the healthy things that traditional societies have always taken for granted and that have been under massive attack since the Enlightenment.
RS: But with the terminology “the New Right,” isn’t that a little confusing to people? I brought this up at the beginning of the show. People might get that confused with the neo-cons. It’s different terminology and it gets kind of confusing. Some people use the terminology Third Positionist, Third Position. What’s your take on that?
GJ: I think it’s all well and good. I don’t want to get caught up in terminology.
You know, the term “New Right” was not something that Alain de Benoist came up with. That was imposed upon him by the press in France in the ’70s, but it stuck. We don’t have the power, really, to call ourselves what we want to call ourselves and make it stick. That’s just reality. And there is truth to the idea that we are a movement of the Right if you define the Right as anti-egalitarian. And that is definitely what we are. We are anti-egalitarian, and so I will accept that label: Right.
Now, there’s a whole big mainstream Right: The libertarians, the Republicans, the neo-cons and there was this term the New Right which was talked about in the late ’70s, early ’80s that would embrace people like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. They would also call them neo-liberals in Europe. It was a kind of resurgence of classical liberalism within the center Left parties. We don’t stand for any of that.
RS: Yeah, it reminds me. For Third Position, the terminology was coopted and there was some political scientist who came up with the term Third Way to describe these Establishment type globalists like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.
GJ: Yeah, the thing is that there’s never going to be a perfect definition or perfect term, so I don’t worry about that too much. I want to be pragmatic about terminology and just be on call to clarify things if people are confused.
There’s no way, for instance, that you can avoid terminology that’s negative, that’s stereotyping, that’s loaded. Especially when our enemies basically have control of the press and academia and things like that. They can get away with calling us anything they want, and they can make it stick. We just have to accept that that is the reality. We have to define our goals. We can be very clear about our goals, and we just have to be pragmatic about the terms that we use to describe them, and we have to be available to defend ourselves from being misunderstood or being smeared, and that’s really the best we can do.
But there’s no magic term. There’s no final magic term that we can use that will be immune to misunderstanding, immune to parody, immune to distortion.
RS: So, the North American New Right cultivates a much more frank and direct critical engagement with Fascism and National Socialism. You said before that it’s founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist parties. Those being totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide. So, you do agree that those are things that should be rejected?
GJ: Yeah. I think that those are all bad things. I mentioned earlier that I was reading Hitler’s Table Talk. It pains me to read the comments in there that Hitler makes about the Russians and Ukrainians and how basically under the new order they’ll just be taught the first ten numbers and how to read road signs, and they’ll basically be helots in a new kind of serf system that he wanted to set up in Ukraine and Russia. I think that’s very sad.
I think that the basic ethno-nationalist principle is this: that every people needs a homeland or homelands in which they have political sovereignty and the freedom to develop according to their own natures, their own lights, their own culture. What makes every distinct people different should have the right to a room of their own, a country of their own where they can develop and perfect who they are. I think that is a universal principle that one can get behind no matter whether you’re Black or White or Asian, no matter what ethnicity you belong to, no matter what nation. I think that we can defend what we’re doing on that universal basis. I think it’s not unreasonable – it’s kind of utopian, to be reasonable, I realize – to aim and try to convince the people who matter, the people who make history, which is a minority, that everybody has an interest in that kind of future.
So, that’s one of the things we want to do. We want to convince people that everyone has a stake in ethno-nationalism and that the main source of trouble, quarrel and strife, enmity and hatred in the world is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism/multiracialism is the idea that different peoples have to share the same societies, the same political systems. We think that is inevitably a source of hatred and violence. If it doesn’t flare up into hatred and violence, it at least is a kind of gentle friction that wears away any cultural differences that matter.
RS: The other thing is it leads to plutocracy or an inegalitarian system where one ethnic group is the plutocracy.
GJ: Yeah, that generally happens. Every multicultural society turns out to be some kind of empire in the end. By an empire I mean a society where one ethnic group rules over other ethnic groups. They can be kind of disguised and sneaky about that, or they can be quite open about it, but generally that is what happens. That’s what happens in every one of these African societies that were cobbled together by the colonial powers where you had multiple tribal groups in the same country, and they’re suddenly supposed to work together and have the same state. It’s a universal thing. That’s exactly right. It’s certainly the case everywhere in Asia where the Chinese are powerful. You have Chinese economic dominance in countries like Malaysia or Indonesia, so that is definitely the case. Wherever you have multiculturalism you end up with a lot of friction and you also end up with the empire of one groups over other groups and nobody is happy with that.
RS: You say that this can be achieved through gradual and humane programs such as territorial partition, which an example of that would be the Singapore solution. The other way is population transfer. I don’t know. Usually population transfer involves violence.
GJ: Yes and no. Look at America. Americans move constantly. America is a very unsettled society. Imagine the re-imposition of some kind of racial segregation in America. You could do that over time. And I don’t advocate for this. I don’t want a segregated society. I want a homogeneous White society.
But what I would like to do is have a system whereby people from other races are simply encouraged the next time they move to move outside the borders. People move around a lot.
RS: Yeah, but the thing about that is people tend to live where there’s prosperity and they’re going to want to move to the areas that are the most prosperous, and you can’t really expect them to voluntarily move to an area that’s kind of shitty.
GJ: Well, that’s true, which usually means returning home to wherever they came from in the Third World. But here’s the thing. You don’t have to make it entirely voluntary. You have to say, “Look, starting January 1st, 2013,” – let’s just say I became emperor of California – “non-Whites do not have a future in California in the long-term.” We’re not going to take away your civil rights and take away your property, burn your houses down, or do anything crappy like that. But in the long-term you don’t have a future here. What does that mean? It simply means that you are going to have fewer and fewer opportunities in the future, and, therefore, we will set up a dynamic which will encourage people to move way.
Now, is that an unfair thing or is that a violent thing? Well, I would say in a way no it is not, because that is really what Whites have accepted when you get right down to it. Every White in America, consciously or unconsciously in the present system, if they don’t change that system, has accepted living in a society where our kind does not have any future in the long run.
What I’m basically saying is this: if I were put in charge of a state or a region, I would simply say that that system would now have to be accepted by the other groups there. We’re going to have a future. We are going to make sure that we have a long-term future where not only do we survive, but we flourish. But the other racial groups who are our competitors, whether they’re cordial or violent, they don’t have a long-term future. So, what they need to start thinking of is they need to start sending their kids to college in Singapore or getting them jobs with Overseas Chinese communities. Things like that. They need to start thinking in terms of finding a place where they do have a future.
I think that within a generation you could quietly change things. You could simply restrict economic and educational opportunities within a White state such that non-White groups would voluntarily – and by voluntarily I mean of their own accord without having a gun stuck in their back – relocate themselves. What you would have in time is a situation where the only Asians or the only Blacks in California would be really old people who can’t really pursue opportunities anywhere else. I wouldn’t have any objection to that, because when really old people get a little older and a little older they die off, and the problem has biologically solved itself. It’s something that you can do gradually over time.
Whites are being subjected to genocidal conditions, but it’s not fast, hot genocide. It’s slow, cool genocide, which means that we do not have in the long-term a future in our own societies. We don’t want to take away Chinese societies or Japanese societies or Black societies. They have a whole host of societies of their own. But within our own societies, in order to get ourselves off this slow genocide treadmill, we’re going to have to say, “We’re going to impose a slow, gradual process whereby these people will absent themselves from our society, and in the end we will be the only people left in it.” I don’t think that is an impossible or utopian or unreasonable or inhumane thing. It’s imposing conditions on people that we have allowed to be imposed upon ourselves without violence and without too much conflict except a bit of grousing on the internet.
RS: I think at first when people hear you say that, especially people who consider themselves to be humanitarians, maybe they are kind of shocked at first. Your basic response then is that it’s what is happening today, but in reverse. For people out there who are concerned about doing this, ethically, you just make the point that what you’re advocating is no different than what is happening today.
GJ: Yeah, but it is different in one sense. If we do nothing, we will cease to exist as a people. If I get my way, and I do this thing that I am describing, the Chinese are not going to cease to exist as a people. By no means. They have China. They’ve got Taiwan. They’ve got Singapore. They have their homelands, and they are in no threat of losing them, but we are in threat of losing our homelands. So, in a way, what I’m doing is different, but it’s far more moral than what is being done to us, because what I believe is happening to Whites is slow, cool genocide. I don’t advocate for that against other ethnic groups, but I do think that you can use the same kind of slow, cool, gradual methods to basically recreate or create homogenous White societies. That’s what I think should be done. In a generation or two, that’s what you’d have.
You wouldn’t have to have totalitarianism and camps and all this nasty, harsh stuff. You wouldn’t have to have race wars like this sort of contemporary totalitarians of the White Nationalist movement that they fantasize about at night. You wouldn’t have to have any of that horrible, harsh stuff. You would simply have to have Whites asserting ourselves and saying, “We no longer consent to having no future in our homeland and in fact we are going to turn the tables and the invaders, the people who demographically crowding us out, they’re the ones who have no future here. But they have a bright future in China or Singapore or Nigeria or wherever else.”
RS: We are out of time. One thing that you mentioned, put importance on, was metapolitics. Is there anything you can say briefly to wrap this up?
GJ: Well, metapolitics is basically the idea that there are certain pre-conditions that have to exist in a culture and in people’s minds before political change can take place. People have to believe that a political system is basically just and they have to believe that it’s basically possible. If you don’t think it’s right or you don’t think it’s possible, it’s off the table. It’s simply inconceivable. It’s a non-issue.
One of the reasons why White ethno-states don’t exist today is that people have been taught to believe that it’s amoral . . . Well, not amoral. At best it’s amoral! It’s immoral. It’s evil and that it’s impossible and therefore one of the main practices of the North American New Right is simply to argue that we are a distinct people, that it is right for us to assert ourselves in ethnic conflicts with other people, that these conflicts are real and unavoidable, especially if we have to share the same systems, and that it is possible to get rid of this ethnic conflict by having homogeneous, sovereign ethnic states. That’s what we want for everyone. Even the Jews. The last thing I want to see is Israel to disappear. I want it to stay there so all the Jews can go there, and I want there to be a Palestine right next door to it so all the Palestinians who are here can go back home and live peacefully too.
Ethno-nationalism for everyone. I think that’s a completely moral, reasonable, and practical solution.