To listen in a player, click here .
To download the mp3, right-click here  and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”
To subscribe to our podcasts, click here .
Ruuben Kaalep: Good evening, my name is Ruuben Kaalep, and I am from Estonia. Tonight I am here with Dr. Greg Johnson, who is an American White Nationalist, an intellectual, a philosopher, and in my opinion one of the wisest and most inspiring figures that we nationalists have on our side. Dr. Johnson has a Ph.D. in philosophy. He is the founder and Editor of Counter-Currents Publishing which has a really great and intellectually rich website (www.counter-currents.com). He is the author of three books. A new one is coming out this year. I really recommend his books and writings to anyone who is interested in our nationalist cause. I am making this interview especially for Estonian readers and listeners. We will talk generally about the situation of Europeans in Europe and world-wide, and a bit about liberal and post-Communist Europe, and what is the role of Estonia and Estonian nationalists in all this.
So Greg, you have been a nationalist and White advocate in the USA for around 15 years. Can you freely express your opinions in the USA, or do you have to fear repercussions?
Greg Johnson: Well, Ruuben, first of all thank you for doing this interview and for your very kind introduction. There are no laws against expressing nationalist ideas in the United States, since freedom of opinion is expressly protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution. However, that does not protect nationalists from persecution and censorship by private organizations and individuals. The mainstream media, both Leftist and Right wing, are entirely hostile to racial nationalist ideas and seldom bother with even the pretense of objectivity. Left-wing agitators have led many universities, businesses, and NGOs to adopt codes of conduct and mission statements that make adherence to multiculturalism and diversity conditions of employment, which furnish pretexts to fire dissidents. But even these pretexts are unnecessary, as Americans can be fired at will if they have controversial beliefs.
In Europe, freedom of speech does not have the same constitutional protection as in the US, but in many European societies, it is not possible for employers to terminate people arbitrarily, based on their political beliefs. Thus I believe that in the end, constitutional guarantees of free speech mean very little if dissidents can be subjected to private censorship and persecution with impunity. This may be why in Europe, nationalists who have less legal freedom of speech actually speak more, and more effectively, in favor of nationalist policies.
RK: Europe has been lately struck by a migration crisis of unprecedented scale. What kind of results do you foresee for both Europe and the whole world?
GJ: All European nations have shrinking native populations. If non-white immigration continues unabated, there are really only three possible outcomes.
First, Europe will cease to exist, culturally and racially, once its populations are replaced by fast-breeding non-whites. Once Europeans no longer exist, I fully expect the other races will breed recklessly and despoil the planet, leaving nothing but a blackened cinder in space. Thus, I believe that the welfare of Europe is ultimately identical with the welfare of the world. Want to save the world? Then save the white race. We are the part that cares the most about the whole.
Second, there will be civil wars, in which the European populations either unite to expel the invaders and secure their borders, or they will fail, and Europe will be extinguished.
Third, nationalist parties will come to power, secure their borders, and repatriate non-whites in an orderly and humane fashion.
I hope that Europe takes the third path, but if the existing political establishments do not cede power to nationalist parties, then revolution and civil war will be the only other route to Europe’s salvation. Under no circumstances, however, will Europe “go gentle” into the night of extinction.
Of course non-white immigration into Europe is nothing new, and nationalists have been warning Europeans about demographic displacement for decades. Thus the sudden massive influx of migrants from Africa and the Near East is actually a good thing, because the startling scope and speed of the changes are awakening people who were sleeping through their slow demographic displacement and galvanizing new levels of European resistance. This crisis is like a fever. Sometimes a body needs to raise its temperature to ward off or kill an infection. The temperature is going way up, and I think that is perhaps a sign of health.
RK: What are the differences and similarities in the demographic trends of Europe and USA?
GJ: The main trends are quite similar: white Americans, like white Europeans, are a shrinking population, who will be replaced by fast-breeding native and immigrant non-whites. The only real difference is that the process is far more advanced in the United States than in Europe. The United States has declined from 90% white in 1965 to about 65% white today, and in a few decades, whites will be less than 50% of the population. Paradoxically, though, even though the demographic problem is far less pronounced in Europe, the level of nationalist sentiment and organization is far higher. I take this as a sign of greater racial and cultural health in Europe.
RK: You have been staying in Budapest for a while. How would you compare Western and Eastern (post-communist) Europe (taking into account politics, demographics, and culture)?
GJ: Unlike some Western nationalists, I do not hate liberalism enough to praise Communism, except in a backhanded way: despite its efforts, Communism was not capable of destroying ethnic consciousness and European high culture quite so effectively as Western liberalism and popular culture. Therefore, there is a healthier national consciousness and a more vivid sense of a common European history and high cultural heritage in the former Communist bloc nations than in the West. That is particularly true of Hungary, which is the European country I have spent the most time in. The amount of European high culture that you see in Hungary is remarkable.
Western Europe is much more culturally deracinated and debased than the East, largely because of the post-war hegemony of the United States. Western Europe, however, is still far healthier than the United States, which is the vanguard of world nihilism. Eastern Europe needs to get over its inferiority complex toward the West and America. Eastern Europe should not be following the vanguard of nihilism. It should instead become the vanguard of European rebirth.
RK: How would you comment on Hungarian policies on immigration?
GJ: Viktor Orbán’s policies and statements on the migrant crisis have been the best of all European leaders, and he has encouraged resistance around Europe to the arrogant demands of Merkel and Brussels to impose “refugee” quotas. Hungary has its political factions, like all nations, but the Hungarian people are overall highly patriotic and feel great solidarity with one another in resisting the invaders. It is a sign of health. I hope other European nations follow their example. There are already signs of that happening with the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia, so we’ll see.
RK: What kind of differences do you see between nationalist movements in Western and Eastern Europe?
GJ: Eastern countries tend to be genetically threatened more by emigration of young people than immigration by non-whites, but Mrs. Merkel is changing that quickly. The biggest difference is that delusional views about Russia  increase among nationalists the further west one goes. Other than that, I generally see little difference between Eastern and Western European nationalists. I respect both Eastern and Western European nationalists. I look up to them. I expect more from the East though, because they have healthier societies to work with. For countries like England and France, Germany and Sweden, Italy and Spain, the path to national renewal will be much more difficult.
RK: Which strategies work best for nationalists?
GJ: In politics and warfare, one must attack the enemy where he is weakest and you are strongest. Right now, our enemies have never been stronger in terms of wealth and sheer brute power. Nationalists, by contrast, have very little wealth and power at our disposal. However, the establishment has never been weaker in terms of its intellectual and moral underpinnings, and the intellectual and moral case for nationalism has never been stronger. Moreover, the people who run our countries are utterly cynical and corrupt, not to mention downright insane and quite easily parodied, whereas nationalism increasingly draws the most intelligent, upstanding, and idealistic people in all European societies.
Therefore, the battle at present has to be metapolitical: we need to destroy the dominance of anti-nationalist ideas, and we need to organize a vital nationalist movement, which must consist not just of political parties, but a whole subculture, with families, schools, businesses, think tanks, cultural events, publishers, artists and craftsmen, etc.
Since nationalism is based on objective facts and moral principles that our enemies flout, they can only grow weaker, and we can only grow stronger, until the point when we can take political power, protect our borders, repatriate outsiders, and reverse our demographic and cultural decline.
RK: How soon would you predict the success of nationalism all over Europe, and where will it begin first?
GJ: It is dangerous to make precise predictions, particularly because the one thing history teaches us to expect is the unexpected, i.e., the unpredictable. We don’t want to be like the millenialist sects that kept predicting and postponing the Apocalypse. Failed prophecies can be deeply demoralizing. Instead, the best way to sustain our efforts is not to offer overly precise predictions or rosy forecasts or to foster the illusion that we can completely control events. That we’ve got a plan that we can just set in motion. Step one, step two, step three, and then victory.
Instead, we have to follow the Aryan ethic of duty that you see in the Bhagavad Gita and Immanuel Kant. We have to do the right thing and detach ourselves from the consequences, which we cannot control. Keep fighting. Never get discouraged. Never soil ourselves with compromise. Always remain morally worthy of victory. We can control that. We can control our own actions, and our own worth, better than we can control external events. And then we have to let the gods sort out the contingencies. It is hubris to think that we can completely predict and control events.
An allied attitude that also detaches itself from this hubris is to regard the struggle not just as a moral duty but as a game, as a source of joy, thus as something that can be sustained as an end in itself, regardless of consequences. Laughter is key. Laughter is glorying in our own superiority. We do not believe we deserve to win if we cannot laugh at our enemies. And they richly deserve mockery. This playful spirit is particularly attractive to young and creative types. It is the source of the endless wealth of memes, parody songs, videos, and podcasts, and troll campaigns that are now reshaping the parameters of political debate. This is cultural struggle — metapolitics — in action.
We can, however, make very broad predictions. I am very optimistic that nationalism will break out somewhere in Europe and spread. Why? Because nationalism is the political philosophy best aligned with our own nature and with the facts of reality, including the most pressing political problems faced by white people everywhere: problems like demographic decline, mass immigration, crime, and ethnic conflict. Multiculturalism brings conflict, chaos, poverty, and misery wherever it is tried. The only solution is the ethnically homogeneous sovereign state.
We have won all the intellectual battles. Our leaders are intellectually and morally bankrupt. But our people don’t know it yet. Once we awaken enough of our people, and once the power of the increasingly hollow and brittle establishment to intimidate us into silence and conformity wavers, rapid political change is possible. We saw that with the collapse of Communism, which was just another version of the same lies that rule today.
RK: What would be your advice for a small country like Estonia that lies between the Moscow and Washington/Brussels spheres of influence?
GJ: The main reason why Eastern European countries are receptive to the EU and NATO in particular is their desire to secure themselves against Putin’s Russia. This is bad because NATO and the EU are vectors of western decadence. Central and Eastern Europeans may be militarily and economically weaker than the West, but they are racially and culturally much healthier, and the latter factors are more important.
Therefore, I believe that Eastern Europeans need to take control of their own security. Already, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary are part of the Visegrád Group , an economic and defense union encompassing four of Central-Eastern Europe’s most dynamic economies and more than 60 million people. I would like to see this independent bloc expand.
The Baltic countries should be the first to join, as they are well-matched in terms of economic and educational factors. Eventually, such a bloc should encompass Ukraine, Romania, Moldova, and Bulgaria, as well as Belarus if it leaves the Russian orbit. Greece and the former Yugoslav republics are also candidates. Austria too. Fully extended, such a bloc would have close to 200 million Europeans, more than a match for Russia’s 145 million, many of whom are non-Europeans.
This geopolitical bloc was the idea of Polish inter-war leader Józef Piłsudski, who called it Intermarium. There’s an excellent recent article  on it at Counter-Currents. For Piłsudski, of course, Intermarium was an imperial dream: the resurrection of the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. No sovereign state will sign up for the revival of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or Austro-Hungarian Empire. But a federation of sovereign states spanning from the Baltic to the Black Sea would obviate the need for Central and Eastern European nations to join NATO and the EU.
An Intermarium bloc would allow the racially and culturally healthiest part of Europe to stop following the West into decadence and instead start leading it toward renewal. The East needs to get over its inferiority complex. It needs to rejoice in its health and strength. Matt Parrott once said something very wise to me, which is applicable here: “Sometimes you have to set aside your humility and lead.”
RK: Well thank you very much Greg. It has been very inspiring. You have given hope to nationalists in Estonia and the whole of Europe. So as Greg said: be brave, do your duty, and laugh at your enemies. They’re just there so you can laugh at them. So have a good night.
GJ: Thank you so much. I really have enjoyed this.