Print this post Print this post

Interview on White Nationalism

Socrates and Xantippe

1,432 words

Author’s Note:

This interview with Georges Feltin-Tracol appeared in French translation in Réfléchir & Agir, no. 55 (2017). I want to thank Mr. Feltin-Tracol and the editors of Réfléchir & Agir.

Isn’t White Nationalism a theory specific to a North American context?

As I define it, White Nationalism is the advocacy of sovereign homelands for all white ethnic groups, which applies just as well to Europe as to North America. North Americans are not simply generic white people. We are Americans, Canadians, and Quebecois. Just as Europeans are not generic white people, but members of different ethnic groups as well.

Now, to be precise, I regard ethnic sovereignty as a pragmatic principle for conflict resolution and cultural development, not as a categorical imperative. Some ethnic groups may get along well in a multiethnic system and not aspire to sovereignty, for instance the peoples of the Swiss Federation. Not every tribe of American or Siberian aborigines needs a seat at the United Nations.

But when multiethnic societies lead to conflict or the destruction of identities, and particular peoples aspire to their own homelands, then as a White Nationalist, I say give it to them. Give it to them in an orderly, peaceful, and humane manner like the partition of Czechoslovakia, so they do not have to arrive at the same conclusion by the Yugoslav route of war and bloodshed.

White Nationalism is politically realistic enough to recognize that a completely peaceful world might not be possible. But we think that giving all peoples their own homelands, where they can live in a manner that befits them without outside interference, is the best way to minimize needless strife and lay the foundations for peaceful cultural and economic development.   

Does White Nationalism have a vision of economics?

White Nationalists differ in their views of economics, and many of us, unfortunately, are still mentally mired in libertarian, “free market” economic thinking, since most of us start our intellectual journeys on the libertarian and conservative Right, and we carry that baggage with us. One of the most important agenda items for Counter-Currents is to promote the exploration of the rich tradition of critiques of capitalism from the Right: Social Credit, Distributism, Guild Socialism, populism, agrarianism, the economic innovations in Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany, and so forth. My own economic views are most influenced by the Social Credit school, as can be appreciated in my essay “Money for Nothing.”

What do you think of liberalism?

Individual self-actualization and freedom are important things. But they are not as important as liberals make them out to be. I believe that the common good is a meaningful idea, and that liberalism is absurd to claim that the common good either does not exist, or does not matter more than individual interests, or cannot be imposed on individuals without tyranny, or comes about spontaneously though individual selfishness, so we do not need wise statesmen imposing limits on individual freedom whenever they conflict with the common good. In the illiberal society I envision, there will be wide latitude for individual freedom and self-development, but only as long as they are consisted with the common good.

What do you think of globalization?

Globalization is a profoundly destructive process. It is destructive of everything that the Right holds dear: traditions, hierarchies, particular identities, national sovereignty, etc. This is one reason that the Left promotes it, at least the Left that focuses on identity politics. But it is also destructive of much of what the Left holds dear as well, at least the older Left that cared about workers.

Globalization destroys the genuine progress that has been made by the labor movement, all of which took place in societies that practiced some measure of economic protectionism. Globalization means removing those barriers to trade. That means that labor costs in the First World and Third World will tend to equalize, which will mean a slight improvement in Third World living standards and a catastrophic drop in First World living standards. This will lead to the liquidation of the white working and middle classes to the benefit of an elite of rootless plutocrats.

Leftists who want to stop globalization need to recognize that the natural stopping point is the nation state. For more on this, see my essay “The End of Globalization.”

Globalization is also deeply incompatible with technological progress. One of the main spurs of technological progress has been high labor costs, which encourage capitalists to create new technologies, which make labor more productive. As long as labor has the collective power to appropriate the benefits of these productivity gains, technological progress leads to a rising middle class. Cheap labor removes that spur to innovation and rising living standards. Globalization is thus leading to technological stagnation and a low tech, low wage plantation economy.

My goal is to create a utopia where machines put us all out of work, by means of economic nationalism and protectionism, which keep labor costs high and spur technological innovations. But the productivity gains made possible by high tech will be distributed to everyone in the form of a social dividend, which will give everyone the purchasing power to keep the economy running and the leisure to pursue higher aims: family life, creativity, self-cultivation, political activism, science, technology, exploration, and the like.

You state in your book New Right vs. Old Right that “your nation is your race.” Isn’t it a reductive statement, since many white people stand for immigration, multiculturalism, and interbreeding?

All “my race is my nation” means is that I believe that the survival and flourishing of our race is the highest political good. Of course, there are many white people who disagree with that. But they remain our flesh and blood, members of our greater racial community, just as I regard misguided white Americans as members of my greater national community. They simply have mistaken political opinions.

The goal of White Nationalists should be complete cultural and political hegemony. We must aim at communicating the relevance of our ideas to all white constituencies and securing their loyalty. There is no need to end political pluralism as long as white identity and interests become sacrosanct and throughout the political spectrum, no matter how many other issues might divide us. I am all for the maximum political and cultural pluralism, as long as the degradation and destruction of our race is not one of the possibilities.

I see the task of White Nationalism as rationally persuading an active minority of people of the truth of our views and the necessity of politically realizing them. We can persuade a somewhat larger minority of our people of our views through non-rational factors. Then, if we gain power, we can secure the loyalty of the broad masses by offering them security, prosperity, and peace.

There will always, however, be a minority of our people who will never accept our views. But if our ideas become culturally and politically hegemonic, we will deprive that remnant of all political power and social influence. They will be as alienated, marginalized, and powerless as White Nationalists are today under the current multiculturalist hegemony.

Do you believe that American White Nationalism can help the cause of Europeans on all continents?

Yes, because White Nationalism as I define it defends sovereign homelands for all white groups that aspire to sovereignty, no matter where they live. Indeed, ethnonationalist principles apply to non-white peoples as well. 

Some neo-cons contemplate the “Anglosphere,” as the union between the United Kingdom, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. What about you?

Although the Anglosphere does share a common language and a common history up to a point, Englishmen, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and Americans are now different ethnic groups, some of us separated by thousands of miles. Thus, the idea of any sort of politically unified Anglosphere strikes me as absurd and contrary to ethnonationalism. Any necessary cooperation between Anglosphere nations can be secured by trade, diplomacy, customs unions, intergovernmental organizations, and military alliances. There is simply no need for a common sovereign state.

Neocons, of course, are a tiny minority with an immense will to power. Thus, they desire the centralization of power, even if it increases strife between different peoples subject to the same system, since such unification allows a small group to dominate many different peoples. Thus they feel threatened by all forces demanding decentralization and ethnic-national sovereignty.

What do North-American White Nationalists think of an Alter Europe based on identity?

We are for it, as it follows of necessity from our basic principle of supporting the national aspirations of all white ethnic groups.

 

 

 

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

9 Comments

  1. George Fungas
    Posted January 2, 2017 at 5:49 am | Permalink

    Yo, Johnson.

    You need to write more about Social Credit, this needs to be equally as important to the Alt Right as our racial platform.

  2. Joel
    Posted January 1, 2017 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    You might consider adopting a public photo that is not you, but sort of similar to you. Or possibly an actual picture that doesn’t resemble your appearance in daily life. For those of us who haven’t been lucky enough to meet you, it would be nice to have some human avatar to associate with the voice and writings of Greg Johnson.

  3. tripod
    Posted December 31, 2016 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    Alternatively, give them a a picture of Peter Sellers in his famous ‘Clouseau’ mode.

    Funny though, they all seem to want to get your picture out there – like that French chick you did an interview with not too long ago.

    I don’t care about the picture, but it would certainly be a major disappointment if after coming out we’d discover you are a womyn of color.

  4. Old Bullion
    Posted December 30, 2016 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    Maybe I’m being paranoid but do you think they only wanted the interview as a way to get your photo so they could expose you?

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted December 30, 2016 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

      No

  5. Sandy
    Posted December 30, 2016 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    The refusal of a magazine to refuse to print a cutting edge interview without a photograph reminds me of the time I applied for a position as a radio announcer with BBC Radio. I made the short list and although I have a golden voice they t-t-t-told me I was t-t-t-too t-t-t-tall for the p-p-position.

  6. BroncoColorado
    Posted December 30, 2016 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    Excellent article, it’s a pity readers in France didn’t get a chance to be exposed to the essential reasonableness of our noble cause.

  7. Afterthought
    Posted December 30, 2016 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    I would go one biological order higher and say that rhetorically I/we support self-determination for any that want it, but, like George Washington, we are obliged only to secure our own.

    Paradoxically, this movement, while ostensibly anti globalism, offers a nourishing, viable global model – of mutual respect and letting a thousand flowers bloom.

    What we could accomplish in terms of, say space colonization with just 1/10th of the global expenditure on armaments nearly as complex as space ships, boggles the mind.

    When I was a child, I received a View Master for Christmas with a series of slides depicting the grandeur of space.

    2001 seemed impossibly far away, and I just assumed the world envisioned by Clarke and Kubrick would come to pass. Now I am playing a educational game about space in 2016 with my children, and we essentially have done nothing in 30 years.

    Is this not why we fight?

  8. Mabel Fong
    Posted December 30, 2016 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    Noting Dr. Johnson’s several references to economic science in the above, I respectfully suggest some reconsideration of the more sophisticated, scientifically grounded, and up-to-date discussions on economics that are currently relegated to the 14/88 regions of the Alt-Right:

    http://www.dailystormer.com/aryan-insights-kurt-roemer-national-socialist-economics-for-the-modern-world/

    http://nationalvanguard.org/2014/12/taking-capitalism-away-from-the-jews/

    http://takimag.com/article/in_search_of_lost_money_hargreaves_allen

    As I read this discourse, dissatisfaction with a corrupt capitalism is taken as given; and we are now left the problem of preserving the efficiencies and stabilizing effects of the capitalist ideal in succeeding regimes of economic command. Prospects for a solution all reference a recently accepted solution to Libertarianism’s presumably indissoluble ‘economic calculation problem’:

    http://ecomod.net/system/files/Roemer.Economic%20Calculation.pdf

    which the Libertarians promptly rejected on the usual grounds of Hitlerism,

    https://np.reddit.com/r/PraxAcceptance/comments/3nire3/hitlerian_thinks_he_solved_the_calculation_problem/

    and a priori declamation:

    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/on-economic-calculation-and-model-that.html

    The calculation problem is defined in algebraic terms. The algebra behind EcoMod’s solution is validated in an instructional videogame that anyone running Excel can operate on their own desktop.

    If we cannot win this fight, we do not deserve to be in the ring.

  • Our Titles

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    The World in Flames

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance