Print this post Print this post

Greg Johnson on White Nationalism on Reality Calls (Transcript)

9,143 words

Editor’s Note:

This is a transcript of Greg Johnson’s interview with Tara McCarthy on The Reality Calls Show concerning White Nationalism. To listen in a player, click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save target or link as.”

Tara: Welcome back to Reality Calls show. Today I’m talking with Greg Johnson, who is the editor of Counter-Currents, which I believe is a publishing company. Is that right, Greg?

Greg: That’s right, and thank you for having me on.

Tara: Yes, thanks for joining me. And so we’re going to talk about White Nationalism, because you identify as a White Nationalist, and I thought it’d be interesting to talk about what that is and why you identify that way. But would you mind starting by telling us what your view of White Nationalism is?

Greg: Certainly. White Nationalism is just the idea that the best political order is a patchwork of sovereign nation-states for ethnically distinct peoples. And that larger principle is what we call ethnonationalism, and of course it applies to any race. Being white myself, and being concerned about demographic trends and political trends, which are threatening the future of white people worldwide, I’m most concerned about whites. And I think that White Nationalism, meaning ethnostates for different white peoples, is really the best solution to staving off the long-term demographic problems that whites are facing.

There’s a widespread misconception that White Nationalism means just the idea that if you’re white, you belong in the same state. And I think that that’s a ridiculous idea, a parody actually, of what most White Nationalists believe. Most White Nationalists believe that the natural political unit—the most functional political unit, the one that’s most consistent with maintaining peace among different peoples and also conditions where different peoples can develop, and live according to their own view of what’s right—is the nation-state. And, that means that we are all for preserving differences and borders between white peoples.

The great conflicts of the twentieth century were largely between different white nations. And, largely, those conflicts came about because these groups were not respecting the autonomy of other white groups. And so we think that, first and foremost, we would like to have peace between our own peoples. And then after that, we need to also deal with the threats posed by large geopolitical and racial blocs of rivals to European peoples.

The biggest threat in Europe, of course, is the Islamic world. Europe is being invaded by Muslims, and these Muslims are there with a very conscious design of spreading their religion and political order to Europe. They’re quite open and frank about that, and it really does constitute a somewhat slow and stealthy invasion.

But many invasions in the past have been slow and stealthy invasions by demographic replacement. They’re not necessarily armies blitzing over borders. When you look at the end of the Roman Empire, the end of the Roman Empire came about because they thought it was a really clever idea to bring in these Germanic tribes and settle them in Roman lands and try and enlist them in their legions, and they’ll do jobs that Romans won’t do, and so forth. And by the time Rome was sacked, it wasn’t sacked by people who came from outside the Empire, but primarily by barbarians who were living within its borders. And they finally had enough of being ruled by a very effete and corrupt elite that they held in contempt. So that process of invasion and demographic replacement that’s going on today is not something that unusual in history.

In the United States, the main problem is invasion from the Global South, especially Latin America. The Canadians are also happily importing people from everywhere. But for the US, the primary problem is the invasion of Latin Americans, largely non-white mestizos or Indians.

So what we need is white distinction and diversity where we have our own little homelands, and we need a certain amount of coordination and unity and solidarity when facing geopolitical threats from non-white groups. There’s also of course the Chinese question and South Asia, Africa, and so forth. These are distinct groups of people, distinct geopolitical blocs, and it would be nice if we can have white nations coordinating their plans regarding them in order to survive, rather than what we have today, which is our leadership basically conspiring to replace our population with non-whites from around the world.

Tara: So one of the objections I suppose people might have to this idea of, “Oh, we’re being replaced” is, “Well, we’re all the same anyway, so what does it matter?” What is your perspective on that?

Greg: Well, wait a second, I thought that diversity was a wonderful thing? [laughter] The same people who say we’re all the same and it doesn’t matter are also the ones who say, “Oh, isn’t it wonderful that we can get shawarma in London now?” “Isn’t it wonderful that we have pygmy restaurants?” I don’t know if you actually have pygmy restaurants yet. But wouldn’t it be wonderful if abos, pygmies, and other groups like that opened up little restaurants in west London somewhere? Wouldn’t that be chic and interesting?

The Left—and it’s not really just the Left, it’s the globalist establishment—are promoting multiculturalism and non-white immigration. They really speak with forked tongues. Non-white immigrants are simultaneously people who have low skills, and people with great skills will do the important professional jobs that white people just won’t do. And they’re also peaceful and law-abiding people, far less criminal than native Europeans and on and on. They say all kinds of different things. They say that diversity is a wonderful thing that only makes us stronger, and we are all the same, and it doesn’t matter anyway.

And at a certain point you just have to conclude that these people are not honest. And if they’re not honest, you’ve got to stop listening to them, and eventually you’ve got to simply defeat them politically to prevent them from doing what they’re doing. That’s one of the hardest things for white people to wrap their minds around, the possibility that there are people in positions of power who are simply self-interested, Machiavellian liars.

On the one hand, everybody is willing to entertain that notion. There’s a lot of shallow, facile cynicism about politics. But oddly enough, people still seem to have great difficulty wrapping their minds around what you would do if you really believed that our leaders are lying to us, and that they have very evil ulterior motives that they’re pushing.

And when you look at the contradictions of the globalist rhetoric—the Left is for globalism because of socialism, and the Right is for globalism because of capitalism—but they all promote the same ultimate end, which is a sort of giant plantation economy ruled over by a fabulously wealthy and corrupt elite, you have to start wondering about the sincerity of a lot of these voices that are putting forward the same conclusions with a whole raft of different arguments that are directed at different contingencies.

The common denominator, though, is that they’re trying to swindle the native European peoples of all the European lands and also European colonial peoples like Americans, Canadians, and others of having a future, of having homelands where they can be confident that they will control the government, control their destiny, and have a country that they feel is like home, as opposed to something that is increasingly like a Middle Eastern bazaar when you go to parts of London, or increasingly like Latin America in large parts of the United States.

Tara: I’ve got a few questions here, I’ve asked my audience to ask you. When I asked them to submit questions, some of them, you know, were quite rude and automatically, you know, wanted to make a point about how much they objected to even asking you questions [laughter]. But most of them were quite willing to ask questions. So I’m going to give a few a shot, and I’ve actually got a lot of them, so if you could give a fairly brief response.

What life experiences formed your worldview? What was your home life like growing up and through school?

Greg: Well, I grew up in a very homogeneously white community, and it was only really when I went off to college that I was exposed to different groups of people, and my initial assumption was that we’re all basically pretty much the same, and we can all sort of live together in the same way that I lived when I was growing up in a small homogeneously white town.

And I discovered very quickly that that’s not the attitude of many minorities in the United States. Many of them have a great deal of distrust and hostility toward whites and basically look at us as people that they would like to victimize, and if not victimize, at least there’s a lot of sort of subtle mockery and passive aggression in day-to-day interactions.

And so eventually, I started realizing that this is not actually working, and I realized that basically my multicultural phase, if you will, was rooted in projecting my own mentality on the rest of the world. There’s a deep form of hubris and ethnocentrism that is present in multiculturalism.

The old form, sort of Mark One multiculturalism is basically the white man’s burden idea. It’s the imperialist idea that all of these people really want to be like us. And we’re going to go out, and we’re going to give them all of the benefits of our civilization, because all the good things come from white people, and we’re going to share those gifts with them, and that’s the white man’s burden.

The flip side of that is the guilty, Leftist, anti-colonialist white mentality, which is just as grandiose, because instead of assuming that all good things come from whites—and basically non-whites don’t have any agency of their own and have no worldview and no way of life that they are right to want to hold on to—this Leftist mentality basically blames us for all the bad things that happened in the world to non-white people. It’s our fault. And underlying that, though, is the same grandiose notion that really we’re the only people who matter, for good or evil, in the world, and other people are somewhat negligible as agents, and that assumption is very deep and a sort of bedrock assumption in a lot of Leftists.

And really, I stopped the projection and decided I need to try and understand the world as these people see it, and I came at a certain point to realize that a lot of peoples, in fact the majority of peoples on Earth, do not have a sort of transparent and trusting relationship to other groups. In fact, they have suspicious, hostile, and manipulative relationships to other groups, and that what’s going on in white countries is we’re inviting in people on the assumption that they’re going to be just like us; that we’re going to be generous to them and open to them, and they’re going to be open and generous to us.

And in fact their attitude is that we are incredibly weak and naïve, and they will dissimulate belief in our ideas when they want something from us, but when we want something from them, they’ll say, “Oh yes, yes,” but what they’ll end up doing is practice very ruthless ethnic nepotism.

They’ve hacked us, in a way. They’ve hacked our minds, and they’re using our openness and goodness to exploit us, and that puts us in a very disadvantageous position, in a sort of game-theoretical way. Because if you’re playing poker, and you have the biggest stack of chips, but everybody else at the table has a wild card, mainly the race card, that they can play, whereas you don’t think of yourself as a member of a race, you think of yourself as an avatar of universal humanity. So if you play that game, they’re going to pull out the race card and use that wild card in hand after hand after hand. And they’re going to have a systematic advantage in every hand that you play. You might have a very big stack of chips at the beginning, but you will lose everything if you keep playing by those stacked rules, and that is basically the way that multiculturalism works.

They have the race card, they can always play it, but we can’t. And really what white identity politics is, in its starting phase, which is today, is just getting whites to recognize that the game as its constituted today in multicultural societies is rigged against them systematically. We will lose if we play this game, if we don’t take our own side, if we don’t start playing the race card and thinking about our own collective interests as a group.

And once we start down that path, though, eventually my hope is we’re going to see that was quite wise and quite wonderful that there was a time when Britain was virtually one hundred percent white. And it was quite wise and quite wonderful when France was virtually one hundred percent white. You didn’t have these alien groups moving around and basically swindling you out of your future, and it’s not just marginal groups like the stereotypical gypsies of the past who are doing this, who are tiny groups, but it’s now the upcoming majority, the rising majority in France and England. There are countries in Europe where there are more babies named Muhammed than any other name.

Tara: Yup, that’s the case in Ireland right now.

Greg: Yes, and that means in the long run you’re going to be outbred in your own homelands in Europe, and certainly in the United States and Canada as well, by people who basically are hostile and are there to take away what we have created, to take away our wealth, to take away our civilization, take away our future. And when I started realizing that that was the game, and the long-term consequences were quite dire, that’s when I decided I can’t be liberal anymore. That’s when I decided that I can’t be an individualist anymore. Liberal individualism blinds us to the priority of ethnic politics, and if we don’t break out of that mindset, we’re going to lose everything that we’ve got.

Sorry that wasn’t too brief. But I’ll try to be briefer.

Tara: That’s okay, actually my follow-up question is, why do you think that you got this perspective? Because so many people have experienced very similar things to you, yet they haven’t come around to your perspective, so why do you think that might be?

Greg: Well, I think that our civilization today is ruled by people who are promoting multiculturalism. They’re promoting it through entertainment, through education, through the news media, through every channel. Every authoritative channel that molds opinions in our society today, whether news or entertainment media, education, and so forth is pushing this multicultural agenda.

They’re pushing this idea that white people are guilty for all the world’s ills, and that if we’re having difficulties with immigrant groups, that’s somehow our fault, that we better keep quiet about it, that the worst possible sin is to be racist or ethnocentric. And a lot of people are simply intimidated by this.

They’re intimidated into silence over this, and the thing that helps them maintain their silence, though, is the naïve assumption that somehow if they make their separate peace with this system, that things will sort of work out all right for them.

Our individualism, our kind of “devil take the hindmost” attitude, and our unwillingness to confront the fact that this game is rigged against us—and that the long-term trends are quite dire, and that we simply will cease to exist as distinct nations and as a biological race in a couple hundred years if we don’t stop this—so we’re individualistic, we’re guilty, we try and make our own peace with the system, we’re afraid of joining together and actually trying to change it, and I think a lot of us are just evading or ignorant of the long-term consequences of staying on this path. And so, I think all of those things combined together prevent people who are on some level aware that there’s a problem from actually drawing the right conclusions that we’ve got to do something about it.

I do think all people are hard-wired for a certain level of ethnocentrism, and that’s scientifically been proven, it’s been studied. And it turns out that whites are the least ethnocentric race. And that means we are the most trusting and welcoming of outsiders. However, at a certain point we’re going to stop feeling trusting and welcoming of outsiders because our ethnocentrism will kick in.

Tara: I’m a little bit skeptical of that, having grown up in London. Whites are now, you know, less than fifty percent of the population in London, but I don’t see that happening [laughter].

Greg: But there are, would you agree that there are more people becoming ethnocentric today than there were?

Tara: No. People in London, whites in London, were pro-Remain in the EU, which puts us at risk of flooding the country with migrants because most of them want to come. They get residence in an EU country, and then once they’ve got that visa then they move to the UK, and that’s what they want to do, obviously because it’s an English-speaking country. Most of them speak English already, to some extent, you know – if they speak the language, it’s going to be English, it’s not going to be Norwegian, that’s why they prefer to come to the UK, and we’re at risk of being flooded.

Greg: Well how about this, what about the whites who have been leaving London over the past thirty years? Why are they leaving? Well, they’re probably going to give you euphemisms and stories like, “Oh, we wanted a quieter neighborhood,” “Oh, we wanted better schools for our children,” or whatever, which is the same kind of thing that you hear from whites who are fleeing diversity in the United States. But what’s going on is they’re fleeing diversity, and that’s how a lot of whites deal with this problem. They try and run away from it.

How many Britons live in Spain now?

Tara: Lots. Yeah.

Greg: Hundreds of thousands, I think? That’s an astonishing thing. I’d love to do a poll of those Britons who live in Spain. Why’d they move to Spain? Isn’t it odd?

Tara: The weather?

Greg: Yeah [laughter], “the weather,” that’s what they’d say. But isn’t it odd that they seem to feel more at home amongst Spaniards than they do among people in their own country? But then you look at the people in their own country, the people who moved into their neighborhoods, they might not have been British. So there’s a lot of white flight that goes on, and again, this is one way people avoid dealing with the problem. They just run away from it.

So you’ve got a situation now where Germans are moving to Hungary. Germany is importing Muslims, “migrants,” refugees. And Germans are fleeing to Hungary which isn’t importing migrants, isn’t importing refugees, but that’s really not good for Germany as a people and as a nation, and it’s really not honestly good for Hungary, either. The Hungarians are welcoming them because they’re bringing them money, but they should look at them as rats fleeing a sinking ship, rats fleeing a plague ship. Because a lot of these ideas that messed up Germany are probably lodged in the heads of these Germans who are coming to Hungary, and pretty soon they’ll start thinking, “We really need diversity around here.”

That’s certainly true in the Pacific Northwest in the United States, where people fleeing from California to Washington and Oregon and Idaho and Montana are bringing the very attitudes that made their state unlivable. And people do look at them as rats from the plague ship, fleeing and bringing the plague with them, and it’s not unreasonable.

So yeah, just to recap, I think a lot of people evade the long-term problem. A lot of people are unaware that there’s a really long-term problem. They’re too individualistic to want to band together and take responsibility for the overall problems that their societies are facing. They think that if they just go along and pay lip service to the multicultural regime, and maybe move to a better neighborhood, that they can squeak through life with minimal problems. And they’re just not going to think about or worry about the white people that they’re hearing about all the time who are having acid thrown in their faces or being beaten and murdered and so forth by these invaders. So that’s sort of the general problem.

We really are a people with a very high individualism, low ethnocentrism, and low solidarity. We’re very weak people when faced with invaders who are highly ethnocentric, highly tribal, and have a dual loyalty and a dual ethical code, where they will treat their own people in one way and they will treat us in another way, and basically the way they treat us is to exploit us, and the best way of exploiting us is to exploit our white guilt and exploit our desire to be open, our feeling that it’s high-minded to be open and non-threatened by and non-suspicious of strangers.

They’re very good at exploiting those attitudes to their advantage. The trouble is there are so many of them, and their reproduction rates are sometimes twice as high as white Europeans, that eventually they’re going to take over the country. Whatever country they’re entering into. And there will be no England anymore. There will still be a Pakistan for the Pakistanis, but there won’t be an England for the English. And that’s not a future that I think anybody should want to have.

And so, just in terms of fairness—white people love to be fair—what’s fair about a world in which the only peoples that don’t have homelands are the peoples of Europe? There’s just no Norway for the Norwegians anymore. There’s no England for the English anymore. There’s no France for the French. What you have instead are these sprawling multicultural societies, primarily Islamic societies, that none of the former natives of those lands feel at home in. What’s fair about that?

There’s always going to be a Muslim world, full of Muslims. There’s no shortage of them. There’s no shortage of Chinese. There’s no shortage of Indians. There’s no shortage of Africans, in fact, there’s a great abundance of them. There will always be an Africa for the Africans. Why is it wrong for us to be concerned about keeping Europe for the Europeans? Or America for Americans? Or Canada for Canadians? And so forth. What’s wrong with that? What’s unfair about that?

Tara: The other thing that a lot of people are very worried about—I’m concerned about as well—is when they’re here, people who are ethnonationalists or White Nationalists saying, you know, we need our own space, they think, “Well, how are you going to achieve that? Is it going to involve death camps or genocide?” So how would you, for example, go about achieving such a thing in America or in Europe without doing a lot of harm?

Greg: Well, first of all, everybody believes that you are justified in basically doing just about anything to avoid becoming a victim of genocide. That attitude has been drummed into us by six million Holocaust movies—that practically anything is justified if you’re a victim of genocide.

Well, the fact of the matter is that whites are facing a kind of genocide. Genocide doesn’t have to be fast and hot and involve death camps and trenches full of corpses and things like that. It doesn’t have to be that dramatic and photogenic.

The United Nations in the aftermath of the Second World War was drafting its conventions of genocide, which said that genocide can also include simply the slow demographic erasure of distinct peoples. How does that happen? Well, it can happen by invading their homeland and colonizing them and making it impossible for them to reproduce themselves.

And that’s really what’s going on in practically every white nation today, with the exception of a few like Hungary and Poland that are trying to maintain their borders and maintain their ethnic integrity. Virtually every white nation is facing a situation where their long-term prospects are bleak. Even in Hungary and Poland, their long-term prospects are bleak because their reproduction rates are below replacement. And when you have a situation where more white people are dying than being born every year, eventually there will be no white people.

And the reason why we have this situation is that it’s not some strange, mysterious thing that’s inevitable. It’s not some cosmic catastrophe. It’s not a comet hitting the planet. It’s the product of a culture and of a set of policies—political policies—that were enacted in the aftermath of the Second World War.

And if whites are slowly facing extinction because of decisions that were made in the aftermath of the Second World War, then we can change those decisions. We can change those policies, we can alter our culture. We can change our values system so that problem no longer exists. I think that the first thing that has to be done is we simply have to say no more immigration. Close the borders. It’s over. Then the second thing is to start encouraging people to emigrate.

Even though whites are facing genocide, really—as it’s technically defined—in England or France, or the United States. There are no death camps. Things look pretty good. Consumer electronics have never been cheaper. You’ve got more processing power in your smartphone than they did in these giant computers that sent man to the Moon in the 1960s. “How are we facing genocide? It just doesn’t seem to be happening.” So you can have a very, very pleasant orderly—overall pleasant and overall orderly—society. A society that has the illusion of being healthy and vibrant, vibrant in a good way, not in the euphemistic, multicultural way. But a healthy, vital society where your long-term prospects are nil.

So my attitude is we should simply reverse these trends that are sending us in the wrong direction, that are sending us towards extinction. And we can do it as slowly and stealthily as the genocide that’s being enacted against us was enacted. We don’t need some race war, some paroxysm as ethnic cleansing. We simply need to change the trends. So fifty years ago—more than fifty years ago now—the United States opened its borders to non-white immigration, and we went from being a ninety percent white country to a sixty-something percent white country since then. I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t say, “Okay, let’s go back to status quo of 1965.”

Let’s change our immigration policies. How would we do that? Well, first of all, no more immigration from the non-white world. Second, we start encouraging emigration by non-whites. If it was possible for them to move here, it’s possible for them to go back. If they came by planes, and trains, and automobiles, those things run both ways. It’s possible for them to go back. It’s not impossible, it’s not inconceivable, it’s simply a matter of will. It’s simply a matter of us instituting policies and trends that cause a net outflow of these people rather than a net influx, and that’s totally doable. People know how to do that.

So step one: we stop all immigration. Step two: everybody who’s come here illegally—and that’s a large number of them—you go over all of their paperwork with a magnifying glass, you find everyone that’s made a fraudulent claim, that has made fraudulent applications for welfare, that has put in a fraudulent claim that they were being persecuted in their homeland, or whatever. You find these people and you deport them. They broke the law, and they’ve got no business here.

Tara: Okay, so you’re just talking about changing general changes and over time re-establishing white integrity of the country.

Greg: Yes, if it took fifty years for us to get into this mess. We can afford fifty years to get us out of this mess. But here’s the thing, if we embarked upon a fifty-year project of, let’s say returning America to the ethnic status quo of 1965—which was a great time in America in terms of productivity, in terms of national glory, it’s when we had our space program going, fashion looked great, it was a great time. It was a great time in our history. Working class incomes were probably as high as they have ever been. They started declining in the early ‘70s. That was a great status quo year, and we were ninety percent white.

If it took us fifty years to get back to that, that would be great. But, you know, if we embarked on that program today, we’d start reaping the psychological benefits of it today. Because I think a great deal of the pathology of white people, the nihilism of white people, the drug and alcohol abuse, the suicides, the rising, alarming mortality of middle-aged working- and lower-class white people in the United States, is connected to the feeling that they’ve got no future. Not just as individuals, but as a group.

Tara: Right, and they’re not allowed to identify as part of a group, which is psychologically actually very healthy, to recognize your ethnic group and ancestors. I read recently that studying your genealogy and finding out about your ancestors improves your mental health and well-being. So you can only imagine what it’s doing to us being told we’re not even allowed to, you know, feel any sense of pride or accomplishment or, you know, for what our ancestors achieved or whatever.

Greg: But they will tell us that we should feel guilt for all the things that our ancestors did, right? And I love that. Well, wait a second, if it makes sense for us to feel collective guilt for things that other white people have done—not ourselves, right? —then why is it wrong for us to feel collective pride for the things that other white people have done? And when you look at the balance sheet, the things that we’ve got to be proud of far outweigh the things we’ve got to be ashamed of. And I really think it’s not guilt so much as shame that’s the issue. I don’t feel any personal guilt for things that I don’t do. I’m not responsible for the things that I don’t do. But I can feel ashamed of the things that were done by my family or by my extended family, my racial family or my nation in the past. I can feel ashamed of that, but I can also feel pride for the things that they’ve done. And if white people started feeling pride for all the accomplishments of our people, we’d become much less tractable, and guilty, and willing to be swindled out of our future.

So yes, I think you’re right, a sense of who we are, a sense of rootedness, looking in the past, looking at previous generations, and seeing your features and their faces. All of that is a very interesting experience.

I remember I was in Munich a few years ago, and I went to the Wittelsbach palace, the Residenz Palace in Munich, and the best thing I saw there was the gallery of the ancestors. The Wittelsbachs created a gallery with portraits of all of their ancestors, and some of these of course were fanciful portraits, because they didn’t actually know what some of these people looked like, because it went all the way back to the kings in the early ages. Charlemagne was one of their ancestors. And it was fascinating to walk through this gallery and see all these faces and—when they were actually portraits— you could see, yes, these were the same people generation after generation after generation. Of course, these European royals would marry their second and third cousins ,and so the same features would come back again and again and again. It was really a moving experience, a kind of sublime experience. And I think it was especially that way for the actual Wittelsbachs who were viewing this. It’s a reminder of who they were, and I think that the more sense of rooted identity that we have, the happier that we’re going to be, and the prouder that we’re going to be, and the less easily swindled out of a future we’re going to be.

But yes, there’s going to be enormous psychological benefits of simply feeling that we have a future as a group again.

Tara: So a lot of people, when they ask about this sort of thing, what about the African-Americans, which make up about thirteen percent of the population? You know, these people have lived there for multiple generations, speak English, most of them haven’t even been to Africa. You couldn’t possibly expect them to repatriate to Africa after this stage. What would you say about that?

Greg: Well, first of all, let me point out that that problem is not a problem that you have to deal with in Great Britain, or in France or in Norway.

Tara: There are people who have been here for multiple generations, yeah.

Greg: Yeah, but there’s two things here: they have even more multiple generations in previous homelands. The fact is that if their roots in those previous homelands didn’t matter that much to them, why should their “roots,” which are quite shallow, in your homeland matter all that much to you?

Also, we have a situation where people are constantly forced to move because of things like jobs, plants closing, or real estate becoming too expensive, so your neighborhood becomes unaffordable, your rents go up, or you have to move to search for a job because the factory that you worked in closed down and has reopened in Indonesia. Nobody sheds a tear about the people who are displaced because of really just private greed, private interests in the economic realm. So why should we be so broken up about the idea of people having to move for something that’s really important, namely the common good of a people? I think that that is the kind of thinking we need to entertain.

Now, for blacks in America, yes, I think that the just and equitable sort of solution for them would be to simply create a separate homeland for them and encourage them to move there. Encourage them to move to several southern states and set up their autonomous homeland there. I think that that’s a very reasonable thing, and you just give them incentives to move there. Very significant numbers of blacks receive public assistance in the United States. Say, “Okay, you can collect your public assistance check in New Africa.” And I think that they’d up stakes and move there. And over time you’d get a situation where—again, simply through gentle demographic pressures and incentives—the trend where blacks emigrated from the south into the rest of the country, during and after the First World War, would be reversed. And what were the reasons for that “Great Migration,” as they call it? Well, there were jobs opened up. Whites were off fighting in Europe during the war.

Tara: Okay, so you’d propose non-violent means, using financial incentives and legal means such as deporting illegals and things like that to restore the original ethnic makeup of the United States and also European countries, and I think that sounds very reasonable, personally.

Of course, I suppose the main problem is that we’ve been so brainwashed to think that this is a hateful thing to do. I mean, what would your perspective be on how to counter this narrative that it’s a hateful thing, based on out of hate?

Greg: Well, first of all, hate is a natural, normal emotion that is sometimes defensible. It’s simply true. And everybody hates somebody. Everybody hates somebody. And the only real question is, “Is it reasonable to feel hate in certain circumstances?” And yes, you want to live in a society where there is a minimum of hatred and violence and tension between people of different ethnic groups. So how do you create that kind of society?

Well, as it turns out, ethnic hatred and tension is maximized by multiculturalism. And so if we are really opposed to hatred and tension and ethnic violence, the best route is to reduce multiculturalism. Reduce it to an absolute zero, if we can. But that’s really the best route. I think it’s perfectly natural, normal, and right to feel hatred in certain circumstances. And it’s inevitable that there will be a lot of hatred, and not just hatred, but violence in multicultural societies. And so we need to decrease diversity, and that will decrease hatred.

Now, you also have to ask about the people who are imposing these policies on us. I’m afraid that quite a lot of liberals and Leftists really do hate their own people. And aren’t we being taught to hate ourselves, all this white guilt and multicultural propaganda? So there’s a whole lot of hate to go around here, and it’s not all on us. The Left hate us. The Left hate their own societies. You can find plenty of statements where they will say, “I despise the English.” Or, “What an evil society, what an evil corrupt society we are. We should hate ourselves.” Entire generations are being taught to hate ourselves.

Tara: Yeah, absolutely, definitely. I’ve heard it so many times that, “Oh, this town is too white,” or “you know, this school is too white,” is what I heard growing up.

Actually, I’d also like to ask you a similar kind of question, last one, what about mixed-race people, and I know that sometimes people will say, “Well, what percentage white is acceptable?” Is it the one drop rule, or what’s going on here? Or what about literally potentially dividing families, for example, with one black parent and with one white parent, for example? I know it’s nitpicking, but what is your personal perspective or proposed policy regarding this?

Greg: Well, first of all, I’m a pragmatist about this. My attitude about race-mixing is that we should have a complete amnesty on past race-mixing, especially if it was in the distant past, but a complete moratorium on doing it in the future. We are thinking ahead, we are thinking about the future, so I would like there to be no more of it.

And then the question about what to do with people who are of mixed ancestry is really very simple. I think they should be encouraged to live with the people they are most comfortable with. If there’s a white who married into a black family, and has for all intents and purposes black children, I think that they should be encouraged to go with their family that they married into.

Now, there are also differences between non-whites. Some of them are more different from us than others. Blacks are very different from whites. People who are from the Near East, I wouldn’t call them white or European, but they’re certainly Caucasian. And honestly, I just don’t think that those people are a problem if there’s a small admixture. In fact, there’s been a small admixture of Near Eastern genes in many demonstrably and canonically European nations for a very long time. That doesn’t really bother me.

With Asians, with Amerindians, with blacks, they’re all different. Asians and Amerindians are less genetically distant from whites than blacks are. And so a small admixture of those populations doesn’t really matter. And it really wouldn’t matter at all if we were a growing population.

But the trouble is, we are a shrinking population. And when you have a shrinking core population and you permit out-marriage, that’s just hastening the day that we disappear as a distinct people. So I would support laws against miscegenation being instituted in the future. But the best anti-miscegenation laws are simply having a homeland. It’s sort of a passive anti-miscegenation law. It’s like speed bumps. They’re just there, so you’ve got to slow down. Borders are there, so you just don’t end up meeting and marrying people who are radically racially different from yourself. That’s really the best thing.

I remember I was with a friend at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and there was this white woman and her two daughters walking around the arms and armor collection, which is one of my favorite collections there. And they were just so beautiful. And I said to my friend, “You know, there really needs to be a reservation where people like that can exist without being threatened,” and I said, “You know, it used to be called Europe.”

Tara: [laughter]

Greg: That was the white people reservation, right?

Tara: Yeah, we need a reservation. [laughter]

Greg: And how about Europe? Europe would be a nice reservation. So that’s my attitude.

Honestly, having a small amount of non-white admixture would not be an issue if we had a growing white population. But we don’t. We’ve got a declining white population, and therefore we can’t really be lax about race-mixing on and into the future. But we have to hold the line.

Now, what would the attitude be, say, in an America that is reconstituted on ethnic lines, toward people who have marginal African or Amerindian ancestry? Well, I think if basically they look white, think of themselves as white, and act white, and so forth, that they’re white people for all intents and purposes, for practical purposes.

However, if there are people within that society who want to remain genetically aloof from any admixture, that’s fine. I would have no problem with that. But the whole purist thing would have to be something that would be not legislated but simply be a matter of social customs and the preferences that certain communities and families would have. And I think that would be a reasonable and humane attitude.

Tara: And I think that that ties in with the Jewish Question. What’s your perspective on that, quickly?

Greg: Well, the Jewish Question is basically this. First of all, Jews are a distinct people. They think of themselves as a distinct people. But there are Jews who in effect opt out of being Jewish by intermarrying with non-Jews and dropping their Jewish customs and religion and so forth. And that has happened a lot in the past, and my attitude towards people with marginal Jewish ancestry is this: it’s basically a question, “Do you honor your Jewish ancestor’s decision to opt out of the Jewish community? Or are you going to try and exploit that marginal Jewish ancestry to try and give yourself more credibility and power within the present system, which is largely Jewish dominated?” If they choose the former, then I don’t have any problem with it, but if they choose the latter, then I’d start looking dimly upon them. Because Jews are basically just Caucasians. Middle Easterners are all Caucasians. Ashkenazi Jews are a mixture of people from the Near East and Europe. They’re about fifty/fifty. Honestly, if you’ve got marginal Ashkenazi ancestry, that’s a very small non-European percentage of DNA. And I just don’t think it matters unless you make an issue of it. Unless you make it matter, right? You are as Jewish as you want to be, on that account.

However, as for a rule, I would say let’s have no more Jewish-Gentile admixture in the future. Let’s try and separate ourselves. Let’s keep our people distinct. I think that’s a reasonable attitude. Again, amnesty for what happened in the past, as long as people don’t make an issue of it, as long as they’re not trying to identify with that group based on marginal ancestry. And a moratorium on it going forward.

Tara: I guess the last remaining question, really: how on Earth do we possibly convince the majority of the white population to even consider this idea?

Greg: We convince them by persuading them that it’s necessary, first of all, that none of the other political options that are on the table are going to solve the basic problem that white people face. And that is long-term biological and cultural extinction. Conservatives aren’t going to conserve us from that. Liberals are pushing it forward. We simply don’t have any options. Libertarianism just hides our heads in the sand and pretends that it doesn’t exist. There are no political options that will save us from long-term extinction, both as ethnic groups and as a biological race.

And once people get that through their thick heads and realize that it is possible to change this—because it’s only happened because of bad policies, most of which have been instituted in the last couple of generations—once they get it through their heads that it can be changed, and it can be changed in a way that’s completely moral.

Tara: What about for people who say, “You know, I don’t care what the world looks like in fifty years, I’m going to be gone anyway.”

Greg: Well, I think that on one level they’re probably lying to you and themselves. They really do care about it. Because they’ve given up. Because they don’t feel that they’ve got a future. And they’re basically afraid of fighting to have a future, and so they’re saying, “What does it matter, anyway?” So I think that on one level it’s just a lie and a cop-out.

They really do care. They just feel helpless. And we have to teach them that no, it’s not hopeless. You’re not helpless. People can band together. They can change people’s minds. And they can change policies. And that’s going to happen. It’s already happening. The growth in what we’re doing has been tremendous recently, and we will only continue. We don’t need to have an absolute majority on our side. We just need a highly motivated, influential, and focused minority on our side.

And when I see the caliber, the intelligence, the creativity of the people who are coming into this, and have come into this in the last couple years, we are gaining the ears of the best people of our race, the young ones, the people who have more future ahead of them and want to fight for more for it. So I think things are actually looking up for us.

It’s going to be a long, hard slog, there’s no question about it. But given that nobody else has any solutions, or even any inkling of what the problem is, and given that the Left is pretty tired and pretty hysterical now, now that Trump has happened, that Brexit has happened, and so forth, they’re not attractive. They’re simply not attractive. And millennials and the next generation after them are noticing that the multicultural paradise is a lie. Their minds are open. So it’s not hopeless. In fact, I’m very, very white-pilled about all of this. It’s a great time for us to be alive. It’s a glorious time.

I’ve always been skeptical of the “greatest generation” propaganda about the World War II generation. I always thought that was rubbish. Now I’m arguing that the millennials will be the greatest generation, because the millennials are going to be the ones who actually turn this whole thing around. The millennials are going to save our race and save our civilization. And the generation that’s coming after them are going to do that as well. So you’re the greatest generation. [laughter] You are coming over to our side. And this is a great time to be alive.

Tara: Yeah, well, it’s funny you say that, because obviously millennials are generally associated with some degeneracy and things like that, but we’ll have to see how things turn out. Apparently the Generation Z is fairly red-pilled on some things.

Greg: Z is not the last generation. I know Z is the last letter in the alphabet. No, no. Once you get to Z, then it starts over again.

Tara: This is true.

Greg: And then A after that, and a bright new future. So that’s my outlook on this. I think that we are changing minds. Again, White Nationalism is really the only sober and responsible political position once you understand the situation that our race is in, demographically, politically, and so forth. And it’s also a completely fair and humane and natural and normal reaction. And it doesn’t have to be messy and sloppy and immoral and murderous. In fact, that’s the future we’re trying to avoid. We’re trying to avoid a future of constant racial hatred and animosity. We realize that there will never be a world without enemies. But there are ways of reducing conflict, and the best way of reducing conflict is to give distinct peoples with distinct ways of life, and a distinct sense of their identity and their destiny, separate homelands where they can live without having to constantly fight against people on the bus, in their job, in the supermarket. It just gets so tiring. To constantly leave your home, what used to be your homeland, and feel like you’re jostling your way through an Arab souk.

Tara: Which is exactly what I have to do every single time I leave the house, basically. It’s not very pleasant, I have to say.

Why do you call yourself a White Nationalist even though it’s kind of associated with the term “white supremacist,” and people use it interchangeably? Do you think they are different, and aren’t you worried about the connotations with that term? Because I actually do agree with you on ninety percen of what you said in this interview, but I wouldn’t call myself a White Nationalist. Just because there are connotations, you know, that I wouldn’t want to be associated with.

Greg: Right. Well, we are just going to have to change the connotations. That’s my attitude. I wrote an article recently at Counter-Currents, which is my Website, on this very issue: are White Nationalists white supremacists? And the answer is no, actually. We don’t want to rule over other races. That’s the whole point of being separate from them. We don’t want to be ruled by them, either. But we don’t want to rule over them. We want to be separate.

The people who end up being white supremacists are the civic nationalist types, the Alt Light types. The Gavin McInnes types, the people who say, “We’re just going to surrender to all the demographic changes that have been made and imposed upon us since 1965; we’re not going to change any of that; we’re not going to stop it. We’re not going to question it; we’re just going to surrender to that. But we are going to be Western cultural chauvinists.”

Well, what does that boil down to? It boils down to enforcing white standards in a multiracial society. Enforcing, if you will, white supremacy. We’ve created a society where forty percent of the population isn’t white, but we’re going to demand that they follow all the rules and mores and customs that are most comfortable for white people. Now, of course the hat trick that they use to get out of that implication is to say that our values are universal. We’re avatars of universal humanity. As it was put in that Full Metal Jacket movie by this American, “Inside every gook is an American trying to get out.” And that’s why we were there. We were there to liberate them from Communism and from their own culture and from the past and allow them to be Americans, because that’s what they really want to be.

Well, that’s not true. Different people really are different, and if they’re really different, there are ways of life that are going to be more comfortable for them than the European way of life or the American way of life. And that’s why they’re constantly demanding that we change the way that we live. They’re trying to become more comfortable. Well, if we say, “Fine. You’re here. We’re not going to do anything about it. That would be politically incorrect even to consider it. But we’re going to be Western chauvinists and defend the Western way of life, and you damn well better take it,” that is de facto white supremacism. We are imposing white standards upon them. And yes, they might even find a token black who will go along with this, right? The token black in the Trump cabinet or the token black in the ProudBoys. But the fact of the matter is these people are seen by their people as traitors.

Tara: That’s true. Absolutely, and I’m sure we’re all familiar with that situation of black people being called white just for wanting to go to school.

We’ve actually come up to an hour, so thank you very much, Greg Johnson, for joining me for this interview. If you guys want to find Greg Johnson’s Website, it’s Counter-Currents.com. Is there anything else you’d like our listeners to go and find from you; maybe books or social media?

Greg: Well, I do have a Twitter account called @NewRightAmerica—you could look at that and follow that. And I do have a Facebook presence. But my main presence is the Counter-Currents Website, that lists all of the books that we’ve published and all the books that we sell. There’s new content five days a week. Sometimes two or three things a day. We have podcasts, we have articles, we have reviews. Occasionally a video. It’s a very important Website. I think it’s really the best intellectually-oriented Anglophone White Nationalist website out there. And if you haven’t tried it, I’d encourage you to come to it. And I want to thank you, Tara, for having me on the show. It’s been a really enjoyable experience.

Tara: Yeah, a great show, and I hope all the listeners enjoyed it, and I’ll catch you guys in the next video.

Related

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

6 Comments

  1. Dan marotta
    Posted March 30, 2017 at 6:52 am | Permalink

    Good interview by Mr Johnson who always explains WN in such clear terms, His ability to get over these idea’s are so important because he makes the enemies propaganda looks like the nonsense it is.

  2. Santoculto
    Posted March 28, 2017 at 5:36 am | Permalink

    Mixing race alone don’t decrease ”IQ” ”or” intelligence or change temperament. Yes, this is the fist step to this results but without any subsequent selective process to neutralize or even to select the ”best’ traits, mixing race will inevitably change original people.

  3. Samuel Nock
    Posted March 27, 2017 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

    Steve Sailer liked to quote Christopher Caldwell’s neat dictum on affirmative action and minority encroachment:

    “One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.”

    The same thing could be said about immigration and emigration: People who make up 30-40% of the population are not going to go without a fight, particularly when you think that the younger cohort make up an even higher percentage.

    I am increasingly less sanguine that there will be any non-violent solutions to the situation. We will see whether Trump is able to succeed in cutting off illegal immigration and sending back the illegals, which is an even milder form of what Greg is calling for.

  4. Gorch Fock
    Posted March 26, 2017 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    “In fact, there’s been a small admixture of Near Eastern genes in many demonstrably and canonically European nations for a very long time. That doesn’t really bother me.”

    Not in central/northern Europe. 64.4% of Germans, for example, can be classified as ethnic Germans by their genetic traits alone: the other 35.6% are overlapping with Germany’s neighboring states, and only with them (i.e., no non-European admixture). This has been referenced in an essay German anthropologist Andreas Vonderach wrote on what “being German” actually means from an anthropological standpoint (“Wir selbst — anthropologisch”).

    In Lynn’s Race Differences in Intelligence, 2nd Edition, Lynn writes (p. 41) that there is a correlation of 0.928 between the number of years of North African occupation and regional IQ in southern Spain. The longer North Africans occupied a certain region, the greater the interbreeding and the lower the region’s mean IQ. (North Africa and Southwest Asia represent a distinct “cluster” [Cavalli-Sforza’s term for race], which makes sense given that apart from their different temperament and character, they also have mean IQ that is more than one standard deviation below white Europeans [83/84], though they are classified as being part of the Europid race/”Caucasoid” in classical anthropology.)

    First generation Turkish immigrants in Germany had a mean IQ of 82, and second generation Turks were even three points lower at 79. In a talk given by Richard Lynn on “Dysgenics” at American Renaissance, Lynn made the point that the massive drop in mean IQ of Greece was due to liberating their non-Greek slaves, fighting wars and — dysgenic immigration (invasion, rather) of Turks and interbreeding with them (modern Greeks are genetically related to Turks). Given this, it’s a good thing they rarely intermarry, so the genetic damage will hopefully have not been too high yet.

  5. Sylvie
    Posted March 26, 2017 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    Excelent interview, good arguments. Just one funny thing:

    Me and Tacitus erroneouly pretended that the Romans invaded Germania – which was far outside their borders – cruelly oppressed Germanic tribes and collaborated with the local corrupt elite that they held in contempt.

    Now I learn from Greg that the “Romans settled Germanic tribes in Roman lands” and these barbarians instead of being thankful to the Romans to let them live within the Empire’s borders, sacked Rome. What an ungrateful bunch!

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 26, 2017 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

      It is both. We are talking about events separated by centuries.

    Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    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

    Forever and Ever

    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

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    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 Prison Notes

    Standardbearers

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance