These are the answers I gave in an email interview with Maureen O’Connor, who primarily writes about sex, for a New York Magazine story. The interview was really to provide background information for an article focusing on Jack Donovan. Only a few of my words actually made it into the published article , so I am publishing the full interview here.
Maureen O’Connor: Do you consider yourself a White Nationalist?
Greg Johnson: Yes. White Nationalism is a species of ethnonationalism, which is the view that the best political order is to create sovereign, racially and ethnically homogeneous homelands for all peoples that aspire to autonomy.
MOC: What role do gay, bisexual, or queer people have in your movement?
GJ: There have always been such people in our movement at all levels, from simple supporters and donors to organizers and activists. Martin Webster , for instance, was one of the central organizers and activists in the UK for decades. Although we have not done any empirical studies yet, based on more than sixteen years of involvement in White Nationalism, I would say that our movement is far less gay than the Republicans.
MOC: What about transgender people? How do you feel about trans issues, like laws on bathroom use?
GJ: I know of three transgender people in our movement. They are decent men who now think they are women. I believe that a compassionate society should help people who are suffering, but I also think that society should say “no” to gender switching. People’s sex is determined by their chromosomes. “Gender” is a term from grammar. It has no place in the discussion of sexuality. Sex is a biological category, not a social construct. I believe that hormones and surgery to turn someone into a simulacrum of the opposite sex is not a cure or solution to the underlying discontent that motivates it. I would ban it altogether. Transsexuals admit they suffer from a mental illness. But in this case, instead of trying to cure them of their delusions, society is supposed to humor them and aid and abet irreversible self-mutilation. In the end, the risk of suicide is higher – an outcome that would disqualify a “treatment” for any other mental illness. The fact that transgenderism has become a liberal crusade and is now being extended to children is monstrous and really proof that liberalism has passed from ideology into the realm of madness.
MOC: What role does religion play in your movement, and what role do you think it should play?
GJ: Our movement is about race and ethnicity. That is what unifies us. Religion only divides us. To the extent that our movement functions at all, it is by persuading people to make religion a secondary issue. Which means that a certain amount of religious pluralism and tolerance is baked into our movement and into the society that we will create in the future.
MOC: What role does sex have in your vision for society?
GJ: In today’s sexually liberated society, people talk more about sex, think more about sex, and look at more images of sex than ever before. But on average they have less sex and probably also enjoy it less than past generations. They form families later, have more brittle relationships and marriages, and have fewer children than in the past as well. VD and sexual assaults are up, though.
In the sexual realm, as in the culture as a whole, we are miserable because we are free. People have too many options, so they never commit, so they experience the pleasures of marriage and family life late or not at all.
In the society I envision, we would restore some of the restraints on sex. Not because it is dirty, but because it is sacred. Feminism, pickup artists, Cosmo, pornography, and I suppose this very discussion would not exist. But there would be statues of gorgeous naked nymphs and athletes in every public square. There would be stigmas on promiscuity and extramarital sex. Marriage bonds would be stronger. Divorce would be rare and difficult.
There would be eugenic incentives to encourage people who are intelligent and socially and ecologically responsible to have larger families and for people who are stupid and don’t care about the world to have smaller families (precisely the opposite of what we have now). The consequence of these policies would be that more people would have more access to better quality sex within the context of long-term relationships. Better people would have better children. And the human race would be nudged back on the upward evolutionary path.
MOC: Your “gay panic ” article discusses female participation, and gay male participation, in the alt-right. Do you know any gay or queer women in the alt-right?
GJ: There are a few, although I don’t know them personally. I do know a couple of ex-lesbians who now have husbands and children.
MOC: You say white nationalism should be “straight but narrow.” What does that look like, in practice? How can you tell if a movement— or person— is “straight but narrow”?
GJ: I said that White Nationalism should be straight but not narrow. Meaning that we should uphold heterosexuality as the norm and yet not get bent out of shape about the fact that some people inevitably do not fit the norm.
MOC: Can you give me a sense of the size/impact of Counter-Currents and the North American New Right? How big is your staff/budget? How many people belong to the North American New Right, or subscribe to your newsletters? How have you grown over the years?
GJ: Last month [February 2017] we had 176,470 unique visitors at our webzine, 349,663 visits, and 1,203,798 page views. When we went online in June of 2010, we had 6,145 unique visitors, 10,328 visits, and 70,732 page views. I estimate that we have about 80,000 loyal readers now. Of course, our articles are also translated, reprinted, and forwarded around the web, so that increases our reach considerably. Counter-Currents is really pitched to people with IQs of 120 or above, which narrows our audience. So that would imply that our movement as a whole is much larger.