JM: That brings me to another question. As you were saying, having a culture and civilization, I would argue, that is one of the better ones in the world, leads to the claim of “white supremacy” being flung around. Is there any validity to that argument? That you’re just a white supremacist, and so on. I have my own response to this, but I’m curious how you’d respond.
Greg Johnson: First of all, we have to disambiguate what people mean by “white supremacy.” Is it the idea that we believe white people are superior to all other groups across the board? That’s obviously an untenable position. We’re not superior to all other groups in all ways. For anyone to accuse us of believing that is almost accusing us of a straw man. Which is not to say that there aren’t those who would argue that position, but I think they’re fools to do that. They’re on a fool’s errand.
The other sense of white supremacy is the idea that we want to rule over the other races of the world. My answer is no, I don’t want to do that. I don’t want to live in societies with other races at all. That’s what White Nationalism is about. We want to create ethnically homogeneous societies in which we can feel at home, and that entails not having non-white populations within our borders, which we have to dominate or lord over.
There are some problems with that. For instance, what do you do with little relic populations of tribal peoples, such as in the Amazon, the United States, Canada, or Siberia? You give them ethnic reservations. You give them land. You give them the maximum possible autonomy over their internal affairs, and you leave it at that. But they’re not going to have a foreign policy. They aren’t going to have a seat in the United Nations. So that’s sort of a “white supremacist” position, but it’s the least white supremacist position possible. It’s certainly poles apart from the policies of the United States in the past, where they tried to assimilate these people, teach them our language, try to get them to adopt Christianity, forget their native religions, customs, and so forth. I don’t want to do that at all. I don’t want to assimilate these people.
JM: Well, it doesn’t work very well.
GJ: It doesn’t help any of us. I want to keep our race and culture pure, and their race and culture pure. And that means separation and the maximum amount of sovereignty that we can extend to them.
JM: My take on that is, keep the culture pure. These societies have institutions in them that have been built by Western European people, and those institutions are tailored to that group specifically. And I’m not at all surprised when I see that group performing well in those institutions, and other groups not performing well at all. You can see that the Western European people kind of do well in all the institutions at an average or above average level.
GJ: Well, we created this civilization, so it stands to reason we would be fairly good at living in it.
JM: That’s where the supremacy argument comes from. I’m saying they have different values, a different culture. One that isn’t conducive to our justice system, educational system, etcetera.
GJ: The way I put it, it’s not some kind of radical cultural or moral relativism to say if you have size ten feet and you have to wear size nine shoes, you’re not going to be comfortable. It’s possible to say there are objective measurements, but some things fit you better than other things. They are relativized to your body. Your culture should fit you as well as your shoes fit you. Your institutions should fit you as well as your clothes.
The trouble with multiracial societies is they always start out being founded by some population that is not multiracial. And it has the stamp of the founding people, the founder effects. And any new people that come into that society are going to feel like it doesn’t really fit. Sometimes they can fit in because they aren’t so different to begin with, so they can assimilate, naturalize, and become part of the new system. We’ve absorbed many different European groups over the years, because Europeans aren’t that fundamentally different from each other. But when you have blacks or Indians (to give examples from the United States), they don’t fit. We’ve had blacks in North America practically as long as there have been whites, and they’re still not integrated.
JM: Yeah. They have a very difficult time, and this bears out in every metric. It plays out exactly as you think it would each time: crime statistics, SAT scores, credit scores. You know, all of these different ways.
GJ: Practically everything that we can measure indicates that blacks just find American civilization to be alien and alienating to them. It’s not a good fit. And that’s why they deserve their own kind of civilization where they’re not constantly being forced to live up to standards that are alien to them.
The situation we have today is one that’s guaranteed to create racial resentment, because blacks resent being held to white standards, and whites resent blacks retarding civilization and lowering standards. And that’s always going to be the case, because the peoples are just different. So if you want to have amicable, respectful relations with blacks, the easiest way to do that is to have separate societies, so they can live the way they want to and you don’t have to live with them. You can live the way you want to. If you want to trade and exchange ballet troupes and buy one another’s products and things like that, that’s all well and good. But they should have their own homeland run by their own standards, and that’s a good thing.
Another sense of white supremacy is related to this. When people talk about “white privilege,” basically I say, “Whites created this civilization. Therefore, it’s natural that whites are going to flourish in it. If you want to call that white privilege, fine.” The idea that white privilege is a bad thing assumes this argument that you don’t have the right to things you don’t earn, so we’ve been bequeathed this civilization by our ancestors that suits us and we thrive in it. So sue me! I’m going to take full advantage of that. I’m going to rise and flourish in that context.
A related sense of white supremacism is this: I think white societies should be “normatively white,” meaning that we should uphold white standards in white societies. And we shouldn’t apologize about that. Why shouldn’t we be supreme in our own homes, in the societies that we create? If somebody comes to my home, they have to conform to the standards that I set, the norms that I set. I’m supreme in my own household. I don’t see why the French shouldn’t be supreme in France, that they shouldn’t uphold French norms in France. There’s nothing imperialistic about that. It’s just the natural behavior of people who are comfortable with who they are and proud of the way they are. The British should uphold their own norms—or better—Scottish norms in Scotland, English norms in England, Welsh norms in Wales, and so forth. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s completely normal.
A lot of kvetching and whining about white supremacy basically boils down to whites maintaining white standards in their own countries. And I do not think we should be at all apologetic about that. We should be militant about it if challenged. We should really push that point. There is nothing wrong with it at all. To that extent, I will defend white supremacism.
My ideal society is one that is only white. But even if we had simply and entirely white society in North America—say that there are no Indian reservations and so on—say that you created a white ethnostate. We’re still going to have travelers coming from abroad: businessmen, tourists, and things like that. If you take a snapshot of the population day-to-day, there are still going to be something like one to three percent of the population who are not of the ethnic group that dominates it. We should not feel like that is somehow a fatal compromise with the principle of nationalism. That’s just business as usual in any normal society.
The point where we would fail as ethnonationalists is when we start catering to outsiders by modifying our own standards. We should uphold the normative whiteness of whatever white society we are in. Swedes should uphold Swedish norms, Norwegians Norwegian norms. They should demand that people respect their customs, their way of life. People shouldn’t come in and be the “ugly American” tourist. And of course, the ugly American is hardly anywhere near as ugly as the ugly Muslim in Europe.
JM: Yeah, you’re right! And the thing is, it comes from morphing the cultural norms, and basically assimilates the norms to the group that’s coming in, to eventually assimilating the politics. And as I was saying earlier, it means retarding the institutions themselves, dumbing them down, watering them down. Now, it’s not what it was before. And like you said, the host population can no longer flourish in the way they were able to do before. That’s the line I have a big issue with. And as you said, I think there’s not many ways to control for that other than taking a look at these things and having a hard line on it, acknowledging that this affects us.
GJ: Yes, the net result of catering to outsiders rather than having your own standards is that you’ve created a society where nobody feels at home. You no longer feel at home; they don’t feel at home. And that’s not any way to live.
JM: That’s so correct. And on a personal level, I know what you mean when you say that.
GJ: When we go home to our house and close the door, we want to feel at home. But when we leave our house and go shopping, go to the post office, go to government buildings to sign deeds or whatever, we should also want to feel at home. We shouldn’t be bombarded with alien languages, alien music, and feel like we’re living in the Star Wars cantina all the time, except when you go back to our little home and we close the door. And then you turn on the TV and you’re bombarded with the same multicultural crap, too. That’s no way to live.
All we’re asking for is a country where we feel at home. And that’s not unfair in the least, because all these immigrants coming in have homelands that they’re leaving. They feel perfectly at home there, and they try to replicate the things they like about their homeland in our country rather than assimilating. But of course we don’t want them assimilating; we want them to leave. And we want them to be as alienated as possible, as long as possible, until whites get their acts together and start repatriating them. That’s what I want.
JM: To me personally, what happened is, for such a long time, things were implicitly of an American standard, or a white European standard. And that’s just what people knew America as, or Europe as. So they didn’t mind letting these people in. And as it has started to change so much, it’s started to affect them, and they are starting to notice these changes and say, “Hold on a second, wait.” So now when I’m watching football, I have to see racial tension, things like that, with the “take a knee” situation that happened recently—anything like that, really, with wage decreases and so forth. And so we are starting to lose that, that implicit feeling. That feeling of implicit whiteness is starting to go away. I think that’s the reason a lot of people are waking up to this.
GJ: I think the main thing that’s driving consciousness in our direction is objective changes in the multicultural system. We can’t take credit for all the red-pilling that’s going on. The system is doing that. Our job is to get memes out there to help people understand what’s going on, and also to create a political movement that captures and channels this new energy and consciousness towards positive change. We’re not doing such a great job of that, but fortunately, a lot of this is out of our hands. It’s being driven by objective forces that the establishment can’t control, and in fact, they are doubling down on it. So we have some time to get our act together, and we are slowly learning things and improving.
There’s a fourth sense of white supremacy I want to deal with, and that is this question: “Okay, Greg, say that you get your world of ethnostates. Say that there’s Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, European countries for all the different European ethnic groups. What about things like global ecological issues? Pollution, stuff like that.” We know that, left to their own devices, and surely armed with Western technology and medicine and so forth, the countries of Africa are undergoing population explosions, killing wildlife, devastating their environments. And that’s going to have knock-on effects that are going to affect us over here. We’re not so isolated. We cannot confine global warming (if that’s even a thing) to somebody’s borders. So there are global problems, and issues of global welfare that have to be addressed globally. And the people who care about that are white people, preeminently. Are we going to stop caring about these things?
My answer is no. We are going to continue caring about these things, basically in the same way we do today. We’re going to create institutions, and we’ll have all kinds of blandishments to Third World countries to try and halt environmental degradation, halt population explosions, stop refugees from moving en masse to the United States and Europe. We’re going to have to do these things. That means that yes, these countries aren’t going to have one hundred percent sovereignty, because their pollution, refugees, plastic that washes out to the ocean, didn’t stay in their borders.
So there will be global institutions and initiatives like that, and whites will take a leading role in them, because we are the people who care about the planet. And if we don’t care about it, the planet will be devastated. So we do have to take that into consideration, and that is a kind of “white supremacism.” Every environmentalist, everybody who talks about “global solutions to global problems,” is implicitly a white supremacist, because it’s only white people who really care about these things.
JM: That seems to be how it is now, even. The people that go to those summits and whatnot, they’re mainly European countries that are involved and European people who go to Third World countries to come up with solutions. It wouldn’t be a huge change from how we currently deal with international problems. These countries would still be able to get together amicably. A lot of those other countries are currently running under a fairly ethnostate-esque situation. It really seems to be the Western European and North American nations that are dealing with the multiculturalism problem. The other countries are sticking to their guns, and they’re still functioning just fine. So I’m not even sure it would be a leap to say it would be a problem dealing with these issues.
GJ: Right, Japan is an ethnostate. The Koreas are ethnostates. China is an empire, but it’s normatively Chinese. And yes, to some extent these countries take part in international initiatives to try to deal with certain problems. Of course, the Chinese are huge contributors to these pollution problems, unfortunately. But maybe they’ll start to grow out of that, when they start dying en masse from their own exhalations. Unfortunately, they could lose quite a lot of people and it would actually improve the place. Fifty years ago, practically every state in Europe was an ethnostate, and they managed to cooperate with each other. There were the League of Nations, United Nations, NATO, the Warsaw Pact; all these different things were possible. Poland is more than ninety percent Polish. It’s an ethnostate, and yet it’s part of the EU; they can cooperate. So there’s no reason to think that ethnically homogeneous societies can’t engage in international cooperation, because they do it all the time, and they did it all the time.
JM: And that’s what confuses me sometimes. Look back decades, not even centuries. That’s what we had.