Greg has a PhD in Philosophy and owns the website Counter-Currents.com. He’s a leading white nationalist intellectual and I regularly discuss his ideas with my brightest friends (some of whom have PhDs in Philosophy), most of whom are Jewish.
Dr. Johnson has a new book — In Defense of Prejudice. He has previously authored New Right vs Old Right, Truth, Justice and a Nice White Country, Confessions of a Reluctant Hater, and Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies.
I initially found the white nationalist world daunting to understand because most white nationalists hate Jews and I am a convert to Orthodox Judaism who has sacrificed everything to be a Jew who lives his life according to Torah. I believe God chose the Jews to embody ethical monotheism on earth and to show humanity a better way to live. On the other hand, I recognize the destructive things that many Jewish organizations do, such as push gay marriage, multiculturalism and non-white immigration (particularly African and Islamic immigration) on white countries, things that they would never do to the Jewish state. It just seems self-evidently wrong to prescribe things to the goyim that Jews would never practice themselves. Jews want the benefits of cohesion, unity and strength and so why should we begrudge those same virtues to the non-Jews?
I’ve had several Jewish friends, including Orthodox rabbis, mentor my exploration of the world of white nationalism. They helped me to understand that different groups have different interests and that while my religion gives the Jew a wonderful way to live, you have to leave subjective faith aside when you analyze how the world works. You can’t just take is as a given that the Jews are always right and everyone who opposes them is always wrong. Jews aren’t always hated because they are so wonderful. Instead of taking the easy way out and thinking only the best of your own group, you have to extend to other peoples the same empathy you would like outsiders to extend to your people. You have to put yourself in their shoes, think about their experience, and then imagine how desperately they want their people to live free of outside influence, just as Jews want to be free to develop their own civilization without interference by the goyim.
Once I saw white nationalism as white zionism, or alternatively, once I saw zionism as white nationalism, I felt more at peace and more ready to extend empathy to those who initially seemed like deadly enemies.
When investigating group conflicts, I have found that it is often easier to understand things in terms of invasive species: “An invasive species is a plant, fungus, or animal species that is not native to a specific location (an introduced species), and which has a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health.” (Wikipedia)
Groups of people can function as “invasive species” when they move to a land where they are not native and begin thriving so profusely that they cause damage to the natives. Think of the white man, for example, conquering America, Australia and New Zealand. This was bad for the natives. Now the white man is being conquered and displaced by non-whites in the West.
Think about trees as an analogy. I am from Australia and I love eucalypti but when California imports eucalypti, even though the site of these magnificent trees bring me and others joy, the eucalypti sometimes have negative consequences for other forms of life. For instance, they often kill other vegetation under their boughs and they suck up a lot of water. Different forms of life have different evolutionary group strategies and they usually compete with each for survival. You don’t find two sub-species in the same place in nature. One form of pond scum, for example, will wipe out competing forms of pond scum in a particular pond until the victor has pond scum supremacy in that spot.
Unlike many Jews who sympathize with white nationalism, I’m not a self-hating Jew. I’m not fleeing my Jewish identity. I don’t want to water down my Orthodox Judaism to be more acceptable to the goyim. I don’t deny the eternal truths of Torah. I don’t want Jews to disappear. I don’t want them to assimilate and become like other nations. Instead, I would love for my people, like all peoples, to practice their traditions in ways that are a blessing to themselves and to the world.
* “I’m a Jew who supports White Nationalism (I happen to have always thought of myself as a White person, but that’s immaterial), and I found this discussion very interesting. Thank you.”
* The conversation reminded me of Hillaire Belloc’s rambling but insightful book from the 1920’s, “The Jews”, which I came across through Andrew Joyce’s “Occidental Observer” review and later read for myself.
An orthodox Catholic who identified Europe and The Faith, Belloc was clear that the Jews were an inherently theological and cultural Other. Hoping to avoid the patterns of the past (violent expulsion or false assimilation), he pushed for a frank recognition that the Jews among Europeans could never be anything other than Other and that it would benefit both sides to make that a clear and legal frame. The Ford/Johnson discussion echoed it in some respects.
This, of course, before WWII, the subsequent state of Israel as a Jewish homeland and the virtual disappearance of Christianity from most of Europe since then. What is left of the post-Enlightenment Christian Church, at least in Western Europe and the Americas, now pathetically trails along in the wake of Holocaustian “ecumenism” and the globalist ethos of repentant “hospitality” to the invading savages of the Third World. We have gone from Pius V at Lepanto to Francis I at Lampedusa. An once unimaginable plummeting from sanity to madness.
My own awakening to the JQ was not unlike Greg Johnson’s. But even later, with greater resistance, and probably more personally uncomfortable, to the moment of this writing. As the Amish proverb says, “Vee grow too zoon old und too late schmart.” Or as the Greeks knew, “Mathein Pathein.”
I note admiringly that one of GJ’s techniques in interviews is to remain calm and civilized and so let the other side finally show its true self. Some of Ford’s remarks about his continuing belief in Jewish supremacy (even with the very rare self-critical elements) and his language about the goyim were bracingly revealing.
* I believe that Pierce and certain of the other people you mention were being persecuted by Jewish groups to a degree that they were unable to continue in a normal life and resorted to radicalism. Their vitriol against Jews was in other words the result of a personal axe to grind. The same was most likely true of Ezra pound and the chess champion Fischer. Would you regret your stance if this were the case?
* That was great. I love hearing about Greg’s intellectual development. That mirrors my own awakening. I always believed our tenants at some level, but after point, about the time I turned thirty, they gathered focus as the most important thing in life. With me, it came from reading a Patrick Buchanan 2008 book which showed me the problems going on right around me were more or less problems happening in DC! Or shared a common origin…
Here are my notes for the interview (which I have been hoping to secure for three years):
* Tell me about your new book.
* How did you learn to write so clearly about difficult issues?
* How much do you work with writers on their essays for Counter Currents? How many use their real names?
* How did you develop your courage to say unpopular things?
* Philosophy prof: “I’d be interested to know whether or how his training in philosophy led him to white nationalism. Also whether he was open about his views in philosophy and whether this got him in trouble. (Did he not get a job because people knew he was a ‘racist’?) But maybe he wouldn’t want to answer that second question. Third question: You’d think that analytic philosophers, being so obsessed with logic and clarity and coherence, wouldn’t be able to stomach all the PC stuff in the universities; and yet almost all of them go along with it or even promote it. I wonder if he has any thoughts about that.”
* What is the JQ?
* How did you become red-pilled on the JQ?
* When I read you, and when I read William Pierce, and when I read KMac and Roger Devlin and Gregory Hood, I just feel out-gunned. I’d love to write about how you guys are wrong, but I don’t have the ammunition. I used to think the intellectual firepower was all on our side. Now I am more humble.
* Is this country ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government)?
* I loved your reminisces about WNs, such as Phil Rushton, who to the best of my knowledge, never spoke publicly about the JQ, nor wrote on it.
* David Duke: “Do you have any ideas on how to trigger that ethnic identification?”
Phil Rushton in 2006: “Joseph Goebbels had complete control of the media in Germany and the German birth rate shot up and German nationalism shot up and ethnic solidarity increased and out-group hatred increased. The reason was because of the images displayed. If you saw today on television, which I am sure you will not, lots and lots of nice blue-eyed blonde babies being born and women who had lots of these babies being happy having babies and wanting to stay at home and not to work, then you would increase the number of women who would want to have babies and stay at home. If the media showed attractive people standing up to drive the drug dealers out of their neighborhood and to not care what race they were, then I think many more people in suburban neighborhoods would rally together to drive out the alien drug dealers. And so what you see on TV portrayed by role models who look like you… Advertisers know this. Politicians know this. If you are running for Congress, you get black workers to go knock on black neighborhoods. You get Hispanic voters to knock on Hispanic doors… We know the ethnic person you are interacting helps sell the product. People trust someone who looks like their cousin more than someone who looks different, on average.”
* Joe Biden: “I believe what affects the movements in America, what affects our attitudes in America are as much the culture and the arts as anything else,” he said. That’s why he spoke out on gay marriage “apparently a little ahead of time.”
“It wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was ‘Will and Grace,’ it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace” gay marriage,” Biden said.
“Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense. And, I might add, it is all to the good,” he said.
* Is Christianity a deadly folly just a tad better than communism? (Your 2005 essay)
* Do I detect in some of your statements that you regret being so openly fascist in the past?
* You have no problem noting Jews who have influenced you… You say more positive things about Paul Gottfried, for instance. You acknowledge a debt to Leo Strauss. You praise the director of Defamation. You have more criticisms of Gilad Atzmon’s Wandering Who than praise, you have more admiration for a Herzl than an Atzmon. Do you get flack for being too Jew-friendly?
* How much of a problem is purity spiraling and virtue signaling among WNs.
* * How did you come to your views? What were the most important steps along the way? In what year did you finally start identifying as a WN? How then shall I live?
* When did you start publicly criticizing Richard Spencer? On reflection, was Heilgate a bad thing?
* Alex Linder. Who is he and what is his role in WN?
* I read Kevin MacDonald’s book Culture of Critique and thought — this goy has cracked our code. We’re screwed. We have to make a deal.
* How does an individual prepare for the public obliquy that comes with being outed as a WN?
* Where is America today in relation to the matters most important to you as opposed to 10, 20 years ago?
* How much success do you feel you are having?
* How do you think whites can get out of the mess they are in?
* If you were made the ruler of the United States, what would be the role for the Jews?
* Do you see any enemies within the white nationalist movement?
* How do you see Israel? As an inspiring example of an ethno-state or what?
* When groups are competing, they naturally tend to think ill of their competitors. When groups are not competing, other groups are less of a threat (eg the Amish).
There are no permanent enemies and alliances between groups. Jews and Nazis are not necessarily eternal enemies. It all depends on time and place and circumstance. Sometimes Jews and Christians have common interests, sometimes they have contrary interests.
It is not necessary for any gentile group to be anti-Semitic to be
authentic, but to automatically rule out anti-Jewish attitudes neuters that group identity when they have to compete with Jews. If it is fine for Jews to have anti-gentile attitudes but not fine for Christians to have anti-Jewish attitudes, well, I will tell you who will win that competition.
Anti-Jewish attitudes are largely irrelevant to strong Japanese and
Chinese identity because of time and place and circumstance, but when these groups have serious conflicting interests with Jews, it would be self-destructive of them not to have some anti-Jewish attitudes. If you deny your group sanction to hate its enemies, you are weakened.
We can all get along in certain times and places and circumstances
when there are not deadly conflicts of interest.
* Gutter nazism. The Right Stuff. It all depends on who you read. Most of the stuff on The Occidental Observer, Counter-Currents, Amren, Steve Sailer, Radix Journal is on a high level.
Every POV has a gutter, be it race realist, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.
It is not reasonable to expect people who are waking up to the Jewish question to be moderate and rational. That’s not how most people work. They wake up, get mad, and they hate.
I am sure you have said and done ugly things… Every group has an ugly side…
There will never be a side without a dark side and without the possibility of genocide.
* “Greg Johnson may not say things like ‘Gas the kikes’, but does he criticize people for saying it? (A real question.) My impression is that he has no problem with genocidal Nazis, and may well be one himself, but he doesn’t think it’s tactically wise to admit that. I don’t think it’s healthy or normal or acceptable for someone here and now to speak seriously (or jokingly) about gassing large numbers of ordinary decent people because of their race — including children, I assume. This doesn’t seem worrisome to you? I allow that there could be circumstances where that kind of talk would be normal and even moral. It depends. But then, I don’t think it’s healthy or normal to believe that we’re currently in that kind of situation right now. Whites in the US are not living through the siege of Stalingrad or whatever.
“And I’m guessing that the people who are into the Alt Right at this stage are probably a lot more intelligent and better educated than the majority of the white population in the west. What might happen when the masses begin to turn on to some of these ideas? If the result might well be a mass resurgence of the most stupid, destructive and indiscriminate white racism, I would probably prefer the (very bad) leftist regime we have now. And I really do hate this regime we have now.”
* You don’t fire up your soldiers by explaining the humanity of their opponents… All groups are competing and slaughtering your opponents is a normal thing to do. So yes, this hate is worrying to me…but I don’t expect Alt Right leaders to condemn it, except as a bad tactic.
* Maybe it is either Hitler or trannies in the bathroom…
* For any group, slaughtering your enemies is sometimes the most rational and practical thing…and at other times, other options make more sense. Right? It’s all time and place and circumstance.
* “I’m aware that he [Gregory Hood] has this view that race or racial development alone can serve as an ideal. I haven’t read the book, but that seems pretty far-fetched to me. Ironically, alt rightists like Hood claim to be dealing with human nature, harsh facts about how we really are — unlike the leftist or conservative ideologues. But it just doesn’t seem to be natural for people to organize their societies around something like ‘the development of the race’. Of course, race may be seen as a means to something else, as in Judaism; but the idea that it’s the highest principle just doesn’t seem to have much appeal to humans. Most people find it unnatural to think that the purpose of their lives or societies is the development of the human species, or the development of mammalian life or life on Earth. Why should we care about the development of a sub-species, unless that’s taken to play a role in some more transcendental meaning or purpose?”
* It is out of love of one’s people that healthy religion and transcendent purpose spring, according to Hood.
Love of one’s people is a primal force. Seems like a reasonable basis for a nation-state.
* “As far as I know, there aren’t any examples of societies based only on an ideal of ‘development of the race’ or love of one’s _racial_ people, except maybe Nazi Germany.”
* Hood says: “Race is the key building block of any real community and the farthest meaningful grouping to which we can give our loyalty.”
“Isn’t this just false, unless the appeal to “real community” is begging the question? Christians and Muslims and Jews have strong and durable communities that aren’t based on this ‘key building block of any real community’. I guess he could say that the Ashkenazics and Sephardics never constitute any one ‘real community’. But then is ‘real community’ here just being defined (question beggingly) as ‘a community based on race’? It also seems false that race is the farthest meaningful object of loyalty. Some people just do seem to have deep loyalty to fellow Christians or Americans or veterans or southerners regardless of race, or to other human beings just because they are human, and so on. If that’s never ‘meaningful’ loyalty does ‘meaningful loyalty’ here just mean ‘racial loyalty’?”