* GJ: It means organic like an organism. Today we have an inorganic society where you’ve got different classes and different groups of people, and they’re all pursuing factional interests. It’s not a single organism with a common life and common interests. It’s an economic zone where warring tribes are fighting over spoils. That’s what most societies are like today, whereas in an organic society there is a sense that it is a whole and it has a common good. If there is not a whole then there is no common good. That’s all I really mean by organic. It’s a whole, it has a common good, and the internal differentiations that exist in that work towards the common good, and when you start getting a part that’s working for its own interests, well, that’s analogous to a tumor growing in a body. It’s an organ or it’s a clump of tissue that’s inimical to the common interests.
* LR: Oh, you have a Ph.D.? GJ: A Bachelor’s, a Master’s, and a Ph.D. in philosophy! LR: Oh, OK! What university? GJ: I don’t want to go into all these particulars.
LR: Oh, you don’t want to say anything at all about that.
GJ: Yeah. There are 53,000 Greg Johnsons on Facebook alone, so that provides me with a certain cloud of unknowing that I can hide details in.
LR: Right. But you don’t hide your political opinions in your everyday life?
GJ: No, but I don’t want people throwing bricks through my windows and things like that.
LR: Oh, yeah, of course. GJ: Or Theresa May—or I guess she’s now the Prime Minister—but I don’t want the Home Office sending me letters banning me from the United Kingdom, which I know they would do if they could just figure out which of those 50-some thousand Greg Johnsons on Facebook I am and send something to my address.
Greg talks to Mike Enoch of the Daily Shoah:
* GJ: I picked up a copy of The New Criterion, and I thought, “This is a really impressive magazine,” because I was a culture vulture. I was really into classical music. I was really interested in art history. When I was a kid I wanted to be an archaeologist or an art historian. I was just really, really interested in ancient civilizations. I realized it was primarily an interest not so much in digging in kitchen refuse dumps like archaeologists actually do, but the history of civilization, the history of art, the history of the mind, and so forth. That attracted me. Anyway, I was very interested in culture, and so I got this kind of Right-wing, neoconish culture magazine. Picked it up and really got into it. Started subscribing to it. Started reading Commentary. I had been a really big fan of Hannah Arendt my last year or two of college. I read her in political philosophy class and got into phenomenology and Heidegger and all these other areas.
I rapidly figured out that there was a strong Jewish slant to neoconservatism. Commentary is published by the American Jewish Committee. ME: About what year was this? If you don’t mind revealing that. You don’t have to if you’re not comfortable revealing it.
GJ: I guess I can’t even remember the year, but I was 22 or 23 when I started reading The New Criterion and Commentary. I liked the quality of the writing. I was somewhat pro-Zionist at the time, but then I started realizing there was a definite Jewish bias to this, and it wasn’t necessarily my bias. In graduate school, I started reading Leo Strauss and being around Straussian professors. I thought they were really impressive people. I think Strauss is a tremendously impressive writer. And yet again I could see there was a particularly parochially Jewish angle to this.
ME: The only reason I asked the question about the years is because when I started getting into . . . When I started getting out of my Left liberal upbringing, and I started getting interested in other ideas and I was into libertarianism and paleoconservatism, one of my early influences was Antiwar.com. So, it was made clear early in my politicization, if you will, that neocon was a Jewish conservative outlook. I hesitate to even call it conservatism. What the neocons would always say is, “Oh, ‘neocon’ is just a code word for Jew,” and Antiwar.com was upfront about that. It is, and it doesn’t matter.
GJ: Yeah, Antiwar.com wasn’t around. The internet wasn’t really around when I started. ME: Yeah. So, I was aware of the . . . I used to couch it in terms like “Zionist.” Now, I just say Jewish because that’s what it really is. So, I was aware that neocon was a distinctly Jewish movement early on. But this is like the year 2000. I feel like I’m old when I’m around TRS people, but I think I’m younger than you.
GJ: This was back in the ’90s. I started getting more and more keyed into the Jewish slant on things. Living around Jews, rubbing elbows with them, I had some Jewish graduate student colleagues, one Jewish professor actually. The real thing that crystallized it, though, was I really started getting into Heidegger, and I really like Heidegger still. He’s one of my favorite philosophers. I was getting a Ph.D. in philosophy, and I actually thought I might write a dissertation on Heidegger. Anyway, the controversy around Heidegger’s National Socialism really called forth a lot of rhetorical thuggery, let’s put it that way, on the part of Jewish commentators, and it just didn’t sit well with me.
ME: I know the feeling.
GJ: I remember, actually, having disputes with Jewish graduate students that I would bump into about this stuff. A few years later I read Mein Kampf, and Hitler goes on about his encounters with Jews in Vienna and the formation of his worldview, and he talks about how he would patiently spend hours debating and destroying the arguments of these Jewish socialists, and then the next day he’d hear them trotting out the same arguments.
ME: I know the exact passage you’re talking about. Yes.
GJ: That’s when I knew this guy was telling the truth. That was so powerful. I’d seen that with my own eyes. There was just no gainsaying it. That was something else. It just didn’t sit well with me. I was becoming increasingly sort of paleoconservativeish. One of my favorite Heidegger scholars, a guy named Thomas Sheehan, wrote a couple couple articles that I dug up because I was just going through his bibliography and reading everything he wrote. One was an article about Alain de Benoist and Julius Evola. The other was just about Evola entirely. And I thought, “Wow! This is really interesting stuff!” So, that was my first encounter with the European New Right of Alain de Benoist and then the ideas of Evola. I bumped into an Evola book not long after that. I got Revolt Against the Modern World. I also started getting stuff by Alain de Benoist, and I really found these people quite impressive.
I was living in Atlanta, and this was 1999, I believe. I was in the Borders Books in Buckhead, and there was this guy in a black t-shirt standing in the philosophy section. He had short hair and a black t-shirt and tattoos on his biceps. And I thought, “Hmm . . . Looks like a bad boy.” I think he picked up Kojève’s Introduction to the Reading of Hegel, and I said, “That’s a really great book.” And we got started talking. This turned out to be Joshua Buckley who is the editor of the journal TYR now. He was an ex-skinhead and really, really intelligent.
I think it was Labor Day of 2000 when I took the next step. I went out to a diner in Buckhead where David Irving was going to talk.
* “White people, particularly Northern Europeans, consider telling the truth as paying a tax into the commons, and we willingly do it because we understand that everyone’s better off when we do it.”
* GJ: And the idea that another holocaust is going to happen is the most ludicrous idea in the world. Jews have their own country now which has a mountain of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. There will never be another holocaust. Get it through your heads. Stop this emotional blackmail. I’m so fucking sick of this whining and emotional blackmail from the most powerful people on the planet.
Let’s just call them what they are. They’re a race of paranoid lunatics. One of the things we talked about before we started recording is this strange oscillation in people who suffer from mania between grandiosity, where they feel that they are God, or God is in them, or that everybody’s God, and they have this ebullient grandiosity where they literally feel like they’re the whole universe; they are God. Then what happens is when people don’t respond to you appropriately when you say that you’re God, you start feeling that they are evil in some way. You start getting the touchy, paranoid, hateful side. The side that feels victimized and persecuted.
Well, that basically just sounds like Jews to me, because they have the grandiose notion that they are God’s chosen people, that they’re a light unto the nations, they’ve given the world all these wonderful things. And when people don’t treat them in ways that coincide with their grandiose self-image they assume always that these people have some problem, that these people are evil, malicious, they’re plotting against them, they’re trying to destroy them. It sounds like a nation where insanity is basically the norm. We need to send them to their nuthouse in the Middle East. Preferably disarming them of all their nuclear weapons at the same time, because you don’t give a gun to a child or a person who’s in a psychotic episode. We’ve given control of our societies, submarines, nuclear weapons, biological and chemical weapons to people who are basically insane, and it’s really got to stop.
Anyway, you guys are doing a great job in getting people aware of this and giving people permission to think about this, to laugh about it, and I just think it’s a tremendous service that you’re doing. Because nothing is more important, I think, than getting the organized Jewish community off our back and disempowering these people and sending them away so we can finally live and breathe and have our own countries again. Anyway, TRS is doing great work in that area.
* GJ: Guys, put down your bongs and listen to me for a few minutes. From the point of view of long-term self-actualization, I think marijuana is one of the worst, most insidious substances.
ME: I’m a little bit on the side of the alcoholic, or the liquid Jew as they call it. It’s definitely a vice of mine, but we all get one.
* GJ: The Catholic Church for a very long time was a meritocratic institution. They would recruit the brightest people from all castes of society and try to bring them into the Church. One of the models of the SS was the Jesuits. Hitler actually said that he believed that Himmler was the Ignatius Loyola of National Socialism.
* I was reading Hitler’s Table Talk. It pains me to read the comments in there that Hitler makes about the Russians and Ukrainians and how basically under the new order they’ll just be taught the first ten numbers and how to read road signs, and they’ll basically be helots in a new kind of serf system that he wanted to set up in Ukraine and Russia. I think that’s very sad. I think that the basic ethnonationalist principle is this: that every people needs a homeland or homelands in which they have political sovereignty and the freedom to develop according to their own natures, their own lights, their own culture. What makes every distinct people different should have the right to a room of their own, a country of their own where they can develop…
* We want to convince people that everyone has a stake in ethnonationalism and that the main source of trouble, quarrel and strife, enmity and hatred in the world is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism/ multiracialism is the idea that different peoples have to share the same societies, the same political systems. We think that is inevitably a source of hatred and violence.
* throughout the history of America every introduction of a new group has been not in the interests of the people who are already there. It’s not in their economic interests to have to compete with a new influx of laborers who lower wages, who disrupt their communities, and so forth. The argument I make is that even with the frontier, America could have shut off immigration as soon as the ink was dry on the Constitution. We could have shut it off, and what would have happened is this: the necessity of the system’s expansion would have created incentives for the stock that was already there to reproduce.
So, for instance, if the big factory and mill owners and mine owners couldn’t import cheap labor from Europe they would have had to looked at the people who were there and thought, “Well, we have to invest in these people and increase their population so that we’ll have more workers.” Labor would have been scarce, and so it would have been expensive, so laborers could have afforded to have large families that way, and so the sheer necessity of the system’s survival would have created incentives that would have filled up the country anyway.
Francis Parker Yockey in Imperium talks about this. He was the person that put me on to this idea. His view is that every immigrant who was brought into the United States basically suppressed the incentive for the native population to produce a new individual. I don’t know if you can really turn that into a hard mathematical law, but I do think that there is a pattern there, and that’s reasonable. So, immigration might have been completely unnecessary to populate America, and if we’d never done it we would have a very homogeneous society…
But the fact that we’ve been able to assimilate other European stocks does not mean that we can assimilate blacks or Asians or Papuans or Pygmies or radically different people, and it’s madness to try to do that. So, the idea that because all of our ancestors stepped off boats at one time in history that we have to welcome everybody that stepped off a boat today is just sheer madness.
I think that one of the things that causes the suppression of our birth rates is immigration, and it suppresses it in two ways. One is a very obvious financial thing. Mexicans are coming here and having four kids, and every one of these kids is born in an emergency room, and the bill is paid for by working and middle class whites who are responsible and civic-minded and pay their bills, and they sit down and balance their books and think, “We can’t afford to have a second child.” They can’t afford to have a second child because they are subsidizing a Mexican baby boom. That’s a very simple way. There’s another more subtle psychological thing that’s going on here. Whites are kind of a nervous, finicky race. I remember when I was in grade school—I think I was a 4th grader—for whatever reason in my class there was a cage with some white mice in it. I don’t know why they were in there. Some kind of biology lesson. I remember that the mother mouse had some babies, and the teacher said, “Stay away from the cage. Don’t look in the cage. Don’t do anything, because when the mother mouse has babies and you’re around the cage it will cause her to eat the babies.” I thought that was a bizarre notion, but apparently there are certain animals that are really, really finicky, and if they feel like their nest is being encroached upon they will basically kill their own children or not have them. I think whites are that kind of finicky, weird creature, and when we feel like our living spaces are in some way not safe—whether they’re crime zones or whether we just don’t feel quite at
home in them—I think that suppresses fertility, which is why one of the major factors that causes whites who live in diverse areas to move to homogeneous areas is when they start having kids. Suddenly they look around, and they don’t feel safe having their nest in a diverse area, and so they move to a suburb. So, I think any kind of diversity in a very obvious way or in very subtle ways is one of the ways that causes our finicky whites to stop having kids.
* I used to live in Atlanta. Atlanta, I think, was 60% black, and the city government was like 96% black, and the people in that city government consisted of large numbers of useless eaters who basically went to their offices and pretended to work. Anybody who actually had to deal with the city government or the county government getting their business going or buying and selling property, doing anything that was economically necessary, had to go through this bureaucracy that was full of morons who are just loafing, chatting on their cell phones, letting the office phone ring or go to voice mail, then the mail box was always full. Your heart would sink through the floor when you would hear a black woman’s voice wishing you a “blessed day,” because you would just know that there was absolutely no hope. People who lived and did business outside Atlanta in some of the further ex-urban counties that were predominately white would go into the city hall, and people would just rush them through. They’d be really helpful. None of this passive aggressive stuff, none of the laziness, none of the craziness that the people in Atlanta have to deal with. So, my attitude about the underclass really would be: why not just put them on welfare for the rest of their lives, get them out of jobs that they can only pretend to do…
So, my attitude about the underclass is that it should be reduced, and the best way to reduce it, ultimately, is to have a kind of gentle, slow-functioning eugenics program in place.
* I remember when I lived in Atlanta there was this Negro minister and businessman, the Reverend Hosea Williams, and Hosea Williams was just one of these vaguely ridiculous, Southern black, poverty pimp, Civil Rights politicians. But Hosea Williams was a cut above a lot of the others, and one of the things he said about himself was that he actually believed in the interests of blacks, whereas he believed that people like Coretta Scott King and Jesse Jackson and people like that had basically sold out to the ultra-rich and to the Jews. He actually referred to himself as a “nigger’s nigger” whereas he said that Coretta Scott King was a “Jew’s nigger.” Now, that’s pretty salty language, but that’s the way a lot of minorities see things. But there are very, very few of them that will actually stand up and occupy a leadership role within their community that could galvanize them against the plutocracy.
Instead, anybody who looks like they have the potential to rise in their community is co-opted very quickly. Look at Barack Obama. There were people who spotted him as an up-and-coming potential person and mentored him, and basically a lot of them were Jews. A lot of them were Left-wing Jews who looked at Obama, saw this up-and-coming black, and they stepped in and played this mentoring role. They are constantly looking for talent in different communities that they can mentor and harmonize with their interests, and that’s the way that the plutocracy works.
* The fascist outlook is perforce hierarchical for the simple reason that if people aren’t equal, then when the problem of how to have political order is raised, obviously you want the best people to rule.
If you go back far enough in time, of course, every political philosophy was hierarchical and anti-liberal. Fascism represents a return of perennial ideas that were really the core ideas of all the serious thinking about politics as far back as human history records.
The rise of the masses and the empowerment of the masses creates a problem, and so the fascist outlook is basically an attempt to resuscitate and restore a classical, hierarchical, healthy, and holistic form of society within the context of a world where the masses have been emancipated and enfranchised and empowered.