39 words
Greg Johnson was interviewed by Robert Stark on The Stark Truth on the Voice of Reason Network. The topic is his essay “New Right vs. Old Right” (podcast version here). To listen to the interview, click here: http://reasonradionetwork.com/20120622/the-stark-truth-new-right-versus-old
10 comments
Greg, I’m very impressed with you as a thinker.
You certainly have a lot of courage and character … my hat goes off to you. I’m too young and poor to donate, but I would if I could.
If we had 150 Greg Johnson’s in the world, the world would be ours!
Thank you. I was rather pleased with that interview myself.
I’m surprised by the defense of inequality. I’ve read that income inequality in the USA is going up. I hope the American new right is pleased about that.
It’s unlikely that the defense of inequality will appeal to many people. In the USA, egalitarianism is unpopular because egalitarians claim that White racism is responsible for the Blacks’ poor performance. But the real solution is ethnic separation, not anti-egalitarianism. In 1789 France, egalitarianism amounted to a denunciation of the monarchy. So, egalitarianism can mean different things. Personally, I have always liked the egalitarianism that was said to be the rule in Nordic countries, and to a lesser degree, even in Germany.
When you say that you support meritocracy, it could be interpreted as support for egalitarianism: everyone should be allowed to become president of the USA if he is smart enough, whether he comes from the working class or from the ruling class. In fact, the word egalitarian doesn’t mean anything precise in itself. You always have to give examples of what you mean, and I don’t think you gave enough examples in your interview. It remained somewhat rhetorical. If you present yourself as an anti-egalitarian, I think you will simply come across as arrogant. I agree that some White Nationalists need to forget their humility and try to become leaders, but there is no need to look arrogant.
I was not really focusing on income inequality, which is the essential form of inequality in a plutocracy, which is a system I reject.
In a meritocracy, incomes will be unequal, but such inequality will be tried to inequality in merit. And sheer earning power is a dubious merit.
As you indicate, egalitarianism and inegalitarianism can mean different things, and it is necessary to distinguish them to avoid misunderstandings. Is one referring to economic, political, or social inequality? Inequality can take many forms and degrees.
I believe Greg Johnson commented on Aristotle’s view that inequality should be proportionate if it is to be reasonable and fair. Of course, this raises the question: reasonable and fair by what standard?
Perhaps the discourse of the North American New Right should be defined as:
(1) Identitarian or particularistic with regard to Whites in North America.
(2) Inegalitarian in that it recognizes the differences and inequalities between races, between the sexes, between individuals, and between collectivities.
(3) Organicist in that its ideal of state and society is defined in organicist rather than individualist or collectivist terms. In this context, it might be worthwhile to synthesize the principles of tripartition and subsidiarity in relation to what Jean Denis called the popular community or what the National Socialists called the Volksgemeinschaft.
In Plato’s Revenge: Politics in the Age of Ecology (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2011), William Ophuls asks (p. 42): “If the biosphere is a vast web of interconnecting species, with each occupying a particular niche within the larger whole so that each thereby contributes to upholding the beauty, complexity, and richness of the whole, then might not the same be true of the human sphere? Perhaps human survival and well-being would be better served by a more Platonic notion of justice — in other words, a polity in which individuals fulfill social roles rather than aggrandize private interests.” Why not indeed?
(4) Metapolitical in that it is concerned with shaping the values and ideas that inform politics in its largest sense. To cite Ophuls once again (p. 133): “Politics is not about elections, offices, or laws. It is about the definition of reality: what epistemology, ontology, and ethic shall constitute our rule of life? It is about the master metaphor that frames the manner of thought and the character of institutions at lower levels. At the heart of any political battle — from the general direction of society to particular policy issues — is a fight to make a particular idea prevail: the invisible hand or the class struggle, a right to life or freedom of choice?”
This is very helpful. Thank you.
This was an excellent interview. One thing that intrigued me was the comment that the Venetian aristocracy had a process to purge those who were deemed unfit to be part of it. Could you give more details on how that worked, perhaps in a separate article? I’ve always thought that a weakness of elites was the tendency for their mediocre or worse descendants to be given positions they don’t deserve on merit (the George W. Bush example was right on target). Not only does this harm society from the policies these incompetents follow, it discredits the entire idea of elitism when obviously unfit people are treated as elite simply because they were born into the right family. Addressing this issue is crucial, but I’ve never seen any real attempt to do it systematically, so I’d be curious to see what Venice did in this respect.
I believe that Anthony M. Ludovici discussed the Venetian aristocracy in several of his works, including A Defence of Aristocracy, The Quest of Human Quality, and The Specious Origins of Liberalism, all of which are available online at:
http://www.anthonymludovici.com
The subject certainly deserves an article of its own.
This was a good interview, Greg, as always. I’m much more aware of and sensitive to interpersonal communication than the average person, if I do say so myself, and I think you not only speak well on the fly but also have a good radio presence (your voice is easy to listen to and you come off as warm and personable). I think you should do more interviews whenever the opportunity arises.
One thing I would suggest is that next time you discuss this topic you might want to emphasize the New Right’s rejection of imperialism and genocide, along with the (single) party politics, terrorism, and (hard) totalitarianism you spoke about more. I think those are important points that will resonate with a lot of people who are sympathetic, yet hold reservations (practical or moral) to the historical positions and actions of some from the Old Right.
At some point in the future, I would like to discuss the question of language and terminology with you. Perhaps a more formal discussion via essay(s) would be more productive than a private conversation.
Greg P.,
If you’re planning to discuss issues relating to language and terminology, a more formal discussion might well be more productive, provided it is conducted in the right spirit. When addressing these things, it’s important to recognize the complexity and subjectivity of these things. Many people seem to address these things largely in terms of their individual likes and dislikes. They regard people like themselves as the only appropriate target audience for, and arbiter of, White nationalist discourse (to paraphrase Louis XIV, their attitude is “Le parti, c’est moi”). Their relationship with White nationalism is essentially consumerist rather than militant.
We need to think beyond ourselves as individuals and to subordinate ourselves to our work. We need to apply ourselves to creating and applying a body of discourse with which we can effectively win people over to our cause. For this work, we should scrutinize all aspects of our discourse in order to make it as effective as possible. This scrutiny should not be limited to our language and terminology. It should also encompass matters such as the issues and themes we emphasize, the arguments, facts, and imagery we use, the norms and parameters we observe, the style and tone in which we express our ideas, how we present ourselves, and what we do to develop and apply our communication skills.
All this is very complicated, but it is necessary to address these things in their complexity. As Jacques Ellul remarked, “public opinion obeys mysterious rules, secret motives, and forms and deforms itself irrationally, whereas information is of the order of clear knowledge, lucid consciousness, reason and pure intellect.” We should not define our ideas simply in intellectual and literary terms, but also in terms of how they are perceived and articulated by our target publics. Of course, the former is easier than the latter, for it’s easier to read books than to read people.
We need to fashion a discourse that is clear, cogent, and communicable. We need a discourse that creates and expresses a common understanding, a common will, a common project.
The aim of this work should be equipping White nationalists with a body of ideas, knowledge, and skills that they can adapt to particular tasks and audiences, and which it is in their interest to master because it is genuinely useful. The kind of sophistication required here is a matter of working skilfully, persistently, judiciously, and effectively. It should not be a matter of mainstreaming, or spin, or intellectualism. There is no master key that we can distribute and no magic formula that we can use. There is no “one best way” to do things in these matters.
It might be said that this work should be both populist and elitist. It should be both inclusive (every person who is fit to work should do work commensurate with their abilities) and anagogical (it should raise the average quality and quantity of work). It is a matter of developing ability at all levels, of applying intelligence and skill to all of our work. As Friedrich Nietzsche said, “Each individual, according to his gifts, must be so placed that he does the best that it is in him to do.”
I think it would be useful to identify the “terms of inquiry” for this work in order to properly direct and sustain discussion regarding it. Being a cultural project, this work is of a collective and long-term nature, and it requires the intelligent and continuous participation of many people. Perhaps this work is best done on an “open source” basis rather than according to an “apparatus logic.”
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.