- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

Joshua Blakeney Interviews Greg Johnson, Part 1

3,660 words

Arthur Melville, The blue night, Venice [1]

Arthur Melville, The Blue Night, Venice

Part 1 of 4

Editor’s Note:

This is a transcript by V.S. of Joshua Blakeney’s interview with Greg Johnson, which you can listen to here [2]. The topics discussed in this segment are: Old Right vs. New Right, the rejection of imperialism and colonialism, hegemony, the Jewish role in fomenting multiculturalism, non-white immigration, and white demographic decline, and the genocidal intention behind these Jewish policies.

Joshua Blakeney: Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters! Welcome to this episode of The Real Deal. I’m your host, Joshua Blakeney, of nonalignedmedia.com, and this show’s guest is Dr. Greg Johnson, editor-in-chief of Counter-Currents Publishing and author of the books New Right vs. Old Right and Confessions of a Reluctant Hater.

As someone who is a recovering former Marxist, I can testify to the stagnancy and unoriginality of the Left these days, which has effectively failed to produce an interesting thinker in about half a century. The unwarranted Jewish exceptionalism and censoriousness of the Left are among its many flaws which lead it to paradoxically reinforce the interests of those in power by willfully preventing, among other things, an analysis of the impact different ethnic groups have upon political reality.

Unlike contemporary Leftists, much of the New Right is philosophically consistent, rejects political correctness, has original ideas, and is intellectually stimulating. Luckily for us, our guest today is one of the leading spokespersons of the New Right within North America. Just as the Zionist controlled media and Zionist controlled Hollywood demonizes Arabs and Muslims, it is undeniable that the proponents of ethnonationalisms which undermine Zionist power are equally stigmatized. Dr. Johnson and his colleagues are scholarly and thoughtful, but the Zionists would have you believe that all those who hold their beliefs are skinheads with swastika tattoos and inflatable Hitler dolls.

When I visit the Counter-Currents website, I encounter classical and contemporary thinkers whose thought was entirely expunged from the university curricula I was subjected to in North America. It is my view that such alternative paradigms which are censored and suppressed ought to be discussed, which is why I’m extremely happy to welcome you, Dr. Johnson, to this episode of The Real Deal.

Greg Johnson: Thanks for having me on. I appreciate it.

JB: So, why don’t we kick off with you distinguishing between the thought of the Old Right and the thought of the New Right? I imagine much of the listenership aren’t familiar with your philosophical paradigm, so please go ahead and explain it for us.

GJ: Well, the term New Right was really invented by the Left, by mainstream Leftish journalists in France in the 1970s. They used this term to describe the work of Alain de Benoist, who is the most widely published and certainly most authoritative figure in the European New Right, and the term stuck. The people who follow Benoist, and Benoist himself, reject it. They’re not comfortable with it. But my feeling is: it’s a good brand actually, and I have embraced it. I think that the idea of a New Right is quite appropriate, because what we stand for is a variant of Right-wing thought. And it is new. And it’s new in a way that’s analogous to how the New Left relates to the Old Left, if you will. So, I think it’s a useful term.

The New Right basically stands for the values and aims of the Old Right, but it has been updated for the post-war realities. The Old Right really was reacting to the Old Left, and by Old Right what I mean is basically National Socialism in Germany and Fascism in Italy and various allied movements in Europe, but primarily the National Socialists and the Fascists. The National Socialists and the Fascists were battling after the First World War against Communism. They were battling them literally in the streets, and Communism was a militant, terroristic, totalitarian, one-party movement that practiced genocide on its enemies. Liberal democracy simply was not up to the task of fighting and containing Communism. So, after the First World War, movements like Fascism and National Socialism arose in Europe, and they adopted a lot of the strategies and tactics of their enemies because, again, liberal democracy simply wasn’t going to cut it, and so the Old Right is characterized by the same sort of one-party, militant, terroristic, totalitarian politics of the Old Left.

I think that those strategies were in some ways legitimate given what they were fighting against. Yet at the same time it’s unfortunate, obviously. A lot of the Old Right was allied to the colonialist, imperialist model that was dominant in Europe at the time. The Italians wanted their colonies in Africa, and of course Hitler looked to places like Russia and Ukraine as potential colonies for an expanding German Reich. I don’t agree with that. One of the things I think differentiates the New Right from the Old Right is that we are sympathetic to anti-colonialism, because what we really believe in is national self-determination for all peoples. And so I’m a believer in Ukrainian nationalism or, if you will, Libyan nationalism or Abyssinian nationalism. This conflicted with the imperialist policies that the Old Right embraced.

But imperialism was the game. The British Empire was certainly quite a vast empire, and even though they paid homage to liberalism it was quite a totalitarian police state in its actual operation in places like India. It’s unfortunate, I think, that the Old Right adopted the imperialist game, which was really the only game in town, because I think the basic ethnonationalist principle that a lot of people have taken from the Old Right should make one sympathetic with the aspirations to sovereignty of all peoples around the world, including colonized peoples. So, that is one of the differences.

The way I put the difference between the New Right and the Old Right in my book is that the New Right basically stands for the idea of ethnonationalism and the idea of a kind of organic society, a society that embraces a lot of critiques of class structure and capitalism and colonialism and imperialism that you find on the Left, a critique of globalization and so forth, but recognizes that the best solution to that problem really is to embrace organic national communities and to seek a world where every nation has its own sovereignty. In my view, that is really the closest we’re going to get to a world where there’s peace among all the peoples.

The idea of one world government or large multinational government schemes like the European Union as the way to peace I think is folly, really. What happens when you have empires or federations, like the European Union, say, is they always take on a kind of imperial form where you have one people dominating other peoples and putting their stamp on the system. The European Union is kind of a soft form of German hegemony right now, and a lot of Southern European countries certainly resent that, for instance.

JB: You said that to understand the distinction between the Old Right and the New Right, you have to understand the distinction between paleo-Marxists and neo-Marxists. My understanding is basically that classical Communism, like the Old Right, was more militant, more violent. There was this attitude, for example, in the Soviet Union that if you were a dissident you’d just be sort of herded into the Gulag, but I think there was a realization on the Left that that wasn’t really tenable in the long term, and so there has been this attempt to engage in cultural subversion, cultural revolution. So, this idea that rather than herding us into the Gulag if we disagree, we’re going to culturally change the societies of the West so ordinary people consent to their own enslavement to a sort of communistic worldview. The idea of cultural hegemony, I know, is important to you and was important to the neo-Marxists. This idea that you have to change not just the constitution or society, but the dominant ideas in society so people feel that it’s in their own interests to go along with a certain agenda.

Wouldn’t you say that the New Right is trying to emulate those strategies to create a new form of cultural hegemony?

GJ: Exactly. I agree with that completely. After the Second World War, after Stalin and his crimes came to the surface, the Left, I think, realized that the totalitarian model was very dangerous and also really unnecessary. After the Second World War in the United States, the television industry was becoming a very big thing, and it became conceivable that Leftist values could come to dominate in society simply by changing the culture, simply by changing the educational system and so forth. And so what we have today is a Left-wing oligarchical society. It’s Leftist in its values, and in its function it’s hyper-oligarchical, hyper-capitalist, and yet all the reigning values are Leftist. That really is a tribute to the effectiveness of the New Left model of changing society through cultural hegemony.

They didn’t change the underlying structure of capitalism. They certainly didn’t do that at all, but they changed the way people think. I think that the complacency today of the Left about really changing the underlying structure of capitalism is worthy of comment. We have to understand that the Left is, at its core, a Jewish ethnic phenomenon, and what the New Left really emphasizes is making societies porous to groups that are previously considered others and outsiders. It’s about creating upward mobility for previously excluded groups, and there are many avatars for these excluded others: gays and lesbians, blacks, people of color in general. But really those are just symbolic avatars for Jews, who are the primary pushers of this model and the primary beneficiaries.

So, we have a society where you’ve got an increasingly wealthy Jewish oligarchy with these Left-wing values. And I don’t think there’s a contradiction there at all. I think that the function of these Left-wing values in society has been to make possible the Jewish oligarchy that we have today, and so it really works for them. There’s no contradiction at all, I think, when you understand the ethnic angle, in a Left-wing oligarchical society, because it’s the Leftist values that have allowed this increasingly Jewish and increasingly out-of-touch and increasingly wealthy oligarchy.

The long and the short of it, as far as the New Right is concerned, is we think that since after the Second World War the tendency of the Left has been to rule us by changing our ideas and our culture and establishing this kind of soft totalitarian cultural hegemony, and that the Right has to fight it effectively — just like the Old Right had to fight Communism effectively — by adopting some of its techniques and strategies. The New Right has to fight the New Left effectively by adopting its strategies and tactics. Basically, what we need to do is deconstruct intellectually the cultural hegemony of Leftist values. And we need to create a counter-hegemony. And the counter-hegemony that I advocate basically is White Nationalism. I am most concerned with my own people, and I want whites to survive and flourish in historically white societies. So, what I want to create is an intellectual and political hegemony where basically white interests are sacrosanct.

Right now in every white country, Jewish interests are sacrosanct. I want there to be white countries where white interests are sacrosanct. And, therefore, the destruction of whites, the degradation of whites, ultimately the extinction of whites will no longer be a political possibility.

I am all for pluralism. I think that what will happen in a White Nationalist society on the model that I envision is there will be lots of debates. There will be debates about socialism and welfare and zoning and environmentalism and abortion and taxes and all these other things, but they will be among white people, and there will be no outside groups that whites will be able to ally with to gain advantages in basically family struggles with their own people. So, that’s the model that I’m looking towards.

And yes, I’m going to be very frank about it — one of my commentators called me on this. He said, “Look, Greg, if you’re criticizing the Left for a kind of soft totalitarianism, you’re really advocating, admit it, a soft totalitarianism of the Right.” I will cop to that. I am fully willing to admit that what we need is a soft Right-wing totalitarianism, in the sense that there will be many options that people can debate and many things that people can choose, but the essential issue, really, to make sure that white racial preservation and flourishing and advancement are sacrosanct, those things are going to be obligatory up and down the political spectrum, through every field of culture. Those interests will be as sacrosanct in the society that I envision as Jewish interests are sacrosanct in the society that we have today. So, that’s basically the model that I’m proposing.

JB: Yeah, and I think it’s very important to understand the advent of multiculturalism, who invented multiculturalism and what caused multiculturalism. I was recently in Tokyo, and Tokyo 100 years ago was 99% ethnic Japanese and today is 99% Japanese. London, where I grew up, 100 years ago was 99% white Britons and today less than 50% of the inhabitants of London are white Britons. That needs to be explained. That didn’t just happen by coincidence, did it, Dr. Johnson? There’s a reason why this happened and I think it’s very important for people to understand that multiculturalism wasn’t just some organic thing. I mean, you hear these platitudes that, “Oh, these people came from the West Indies to England to do jobs that English people weren’t willing to do.” But then there never seems to be any evidence to support that. That’s just cliché.

So, who invented multiculturalism? You did suggest it’s related to the Jews. Obviously, the Jews have their ethno-state, Israel. They’ve had an ethno-strategy. Dr. Kevin MacDonald coined the phrase “group evolutionary strategy” and it seems that a segment of the Jewish population want to radically defend their right to have a group evolutionary strategy. Of course, it’s sort of natural for groups to define some kind of strategy, but to concurrently foil and undermine and prevent competitor groups, be it white Europeans or Arabs, Muslims, Persians, from having their group evolutionary strategies. I think that one reason why we see international Zionism targeting Iran so intensely is because the Iranian people have created this revolutionary society where they’ve fused Islam with republicanism and democracy, and they’ve actually got a fairly successful group evolutionary strategy.

So, would you agree with me that there’s been an agenda, basically, to prevent groups which have historically clashed with the Jews from being successful? How do you undermine their group evolutionary strategies? Well, you undermine the family, you promote drugs and alcoholism, radical feminism and so on, right? Would you agree with that?

GJ: Yes, basically. I think Jews have a kind of live and let die philosophy in their relations with other peoples. If you look all the way back to their holy books, these attitudes are laid out there and given the sanctity of holy writ. Basically, in the United States multiculturalism is really a Jewish operation. The whole idea of redefining America based on universal propositions about equality and rights is something that has been pushed historically by Jews.

It wasn’t entirely a Jewish operation. There was a native strand of that in the United States. There’s no question about that. There was a long conflict in the United States, before Jews were really very powerful at all, between capitalist interests and what you’d call nativists, people who wanted to maintain the United States as basically an Anglo society with a few assimilated groups like the Dutch and Germans and so forth, but essentially a Nordic Anglo society. That’s how they conceived of America.

There were capitalist interests, though, that wanted immigration. Why? Because they wanted to undermine the labor movement; they wanted to lower wages; they wanted to flood the market and basically profit that way. So, they pushed the idea of the United States as a proposition nation rather than an ethnically defined nation. And they pushed the idea of the so-called American Dream of people to come to the United States from all parts of the world to economically better themselves. Of course, the people who pushed that had an economic agenda themselves. They hoped that would economically better them by making it easier for them to exploit the proletariat, if you will, to undermine wages, to undermine the labor movement, and so forth.

Now, Jewish immigration only really became a big thing at the end of the 19th century. And Jews looked around when they arrived here en masse, from Eastern Europe primarily. They arrived in the United States like a hacker arrives at a website. They looked for the design flaws in the United States that they could exploit. And they saw this pre-existing design flaw, this pre-existing conflict between people who basically defined their interests economically and pushed the United States as a proposition nation, versus the people who had an ethnic idea of nationhood. And they allied themselves with the former tendency. And they put a great deal of money and cleverness and energy behind pushing this notion of the United States as a non-ethnically defined nation.

Why? Well, because if you defined the United States as a Northern European, Protestant nation, a WASP nation, a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation, Jews are definitely excluded. They are definitely outsiders. So, they warred against this identity for America and replaced it with a propositional identity based on universal rights and the desire for economic betterment and freedom of religion and so forth, because that made Jews insiders. Of course, then Jews really over a century, have become the ultimate insiders and really, I think, the people who control all important aspects of the American system.

They’re not the sole power in America, but they are a dominant group, and they definitely get their way on any issue that really matters to them. One of the things that they have worked tirelessly for is to prevent any kind of nativist movement, to prevent the white population of America defending itself ethnically from the blacks that we imported, from indigenous native peoples, especially the ones coming from south of the border in enormous numbers, and basically now people from all over the world who want to come here.

Jews basically have promoted non-white immigration and non-white emancipation in America because they believe that once whites become a minority in this country that it will be impossible for an ethnically-defined nativist white movement that opposes Jewish interests to arise. They’re very worried about things like National Socialism in Germany, obviously, and they want to make sure, therefore, that in any white country where they exist, and really any other country where they exist that’s fool enough to listen to them and allow open immigration — Only whites have been foolish enough to do this so far, but of course they’ll try it with the Japanese and the Chinese, too. But anyway, they’re trying to create a society where they will not experience the kind of resistance to their presence and interests that existed before the Second World War in places like Germany. To do that, they promote multiculturalism, multiracialism, and the demographic decline of whites. And they’re doing it in the United States, and they’re doing it in every other European country as well.

It’s very worrisome, because for me, ultimately, the only political issue that really matters is the long term survival of whites in this world. Because right now the white population is shrinking. We are not reproducing ourselves, and if you continue these trends, we will cease to exist as a race. All the causes of species extinction in the natural world apply to whites today. We’re losing our habitats, we’re hybridizing with other races, and if these trends are not interrupted we will cease to exist as a race. So, I am a white racial preservationist, and that’s really why I am most concerned about issues like immigration and so forth.

I think that basically Jews are the people who are most aware of the causes of extinction. They are most aware of the things that are conducive to the long term survival or long term destruction of a group. They are very concerned to preserve their own race, and so they believe in ethnostates for Jews, namely Israel. They are campaigning against Jewish intermarriage, because they want to maintain the purity of their identity. They’re all for Jewish ethnic pride, Jewish education, and so forth.

And yet, they oppose these very things for whites and white countries. They are for open borders in white countries. They are promoting miscegenation and race-mixing in white countries. They are opposed to any forms of white patriotism. They’re opposed to monocultural, Eurocentric white education to pass on white identities. And the net result of this is the destruction of whites.

I think that because Jews are so aware of these issues, they are so attuned to genocide against themselves, when they are advocating policies for whites that are basically genocidal, you have to say that this is an intentional policy of genocide against whites that is being pushed by the organized Jewish community. So, this is something that I am very concerned about, and I think all whites need to be awakened to this danger.

JB: OK. Well, that’s really interesting and obviously some provocative ideas. We’re actually at the point of the first break of this episode of The Real Deal, Greg, so we’ll pick this up momentarily.