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

Dennis Fetcho Interviews Greg Johnson

hourglasses [1]6,460 words

Editor’s Note:

This is the transcript by V.S. of my interview on Dennis Fetcho’s Inside the Eye, which you can listen to here [2]. I want to thank Dennis for having me on and V.S. for his transcription.   

Dennis Fetcho: Coming up now, we have Dr. Greg Johnson. He’s the editor-in-chief of Counter-Currents Publishing at counter-currents.com. He’s written a couple of books out there: New Right vs. Old Right, North American New Right Vol. 1, and Confessions of a Reluctant Hater. I believe he’s joining us from California, but he’ll correct that. Greg, first, good morning!

Greg Johnson: Good morning, Dennis! Thanks for having me on your show!

DF: Hey, well, it’s nice to have you back! It’s been a while.

GJ: Yes, thanks again.

DF: One of the reasons I had to get you back is because you were on my show when I was on Oracle Broadcasting and all the archives from this era were lost and I’m going through my list of everybody I lost. OK, I’ve gotta get Greg back, I gotta get this guy back . . .

GJ: Oh, no! I didn’t know all that was lost. I wonder if I have a copy of it somewhere. I like to keep all these things for my own archive.

DF: Yes, equally, so do I and I just was stupid and didn’t pull it down. When they pulled the server everything left from this period, and I don’t have it, so I regret it. But I said, “OK, gotta invite you back.” Besides, people want you back, Greg. You’ve been kind of busy.

GJ: Yes.

DF: You were on, I think, not Red Ice, but you were with Lana on Radio 3Fourteen recently. Is that true?

GJ: Yes, that was a really good interview. I really enjoyed doing that.

DF: Yes, how did that go? Lana seems to be doing some really good work lately over at Radio 3Fourteen. How did the interview go?

GJ: Well, I thought it went quite well. I think my brain was working well that day, and she’s a great host. I’m very impressed with Red Ice. I’m very impressed with their range of work and how really professional they are, and Lana and Henrik are a pair of really sharp people, so I think it’s going to do great things in the future.

DF: Yes, I’m impressed with them also. I had Henrik on last weekend. It’s just great to have them on. I think they do great work also. That’s Red Ice Radio, everybody.

Greg, tell us a little bit for those who don’t know you. Now we’re over here at Revolution Radio at Freedomslips.com. Tell us a little about Counter-Currents. What do you guys focus on at Counter-Currents?

GJ: Counter-Currents was founded in 2010 as a partnership venture between me and Michael Polignano. He’s left since then. He left in 2013, so it’s just me now. Counter-Currents is a publishing company; we put out an occasional book, and we also have a webzine which is called North American New Right. Everybody just calls it Counter-Currents, though.

The purpose of it, really, is to infuse some of the ideas and also just some of the intellectuality of the European New Right into North America, because we come out of the White Nationalist milieu, and we think that ideas are very important. We need to get our ideas straight. We think that politics doesn’t just pop up because people have money and guns. Politics, on a deeper level, is influenced by fundamental ideas about what’s right, about our identity, about who we are, and about what’s possible. We call those basic ideas metapolitics, or it’s a part of metapolitics at least. Another part of metapolitics is just creating a community of believers in a particular idea, and eventually those sorts of things can gel into effective political movements.

So, we are a group of White Nationalists, broadly defined. We fear that white people in North America and around the world are currently on the path to extinction. We’re disappearing as a race. Our birth rates are lower than our death rates at this point, and if that keeps up there will be a point where the last white person dies, and there will be nobody to carry on our genes, our civilization. The light that we bring to this world will go out. And we think that the best solution to that is to create our own homelands where we can be secure. That’s the purpose of White Nationalism.

DF: OK. Now, we have, of course, Europe. Europe is, of course, traditionally, because you know how it is nowadays politically, but traditionally the homelands of “white people.” But these areas especially, equally, are under stress, but when you talk about homelands you’re including the United States and Canada, aren’t you?

GJ: Yes, that’s right.

DF: And I think we talked last time about the metapolitics. Really metapolitics is what we’re all doing. We’re trying to create to the best of our abilities some type of what I call a political constituency, laying that groundwork to allow for the political discourse.

How is it working for you? I mean, do you guys have public speakers going out? Is it all done through the web? Is it done through radio outreach like this? What are some of the methods you’re using to go out there and create this constituency?

GJ: Primarily, it’s online. Publishing the word, either in books or on the web. We do the occasional podcast. Since Mike left I haven’t really had a person that I can use to engineer podcasts, and I’ve just got so many other things to juggle in terms of print publishing and online publishing that I just haven’t been able to work that back into my life yet.

I do the occasional talk, and I’ve been looking to people like you and Lana and Joshua Blakeney and others recently to get my voice out there. So, instead of doing my own podcasting, I’m going around and knocking on people’s doors and saying, “Hey, let’s do another interview.” Those are the primary means.

DF: Good.

GJ: I do a bit of traveling. In the next few months, I’m going to be going around the United States, and then next spring I’m going to go back to Europe and speak in a couple places. So, that’s generally the way it works.

DF: [. . .] Where is Counter-Currents? How are you doing right now with the website, Greg? Are the numbers good? You rise, you fall? I mean, how are you doing right now with the website? How’s your reach?

GJ: Well, I hate to sound like one of these people who peaked in high school. Our peak really was at the end of 2012/beginning of 2013. There was a big wave of interest generated in our discussions by the 2012 presidential election, and a lot of discontented Republicans and people like that seemed to be tuning in. After a couple months, though, they went back to their old ways, basically, and started rooting for Rand Paul and things like that, and they tuned us out. So, things slipped back a bit.

I think we’ve been Googled. I’m trying to use that as a negative term. Google has screwed us a couple of times, I think. There have been two points in the last two years where, as if by an invisible hand, our search engine traffic has been turned way down. We fought our way back from that once, and then in February of this year again the invisible hand seemed to turn things down.

We have thousands of articles at Counter-Currents, and some of them are like encyclopedia articles, and one of the purposes of Counter-Currents is to basically claim the whole world for us. We have a worldview, and we have essays that put that worldview out there about practically every topic in the world. A lot of times these pieces, because they’re like encyclopedia articles, would be getting a thousand reads a month. Things I had published three or four years ago would be routinely getting read maybe by people doing research. They go to Google, they type it in, they get this thing and they read it.

Back in February, a lot of those pieces went from being read 1,000+ times a month to 40 times a month, and I thought that wasn’t an accident. Something was fishy there.

Anyway, to make a long story short, every time they do this to us we slowly fight our way back. Last month, we had about 85,000 unique visitors. We have about, I would say, 40,000 really hardcore readers at Counter-Currents and we do respectably well. That’s a good number of people. We did a fundraiser this year and we raised $40,000. Our books continue to sell, and I guess the best metric really as to how this is going is that I decided at a certain point that I wanted to be a full-time ideologue, a full-time metapolitical revolutionary, and Counter-Currents has been my bread and butter. I’ve been making a living doing this. Not a fabulous, opulent living, but I’ve been making a living doing what I think is the most important thing in the world, and that’s a level of freedom and a level of job fulfillment that a lot of people simply can’t claim.

So, on those terms, I think Counter-Currents is really a resounding success.

DF: How many titles do you have in your publishing house?

GJ: You know, I should know these things. I think it’s about 20 books have come out now over the last four-and-a-half years. I have a large backlog of things that I’m slowly getting through the printers. But, you know, I’m doing this on my own.

DF: Do you publish it yourself? I mean, does your company actually publish it? Is Counter-Currents a company?

GJ: Yes.

DF: Is it incorporated? Is it LLC whatever? It’s an actual company then?

GJ: Oh yes. We pay taxes and file paperwork and do all that kind of stuff. And “we” means me. Me, and all my supporters and writers. But when it comes right down to it I’m the guy who signs things and writes checks and puts them in the mail. So, yes, I’m running a small business, really, and the business is metapolitics.

DF: Building that political constituency is metapolitics.

GJ: Right, right. Exactly.

DF: Creating the space to allow people to move politically.

GJ: Yes, exactly. Making certain things seem possible. People say that politics is the art of the possible. Well, what determines people’s view of possibility? It’s their basic ideas about how the world works and about who they are. So, if you change people’s ideas about identity, about morality, about the politically possible, you make new things possible in the political realm and that’s what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to make White Nationalism conceivable for people that simply find it inconceivable and absurd at the present time, and I think that we’re making some inroads because I keep getting new people tuning in saying, “Hey, you’ve had a big influence on me. I’m beginning to see the world as you see it. Is there something I can do? I’d like to start writing for you.”

DF: Honestly, I think the group of you guys, and it’s not just you but there’s quite a lot out there now . . . I’m like a supporter. I’m not one of the group. You know, I’ve got my Chinese ex-wife and my Chinese-American son and things like that. I’m not a perfect spokesperson for it. I’m still supporting the effort, being a big fan of Western esoteric thought, of course. But I think you guys are making a great stride. I think it’s becoming political now, it’s becoming palatable. You had the recent guy Ransdell, I think it is, the guy “with Jews we lose” running for the Senate in Kentucky. But these types of things have a cumulative effect and I think that’s part of what you’re talking about in the metapolitics, would you agree?

GJ: Yes, I would. So, yes, there are a lot of different ways that people are hitting this to raise awareness, and it’s happening. I do think that one of the most important things for us is to have followers, of course, to have people who are actually on board, but another important thing, and this is what you were addressing in a way, is to have people who aren’t White Nationalists who will still follow what we’re doing with some interest and some sympathy and publicly say so every once in a while.

So, for instance, I really love Craig Bodeker’s film A Conversation about Race. There’s a scene in there where there’s this older woman named Mary Ann—I think that’s her name—who’s being interviewed by Bodeker and he asks her what she thinks about White Nationalists. She says she really doesn’t appreciate White Nationalists; she doesn’t agree with them. And then she gets sort of thoughtful, and she says, “But, you know, I can sympathize with their sense of loss.” And I thought, “Wow, that actually was the most important moment in a very important documentary.” Because if we had more people like that who are going to say, “I understand where these people are coming from.” They’re not just Martians, right? “They’re intelligible. I can sympathize with them up to this point.” That is making it possible for our discourse to enter the mainstream.

There’s a really good article at the Counter-Currents site by one of our best writers, Andrew Hamilton. It’s called “Join the Dance [3].” I really recommend that everybody who’s seriously interested in politics. Read “Join the Dance.” It’s a commentary on a YouTube video filmed at the Sasquatch Music Festival in Washington state. It was an open air music festival, and some band was playing, and off in the grass some guy was dancing alone. When you’re out there on your own dancing, you look like a fool, right? But, you know, everyone was drinking and having a good time, so why not go off and dance on your own? Anyway, what changed this guy from a lone nut to a leader of a trend was the first person who ran up and joined the dance. When a second person validated the first person socially . . .

DF: Yes, it’s like seconding the vote.

GJ: Seconding the motion. Yes, exactly! And then suddenly a crowd ran over, and they were all dancing. The lesson was that what changes a person from a lone nut to a leader is the first follower, right? The guy who seconds the motion. I really think that in terms of social dynamics more broadly than in politics that what you’re doing or what that woman Mary Ann was doing, what Jack Donovan is doing.

Jack Donovan says [4], “I’m not a White Nationalist, but I hang around with them, and they read my stuff, and they’re all cool people.” That validates us socially in a way that we cannot validate ourselves socially, and I think that is one of the signs that there is a groundswell, that the Zeitgeist is blowing in our direction finally, and I think that things are only going to get better.

DF: You know, I have a story kind of fitting what you’re thinking, and maybe it’s a strategy that can be thought about by people like yourself, not just yourself but others like you. I used to do a ton of business with the Japanese, and to do that you had to do two things. You had to golf, and you had to do karaoke. Those are the two things you must do back in the ’90s to do business with Japan. I couldn’t sing, Greg, I just couldn’t do it. So, I would go to this really grungy club in Gardena, California, and it would always be filled with some of the poorer Japanese businessmen, because it was a pretty grungy place, you know. She would always pay me to do one or two songs to get the night going. She wouldn’t pay me, but she’d let me sing for free, because you had to pay for the song. Once I started singing, it loosened up the crowd and everybody came.

GJ: Well, that’s really interesting and, of course, nobody can really sing well in karaoke, so don’t be so self-conscious, right? I mean, that’s half the fun I think.

DF: Yes, exactly. But I think people are afraid to move, so sometimes we just have to get people to break their fear of talking, break their fear of discussing the issues and that’s kind of what you’re about, that’s what this show’s about. We want to support the whole idea.

GJ: Yes, break the ice.

DF: Break the ice, yes. Make this politically palatable so we’re comfortable speaking about it, because at the end of the day why shouldn’t what we believe in be allowed . . . It’s almost like we’ve been socially conditioned to not allow ourselves to speak about our own rights, and I think that’s a shame and it’s a diabolical tactic.

GJ: I think it is, too. One of the best and most important essays on our website is Michael Polignano’s essay “Taking Our Own Side [5].” There’s this line from Robert Frost that a liberal is a man who won’t take his own side in an argument. The line that Mike says in there is really good. He says, “In a war to the death, not taking your own side is suicide.” And really whites are taught that it is simply, per se, immoral to take their own side in an ethnic conflict with another group. If you really fight under those rules, you will lose, and you will disappear, because the penalty for loss in this world, ultimately, is death.

I do think white extinction is a real possibility [6]. There are many recognized causes of extinction, and unfortunately white people are suffering from all of them. We are suffering from habitat loss, we’re suffering from predation, we’re suffering from hybridization, and so forth. And really, the only way to stop that process is for us to have our own secure living and breeding spaces where we can just go about our business in the way that seems best for us.

I’m working on an essay now that’s been somewhat inspired by a friend of mine who’s going through marital difficulties. I’ve been listening to her talk about the situation, and it occurred to me that really the situation in her marriage is like the relationship of blacks and whites in America–or you could apply it to Jews and whites in America, too–which is that there is so much suspicion and bitterness now that it’s almost impossible for each party to hear the other party objectively anymore. Bitterness is a kind of neurosis where you carry around a whole lot of negative feelings towards a person, and every time they speak it just triggers all those negative feelings to flood back, and you can’t even hear them anymore, and you can’t even have a relationship with them in the present anymore, and really it’s impossible to envision that ever getting better. So, the solution when a relationship gets that poisoned is divorce, and in a way what I’m simply saying, “Enough is enough. Let’s start thinking about divorce in America.”

There are all these ethnic groups that are supposed to be living together, and diversity is a great strength and so forth, which of course no serious political thinker in human history has ever maintained the idea that you can make a society stronger by making it more diverse. But we’ve been sold that silly bill of goods in the past 100 years, and the truth of the matter is that the more diversity, the more conflict, and the more conflict you have over time, the more bitterness and the more bitterness, the less capable we are of actually dealing with one another in the present or having a future together.

You know, if I was a marriage counselor counseling blacks and whites in America and looking at Ferguson, for instance, and just seeing the level of deep aggrievement, I would just say this relationship cannot be repaired. It’s time for a divorce. That’s one of the ways I think we should think of this. Divorce is a perfectly legitimate way of dealing with a relationship that simply won’t go forward, and I think the relationship between the major racial groups in the United States is, unfortunately, that poisoned. So, White Nationalism in a way is simply saying, “Let’s have a divorce, and let’s see if we can live separately and have separate destinies from this point forward.”

DF: How hot is the immigration button right now with you at Counter-Currents? Is this something that’s being discussed or is it really not a big issue at Counter-Currents?

GJ: Oh, it’s a huge issue. You know, I try and let other websites carry some conversations so I don’t have to. So, for instance, VDare.com [7]. They focus almost entirely on immigration, and they do great work. That said, I read VDare every day, and I’m completely in sync with their concerns, and we do publish things occasionally on immigration.

Immigration is a bad thing, it’s a destructive thing, and it needs to be stopped. But that’s not enough. Right now, if we cut off all immigration into the United States today, yesterday, we still have a huge problem, and that is that we have tens of millions, if not 100 million, non-whites in the United States, and those groups are actually reproducing themselves whereas whites are not. Whites have below replacement fertility, these groups have above replacement fertility. So, even if we cut off the influx from outside that only postpones the day when we become minorities in our own country, the country that we created, the system that we created and that other people find so attractive.

So, we need to stop immigration first, but that is not the final solution. (I hate to use words like that.) That’s not the solution to the problem demographically, because what we really need to do is address fertility differentials among the races, and ultimately that means that we’re going to have to use things like emigration. We’re going to have to cease immigration and commence emigration. We’re going to have to encourage some of these people to go home. Other peoples who are either indigenous to the Americas or long-settled here or whose ancestors were brought here involuntarily, like Black slaves, we’ll have to find other solutions for them. I think that the reservation system for American Indians is a good thing, and, of course, the entire North American continent south of the Rio Grande plus all of Central and South America is a vast, if you will, reservation for Amerindians, but we also have our own populations north of the Rio Grande, and they deserve a place, it was their continent. I think Blacks in America should have their own homeland.

We have to begin thinking in those terms. We have to think of moving populations, which has never been cheaper and easier than the present day, which is why we have such an immigration problem to begin with. It’s feasible for millions and millions of people to come here. Therefore, it’s feasible for tens of millions of people to leave, right?

DF: This idea of moving populations, let’s be honest, it happened with the American Indians. But what Americans don’t understand is that these mass immigrations are just really part of what have shaped Eastern Europe and Asia. It’s just part of the landscape with the Stalins. I know you approach this whole idea on an intellectual level. How do you think that you can do this in a way that will work?

We’re going to go into a break everybody. Greg Johnson from Counter-Currents is here on Inside the Eye Live: Intelligent Media for the Politically Aware. We’ll be right back after this.

DF: Alright. Welcome back, everybody. This is the Fetch live on Inside the Eye: Intelligent Media for the Politically Aware here on Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.

[. . .]

Joining us from the West Coast, I believe, Greg Johnson. He is the editor-in-chief of Counter-Currents. Counter-currents.com.

Greg, welcome back.

GJ: Thanks. Thanks for having me on Dennis.

DF: Are you in southern California?

GJ: No, I am at an undisclosed location on the West Coast. Yes, I got tracked down by these peace and love mongers, the Antifa types, and they started harassing me in San Francisco.

DF: Really?

GJ: Yes.

DF: Wow.

GJ: I had ideas that they didn’t think fit in with the Bay Area community, so they started harassing me through a brick and a paint bomb through my neighbor’s window. They couldn’t get the right window.

DF: Oh, that’s no joke.

GJ: Oh no, it’s no joke. And anyway, I basically thought, “This is a sign from God that I need to find a different location.” So, I have moved, but I kind of want to keep where I’m located secret for obvious reasons.

DF: Security reasons, as they say.

Joining us from the 704 area code. Hi, welcome to Inside the Eye Live with Greg Johnson.

Guest: Hello, Fetch. I wanted to pose a question for your guest and, actually, really for the audience.

As time goes by and whites become a minority, who’s going to look out for white people? I mean, if white people don’t start looking out for themselves, exactly who do they think is going to do it?

GJ: Well, good question. That’s the question that I want a lot of people to think about. You know, white people have this attitude that we need to look out for everybody but ourselves and there’s a deep down assumption there that we’re always going to be in charge, we’re always going to be powerful, there’s no unhappy ending for white people.

That’s a phrase from Christian Lander, the guy who wrote Stuff White People Like. I went to a talk he gave in 2010 out in San Francisco. He had a new book out and he was talking about how Stormfront types, White Nationalist types would contact him and say, “You shouldn’t be making fun of white people!” or “How can you do this?” and Lander’s response was, “I don’t worry about that, because with white people no unhappy ending is possible.” I think that’s a very smug attitude. It’s the attitude that, first of all, we run things, which I think is dubious, and, second, that we’ll always be running things no matter what the demographic composition of society is. That’s a foolish assumption to make, and there will come a day when whites no longer control their destiny. Politically speaking, it’s already arriving in certain states of the United States. Well, it’s already arrived in towns like Detroit, right? Or Camden, New Jersey and Atlanta, Georgia. All these majority black cities. And we just see how livable that situation is. Whites flee those places, or if they stay there they are a little bit, how to say it nicely, they’re a little bit dug in, jumpy and paranoid. They live in highly segregated neighborhoods, although they would deplore that for poor white people. You know, if they have enough money, they live in segregated neighborhoods, though economically segregated neighborhoods.

But the point is we all believe that being a minority is a horrible thing, right? And yet we believe that morality requires it, and cosmic justice requires it, and it’s just inevitable anyway that whites will be a minority in their own homelands. Of course, we’re a minority, globally speaking, already and we’re a minority in America’s least livable cities. So, we really do need to wake up to the fact that we’re not always going to be in charge, and when we’re not in charge, and when we’ve handed over control of our lives to people who despise us, things are only going to get worse.

However, I think on a deeper level we need to awaken to the fact that it was a long time ago that whites lost control of their destiny to people who despise us. It’s just that these people seem to look white, and I’m really talking about Jews. I think that in the United States, and really throughout all the White world, there is a subtle and not so subtle Jewish hegemony that’s established itself, and that Jews despise whites, and that one of the reasons why every white country is being slated for mass immigration of non-whites is that Jews feel more comfortable in a kind of Middle Eastern souk environment where it’s all mixed up and there are all these different kinds of people moving back and forth, and they can be the middlemen who float to the top. They want the whole world to be like the Star Wars cantina, but they’re going to be the ones running things in that scenario.

Whites are not going to be running things in that kind of scenario. We’re not adapted for that kind of situation. We don’t reproduce well in diverse environments. That’s one of the clearest things about whites. These hip, young white people in San Francisco love the diversity, they love living in the Mission and going to their pie shops and hat shops and coffee bars and things like that. As soon as one of them gets pregnant, however, it’s amazing how fast they will be out in the majority white suburbs, where they feel comfortable having babies, because white reproduction is really, I think, depressed in subliminally unsafe environments and that the brain is wired to feel unsafe around diversity. I think the Jews, being a Middle Eastern people, are less uncomfortable around that kind of diversity than whites, and I think that it affects us very negatively to live in diverse environments. I do think that one of the major causes of collapsing white birthrates is a simple feeling of a lack of safety because of diversity and that’s one of the things that’s been driving the suburbanization and exurbanization in the United States and Canada for 50 years now, fleeing diversity into safe places where white people feel like they can raise their families.

Guest: I agree with everything you just said and I would reiterate that I think it is an illusion that white people run anything: the government, even the religion of Christianity in America. It’s run really by Jews. They are able to live and work and rule over us without anyone even knowing it.

I hear all these people call in to these so-called patriot and truther shows, and they don’t understand that these are not white people. They’re Jewish, that are in control and are the primary movers and shakers in all of this, and they don’t understand that. They think that Jewish people are just White people that have a different religion.

And I agree with you. I think that most Jews in their heart of hearts do resent white people, and they will do whatever they can to debase white people, to destroy the innocence of white people’s children. They love doing that. They relish destroying the innocence of white children.

DF: Starting with Santa Claus. That’s innocence at the end of the day, you know?

Guest: One other side note I wanted to make. I was watching a documentary recently. I think it was from the History Channel or something. I taped it many years ago. But I’m a veteran and I’m kind of into security and military and paramilitary stuff. This one piece in the documentary was about the Diplomatic Security Services, DSS, within the government and they provide security for diplomats overseas and what not. They were just showing all the problems and issues with the violence and brutality and infighting in Liberia. It’s a very, very dangerous place, and it’s pretty well-documented with video and what not. You can probably imagine it, but they said that where this really started, primarily, was when the freed slaves from America went back. I guess they chose, or maybe they were forced. I’m not an expert on that part of history. The freed slaves tried to enslave the Blacks that were already living there.

This is one point that I’ll finish up with that you’re obviously well aware of. But so many whites . . . We do have the numbers right now, but they’re diminishing. But they’re neutered! They’re neutralized because of white guilt. We’re taught white guilt from the time we enter the public education system in so many different ways and from the media. Even though we still have the numbers, we don’t use our numbers now because of white guilt. We’re taught to be ashamed of being white and the Blacks and Hispanics are told “Black Power,” “Hispanic Power,” “La Raza.” That’s OK. That’s healthy, because they should be a cohesive group to work for their rights. But if a white person is even just halfway proud of being white . . .

[. . .]

DF: OK, Greg. You’re back. Again, Greg, sorry about that. We added a caller to the line, and as soon as that caller was added everything just disappeared.

GJ: Ah, OK. I was wondering what was going on.

DF: I am not going to add that caller again, because maybe there’s a bug in it. You know what I mean? You accept that call, you disappear.


DF: But going back to what Frank, he’s a long-term supporter and caller to the show. Go back to what he said about the Liberian situation. Moving a lot of the Blacks back to Liberia. We talked about that before the break and we kind of got sidetracked. I want to get into that just a bit. Obviously, you’re still involved in the early foundation of metapolitics. You’re trying to get the foundation to support this idea of a divorce, which is something that you’ve discussed and it makes some sense on a political level.

How do you do that with something like America? How would you move, let’s say, a population out of New Orleans after Katrina? You create a lot of these disasters to move them out? How do you intellectually put something like this into play?

GJ: Well, that’s a good question. I wrote an essay, it’s on the Counter-Currents.com website, called “The Slow Cleanse [8].” Basically, that’s just an essay about how one could conceive of moving large populations around. I do think that the solution to the white demographic problem requires making white homelands and that’s going to require two things: drawing new borders and also moving populations.

A lot of people think, “Well, that’s just inconceivable. How could you do that?” But it’s totally conceivable. In fact, it’s happening all the time. Right now there are mass population movements going on in the world. It’s just always to our disadvantage, right? We just need to set the trends in motion so those mass movements of people are now accruing to the advantage of whites, that we get more and more homogenous homelands.

First of all, I say that we have to stop thinking about this in terms of quick fixes. There’s a lot of kind of revolutionary fantasy literature put out there by White Nationalists. I’m thinking about William Pierce and Harold Covington in particular where they envision this as a quick hot process of ethnic cleansing that’s violent. You know, something like that. I think that’s counter-productive.

White demographic decline is something that’s been engineered. I am completely convinced of that. But it was engineered to happen slowly over time, and I think that we can have a slow solution as well. A slow solution is a good idea, because we want to be humane, we want to be practical, and yet at the end we want to be left with our own homogenous homelands.

So, how do we do this? We just create incentives for people who are not white to move. A lot of people think, “Oh, that’s a terrible thing! It’s a terrible thing! Forcing somebody to move!” But really, when you think about it, people are forced to move all the time, primarily for economic reasons.

DF: Don’t pay your mortgage, see if you’re not forced to move.

GJ: Yes, exactly! When you go into the job market, you’ve got to go where the jobs are. Once you’ve got a job, you could be moved around by your employer. When you lose a job, you’ve got to go where the jobs are again. When the cost of living in your hometown skyrockets like it was in San Francisco, for instance, largely due to speculation or things that are happening in the market, people who have lower incomes and can’t keep up are forced to move to cheaper places. We are sleeping very well at night when people are being forced to move all the time for pure reasons of economic greed. It’s as simple as that. It’s economic greed.

DF: That’s a good argument you put there.

GJ: Yes. So, why not accept that people could be forced to move for better reasons than simply private interests, namely public interests?

DF: Greg, I think the word is wrong. It’s not forced, but coaxed.

GJ: Coaxed. Yes, and that’s what I really want to do. So, let’s just say, “All right. I’m going to draw new borders and this is going to be the white homeland in northern California.” First of all, we’re not concerned about people who are over 50, OK? Their parenting days are over. So, somebody say 50 and over, we’re not concerned with. If there’s a nice Asian or black family living there, and they’re retired, I have no quarrel with them. They are not going to be reproducing anymore, and eventually, like everybody, they’ll just die. We don’t want to disturb these people at all. They’re not a problem.

The problem is the younger people who are reproducing. What do you want to do with them? Well, you just give them incentives to move. If they’re working for a multinational corporation, we tell the corporation, “Look, there are all kinds of conditions for them doing business here and one is the next time this person moves because of their job, they move outside our borders.” Simple things like that. Over a 50 year period I think you could dramatically change the demographics of an area slowly and gradually.