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

Joshua Blakeney Interviews Greg Johnson, Part 3

3,572 words

Agostino Carracci, Head of a Faun in a Concave,  1595 [1]

Agostino Carracci, Head of a Faun in a Concave, 1595

Part 3 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: the possibilities of white alliances with Muslims against Zionism, the desirability of concentrating all Jews in a homeland, and the Jewish subversion of European nationalism. 

Joshua Blakeney: Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters! Welcome back to the third segment of this episode of The Real Deal. I am still your host, Joshua Blakeney, and I’m still here with Dr. Greg Johnson, author of Old Right vs. New Right and Confessions of a Reluctant Hater.

Prior to the break, Greg had been explaining exactly why, for example, it’s important in his view that the white race has longevity and doesn’t succumb to deracination and multiculturalism and so on. He also stated that he was with the colonized and opposed to the colonizers, opposed to imperialism. Obviously, some would say we are living in the era of Israeli empire, we’re living in the sort of era where the Zionists have taken over the American empire and that the war against the people of Iraq, the wars against the Muslim world are being spearheaded by Zionists using the largely Gentile troops of the American military, and now Canada’s military is bombing Iraq as we speak.

So, where do you stand on the Israel/Palestine question? One criticism I have of your movement, Greg, is that I perceive many members of your movement who live in countries like I do where there are hate speech laws, they say, “OK, it’s illegal for me, effectively, to criticize Jews and Jewish power and so I’m going to just spend 90% of my time parroting Zionist propaganda against Muslims because that’s OK and that’s acceptable.” People like Nick Griffin can get votes by doing that and get traction.

It seems like there’s this kind of odd Stockholm syndrome almost where the people who have innovated the anti-white policies are the people whose propaganda much of the White Nationalist movement parrots vis-à-vis Muslims. Especially when you look into the phenomenon of terrorism in the West and the reality that there are often Mossad agents and Israeli tentacles on these incidents and there are allegations that terrorists aren’t completely organically emerging from the Muslim world but are actually Israeli false flag terrorist operations. It just seems very redundant and very disingenuous for White Nationalists to parrot Zionist propaganda. Is that a fair perception I’ve just espoused, Greg?

GJ: Joshua, those are good points. Those are good questions, and it bothers me when I hear people who are on my side basically parroting what sounds like Neo-Conservative talking points. However, ultimately, for me, what’s most important is my people and their freedom. Yes, Jews are a major problem in the West. They are the architects of multiculturalism; they are the people who are leading us off into various wars around the world, especially in the neighborhood of Israel, and so forth. Yet, at the same time, Islamic colonization in Europe is a huge problem, and therefore a lot of the things that sound like Neo-Con talking points really are relevant to what’s going on in Europe.

I’ve been very, very sensitive when I look at these anti-Jihadist sites and things like that to see the fingerprints, if you will, of some kind of Zionist control whereby people are being distracted away from the Jewish angle to focus entirely on Islam. I think that we don’t have to choose between the two though. We have to take our own side on this. We are not forced to take sides with Jews or Islam. They want to pose things to us in that way. I don’t think that we have to take that deal. I think that in the end we all have to take our own sides on this.

JB: Yeah, so white Europeans, as you’ve explained, are seemingly being targeted by the Zionists and you referred to them as a conquered people, which seems to be, in my view, largely accurate, but also Arabs and Muslims are being targeted, and in a way we’re sort of worse off than Arabs and Muslims because they still have the patriarchal family, they still have a certain element of organic unity, and in some ways we can sort of learn from the Muslim world, I think. There are those who would say it’s surely sensible for a white-Arab or white-Persian or Christian-Muslim alliance against our shared oppressors. You say we don’t have to choose between being friends with Israel or being friends with the Muslim world, but I think it’s just a sort of logical thing seeing as how we’re both undergoing this Frankfurt School destabilization and cultural subversion and Christian whites are being asked to go and fight Muslim Arabs and vice versa and I think Muslim Arabs are being equipped seemingly by the Israeli Mossad to come and do terrorist attacks against our people in the West that we rise above this and unify and try to defeat international Zionism between the hammer of white European Christian society and the anvil of the Ummah, of the Muslim world. Because you know most Muslims are not terroristic.

An addendum I would like to add to that is that Israel’s foreign policy is the Oded Yinon plan, namely the attempt to destabilize the Middle East and so any support for Israel would, by definition, be producing millions of Muslim refugees. I think there’s two million refugees produced by the destabilization of Syria, which was a key component of Israeli foreign policy to undermine one of the few governments in the Middle East that doesn’t consent to Israeli hegemony. You haven’t really explained your full position on Israel yet, and I’ll let you do that in a minute, but any support for Israel would be effectively helping to facilitate the further destabilization of the Middle East, which will produce more Arab and Muslim immigrants to Europe and to North America. The presupposition for any support for Israel would be that really the Jews just want this peaceful, quiet little Jewish state in the Middle East that leaves itself to itself and it’s only these nasty, crazy Arabs who are targeting it which is causing the problem, but the reality is that we know that Israel has its schemes against the Palestinians that it is implementing, it has regional agendas and it also has global agendas and therefore it seems to me that Israel will never be anything but a headquarters for international Zionism, which means therefore we have a vested interest in supporting those who are resisting Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.

Does that make sense?

GJ: It makes sense in this sense: First of all, I want Jews out of Europe and out of America, and that means they need to go somewhere, and so I like the idea of a Jewish homeland. I think the fact that there is a Jewish homeland already on the ground, up and running, in the Near East is something that we should just accept and work with. I think that the ends justify the means in this case. I think it would be great if the Zionist project were completed. I think that Israel is such a big problem, of course, because Jews are a very aggressive people, and they’re going to try to get whatever advantages they can. I think they would be less of a problematic people if they did not have the ability to throw the weight of the United States and, through the United States, NATO, and other countries behind them in their struggles.

So, let’s just imagine a world where Zionism is completed, where Jews have left Europe and the United States, and the United States and Europe are not under effective Jewish foreign policy control. Therefore, Israel would have to try to be a better neighbor, I think, because they simply would not be able to have the United States and Europe fight wars for them. I think that they would suddenly find it more in their interest to be a little less of a bad neighbor and a little less of a destabilizing force. That’s what I hope.

In terms of the Muslim populations that are currently in Europe and the United States, I’d like to see them repatriated as well. I’d like to see the refugee Palestinians repatriated, and that means I think there should be a two-state solution, that the Palestinians should have their own state. I think that a lot of the instability in the region is caused by the fact that, again, Israel can count on the United States to fight for it and to enable it to destabilize its neighbors. I think that if Israel could not count on that they would have to have a less bellicose and belligerent relationship with their neighbors. They wouldn’t be great people to have around. That’s why I want them to leave the United States and go there. I have to say, I wouldn’t wish Israel on my worst enemies as a neighbor. And yet for very sound Realpolitik reasons, I want the Israeli state to exist, and I want Zionism to be completed.

Does that mean that I am anti-Arab or anti-Muslim? No. I want them to keep their Ummah. I want them to keep their part of the world. I want Europe to maintain itself. And I don’t see any reason why we need to fight. I think that there has been a history of conflict. I think that there is an imperialist, universalist impulse in Islam that has been a problem in the past. I think that the West is strong enough, if we get our heads screwed on straight, and if we stop listening to multiculturalists and Jews, that we can be completely secure against that in the future. I don’t think that is really a threat. I would like to see that kind of peaceful and amicable world, that kind of settlement. And I think it would be enormously advantageous to whites, and that’s the primary group I’m thinking of. I think that if Israel were somewhat pacified and did not have the United States fighting its battles, while it gallantly holds our coat, that it would be less of a bad neighbor. I’m not going to claim that they’re ever going to be a great neighbor to be around, but that’s sort of the best I can offer from the point of view of a self-interested white person.

And yes, it is something of a contradiction. I tend to sympathize with the colonized. I sympathize with the Palestinians. Why? Because we’re both under Jewish occupation. And I admire the Palestinians because, unlike my own people, they are fighting back. Yet, at the same time, I would like the Israeli entity to continue to exist and to be the homeland for all the world’s Jews. I think that would be a really good deal for white countries where they are the primary problem. So, anyway, that’s my outline of the situation.

JB: Yeah, you came up with this phrase, “the completion of the Zionist project.” But, you know, that kind of requires defining because there are some who would say the completion of the Zionist project is the complete expulsion of the Palestinians, the destabilization of the Middle East, the creation of ethnostatelets in the Middle East, permanent strife, permanent ethnic conflict, so the Arabs and Muslims and Persians are squabbling amongst themselves so they’re not fighting the Zionist cuckoo in the nest. So, don’t you owe us a definition of “the completion of the Zionist project,” because this idea that it’s just going to be a tiny, little, quaint Jewish state that keeps itself to itself . . . Then there’s this whole issue of Al-Quds being occupied, the Al-Aqsa mosque, which is I think the third most holy site in Islam, being occupied by Zionists. You say Realpolitik, but from an Arab/Muslim/Persian perspective how is the existence of Israel ever going to be anything other than an aberration and intolerable?

Lady Michèle Renouf, who I am sure you are familiar with, she has drawn attention to the Jewish Autonomous Region in Russia. It sounds sort of way out there like a radical, bizarre theory to come up with, but she has suggested that yes, Israel doesn’t have a right to exist, yes, we have this problem, obviously, with Zionist controlling our government and she has said the Jews prior to 1948 already had an ethnic Jewish zone in the far east of Russia. I have often wondered whether that might be one way to overcome this issue.

So, don’t you owe us an explanation, because it seems to me that Israel, regardless of whether Israel controls the US government or controls the British government, is pushing to be the number one hegemon on planet Earth. They don’t have just regional schemes. It seems that what’s going on in Ukraine right now has a lot to do with Israel. They want to be a global empire. It’s a new world order that they’re trying to establish and some would say therefore it’s kind of naïve to say “the completion of the Zionist project” as if it’s just to try to create borders within the river and the sea, that they want to push for global hegemony.

GJ: Well, I understand what you’re saying. I have a sort of “Not in My Backyard” attitude about the Jewish state, obviously, and I totally understand why the Muslims say, “Yes, but not in my backyard either!” Unfortunately, it is in their backyard, and I kind of think it’s more likely to stay there given that they have a mountain of nuclear and biological and chemical weapons that they’re sitting on. I don’t think it’s going to go away any time soon. I think, though, that the idea that Jews simply with Israel could have global power is not very likely. Israel would be a small, crowded country with a lot of weapons, but I don’t think that without its ability to influence US and European policy that it really could project global power. I think it would be a kind of Switzerland in the Near East. No offense to the Swiss, but by that I simply mean a small, well-armed fortress in the Middle East.

By “the completion of the Zionist project,” what I really mean is the idea that Jews will have their own state and that they would all live there. That’s all I mean by it. Herzl and other Zionists really had the idea that Jews need to be a normal people, meaning that they can’t just occupy economic niches in other people’s societies, but they have to create their own society where they occupy all the economic roles, where they actually have to do manual labor and things like that, where they can’t just be middlemen. I think that is a noble idea, and I would like that to happen. I think that if something like that did happen, that’s really the best solution to the Jewish problem, certainly from the point of view of Europeans, because, although of course it’s Israel’s neighbors that are taking a real beating in terms of wars and revolutions and things like that, these people are in no danger of long-term extinction. I do think, however, that Jewish hegemony in European countries manifests itself in less overtly war-like and bloody battles. You know, there are no mushroom clouds or phosphorus bombs over European cities yet, but the long-term demographic trends largely engineered by Jewish power are quite ominous for Europe.

So, who has it worse? The people in Gaza or the Europeans? Well, in terms of heart-wrenching images of bloody children and things like that, Gaza has it hands down. But in terms of long-term demographic prospects, Palestinians, Muslims, Arabs, Persians, those people aren’t in any danger. They have their homelands, except for the Palestinians of course; they have healthier societies, intact families, and things like that. I think that they have it good compared to Europeans in a lot of ways. Doesn’t mean I am not sympathetic to them, but I’m more sympathetic to my own people.

I do recognize that there are inevitable conflicts between people, and I think it’s unfortunate that Jews are currently pitting Europeans against Muslims and using each group to attack the other. Americans, British, people like that are attacking Muslims in the Middle East, in the Near East. There’s no question about it, and that’s engineered by Jews. Jews have also engineered the Islamic colonization of Europe in which the demographic long-term future of Europeans is being threatened by Islamic colonization. They are pitting both groups against each other for their own advantage. I think that we do have conflicts of interest, but we also have a common interest, I think, in preventing that situation from continuing. But in terms of my long-term vision of how I’d like this to play out, the Zionist entity is still going to be there right next-door, I hope, to a prosperous and secure Palestinian state. That’s really, for me, the best I can hope for, and I know that sounds very utopian and “Give Peace A Chance,” and I am very, very aware that Jews will not play by those rules as long as they have the power to throw Europe and the United States into fighting their battles. I think that if we can stop that, if we can raise awareness of how Jewish power works in the world that we can undermine their power to pit European societies against Muslims, and I think we can also undermine their power to use Muslim colonization against Europeans.

JB: You’ve criticized the French New Right thinker, Guillaume Faye, who has proposed that white Europeans build an alliance with the Jews against Islam. You’ve criticized that viewpoint, which is sort of embodied in the philosophy of the Zionist-sponsored groups like the EDL, for example, right?

GJ: Yes. I look at people like Faye and I look at people like Wilders and others who are primarily anti-Islamic and want to be pro-Jewish and think that Jews who have approached them and said that, “We have common interests with you. We should ally. We should be friends. You should stop criticizing Jews and focus on the Muslim issue and we’ll give you better press,” or whatever they’re promising. I think that’s folly. I do not believe that Jews feel threatened by Muslims in Europe. I think that the idea that there can be an alliance between the European ethnic Right and Jews in Europe on the grounds that Jews are threatened by Islamic colonization just like whites is folly. It’s foolish, and the main reason I think that is that Jews chose to put their ethnostate in a sea of Muslims. They are less afraid of Muslims than they are of Europeans. I think we have to understand that. Jews are less afraid of Muslims than they are of Europeans, and Jews consistently support Islamic colonization in Europe. Why? Because they think that Europeans in Europe are the greater enemy. They feel more secure in a Europe where white Europeans are becoming a minority and are constantly on the ropes because of the turmoil caused by massive influx of non-whites into Europe.

Jews feel advantaged by that, and if they were afraid of that, and if they wanted to change the Islamic colonization of Europe, they would not need to ally themselves with marginal European nationalist parties. Their leadership would be on the phone to the leaders of all the major parties and to the people who run the major press outlets, and overnight there would be an instant consensus that Islamization has to stop. It would be a consensus up and down the political spectrum. It would be the mainstream consensus being barked out by all the media outlets, because that’s what real power allows them to do. They have real power in Europe right now, and they do not need to ally themselves with marginal nationalist parties to fight Islamization if they were really concerned with that.

So, the question that I always have is: if they don’t need an alliance with people like Guillaume Faye and people like Geert Wilders and others like that, why are they there? What are they after? What they are after is the neutralization of European nationalists on the Jewish question. They are there simply to retard discussion of the Jewish problem in European nationalist circles, and that’s the only reason they’re there. I think that we have to resist this kind of Jewish subversion, because that’s really what’s going on. It’s simply the Jewish subversion of European nationalism under the guise that a few Jews are worried somehow about Islamic colonization in Europe. They’re not. It’s a ruse.

That’s my basic position on this matter.

JB: We’re at the point of the third break, unfortunately, Greg, so could you hold that thought until after the break, please?

GJ: Sure.

JB: OK, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to go to the third break of this episode of The Real Deal featuring Dr. Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents Publishing. We’ll be back momentarily.