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

Greg Johnson’s Red Ice Radio Interview, Part 2
On Conspiracy Theories

MillesOrpheusFountain [1]

Carl Milles, Orpheus Fountain, Stockholm

4,020 words

Editor’s Note:

This is the transcript by V.S. of the second installment my interview with Henrik Palmgren on Red Ice Radio from May 29, 2015, which you can listen to it at Red Ice Creations [2]. This is actually the second part of the second hour, which is behind a pay wall. I recommend that all Counter-Currents readers become subscribers to Red Ice Creations. There is a huge amount of very good information and interviews behind their pay wall. 

Henrik Palmgren: You hear the discussion these days of no borders or open borders when again traditionally if we look at it, everything has boundaries to it and has had that historically. Even down to the personal space around us. Stand a little too close to somebody, and try to tell him, “It doesn’t exist. No boundaries exist.” Animals have it. Tribes have it. This notion that we can throw these things out the window overnight — literally in terms of the historical perspective here of how quickly these changes are occurring, massive changes, population replacement in a very short time here — and still expect in some way that things are just going to clock along as usual, and there’s no problem; it’s all going to be good. These are delusional ideas, and that’s why it’s easy, I think, Greg, to go back to this idea that this is not by accident. This is not just happening as a side effect. Sure, there might be participation in it because we’ve been charged morally — moral indictments as Kevin MacDonald calls it — but there are other pressures behind it to get us into this position.

If you will, it is a conspiracy of sorts of doing this towards us. It’s difficult for me, anyway, to see it any other way.

GJ: Yeah, I agree. I think that we are experiencing a managed decline, a managed destruction.

I’m working on an article right now, actually, that I’ve been rehearsing in my mind for years now. It’s called “White Genocide,” and it deals with the genocide meme that has been popularized by Bob Whitaker and his people, and it basically makes the argument that White genocide is real and that the principal architects and defenders of White genocide are the organized Jewish community and that this is not an accident. This is a conscious policy, because there is no group on the planet that is more aware of the conditions that promote or inhibit genocide than Jewry, than the organized Jewish community, and they take enormous care at erecting boundaries against genocide towards themselves.

What are the things they do? Well, they have to have their own ethnostate that is defined as a Jewish state. It’s not defined as a pluralistic state, as a multicultural state. It’s defined as a Jewish state. They are very, very concerned with intermarriage, which is something that Jews tend to promote for every other group. Jews want to have an ethno-state for themselves, and they want to prohibit ethno-states for everybody else. They worry about intermarriage for themselves, and they promote it for everybody else. They are very concerned with passing on and maintaining their identity and their pride in their traditions, whereas they are very much opposed to Whites doing that.

When you just look at that pattern it cannot be an unconscious thing. This is not just some ghastly mistake that they’ve somehow backed into without knowing what they do. They know what they do, and I am not going to forgive them, because they know what they do. So, I really do think that the managed decline of the White race is basically a Jewish, if you will, conspiracy. It’s a pretty open conspiracy. You can read about it on the front pages of every newspaper. You just have to connect all the dots and draw the right conclusions. But they are working to promote conditions that will lead, and that they know will lead, to our long-term destruction, and they would never permit another people to impose those conditions on themselves. They’d be screaming genocide. That’s what they are engaged in committing. They are engaged in promoting genocide against the White race.

HP: So, if this is a conspiracy, do you think it’s possible to get the conspiracy crowd, if we can put it that way, a substantial group online that is getting a lot of traction, to see the evidence of some of the things you’ve talked about? And sure we haven’t laid all of those points out here, but we’ve talked with some other guests in the past about that, and there are certainly some things we could talk about in order to substantiate the claim you just made, but we have people out there talking about these issues.

Just from a psychological operation point of view, it’s one of the most extraordinary things. Nothing like this, as far as I know, has ever happened like this in the history of the world before where a people willingly give away, if you will, their nations to others and just basically back away. The way that this is being performed, that in itself should be the study and inquiry of academics in many, many years to come unless of course something is done about this.

But my point is that that alone is an aspect that makes it right for people to realize what’s happening. Do you think it’s going to become more known and more people are going to talk about this and people from the conspiracy crowd, if we can put it that way, will see what’s happening here? What do you think?

GJ: Well, I think you have to make a distinction between the audience for conspiracy theories and the leading spokesmen for these theories. I think that the audience is a group of people who . . . Well, they’re a mixed bag. On the one hand, they are somewhat red-pilled; they’re somewhat unplugged from the mainstream outlook on things. On the other hand, I think a lot of them tend to be paranoid and credulous. I think that the way that their minds work is oftentimes irrational, and therefore it’s hard to do much with people who are not rational, and it’s very difficult to build organizations and movements of people who are paranoid. I’m very leery of any signs of the paranoid style of thinking amongst the people that I encounter in the White Nationalist scene.

But these people are still open to understanding what’s going on, and frankly I think that the only conspiracy that matters, the absolute masterpiece of conspiracy and the masterpiece of conspiracy theory, is the so-called Jewish conspiracy. I think that it’s not a secret back room conspiracy. I don’t think that if we could just arrest a group of people in a back room that it would all come to an end. It’s instantiated in a much more widespread and diffused sort of way, but it is in effect a Jewish conspiracy.

However, I think that because the Jewish problem, the Jewish question is such a masterpiece of conspiracy, and is really the great conspiracy that matters, part of their conspiracy, if you will, is to inoculate people against the true conspiracy by stuffing their minds full of false and silly conspiracies. So, I do think that if I were in their position, if I were in the position of the organized Jewish community, and I were worried that our own machinations were going to be exposed what I would do is immunize the population against this. Immunize them in two ways.

(1) I would immunize the general population against this by basically creating a widespread attitude that conspiracies and conspiracy theories are irrational and false and that they attract kooks and people who are low status and not to be taken seriously, which means that anybody who shows up talking the way I talk has a great deal of difficulty getting taken seriously, getting heard because it sounds like, “Yeah, UFOs and lizards. Yeah, I’ve heard all this kind of stuff before. And oh, now the Jews.” Right? It’s a masterful way of immunizing people against looking further.

(2) The minority of people who do get into these conspiracies, who are willing to be open-minded enough . . . Well, it immunizes them by stuffing their heads full of silly conspiracies, right? The general population is immunized by simply having an adverse reaction to it because it smells wrong to them. It grosses them out. Whereas the population that is receptive to this kind of thinking are immunized by having their minds stuffed full of the wrong stuff. They’re immunized by getting them asking all the wrong questions or going down the wrong paths.

So, I really do have the tendency to think that people like Alex Jones, for instance, are, if you will, part of the conspiracy. I know Irmin Vinson’s recent piece on Alex Jones [3] at Counter-Currents has a line where he says, “I’m not a conspiracy theorist.” Well, I am! I would go so far as to say that Alex Jones could be an active agent of keeping the real conspiracy under wraps, and I believe this because I know that if I were in their position I would be doing that. If I had their problems, namely their problem with the truth, and their resources to keep it all covered up that’s definitely one of the things I would be doing.

I find it very difficult to believe, therefore, when people pop up on the radar in popular culture that seem to have access to huge audiences. And they don’t seem to have their PayPal accounts taken away from them, now do they? They don’t seem to have any trouble navigating through the system. They seem to have a backstage pass. They can get access to a lot of things that real dissidents don’t. I’m suspicious. I’m really suspicious of the role people like Alex Jones play.

I think they’re there to immunize people against the real conspiracy. And I think that most of what is called 9/11 Truth, which isn’t very true honestly, is there to distract people from the real truth about 9/11, which is fairly easy to discern by looking at the mainstream news reports. It was so easy to discern that the Saturday or Sunday after the 9/11 attacks it was announced by NBC and Reuters — they both did polls — that 66% and 67% of the American public believed that these attacks happened because of America’s relationship with Israel. Two thirds of the American population saw the most damaging truth about 9/11. And I think that opinion, which was held by two thirds of the American public, never found any credible mainstream . . . no mainstream politician would stand up and represent that opinion held by two thirds of the American public. The New York Times went to William Pierce’s “compound” in West Virginia and did an interview with him and put his face on a position that was held by two thirds of the population of the United States. It was an attempt to stigmatize that position.

I think that as more and more facts came out that indicated that Israelis had advance knowledge of this, in order to prevent people from taking that seriously, they cooked up some really wild conspiracy theories about disappearing airplanes and nanothermite and stuff that eventually charged the whole thing with such an air of fervid irrationality that normal people are turned off by easily documentable facts about 9/11. They don’t want to hear it anymore, even though there are easily documentable facts that point to Israeli foreknowledge and point to the fact that the real reason this happened is obvious: we have outsourced our foreign policy to a bunch of parasites in the Middle East.

I am a believer in conspiracies. I just think that most of the conspiracies that are out there being offered are there to poison the well or to inoculate people from getting to the real masterpiece of conspiracy and conspiracy theorizing, which is the Jewish conspiracy.

HP: Interesting. I know that if people are passionate about something they are definitely passionate about 9/11. I’ve seen so much fighting about this, and I understand that because the consequent changes that have occurred on the foreign policy level when it comes to America and how AIPAC and other organizations have used this opportunity. I have to understand that because so many things do hinge on that particular event to be able to implement the kind of foreign policy that we see in the Middle East, for example.

Also, the secondary objective is that the more of these kinds of wars that we have in the Middle East, it’s also been driving a substantial amount of the immigration into Europe. We don’t see immigration into the Asian countries or African countries. It’s largely to Europe and to America. So, it all kind of fits together in my view.

GJ: Yeah, it’s a definite twofer. Not only does Israel get unrest in their neighborhood and the destruction of hostile regimes, but it also throws off huge populations of people moving around creating chaos in the Near East and back in Europe. They’re crowding in and crowding out Europeans. So yeah, it’s a real “heads they win, tails we lose” kind of proposition. They’re really, really good at framing things that way, and Whites need to be really, really good at that too.

That’s one way that you can understand hegemony, as frame control. If somebody frames the contest as “heads I win, tails you lose,” you’re going to always lose. So, we need to reframe things. We need to come up with new rules and a new game, so that we end up winning. Certainly in our own homelands. That’s not too much to ask, is it? That we win in our own homelands, that we have homelands that suit us rather than don’t suit us any longer. Doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

HP: No. I agree. I don’t see what the problem is with that.

In terms of the validity of the conspiracy that you mentioned. It could be and it should be discussed, of course, at what level it is at, how effective is it really, how much in line are people at the top, if you will, of finance, politics and lobbying and everything else that push it in this direction. Nonetheless, despite that, empirically, we can see the symptoms of what we have been talking about. I mean, there’s no real doubt to anybody who has their eyes open that the demographics are changing in all and only European countries and those countries that were founded by Europeans as well. This is something that we can see right in front of our eyes if we actually look at the real world.

GJ: Yeah, most definitely. I think that it is possible to construct an account of why these changes are happening, and it’s an account that doesn’t put undue burdens on people’s credulity. It doesn’t have to be cast in terms of some organization or hierarchy that you can trace back to some smoke-filled back room where people are issuing orders. Although those things do take place as well.

HP: Sure.

GJ: There’s no question about it. I conspire every day. We’re conspiring to get this broadcast off the ground and so forth.

But I do think it’s somewhat naïve to believe that the way these things unfold is simply that way. There are other ways that things happen, and I think that a lot of what goes on with the people at the top, the people who control things, is not that they have the ability to control circumstances so that a plan seamlessly unfolds, so much as they have the ability always adapt to unforeseen circumstances in a way that’s advantageous to them. They’re good at turning lemons into lemonade. They’re not fully in control of things, but they have really refined crisis management capabilities. They have tons of resources to throw into these sorts of things and so they can come out on top. Every time an event happens that redounds to their interests it doesn’t mean that they’ve created that event to redound to their interests. In fact, what real power is, I think, is not necessarily having to pull all the strings and make everything happen so much as it is the ability to always benefit or always be able to turn around circumstances to benefit oneself, to always be able to come out on top.

That means we have to think about this more in terms of individual acts and individual events, and individual events of coping and crisis management, rather than just one big plan unfolding over time. I think that’s more how things actually happen. Our own lives seldom unfold according to the plans that we had when we were 17 or 18, right?

HP: Right.

GJ: We’re coping with constant changes, and we have to recognize that there are real contingencies in the world. There are things that are not anticipated and are not being controlled by any one person. There are real accidents and real contingencies. Power, therefore, is not best understood as the ability to make everything happen, which in effect makes our enemies God-like in their power, but has to be better understood as the ability to cope with all kinds of unexpected things and to always turn them around to one’s advantage.

I think that if we start having that attitude, we’re going to be able to up our game a little bit and maybe be able to beat them. We have to recognize that there are limits to our power, but that we can also hope that there will be objective circumstances that will come along in the future that we cannot predict, that we do not anticipate that might be advantageous to us, if we have gathered the ability, the resources, the tools, the team necessary to exploit those things. That’s actually a source of hope for me.

Look at the collapse of Communism. I don’t think that Communism was managed in its decline. Somebody didn’t plan that out. It collapsed very quickly, and it was not anticipated by the people at the top and by the experts in the West. It wasn’t anticipated. The people who benefited the most from that were the people who had existing networks of power. So, a lot of these post-Communist countries ended up being run by former Communists in the KGB and secret police organizations. Anything that was a network, an institution, an organization that survived the collapse and could negotiate its way through the chaos and turn things to its advantage. The organized Jewish community did very well after the collapse of Communism.

Communism was their baby, and yet Communism collapses, and they pop back up to the surface of things with more power than they had and certainly more wealth and more control over countries like Russia than they did in the waning years of Communism itself. I think it’s simply a manifestation of superior abilities of networks to adapt to these kinds of circumstances, changing objective circumstances, and I think that once we have created a self-conscious racial community that attracts enough resources and high quality people that we will be able to take advantage of collapses like this in the future. We should be thinking in those terms, and we shouldn’t be praying for a collapse until we have a community that’s capable of actually benefiting from it, obviously. A lot of us just want Road Warrior and Mad Max, but the fact of the matter is if there were a Road Warrior-type collapse in Sweden what groups of people are best adapted for that?

HP: Right. Of course.

GJ: It’s the foreigners. It’s the Gypsies and the Jews and the Somalians. I hope you don’t have Somalians there.

HP: We do!

GJ: The Syrians. All these tribal people that you’ve brought in. That’s the environment where they come from. They thrive in that kind of situation. The Swedes would just be easy pickings. Easier pickings than they are today.

So, we need to constitute ourselves as the kind of community, the kind of elite really, that can turn this sort of thing to our advantage, and eventually I think we’ll catch a break.

Historically, Whites have gone through terrible down times, terrible tribulations. As Richard Edmonds put it in my interview with him a while ago, a third of Europe died the Black Death. We bounced back from that.

HP: Yep.

GJ: Spain was occupied by Moors for hundreds and hundreds of years.

HP: 700 years.

GJ: And it bounced back from that. Ireland was conquered for hundreds and hundreds of years and then regained its independence. There are many, many historical examples of Europe going right to the wall, right to the brink and yet bouncing back. And I think we need to take some solace in those examples as well as some warning from examples like Rhodesia and South Africa. But even in South Africa the story isn’t over yet.

HP: Well, very good, Greg. I think this is a good place to round things up for this time. Very interesting discussion and of course some very sobering material we’ve been talking about today. Important points as well in terms of what is happening and our ability to recognize those things that are happening, because to a certain extent we have been hoodwinked. We’ve been told that we’re not allowed to see these differences. We’re not allowed to recognize that something’s being done against us. This is, of course, a way for them to win, to basically get us in a position where we think it’s morally reprehensible to respond to what’s happening. So, these are very, very important questions if we care about the things that you’ve been talking about today, Greg.

Why don’t you give us your details once more, Greg, and tell us about the website. Any specific book titles that you’d like to recommend? And also let us know if there’s anything upcoming that you’d like to let us know about.

GJ: Great. Thank you again very much for the opportunity to be on. I really enjoyed the first Red Ice interview that I did with Lana, and I’ve really enjoyed this conversation as well.

I recommend that everybody visit counter-currents.com. I would like to recommend my book New Right vs. Old Right which has just recently been translated into Swedish.

HP: There we go!

GJ: This is like an episode of The Electric Company, I guess. Today’s episode is brought to you by the word “Sweden,” since it’s the word we’ve used the most during the broadcast.

Anyway, keeping with our Swedish theme, my book just came out in Swedish translation, and it’s going to come out in French and Spanish translations later this year. New Right vs. Old Right. I highly recommend it. I put a lot of good ideas into that, I think.

And I recommend an upcoming book of mine which is going to be called White Extinction. It’s a collection of essays that deal first of all with the question of White extinction, and then the next essay in it is called “White Genocide,” which is a topic we’ve dealt with in this conversation today. So, yeah, keep an eye out for White Extinction. It will be out later this year. In the meantime, read Old Right vs. New Right and tune in regularly to counter-currents.com. We have new material five days a week.

Again, thank you so much for having me on.

HP. You bet! Thank you, Greg. Definitely, folks, check it out. We’ll have the links up to the website and we’ll link up some of the books as well that we recommend. A lot of things for you to enjoy right there.

But yeah, thank you, Greg! Keep up the good work and I’m sure we’ll talk again soon in the future.

GJ: Thank you!