Counter-Currents
The Shadow of Trump:
Interview with Il Primato Nazionale
Greg Johnson
2,171 words
Author’s Note:
This is the English original of an interview published in Italian on the nationalist webzine Il Primato Nazionale. I want to thank the Francesco Boco for conducting the interview and Il Primato Nazionale for publishing it.
Francesco Boco: On August 28, 2016 Professor Thomas J. Main wrote an article in the Los Angeles Times entitled “What’s the Alt-Right?” Professor Main said: “The main challenge to our way of life today now comes not from the radical left, but the Alt-Right” and “The Alt-Right represents the first new philosophical competitor to liberalism, broadly defined, since the fall of Communism.” It seems that in just a few years the American Alternative Right has succeeded in becoming important and influential. What do you think about that, and what is the true and authentic strength of the Alt Right?
Greg Johnson: Professor Main is more correct than he knows, for the Alternative Right offers a more fundamental critique of and challenge to today’s multicultural liberal democracy than Communism ever did. The Alternative Right is a broad umbrella term for those who reject the mainstream conservative movement in America. But the ideological core and animating force of the Alt Right is White Nationalism. And from a White Nationalist perspective, both Communism and liberal multiculturalism are based on the same false premise that different races are able to live together harmoniously within the same political system.
The strength of White Nationalism is that it is based on the truth about human nature and society. White Nationalists believe that racial, ethnic, and religious diversity within the same political systems lead inevitably to conflict and the destruction of unique identities. Therefore, to reduce ethnic conflicts and preserve distinct identities, we believe in the creation of racially and ethnically homogeneous homelands for all peoples that aspire to sovereignty over their destinies. This means a return to nationalism and an end to the racially and culturally homogenizing processes of globalization.
The Alternative Right’s rise is being driven by the destructive consequences of multiculturalism and globalization. White Nationalists offer the best account of why these forces are destructive, and we offer the only workable alternative. As long as these problems persist, our movement will continue to grow. We will continue to raise and channel awareness of these problems until it becomes politically possible to fix them.
However, as it stands now, I would not characterize the Alt Right as influential. Yes, our memes have altered mainstream political discourse. Conservatives wince at the epithet “cuck.” Hillary Clinton took to the stage to denounce us. Our echo brackets ((())) and cartoon frog have been added to the ADL’s index of hate symbols.
It’s a great start. But it is a long way from actually shaping political policies. To do that, we will need to be much better organized and funded. In the past few years, the number and quality of people listening and contributing to our message has increased dramatically. But in terms of organization and funding, we are only slightly better off. When we have the ability to capture and productively channel more money, I am convinced that the reach and influence of our ideas will grow dramatically. But that will not happen unless people with money stop wasting it on mainstream conservative organizations.
RB: To most Italian readers the Alt Right is a complete novelty, but you and other authors and activists have been working for many years. Please give us a short account of your political activism and Counter-Currents Publishing. What will be your next steps, and which objectives you want to achieve in the future?
GJ: I have been involved with White Nationalism since the year 2000. From the start, I was guided by the conviction that political change depends on metapolitical preconditions. People have to believe that a political proposal is necessary, moral, and practically feasible, or it will simply be dismissed. Beyond that, for White Nationalism to be politically possible, whites must think of themselves as whites, i.e., as a particular race — a race with a distinct identity and interests, some of which conflict with those of other races, such that separate homelands are the best way to avoid conflict — not just as members of a universal and homogeneous “humanity” that can exist in a borderless world as long as we have sufficient consciousness-raising and progress.
Late in 2000, in discussion with some friends, I began thinking of creating a metapolitical journal that would lay the foundations for White Nationalism in North America. In 2001, The Occidental Quarterly was founded, and I regarded it as largely fulfilling that need. In 2007, I became the editor of TOQ. In the Spring of 2010, I founded Counter-Currents Publishing with Michael Polignano. In 2014, I became the sole owner. The purpose of Counter-Currents is to create an intellectual platform for White Nationalist metapolitics, broadly conceived so as to encompass not just political philosophy and the human sciences but also history, art, literature, etc. We believe that we are the legitimate heirs and guardians of the whole of European culture. It is our tradition, and only racially conscious whites will be able to carry it forward. Counter-Currents is really about everything — the whole viewed from a racially-conscious European point of view.
The webzine of Counter-Currents is called North American New Right. Initially, I also planned to issue an annual print journal, North American New Right, and one volume appeared in 2012. But I came to believe that the last thing that our movement needs is another print journal. I don’t publish anything unless I think that it will contribute to saving our race — and, really, saving the world along with it. And if I really believe that, then obviously it should be published online immediately and for free rather than being held up for months and subjected to the artificial scarcity of print publishing just to make a buck. (I will bring out the second and final volume of NANR in 2017.)
As for the future of Counter-Currents: we have been around for more than 6 years, and we have kept up a steady pace of print and online publishing with significant growth in our readership. I expect this trend to continue.
Counter-Currents is also involved in creating real world gatherings. Starting in June of 2010, we began a tradition of Francis Parker Yockey Memorial Dinners in San Francisco. In 2011, we started a tradition of annual weekend retreats. In 2015, we started a tradition of monthly “Toastmasters” style gatherings in New York City. And in 2016, we inaugurated the New York Forum, modelled on the London Forum. Soon we will inaugurate the Northwest Forum. In 2017, we plan 6 New York Forums (on odd numbered months) and 6 Northwest Forums (on even numbered months). All of these gatherings have been quite successful in stimulating thought, creativity, networking, and solidarity. We put a special emphasis on bringing together racially conscious people who share the same communities and who can enjoy regular fellowship. We hope that these models will be emulated all over the white world.
FB: The Alt Right seems to build upon the European New Right. Alain De Benoist, Guillaume Faye, Jonathan Bowden, and Francis Parker Yockey are often quoted in your books and articles. What differentiates the Alt Right from the European New Right?
GJ: Again, I will not speak about the Alt Right as a whole, since there are plenty of people today calling themselves Alt Right who have never even heard of the European New Right. But what differentiates White Nationalism from the European New Right is a greater importance of the concept of race, which makes sense in the context of European colonial societies in which peoples from different European ethnic stocks blended together and in which the presence of non-whites led people quite naturally to think in racial terms. In Europe, by contrast, nationalist movements think of themselves in ethnic rather than racial terms.
But this difference is really more a matter of emphasis than a hard and fast distinction. After all, Americans, Canadians, Australians, and other European colonial peoples are not just generic “whites.” If all we were is generic whites, then there would really be no difference between Americans and Canadians or Chileans and Argentines. Yet there are differences, and they are not merely racial, attributable to different settlement patterns from different parts of Europe. There are genuine ethnic or cultural differences between Americans and even our closest neighbors and cousins in Canada. Americans, in short, have a distinct ethnic identity, an identity which presupposes whiteness but cannot be reduced to it.
Moreover, European nationalists do not think solely in terms of ethnic identity. There is more to being Italian than simply being a white man, but no non-white can be Italian. Whiteness is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for belonging to any European ethnic group. Non-whites are Americans or Italians or French only because of legal fictions, the untenability of which is increasingly obvious with each passing day. European ethnonationalists also have a sense that our distinct nations have common origins, common enemies, and a common destiny — an awareness that we hope will help us to avoid the petty fratricidal wars of the past and meet the challenges of the burgeoning and increasingly mobile non-white populations.
When I speak of White Nationalism, I mean ethnic nationalism for every particular white ethnic group — Italians, French, Americans, Canadians, etc. — not some sort of European Imperium and melting pot, an idea which is revolting on the face of it, since it replicates all of the problems of globalization merely on a smaller scale, and which could never be realized without the fratricidal European wars it is supposed to prevent. If advocates of a white Imperium want to prove that it is more than a pipe dream, they can demonstrate this by first putting Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia back together. If they can manage that, I will take them seriously.
FB: From a European perspective Donald Trump seems a histrionic and ambiguous person. A capitalist that talks about stopping immigration and making the USA great again. Is he really the candidate of the Alt Right, or he is, to you, something different? Maybe an opportunity to grow as a movement and gain more influence in American society? Do you see a real change, regarding public opinion, in respect to past elections?
GJ: I see Trump as an immense opportunity. He does not want the kind of society that we want, but we want some of the policies that he wants. Trump is a civic nationalist not a racial nationalist. He believes that the United States should be governed in the interest of all its citizens — a citizenry that embraces different races and is defined in legal rather than racial terms. However, the majority of Americans are white, and by being pro-American, Trump cannot be against the white majority, whereas the Democrats and mainstream Republicans both promoted policies destructive of the white majority.
Beyond that, Trump’s proposals to build a wall on the Mexican border, deport millions of illegal aliens, and ban Muslim immigration would slow the demographic displacement of whites, giving us a few extra decades before we become a minority in our homeland. We can use that extra time to rally our people and create a consensus around policies that will halt and then reverse our demographic decline.
Trump is popular because he is giving Americans what we really want: populist nationalism, not degenerate liberalism or “free market” conservatism. Trump does not represent a change in American political preferences. Instead, the change is that he has broken the power of the political establishment, which is based on a gentleman’s agreement not to give the people what they want.
FB: How do you envision the future of North America? What should be the guidelines for renewal? Can European roots still find fertile ground in the USA?
GJ: White Nationalists will reclaim North America for our race. We were a tiny minority on this continent when we founded Jamestown more than 400 years ago. Yet we conquered a continent. With far greater numbers and resources at our disposal, we can reconquer it. It is merely a matter of political will. There is no question in my mind that this will happen. How that happens will be determined on November 8th.
If Donald Trump is elected, he will slow down the demographic displacement of whites which will make it possible for White Nationalists to salvage the United States and turn it into a white homeland. If Hillary Clinton is elected, she will enfranchise millions of illegal aliens and throw open the borders to the Third World, rapidly driving whites into minority status, which will make it impossible for whites to save ourselves within the current political system. That means that we will have to go to Plan B, which is to break up America, carve out homogenously white homelands, and create a new political system to ensure white survival and flourishing. Donald Trump is not the “last chance” for whites in North America, but he is the last chance for the United States of America.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
20 comments
Another thought provoking article, Europeans are awakening the world over.
Putting Europe Together Again
Greg Johnson of Counter Currents says that he won’t take European unionists seriously until we can put Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia together again. But that is exactly what the European Union is doing. Slovenia and Croatia are together again in the EU and so are the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia have applied for membership of the EU and Albania and Kosovo are bound to follow.
Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein are de-facto members of the EU by virtue of their accession to the European Free Trade Association. And whatever Theresa May says to the contrary the UK will make similar arrangements.
There may be old quarrels between member states, just as there are in the United States, but the EU is working. When I was born Europeans were trying to exterminate each other but we are now at peace.
Brexit is seen by some Americans as a British version of the Boston Tea Party but it’s nothing of the sort. Brexit is the creation of a mass media that is dominated by Rupert Murdoch. All of the popular newspapers, plus Sky Television are solidly anti-European and their narrow victory in the euro referendum is entirely due to the effectiveness of their propaganda. The British people were persuaded that immigration was the fault of the EU and they voted accordingly. In fact, the majority of immigrants to the UK are from outside Europe and there has never been anything stopping the British government from controlling their entry.
Europe will not degenerate into a patchwork of mini states anymore than the South will rise again. The momentum of history is toward unity; the age of petty nationalism has ended and it will not be revived by loud-mouthed populism or suffocating nostalgia. If the white race is to survive is must stick together and not allow real or imagined differences to stand in the way of solidarity.
I will tread carefully, here, since I am obviously rejecting articles of your faith, but no, the EU is not putting back together Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, and the minute that, for example, the Czechs or Slovaks feel that they have surrendered their sovereignty to a European superstate, they will be a Czech out, a Slovak walk, etc., just as there was a Brexit. The issue is sovereignty. An empire implies the loss of sovereignty, an alliance or treaty organization or customs union does not.
That’s alright Greg, I am used to my dreams being trodden on. Your antipathy to empire is no doubt a product of your national history; just as mine is. To you empire suggests foreign occupation and exploitation but to me it represents order and progress. We both want to preserve our race and culture but we have different perspectives. You will only believe in European Union if we can put our little states together and I will only believe in nation states when Texas and California are restored to nationhood, not to mention Puerto Rico and Hawaii. The United States is a logical development and so is the European Union. Brexit, if it ever happens, will be a temporary aberration. Thanks for allowing my comments.
How do you preserve your culture and your ethnicity when several hundred thousand people from Eastern Europe are moving into your country every year? That the numbers are less than those for non-European immigration doesn’t make them good. The same thing happened to the US, with massive European immigration from Ireland, Italy, Poland, etc., and you know what happened? It disenfranchised my ancestors, who were of colonial stock. It reshaped their cities, towns, and even the countryside, as well as, of course, their culture. A lot of the immigration was harmless when we had a frontier, but so many immigrants never went there and had no intention to. Today in Connecticut less half the White population is of colonial stock and the numbers are similar or worse throughout the other original colonies.
As far as restoring Texas and California to nationhood, the analogy is a poor one. Both states (and you could add Vermont, West Florida and more to the list) had no unique ethnicity, culture, or history, and they were merely attempts by American settlers to resist governance by colonial powers until they could formally join the US as territories or states.
I don’t see why Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia should be held up as some sort of litmus test for European unity. Six decades of solid achievement and progress beginning with the Treaty of Rome can’t be lightly dismissed because of two recent outliers.
Sovereignty is a dubious concern. Without the power of unity sovereignty is an empty claim. Albania is sovereign. So is Ukraine.
Because putting different peoples under a common government is a recipe for strife, which is why sovereignty is os paramount importance. Really, you are not even trying to understand.
“Whitemanistan”, (G.D.)
An EU without internal borders, with the absolute free movement of people similar to the USA, as implied above, may or may not be the direction of events. In any case, the question of comparative desirability of a USA-EU equivalent vs. maintaining national European nations’ sovereignty (at least as at present), might be an interesting question suitable for the forum-in-development, or as a review.
Different stakeholders can weight in, from different vantage points; e.g. the views of European diaspora kin, as well as from those current EU citizens.
As a “diaspora kin”, if some specific european nations become evermore USA-like, then personally I might feel like a stateless person. One whose American identity and heritage was decimated by acute mass migration and hegemonic re-orientation to multiculturalism and respect and even glorification of non-White American culture, at least these past 8 years. So, I selfishly dismay over certain European countries loosing their uniqueness anymore so. Erasure of heritage, on both sides of the Atlantic, would hurt; might feel tetherless to some kind of origins & racial ancestry. Yet, this exactly would help to pave the way for generic human identity, and thus no barriers. A Whatever Identity, total non-discrimination, total flux people, for whatever changes there may be so long as they do not take our life, liberty, (…and happiness).
Greg was kind of nice to you. But what you believe are illusions. Nationalism isn’t rising because people want old times back. Its rising because globalization is failing. Globalization is destroying societies and environment for the benefit of few. As long as ERoEI was above certain threshold the circle of beneficiaries was big and our people supported it. But the low hanging fruit has been picked long ago. Things are worse than they used to be and they will only going to get worse. Crisis of 2008 was when it became obvious its over. When available goods to society are declining its always the lower class taking the hit first. But it will eventually reach those at top as well. Elites are fighting for status quo and they were able to delay collapse of the system by issuing a mountain of new debt. More and more people are disenfranchised by current system and they are coming to our camp. Gradual total collapse of current system is baked in the cake and and nationalists don’t need to do anything. We only need to watch on sidelines as it happens and serve our superior ideas to people which are willing to accept them. This is why Greg talks with such confidence about our bright future.
AE, being of Irish and Italian ancestry I am not likely to share your head-measuring concern about European migration. I do not make distinctions between Europeans. It was Hitler’s belief in the Master Race theory that reduced his country and most of Europe to ruins when the ‘inferior’ Slavs fought back. I believe in European solidarity at all levels; economic, political and spiritual. Your colonial stock was mostly British, Dutch and German; all nations of Nordic and Mediterranean composition. The white race is already outnumbered without eternal subdivision.
If you observe European migration you will notice similar pattern as with non-white immigration. Its extremely one-sided; from darker to lighter skinned nations. Shqiptars are all over northern Europe, breeding and multiplying in very similar fashion as blacks & browns. They specialize in illegal businesses; trafficking, racketeering, drugs and sex rings and their legal businesses are limited to kebab and vegetable stands. You get same pattern even its done between very similar nations like in Yugoslavia. Only people from southern republics migrated into Slovenia. Ask any ethnic Slovenian and he will tell you the change wasn’t for the better. It has changed their culture and undermined their national cohesiveness. They went from 99% to 65% ethnic Slovenians in 7 decades. Southern white immigration was devastating for them. Of course consequences were not as bad as brown/black immigration was for Germany, but at least for now we are still more than 65% of population.
I can understand your argument for one pan-european nation after explaining you are a mix yourself. Just like every non-white will advocate for non-whites and even whites with mongrel progeny will advocate for non-whites to live in our countries, because they put their personal interests before the interest of community. In that regard you are just like them. Selfishly looking out for you; who cares about all those distinct cultures and nations. But salvation for distinct European nations is on the horizon.
one-sided indeed:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11287523/Where-are-the-British-expats-in-Europe-This-map-will-tell-you.html
Nearly 400.000 Britons in Spain alone. Maybe the Spanish want their cultural cohesion as well?
Bill, I’m not advocating any kind of “Master Race” theory or making claims of superiority vs inferiority. What I advocate is as much differentiation as possible– on the racial plane, the national, the regional, the sub-regional, etc. I support this because it’s the opposite of globalism and egalitarianism. I don’t want Europe and her diaspora to be reduced to the lowest common denominator of “whiteness.” The problem with unlimited and unchecked immigration, European or not, is that it changes and destroys the traditions of the both the immigrant and host populations. If the numbers were small and the locals consented it could be a manageable and organic process, but when unlimited and unchecked it only furthers the leveling process of modernity.
You say that the major threat to Europe is Third World immigration but that it “won’t be stopped by dividing ourselves into ever smaller units.” I have to ask, why not? If people loved their nation, their kin and their folkways down to a very local level they would be far more likely to secure their borders and repel invaders. On the other hand, if you were just another white atom on the European continent, why would you care? You’d pick up and move on to where things were more comfortable. When that’s no longer possible people return to nationalism. Witness Brexit.
Pleased to read this. I hope US and various European nations’ initiatives could maintain communication and perhaps collaborate further in the future. Good interview.
Also, I disagree that Blacks or South-asians can be both European and call themselves French, Portuguese, British, etc etc. as ethno white -Europeans vehemently are against 3 world immigration into Europe.
Don’t forget that founding fathers of the EU planned a Europe of people and not of nations.
German Warrior, consider the dire poverty throughout Europe after the last war and the decent standards of living enjoyed by the vast majority of Europeans today. Globalism has not failed it has just slowed down, The major threat to the survival of our people is mass migration from the Third World. This will not be stopped by dividing ourselves into ever smaller units. We need organisation and leadership, it’s no good relying on a catastrophic collapse of capitalism. Counter Currents is doing a good job by spreading information.
We are definitely net negative from globalization. But the problems we are facing today are much deeper than white genocide. First is dollar is set to lose global reserve status. By setting up AIIB and Shanghai gold exchange Russia and China have already locked in the death of dollar. Second is falling ERoEI. We depend on huge amounts of cheap energy and low hanging fruit has been picked. So we are now in position where oil is either too cheap for producers or too expensive to sustain our economy. We have taken on a mountain of debt to mitigate the problem but ERoEI and debt will just continue to get worse until economy and monetary system collapse. Third problem is environmental. I don’t understand global warming enough to comment on it, but I do understand consequences of pollution, over-fishing, over-hunting, over-cutting trees, over-pumping aquifers, rivers, lakes for irrigation, species going extinct at record rates. We are on the brink of mass extinction event. And yet we are importing more useless eaters & breeders to consume more and more and more. Even some Alt-Right scholars are promoting for whites to enter demographic competition. So silly.
I foresee collapse of current system, starvation and/or strong depopulation pressure. It will bring out the worst kind of tribalism. Our elites did us a favor by depressing our birth rates and bringing in common enemy. So I hope we will be able to unite and overcome this. But when it all settles I want my country for Germans and Germans only.
It’s better Americans know whom they’re following and choose as next leader .
Killary would be even worse than her husband was.
“That means that we will have to go to Plan B, which is to break up America, carve out homogenously white homelands, and create a new political system to ensure white survival and flourishing.”
I certainly wish that can be achieved if the push becomes shovel. but I also harbor some doubts, qualms and misgivings as to the possibility and cost of achieving that goal. Don’t misunderstand me, I as a staunch and ardent advocate of White Nationalism, wishes all the best of that noble cause and would not hesitate to contribute my utmost capacities to the realization of it, but I simply do not believe that the enemies of White people i.e. the mainly Jewish NWO puppet masters and their pawns and tools like Hillary will never allow the Whites to break up America, break away from their grip, and carve out and establish a homogenous White homeland under their watch and away from their tentacles, because these ultra-vicious and vile forces have only one aim in their eyes — the total abolition and destruction of the White race — and has been hellbent on working toward that aim for decades, which is increasingly unabashed and blatant in the last few years.
Thus it is not only my firm opinion but a prediction based on incontestable hard factors as mentioned above, that a war will be inevitable if American Whites ever want and act to separate themselves from the corrupt, heinously and innately anti-White and genocidal forces of Jewish NWO and its cohorts as the latter, with their premeditated and ingrained objective of abusing and exploiting the White race to death, simply does not allow a peaceful secession of the White people and the subsequent establishment of a separate, prosperous and free White homeland in North America, in another word, they evil force will brook no scenario of White people living their own life freely and independently. Hence, this ultimately will lead to a life-or-death confrontation and struggle for ultimate control, a game that means the winner take all and the loser lose all. If the Whites lose, they lose their livelihood and the future of the their race; on the contrary, if the Whites win, they win everything, which not means the survival and flourishing of the White race, but also the evincing and expulsion of all the non-White and anti-White elements in the North American continent. There will hardly be a space for the middle ground concept of a White American homeland existing side by side with a colored and hostile state led by a Jew-controlled regime in the same continent.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment