This is a transcript of Greg Johnson’s interview with Tara McCarthy on The Reality Calls Show  concerning White Nationalism. To listen in a player, click here . To download the mp3, right-click here  and choose “save target or link as.”
Tara McCarthy: Welcome back to Reality Calls. Today I’m talking with Greg Johnson, who is the editor of Counter-Currents.
Greg Johnson: Thank you for having me on.
TM: Yes, thanks for joining me. We’re going to talk about White Nationalism, because you identify as a White Nationalist. I thought it’d be interesting to talk about what that is and why you identify that way. Would you mind starting by telling us what your view of White Nationalism is?
GJ: Certainly. White Nationalism is just the idea that the best political order is a patchwork of sovereign nation-states for ethnically distinct peoples. The larger principle, which we call ethnonationalism, of course applies to any race. Being white myself, and being concerned about demographic and political trends that are threatening the future of white people worldwide, I’m most concerned about whites. I think that White Nationalism — meaning ethnostates for different white peoples — is really the best solution to staving-off the long-term demographic problems that whites are facing.
There’s a widespread misconception that White Nationalism means the idea that all white people belong in the same state. I think that that’s a ridiculous idea, a parody actually, of what most White Nationalists believe. Most White Nationalists believe that the nation-state is the natural political unit — the most functional political unit, the one that’s most consistent with maintaining peace among different peoples and also conditions where different peoples can develop and live according to their own view of what’s right. We are all for preserving differences and borders between white peoples.
The great conflicts of the twentieth century were largely between different white nations. Largely those conflicts came about because some groups did not respect the autonomy of other white groups. First and foremost, we would like to have peace between our own peoples. Then after that, we need to also deal with the threats posed by large geopolitical and racial blocs of rivals to European peoples.
The biggest threat to Europe, of course, is the Islamic world. Europe is being invaded by Muslims. These Muslims are there with the very conscious design of spreading their religion and political order to Europe. They’re quite open and frank about that. It really does constitute a somewhat slow and stealthy invasion.
But many invasions in the past have been slow and stealthy conquests by demographic replacement. They’re not necessarily armies blitzing over borders. When you look at the end of the Roman Empire, that came about because the Romans thought it was a really clever idea to bring in Germanic tribes and settle them in Roman lands. They enlisted them in their legions. They’ll do jobs that Romans won’t do.
When Rome was sacked, it wasn’t sacked by people who came from outside the empire but primarily by barbarians who were living within its borders. They’d finally had enough of being ruled by a very effete and corrupt elite that they held in contempt. So the process of invasion by demographic replacement that’s going on today is not something all that unusual in history.
In the United States, the main problem is invasion from the global south, especially Latin America. The Canadians are also happily importing people from everywhere. But for the US the primary problem is the invasion of Latin Americans, largely nonwhite mestizos or Indians.
What we need is white distinction and diversity where we have our own little homelands, and we need a certain amount of coordination and unity and solidarity when facing geopolitical threats from nonwhite groups. There’s also, of course, the Chinese question and South Asia, Africa, and so forth. These are distinct groups of people, distinct geopolitical blocs, and it would be nice if white nations coordinated their plans regarding them in order to survive, rather than what we have today, which is our leadership conspiring to replace our population with nonwhites from around the world.
TM: So one objection I suppose people might have to this idea of, “We’re being replaced” is “Well, we’re all the same anyway, so what does it matter?” What is your perspective on that?
GJ: Well, wait a second, I thought that diversity was a wonderful thing? [laughter] The same people who say we’re all the same and it doesn’t matter are also the ones who say, “Oh, isn’t it wonderful that we can get shawarma in London now?” “Isn’t it wonderful that we have pygmy restaurants?” I don’t know if you actually have pygmy restaurants yet. But wouldn’t it be wonderful if abos, pygmies, and other groups like that opened up little restaurants in West London somewhere? Wouldn’t that be chic and interesting?
The Left — and it’s not really just the Left, it’s the globalist establishment — are promoting multiculturalism and nonwhite immigration. They really speak with forked tongues. Nonwhite immigrants are simultaneously people who have low skills and people with great skills who will do the important professional jobs that white people just won’t do. They’re also peaceful and law-abiding people, far less criminal than native Europeans. They say that diversity is a wonderful thing that only makes us stronger. Then they say we are all the same, and our differences don’t matter anyway.
At a certain point you just have to conclude that these people are not honest. But if they’re not honest, you’ve got to stop listening to them. Eventually you’ve got to simply defeat them politically to prevent them from doing what they’re doing.
That’s one of the hardest things for white people to wrap their minds around: that people in positions of power might be simply self-interested, Machiavellian liars.
Granted, there’s a lot of shallow, facile cynicism about politics. But oddly enough, people still seem to have a great difficulty wrapping their minds around what you would actually do if you really believed that our leaders are lying to us, that they have very evil ulterior motives that they’re pushing.
When you look at the contradictions of the globalist rhetoric — the Left is for globalism because of socialism, and the Right is for globalism because of capitalism — but they all promote the same ultimate end, which is a giant plantation economy ruled over by a fabulously wealthy and corrupt elite, you have to start wondering about the sincerity of the voices putting forward the same conclusions with a whole raft of different arguments directed at different constituencies.
The common denominator, though, is that they’re trying to swindle the native peoples of all European lands — and also European colonial peoples like Americans, Canadians, etc. — of having a future, of having homelands where they can be confident that they will control the government, control their destiny, and feel like they are at home, as opposed to something that is increasingly like a Middle Eastern bazaar in parts of London, or increasingly like Latin America in large parts of the United States.
TM: I’ve got a few questions here. I’ve asked my audience to ask you. When I asked them to submit questions, some of them were quite rude and automatically wanted to make a point about how much they objected to even asking you questions [laughter]. But most of them were quite willing to ask questions. So I’m going to give a few a shot, and I’ve actually got a lot of them, so if you could give a fairly brief response.
What life experiences formed your worldview? What was your home life like growing up and through school?
GJ: I grew up in a very homogenously white community, and it was only when I went off to college that I was exposed to different groups of people, and my initial assumption was that we’re all basically the same, and we can all live together the same way I lived growing up in a small homogeneously white town.
I discovered very quickly that that’s not the attitude of many minorities in the United States. Many of them have a great deal of distrust and hostility toward whites and look at us as people to victimize. There’s also a lot of subtle mockery and passive aggression in day-to-day interactions.
So eventually I started realizing that this is not actually working. I realized that my “multicultural phase,” if you will, was rooted in projecting my own mentality on the rest of the world. There’s a deep form of hubris and ethnocentrism that is present in multiculturalism.
The first form of multiculturalism is the “white man’s burden” idea. It’s the imperialist idea that all of these people really want to be like us. So we’re going to go out and give them the benefits of our civilization, because all good things come from white people. We’re going to share those gifts with them, whether they want it or not.
The flip-side of that is the guilty, Leftist, anti-colonialist white mentality, which is just as grandiose, because instead of assuming that all good things come from whites — and nonwhites don’t have any agency of their own and have nothing of their own that they’d want to hold on to — this Leftist mentality blames us for all the bad things that happen to nonwhites. It’s our fault. But this is based on the same grandiose notion that whites are the only people who matter in the world, for good or evil. Other people are negligible as agents. That is a deep, bedrock assumption of a lot of Leftists.
I stopped the projection and decided to try to understand the world as these people see it. I came to realize that a lot of peoples, in fact the majority of peoples on Earth, do not have a transparent and trusting relationship to other groups. In fact, they have suspicious, hostile, and manipulative relationships to other groups. But in white countries we’re inviting in people on the assumption that they’re going to be just like us, that we’re going to be generous to them and open to them, and they’re going to be open and generous to us.
In fact, they think we are incredibly weak and naïve. They will dissimulate belief in our ideas when they want something from us. When we want something from them, they’ll pretend to be fair. But they’ll end up practicing ruthless ethnic nepotism. They’ve hacked us. They’ve hacked our minds. They’re using our openness and goodness to exploit us. That puts us in a very disadvantageous position.
Imagine you’re playing poker, and you have the biggest stack of chips, but everybody else at the table has a wild card, mainly the race card. But you don’t think of yourself as a member of a race. You think of yourself as an avatar of universal humanity.
If you play that game, they’re going to pull out the race card and use it in hand after hand after hand. They’re going to have a systematic advantage in every hand that you play. You might have a very big stack of chips at the beginning, but you will lose everything if you keep playing by those stacked rules. That’s how multiculturalism works. They have the race card. They can always play it. But we can’t.
The beginning of white identity politics is getting whites to recognize that in multicultural societies the game is systematically rigged against them. We will lose if we play this game, if we don’t take our own side, if we don’t start playing the race card and thinking about our own collective interests as a group.
Once we start down that path, though, my hope is eventually we’re going to see that it was quite wise and wonderful when Britain was virtually 100% white. And it was quite wise and wonderful when France was virtually 100% white. You didn’t have alien groups swindling you out of your future.
And it’s not just tiny, marginal groups like the stereotypical gypsies of the past who are doing this. It’s now the upcoming majority, the rising majority in France and England. There are countries in Europe where there are more babies named Muhammed than any other name.
TM: Yup, that’s the case in Ireland right now.
GJ: Yes, and that means in the long run you’re going to be outbred in your own homelands in Europe — and in the United States and Canada as well — by people who are hostile and there to take away what we have created: to take away our wealth, to take away our civilization, to take away our future.
When I started realizing that was the game, and the long-term consequences were quite dire, I decided I can’t be liberal anymore. I can’t be an individualist anymore. Liberal individualism blinds us to the priority of ethnic politics, and if we don’t break out of that mindset, we’re going to lose everything that we’ve got.
Sorry that wasn’t too brief. But I’ll try to be briefer.
TM: That’s okay. Actually, my follow up question is: Why do you think that you got this perspective? Because so many people have experienced very similar things to you, yet they haven’t come around to your perspective, so why do you think that might be?
GJ: Because people are programmed not to see the problems. Beyond that, those who do see the problems are intimidated into not speaking about them. Moreover, people who see the problems often think nothing can be done. Or they are simply too selfish to do anything about them.
We are ruled by people who are promoting multiculturalism through every authoritative channel that molds opinions in society today. They’re pushing this idea that white people are guilty for all the world’s ills, and that if we’re having difficulties with immigrant groups, that’s somehow our fault, that we better keep quiet about it, that the worst possible sin is to be racist or ethnocentric. A lot of people are simply intimidated by this. They’re intimidated into silence.
One thing that helps them maintain their silence, though, is the naïve assumption that somehow — if they make a separate peace with the system — things will work out fine for them. This is a “devil take the hindmost” form of individualism.
Most people are also short-term thinkers. They are unwilling to confront the fact that multiculturalism is rigged against us, that the long-term trends are quite dire, and that we simply will cease to exist as distinct nations and as a biological race in a couple hundred years if we don’t stop this
So we’re brainwashed, we’re guilty, we’re individualistic, we’re afraid of joining together and actually trying to change things, we feel helpless and hopeless, and a lot of us are just ignorant of the long-term consequences of staying on this path. I think all of those things combined together prevent people who see the same things we do from actually drawing the right conclusions that we’ve got to do something about it.
I do, however, think all people are hard-wired for a certain level of ethnocentrism. That’s been proven scientifically. It turns out that whites are the least ethnocentric race. And that means we are the most trusting and welcoming of outsiders. However, at a certain point we’re going to stop feeling trusting and welcoming of outsiders because our ethnocentrism will kick in.
TM: I’m a little bit skeptical of that, having grown up in London. Whites are now less than 50% of the population in London, but I don’t see that happening [laughter].
GJ: But would you agree that there are more people becoming ethnocentric today than there were?
TM: No. People in London, whites in London, were pro-remain in the EU, which puts us at risk of flooding the country with migrants because most of them want to come. They get residence in an EU country, and then once they’ve got that visa they move to the UK, and that’s what they want to do, obviously because it’s an English-speaking country.
Most of them speak English already to some extent — if they speak a second language, it’s going to be English; it’s not going to be Norwegian — that’s why they prefer to come to the UK, and we’re at risk of being flooded.
GJ: Well, how about this, what about the whites who have been leaving London over the past thirty years? Why are they leaving? They’re probably going to give you euphemisms and stories like, “We wanted a quieter neighborhood,” “We wanted better schools for our children,” or whatever, which is the same kind of thing that you hear from whites who are fleeing diversity in the United States. But they’re really fleeing diversity. That’s how a lot of whites deal with this problem. They try to run away from it.
How many Britons live in Spain now?
TM: Lots. Yeah.
GJ: Hundreds of thousands, I think. That’s an astonishing thing. I’d love to do a poll of those Britons who live in Spain. Why’d they move to Spain? Isn’t it odd?
TM: The weather?
GJ: Yeah [laughter], “the weather,” that’s what they’d say. But isn’t it odd that they seem to feel more at home amongst Spaniards than they do among people in their own country? But then you look at the people in their own country, the people who moved into their neighborhoods. They might not have been British. So there’s a lot of white flight that goes on. Again, this is one way people avoid dealing with the problem. They just run away from it.
Germans are now moving to Hungary. Germany is importing Muslims. Germans who don’t like that are fleeing to Hungary, which isn’t importing Muslims. But that’s really not good for Germany, and it’s not good for Hungary either. The Hungarians are welcoming them because they’re bringing money, but they should look at them as rats fleeing a sinking ship, rats fleeing a plague ship. Because a lot of the ideas that messed up Germany are probably lodged in the heads of Germans who are coming to Hungary. Pretty soon they’ll start thinking, “We really need diversity around here.”
That’s certainly true in the Pacific Northwest in the United States, where people fleeing from California to Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana are bringing the very attitudes that made their state unlivable. People look at them as rats bringing the plague with them, and it’s not unreasonable.
So just to recap, I think a lot of people evade the long-term problem. A lot of people are unaware that there really is a long-term problem. They’re too individualistic to want to band together and take responsibility for the problems their societies are facing.
They think that if they just go along and pay lip service to the multicultural regime — and maybe move to a better neighborhood — they can squeak through life with minimal problems. They’re just not going to think or worry about the white people who are having acid thrown in their faces or being beaten and murdered by these invaders. So that’s the general problem.
We really are a people with high individualism, low ethnocentrism, and low solidarity. We’re very weak when faced with invaders who are highly ethnocentric, highly tribal, and have a dual ethical code, where they will treat their own people in one way and they will treat us in another way.
Basically, they are here to exploit us, and the best way of exploiting us is to exploit our white guilt and exploit our desire to be open, our feeling that it’s high-minded to be open and not threatened by and not suspicious of strangers.
They’re very good at exploiting those attitudes to their advantage. The trouble is there are so many of them, and their reproduction rates are sometimes twice as high as white Europeans, so eventually they’re going to take over whatever country they’re entering into.
Then there won’t be an England anymore. There will still be a Pakistan for the Pakistanis. But there won’t be an England for the English. That’s not a future anybody should want.
White people love to be fair. So, in terms of fairness, what’s fair about a world in which the only peoples that don’t have homelands are the peoples of Europe? No Norway for the Norwegians. No England for the English. No France for the French. What you’ll have instead are sprawling multicultural societies, primarily Islamic societies, that none of the former natives feel at home in. What’s fair about that?
There’s always going to be a Muslim world, full of Muslims. There’s no shortage of them. There’s no shortage of Chinese. There’s no shortage of Indians. There’s no shortage of Africans. In fact, there’s a great abundance of them. There will always be an Africa for the Africans.
Why is it wrong for us to be concerned about keeping Europe for Europeans? Or America for Americans? Or Canada for Canadians? What’s wrong with that? What’s unfair about that?
TM: The other thing that a lot of people are very worried about — I’m concerned about as well — is when they hear ethnonationalists or White Nationalists saying, “We need our own space,” they think, “Well, how are you going to achieve that? Is it going to involve death camps or genocide?” So how would you, for example, go about achieving such a thing in America or in Europe without doing a lot of harm?
GJ: Well, first of all, virtually everyone believes that you are justified in doing just about anything to avoid becoming a victim of genocide. That attitude has been drummed into us by six million Holocaust movies — that practically anything is justified if you’re a victim of genocide.
Well, whites are facing a kind of genocide. Genocide doesn’t have to be fast and hot and involve death camps and trenches full of corpses. It doesn’t have to be that dramatic and photogenic.
The United Nations in the aftermath of the Second World War drafted a convention on genocide, which said that genocide also means the slow demographic erasure of distinct peoples. How does that happen? It can happen by invading their homeland and colonizing them and making it impossible for them to reproduce themselves.
That’s what’s going on in practically every white nation today with the exception of a few like Hungary and Poland that are trying to maintain their borders and ethnic integrity. Virtually every white nation is facing long-term prospects that are bleak. Even in Hungary and Poland, their reproduction rates are below replacement.
When you have a situation where more white people are dying than being born every year, eventually there will be no white people.
Why do we have this situation? It’s not a mysterious cosmic inevitability. It’s not a natural catastrophe. It’s not a comet hitting the planet. It’s the product of a culture and of a set of policies — political policies — that were enacted in the aftermath of the Second World War.
If whites are slowly facing extinction because of decisions that were made in the aftermath of the Second World War, then we can change those decisions. We can change those policies. We can alter our culture. We can change our values so that problem no longer exists.
The first thing we must do is simply to say: “No more immigration. Close the borders. It’s over.” Then the second thing is to start encouraging people to emigrate.
Even though whites are facing genocide as it’s technically defined, in England or France or the United States, there are no death camps. Things look pretty good. Consumer electronics have never been cheaper. You’ve got more processing power in your smartphone than they did in the giant computers that sent men to the moon in the 1960s. “How are we facing genocide? It just doesn’t seem to be happening.” You can have a society that is generally pleasant and orderly, a society that has the appearance of being healthy and vibrant — vibrant in a good way, not in the euphemistic multicultural way — but where your long-term prospects are nil.
We should simply reverse these trends that are sending us in the wrong direction, that are sending us towards extinction. And we can do it as slowly and as stealthily as the genocide that’s being enacted against us. We don’t need a race war, a paroxysm of ethnic cleansing. We simply need to change the trends.
Just over fifty years ago the United States opened its borders to nonwhite immigration. We went from being a 90% white country to a 60% white country since then. I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t say, “Let’s go back to the ethnic status quo of 1965.”
Let’s change our immigration policies. How would we do that? Well, first of all, no more immigration from the nonwhite world. Second, we start encouraging emigration by nonwhites. If it was possible for them to move here, it’s possible for them to go back. If they came by planes, and trains, and automobiles, those things run both ways. It’s possible for them to go back. It’s not impossible; it’s not inconceivable; it’s simply a matter of will.
It’s simply a matter of our instituting policies and trends that cause a net outflow of these people rather than a net influx. That’s totally doable. People know how to do that.
So step one: We stop all immigration.
Step two: Everybody who’s come here illegally — and that’s a large number of them — you go over all of their paperwork with a magnifying glass. You find everyone that’s made fraudulent applications for welfare, that has put in a fraudulent claim that he was being persecuted in his homeland, or whatever. You find these people and you deport them. They broke the law, so they’ve got no business here.
TM: Okay, so you’re just talking about changing general trends and over time re-establishing white integrity of the country.
GJ: Yes, if it took fifty years for us to get into this mess, we can afford fifty years to get us out of this mess.
But here’s the thing: let’s say we embark upon a fifty-year project of returning America to the ethnic status quo of 1965. That was a great time in America in terms of productivity, in terms of national glory. It’s when we had our space program going; fashion looked great; working-class incomes were probably as high as they had ever been. They started declining in the early 1970s. That was a great status quo year, when we were 90% white. If it took us fifty years to get back to that, that would be great.
But if we embarked on that program today, we’d start reaping the psychological benefits of it today. Because I think a great deal of the pathology of white people — the nihilism, the drug and alcohol abuse, the suicides, the alarmingly rising mortality of middle-aged working- and lower-class white people in the United States — is connected to the feeling that they’ve got no future. Not just as individuals, but as a group.
TM: Right, and they’re not allowed to identify as part of a group. Psychologically it is actually very healthy to recognize your ethnic group and ancestors. I read recently that studying your genealogy and finding out about your ancestors improves your mental health and wellbeing. So you can only imagine what it’s doing to us to be told we’re not even allowed to feel any sense of pride or accomplishment for what our ancestors achieved.
GJ: But they will tell us that we should feel guilt for all the things that our ancestors did, right? I love that.
Well, wait a second, if it makes sense for us to feel collective guilt for things that other white people have done, then why is it wrong for us to feel collective pride for the things that other white people have done? When you look at the balance sheet, the things that we have to be proud of far outweigh the things we have to be ashamed of.
I really think it’s not guilt so much as shame that’s the issue. I don’t feel any personal guilt for things that I don’t do. I’m not responsible for things I don’t do. But I can feel ashamed of the things that were done by my family or by my extended family, i.e., my racial family or my nation in the past. I can feel ashamed of that. But I can also feel pride for the good things that they’ve done.
And if white people started feeling pride for all the accomplishments of our people, we’d become much less tractable, and guilty, much less willing to be swindled out of our future.
So yes, I think you’re right: a sense of who we are — a sense of rootedness, looking in the past, looking at previous generations and seeing your features and their faces — all of that is a very healthy experience.
I remember I was in Munich a few years ago. I went to the Wittelsbach palace, the Residenz Palace, and the best thing I saw there was the gallery of the ancestors. The Wittelsbachs created a gallery with portraits of all of their ancestors. Some of these, of course, were fanciful portraits, not from life, because their line went all the way back to the kings in the early Middle Ages from whom no portraits survive. For instance, Charlemagne was one of their ancestors.
It was fascinating to walk through this gallery and see all these faces. When they were actually portraits, you could see that, yes, these were the same people generation after generation after generation. Of course, European royals would marry their second and third cousins and so the same features would come back again and again and again. It was really a moving experience, a kind of sublime experience. I imagine it was especially that way for the actual Wittelsbachs who were viewing it. It was a reminder of who they are.
The greater the sense of rooted identity we have, the happier we’re going to be, the prouder we’re going to be, and the less easily swindled out of a future we’re going to be.
But yes, there are going to be enormous psychological benefits to simply feeling that we have a future as a group again.
TM: A lot of people ask about the African Americans, who make up about 13% of the population. These people have lived there for multiple generations and speak English. Most of them haven’t even been to Africa. You couldn’t possibly expect them to repatriate to Africa after this stage. What would you say about that?
GJ: Well, first of all let me point out that is not a problem that you have to deal with in Great Britain. Or in France or in Norway.
TM: There are people who have been here for multiple generations, yeah.
GJ: Yeah, but there are two things here: They have even more multiple generations in previous homelands. The fact is that if their roots in those previous homelands didn’t matter that much to them, why should their “roots,” which are quite shallow, in your homeland matter all that much to you?
Also, we have a situation where people are constantly forced to move because of things like jobs, plants closing, or real estate becoming too expensive, so your neighborhood becomes unaffordable, your rents go up, or you have to move to search for a job because the factory that you worked in closed down and has reopened in Indonesia.
Nobody sheds a tear about people who are displaced because of private greed, private interests in the economic realm. So why should we be so broken up about the idea of people having to move for something that’s really important, namely the common good of a people? I think that that is the kind of thinking we need to entertain.
Now as for blacks in America, yes, I think that the just and equitable solution for them would be to simply create a separate homeland for them in North America and encourage them to move there. Encourage them to move to several southern states and set up their autonomous homeland there.
You could just give them incentives to move there. Very significant numbers of blacks receive public assistance in the United States. Say, “Okay, you can collect your public assistance check in New Africa.” I think that they’d up stakes and move there. Over time you’d get a situation where — again simply through gentle demographic pressures and incentives — the trend by which blacks emigrated from the South into the rest of the country, during and after the First World War, would be reversed. What were the reasons for that “Great Migration,” as they call it? Jobs opened up. Whites were off fighting in Europe during the war.
TM: Okay, so you’d propose non-violent means using financial incentives and legal means such as deporting illegals to restore the original ethnic makeup of the United States and also European countries. I think that sounds very reasonable personally.
Of course, I suppose the main problem is that we’ve been so brainwashed to think that this is a hateful thing to do. What would your perspective be on how to counter this narrative that it’s a hateful thing, based out of hate?
GJ: Well, first of all, hate is a natural, normal emotion that is sometimes defensible. It’s simply true. Moreover, everybody hates somebody. So the only real question is: “Is it reasonable to feel hate in certain circumstances?”
Yes, you want to live in a society where there is a minimum of hatred and violence and tension between people of different ethnic groups. So how do you create that kind of society?
Well, as it turns out, ethnic hatred and tension are maximized by multiculturalism. So if we are really opposed to hatred and tension and ethnic violence, the best route is to reduce multiculturalism. Reduce it to an absolute zero if we can. That’s really the best route.
I think it’s perfectly natural, normal, and right to feel hatred in certain circumstances. And it’s inevitable that there will be a lot of hatred — and not just hatred, but violence — in multicultural societies. So we need to decrease diversity, and that will decrease hatred.
Now you also have to ask about the people who are imposing these policies on us. I’m afraid that quite a lot of liberals and Leftists really do hate their own people. And aren’t we being taught to hate ourselves, all this white guilt and multicultural propaganda?
So there’s a whole lot of hate to go around here, and it’s not all on us. The Left hate us. The Left hate their own societies. You can find plenty of statements where they will say, “I despise the English.” Or, “What an evil corrupt society we are. We should hate ourselves.” Entire generations are being taught to hate themselves.
TM: Yeah, absolutely, definitely. I’ve heard it so many times that “Oh, this town is too white” or “You know, this school is too white,” is what I heard growing up.
Actually I’d also like to ask you a similar kind of question to the last one: What about mixed-race people? I know that sometimes people will say, “Well, what percentage white is acceptable?” Is it the one drop rule? What’s going on here?
Or what about literally potentially dividing families, for example, with one black parent with one white parent? I know it’s nitpicking, but what is your personal perspective or proposed policy regarding this?
GJ: Well, first of all, I’m a pragmatist about this. My attitude about race-mixing is that we should have a complete amnesty on past race-mixing, especially if it was in the distant past, but a complete moratorium on doing it in the future. We are thinking ahead, we are thinking about the future, so I would like there to be no more of it.
And then the question about what to do with people who are of mixed ancestry is really very simple. I think they should be encouraged to live with the people they are most comfortable with. If there’s a white who married into a black family and has for all intents and purposes black children, I think that they should be encouraged to go with their family that they married into.
Now there are also differences between nonwhites. Some of them are more different from us than others. Blacks are very different from whites. I wouldn’t call people from the Near East white or European, but they’re certainly Caucasian. And honestly, I don’t think that those people are a problem if there’s a small admixture. In fact, there’s been a small admixture of Near Eastern genes in many canonically European nations for a very long time. That doesn’t really bother me.
With Asians, with Amerindians, with blacks, they’re all different. Asians and Amerindians are less genetically distant from whites than blacks are. And so a small admixture of those populations doesn’t really matter. And it really wouldn’t matter at all if we were a growing population.
But the trouble is we are a shrinking population. And when you have a shrinking core population and you permit out-marriage, that’s just hastening the day that we disappear as a distinct people. So I would support laws against miscegenation being instituted in the future.
But the best anti-miscegenation laws are simply having a homeland. It’s a passive anti-miscegenation law. It’s like speed bumps. They’re just there, so you’ve got to slow down. Borders are just there, so you don’t end up meeting and marrying people who are racially different from yourself. That’s really the best thing.
I remember being with a friend at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and there was this white woman and her two daughters walking around the arms and armor collection, which is one of my favorite collections there. They were just so beautiful. And I said to my friend, “You know, there really needs to be a reservation where people like that can exist without being threatened.” Then I said, “You know, it used to be called Europe.”
GJ: That was the white people reservation, right?
TM: Yeah, we need a reservation [laughter].
GJ: And how about Europe? Europe would be a nice reservation. So that’s my attitude.
Honestly, having a small amount of nonwhite admixture would not be an issue if we had a growing white population. But we don’t. We’ve got a declining white population, and therefore we can’t really be lax about race-mixing into the future. We have to hold the line.
Now what would the attitude be in an America that is reconstituted on ethnic lines, toward people who have marginal African or Amerindian ancestry? Well, I think if they look white, think of themselves as white, and act white, and so forth, that they’re white people for all intents and purposes, for all practical purposes.
However, if there are people within that society who want to remain genetically aloof from any admixture, that’s fine. I would have no problem with that. But the whole purist thing would not be legislated but simply a matter of social customs and preferences that certain communities and families would have. I think that would be a reasonable and humane attitude.
TM: And I think that that ties in with the Jewish Question. What’s your perspective on that, quickly?
GJ: The Jewish Question is basically this: First of all, Jews are a distinct people. They think of themselves as a distinct people. But there are Jews who in effect opt out of being Jewish by intermarrying with non-Jews and dropping their Jewish customs and religion and so forth. And that has happened a lot in the past, and my attitude towards people with marginal Jewish ancestry is basically this question, “Do you honor your Jewish ancestor’s decision to opt out of the Jewish community? Or are you going to try to exploit that marginal Jewish ancestry to give yourself more credibility and power within the present system, which is largely Jewish dominated?” If they choose the former, then I don’t have any problem with it, but if they choose the latter, then I’d start looking dimly upon them.
Jews are Caucasians. Middle Easterners are all Caucasians. Ashkenazi Jews are a mixture of people from the Near East and Europe. They’re about 50/50. Honestly, if you’ve got a marginal Ashkenazi ancestry, that’s a very small non-European percentage of DNA. And I just don’t think it matters unless you make an issue of it. Unless you make it matter, right? You are as Jewish as you want to be, on that account.
However, as a rule, I would say let’s have no more Jewish-Gentile admixture in the future. Let’s try to separate ourselves. Let’s keep our people distinct. I think that’s a reasonable attitude. Again, amnesty for what happened in the past, as long as people don’t make an issue of it, as long as they’re not trying to identify with that group based on marginal ancestry. And a moratorium on it going forward.
TM: I guess the last remaining question, really, is how on Earth do we possibly convince the majority of the white population to even consider this idea?
GJ: We convince them by persuading them that it’s necessary, first of all, that none of the other political options that are on the table are going to solve the basic problem that white people face: namely, long-term biological and cultural extinction. Conservatives aren’t going to conserve us from that. Liberals are pushing it forward. We simply don’t have any options. Libertarianism just hides our heads in the sand and pretends that it doesn’t exist. There are no political options that will save us from long-term extinction, both as ethnic groups and as a biological race.
And once people get that through their thick heads and realize that it is possible to change this — it’s only happened due to bad policies, most of which have been instituted in the last couple of generations — once they get it through their heads that it can be changed, and it can be changed in a way that’s completely moral, then change will come.
TM: What about for people who say, “You know, I don’t care what the world looks like in fifty years, I’m going to be gone anyway.”
GJ: I think they’re probably lying to you and to themselves. They really do care about it. But they’ve given up. They don’t feel that they’ve got a future. They’re afraid of fighting to have a future. So they’re saying what does it matter anyway. So I think that on one level it’s just a lie and a cop out.
They really do care. They just feel helpless. So we have to teach them that no, it’s not hopeless. People can band together. They can change people’s minds. They can change policies. And that’s going to happen. It’s already happening. The growth in what we’re doing has been tremendous recently, and we will only continue. We don’t need to have an absolute majority on our side. We just need a highly motivated, influential, and focused minority on our side.
And when I see the caliber — the intelligence, the creativity — of the people who are coming into this, and have come into this in the last couple years, we are gaining the ears of the best people of our race, the young ones, the people who have more future ahead of them and want to fight more for it. So I think things are actually looking up for us.
It’s going to be a long, hard slog, there’s no question about it. But given that nobody else has any solutions or even any inkling of what the problem is, and given that the Left is pretty tired and pretty hysterical now — now that Trump has happened, that Brexit has happened, and so forth — they’re not attractive. Millennials and the next generation after them are noticing that the multicultural paradise is a lie. Their minds are open. So it’s not hopeless. In fact, I’m very, very white-pilled about all of this. It’s a great time for us to be alive. It’s a glorious time.
I’ve always been skeptical of the “greatest generation” propaganda about the WWII generation. I always thought that was rubbish. Now I’m arguing that the millennials will be the greatest generation, because the millennials are going to be the ones who actually turn this whole thing around. The millennials are going to save our race and save our civilization. And the generation that’s coming after them are going to do that as well. So you’re the greatest generation. [laughter] You are coming over to our side. And this is a great time to be alive.
TM: Yeah, it’s funny you say that, because obviously millennials are generally associated with some degeneracy and things like that, but we’ll have to see how things turn out. Apparently Generation Z is fairly red-pilled on some things.
GJ: Z is not the last generation. I know Z is the last letter in the alphabet. No, no. Once you get to Z, then it starts over again.
TM: This is true.
GJ: And then Alpha after that, and a bright new future. So that’s my outlook on this. I think that we are changing minds. Again, White Nationalism is really the only sober and responsible political position once you understand the situation that our race is in, demographically and politically. It’s also a completely fair and humane and natural and normal reaction. And it doesn’t have to be messy and sloppy and immoral and murderous. In fact, that’s the future we’re trying to avoid. We’re trying to avoid a future of constant racial hatred and animosity.
We realize that there will never be a world without enemies. But there are ways of reducing conflict. The best way of reducing conflict is to give peoples with distinct ways of life, and distinct senses of identity and destiny, separate homelands where they can live without having to constantly fight against people on the bus, in their job, in the supermarket. It just gets so tiring. To step out your front door, in what used to be your homeland, and feel like you’re jostling your way through an Arab souk.
TM: Which is exactly what I have to do every single time I leave the house. It’s not very pleasant, I have to say.
Why do you call yourself a White Nationalist even though it’s associated with the term “white supremacist,” and people use it interchangeably? Do you think they are different, and aren’t you worried about the connotations with that term? Because I actually do agree with you on 90% of what you said in this interview, but I wouldn’t call myself a White Nationalist. Just because there are connotations that I wouldn’t want to be associated with.
GJ: Right. We just have to change the connotations. That’s my attitude. I wrote an article recently at Counter-Currents on this very issue: Are White Nationalists white supremacists?   And the answer is no, actually. We don’t want to rule over other races. That’s the whole point of being separate from them. We don’t want to be ruled by them either. But we don’t want to rule over them. We want to be separate.
The people who end up being white supremacists are the civic nationalist types, the Alt Lite types, the Gavin McInnes types, the people who say, “We’re just going to surrender to all the demographic changes that have been made and imposed upon us since 1965; we’re not going to change any of that; we’re not going to stop it. We’re not going to question it; we’re just going to surrender to that. But we are going to be Western cultural chauvinists.”
Well, that boils down to enforcing white standards in a multiracial society. Enforcing, if you will, white supremacy. We’ve created a society where 40% of the population isn’t white, but we’re going to demand that they follow all the rules and mores and customs that are most comfortable for white people.
Now, of course the hat trick that they use to get out of that implication is to say that our values are universal. We’re avatars of universal humanity. Like that line in Full Metal Jacket: “Inside every gook is an American trying to get out.” And that’s why we were in Vietnam. We were there to liberate them, not just from communism, but from their own culture, their own past, to allow them to be Americans. Because that’s what they really want to be.
Well, that’s not true. Different people really are different, and if they’re really different, there are ways of life that are going to be more comfortable for them than the European way of life or the American way of life. That’s why they’re constantly demanding that we change the way that we live. They’re trying to become more comfortable.
If we say, “You’re here. We’re not going to do anything about it. That would be politically incorrect even to consider it. But we’re going to be Western chauvinists and defend the Western way of life, and you damn well better get used to it,” that is de facto white supremacism. We are imposing white standards upon them. They might even find a token black who will go along with it. The token black in the Trump cabinet or the token black in the Proud Boys. But these people are seen by their own people as traitors.
TM: That’s true. Absolutely. I’m sure we’re all familiar with that situation of black people being called “white” just for wanting to go to school.
We’ve actually come up to an hour, so, thank you very much, Greg Johnson for joining me for this interview. If you guys want to find Greg Johnson’s website it’s Counter-Currents.com. Is there anything else you’d like our listeners to go and find from you, maybe books or social media?
GJ: My main presence is the Counter-Currents website that lists all of the books that we’ve published and all the books that we sell. There’s new content five days a week. Sometimes two or three things a day. We have podcasts, we have articles, we have reviews. Occasionally a video.
It’s a very important website. I think it’s really the best intellectually oriented Anglophone White Nationalist website out there. If you haven’t tried it, I’d encourage you to visit.
I want to thank you, Tara, for having me on the show. It’s been a really enjoyable experience.
TM: Yeah, a great show and I hope all the listeners enjoyed it, and I’ll catch you guys in the next video.
  Greg Johnson, “Supremacism,” The White Nationalist Manifesto (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2018).