The following is a transcript of a conversation that took place between Greg Johnson and Millennial Woes in January 2018. The original audio is here . We would like to thank S. C. for the transcript.
Millennial Woes: Hello, this is Millennial Woes, and I’m going to ask Greg Johnson the questions from Sargon of Akkad’s questionnaire for the Alt Right. There are eight questions, and I’ll ask each one, and then Greg can give his answer.
Do you want to talk about Sargon and the skeptic community before we begin? It’s probably not relevant. I think everyone knows that already.
Greg Johnson: Everyone probably knows that, and I know nothing about Sargon, really, and the skeptic community, so I don’t have anything to say. I just had an introduction to it today when a person sent an article to Counter-Currents about the skeptic war on YouTube with the Alt Right, and I thought, “Well, this is interesting,” so that’s when I looked and found the eight questions that Sargon has posed to the Alt Right — or, as I want to put it, White Nationalists — so I thought I should answer these or give it a try. But then I thought my life is too short, and sitting down and grinding this out in written form is too laborious. I have other important things I need to do. And you suggested we just have a conversation about it, so I think that’s a great way forward.
MW: Exactly. It’s nice, it’s off the cuff, it won’t take too much time, and then we can move on to other things. This is why I want to do more livestreaming this year, so there’s less worrying about it all.
Okay, here we go with the first question. “Are Jews oppressing white people?” And I’m not sure if I should say anything. I think it’s obvious that these questions come from a certain perspective and are designed to elicit certain answers in order to produce a certain impression of White Nationalism.
GJ: Right. He’s obviously grandstanding to his audience, and, just judging from the questions, he is presupposing that his audience holds certain principles or values that I find questionable and that White Nationalists generally reject. So he’s in effect framing this in a way that’s appealing to the prejudices of his audience, and instead of raising those underlying value questions, he’s just presupposing those questions.
So in answering them, I want to do two things. First of all, I’ll answer the question in a straightforward way, but I also want to identify the false underlying premise that he smuggles in and that he’s depending upon in the minds of his audience.
MW: Right. Excellent. Well, okay. Here’s the first question. “Are Jews oppressing white people?”
GJ: Yes. Jews are oppressing white people. White Nationalists like me and Kevin MacDonald argue that the current political, economic, and cultural system in the West is basically inimical to the interests of the founding white populations of every Western country. This anti-white system — which features such things as multiculturalism, denigration of whites, denigration of white heritage, erasure of white heritage, creating movies where historically white characters are being played by nonwhites, open borders, race replacement immigration, promotion of miscegnation for whites, and so on — has been constructed by the Jewish intellectual and cultural elite, precisely to harm the interests of the majority white populations of every European country.
They have been so successful in shaping people’s perceptions, values, and narratives that most white people are now marching self-righteously into the graveyard. They’re self-righteously pursuing policies that will destroy our race in the long-term. They’re exalting white guilt and white self-abasement. They’re amplifying and encouraging the ethnocentrism and grievances of nonwhites. They’re welcoming refugees. They’re adopting black babies, and they’re signaling about this on social media, and so forth. These people have been brainwashed, essentially, by the elites. They’ve been brainwashed with a message that’s constructed by Jewish intellectual movements who are calculatedly creating a political system and a culture that are inimical to white interests.
The very whites who actually speak out against this — who see through the brainwashing, who see that these trends are inimical to the interests of our people and if they’re not interrupted, are going to lead to the extinction of the white race — are actively oppressed by the Jewish community.
When the Greek government goes to New York City and speaks to powerful international Jews, and are ordered to arrest the leaders of the Golden Dawn party in Greece, and they go home and arrest the Golden Dawn leadership, that is active, open, naked, Jewish oppression of self-conscious white people.
When Jewish organizations like the SPLC and the ADL create lists of individuals and organizations and websites that need to be de-platformed, and these are de-platformed, that is active, open Jewish oppression.
So my answer is yes, Jews are oppressing white people. They are oppressing white people to the full extent that they need to oppress white people to attain their long-term goals, which is basically driving whites to extinction.
MW: Would you say that a better word here would be “subverting” than “oppressing”? Because “oppression” implies a sort of heavy-handed, open, overt authority clamping down openly, and publicly, and unashamedly on a populace, whereas I think what’s going on here is more akin to subversion from behind the scenes.
GJ: Yes, well, they have subverted us to the extent that’s possible, and for the whites that can’t be brainwashed and bought and intimidated into going along with their agenda, then there’s open oppression. National Action has been declared a terrorist group in England, and its members are being arrested. That is oppression in the colorful sense that he’s trying to paint when he uses that word, “oppression.”
Now as to the underlying assumptions in the minds of his audience, the prejudices in the minds of his audience that Sargon is appealing to here: they are complex, but a couple things come to mind. First of all, he’s pandering to colorful pictures of totalitarian oppression, jack-booted thugs, and so forth. They do send jack-booted thugs out, but that’s not the primary way that they rule us. They rule us through soft power, through metapolitics, through brainwashing, intimidation, corruption, and subversion.
But when those fail, then they will, of course, go to hard power. They will arrest the leaders of political parties; they will de-platform websites; they will arrest members of organizations.
They do that too, but they don’t have to do that for the most part, and the people who think they aren’t being oppressed by Jews are basically the ones who are brainwashed into going along with their own oppression, who censor their own thoughts so they don’t need to be censored.
The other thing I think that he’s trying to appeal to is the classic horseshoe theory. “The SJWs claim that they’re being oppressed, and you claim that you’re being oppressed, so you’re just the SJWs of the Right!,” something jejune, something childish like that.
Another thing he might be appealing to is a primitive, manospherian psychology that basically holds that we should never admit that we’re being oppressed because that sounds weak. You don’t want to admit that you’re weak. You don’t want to admit that you’re oppressed.
Try that argument on the blacks who led the Civil Rights movement. Try that argument on any anti-colonial movement. “You don’t want to seem weak by admitting that you’re oppressed.” That really is an argument that the oppressor would want to circulate. “You don’t want to admit that this vast Indian subcontinent is so weak and disorganized that it could be ruled by a relative handful of foreigners, do you? Wouldn’t you be humiliated to admit that?”
Of course it is humiliating. It is humiliating to be oppressed by a small, vicious group of people, and we need to deal with the full weight of that humiliation, the full horror of that reality. Then we need to get mad. Then we need to get busy doing something about it.
So those are some of the false assumptions trailing along in the nimbus of this particular question.
MW: Question two: “Should interracial couples be forced to separate?”
GJ: I guess we’re supposed to think of poor Romeo and Juliet and their horrible families trying to pull them apart. My answer to this question is: No. I wouldn’t force interracial couples to separate. I would force them to leave the country if I were creating an ethnically homogeneous white society. I would say: “You married a Japanese woman. Why don’t you go to Japan?” I wouldn’t force couples to separate.
The important thing is not forcing couples to separate. The important thing is to lay down laws that would prevent them from getting together in the first place. That’s what an ethnostate needs to have, and many countries, including the United States, through long stretches of its history, have had laws that prevent people from marrying outside of their race. That is something that has existed throughout most of history, whenever different races live in proximity. Laws on the books, or customs that enforce the same results. Frankly, we need to go back to that. We need to go back to a situation where we value the purity and integrity of our race, the distinctness of our race, and therefore we do not permit interracial marriages to happen in the first place.
And the couples that exist today, well, if we’re going to be partitioning countries and creating homogeneous ethnostates, they can leave. But I wouldn’t force anyone to get a divorce. No. I would just simply say, “You should go to Hong Kong or Singapore or Africa or wherever you found your bride.” New Africa, whatever. We’ll deal with it that way.
As for Romeo and Juliet, the parents were right. It was a terrible idea for these silly, starry-eyed kids to try to marry when they came from families that had been at war with one another and had killed members of one another for a very long time. There’s simply no possible happy ending for something like that. So I think it is rather silly that we can cite that tragedy as somehow a premise to forestall any sensible policies to arrest the alarming trend towards miscegnation in white societies.
MW: Okay, and what are the underlying presumptions that Sargon is playing on here?
GJ: I think he is just playing on the romantic idea that if people love one another it would be a terrible tragedy to break them apart. Also, I guess he’s trying to paint pictures of jack-booted thugs tearing people apart. Honestly, he can try to do that, but the proper view to take when you’re making policy is not to think about the picturesque and tear-jerking incidents that enforcing any law can lead to.
Rather, we must think about the invisible couples in the future that race-mixing is preventing from coming together, and the invisible white generations that you’re making possible by protecting the race from being bred out of existence through miscegnation. That’s what we need to focus on when making policy. We need to focus on the invisible people that we’re saving, rather than a few picturesque things that can be staged and put in the media, like these pictures of Mexicans posing by border fences blubbering and touching one another through the wire. If they’re so sad to be separate, why don’t they just all go back to Mexico and be together? So, he’s just engaged in some kind of low emotional blackmail.
But we should definitely prevent interracial couples from getting together in the first place. That should be policy. Return to anti-miscegnation laws. But the best form of miscegnation laws are the basically the de facto anti-miscegnation laws of having one’s own country. If the races are separate from one another, and you just don’t go to school with, or on dates with, or to college with people of different races, you’re not going to fall in love with them.
MW: Question three. “Should the government prevent citizens from leaving the country in order to preserve the race?”
GJ: I guess he’s trying to conjure up an image of the Berlin wall. I love that. Years ago, Rush Limbaugh, when he was being a real sophist and open borders advocate, would always try to characterize building a wall on the border as the Berlin Wall, which kept people in, as opposed to building a wall to keep invaders out. I guess that’s what Sargon’s trying to say. We wouldn’t allow breeding stock to leave the country. I think that’s kind of silly.
My view of how to create an ethnostate is basically to draw boundaries and create incentives for people to sort themselves out. That means that if I were dictator of America tomorrow, I would encourage all the people who can’t get behind that idea, even if they’re lily-white and as blonde and blue-eyed as you can possibly imagine, to leave. The way to get what we want is to give people the option of living in a society that’s homogeneous — and to give the ones who don’t agree with that the option of leaving.
That will create a population with a broad consensus that it’s okay to be white and to want to live among white people. You won’t want people who undermine that social consensus, so why force them to stay? I like the idea of allowing people to voluntarily sort themselves out into different communities. You can “ethnically cleanse” and ideologically cleanse the ethnostate by just allowing the people who don’t believe in it to go live in a multicultural society if they want.
I wrote an article at Counter-Currents called “The Slow Cleanse” about how we could have an orderly, humane process of “ethnic cleansing” that would go on for, say, fifty years. Basically we’d create incentives for nonwhites within a particular territory to move. We would encourage the younger ones, the ones who have kids, to move. The older ones, we wouldn’t care about, because they’ll just grow old and die.
People move all the time. They move all the time for jobs, they move all the time for college, and so forth, and we would just have a policy where, say, if an Asian family works for a multi-national corporation that moves them around occasionally, the next move they would go outside the United States, or outside the ethnostate somewhere else.
If you simply had policies in place like that for fifty years, we would get to an ethnostate, and it wouldn’t involve any sort of jack-booted thugs and totalitarian stuff, trains full of plaintive looking people being shipped off, that we’ve been trained to envision by a hundred Holocaust movies, or a thousand Holocaust movies, however many there have been.
So I think that we should definitely allow people to leave the country if they want to, and that would be a way of preserving the race. Even though they might be good white people, if they’re not behind the idea that it’s okay to be white, and for whites to live amongst their own kind and prefer their own kind, we prefer that they would go somewhere else.
MW: Okay, question four. “Should the state control education?”
GJ: Certainly. Of course, I think the state needs to control education. One of the primary functions of the state is to cultivate the populace. The reason we need state-controlled education is to create unity and to instill virtue, as well as to give people the information they need to survive and to prosper. The purpose of government is to lay the foundations for living a good life in society, and the right kind of education is essential to that.
Again, there’s information, there are skills, and there are also virtues. Virtue should be one of the things that we strive to instill through education, and if we have state controlled education, and we create a sufficiently virtuous populace — a populace in which people can control their behavior, think ahead, govern themselves, and act ethically in their dealings with others — then when they grow up, you have a society that’s almost self-regulating, and so you don’t need cops rushing to intervene all the time in, say, the domestic abuse problems of a particular couple. There’s going to be less of that. There will be fewer people treating each other in unethical ways, committing crimes, etc., if we raise a virtuous populace that has basically the same values and feel like they’re part of a society, feel responsible to the society, etc. So yes, definitely the state should control education.
Now of course, Sargon is trying to paint a picture of propaganda and brainwashing. The Left definitely needs to control education because the things they value and promote are false, and if you allow people to think for themselves, or have a quiet moment of reflection away from the telescreen blaring propaganda, they’re going to start thinking for themselves, and the power of the Left is going to unravel.
But we don’t have to worry about that so much because what we teach is in harmony with nature.
However, just because it’s in harmony with nature doesn’t mean that we can just let everybody sort it out for themselves, because there are better or worse ways of doing things, and the better way is to have an orderly society where people are cultivated from very early age to have common language and customs, to have the necessary information and skills to do well in life, and to have the virtues to behave nobly and to be self-actualized. Those are things that the state needs to get involved in, and those are things that go with the grain of nature, rather than against it, and will produce a society in which people flourish and are happy.
MW: But I think the objection that could be raised to this is “What if you’re a parent and you don’t like the education that the state is giving your child?” I mean, should home-schooling be available? Should private schooling be available?
GJ: These make sense in societies that are already in a bad state. Either societies that are rotted from the start with radical individualism, low trust, “devil take the hindmost” attitudes towards different classes of people, a factionalized society — or a society where the people in charge of education and the state have interests inimical to the society as a whole, and therefore they’re viewed with distrust as exploiters and propagandizers and so forth. So for those concerns to make sense, that is already presupposing a bad situation. A lot of people who believe in home-schooling, let’s face it, are religious cranks, young Earth creationists who don’t want their children to be exposed to the facts about evolution, and so forth. But if we were living in a really healthy society, I don’t think there would be a movement for home-schooling. People would think they’re part of a greater community and not want to keep their children home to educate them.
MW: But also, a lot of people who are White Nationalists believe in home-schooling because it’s the only way they can get their child away from the cultural Marxist programming.
GJ: Why not home-schooling today and state schooling tomorrow? We should be totally pragmatic about these things. Home-schooling today means “Unplug your kids from the brainwashing machine.” That’s an important thing. But as a long-term solution, as soon as we have control, we’re going to want to teach kids the proper message, therefore, compulsory public education should be a feature of an ethnostate, especially if we’ve got so much garbage to purge from our culture, so many false attitudes, so many false ideas, so many false values.
I am constantly surprising myself by stumbling across pieces of liberal propaganda in my own beliefs. I should know better. I have this term I call the “complete lifetime audit,” the “total life audit.” Once you get red-pilled, you really have to go through and audit everything that you’ve accepted over the course of your life, and you’re going to find a lot of fossilized bits of propaganda that you haven’t questioned, just stuck in your brain.
So if we create an ethnostate, we definitely need control of education. We’ll have to spend a lot of time battling the remnants of false ideas in our society, to set things on the right course. I’m all for private education, home-schooling, and whatever today. But in the ethnostate we should definitely have state education.
MW: But should we have just state education?
GJ: Yes, we should just have state education, because we would want to make sure that everyone is on the same page and gets the same message.
MW: I disagree with you here, because for various reasons I just don’t like the idea of a population being systematically programmed like that, but also what if the Left subverted the department of education in the ethnostate?
GJ: There would be no Left in the ethnostate. Not the Left that we have today. They would be some of the people that we wouldn’t prevent from leaving the country. There would be political pluralism in the ethnostate, but there would not be a Left in the sense of the anti-white Left that we have today.
Basically, my view of how an ethnostate should work is this. We should have the maximum amount of pluralism and freedom as long as the degradation and destruction of the white race is not one of the political possibilities. We can vote on all kinds of stuff. We can quarrel about women’s rights, and feminism, and abortion, and tax policies, and all of that kind of stuff.
But there should be no debate about whether it’s good to be white, that whites have a right to continue to exist, etc. Those sorts of things should be off the table. There are sacred cows in our society today, and unfortunately those sacred cows are not in the interests of white people. So my attitude is we need maximum pluralism consistent with the preservation and flourishing of the white race. I call that notion “hegemony,” the hegemony of pro-white ideas.
I have an essay in my book New Right vs. Old Right called “Hegemony.” It’s also at the Counter-Currents site, where I talk about hegemony as a form of soft power, and that’s what we’re ruled by today. Jews don’t openly oppress most of us, because they enjoy hegemony over 99% of the minds of our people, and therefore it’s only 1% of people who get uppity like us that they actually need actively oppress.
I think we need to replace Jewish hegemony, anti-white hegemony, anti-white soft power, with pro-white soft power, pro-white hegemony, and then we can go about our business, we can start businesses, we can take trips, we can have political parties, we can have political debates, we can quarrel with one another. But the destruction of our race is not something that will ever be allowed to be conceived as a possible political goal. That has to be taken off the table completely.
MW: Question five, and it’s a similar sort of moral, ethical quandary. “Should the state control the media?”
GJ: Yes, the state should control the media. The question is how should the state control the media.
Let’s revisit the education question, because you moved to the media question before I said one final thing about the educational question. If there is a solid hegemony of pro-white ideas, then that would allow for private education, because no matter whether you go to private school, or public school, or you do it at home, they’re all going to be on the same page about the essential things, namely the preservation and flourishing of our race. So the kind of control of education that I really envision is going to be this soft power hegemony. Even homeschoolers are compelled to educate their children. It is not possible in the United States to simply say, “We’re not going to educate our children at all.” That is against the law, so the state is controlling homeschooling as well.
The issue is this: Does the state have to provide education, or does the state simply have to control the central content of education and make education compulsory? I would say the state doesn’t necessarily have to provide education. Although that’s a pretty good thing, frankly, and I would prefer that. But the state definitely will control it on the most essential issues, even if it’s provided at home or at private academies.
The same principle applies with the media. In the modern situation today, there is a hegemony of anti-white, pro-multicultural ideas in the media. It doesn’t matter if it’s CNN or Fox. There are certain issues that are sacrosanct. They are anti-racist, and they will fight to the death against being called a racist, and that is the kind of hegemony that I think that we need to have over the media as well.
The state doesn’t need to have active censors or run all the newspapers, or anything like that, if there is a sufficiently strong consensus on the essential issue of white survival. So the answer is hegemony, which is a form of control over the media, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that all the media has to be owned by the state and all the content has to be provided by the state. But the essential parameters definitely need to be controlled.
There should be certain ideas that simply never get a serious hearing in a white ethnostate. Multiculturalism will never get a serious hearing in the white ethnostate. Liberalism will never get a serious hearing in the ethnostate. Marxism will never get a serious hearing. We will trot them out and talk about them as examples of the bad old days, but they are never going to get a serious hearing again. No one’s ever going to try these terrible, destructive ideas again, and we would be fools and cucks just to set up a system with a suicide pact built into it. No serious society includes a suicide clause in its constitution. That’s just absurd. Even liberal societies don’t do that.
MW: Alright. Question six: “Should the state control the economy?”
GJ: Yes, the state should control the economy. But, again, how should the state control the economy? I guess Sargon is putting it in these terms like “state control of education,” “state control of the media” to bring to mind the Soviet Union or some kind of fossilized Communist one-party system where everything is controlled by drab bureaucrats. It’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.
But the state doesn’t have to own every factory to control the economy. It simply has to exercise an oversight function to make sure that economic activity is consistent with the long-term health and welfare of the people. Therefore, no more globalization, free trade, open borders, all of those things that we’re told are “good for the economy.” They’re good for some people’s economies. Some interest groups. But not society as a whole. Those things need to be shut down. We will not have trade and economic policies that are bad for our race. We won’t permit that.
Does that mean that every little aspect of the economy needs to be controlled? No, only essential aspects of the economy need to be controlled. Anything else should be a free-for-all. There should be as much freedom is as consistent with the common good. That’s my answer to liberals.
Liberalism is a modern political philosophy that proclaims that the common good doesn’t exist, or it can’t be known, or if we can know it, it doesn’t matter, or if we can know it, we can’t pursue it, and therefore, basically, we just have to set up mechanisms whereby people can pursue private interests and somehow we have to hope that it all works out. I say phooey to that.
There is a common good. There are public goods. There is a meaningful sense of collectivism that every sensible society actually embodies, even ones that are quite individualistic in their day-to-day order, and we should have a modicum of collectivism so that when individual choices conflict with the common good, then the state steps in and says no. Where individual choices are conducive to the common good, or are neutral towards the common good, there’s no need for the state to be involved at all.
My view is that it’s probably not necessary for the state to be involved in a lot of economic decisions. Only when private choices — whether in education, the media, or the economy — contravene the common good should the state be involved. Ideally, the state should simply set up the system so that it’s just not an option to do the kinds of things that are not consistent with the common good.
MW: That level of state intervention already happens in our current societies, where the state will disallow a merger between two corporations and things like that.
GJ: Yes, and frankly, I think that a lot of that regulation is probably unnecessary and wouldn’t even happen in an ethnostate. A lot that’s said to be in the public good really isn’t in the public good today. But that doesn’t disqualify the idea that there are public goods, there are common goods, and that the state should intervene in private affairs when private choices somehow negatively affect the common good.
In an ethnostate I honestly think there’d be probably less state control of the economy than we have today in America or Europe, because today a lot of state control of the economy is either private interests satisfying themselves at the expense of the public, or one group of the public mooching off another part of the public. The common good prohibits that. The only reason the state should intervene in private life is to protect the common good. Thus we should not tolerate factional governments where one group uses the state to exploit another. That is contrary to what Aristotle describes as the common good.
I look back to Aristotle’s Politics as the model. Aristotle believed that a lawful, just society pursues the common good, and that unjust societies are characterized by factionalism wherein one group in a society — whether it’s the majority or a minority or a dictator — rules for its own interests at the expense of the others.
MW: Question seven, and I’m not sure what Sargon was getting at with this question, but here it is: “Do the decisions of individual white people matter to the Alt Right’s goals?” And I guess you could say: “Do the individual decisions of white people matter to the ethnostate’s goals?”
GJ: Right. I think that this is just a very poorly formulated classical liberal question. It has the same underlying premise as the previous questions. All of this is pretty much liberal in its underlying assumptions. “Do the decisions of individual white people matter to the Alt Right’s goals?” What I think he’s getting at is: “Would we say that your individual decisions don’t matter, and you’re not going to get your way, on some occasions if that’s what’s required to create an ethnostate?” And the answer is “of course.”
The whole point is that we believe it is right for the state to say “no” to private interests and decisions whenever those conflict with the common good. When those things don’t conflict with the common good, or are neutral regarding the common good, then the state has no interest in them.
But we’re not radical individualists; we’re not libertarians; we don’t think that if it’s voluntary it’s okay and that the state has no right to intervene. The state has the right and the obligation to intervene when private choices have negative consequences for the public as a whole.
MW: That brings us up to a question that I would just add in here, since it’s crucial to Sargon’s whole thing. You’re saying that the individual is less important than the collective.
GJ: Yes, definitely. When the two conflict, the individual is less important than the collective. Do we save the human race or do we save one person, when forced to choose? Obviously, there’s greater value in the collective than there is in any individual.
MW: Right, okay. I think that’s something that he would probe. He would ask you lots of little questions surrounding that like “What if the individual’s a genius?” and “Should every individual’s freedom not come before the well-being of the state, and the collective, the group?”
GJ: Yes, well, we could quibble about lots of stuff. I understand that’s how he argues. But yes, I would definitely say that the well-being of the whole always trumps the well-being of individuals if there’s a conflict between the two.
The greater good outweighs the lesser good, and the idea that every individual — every drug addict and junkie, every starving African child, or whatever — is of somehow infinite worth compared to the collective of mankind is absurd. How is it that if every individual has infinite worth, then when you add all these individuals up into a collective, that somehow has less worth, less moral standing than the individuals that you’re aggregating together? It doesn’t make any sense by any kind of moral arithmetic that I can comprehend. Radical individualism, the idea that somehow individuals have infinite worth, and that collectives don’t have worth qua collectives, simply doesn’t make sense.
Individuals die, but the race can go on. The race can be eternal. The things that we value will go on if we have progeny, if we have a race that survives us. Therefore, the idea that individualism is the be-all and end-all, is just silly. It’s silly to think that something private and fleeting and subjective has greater worth than things that persist longer over time and that can be, in principle, eternal, and that are common.
We’re all very wedded to our own subjective feelings. But in the end, we’re all going to die, and we must come to grips with that fact and realize that the things that are most important to us have to be more important than our own lives. But that can only be the case if there are future generations to carry these things forward. Then you conclude that your individual life doesn’t mean as much as the life of the collective. Which is why it’s possible for people to sacrifice their lives for their families and their societies. That really is the enlightened attitude.
Individualism is a childish attitude. It’s quite natural for children to be self-centered. They need to be cultivated so that they recognize that the world is bigger than them, and that things that are bigger than them — that endow their lives with meaning, and will carry on the things that are meaningful to them in the future — are more important, ultimately, than their survival. Especially because we’re not going to live forever. Those who think that they can live a little longer or better at the expense of the social whole, it’s not a very good deal, because really our only possible immortality is through the continuation of our people.
MW: Alright, moving on to the final question, question eight: “Should women have a role in public life?”
GJ: Yes, women should have a role in public life. However, I think that we have to be real here and recognize that if we are going to restore the biological integrity of our race — preserve our race as a distinct population — that includes also upholding healthy sexual norms.
The healthy norm is that men are protectors and providers. Therefore the public realm — the political realm, the realm of protection, and also the economic realm, the realm of provision — is going to be more of a male thing.
Whereas the norm is for women to be nurturers, which means that the private realm — including civic organizations, educational organizations, health care organizations — are going to be more feminine.
Therefore, if we really go with rather than against the grain of nature, we’ll find that women will naturally cluster in the private realm. They’ll be more interested in having kids. They’ll be more interested in careers that involve nurturing: education, nursing, charitable work, etc. But those impinge on the political realm. The heads of charities play very important roles. Also, we must recognize that just because we uphold the norms doesn’t mean that everyone’s normal.
MW: Yes, I said this as well when I was answering it in the livestream I did with him a few days ago. I said, obviously there are always going to be outliers, and any healthy society should be able to accommodate those.
GJ: Exactly. An unhealthy society basically says that the outlier somehow has to be the norm, or there can be no norms because there are a few people who don’t fit them. But that’s folly. Instead, we should uphold the norms, and we should also make a certain amount of provision for the fact that some people don’t fit them. That means that there are going to be women who, for whatever reason, aren’t cut out for child-rearing but are talented in public life.
Now I don’t like the idea of women in the military. I think that’s stupid. Women should not be in the military. They should be involved in other things where they can do public service if they wish to do that, most definitely. There would be some female politicians. There would be female leaders of organizations that represent women’s interests and children’s interests, etc.
So yes, women should have a role in public life, although I think that in a healthy society that follows nature, public life would be primarily a male thing, because men are more drawn to public life. They’re more drawn to the role of protectors and providers, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
But just as there might be some men who are more drawn towards things like education, or roles that are more nurturing, there might be women who are more drawn to politics, and we can make room for them, because if we keep our norms straight and we don’t get this misty-eyed, NAXALTy, sentimental, dumb form of individualism that’s so powerful in our society, the presence of these people isn’t a threat. It’s not a threat to have the occasional woman in politics, or the occasional guy who wants to be a nurse instead of being a doctor.
People who buck the norms are not a threat as long as we don’t have foolish, liberal attitudes, the kind of attitudes that we have today, where the existence of an outlier somehow refutes the existence of the norm. That’s the NAXALT fallacy. Not all Xs are like that. There are outliers, therefore, there can’t be norms. Because there are two ends to the bell curve, that refutes the existence of the great big swell in the middle.
But though women should have a role in public life, they’re probably not going to have as much of a role in public life as men. Thus we should not have the idea that there should be parity between the sexes in politics. Right now there is a widespread attitude that the movement is defective if there isn’t a woman in every other seat at the American Renaissance conference. Years ago, Michael Walker, who is a very sensible guy in many ways, gave a talk at American Renaissance, and he said “I’d like to come here and see a woman in every other chair.”
MW: What the hell? This is very strange.
GJ: I thought to myself, “This isn’t ballroom dancing; this is politics,” and chances are, there’s never going to be a woman in every other chair, because this is politics. However, if we want to have a healthy community — if we think of the movement as not just a political thing, but as a new community, as a new order, as the seed of a new kind of society — obviously, we’re going to want to have gender parity in that context. But in political organizations, it’s not natural; it’s not something you would expect.
However, if there are women who are contributing, and are doing good things, move over and let them in, and if there are men whose only contribution is to belittle women who are making active contributions, they need to be culled. I have no patience for that anymore.
MW: Okay, so in conclusion, what do you think about this survey, and what would you like Sargon’s fans to know that they don’t know?
GJ: Just judging on the underlying premises that are built into these arguments, the mentality that he’s grandstanding towards is deeply liberal and individualistic, and that needs to be questioned. Liberal individualism is an essentially childish, immature, alienated form of consciousness, and we need to overcome it. We need to grow out of it, and that’s what I would like to help Sargon’s readers do.
Skepticism and relativism are just philosophical rationalizations for that deep solitude of the spirit, that selfishness, that individualism. But selfish individualism makes social life into hell. White Nationalists want to create a society that’s better, that’s healthier, that people feel at home in. To do that we have to fight against this deep solitude of the spirit, this skepticism, the selfishness, and this immaturity that I think is engineered today in our culture.
These people think that they’re free and autonomous individuals. They’ve been engineered to think this way. They’ve been engineered to think this way ever since Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke and Baruch Spinoza and all the early modern philosophers started re-wiring the mind to create the modern individual.
The modern individual is not man as he comes from nature. He’s a modern social artifact, and to be constituted as an individual is to be the artifact of processes that most individuals don’t understand. But once you understand the processes that create this individualist consciousness, you realize you’re not an individual at all. You are a product. You are a product of a particular education and a particular culture.
You might want to rebel against that, because ultimately, it’s steering you on a trajectory towards a meaningless existence. It is a meaningless existence that is either actively conspiring with, or passively going along with, a program that will ultimately destroy Western civilization and the race that created it. You don’t want to be a part of that. If you’re serious, you don’t want to be a part of that.
You don’t want to lead a meaningless life and contribute to the downfall of one of the greatest civilizations and one of nature’s masterpieces. You don’t want to be like the people who allowed the ancient world to collapse into barbarism, who allowed the writings of Sophocles and so many others to perish. You don’t want to be like the ancients who allowed civilization to crash, really irrevocably, because so little has survived of all the greatness of the ancient world. It really is one of the great tragedies of history. You don’t want to contribute to that again.
That’s what I want these people to start thinking about. That’s what I implore them to start thinking about. Individualism is a trap. It’s a false form of consciousness. It leads to a meaningless existence. And it is organically part of the process of the destruction of our civilization, which is being managed from above by people who hate us, and who want to replace us.
God knows what they want to replace us with. I don’t know if they really have an endgame here. The endgame might be an image that Ayn Rand used in Atlas Shrugged, of a fat, Indian maharaja sticking a dagger into some toil-dazed wretch to steal a few grains of rice from him. It’s some kind of dystopian global plantation economy. Low-tech, disease-ridden, and starved, where a tiny elite lord over a vast number of brown people. That’s the endgame of the modern, globalist, liberal trajectory. Do you really want to contribute to that? That’s a world that you have no place in.
MW: Okay, shall we leave it there?
GJ: Yes, let’s leave it there. I think that’s enough. That’s some food for thought. So, Woes, thank you for suggesting we do this. I was going to just let this opportunity slip by because I’m just so damn busy.
MW: Yeah, well, this is why you’ve got to get onto YouTube and just do stuff like this. Because it’s easier, it’s quicker, and you did really well. That will reach people. That will convert people who would never go to Counter-Currents and would never read an essay, but they will listen to this while they’re doing something else, and it will make them think.
GJ: Okay, great. Thank you so much.
MW: Yeah, you’re welcome.
GJ: Let’s do this again.