Answering Normie Questions, Part 2:
“White Supremacism” & “White Privilege”
Part 2 of 5 (Part 1 here, Part 3 here)
JM: That brings me to another question. As you were saying, having a culture and civilization, I would argue, that is one of the better ones in the world, leads to the claim of “white supremacy” being flung around. Is there any validity to that argument? That you’re just a white supremacist, etc. I have my own response to this, but I’m curious how you’d respond.
Greg Johnson: First of all, we have to disambiguate what people mean by “white supremacy.” Is it the idea that we believe white people are superior to all other groups across the board? That’s obviously an untenable position. We’re not superior to all other groups in all ways. For anyone to accuse us of believing that is almost accusing us of a straw man. Which is not to say that there aren’t those who would argue that position. But I think they’re fools to do that. They’re on a fool’s errand.
The other sense of white supremacy is the idea that we want to rule over the other races of the world. My answer is no, I don’t want to do that. I don’t want to live in societies with other races at all. That’s what White Nationalism is about. We want to create ethnically homogenous societies in which we can feel at home. And that entails not having nonwhite populations that we have to dominate or lord over within our borders.
There are some problems with that. For instance, what do you do with little relict populations of tribal peoples, such as in the Amazon, the United States, Canada, Siberia? You give them ethnic reservations. You give them land. You give them the maximum possible autonomy over their internal affairs, and you leave it at that. But they’re not going to have a foreign policy. They aren’t going to have a seat in the United Nations.
So that’s sort of a “white supremacist” position, but it’s the least white supremacist position possible. It’s certainly poles apart from the policies of the United States in the past where they tried to assimilate these people, teach them our language, try to get them to adopt Christianity, forget their native religions, customs, and so forth. I don’t want to do that at all. I don’t want to assimilate these people.
JM: Well, it doesn’t work very well.
GJ: It doesn’t help any of us. I want to keep our race and culture pure, and their race and culture pure. And that means separation and the maximum amount of sovereignty that we can extend to them.
JM: My take on that is keep the culture pure. These societies have institutions in them that have been built by Western European people, and those institutions are tailored to that group specifically. And I’m not surprised at all when I see that group performing well in those institutions, and other groups not performing well at all. You can see that the Western European people do well in all the institutions at an average or above-average level.
GJ: Well, we created this civilization. So it stands to reason we would be fairly good at living in it.
JM: That’s where the supremacy argument comes from. I’m saying they have different values, a different culture. One that isn’t conducive to our justice system, educational system, etc.
GJ: The way I put it, it’s not some kind of radical cultural or moral relativism to say if you have size ten feet and you have to wear size nine shoes, you’re not going to be comfortable. It’s possible to say there are objective measurements, but some things fit you better than other things. They are relativized to your body. Your culture should fit you as well as your shoes fit you. Your institutions should fit you as well as your clothes.
The trouble with multiracial societies is they always start out being founded by a population that is not multiracial. Thus it has the stamp of the founding people. Thus any new people that come into that society are going to feel like it doesn’t really fit. Sometimes they can fit in because they aren’t so different to begin with. So they can assimilate, naturalize, and become part of the new system. We’ve absorbed many different European groups over the years, because Europeans aren’t that fundamentally different from each other. But when you have blacks or Indians (to give examples from the United States), they don’t fit. We’ve had blacks in North America practically as long as there have been whites, and they’re still not integrated.
JM: Yeah. They have a very difficult time. And this bears out in every metric. It plays out exactly as you think it would each time. Crime statistics, SAT scores, credit scores. You know, all of these different ways.
GJ: Practically everything that we can measure indicates that blacks just find American civilization to be alien to them and alienating to them. It’s not a good fit. And that’s why they deserve their own kind of civilization where they’re not constantly being forced to live up to standards that are alien to them.
The situation we have today is one that’s guaranteed to create racial resentment. Because blacks resent being held to white standards, and whites resent blacks retarding civilization, lowering standards. And that’s always going to be the case, because the peoples are just different. So if you want to have amicable, respectful relations with blacks, the easiest way to do that is to have separate societies, so they can live the way they want to and you don’t have to live with them. You can live the way you want to. If you want to trade and exchange ballet troupes and buy one another’s products and things like that, that’s all well and good. But they should have their own homeland run by their own standards, and that’s a good thing.
Another sense of white supremacy is related to this. When people talk about “white privilege,” basically I say “Whites created this civilization. Therefore, it’s natural that whites are going to flourish in it. If you want to call that white privilege, fine.” The idea that white privilege is a bad thing assumes this argument that you don’t have the right to things you don’t earn. So we’ve been bequeathed this civilization by our ancestors that suits us, and we thrive in it. So sue me! I’m going to take full advantage of that. I’m going to rise and flourish in that context.
A related sense of white supremacism is this. I think white societies should be “normatively white.” Meaning that we should uphold white standards in white societies. And we shouldn’t apologize about that. Why shouldn’t we be supreme in our own homes, in the societies that we create? If somebody comes to my home, he has to conform to the standards that I set, the norms that I set. I’m supreme in my own household.
I don’t see why the French shouldn’t be supreme in France, that they shouldn’t uphold French norms in France. There’s nothing imperialistic about that. It’s just the natural behavior of people who are comfortable with who they are and proud of the way they are. The British should uphold their own norms. Or better: Scottish norms in Scotland, English norms in England, Welsh norms in Wales, and so forth. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s completely normal.
A lot of kvetching and whining about white supremacy basically boils down to whites maintaining white standards in their own countries. And I do not think we should be at all apologetic about that. We should be militant about it if challenged. We should really push that point. There is nothing wrong with it at all. To that extent, I will defend white supremacism.
My ideal society is one that is only white. But even if we had simply and entirely white society in North America — say that there are no Indian reservations, etc. — say that you created a white ethnostate. We’re still going to have travelers coming from abroad. Businessmen, tourists, and things like that. If you take a snapshot of the population day-to-day, there are still going to be something like 1% to 3% of the population who are not of the ethnic group that dominates it. We should not feel like that is somehow a fatal compromise with the principle of nationalism. That’s just business as usual in any normal society.
The point where we would fail as ethnonationalists is when we start catering to outsiders by modifying our own standards. We should uphold the normative whiteness of whatever white society we are in. Swedes should uphold Swedish norms, Norwegians Norwegian norms. They should demand that people respect their customs, their way of life. People shouldn’t come in and be the “ugly American” tourist. And, of course, the ugly American isn’t anywhere nearly as ugly as the ugly Muslim in Europe.
JM: Yeah, you’re right! And the thing is, it comes from morphing the cultural norms, and basically assimilates the norms to the group that’s coming in. And as I was saying earlier, the institutions themselves, like you said, retarding them. Dumbing them down, watering them down. Now it’s not what it was before. And like you said, the host population can no longer flourish in the way they were able to do before. That’s the line I have a big issue with. And as you said, I think there aren’t many ways to control for that other than taking a look at these things and having a hard line on it, acknowledging this affects us.
GJ: Yes, the net result of catering to outsiders rather than having your own standards is that you’ve created a society where nobody feels at home. You no longer feel at home; they don’t feel at home. And that’s not any way to live.
JM: That’s so correct. And on a personal level, I know what you mean when you say that.
GJ: When we go home to our house and close the door, we want to feel at home. But when we leave our house and go shopping, go to the post office, go to government buildings to sign deeds or whatever, we should also want to feel at home. We shouldn’t be bombarded with alien languages, alien music, and feel like we’re living in the Star Wars cantina all the time, except when you go back to your little home and close the door. Then you turn on the TV, and you’re bombarded with the same multicultural crap too. That’s no way to live.
All we’re asking for is a country where we feel at home. That’s not unfair in the least, because all these immigrants coming in have homelands that they’re leaving. They feel perfectly at home there, and they try to replicate the things they like about their homeland in our country rather than assimilating. But of course we don’t want them assimilating; we want them to leave. And we want them to be as alienated as possible, as long as possible, until whites get their acts together and start repatriating them. That’s what I want.
JM: To me personally, what happened is, for such a long time things were implicitly of an American standard, or a white European standard. And that’s just what people knew America as or Europe as. So they didn’t mind letting these people in. And as it has started to change so much, it’s started to affect them. And they are starting to notice these changes and say, “Hold on a second, wait.” So now when I’m watching football, I have to see racial tension, things like that with the “take a knee” situation that happened recently. Anything like that really, with wage decreases, and so forth. And so we are starting to lose that, that implicit feeling. That feeling of implicit whiteness is starting to go away. I think that’s the reason a lot of people are waking up to this.
GJ: I think the main things driving consciousness in our direction are objective changes in the multicultural system. We can’t take credit for all the red-pilling that’s going on. The system is doing that. Our job is to get memes out there to help people understand what’s going on and also to create a political movement that captures and channels this new energy and consciousness towards positive change. We’re not doing such a great job of that, but fortunately a lot of this is out of our hands. It’s being driven by objective forces that the establishment can’t control. And in fact, they are doubling down on it. So we have some time to get our act together, and we are slowly learning things and improving.
There’s a fourth sense of white supremacy I want to deal with, and that is this question: Okay, Greg, say that you get your world of ethnostates. Say that there’s Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, European countries for all the different European ethnic groups. What about things like global ecological issues?” Pollution, stuff like that. We know that left to their own devices, and surely armed with Western technology and medicine and so forth, that the countries of Africa are undergoing population explosions, killing wildlife, devastating their environments. And that’s going to have knock-on effects over here. We’re not so isolated. We cannot confine global warming (if that’s even a thing) to somebody’s borders. So there are global problems, and issues of global welfare that have to be addressed globally. And the people who care about that are white people, preeminently. Are we going to stop caring about these things?
My answer is no. We are going to continue caring about these things, basically in the same way we do today. We’re going to create institutions, and we’ll have all kinds of blandishments to Third World countries to try to halt environmental degradation, halt population explosions, stop refugees from moving en masse to the United States and Europe. We’re going to have to do these things. That means that yes, these countries aren’t going to have 100% sovereignty. Because their pollution, refugees, plastic that washes out to the ocean, don’t stay in their borders.
So there will be global institutions and initiatives like that, and whites will take a leading role in them, because we are the people who care about the planet. And if we don’t care about it, the planet will be devastated. So we do have to take that into consideration. And that is a kind of “white supremacism.” Every environmentalist, everybody who talks about “global solutions to global problems” is implicitly a white supremacist, because it’s only white people who really care about these things.
JM: That seems to be how it is now, even. The people that go to those summits and whatnot, they’re mainly European countries that are involved and European people who go to Third World countries to come up with solutions. It wouldn’t be a huge change from how we currently deal with international problems. These countries would still be able to get together amicably. A lot of those other countries are currently running under a fairly ethnostate-esque situation. It really seems to be the Western European and North American nations that are dealing with the multiculturalism problem. The other countries are sticking to their guns, and they’re still functioning just fine. So I’m not even sure it would be a leap to say it would be a problem dealing with these issues.
GJ: Right, Japan is an ethnostate. The Koreas are ethnostates. China is an empire, but it’s normatively Chinese. And yes, to some extent these countries take part in international initiatives to try to deal with certain problems. Of course, the Chinese are huge contributors to these pollution problems, unfortunately. But maybe they’ll start to grow out of that, when they start dying en masse from their own exhalations. Unfortunately they could lose quite a lot of people and it would actually improve the place. Fifty years ago, practically every state in Europe was an ethnostate. And they managed to cooperate with each other. There were the League of Nations, United Nations, NATO, the Warsaw Pact; all these different things were possible. Poland is 90%+ Polish. It’s an ethnostate, and yet it’s part of the EU; they can cooperate. So there’s no reason to think that ethnically homogeneous societies can’t engage in international cooperation, because they do it all the time, and they did it all the time.
JM: And that’s what confuses me sometimes. Look back decades, not even centuries. That’s what we had.
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 534 Interview with Alexander Adams
Notes on Strauss & Husserl
The Honorable Cause: A Review
Remembering Oswald Spengler (May 29, 1880-May 8, 1936)
Remembering Louis-Ferdinand Céline (May 27, 1894–July 1, 1961)
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 1: Política y Metapolítica
Remembering Richard Wagner (May 22, 1813-February 13, 1883)
Remembering Dominique Venner (April 16, 1935–May 21, 2013)
When accused of “white supremacism” you simply say, “blacks are supreme in Nigeria. Asians are supreme in China. Whites deserve to be supreme in their own territories, just like every other race on earth has.”
Simple answer that highlights the fairness and equality of white supremacy.
I actually use that talkimg point in my White Nationalist Manifesto.
What privilege, being white has never helped me in any way!
I realize this is beside your main point, but legally speaking I am a Hungarian, as my mother’s ancestors, although Transylvania Saxons (ethnic Germans), were citizens of the Hungarian Kingdom for 800 years, and moreover my mother’s parents were born in Transylvania before the Trianon Treaty, which ceded Transylvania to Romania from Hungary, so under the law I am just as Hungarian as anyone else, even if I’m not ethnically Magyar. If I tell most Hungarians I am Transylvania Saxon, they just say, “That’s Hungarian.”
But as for your main point, which my own family history relates to, the American radical Right’s obsession with racial homogeneity is very much a holdover from pre-twentieth century racial politics in America as well as its love affair with National Socialist conceptions of race. But such ideas are unknown in Central Europe, in places like Hungary. Most people don’t want non-Europeans coming here, of course, but the idea of racial purity has no place. The average Hungarian is heavily mixed of many different European ethnicities, and they find notions of racial purity (or talk of race at all) strange and alienating. It was the calls for ethnically homogeneous societies in Central Europe which led to so much conflict and bloodshed in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and which destroyed the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which wasn’t good for this region, so nobody has any wish to return to the very sort of mentality which caused so much trouble. So I’d say Central Europe is already of the mentality that you call for, although it’s not (and won’t be) based on racial ideas.
You’re welcome. I wouldn’t expect anyone who doesn’t know me personally to know that, so no worries. I don’t think many people outside of a few far-Right retrograde loonies dreams of a restoration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in which they go back to the ethnic hierarchies of the past. My point was rather that the Empire was an example of a successfully functioning multiethnic form of social structure before the rise of ethnonationalism (which was at that time a liberal phenomenon, not a Right-wing cause – as all nationalisms were initially). It had flaws, of course, but its destruction was not good for the region, and we shouldn’t let the fact that it was flawed distract us from its positives. At the same time, a political unity between Eastern and Western Europe under current conditions is not desirable until the West’s immigration problems are resolved and the Western countries return to something resembling a healthy social consciousness. There’s little indication of that happening. The best thing for now would be for the two regions to separate, and for the East to become autonomous from Brussels. The East can still be saved, but present demographic trends indicate that Western Europe is already doomed short of radical change. Many believe it’s already lost.
I’m afraid you’re very ill-informed about Hungary if you think that Turanism is a major force there. It isn’t. It’s an understandable misconception given that Jobbik’s leadership, back when it was still Right-wing and before it went liberal, used to talk about it a lot, and Orbán also invokes it when he wants to bolster relations with Turkey. But Turanism has very little appeal or traction among ordinary Hungarians. It’s primarily something you find on the fringe of the fringe of the Hungarian Right and among the Evolian Traditionalists in Hungary. (Mi Hazánk rejects Turanism.) As one Hungarian friend of mine put it when I asked her about Turanism, “I don’t understand the theory, but all I can tell you is that if you told my brother that we’re brothers of the Turks, he’d probably hit you.” By the same token, it’s undeniable that Hungarians are of Central Asian origin, and as such they will always feel somewhat distinct from other Europeans, even if they see themselves as part of Europe (their unique language also contributes to this). But the aversion for racial thought is common to all peoples of this region, not merely the Hungarians. They find it very strange and unappealing.
I have no idea what percentage of the American radical Right has pan-Europeanist sentiments, but I’d say 99% of them have a very poor understanding of Europe, either historically or in the present.
Thanks for your good wishes.
When visiting many university campuses in America, one might note the following:
* A preponderance of faculty and administrators who refer to themselves as “liberal.”
* The termination of employment for dissenters who publicly stray from the liberal party line.
* Departments of (liberal) cultural anthropology but no departments of (anti-liberal) physical anthropology.
* The establishment of “diversity” committees and mandated struggle sessions to promote prevailing liberal ideology.
* Subsidized student organizations which mobilize liberal constituencies (minorities, feminists, “social justice” advocates, etc.).
* An intolerance for the basic free speech rights of those who oppose liberalism (cf the crackdown on the “It’s OK To be White” campaign).
One can conclude that liberals have “privilege,” and this privilege extends to other regimes which liberals control: the mainstream media, corporate foundations, much of the bureaucracy, NGOs, and so forth.
Are liberals going to surrender their privilege?
Objectively speaking, there is no “White Privilege” in America. White people are legally and institutionally discriminated against by affirmative action, “diversity” requirements, hatecrime law, hoaxcrimes, tearing down of the statues of White heroes, IT de-platformings, loss of their homelands, ad nauseam.
But we are not talking objective reality, not when it comes to liberalism.
By the opening of the 21st century, liberals thought they had their ideological hegemony locked down. Conservatism Inc, had failed to provide any challenge to liberalism. Then seemingly out of nowhere arose White Nationalism, the Alt Right, National Populism, or whatever people choose to call the movement. Liberalism now faces an ideological challenge.
The “White Privilege” narrative is a tactic. It provides liberals with the illusion that they are the “resistance” fighting against “fascism,” even where liberals control most of the institutions of society. (James Burnham noted this phenomenon in Suicide of the West with his analysis of the liberal reaction to Senator Joseph McCarthy.)
The question for nationalists becomes: how to counter this narrative.
Information theory would recommend going over to the offensive, say, by promoting memes that attack liberal hegemony. Some examples:
* Fight Liberal Supremacy
* Check Your Liberal Privilege
* Liberals: Use Your Privilege for the Nation
* This Campus Has a History of Liberal Supremacy
It’s been my experience that the Left can dish it out, but can not take it. They can not take it because anything outside their worldview can not be admitted to exist. So they meltdown.
The critical thing is to throw liberals onto the defensive, attack their contradictions, and bring down their privileged ideological hegemony.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment