Darryl Cooper: I would say for a lot of Americans on the Right, the biggest and last stumbling block is the Jewish question. What is the Jewish question? Why does it merit being named clearly and separately as opposed to just sort of being an obvious fact following from ethnonationalism in general?
Greg Johnson: Well I actually wrote a piece called “Reframing the Jewish Question,” where I say that it is just a first-order implication of ethnonationalism.  
DC: That’s poor preparation right there.
GJ: What you said reflects a very common attitude amongst White Nationalists. They always say first we start with ethnonationalism and realism about race. But the Jewish thing is like higher mathematics. It’s like advanced calculus. We don’t have to go there right away. My response is no, it’s not advanced calculus. It’s a first-order self-evident implication of the ethnonationalist principle, which is that the best way to prevent conflicts between different peoples to the extent that that’s possible is for them to have their sovereign homelands.
And lo and behold, Jews actually struggled for a very long time to create a sovereign Jewish homeland, namely Israel. And my attitude is that Jews should live in their sovereign homeland. But they don’t, because they’re not forced to. And because it’s very advantageous for them to have it both ways. They have their ethnostate, and they also live as a diaspora. Now the ethnostate benefits from that, because the diaspora is constantly meddling in the internal affairs of their host societies to support Israel.
That’s especially true in the United States, where we have as many Jews living as in Israel, and Israel gets billions of dollars every year in loans and just outright giveaways and loans that will never be paid back. So they’re just giveaways. Americans have also wasted our people’s blood and trillions of dollars since 2003 fighting wars in the Middle East that are dictated by Israeli strategic calculations. I won’t even dignify it by saying that it’s in their interest. But certainly they calculated it to be in their interests. US interests simply didn’t enter in. It is absolutely catastrophic that our foreign policy is controlled by people who are thinking primarily about the interests of a foreign society, namely Israel, rather than the good of America.
Jews are a distinct people, and they’re loyal to one another, and that’s all healthy and well and good. But if that’s true, then we cannot give them citizenship in our societies, power in our societies, and influence over our societies at the same time. That is what the Jewish question is. That Jewish question arose with the emancipation of Jewish communities in Europe. For a very long time they were encapsulated self-governing communities. Then they were “emancipated” by Napoleon. He was the great emancipator of Jewry.
As soon as Jews were emancipated and became citizens of the societies around them, people raised a question: “Not only are Jews citizens of our society, with all the rights of citizens, they’re also, in fact, citizens of their own society. Their primary loyalty is to other Jews all around the world, in even in our rival societies, even in enemy societies, even in societies we’re fighting wars against. Isn’t there something weird about this? Isn’t this an inherently unjust and disadvantageous relationship that we’ve instituted?”
Let’s look at this in terms of game theory. Just as a team strategy beats an individualistic strategy, if you’ve got somebody with dual citizenship, basically, that dual citizenship is a way that their team can play you. They can hack your system. And as the nineteenth and twentieth centuries unfolded, we saw that pattern over and over again. Influential Jewish minorities in various European societies caused wars and revolutions and catastrophic policies for the societies that they were ostensibly citizens of and thus ostensibly should have been looking out for their common good.
But naturally Jews are more concerned with their real nation, the Jewish nation. Thus when the interests of their two nations conflict, they tend to side with the Jewish nation. Which is a very bad for their host societies, because Jews tend to be upwardly mobile and highly influential. Therefore, they tend to be well- placed to subvert the interests of their host societies.
In the nineteenth century, influential Jews in Germany were playing really dangerous games, shifting German foreign policy in Eastern Europe to be advantageous to Eastern European Jewry. Today, influential Jews shift American foreign policy to be beneficial to Israel. That shouldn’t be possible. We shouldn’t allow foreign peoples to influence our institutions for the benefit of foreign powers.
It doesn’t matter if they’re Right-wing Jews or Left-wing Jews. The pattern is the same. There’s a story in the Old Testament, in the book of Genesis. It is the story of Jacob and Esau. One Jew has wronged another. Jacob has wronged Esau, his half-brother. Years later, Jacob sees Esau’s clan approaching his clan. He doesn’t know if Esau means ill or not. He fears being attacked. So to ensure his survival, he divides his camp. He sends some of his people to the other camp as defectors. The role of these defectors is to influence the enemy camp. And if the enemy camp attacks the home camp and destroys it, at least some of the home camp will survive among the enemy.
If you look at the history of Jewish intellectual movements and Jewish political involvement since Jewish emancipation, you see this pattern over and over. The neoconservatives are a beautiful example of this. The main population of neoconservatives comes out of the Zionist wing of the Trotskyite movement. Bolshevism was largely a Jewish thing. Marx was a Jew. The core people who advanced Bolshevism were Jews or part-Jews or married to Jews. It was a heavily Jewish phenomenon. The most ethnically conscious Jews ended up following Trotsky, and the most ethnically conscious Trotskyites became Zionists, and Zionist Trotskyites at a certain point “defected,” from the Left to the Right and became conservatives during the Cold War.
As the neocons colonized the Republican Party, like cuckoos, they ejected the eggs and the hatchlings of real conservatives from the nest. They mopped it up pretty thoroughly. They destroyed the careers of a lot of actual conservatives, non-Jewish, non-neocons. Who were some of these hatchlings, these bonafide conservatives who are ejected from the nest along the way? The whole John Birch Society was read out in the 1960s. Then people like Joseph Sobran and Peter Brimelow were ejected.
Once the neocons took over the Right in America, they turned it into a vehicle for advancing Jewish interests around the world, especially in the Middle East. The neocons are pushing and have pushed these catastrophic wars in the Middle East. Now that Trump has come along, they don’t feel comfortable, in the Republican Party. So they’re just reinventing themselves as Democrats, because the foreign policy of Hillary Clinton’s party has always been controlled by the same faction.
How do you make sure that American foreign policy is always pro-Jewish? You divide your camp and you colonize both the Republicans and the Democrats, so that no matter who’s in power, they have a pro-Zionist foreign policy. When Democrats are in power, they go through the charade of the “peace process,” because Democratic voters want peace. You know, the peace process that never eventuates in peace and always requires more American money to keep the whole thing going. When Republicans are in power, it’s a more truculent approach, where we’re actually fighting wars, because Republicans sublimate all their warlike and fascist impulses into Zionism. But it’s the same group of people running American foreign policy, exercising veto power over American foreign policy for the ethnic interests of Israel.
Enough is enough. We cannot trust these people to actually look out for the interests of America. So they need to go. They need to go to their homeland and become a normal people. We need to rigorously police their agents and friends in America so that they’re not subverting American foreign policy away from American interests and towards Israeli interests. It’s really as simple as that. I wish Jews all the best, but I cannot like them, and I cannot regard them in a friendly way until they relinquish power over our society and stop egging it on towards catastrophic foreign policy disasters.
Jews also play a huge role in promoting every form of Left-liberal decadence and decline that sensible conservatives have to oppose: race-mixing, gay lib, women’s lib, multiculturalism, porn, drugs, and so forth. They’re shorting Western civilization, meaning they’re profiting from the decline of our values. They’ve set themselves up in our society to profit from our decline. They profit from the decline of our families. They profit from the decline of our sexual behavior and morality. They profit from the decline of our institutions. Our marriages are breaking up? Well, you know, that’s great for lawyers.
So overall I think that Jews play an incredibly negative role in American society and other European societies. But there’s no reason, though, why we should have these conflicts with them, because they have a homeland of their own. They need to go there and live there and flourish there.
DC: I don’t quite understand the multiculturalism aspect of it, especially not in the United States where we have a different type of Muslim population, a large enough country where it’s not quite a problem. But from what I understand, Jewish groups and Jewish voters in European countries are pretty much fully on board with importing as many refugees as they can. I don’t understand what they would get out of that, because I can’t imagine anybody that’s going to be more tolerant of them as a group than especially an Anglo-Protestant society, but European in general. Do you have any thoughts on that?
GJ: Jews have long memories. They constantly try to goose our memory with Holocaust education, because it’s their contention that a European society within living memory tried to exterminate every last one of them and conquer the world. Now there’s a lot of malarkey connected with that claim, but a lot of Jews fervently believe that. They believe that Europeans are capable of trying to exterminate every last one of them. Whereas Jews have lived in very cordial relations with Muslims for very long periods of time. They chose to put their ethnostate in a sea of Muslims, which is very interesting. They could have gone to Uganda or Madagascar or the Soviet Far East. But they chose to live in a sea of Muslims. They’re not as afraid of Muslims as they are of us. And that’s basically the reason. Therefore, they feel greater fear in homogeneous European societies than they do in a sea of Muslims in Israel. That’s fascinating. That might not be rational, but that’s how they feel.
Jews promote multiculturalism because they are an outsider group. Hence they don’t want you to think of yourself as belonging to a Christian society because they’re not Christians. They don’t want to live in an ethnically defined society, because there are different ethnic group. Thus they have worked tirelessly to open up the borders not only of the United States, but of every European society to nonwhite immigration. Why? Because as the European majority is diluted, their power grows. It’s as simple as that.
Now, a lot of people say, “But these Muslims beat up Jewish schoolboys. They’re dangerous people.” Yes, that’s true. But every day Israel makes and enforces policies that they know will cause terrorism directed at Jews. Every day they do that. They know that a certain number of Jews are going to die because of the policies they enact. But they’re willing to accept that. They’re willing to accept that within the borders of their own state. So they’re certainly willing to accept it in France. They’re certainly willing to accept it in the United States. Because they think it redounds on balance to the greater good of their community, and they’re willing to accept a few casualties. It’s as simple as that.
DC: Just like in any country, when a president needs support, he starts a war, when Jewish emancipation happened in Europe, a lot of the conservative rabbis and people who were really committed to the community were more afraid of assimilation than they were of extermination or violence. Creating a certain level of conflict firms up the boundaries and the membranes between peoples.
GJ: This is true, this is very true. And assimilation is a great threat to Jews. All traits are distributed along bell curves, and that includes genetic traits like ethnocentrism. Like other people who are predominantly Middle Eastern, Jews as an ethnic group are more ethnocentric than Europeans. This is just a fact of reality. It’s biologically clear. But those traits are distributed on bell curves, and the less ethnocentric Jews will marry out.
I’ve known a number of them. I’ve had Jewish friends. Over the years, I’ve allowed them to drop, and some of them died. I’ve not tried to make new Jewish friendships, because as I became increasingly aware of the Jewish problem, I just didn’t want to have these sticky dual loyalties in my own life.
One of these friends actually gave me “permission” to think a lot of these thoughts. In fact, she egged me on. She had a very interesting life. She was an orphan. She had every reason to believe her parents were killed in the Holocaust. She was raised as Catholic, and she only discovered that she was Jewish when she was a teenager. This Jewish family showed up and said that she was part of the family. They took her away from the Catholic orphanage where she was being raised. She wanted to be a nun when she grew up. They told her she was a Jew and tried to make her into a Jew.
She told me that being turned into a Jew basically meant being turned into a misanthrope who hated the rest of humanity, stayed indoors all the time, and didn’t go out and play. When she wasn’t inclined to do that, they actually started calling her “the little German.” And after a while, they took her back to the orphanage and dumped her. That’s a really fascinating story. But she was one of these low-ethnocentrism Jews. She ended up marrying out. She married a white guy. She had kids, and she didn’t even tell her children about her Jewish heritage until they were all grown up.
That’s an example of the kind of people who marry out. You can only really have barriers to that if there’s a great deal of polarization in society between Jews and gentiles. So yes, the Jewish community needs antisemitism to affirm its boundaries. That’s why they’re constantly searching for it with a magnifying glass and tweezers.
I love Yoav Shamir’s documentary Defamation, where he went to the offices of the Anti-Defamation League in New York, where they collect antisemitic horror stories, maybe sixty or eighty a day. Fortunately, the vast majority are quite trivial. People calling in complaining they weren’t allowed to take Jewish holidays off. It’s antisemitism! These people don’t feel privileged enough. They’re objectively the most privileged group in America, but not privileged enough by their own lights. So they have an organization that has hundreds of millions of dollars a year, where they can snitch on their employers for not giving them even more special treatment than they already get.
This is antisemitism, but they need this. They need this consciousness to maintain their boundaries. Yet a lot of Jews are choosing to marry out and cease to be Jewish. You can’t blame them. A lot of them just want to join the human race, rather than be misanthropes, which is what their religion requires. So Jews need antisemitism to survive as a separate group.
Yet at the same time, they have this weird reflexive habit of constantly racking their brains to figure out where antisemitism comes from. I remember Natan Sharansky wrote a book that of all people, George W. Bush praised. It may have been the second book he ever read after the children’s book on 9/11. I read some excerpts of it on the web, and I was howling with laughter because he says antisemitism is the most baffling thing. There’s no common denominator. It happens in Buddhist societies and Christian societies. It happens in Muslim societies. It’s happened in every stage of history. Under capitalism, socialism, and Communism. There’s no common denominator. But wait a second, there’s one thing that all of these societies have in common, and that’s Jews. Israel Shahak said the ghettos grew up because they existed in the minds of Jews. They were just an externalization of the Jewish mentality, of their own separateness and their insistence on being separate. Their dietary laws, their dual ethical codes, all these things are designed to maintain their sense of separateness and distinctness as a people. But that separateness and the tendency to look down upon other people as not really human does inevitably produce a backlash. And we call that antisemitism. Jews are aware of their own Jewishness. When gentiles become aware of Jewishness, it often takes the form of antisemitism.
DC: In 1903 or 1904, Theodor Herzl, the father of modern political Zionism, was at a British governmental panel on immigration giving testimony. One of the people asked him what his definition of a nation was. I can’t remember the exact quote, but he said something to the effect that it’s a recognizable group of common cohesion, united by a common enemy. And he asked him, so what’s the common enemy? And he said, to the Jew, it’s the anti-Semite. When I read that, I thought to myself, if your sense of social identity is completely tied to the presence of this enemy, this implacable universal enemy, the question that obviously pops up is what happens to you if there’s no antisemitism left? And the answer is that can’t ever happen.
GJ: They can’t allow that to happen. So they conjure up the anti-Semite. It’s a necessary prop of their existence. If they can’t conjure up real ones, they conjure up fake ones. Which is why so many anti-Jewish acts of vandalism turn out to be fake hate crimes created by Jews. In fact, they are real hate crimes committed against gentiles.
  Greg Johnson, “Reframing the Jewish Question,” Toward a New Nationalism.