by Greg Johnson
This is an attitude that seems to me to be pervasive in the white advocacy movement. It at once defuses a very effective bit of rhetoric of the Left—repeated with predictable regularity by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center. We are white advocates, people who, as Greg phrases it in several places following Michael Polignano, “take our own side” in issues of racial/ethnic conflict. And in taking our own side, we are doing exactly what racial/ethnic groups have done from time immemorial. No one accuses the Koreans of “Korean supremacism” for adopting policies aimed at retaining Korean demographic and cultural predominance. And imagine the horror by Western elites at a proposal to flood African countries with whites so that native Africans cease to be a political majority.
Make no mistake about it. The policies that are making whites minorities in lands they have dominated for hundreds or (in the case of Europe) thousands of years are not driven by utopian dreams of a raceless future, except among gullible, intimidated whites. The non-whites who are so enthusiastically embracing the decline of white political and cultural power are driven by hatred toward whites as a people and as a culture. This is a major theme of my writing on Jewish influence, and apparent as well in a host of non-white intellectuals and activists.
Greg Johnson received his Ph.D. in philosophy, and it shows. His forte is the well-developed argument presented in a lucid, easily understood style. There will be no complaints about this book being filled with turgid prose. And I can’t find any major disagreements.
I was particularly struck by several points. For example, unlike the European New Right, Greg is an advocate of white racial nationalism:
insofar as the breakdown of European national identities and the blending of European stocks in our North American context forces us (1) to give greater place to biological race and other deep roots of common European identity, and (2) to put greater emphasis on the Jewish question, given the role of American Jewry in promoting anti-white policies both in the United States and in white countries worldwide.
Right. As a biologist, there is always the tendency to see matters like race as a decontextualized matter. DNA, after all, is DNA. But American whites are indeed a very intermixed lot—a successful example of a European melting pot. In effect, we have created a new biological reality not present in any European country.
Nevertheless, we must remember that Europeans are in general closely related biologically, particularly in the north and east of Europe, as recent data continue to show. Indeed,
typical pairs of individuals drawn from across Europe have a good chance of sharing long stretches of [identical genes] by descent, even when they are separated by thousands of kilometers. We can furthermore conclude that pairs of individuals across Europe are reasonably likely to share common genetic ancestors within the last 1,000 years, and are certain to share many within the last 2,500 years.400
The white race is indeed a biological as well as a cultural reality. This biological reality forms a powerful basis for a scientifically based understanding of a commonality of interests wherever whites are living, whether in Europe or in the European diaspora.
And, yes, although the organized Jewish community has pursued the same set of policies favoring displacement-level immigration and multiculturalism throughout the West, Jewish influence varies in different Western societies. This brings up the need for developing a good model of cultural diffusion within the West. For example, academic culture is self-consciously international. If indeed the main impetus for the leftward shift is Jewish involvement in the Left beginning in the United States with the movements described in The Culture of Critique, it is not at all surprising that this culture spread to other areas with less Jewish influence given the pre-eminence of the U.S. in the post-World War II Western world. An aspiring academic in, say, Norway or Finland, who subscribes to a White Nationalist worldview would find himself ostracized from international academic societies, while countrymen who subscribed to the reigning cultural Marxism would find international recognition.
The same phenomenon occurs in the political realm, as, for example, when Austrian politician Jörg Haider joined a coalition government in 2000. This resulted in huge international pressure, with EU member states refusing to cooperate with the Austrian government and Israel withdrawing its ambassador. The assault on the Golden Dawn party in Greece is a more recent example. Any Western government that opposed continued immigration and multiculturalism would be subjected to similar pressures.
The culture of Western suicide exists throughout the white world, and dominating the most powerful country in the West goes a very long way to dominating the entire Western world, particularly given the fact that Jews often control media even in countries with very tiny Jewish populations, as with the Bonnier family in Norway and Sweden.
Greg does not shy away from discussing difficult issues having to do with National Socialism, supporting the ideal of an organic, hierarchical, meritocratic society dedicated to advancing the interests of whites and rejecting “party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.”
I agree entirely. It’s a very good strategy to confront such issues head-on rather than to leave them to be discussed solely by our enemies. It’s the same with the holocaust. The holocaust is simply not important for white advocacy, and whatever happened is not the responsibility of any living whites; it’s something that must be simply “stepped over,” to use Jonathan Bowden’s felicitous phrase. Even if the holocaust were proved to have never occurred to the satisfaction of one and all, there is more than enough resentment by Jews about their past in Europe and the United States to fuel the hostility toward the West that has been such a prominent feature of the organized Jewish community and so many influential Jewish individuals. The reality of Jews as a hostile elite aiming to displace white elites throughout the West would not change at all.
I should think that it would be uncontroversial that the white advocacy movement must be metapolitical, since there is a crying need to build up a self-confident, prideful culture than can eventually become mainstream. Greg’s argument that it is premature to pursue nationalist party politics—that at this point the money can be better used in education and organizing—will be more controversial. The question is whether these are really incompatible goals and, as Greg rightly notes, “We share the same broad aims, but we differ as to the best means of achieving them. We need to acknowledge these differences frankly, then divide our camp and pursue our common aims by the various paths that seem best to us.” Different ways should be attempted in the hope that eventually something will work. In the meantime, we must be as inclusive as possible.
In fact, nationalist parties have made substantial headway in Europe, and many observers are expecting a significant representation of nationalist parties to result from the 2014 European Parliament elections. With increasing success, the messages of these parties have inevitably become more widely known. Significantly, these parties have not developed with an explicitly pro-white or pro-ethnic nationalism agenda, but have rather attempted to stay under the radar of political correctness on race and on Jewish influence, basing themselves on an implicit ethnic nationalism that opposes immigration and multiculturalism for a whole host of reasons apart from the danger of ethnic swamping that is in fact lurking in the background. Not surprisingly, these messages are often most effective with the white working class, the group that has suffered the most from the immigration tsunami.
Indeed, I believe that model of change that I think most probable is that the revolution will begin in Europe with the success of one of these parties, particularly if it occurs in a pivotal country like France where there is a clear possibility that the Front National will obtain power, and in a context where other nationalist parties have substantial representation in other areas of Europe so that an effective countermovement of isolation and ostracism cannot develop. I think we are rapidly approaching such a situation now. Compared to America, Europe has the advantage
of very ancient cultures and identities that are mortally endangered by this new dispensation. Once such a party gains power, then more explicit messages of ethnic and racial interests may become more acceptable, paving the way for the dissemination of a theoretical framework based explicitly on ethnic interests.
I worry that in the absence of near-term political goals, a purely metapolitical movement is in danger of being a detached, inward-looking, even self-serving elite. For one thing, the Left is completely in control of the academic scene and very actively—indeed passionately—polices any deviation from political correctness. This is quite unlike the situation in American universities where Franz Boas was able to control academic anthropology by the early 20th century, and several of the New York Intellectuals obtained positions at elite universities well before 1960. This is a very formidable barrier to the spread of an elite culture of white identity given the close relationship between universities and intellectual life in the West. There was no complaint from the academic world when the 1965 immigration law opened up immigration to the United States to all peoples of the world. Indeed, in several Western countries, Australia comes to mind, the movement to open up immigration to non-whites originated in the universities.
Even in America, with so many barriers against us, political action inside or outside the context of the electoral process could be a positive force for change. Americans need to see noisy, intelligent, attractive, committed white people marching in the street with signs opposed to immigration, multiculturalism, and the strident ethnic politics of other groups; there is a need for a steady drumbeat of political advertising where pro-white themes, whether explicitly white or not, are repeated over and over to the point that they become part of the furniture of life even if winning elections remains a distant goal.
Such movements may be particularly important for whites with less education who may be turned off by an elite culture of white identity. The white working class in fact has been the prime loser in the cultural changes promoted by our hostile elites. A great many of them are angry and, with less to lose than so many well-educated whites, they are an important natural constituency.
In any case, I wholeheartedly agree that we have to be open to a diversity of approaches.
Greg’s essay, “The Moral Factor,” raises the important issue of moral motivation which I think is an aspect of Western uniqueness. One does not see Chinese people agonizing over the fact that the Han Chinese greatly expanded their territory at the expense of other peoples. Nor does one see the Bantu peoples of Africa worrying about the ethics of displacing other African peoples as they spread far and wide from their homeland in Central Africa, including into South Africa where their treatment at the hands of white South Africans became Exhibit A for white evil during the apartheid era; nor do the Bantu-speaking peoples agonize about the widespread practice of slavery in Africa. Arabs do not apologize about their conquests in the name of Islam or their centuries-old role in slavery and the slave trade. As Greg notes, the Spaniards have apologized for the Reconquista that expelled the Muslims from Spain, but there are no apologies from the Muslims for the Conquista.
Whites are the only people to abolish slavery, and a great many of the activists and the fundamental popular sentiments so crucial in the ultimate victory over slavery were motivated by moral idealism, including especially empathy for slaves.401 They did so despite very real costs to many individuals and to society as a whole, and all this occurred before the rise of the Jewish hostile elite. Indeed, this unique characteristic of whites is exploited by Jewish intellectuals for their own hateful ends. My basic theory is that this is a holdover of Northern European hunter-gatherer culture, where one’s status in a group is based on reputation for moral behavior (honesty, fair dealing) rather than on kinship relations—an aspect of Western individualism.
So I agree that “even if White Nationalism is politically meaningful, people will resist it if they think it is immoral. But they will move heaven and earth to establish white homelands if they think it is the right thing to do.” We must win the moral battle. The problem is that “our people overwhelmingly believe that our cause is unjust.” And yet, the moral argument for white survival is obvious and compelling. Fundamentally, our basic survival as a people and as a culture are threatened. As Greg notes, “the present system is not merely anti-white, it is genocidally anti-white.”
That’s enough for me to mark the present system as utterly depraved morally. It is profoundly immoral to inflict multiculturalism upon the white populations of the West, given that ethnic conflict is absolutely predictable, based upon everything we know of the bloody history of ethnically divided societies. This is especially the case given that support for multiculturalism and support for their own demographic and political eclipse have never been majority views among whites. Whether in Australia or New Zealand, North America or Europe—in every case throughout the West, immigration and multi-culturalism have been projects of media, academic, and political elites. These changes have been top-down, not at all bottom-up.
We must pay more attention to the morality of infringing upon the legitimate rights and interests of the white majority. Everyone has rights and everyone has interests. The interests and rights of whites as a majority are no less morally legitimate than those of any other group. Whites must jettison the ideal of moral universalism and ask what is good for the future of whites.
On the basis of this collection of essays, Greg Johnson has a compelling vision of the impending disaster facing the people and culture of the West and what we can do about it right now. It is presented in a highly readable, well-argued manner that at once shows the power and confidence of the developing metapolitical culture of a Western renaissance. I wholeheartedly recommend it.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
AEDON CASSIEL writes for Counter-Currents Publishing/North American New Right and his own blog Zombie Meditations, https://zombiemeditations.com/
COLLIN CLEARY is the author of Summoning the Gods: Essays on Paganism in a God-Forsaken World, ed. Greg Johnson (Counter-Currents, 2011) and What is a Rune?, ed. Greg Johnson (Counter-Currents, 2014).
DOMITIUS CORBULO is the pen name of an intellectual historian who writes for Counter-Currents/North American New Right, The Occidental Quarterly, and The Occidental Observer.
JEF COSTELLO is the author of Heidegger in Chicago: A Comedy of Errors (Counter-Currents, 2015) and The Importance of James Bond (Counter-Currents, 2017).
F. ROGER DEVLIN, Ph.D., is the author of Alexander Kojève and the Outcome of Modern Thought (University Press of America, 2004) and Sexual Utopia in Power (Counter-Currents, 2015).
MARK DYAL, Ph.D., is a dissident intellectual living in the American South. Although he was awarded a Ph.D. in Anthropology and a M.A. in African-American and African Studies, his interests lie in poststructuralist philosophy and philoso-political analyses of the State, Capital, and the declining bourgeois form of life. In his work, the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche and Gilles Deleuze mixes freely with Italian Futurism, Fascism, and autonomist anti-state collectives.
ANDREW HAMILTON writes for Counter-Currents/North American New Right.
DEREK HAWTHORNE writes for Counter-Currents/North American New Right.
GREGORY HOOD is the author of Waking Up from the American Dream (Counter-Currents, 2016) and of many articles and reviews.
GREG JOHNSON, Ph.D., is the author of Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (Counter-Currents, 2010; expanded edition, 2016), New Right vs. Old Right (Counter-Currents, 2012), Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country (Counter-Currents, 2015), In Defense of Prejudice (Counter-Currents, 2017), and You Asked for It: Selected Interviews, vol. 1 (Counter-Currents, 2017).
SIMON LOTE writes for Counter-Currents/North American New Right.
KEVIN MACDONALD, Ph.D., was Professor of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach, and author of The Culture of Critique (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1998) and many other books and articles.
JOHN
MORGAN is Book Editor at Counter-Currents Publishing.
CHRISTOPHER PANKHURST is the author of Numinous Machines (Counter-Currents, 2017).
DONALD THORESEN writes for Counter-Currents/North American New Right.
MICHAEL WALKER is a freelance journalist and writer. He was editor of The Scorpion magazine from 1981 to 2005 and co-founder of the cultural group Iona. He is the also a poet and the author of five plays, including Hitler’s Temptation, The Return of Odysseus, and King. His writings have been published at Counter-Currents/North American New Right, Junge Freiheit, Signal, Nationalism Today, and American Renaissance.
Notes
[←1]
Walter Kaufmann, ed., The Portable Nietzsche (New York: Viking Penguin, 1982), pp. 125–27.
[←2]
http://www.iep.utm.edu/nietzsch/
[←3]
Jörg Guido Hülsmann, Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism (Auburn, Al.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007), p. 996.
[←4]
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (New York: Signet, 1996), p. 821.
[←5]
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/why-has-race-survived/
[←6]
http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/on-the-enlightenments-race-problem/
[←7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenan_Malik
[←8]
http://www.britishfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/The-melting-pot-generation.pdf
[←9]
