We have to start thinking about creating our own clubs, associations, and spaces to protect ourselves, become a pressure group, and show them that we are united as self-assured collectivities. There is nothing edgy or rebellious about Leftists today; they are conformist, devious, confused, and emotionally infantile, but they have institutional backing, and if we act as isolated individuals they can do great damage, which gives them a lot of pleasure.

As a university professor, what do you make of the current trends on campuses like Mizzou and others toward “safe spaces” and the marginalization of Europeans in favor of people of color and minority groups? Do you see it in your university, and can you share any personal experiences?

I am lucky to teach at a university in which Eurocanadians constitute a strong majority and minorities consist almost entirely of international students, even though these foreign students utilize their entry into Canadian universities as a direct path to citizenship. The call for “safe spaces” is yet another aggressive act by Leftists in a long line of such acts going back to the ’60s. You would think that having achieved total control over the university, with almost a 100 per cent leftist professorate, with administrators who have made the diversification of campuses their primary goals, the students would be satiated by now. But don’t expect any satisfaction anytime soon, and the call for safe spaces may be the most aggressive signal yet of what the ultimate goal is: to create universities with a curriculum that is thoroughly diverse, and in which Whites are just one more minority group, regardless of the ethnic composition of the city where the university is located, and regardless of the pedagogical consequences. They claim that a “safe place” is needed because Blacks, and other minorities, are not safe in an environment they deem to be majority White; affirmative action may have brought Blacks into the campus, but it has not made them safe. The word “safe” is a manipulative code intended to create the impression that others, Whites, are being aggressive against them and have power over them in the university at large, and that they are just asking for a small space to feel safe, as poor innocent children, but in reality the intention is to create spaces in which Whites will not be allowed to enter, and in which Black students and other minorities will set the terms, and will eventually create a different educational environment that allows them certain privileges Whites are excluded from. Can you imagine Whites asking for safe places from Blacks, or from the pervasive presence of Leftist professors and administrators pushing diversity and teaching about the ills of slavery and European imperialism? It is impossible to conceive this.

But why are extra spaces needed for minorities apart from the general Cultural Marxist space across the pro-diversity university? Well, if you follow the egalitarian logic, which started in the student protests of the 1960s, then there is no way to argue against this request by minorities, since the reality is that Whites are still the majority on many university campuses, have an unequal presence, and the curriculum, the authors, and the disciplines themselves are still heavily White in origins and authorship. Why is it that when you open a textbook on the history of philosophy most of the philosophers are European? Why is it that when they offer brief histories of the development of biological ideas, physics, mathematics, technologies, of the presidents of the United States, of the great men in modern science, they are mostly White? How can a Black person feel safe when an entire classroom continually focuses on White thinkers when it is discussing existentialism, phenomenology, deconstruction, and analytical thought? Are not the disciplines of physics, chemistry, and even the social sciences creations of Whites, and, therefore, representative of the ways of thinking of Whites? Or, are Whites claiming that they can represent Blacks in their philosophies? And, if these philosophies and political theories by Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Machiavelli, Habermas, Rorty, and Rousseau, are not “Black”, can they not be seen as efforts by Whites to “discipline”’ Blacks to think and act White? And if Blacks are less successful academically in these disciplines, why is that? Is this not another instance of White privilege and the imposition of White standards upon Blacks?

It is not surprising that the last few years have seen a lot of talk about “White supremacy” and that much of this talk in academia has been about the supremacy of Whites in the curriculum. Critics charge that Whites cannot possibly be accused of supremacism, since this would entail rules and laws excluding minorities from certain activities and universities, affording Whites certain special rights and so on; but that the ones trying to have supremacy are those Blacks who are calling for special rules of entry, separate standards, and exclusive spaces on racial grounds not afforded to Whites. But these critics can’t answer why Whites are still privileged in their dominance of the curriculum and in their continuing majority presence on most campuses. Ultimately, there is no way to counter the logic of egalitarianism, which will gather ever more momentum against Whites as the racial demographic landscape increasingly tilts in favor of non-Whites. Naïve liberal Whites have no clue what is coming their way, though, amazingly, many of them will welcome their complete degradation.

The best countermeasure is for European-Americans and Canadians not to oppose the principle driving Blacks and minorities to seek safe places; instead they should seek their own safe places against the general Cultural Marxist space, from which position they can then produce arguments against many of the claims of minorities and the university personnel at large, while supporting each other as an ethnic collective group. As I started answering, I am lucky to teach at UNB; while I have been opposed in ways obligating me to express my dissenting views in a less open manner, I would not have survived in most other Canadian universities where you have active SJWs and large minorities. This is why we have to start thinking about creating our own clubs, associations, and spaces to protect ourselves, become a pressure group, and show them that we are united as self-assured collectivities. There is nothing edgy or rebellious about Leftists today; they are conformist, devious, confused, and emotionally infantile, but they have institutional backing, and if we act as isolated individuals they can do great damage, which gives them a lot of pleasure, watching family men, independent thinkers, and hardworking and dedicated individuals go down.

European resistance to the great replacement has come in many forms from the Central European nations like Hungary and Poland, to the youth-led identitarian movement. Do you think something similar to the identitarian movement could come about in Canada, or do you think Canadians of European descent are too disconnected from their European roots?

I know of two groups in Canada consisting of young men who meet and discuss issues, read books together, and sometimes engage in political activism. I would not call these groups identitarian, however. One can’t think of the identitarian movements in Europe without thinking about the cultures from which they emerged: Austria, Germany, and France, which are national cultures, and these identitarian movements, while not nationalist in the old sense, and despite their wider sense of being rooted in Europe at large, are rooted in these national cultures, drawing their inspiration from their respective nation’s history and identity against diversification. I prefer to use the term “Eurocanadian” rather than “White” in order to bring up both the cultural and racial side of the founding peoples of Canada, the English-speaking peoples (the British, Irish, and Scottish) and the French-speaking Quebecois, and of the subsequent arrival of Europeans, Germans, Scandinavians, Eastern Europeans, Italians, and Greeks. But I must admit that current Eurocanadians are disconnected or do not identify themselves as Europeans, so when it comes to current politics, rather than historical explanations, say, about the role of the founding Europeans, the Anglo and French in particular, in the making of Canada, it may well be more effective to use the term White Canadians. I have not thought about this much, but now that you ask, and notwithstanding my own misgivings about using the term White, which tends to be too focused on race as the identifying trait, I think Greg Johnson is correct that as we try to identify ourselves in the face of ever larger numbers of aggressive non-Whites, in order to differentiate ourselves we will realize, we Canadians, Americans, and even the more cohesive Anglo-Australians, that the one thing we do have in common is that we are White. And we will realize this as we sense, hear, and face up to the actions of the elites and non-Whites against us for being White, not for having an ancestry in some European country, but for being members of a “White supremacist” group.

We don’t hear much about radical Islam in Canada. Is the Islamist threat in Canada being swept under the rug for political correctness, or does Canada simply have less of a problem with Islamists? If the latter is true, why do you think that is?

The Islamic threat is greatest in England, France, and Germany, countries with the highest Muslim populations, excluding Russia. In Germany alone, the Muslim population surged from 4.8 million in 2010 to 6 million by the end of the summer of 2015. For me, the threat is not terrorism per se, but the mere presence of Muslims with a way of life, religion, and ethnicity that is antithetical to European culture. Ultimately, I view the Muslim phenomenon within the larger problem of mass immigration to Western nations; I would rather live in a nation populated by Europeans, even if there was terrorism, though this would be a problem  of course, rather than an Asianized or Africanized European nation without terrorism. Muslims, as of 2011, represents 3.2 percent of the Canadian population, and are expected to increase to 6.6 percent by 2030, which is a sizable number, but the biggest demographic threat to Canada comes from Asian immigration, which, as of 2011, comprises 15.3 percent of the population. The vast majority of Asians are Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, and Pakistanis. Cities and towns in Canada, Vancouver, Richmond, Markham, Brampton, and others have been thoroughly populated by Asians, and this is just the beginning if trends continue…all the indications point towards the marginalization of Eurocanadians within a few decades. This demographic replacement is the biggest threat. The threat of terrorism, and the overt manner in which Muslims affirm their identity, is important to highlight as a way of initiating emotional energy against this larger replacement. Criticism of immigration has come mainly by way of apprehensions about Islamic aggression. The downside of these apprehensions is that there are powerful elites out there manipulating Europeans into believing that we are at war with Islam, which is the main line of criticism pushed by the same mainstream conservatives who want mass immigration, cheap labor, global shopping malls, real estate development, and a generic humanity without national identity other than a few folksy symbols transmitted through ads and consumer items. We are not at war with Islam, and we should stop trying to export Western values into the Near East, or anywhere else; Muslims in their own homelands have as much reason as we do to seek national and ethnic self-determination, as they see it. Our energy should be pivoted around the principle that European peoples also have a right to ethno-national self-determination.

You’ve written several critical essays on the European New Right, the school of thought founded by Alain de Benoist and his GRECE think tank. In brief, what is your appraisal of the New Right? Has it influenced you in any way?

The European New Right, along with American paleoconservatism, was instrumental in my ability to move out of the mainstream Right, which I inhabited from about 2000 to 2010. I never felt fully comfortable in the mainstream Right, though I supported the Iraq War until about 2006. Intellectually, Nietzsche, more so than any contemporary mainstream conservative, drove me out of the Left, apart from my admiration for Western civilization. After publishing Uniqueness in 2011, I started visiting Alt-Right blogs and Webzines, and it was then that I realized that race was no less important to the West’s historical identity than culture. Reading ENR writers, mainly by way of Counter-Currents, taught me that moving further to the Right did not entail moving further away from socialist concerns about the well-being of one’s people, but in fact entailed a rejection of mainstream Right ideas about globalization, American “exceptionalism,” and the universalist pretensions of civic nationalism, that is, ideas which had originated in a Left obsessed with the welfare of Third World peoples, and which was completely dismissive of the White working classes. The “neither Right nor Left” ENR ideas were quite important in this respect.

But I could never agree with the animosity of the ENR towards Western civilization. The ENR, it soon became apparent to me, had formulated its key ideas in reaction to a historical reality that was no longer relevant, namely the Cold War, and the imposition upon Europe of the internationalist ideologies of American liberalism and Soviet Communism. The ENR grew as a reaction against this imposition in defence of European cultural autonomy, in the course of which it assimilated Leftist ideas about multiculturalism. I understand that some current ENR writers are fully aware of the existential threat that mass immigration poses and are addressing it, but they still frame their thinking about this issue in terms of the globalist imperatives of American capitalism, against which they hold up the traditional values of all peoples. But what matters to me is the fate of European peoples, and there is no way around the historical reality that rationalism, individualism, and universalism are intrinsic traits of the West, which should not be confounded with the way Cultural Marxists have atrophied and manipulated these traits to push anti-Western policies. The ENR has accepted elements of the Leftist critique of the West in defence of multicultural traditionalism. I think it is possible to have an aristocratic appreciation of these traits, which is how Spengler thought about it, appreciating the Faustian drive of Europeans, which includes the drive for rationalization, without endorsing liberalism in its current form, though I am sympathetic to classical liberalism.

How has your thought evolved since you published The Uniqueness of Western Civilization in 2011?

I was always aware at an instinctive level that race was important, but only after Uniqueness was published did I really start reading about this topic in light of my concerns about mass immigration. The key change was that I discovered Alt-Right writings and thinkers. One reason I don’t trust the Left, and would not be willing to incorporate key ideas from this side the way Benoist and Dugin have, is that the Left is totally opposed to European racial identity. The Left has been waging a war against the White race for decades, and the mainstream Right has agreed with the Left that it is wrong for Whites to affirm their racial identity, but understandable for non-Whites to affirm theirs. This is the biggest double standard. Unlike Benoist, who uses multiculturalism to argue against human rights, I would prefer to use multiculturalism to argue that we should all have the same collective right to affirm our cultural and racial identities; and if affirming Gallic identity means re-asserting the territorial rights of the Gallic French against Islamic and African multiculturalism in France, then I would agree with this. It is very simple, the Left/Right establishment wants European identity to become a personal choice in the face of the ever growing affirmation by non-Whites of their collective identity right inside Europe, which is leading to the destruction of Europeans. So, either Europeans do the same, or they are gone.

Arktos will soon be publishing a new book by you, Faustian Man in an Age of Multiculturalism. Can you give us a brief overview of what the book will be about?

The book starts with the importance of race in the historical identification of Western civilization from prehistoric to contemporary times. Rise and Decline cycles have been a natural phenomenon in the history of cultures, but never has a decline come along through the existence of a hostile elite breaking up the racial identity of a people, which would mean permanent decline and extinction. The book looks at the evolution of a European “sub-race” (within the Caucasian race) on the continent of Europe after Homo sapiens arrived some 45,000 years ago, and how this sub-race evolved over the course of the Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic periods. Chapter 3 examines how the teaching of Western civilization has been replaced by multicultural histories aimed at downplaying Western achievements, demonizing Western actions, elevating the achievements of non-Western peoples, and claiming that the rise of modern science, for example, was a “global” affair in which all the peoples of the world played an equal role, demonstrating how all of this revisionism is being done in violation of the most basic protocols of scholarly evidence and standards. Chapter 4 makes a case for the importance of Spengler’s concept of a Faustian soul for the understanding of Western creativity, and the last chapter uses the Faustian idea as part of an effort to show that almost all the explorers in history were European, and that the driving motivation for European exploration was Faustian rather than economic.

The Uniqueness of Western Civilization (Studies in Critical Social Sciences (Brill Academic))

This extensively researched book argues that the development of a libertarian culture was an indispensable component of the rise of the West. The roots of the West’s superior intellectual and artistic creativity should be traced back to the aristocratic warlike culture of Indo-European speakers. Among the many fascinating topics discussed are: the ascendancy of multicultural […]

Additional images:

Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail

Price: $61.00

Buy Now

About The Author

Profile photo of John Morgan

John B. Morgan was born in New York in 1973, where he was raised, and he then lived for many years in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where he graduated with a degree in literature from the University of Michigan. After a lengthy stint in an ashram in India, he today resides in Budapest, Hungary. He was one of the founders of Arktos Media and has been its Editor-in-Chief from the beginning. He is frequently asked to give talks in both Europe and North America, and publishes occasional essays. A lifelong lover of books and ideas of all sorts, John sees Arktos as the fulfillment of his dream of combining his bibliomania with his desire to bring cutting-edge ideas based in and defending the best traditions to the world.

  • Sandy

    Very good interview, both parts (1-2) Thought-provoking, with much needed insight, and practical solutions presented. Not really a disagreement, I see his point about demographics, and Asians being the bigger threat to Canada, long-term.

    But I would be concerned if Muslims increase in Canada to 6.6% by 2030. Or any other Western country. At 5% they begin to exercise a disproportionate influence, and even at levels less than 10% will exhibit increasing lawlessness, as is evidenced in Europe.

    How Islam progressively takes over countries:


    Again. Thanks for the interview. My benefit to have read it.