Greg Johnson: Against White Unionism

I don’t have any objection to Greg Johnson’s definition of White Nationalism because he places race and culture on an equal footing and recognizes the importance of both to nationalism.

Counter-Currents:

“This is precisely the path America followed to its Civil War. In the South, the states believed they retained sovereignty and had the power to nullify federal laws they regarded as unconstitutional. In the North, the federal government, specifically the federal judiciary, claimed to be the highest authority on the interpretation of law. This conflict could not be solved within the existing constitutional framework, so the South seceded and the North went to war to stop them.

Why would anyone create such an unstable “federal” hybrid? Short-sightedness and anti-intellectualism can’t be ruled out. Most politicians are more concerned with pleasing people than with intellectual consistency. Americans especially have a tendency to avoid tough decisions and force future generations to pay the price. For what it is worth, though, the anti-federalists feared that the new Constitution was merely the first step by which predominantly northern and mercantile elites would create a consolidated, imperial state. It turns out they were right. The process of consolidation was completed by Abraham Lincoln, to the ruin of Constitution and Confederacy alike. The lesson is that sometimes, sovereign states enter empires voluntarily, often deceived as much by their own hopes as the imperialists’ guile. Force comes into play only when they want to leave. …”

I admit to being triggered by the word “Union.”

We have become a “more perfect Union” over time.

I associate it with John Brown and Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address, Antietam, the Reconstruction era, the expansion of the American Empire and its endless imperial wars, a despotic anti-White consolidated government, the Brown and Loving decisions, MLK and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Immigration Act of 1965, the Voting Rights Act and most recently with Obergefell and Dark Brandon angrily screaming and banging his fists about his war for “the Soul of America.”

White Unionism is based on racial nationalism and federalism. In other words, this is simply the United States and it failed for a variety of reasons. We have racial nationalism to thank for the Jewish Question because anyone from Poland or Russia who could step off a boat in New York and pass as White was allowed in and became a full American citizen. The glue of racial nationalism which held the country together was also extremely weak. It worked for a time when Americans were tempered by the experience of dealing with raw Indians on the frontier, but later generations had no experience with that and the waves of European immigrants that came in had no connection to the American past.

The biggest reason the project failed though is because American elites simply moved on with the times and lost interest in the original ideal of preserving a White Republic. Liberalism became the fashionable new elite ideology in the early 19th century and began to steadily displace republicanism and racial nationalism and finally Christianity. American elites spent the late 19th and the entire 20th century embracing fad after fad which arrived from Europe. So many fads accumulated over time like barnacles that what is called “liberalism” in our times has become nearly unrecognizable.

The history of the United States is how a White Union would play out. The elites of such a global superstate would eventually lose interest in racial nationalism like New England’s elites in the 19th century and fall for some other fad, but the constitutional structure of the superstate would remain in place. The elites would then violently turn on and repress populations who cling to the original idea. This is why the South has been through at least three distinct Reconstruction periods.

How it started:

How it ended:

22 Comments

  1. Have to admit Greg Johnson makes an excellent point here. He really lost my respect with his retarded backing of the empire in Jewkraine – which also contradicts his implied critique of the empire firmly established by old Illnoize railroad shyster.

    Marbury v. Madison (1803) was a lawless usurpation of power by the blackrobed clique. The congress, lacking any cojones even that far back, should have impeached the blackrobed bastards just to show who was really boss. The decision was a high crime and misdemeanor – the progenitor of countless ones to follow.

    • @Exalted Cyclops…

      “He really lost my respect with his retarded backing of the empire in Jewkraine –”

      Most people have no idea what is going on there.

      They do not understand how the democratically-elected government of Viktor Yanukovitch was overthrown by the Jew England Yankee United States’ Government in 2014 and they do not understand what has gone on since, nor do they know why.

      They certainly do not know about the different peoples of the modern Ukraine, and they certainly do not know that Ukraine is a region of Russia, not a place with a separate people and history – or,. at least, not central and eastern Ukraine.

      The Galicians and Volhynians (Azov) of the western part of the Ukraine are a different story, and, as Russians admit, are a peoples not only NOT a part of Russia, but, antithetical to them, which is why the Jew England Yankee United States Government put them in charge of the country after overthrowing it.

      In fact, in The Rural South, many people might think that the Ukraine is a type of imported fish, if you mentioned it to them without preface, and they certainly could not find the Ukraine on the map.

      Rural Southerners also have no idea of what has been going on since the fall of the Iron Curtain, how that occurred, nor do they know that this war is about subjugating and destroying Russia forever.

      They do not know that, nor a whole lot more.

        • @TW…

          “They do not know. Even sadder, they do not care.”

          Yes, Dear TW, very sad, indeed, and very true.

          That said, we, Southerners, are very consistent in this, for how could we care for knowing what goes on in the Ukraine, when we do not even seem to care to trouble ourselves about our own people and lands?

          Thank you chiming in and for the affirmation!

    • FTN (Fash the Nation) had a big discussion on this, and it was (rightly) pointed out that, FROM THE BEGINNING, Jews were In-CLU-ded in this ‘great experiment,’ and THAT alone… (along with other follies of the Enlightenment, IMHO) was/is the reason for the failure of America in the present hour. Jazzhands pointed out that the German Bund in the USA, and Lindbergh in the 1940’s both tried to expunge the Jews, but the history paradigm from the outset was stacked against them: i.e., the Talmudic the rot was there, from the beginning.

      On another front, Economist Dr. Gary North wrote in his 1989 book, ‘Political Polytheism’ that the corresponding RELIGIOUS question was not answered back then, EITHER.

      Speaking on Article VI, Clause 3 of the apostate covenant document known as the Constitution: “…If there be no religious test required, (of citizens, and people in public office) pagans, deists, [Jews] and Mahometans might obtain office among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans.” [Henry Abbot, N.C. Ratifying convention, 1780’s] A prophetic voice, indeed! But it was not heeded.” – G. North, Political Polytheism, p. 390-91.

      So, whether you want a NatSoc version 2.0, or a Puritan Commonwealth 2.0, (or a theocratic racial Ethnarchic nation) you are going to have to jettison ANY compromise with the former, to make way for the (impoved) latter.

      “…This ‘Constantinian settlement’ still outrages and embarrasses political polytheists in the modern Church: fundamentalists, pietists, neo-evangelical liberals, and Christian college professors, everywhere. They much prefer to see pagans occupy the seats of civil authority, so the example of Constantine offends them. They prefer a contemporary political polytheism analogous to that of the Roman Pantheon, either because they secretly worship the messianic monotheism of the State (political liberals, humanists, and some neo-evangelicals) or because they refuse to acknowledge that statism is always the political manifestation of polytheism (fundamentalists, Lutherans, most Calvinists, and any remaining neo-evangelicals). Like the Hebrew slaves in Egypt, they prefer rule by polytheistic taskmasters in the service of a [sic] divine State…”…

      It is time to begin making plans for the conquest of Canaan.”
      – Gary North, PhD, “Political Polytheism,” (1989) p. 536-7.

  2. Ugh, that ugly sculpture. I don’t know whether it’s a big dick, a giant turd, or a gigantic sweet potato. Somewhere the shade of Rembrandt is weeping at what art has become. And somebody got paid a lot for it too. Kind of a metaphor for what our country has turned into

  3. ” I don’t know whether it’s a big dick, a giant turd, or a gigantic sweet potato.”

    I vote the middle.
    Very symbolic for our time, that’s what they are handing us.

  4. Trust nothing and no one and know them by their deeds.
    Your skin is your uniform after the long ceasefire of CW I ends but there are race traitors among us.

  5. “””…Why would anyone create such an unstable “federal” hybrid?…”””

    Lenin told that for communism to persist mean that communism must conquer whole world. As long as some territories remain free, people have chance to compare and draw conclusions that life without communism may be better.

    Attacking South was first step towards Trotsky world revolution or democracy export or globalism or New World Order or whatever they call their ambitions.

    Today we see this in EU. From diversity infected Berlin to calm 99% white Warsaw is only few hours car ride. Of course Germans wonder, how they could live without diversity and homosexuality and they produce cheap coal electricity and by somehow, they are not dead yet.

    • @Afterthought…

      It is not possible to reject theology, Dear Afterthought, as every systemic view of life qualifies as such, including what you have just written here.

      Theology results from the fact that humans are not just physical organisms, but complex spiritual beings.

      Moreover, you are assuming that, because Organized Jewry managed to subvert White Gentile Christian thinking that this could not occur with any other ‘theology’.

      To the contrary, even the thought of no-thought can be usurped and redirected for nefarious purposes.

  6. “The biggest reason the project failed though is because American elites simply moved on with the times and lost interest in the original ideal of preserving a White Republic. Liberalism became the fashionable new elite ideology in the early 19th century and began to steadily displace republicanism and racial nationalism and finally Christianity. American elites spent the late 19th and the entire 20th century embracing fad after fad which arrived from Europe. So many fads accumulated over time like barnacles that what is called “liberalism” in our times has become nearly unrecognizable.”

    Liberalism originally meant liberty, laissez-faire, close to what libertarianism means today.
    Classical liberalism emphasized fiscal liberty, free markets.
    Social liberalism came later mostly in the 20th century and emphasized social liberty, ‘free love’ and so on.

    Today in north America liberalism no longer means liberty or freedom from coercion and the state, instead it can mean freedom from political, economic and even social discrimination on racial and sexual grounds, some people having their feelings hurt, or it can mean ‘free stuff’ (taxpayer funded education, healthcare, welfare and so on).

    Basically liberalism merged with fiscal, then cultural socialism and took on a very different meaning opposed to the original one.
    Liberalism can also mean climate and medial mandates now, scientism.
    Yea liberalism merged with socialism, scientism and lost most sense of itself.

    As for republicanism, while liberty is a part of republicanism it’s not the whole thing, republicanism is more about what we call basic, civil liberties, the sort that’re in the American and many western constitutions, free speech, privacy, property and so on.
    While liberalism was originally opposed to government intervention, republicanism is only opposed to absolute power.

    This is why in republicanism government is divided into multiple branches, to keep any one entity from having too much power.
    Democracy can be a part of republicanism, just not the whole thing, hence people elect representatives rather than make laws themselves.
    The executive is like the monarchy but without absolute power and the legislative is like the aristocracy but again without absolute power.
    The constitution and judiciary act as a sort of meta-law, keeping government from exercising excess power, ensuring basic rights are respected.

    We can think of republicanism as the middle ground between liberalism on the one hand and authoritarianism on the other, republicanism is not averse to intervention culturally, or fiscally, it’s just averse to arbitrary and unchecked intervention.
    Another aspect of republican government is confederation, federation or bottom-up government as opposed to unitary, top-down, one size fits all government.
    Yes divided government with what we tend to regard as respect for basic liberties is the core of republican government, there is no one way to do this there is many, whereas liberalism originally meant minarchism, a step away from anarchy, but got mixed up with socialism and scientism to become something quite different.
    Now conservatives tend to be more liberal in the original sense of the word than so called liberals, fiscally and even culturally and socially.
    This is why I recommend we call leftists something else rather than liberal, call them progressives, socialists or technocrats or whatever, call them woke.

    • “Marxists” would be the preferable term to me, since they are promoting a warped version of it, based on identity politics as opposed to economic/class politics. “Progressives” is bad, because that word has a positive connotation, and these people are nothing but destroyers.

      • True, the word progressive does have positive connotations, cultural Marxists, leftists or woke may be a better fit, but definitely not liberal in my view.

  7. “I admit to being triggered by the word “Union.””

    Me. too.

    What else could a Southerner think about ‘union’, when you stop and think what that has meant, and what that will mean, if we continue on like this.

    Time to cut and run.

    In fact, it’s long been time, since at least my toddler years..

    • Some white Unionists dream of a powerful white Imperium. We had that. It was called the USA. In the 1980s even it was well above 80% white with 13% being blacks who had lived there anyway since centuries. And even now the EU is overwhelmingly white European, especially in its parliament and commission. – American Union, Soviet Union, European Union… I am getting allergies from the word!

      White Confederacy on the other hand…

      • Vielen Dank, Sehr Geehrte Herr, dass Sie Ihre Meinung geauBert haben.

        No to Unionism, and yes, to White Confederacies.

        Let us go back to when Southern States were independent, as were many German and Italian States.

        The days of Lincoln, Bismark, and Garibaldi are gone – all failed experiments that led to the endless destruction of the White Tribes.

        Thumbs up to diversity!

  8. Some folks love to claim that Southerners, as Mike Hill says, “like to fight”. I wonder how many Southern boys were at Little Rock in 1957, putting bayonets to the backs of white high school girls. Or at Ole miss in 1962 and Alabama in 1963. I hate them more than any “yankees”.

    • @TW, a small yet significant part of what has laid Aryans low is love for our style of warfare, open & explicit “yeah we’re your enemy, & we’re coming to conquer you.”

      The thing is, no non-Aryan race offered/offers a serious challenge insofar as this style of warfare.

      **Even a champion wants some sort of genuine competition.

      Insofar as open explicit warfare, only fellow Aryans offered/offer any serious competition.**

      Were all Aryans to unite – & especially if we were we to do so under the banner of “Mars” (in a militaristic sense) – even the chinese would get steamrolled.

      Look at what happened with the Pacific War. Amerikwa relegated this front as the low priority sphere. Essentially with one hand tied behind Amerikwa’s back, the Japs got steamrolled. It was a turkey shoot. They had to make up all sort of nonsense propaganda to almost make it seem as though the Japs were a “worthy” opponent.

      Read “1945:Summer of Hate” (Thomas Goodrich of “Hellstorm:Death of Nazi Germany”). The japs had apparently been trying to surrender for at least a year before Amerikwa accepted their surrender (while Amerikwa was publicly lying that the entire japanese race thirsted for total extermination). FDR said that what later became known the military industrial complex needed greater profits, so the war would continue.

      • @So.Tired…

        “Were all Aryans to unite… ”

        Think the Arabs are united? What about the Orientals? Think the Africans are united? Think the Jews are united? No, think again.

        So, obviously, whether you believe it or not, we, Humanity, are living in a post-Babelian situation, where the individual tribe is what matters.

        Uniting to steamroll people, to borrow your words, is very clearly a big reason why we ought not be united; why we were designed to not be united.

        All hail diversity, and let’s preserve it, by being separate, as we are intended.

  9. When I saw the title of the article I assumed he was ragging on the Teamsters or United Steel Workers. Sounded like another one of those Heritage Foundation Reaganomics Eulogies, but was about history. Notice the way though, once we got the robber barons “psychopaths can do whatever they want” system under control we got this huge middle class and increase in standard of living in the mid 20th century. Yet we still get the types itching to get rid of social security. I love the way they announce it’s going broke and away in a few decades. As if the governments first cost cutting measure will to be to abandon old people? The government will have tax revenue and to me it seems old people should be priority number one and they can cut funds elsewhere. These people though would drop gramps first thing to balance the budget. Social Security is not supposed to be a private savings account, that $2900 a year the average working stiff pays in would never cover the cost of a retirement, it is a national pension paid for by billionaires federal tax revenue as a thank you to the rubes for allowing them to become so rich and not showing up at their McMansion’s doorstep with pitchforks like the villagers in Frankenstein.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Defends The Get Whitey Act of 2023 – Occidental Dissent

Leave a Reply