Friday, September 22, 2017

A Response To Greg Johnson

Behold the "movement."

Greg Johnson writes at Counter-Currents:

Ted,
This will be your last comment here. You’ve got your own blog for your embittered rants. You no longer have anything constructive to contribute.
Greg Johnson

Greg, believe it or not, I always thought you were a good guy and a useful intellectual contributor (despite our disagreements).  Apparently though, you are a bit too thin-skinned, a trait that won’t serve you going forward.  An inability to accept criticism, however harsh, from your own side, is the path to personal stagnation. To answer your latest criticism (which I accept with no personal rancor):

I may well be a “crazy, bitter, low information moralizer,” but I’m also not the one responsible for the potential doxing of dozens of activists, I’m not the one who let an infiltrator waltz through “extreme vetting” because of ethnic fetishism and affirmative action, I’m not the one who took The Great Persiante Shah Jorjani seriously, I’m not the one who let “Smoky Mountain SS” walk off with secret National Alliance files to be handed off to “watchdog groups,” I’m not the one who invites Hart, Weissberg, and Derbyshire to speak at conferences, I’m not the one who lived on a mountaintop engaging in serial monogamy while living off the donations of members who I secretly (and not so secretly) despised, I’m not the one who cheerfully interviews activists who I publicly accused of being untrustworthy and mentally unstable only a few years prior, I’m not the one who changes fundamental aspects of my worldview essentially to spite other activists with whom I’m engaged in a public feud, I’m not the one who shamelessly panhandles for money online using pictures of my children (who are too young to understand how they are being used), I’m not the one who throws activists who I recently posed with “under the bus” because they did something that may offend some of my Jewish supporters,  I’m not the one who chuckles with Jewish correspondents about how a prominent racialist activist “may get shot,” I’m not the one who considers certain “movement” figures to be “rock stars” that are immune from criticism – while at the same time criticizing the “personality cults” of Jewish intellectual movements, I’m not the one who championed “mainstreaming” for years and stated that Marine Le Pen’s election was the last chance for a peaceful resolution of Europe’s racial crisis while having no comments to make about her humiliating electoral defeat, I’m not the one who publicly airs the most intimate of “dirty laundry” in “movement” feuds (although I do know plenty of such laundry, some of which I’ve kept to myself for two decades), I’m not the one who writes that it is good to sometimes “punch right” but who then myself exhibits a “glass jaw” when a few legitimate memetic punches are thrown in my direction, I’m not the one who publicly questions why possession of child porn should be illegal, I’m not the one who writes under two different names and then does podcasts under each name thinking that no one will notice that the voice is exactly the same (granted, most “movement” activists are so clueless and unaware that I’m sure they did not notice), I’m not the one who wrote that “Trump is the last hope for White America” and I’m not the one who makes the “man on white horse” error over and over and over again, I’m not the one who made a cartoon frog and “Kek” the symbols of racial activism, I’m not the one who gambled away supporter contributions, I'm not the one who organized Charlottesville or threw up my right arm at Hailgate, and I’m not the one responsible for decades of racial nationalist failure and incompetence.  That’s the purview, it seems, of sane, cheerful, high-information activists.  

That’s not an “embittered rant.” It is in fact objective truth, and if there is one single point listed in the above paragraph that is factually incorrect, then please point it out. But there are none. Not a single one. What we have here is simply personal anger and hurt feelings up against verifiable, objective facts. Is this perhaps a clue as to why incidents like a year-long infiltration by a thinly disguised informant repeatedly take place?

Good luck with your blog.