Johnson Contra Sallis

Silver we can merely laugh at.  Johnson, in contrast, is legally libelous.

Let’s get the most personally relevant comments out of the way first:

Silvio Silver

@silviosilver14w

@NewRightAmerica

A debate I'd love to see, but which I know will never happen, is Greg and "Ted Sallis."  The latter is a loudmouthed lout who has never been able to civilly disagree with anyone, but if you can look past that, there is actually some substance there.

Silver terms me a “loudmouthed lout who has never been able to civilly disagree with anyone.”  The following is a direct quote from Silver writing about yours truly:

Who cares what that shiteating asshole thinks? Are you that goddam thick, Dave Johns, that you can’t understand what a pure, unadulterated asshole that vermin is? Are you that damn thick that you can’t realize the only reason he can’t fairly characterize my position is that I mock his absurd attempts to whiten himself with his“tests”? That the whole reason he’s such a grouch is that he feels vulnerable about his whiteness and feels compelled to savage and ridicule anyone and everyone even a smidgeon less white than what his exacting standards require, even though doing so is not remotely required for advancing a pro-white agenda, and is, in fact, counterproductive? Are you that damn thick? Sadly, I think the answer is yes, you are that damn thick. Try this, Davey boy: think for yourself. If you can pinpoint anything I say (now, not one year ago—which is the only thing shiteater has to go on) which you think compromises white interests, let’s have you bring it up. Otherwise, pay attention to what I actually say; not to what self-interested shiteaters claim I say. 

I don’t discuss that here because nutzi dumbfucks like Braun and Rienzi are the greater problem. I don’t care what label these assholes give themselves. They are the purest of human shit imaginable, to me.

Unfortunately, I am unable to summon the ability to match Silver’s eloquence and civility in my own writing. Silver is also the person who was participating in a discussion at the race/history/evolution notes blog that included unfounded suggestions (“evidently”) of a homosexual relationship between Johnson and Polignano (*see footnote). If the “evident” accusation is incorrect, then it was libelous, although that doesn’t stop a Counter-Currents writer from praising the race/history/evolution notes blog, nor Johnson from being online pals with “Silver.” Interesting. 

See this for a summary.  Also see this.

Now for Johnson’s libelous reply:

Counter-Currents

@NewRightAmerica

He's intelligent, but his intellect has been ruined by insanity. I regret tolerating him and people like Parrott as long as I did. Better people saw it as indecent. It harmed my reputation.

Does Johnson have evidence that I am insane?  If not, that is legally actionable libel. Note that Johnson doesn’t say that Sallis “behaves as if he's insane” nor does he express an opinion or ask a question.  Rather he makes a blanket statement implying fact.  Libel.

Yes, I’m so "insane" that I actually interact with the real world, as opposed to Johnson who has been holed up as a full time activist for many years, feuding with and alienating one activist after another (including some of his own past writers and collaborators), while living off of the donations of the deluded fools hoodwinked by his faux-intellectual pretensions. Those by the way are facts coupled with opinions. Note no accusations of “insanity” or of any other mental illness. Johnson’s “career” as a full time “activist” is a matter of public record.  His requests for donations are also a matter of public record. My opinion of his work as “faux-intellectual pretensions” is an opinion supported by my critical analysis of his "work."  It seems that only the “insane” understand the difference between fact, opinion, and libel.  

And given what happened to Polignano, we should all be wary when Johnson recklessly throws around libelous accusations about the mental health of others. If Friberg’s correspondence was accurate, then at least Polignano admitted having issues. I have no issues. As I’ve repeatedly stated on this blog, the “over the top” comments here are intentionally parodying the crazed nonsense of Der Movement. It is mocking satire.  Of course, I can understand where humorless pendants obsessed with their own self-importance would take everything at face value.  No names, of course.

One can compare EGI Notes, specifically designed to mix analytical material with “movement” deconstruction and mocking ridicule, with Western Destiny, which, while critical of the “movement,” eschews mocking ridicule and sticks with a completely serious tone.

Does Johnson detect “insanity” in Western Destiny as well?  Further, would an “insane” individual discreetly keep quiet about all of the “movement” “dirty laundry” they know about – and in some cases personally experienced – dating back to the mid-1990s?  That can be contrasted to the “sane” Quota Queens who constantly air “movement” “dirty laundry” in their never-ending feuds. In addition, an “insane” person would not protect the interests of a person they despise by withholding the large amount of stylometric data that yields quite interesting findings indeed.  What would one of the “sane” feuders do with that, I wonder?

Essentially, Johnson is engaging in cheap Frankfurt School-like pathologization of dissent. If you are (a) a critic of Johnson, and (b) more intelligent than the typical “movement” nitwits Johnson intellectually runs rings around, then you’re “insane” – which conveniently gives the coward an excuse not to engage with your ideas, and, most importantly, frees Johnson from the obligation of having to defend his own ideas.

Err, Greg, you would lose any honest debate with me, which is why I’m “banned” from your blog.  Open it up there. Have you and your hypocritical writers defend their positions.  But, no, you coward, you do not do so.  Just like you ran from Friberg when the latter invited you (or so he says, do you deny it?) to a “sit down.” I’m calling you out as a coward who runs from those who can call you out on your bullshit. I openly challenge you to open your blog comments up for debate.

As far as your “reputation” goes, you harmed it yourself (the Pilleater call was itself enough; the infiltrations were another laughable episode, and your chronic bad judgment is pathetic), although, as outlined below, you have so far survived the damage because Der Movement judges by criteria independent of merit. By the way, this is Johnson’s editorial comment on one of my “indecent” contributions to Counter-Currents:

The following essay is one of the most important pieces published at Counter-Currents so far. I heartily endorse its analysis and invite discussion.

A more likely reality is that Johnson was upset that I didn’t blindly defend him, re: Hermansson, and that I stayed neutral in his feuds with the Spencer-Friberg-Forney faction. If I was a lickspittle supporter like the rest, then the “indecency” and “insanity” would be no problem.

And who were the “better people” who saw it as “indecent?”  Given the relatively small number of “movement” “activists” that Johnson gets along with and of are sufficient status, this is a relatively small set of suspects. Quota Queens and grifters eager to protect themselves from honest criticism, no doubt. They'll all be analyzed here in due course. Some of their not-for-profit financials are also matters of public record.

These are the original comments by Johnson that preceded the libel above.

Ho, ho!

Counter-Currents

@NewRightAmerica

I'd be happy to debate serious challengers on such current hot topics as nationalism vs. imperialism, #coronavirus, Zionism & the Palestinians, "racist liberalism," & the relevance of Trump, Marxism, Duginism, China, & Holocaust revisionism to White Identity Politics. 50/50 split

I have years of criticisms of Johnson’s positions on this blog, focusing on his hypocrisy and logical inconsistencies (and errors of judgment). All ignored.  By the way, when are you going to denounce John Morgan and Full Moon Ancestry for violating the ethnic rights of Eastern Europeans?

Ho, ho!

Counter-Currents

@NewRightAmerica

Serious = someone established with a platform, positions, and an audience

Greggy gets to define who is “serious.”  Very convenient. Limit the field to semi-retarded Alt Right Millennial droolcups best represented by this.  Positions?  Everyone has those. What’s considered a “platform?”  An “audience?”

Of course, if Johnson was really serious (no pun intended), he’d allow all “banned” folks to challenge him and his amen corner on his blog.  He can start with the “serious” people first. In addition, I’m sure Forney would love to have Johnson on his program – how about a Johnson-Forney-Friberg podcast?  Greg can call in Hermansson to balance it out.  After all, Pat has an “audience” as well.

The unfortunate thing is that, thinking about all of this, it is likely that Johnson is currently the top “leader” in the American “movement” today.  Let us consider together.

First, we can ignore the Alt Lite, who are not part of the “movement,” and we can also disregard all of the Millennial jackasses and other no account idiots with zero gravitas. Let’s consider the real players.

Spencer – has completely “shot his bolt” and is in terminal decline; he is not called “The Master of Disaster” for nothing.

Strom – he has the intellect to challenge Johnson, but has flaws:

1. Even if he is completely innocent of his past legal issues (which may well be the case), it remains a black cloud casting a negative shadow.

2. He lacks personal force; he is more of an ideologue.  He doesn’t have the “stomach” to denounce HBD and other perversions of activism.

3. He’s tied himself to the corpse of the National Alliance and the dead WN 1.0 legacy of Pierce.

Williams – is no doubt a well-meaning fellow, but who has also tied himself to the corpse of the National Alliance and the dead WN 1.0 legacy of Pierce, and it is clear that it is Strom who is the intellectual center of the group.

Duke – has had his own past legal issues, mirrors Spencer in jumping from one failed project to another - lacking solidity of character, is old and past his prime and out of the main thrust of “movement” activism, is too focused on Zionism, has a hardcore WN 1.0 legacy of fossilized dogma, and the whole Tulsi thing was an absolute embarrassment demonstrating poor judgment. I give him credit for his New Orleans Protocol idea, but unfortunately it was too forward-thinking for the retarded “movement.”

MacDonald – also has the intellect but has gone into a strange tailspin, with TOO now being focused on HBD-Nordicism, flubro and other conspiracy theories, and other nonsense. Like Strom, more of an ideologue than a leader.

Taylor – is the only real challenger to Johnson’s status. He is, however, older now and past his prime, Amren is more of just a news and opinion outlet rather than a focus of activism (conferences notwithstanding), the Jew/Asian/HBD thing is a problem, and he’s never seemed eager for the mantle of leadership.

That leaves Johnson by default, despite his serious flaws – the whole gay controversy, his feuds and fixations, his inane ideology, his prickly personality, poor judgment, decline of the quality of his blog, etc.  He somehow overcame serious issues – Pilleater, infiltrations, the Alt Right feuds, etc. - and is prospering. I chalk that up to a lack of serious competition, mendacity and hypocrisy, being good at “movement” politics despite the aforementioned flaws, and the guru-like ability to attract new sets of writers as soon as he alienates and/or feuds with the previous set (although quality is in decline). Being an “intellectual” in a “movement” that has no intellectual rigor helps, especially when coupled with ambition and a complete lack of character.

God help us all.  

Footnote:

*From race/history/evolution notes -

Silver said...

Without the Pole Irish Greek Slavs , urban whites, Jewish ascendancy could never have been acheived in America.

We should have put a chain fence on Ellis Island and kept the Oreillys and hannitys from ever arriving.

They killed America, not Jews.

I don't like to think of my kind as having killed America (or Canada or Australia etc), but if you consider the chain of "racial events" -- the cultural conflict, the miscegenation, the racial self-doubt and so on -- that it set off I think you'd have to agree the logic is hard to resist.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it could not have happened without us PIGS, since plenty of WASPs were already bending over backwards for nigs even before we arrived and if that process continued to play out it's quite possible (though less likely) the racial predicament in the early 21st century would have been much the same.

Ted Sallis used to be the guy that ran "Western Biopolitics" or whatever it was called back in the day. He went by the initials "JWH". He closed that particular blog because of Silver's harassment (although he was a bit thin-skinned himself).

He used to also post as Michael Rienzi. I wouldn't say I harassed him. His blog didn't permit comments and I rarely addressed him directly elsewhere, mostly just dropping his name as an exponent of a racialism I found highly disturbing. This annoyed him but I doubt it was the reason he closed his blog. I used to think he and Polignano were one and the same person but now I'm not so sure.

Also, as you might notice, I'm back online. Feel free to read, participate, needle, mock or ignore.

October 8, 2012 at 6:49 PM

n/a said...

"I used to think he and Polignano were one and the same person but now I'm not so sure."

I'm confident they're not the same person. Rienzi writes under pseudonyms, describes himself as a "biological scientist", and I believe has mentioned being married (to a woman). Polignano has written under his own name since he was a college student over a decade ago, describes himself as "a writer, publisher, activist, and IT Consultant based in San Francisco", and is evidently in a homosexual relationship with Greg Johnson.