Handbags at Dawn

And other news.

Johnson is getting upset!  Handbags at dawn! The pink purses are flying!  

Note the question about “affirmative action” – with Johnson saying that I am a “disgruntled embittered former writer” – “paranoid” – “obnoxious" - "paranoid nasty piece of crap.” The vulgar ad hominem is found in the comments ranging from around 1:28:15-1:30:25, including the question about affirmative action (the exact boundaries of the clip varies slightly whether you listen online or download it).

First reaction – laughter (not like this) and satisfaction that someone (assuming it was not a ringer) took the opportunity to use the livestream format to force Johnson to address certain issues (but it would have been better to bring up some of the other issues discussed here, such as his ethnonationalist hypocrisy, his changing dogmatic 2020 election predictions, his constant bad judgment, the Polignano incident as relayed by Friberg, his refusal to debate critics, etc.).

Second reaction – sharing that clip with associates, who also reacted with hilarity.

Third reaction – I, naturally, will respond to the main point of the comments. Thus, let’s forget Johnson’s hysteria and tackle the question of affirmative action. Johnson argues against that he’s an affirmative action case by citing that he got his initial “movement” editing job since he has a PhD (as if he’s the only person in racial activism with a PhD or some other post-graduate degree), that he founded Counter-Currents and did the work (let’s forget Friberg’s and Forney’s accusations, re: Polignano), etc. (as if other people haven’t done the same sort of work).

But I never claimed that Johnson had no credentials or never accomplished anything.  That’s a strawman argument – typical Johnsonian gaslighting argumentation. Look, when a less qualified Black is admitted to college, that doesn’t mean they never took the SAT. An unqualified Black hired at a university will still have a PhD. An unqualified Black promoted at a business will have some minimal qualifications. That’s not the point. The point is whether the person has been elevated above and beyond their qualifications, whether they have been given additional promotion over more qualified people based on demographics and not merit.

Johnson very quickly was given a top position in the “movement” (e.g.,TOQ) while others with equal credentials were not. Johnson was immediately accepted as a “movement” “mover and shaker” while others were rejected solely on the basis of (perceived or known) ethnicity. Johnson’s myriad flaws, errors, hypocrisies, bad behaviors, disasters, feuds, misrepresentations, and asinine “arguments” are overlooked by his sycophantic supporters, while others are not given the same “wiggle room” for their errors.

I realize that the “movement” is so bereft of any quality that even someone as defective as Johnson stands out as “impressive” and “educated” and “articulate” by comparison, but still…Johnson’s level of attainment in the “movement” is out of all proportion to his actual abilities and accomplishments.  Especially if you balance the books and weigh all of his disasters against his accomplishments, then it just doesn’t add up. Compared to others, there isn’t justification for Johnson’s status - based purely on merit.

Here is a thought experiment – imagine everything about Johnson is exactly the same except that he’s some American White ethnic Italian named Vito Woperino or a Balkan Slav named Boratislav Hunknic or a Greek named Graecalus Greggilos – do you really believe he would have the same status in the “movement” that he has now? That he would have been given the same opportunities? Have had all his disasters overlooked? Been so easily accepted as a “movement” bigwig?  Come on now, be serious.

Johnson’s enemy Spencer is another perfect example of an affirmative action case.  On the other hand, there are other extant “movement” leaders who – while I do often criticize them and it is true that their ancestries do in fact help them greatly – cannot be truly said to be affirmative action cases.  Jared Taylor has obviously earned his status in the “movement” by starting the entire American Renaissance enterprise from scratch (besides his initial book on race); Kevin MacDonald has obviously earned his status through his Jewish trilogy, his various forms of activism, and for speaking out as a university professor (albeit one with the protection of tenure); Kevin Strom’s status certainly has more to do with his intellectual abilities and decades of activism than with his Norwegian ancestry; and Will Williams also has had a decades-long career in pro-White activism and his military record deserves respect. So, yes, I have differences with those gentlemen and they may well resent my criticism and yes, as stated, their ancestries have benefitted them to an extent, but those individuals have real accomplishments in the “movement” - unlike the WN 2.0 nitwits who have been propped up by some of those elder statesmen and who have careened from one disaster to another.

Presumably the individual who asked the question to Johnson is someone who reads EGI Notes.  So, the answer to your question, in my opinion, is YES, Johnson is an affirmative action case.  Note well that Johnson refuses to debate critics and that he, unlike me, has a financial interest in protecting his “movement” status.

I have to laugh at Johnson pointing the finger at anyone else as being bitter and paranoid, given his feuds with people like Spencer and Friberg, and I have to laugh at him accusing others of exhibiting abnormal behavior, given (a) the Pilleater tape, and (b) Friberg’s accusations that have not been denied or refuted.

Listen to this. Of particular interest with respect to the issue of character and the promotion of ethnoimperialism are the following clips:

59:40-1:01:00

1:08:50-1:10:20

1:11:00-1:13:30

If those accusations are false, then I invite Johnson to publicly refute them; optimally, he should engage with Friberg on a podcast or livestream to discuss these issues.

Assuming for a moment Friberg is correct, then what do we see? Keep Europe atomized, fragmented, and confused so as to allow “racial aristocrats” free reign to do what they wish in their “feudal properties?”  A form of droit du seigneur that can be homosexual as well as heterosexual?  Indeed, in response to this, we can all be disgusted by other types of people as well.

Indeed, Johnson is such a wonderful person that he ends up feuding and becoming bitter enemies with, or at least falling out with, many people he had previously had cordial relations and/or worked with. Of course, there’s Sallis. What happened with Polignano? We’ve already mentioned Spencer and Friberg.  Then there’s Colin Liddell.  And Matt Forney.  What about Pilleater? Johnson has had an on-again-and-off-again association with Hunter Wallace. First he hated Dickson, now they’re buddies again. I read somewhere that Gariepy is upset with him; I don’t know if that is true. I’m sure there’s others. Then there are others he's feuded with, people that he may not have had previous cordial relations with, people like Andrew Joyce (*).

Some may respond - hey, Sallis, you’ve had “falling outs” with people too.  Correct – but, hey, according to Johnson, that’s because I’m some sort of really unpleasant, nasty, and paranoid person - so what does it say about Johnson that his feuds have been a lot more prominent than mine?  Can we describe him the same?  Or does he argue that his constant feuds and falling outs were all justified – all “the other people’s fault?”  Very convenient, eh?  Sort of like Jews blaming all the other peoples of the Earth for the fact that the Jews have been despised and “persecuted” in every nation that they’ve lived in. And remember - I’m no “movement leader” after all, just some guy blogging. I'm just a crazed loon, gibbering in my madness. What’s Johnson’s excuse?

Getting back to the livestream, of course Dickson promotes the work of the execrable scum Humphrey Ireland (“Wilmot Robertson”).  And Stoddard and Grant. Surprise!  Der Movement has nothing to offer White ethnics. As far as books that Dickson values - nothing from Salter; nothing from Yockey.  On Genetic Interests?  Not important, it seems, to Dickson.  Imperium?  Obviously not important as well. But Ireland's mumbling about Italian-American "needle workers" (obviously all five feet tall or less), and his fear that the dastardly John Marchi was tainting Anglo-conservatism, by golly, that's important!

Are we surprised that Der Movement has been a complete failure for decades? A memorable experience for Johnson – meeting Humphrey and getting his book signed.  That does tell you all you need to know about the HBD-Nordicist-Ethnonationalist alliance.  Funny though how Johnson – right out of the gate – was meeting with people like Dickson and Ireland.  No doubt if Johnson had been a five foot tall afrowop, old Humphrey would have welcomed him with open arms. Right?  Now, don’t be paranoid and believe otherwise!

Then again, given how quickly Hermansson was given “the keys to the kingdom” (and to who knows what else, eh?), the rapid acceptance of Johnson can come as no surprise – and both incidents reinforce the affirmative action narrative.

“Shoestring budgets” – right…having someone compensated for $180,000 in a year for running a website is indicative of “shoestring budgets.”  Laughable.

Dickson’s arguments that the best people in the “movement” have the most to lose and therefore do not get involved in leadership positions, leaving the worst elements to come to the fore - that's correct. Johnson on the other hand pushes the absolute absurd falsehood that activists today are of a higher quality than in the past and are more normal. I’ve been involved in racial activism longer than Johnson and I vehemently disagree with that assessment. Johnson himself is an example of the problem people extant in the “movement” today - a problem that is greater than any time in the past; look at Spencer; look at the whole Alt Right; look at the Pilleater Chronicles. I can tell you that the "movement" has never been worse off than today with respect to quality - unless of course you believe this here represents quality.

Taylor and Hood.  That was a decent podcast.  Taylor’s “libertarian leanings” – no surprise there.  Libertarianism is a curse upon the "movement." I also enjoy how they re-write history to make believe they never thought Trump was the second coming.  But those are minor issues, 99% of the podcast was excellent and on point.

A useful post.  Obviously, the woman inherited her appearance from her maternal line – good old Herrenvolk mixing it up with the Negro.  And then it is blamed on the wops.  Incredible.

Blame the vulgar retard.

A hilarious coincidence.  The universe does indeed work in mysterious ways. Wait, there’s more. How many Greg Johnson clones are there out there?

Counter-Currents comments on Bill Clinton.

Kolya Krassotkin 

Posted September 8, 2020 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

When Bill Clinton and his wife first slithered onto the national stage almost 30 years ago now, we should have known our republic’s days were numbered.

Reply

Alex

Posted September 8, 2020 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

Exactly correct, I was barely 20 at that time but I knew the country was done after Clinton was elected. During that campaign I donated to Pat Buchanan which was my first and last political campaign contribution.

Counter-Currents essay on Bill Clinton.  Apparently, the commentators there are wiser than the "writers."

* Of interest:

It was argued that homosexuals “possessed an inordinate amount of psychopathology and character flaws such as instability, illegal conduct, dishonesty, untrustworthiness, poor teamwork, and relationship forming skills. Gay men were described as being highly strung and neurotic.” Combining an understanding of homosexual personality traits with homosexual apologetics produced within White Nationalism, it becomes clear that dishonesty (“homosexuality is beside the point, let’s not discuss it”) and manipulative behaviors (“hostility to homosexuality is Jewish”), and an exaggerated sense of self-esteem/importance are at least primary concerns to those wanting to steer the cause of Whites in the right direction...The fact that an ostensibly nationalist writer can openly praise a pederastic author who denigrated the reproductive relationships of normal, healthy families is a sign of a degenerative rot that has developed in the corners of this movement.