Der Movement Dishonesty


Surprise: Pro-homosexual apologia in this discussion.  Who would have ever guessed?  Starting at 1:27:30.

Logical flaw: Just because negative attitudes about homosexuality derived from Judeo-Christianity doesn’t mean that those attitudes are wrong. That’s a fallacy, sort of like ad hominem; instead, everything needs to be judged on its own merits.  One has to evaluate homosexuality based on its effects on society, independent of what people thousands of years ago said or did.

The DNA ancestry result mentioned (1% North African for Greg Johnson): tells you something about the validity of low percentage “admixture.”  Anything less than 10% should be viewed with skepticism, less than 5% with extreme skepticism, and anything less than around 1% is ludicrous. If we assume that Johnson’s ancestry is (more or less) fully of founding stock ancestry, then where does this 1% come from?  It could reflect some sort of ancient influx (“just so” stories of North African soldiers of the Roman Empire stationed in Britain), OR it could be some sort of artifact. I believe that the latter is more likely than the former; however, this applies not only to the Johnsons of the world but to everyone else.  The DNA testing companies err on the side of false positives, Type I errors, which makes the tests more attractive to the naïve looking for the “Indian Princess” in their background, or others attracted to “unexpected and controversial results.”  And, of course, there are political motivations as well. But Johnson’s results could be real.  However, if they are real, explanations better than popular “just so” stories are required. In the end, it really doesn’t matter; absolute racial purity is a myth.

Johnson’s initial dismissal of the Hermansson infiltration as essentially a “joke” that did no real damage is dishonest. He keeps on harping on the fact that “no real damage was done” – disregarding my comments again and again that the problem is NOT what the outcome was, but what is says about “movement” “leadership’s” piss-poor judgment and its obsessive ethnic fetishism.  Johnson then basically admits after 1:39 that the essential problem was the fact of the infiltration itself rather than the outcome, so why try to dismiss it to begin with? Excuse: Johnson trusted Steadman and his “extreme vetting.”  Why would you trust a guy wearing shorts at meetings, who blows on Viking horns, and who is an obsessive Scando-fetishist?  This is an issue of judgment.

Greg Johnson: Thin-skinned?  No, more like papyrus-skinned.  The latest from his blog:

By the way, this will be your last comment here. I do not provide a platform for people to spit in my face by accusing me of bad faith.

Obsessive attacks against Richard Spencer are, on the other hand, of course welcomed.  Note conversation starting at 19:30 in the Luke Ford podcast.  Spencer, Spencer, it is always about Spencer. Note how Johnson says “everyone” used the term “Alt Right” and jumped on the bandwagon – no, Greg, Strom was skeptical and I was always hostile to the Alt Right.  Thus, once again, a completely dishonest narrative.

More dishonesty: Johnson keeps on talking about how the Alt Right was ruined by people wanting to “control the movement” while ignoring the more fundamental problem of the Alt Right wanting to control the entire racial activist “movement.”

Greg blames the drinking and street fighting on WN 1.0, while the TRUTH is that the WN 1.0 denounced all of that, while the Pepe-Kek cosplay WN 2.0 crowd was solidly behind it.  The entire Alt Right “realm of ideas” was Pepe, Kek, Beavis-and-Butthead sniggering, drinking, juvenile jackassery – and while Alt Right apologists were praising the “youth culture,” “old school” WN 1.0 folks were denouncing all of that.  And here comes Johnson, blaming the faults of WN 2.0 on the WN 1.0 that was actually denouncing it.  Outrageous dishonesty.  And who was saying “the Alt Right is White nationalism or nothing at all?’’  Amazing.  “Bad faith?”

And, hey, Greg, you’re not going to get a “mass movement” based on Pepe and Savitri Devi.

By the way: “Dr. Johnson” – he earned it!  How about Dr. Sallis?   Get over yourself already. 

If Johnson believes that talk of “false flags” is mostly stupid – and I agree – then is he going to denounce Roissy’s promotion of the false flag narrative?

And by the way, Greg, Tara and Lauren are far from being “Joan of Arc.”  To even imagine such a comparison is ludicrous.  Greg:

This movement is full of disgusting people.


However, with all of that, I do essentially agree with this analysis.  Although I assume Greg will blame that on “WN 1.0,”  even though it can be traced back to both the 2.0 folks and their “boomer” enablers.

Meet the ethnically disinterested Dienekes Pontikos.  No ethnic agenda there!