A two part post.
What is defamatory?Defamation is all about reputation, and in particular about statements which damage others’ reputations. The English courts have not settled upon a single test for determining whether a statement is defamatory. Examples of the formulations used to define a “defamatory imputation” include:
an imputation which is likely to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinkingpeople;an imputation which injures a person’s reputation by exposing him to hatred, contemptor ridicule;an imputation which tends to make a person be shunned or avoided.A statement that a person is an adulterer, a gold-digger or a drunkard may be defamatory, as may an allegation of corruption, racism, disease, insanity or insolvency
Therefore, injuring “a person’s reputation by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule” by an imputation of “insanity” can be considered defamation – assuming that the person in question is not deemed clinically insane.
Also, see footnote 149 here (emphasis added):
Social Aversion. A communication may be defamatory of another although it has no tendency to affect adversely the other’s personal or financial reputation. Thus the imputation of certain physical and mental attributes such as disease or insanity are defamatory because they tend to deter third persons from associating with the person so characterized.
By the way, calling someone “insane” is not the same as calling them “fucking crazy,” which has been deemed not to be defamation as it is an opinion expressed as “slang.” Insanity on the other hand is a legal and medical term indicating a disorder associated with diminished behavioral responsibility, and hence is not merely an opinion when expressed as a fact.
Thus, calling me “crazy and bitter” is not defamation. Calling me “fucking crazy” or a “lunatic” or any other “slang” pejorative is also not defamation (as has been legally established by precedent), since it is understood that the accuser is not talking literally using medical or legal terms. “Insane” and “insanity” are medical and legal terms with a specific meaning. Calling someone “insane” as a statement of fact, in the absence of supporting evidence, is therefore defamation and is legally actionable.
Based on the above, there seems to be at least some legal theory supporting the contention that Johnson’s tweet is legally actionable defamation.
Rank-and-file activists should carefully consider the judgment of a “leader” who would expose themselves to liability via reckless, defamatory tweets.
The “Majority Rightization” of Counter-Currents continues apace (perhaps it is therefore appropriate that “Silver” rears its head again). One of the characteristics of Majority Right’s rapid decline phase was the long, turgid, barely comprehensible essays of Daniel S that took thousands of words to express an opinion that could have been more effectively and efficiently summarized in one short paragraph. We are getting newer “writers” at Counter-Currents who mimic this style, hiding intellectual vacuity behind unnecessarily dense and wordy prose (good ideas are instead typically associated with clarity and elegant expression). The main point of one such pseudo-intellectual vomiting is thus (emphasis added):
The value system of this narrative seems to subordinate peoples of European descent to their technologically progressive destiny. Indeed, the main focus of attention appears to be the relentless drive to the beyond, a self-justified virtue, which just happens to be contained within a vehicle we call “white people.” Articulating this telos demonstrates the similarities between the “march of the Titans” narrative in the Dissident Right and the maligned “conservative” value set typified by American Baby Boomers. Both views of historical meaning hold technological progress, which is to say, the manipulation of natural forces, above the preservation (or at least recognizable continuity) of European descended peoples. The two views seem to differ only in their preferred time frames. This observation invites a disturbing question. What is the difference between a future in which European-descended peoples have converged and transcended themselves to the inevitable point of unrecognizability, and the new post-ethnic man at the end of the Left’s mission to converge all humanity through their ideology of cosmopolitan progress?
Let’s for the sake of argument agree that these are the two possible outcomes of an anti-traditionalist “progressive” view. What’s the difference? The first (consistent with Pierce’s cosmotheism, by the way) is a higher path, an upper path, European man on the road to godhood, achieving an understanding of the universe and actualizing opportunities for creative activity on a level analogous to that separating modern man from an insect. The second path is a downward path of devolution, an end not a beginning, The Last Man, a mongrel creature capable of nothing except mere existence, with all avenues of higher evolution, of higher creative activity, of higher understanding, closed off. True enough, both outcomes would diminish current EGI and both would by necessity negatively affect the value system of strict preservationists who fetishize certain phenotypes.
But obviously there are other paths. If we accept that populations of evolved organisms will not be static in any case (because of genetic drift if for no other reason, but there will always be selective pressures, although if undirected by racialist concerns we certainly would not like the outcome), we can use science, and our understanding of ultimate and proximate interests, to direct an upward path while at the same time preserving as much of our current fundamental essence as possible for as long as possible. We need to understand that there is no pure static preservationism in evolution. If change is inevitable, it is incumbent upon us to direct that change in a manner that is optimized to our ultimate and proximate interests, to our culture, and to our aesthetic sensibilities.