Reasonable and respectful questions.
Forgive me for not knowing how this works – do you actually to have to pay in order to have your questions asked? Ordinarily, I would advise people to eschew such activity, but this brings up an interesting situation.
Let’s assume you pay for the “privilege” of asking questions. Very well. What if some EGI Notes readers were to shell out the money and submit certain questions to Johnson? He would then have two choices. First, he could answer them, which in some cases may be uncomfortable. Or, second, he can refuse – either by completely disregarding them and/or refusing the donation, or by reading them and then refusing to answer (or by refusing to give a proper and complete answer).
With respect to the two possibilities of refusal – if the former, then at least the person sending the money knows the truth (and can always bring that up at other blogs and websites and forums), and if the latter the refusal to honor the terms of the donation will be more openly exposed.
Some possible livestream questions:
Why does Johnson engage in defamation of critics (e.g., Sallis)?
How does a PhD in philosophy provide to him the expertise to diagnose “insanity” in others?
It is often said that “in an insane society, it are the sane who are called insane.” Doesn’t attributing “insanity” to “movement” critics therefore raise questions about the “movement” itself?
Why does he call for open debate and then refuse names offered by Twitter users as potential debate opponents?
Why does he put conditions on who is acceptable to debate that eliminate potentially strong opponents?
Why does he “ban” critics from his blog?
To what does he ascribe his relatively rapid ascent to prominence in the “movement?”
Why has he fallen out with so many of his past writers, collaborators, associates, podcast guests, etc? Liddell, Friberg, Spencer, Sallis, Parrott, Dickson, Polignano, Linder, on-and-off with Wallace, etc…this is a highly disparate group of individuals, with differing ideologies, personalities, ethnicities, etc. Are Johnson’s problems with them really the fault of all those different people? Isn’t it more likely that the problem is with the common denominator – Johnson himself?
If he contends that the problem is with all of these other people, doesn’t that reflect poorly on his judgment for associating with them? Didn’t “better people” (who are they?) consider such associations as “indecent?”
Following up on that, what does it say about Johnson and Counter-Currents that a significant fraction of the chapters in this book are by authors no longer affiliated with Counter-Currents? If I and my contributions are so “indecent,” what does it say about Johnson’s judgment that he included two pieces of work from me in that book, his volume one “flagship of the line?”
Did his animus toward Spencer actually originate with the Budapest NPI conference?
What exactly is the full story about Polignano and Counter-Currents?
What is his defense, re: Pilleater, Hermansson, Lewis? Why didn’t he take Pilleater’s complaints of sexual harassment by Counter-Currents associates as seriously as Collett did with the accusations against Robertson?
During the Pilleater conversation, Johnson asserted that he has significant responsibility vetting people for Amren meetings. In a subsequent podcast, Forney asserted that he asked about that and it was not true. Can we get clarification on that issue?
Why did he (Johnson) change his mind about the utility of attending WN conferences such as Amren?
A certain Facebook group dedicated to a particular sexual-orientation cohort of “movement” “activists” was referred to in the Pilleater conversation. What objective does that group have within the spectrum of the “movement?”
How is ethnonationalism compatible with the actual personal behavior of Counter-Currents writers, including living in other people’s nations and the sexual exploitation of Eastern European women? If ethnonationalism is good and proper and natural, why is it that some of its most loud promoters, and their associates, are unable to actualize ethnonationalist ideals in their own private lives?
Does he agree with Jeelvy’s boomer-bashing? In what manner is intra-White generational warfare, as promoted by Counter-Currents, helpful?
If petty nationalism is good, then why promote the work of Yockey, who openly denounced such nationalism?
Does he still promote warfare and ethnic cleansing among Europeans as part of petty nationalism?
Does he still believe that “Trump is toast in 2020 no matter what?”
Does he still believe that there will be a “race war” by the summer of 2021?
Does he still believe that Trump is a sincere man of genuine greatness?
Does he still believe that Trump would have won in 2016 mirroring a Jeb Bush platform? Why does no one else, including Trump himself, believe that?
What does he do with all of the money he gets from supporters? How exactly is it spent?
Does he still stand by his earlier words of harsh criticism of Derbyshire, or is the Derb alright now?
Why write for the Unz site, which was promoting the “American bioweapon” narrative of coronavirus?
In what manner is the current trajectory of the “movement” consistent with eventual victory?
How exactly will that victory be achieved?
Why was he on board the Alt Right train in 2016-2017 going so far to equate the Alt Right and White nationalism?
After what happened at the first Scandza forum he couldn’t get into, why go back another time? Was that the best use of his time and his supporters’ donations?
On what evidence does he base his various serious allegations against Daniel Friberg?
Those questions are probing, some may be contentious, and some may even be termed combative. However, none of them can be reasonably seen as offensive or insulting. All of them deal with issues that are in the public domain, nothing here deals with anything secret, private, personal, etc. Those questions merely ask for input, insight, and clarification about facts, issues, problems, writings, podcasts, conversations, etc. that have all been already discussed publicly in one forum or another; however, Johnson has not (directly) addressed most of them. Certainly, there is no obligation to answer all (or any, of course) of them, but they are all reasonable questions to ask of someone with a prominent leadership role in the American “movement.” Nothing there is unfair or unreasonable.
And readers of this blog can no doubt think of many other questions.
Once more Sallis is correct. A considerable portion of the ignorant, anti-science attitude of the Right in America comes from religion, which I address often here. Mix in a dose of “traditionalism” in general, conspiracy-mongering of weak minds who can’t or won’t address real and open “conspiracies,” and the reverse snobbery of “we salt of the earth street-smart folks know better than all dem dere pointy-headed ivy-tower intellectuals,” and you have a recipe for disaster.
No doubt as well it’ll be difficult getting the vaccine while dodging all those scurrying tardigrades and caterpillars trying to escape extinction from Stronza’s “bullets flying everywhere.”
Why is the Right always a pathetic embarrassment?
This demonstrates why we need experts and why the reverse snobbery and whining about “credentialism” (often by people who promote religion, by the way) is so destructive. Should public policy be determined by the mindset exposed by that article? And I’m amused by all these types afraid that a vaccine will be used to “track them” – most of these red state landwhales are so huge that someone on the other side of the Earth can “track them” just by looking out the window; their flaps of fat visible from thousands of miles away (and the smell even further).
Why don’t real Russians denounce this Tatar-Jew masquerading as one of you? One quick look at him and I knew he wasn’t actually an ethnic Russian.