[Hunter Wallace]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

How is calling him a homosexual a malicious attack?

It is a personal attack, a low blow, a cheap shot. It is the verbal equivilant of a kick in the groin or an eye gouge.

He has never denied it. I'm not known a liar. I've never called anyone a jew/homo/informant when it couldn't be backed up. You know Johnson. Do you dare to ask him straight up whether he is a queer?

Yes, I know Greg Johnson. We've met several times. We talk on the phone all the time. I don't know many people who are more valuable assets to the movement. I've heard you say that he wrote some of the best articles ever published by VNN. As for his sexuality, I have never asked him about the matter. Like your Chron's disease, I don't consider it relevant to the struggle we are engaged in.

Greg Johnson is in fact a homosexual. And it is certainly relevant to know that someone in an important WN position is a homosexual.

If I am not in a position to know this, then I am certain you are not either. Even if it were true, it is nowhere near as much of a concern as the flaws of people like Bill White, Rounder, or Hal Turner, not to mention Todd in FL, the amateur bombmaker who used to post here.

True. I was absolutely consistent in my attacks on Francis while he was alive and after he died. My attacks were completely correct, completely vindicated by all history. I have nothing to apologize for, and I will continue to attack the obese loser and any self-styled WN who makes excuses for him or encourage others down his cowardly path of failure. He is the poster boy for trying to have it both ways, and nothing you or anyone writes can change that fact. Sam Francis never called himself a WN in any public column, but he blamed WN for not backing him up when he was fired. That shows you his character.

There are substantial criticisms of Sam Francis to be made. He was too soft on the Jews. He was too critical of anti-Semites. He tried to keep a foot in both words, conservative and racialist. To a point, I agree with you.

The personal attacks on Francis - he was an obese homosexual loser - detract from your case. They create sympathy for Francis.

Polished turd is the best possible term to describe Jared Taylor. It fits him exactly.

Taylor is the most courtly, regal person I know. He conducts himself as a gentleman. This is one of his greatest assets. He doesn't come across as a stereotypical racist. People who would instantly dismiss a Rounder or ANSWP Commander Bill White pay attention to Taylor when he speaks.

Apparently you and TOQ and MacDonald are unable to separate your politics from your personal friendships. I am. I see exactly what PT is doing, and I will continue to call him what he is, and encourage others to reject him.

This is untrue. I believe Taylor is an asset. He is like a racialist high school teacher. He introduces implicit whites to the basics of racial consciousness. He's good at doing that and I support his work.

Yes. Another way of putting it, as I advised in my long piece on Buchanan (here) is that the right way for us to go, who want what you call an ethnostate free of jews is to draw an indelible line between WN and conservatives. That means rejecting and treating as jew-liberals people like Jared Taylor and Pat Buchanan. You don't agree with this position, apparently.

I have a different standard. While I loathe conservatism, I see incrementalism as unavoidable. I define victory as pulling the national discourse on race and Jews in our direction. Taylor and Buchanan are gateways to White Nationalism.

They bring aspects of our message to a larger audience. I myself followed that path into the movement. How can I condemn Buchanan when it was one of his books that led me to White Nationalism?

You, and many others, while saying you are not conservatives, have truck with them, and in practice write and seem to think as though we are all part of the same movement.

You're more of a conservative than I am. You know this, Alex.

What I have been trying to get across, for years, is that we are not. Buchanan, Vdare, Jared Taylor, have nothing to do with our cause. They are our enemies, not our friends.

You have a lot of substantial criticisms of all of the above (Francis included). Once again, I agree with you to a point. Your conclusion, however, is vanguardist purism. It is myopic to believe that everyone can start out as radical as you are. To newbies, you sound like you are from Neptune.

Are you sure?

Yes. I'm not the only one who had this reaction.

Here are things I find dishonorable.

- Sam Francis refusing to call himself WN, but demanding WN support.

Granted, a fair point.

- Greg Johnson refusing to admit he is a homosexual, nor to detail just what kind of a homo-network he is part of, or buliding inside TOQ.

I don't know of any homosexuals inside TOQ. Do you have any hard evidence of this?

- Greg Johnson allowing his writer 'Edmund Connolly' to plagiarize my concept of loxism, while pretending he conceived the need for such a concept/term on his own.

Where did Edmund Connolly use the term?

- Kevin MacDonald publicly praising public conservatives like Pat Buchanan who never even mention him, let alone praise him, while saying that people at VNN "aren't helping" when we come to his defense when he's under attack by the SPLC.

MacDonald probably has the same perspective I do: it is easier for us to reach and influence Buchanan's readers than other conservatives. Buchanan is a key player in popularizing our ideas on the far end of the conservative spectrium. He is a gateway to the mainstream. Buchanan and Taylor generally don't attack us. An enemy would return fire.

Those are not honorable. They are the actions of men who are character conservatives. Yes, they criticize jews. Which is good and necessary. But it's not sufficient to change things. If they don't follow the correct line, which I have laid down, then I can hardly be blamed for blaming them.

As a practical matter, what would you have us do? How would you reach into the mainstream? How would you overcome the Neptune Effect?

This idea we should go our own way, and not criticize others who might be on our side for the way they do things - in practice, that leads to problems.

Of course we should criticize others in the movement. I've criticized Brimelow, Taylor, Buchanan and Francis myself. The question is how we should go about doing it.

And it's also self-refuting. When you or Johnson say VNN and I should go our own way and not worry about others, you're denying us our way. I criticize anyone who needs critism, on my side or not. That's our way.

I don't think anyone minds you making fair and reasonable criticisms of TOO/TOQ. That's not the issue.

Who is on whose side? People who call themselves WN but fawn after Buchanan and Jared Taylor and jew Paul Gottfried are the ones acting dishonorably and, more than that, stupidly. They aren't Aryan in the least. They plagiarize and fawn after those with more money or public fame than they have. This is not WN. It is the conservatism you say you reject.

Addressing the Jewish Question, endorsing a White ethnostate, embracing White racial consciousness ... this is not conservatism by a long shot. On the other hand, calling for the abolition of all financial regulation and popular social programs, well, that sounds very much like conservatism to me.

I've already answered this above. Here, my point is, why use an absolutely silly term like 'ethnostate' - it's as dumb and misconceived as 'ethnic genetic interests.'

We're trying to reach people who are scientifically literate, intelligent, and well educated. Unlike the man on the street, these people typically have money and influence.

True. We don't need government, not even a Nazi government, once we get the racial situation cleaned up. My position echoes with a lot more people than your big-government leftist academic view in which evil corporations are the real problem. Not only that, but you're completely missing what is unfolding right in front of your eyes. We don't need these government regulatory bodies. No matter where you look they are creating or exacerbating problems.

I will save this for my upcoming plunge into conservatism/libertarianism. In the meantime, I will hold this up as an excellent example of what I call "discourse poisoning"; in this case, the penetration of libertarian memes into White Nationalism.

If TOQ or Vdare were serious about changing culture, they would be developing a HS curriculum, not writing high-level academic essays that are a long trudge, even for the educated.

A HS curriculum is a good idea. It is a worthy project. Rusty Mason had expressed interest in doing it. You should speak with him.

Brimelow isn't pro-White. Ask him. This is where you and I disagree most strongly. You think everyone out there who sort of agrees on some of the problems is on the same side. I think they are not. Brimelow is business to raise money. He is not a pro-White, and would never describe himself that way. He runs a government approved foundation and employs non-white writers, including jews.

I've seen Brimelow deny being a White Nationalist before. Again, there are substantial criticisms of Brimelow to be made, but they don't have to be teethered to the albatross of personal attacks or abusive language.