DR. Mathew Raphael Johnson Joins Mathew Heimbach to discuss Hillary Clinton

DR. Mathew Raphael Johnson Joins Mathew Heimbach to discuss Hillary Clinton

Cq0prX1UkAANU_0_thumb[2]

From:

DR. Mathew Raphael Johnson Joins Mathew Heimbach

Dr Matthew Raphael Johnson joins Matthew Heimbach for Monday’s edition of The Daily Traditionalist to talk about a bleeding sore of leftism that has appeared in Bloomington Indiana. The students for Bernie Sanders have now organised a chapter of Students for a Democratic Society. This was a radical far-left organisation from the sixties and it is now making a resurgence on college campuses. Dr Johnson reminds us that the Rockefeller Institute provides the funding for this organisation and others like it and that there have been thousands injured or killed by leftist terrorists in America. He thinks we are going to start seeing more of these extremely violent leftist groups now the Alt-Right is starting to make waves.

Groups like SDS claim to be victims, yet them and the Weather Underground were really terrorists who killed people. They went on to become community organisers and even professors and were a big influence on Barack Obama, despite having violently attacked nationalists and done prison time.

Dr Johnson believes these groups have the tacit support of the government which makes them even braver in their physical attacks on us. Clinton has made us a legitimate target for these groups with her speech and by implicating Putin, is trying to use us to gain support for attacking Russia. She is basically claiming that all the groups she opposes are united in a conspiracy against her, but adding a foreign power into the mix is something we have not seen before. If Hillary wins the election, this link to Putin could be used as an excuse for extra repression against Nationalists. She could label us as agents of a foreign power to help eliminate dissent against the regime.

Matt draws a parallel with what was done to Father Coughlin, where they banned him from the radio waves and claimed Catholics were a threat to America. The Bund was shut down overnight and so was the America First Committee once the war was started. Could Clinton label us in the same way and say that our ideas are against America and we have to be taken off the airwaves? It would be difficult for publicly known people to deal with this.

Dr Johnson advises keeping on the right side of legal, producing children, building organisations and preparing communal areas that can be defended from the violent leftist groups that will be funded by Soros and Rockefeller to attack us. The way to defeat this is to win people’s hearts and minds so that the state is unable to do anything to us without causing a backlash. The Soviet Union fell apart because it was rotten at its heart and the American empire is the same and could fall apart just as easily with a little push.

VoxDay : In defense of 14 words

VoxDay : In defense of 14 words

VoxDay Supreme Dark Lord

 

Now, I don’t usually recommend this sort of dialectical response to a rhetorical attack like the one cited here. However, for those who are sufficiently bilingual in the black arts of philosophical persuasion, this may be a useful example of how to turn an attacker’s rhetorical assault against him.

Notice how he initially attacks Point 14, but when called on his implicit endorsement of their negation, refuses to directly answer what aspect of it he opposes. This is what I mean by dialectic being useful for exposing pseudo-dialectic for rhetorical purposes.

It’s a little confusing, I know, but don’t be misled. This is, from start to finish, a rhetorical engagement. I am merely using dialectic as a rhetorical device to expose and manipulate him into publicly discrediting himself.

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
Awful attempt by (((@CathyYoung63))) to critique my #AltRight platform. She calls the West “a mongrel culture”.

Charles Ledley ‏@ialmctt
You saw awful, but most would say accurate. @CathyYoung63 has nailed it. The #AltRight are nazis, pure and simple.

Charles Ledley ‏@ialmctt
Here, @voxday means the Jews. (screencap of 10)

Charles Ledley ‏@ialmctt
Here, @voxday uses that well known scientific term: sub-species. No racism to see here. Move along. (screencap of 15)

Charles Ledley ‏@ialmctt
#WhatIsTheAltRight?
Well, the #AltRight are white supremacists. Isn’t that right, @voxday?

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Some are, most aren’t. I’m an Indian. What part of this do you oppose? “We must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children”?

Charles Ledley ‏@ialmctt
So you are a white supremacist then. Just another reactionary nazi.

Charles Ledley ‏@ialmctt
You are, it seems. And no, I don’t oppose the existence of PEOPLE.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
No, Charlie, I am not. I am an Indian who believes that the continued existence of white people is desirable. Why do you disagree?

Charles Ledley ‏@ialmctt
Stop being disingenuous. It’s a well known White Supremacist slogan. You know that.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Answer the question. What part of it do you oppose? All of it? None of it?

Charles Ledley‏@ialmctt
I’ll answer it if you acknowledge that it’s a well known white supremacist slogan. Do you acknowledge that?

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Of course. That’s why it is point 14. Now, answer the question. Do you support all of the 14 words, some of them, or none of them?

Charles Ledley ‏@ialmctt
I’ve answered this.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
No, you didn’t. This is going on the blog, so don’t be evasive. Which of the 14 words do you disagree with, if any?

Charles Ledley ‏@ialmctt
Put what you like on your blog. I answered your question

He didn’t, of course, and we all know why. If he actually answered it, he would either be liable to his own charge of being a white supremacist for endorsing the continued existence of white people or he would be put on the record for calling openly for the extermination of the white races.

I believe this should settle the debate about whether Point 14 belongs on the list of core Alt-Right principles or not in favor of the affirmative.