I suspect Matt’s association with the Counter Currents crowd is purely a psychological issue about acceptance, self-esteem, belonging, always being in the unpopular group, etc. That’s why his arguments make no sense. He won’t feel comfortable with us so he will rationalize why the Counter Currents crowd is fine. There is no argument that will change him, it is too personal.

I don’t think there is any other White Nationalist, other than Matt, that would consider The White Network a cesspit, but Counter Currents a great place to promote Traditional Christianity. Reminds me of Republicans who ignore Whites, and instead focus on getting the colored vote…

Y’all enjoy this little cesspit …

Johnson and O’Meara are the ones who live in a cesspit of immorality, we’re merely pointing that out.

Asking you if a particular article does or does not promote homosexuality is hardly a “riddle”.

She called me “hippy” […] and began censoring my responses.

The one sentence I deleted did not add anything to your response to the question. It was only a nasty slam at me.

Likewise, the last part of the last sentence I deleted this time was only a slam at Tanstaafl.

Maybe Clement or Hadding will want to continue a “serious and mature” conversation with you if you can refrain from your own insults.

It looks like Matt has given up on the conversation.

She called me “hippy”, told me I’m a failure as a human being because I’m “hippy”, and began censoring my responses.

I attempted, as I’ve done before, to presume a degree of seriousness and maturity that simply isn’t here. I honestly answered questions and concerns in detail, which proved to be nothing more than disingenuous little riddles designed to ensnare me even deeper in your cesspit of rumor and innuendo.

Y’all enjoy this little cesspit …

It looks like Matt has given up on the conversation.

I don’t think he really wanted a conversation. He came here to point out how bad I was for saying what I do, then got trapped by others, like yourself, into having to answer questions about his positions. To his credit, he did finally answer them all but he is left compromised.

It seems to me that Matt wants to please everyone by not taking firm stands one way or the other. In this recent essay at http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/07/island-of-misfit-goys/, he argues we’re all misfits, thus should tolerate each other’s “vices.”

If you have a vice, be a bit of a hypocrite about it. Don’t fall for America’s creepy public confessional therapy culture. Keep up appearances for the sake of the tribe, striving to model the unattainable ideal. If you discover another man’s vice, have the humility to admit to yourself that you’re a misfit in your own way, and respect peoples’ privacy. Religious fundamentalism is not the same thing as Traditionalism. The former seeks to cram humanity into an ideal form fit for God alone, the latter seeks in its timeless wisdom to make the best of our carnal situation. I see the entire gay marriage debate as the most recent temper tantrum of the White Misfits.

Instead of indulging this macabre game show where we vote misfits off of our island one-by-one until there’s nobody left, I propose that we acknowledge that we’re a band of misfits among misfits, and get on with the difficult challenge of retrieving perennial ideals and working to help one another embody them in our daily lives.

Matt is weak, is struggling with his weakness, joins with other weak people who ask that weakness be acceptable while they hypocritically pretend to be strong “Traditional” men. If a woman doesn’t like the weakness and points it out, it’s because she’s a horrible Feminist and disrupter who resents traditional values.

I guess he wasn’t up for defending his outrageous claim that not a single article ever published on C-C could possibly be said to promote homosexuality.

Regarding Greg Johnson’s essay on ‘Debating the Holocaust’, I have to say that it got me riled up no end in its duplicity.

Of course, this all comes down to Greg’s failure to pass your and Carolyn’s litmus test on Holocaust Revisionism. Rather than going after Greg’s scholarship and reasoning on that topic, perhaps leading to a productive debate, you and Carolyn are diving into the gutter.

I recall that you yourself acknowledged (seemingly with some reluctance) after perusing the relevant discussions on TOO and VNN Forum about Greggy’s essay, “[Not] Dealing with the Holocaust,” that it was Greggy who went ad hominem.

My experience has been that there is no such thing as productive discussion with Greggy. I make rational criticisms and get emotional responses. Greggy even banned me from posting comments on C-C after I pointed out that the death by electrocution of Topsy the elephant was not an expression of inhumanity on the part of Thomas Edison, but a most likely painless death for an animal that, by that point, was going to be killed one way or another. That’s cold hard facts and logic on my side, versus effeminate emotionalism on Greggy’s side. It was the same in the discussions over the Holohoax.

Toward you, my criticism, just based on reading what you wrote here, is that your rationale for saying that Greggy’s site does not promote homosexuality depends on a hairsplitting distinction that probably most people would not find credible. Most people I think would say that publishing writings friendly to homosexuality is the same as promoting homosexuality. It’s strictly the difficulty of your argument, based on this alleged distinction, that I am pointing out.