But is Johnstone really independent?
Is anyone? In Journalism, “independence” is defined as being on the payroll (or not) of a known news organization. It is NOT defined as being free from all biases and influences.
In one of her several pleads, Johnstone claimed American fascists “are mostly decent people with a solid moral code”.
Yep, you read that correctly.
Yea, but you didn’t.
In that passage, Johnstone was referring to the alt-right, which in her definition is NOT synonymous with fascism; it was the people who disagreed with her that were connoting “alt-right” with “fascism”.
So, basically, you laid your own definition and your own biases on her statement, and then accused her of defending fascism. That’s the very definition of a straw man.
Straw man - RationalWiki
The title of the argument comes from the art of practising fighting techniques against men made of straw: which is a…
A recent report compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center titled ‘The Alt-Right is Killing People’ summarizes some of this data.
Good for them. The SPLC is using a different definition of alt-right than Johnstone is.
Key point here: There is no agreed upon definition, in the American public at this point in time, as to what the “alt-right” actually is. I’ve seen definitions running from “all young conservative millennial” to “white supremacist”. You cannot credibly lay a label on anyone without first defining it to everyone satisfaction.
(There’s a lot of misunderstanding of what a “fascist” is as well, nowadays, but let’s not digress unless we have to.)
But Johnstone’s writings are still a danger.
Well, they’re a danger to leftists. :-)
For the record: I read most everything she writes. I think of her writing as like eating watermelon; you keep what tastes good, and spit out the seeds. I think she is DIRECTIONALLY CORRECT in her criticism of Russiagate, Clintonism, and the Deep State; but nobody is PERFECTLY CORRECT, and I try never to let the perfect be the enemy of the practical.
It’s clear to me that your “concern” about Johnstone is one of my hot buttons; I think Assange is DIRECTIONALLY CORRECT in his efforts to bring transparency to the confidentiality of government, but like everyone, not PERFECTLY CORRECT.
Let’s carry on.
In fact, she has avoided culpability for- and even denied her shilling for white nationalists, and still frequently signal boosts Mike Cernovich, Cassandra Fairbanks and a host of Trump-stomping neo-fascists.
This sounds like guilt-by-association to me, which is of course a logical fallacy. A fact is a fact, and it doesn’t matter what the source is. So, if she quotes Cernovich(for example), what matters is does she quote something that he quoted FACTUALLY, not what Cernovich’s politics are.
Association fallacy - RationalWiki
The association fallacy, also known as guilt by association, is a logical fallacy that occurs when a person/belief is…
There’s a deeper question about Johnstone. If she really is a fascist, why doesn’t she just come out with it?
Well, she’s pretty clearly not a fascist. A fascist (well, here we go) is an individual who promotes an authoritarian/dictatorial type of government with none or a rubber-stamp public representation and uses extreme patriotism or “fear of the other/outsider” to gain public support. They believe that a totalitarian, one-party state is required in order to meet the “threat of the other” challenges they face, either internally or externally.
I don’t find that in Johnstone’s work.
And then it hit me: Johnstone is not shilling for an organized fascist outfit, but serves as a strut in a network that claims to own a truth that transcends politics and is especially averse to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party — WikiLeaks.
Well, that’s odd. In one paragraph, you’re accusing her of being a fascist, and in the next, you’re accusing her of worshipping Assange, who leans anarchic. :-)
One of those two notions needs to be rethought, in my view.