Right off the bat, Josh misquotes McNallen (omitting the phrase "deserve our full support", which would seem to be a pretty key part of the sentiment being expressed)*:
He then goes on to say that invoking the Freikorps, in any way, essentially should be enough in and of itself to strip McNallen of any sort of credibility;
However to claim that resurrecting a mercenary group that murdered it’s way across Germany and gave rise to some of the most horrendous minds of the SS is the best way to protect Germans from bad people is much like claiming that in order to keep people from dying of heart disease we should instead shoot them in the head. This is the height of stupidity. It isn’t just that we don’t have any clue or connection to the reality of the situation in Germany, it is also that Steve, perhaps out of ignorance, perhaps arrogance, or perhaps out of the same drive that brought us the Quetzalcoatl versus Odin article that has been so very popular over the years, has delved into the dangerously problematic.
As an aside: Man, the SJW's just hate that article, even though it's more than a decade old. It'd be nice if they got the actual title correct, though; it's "Wotan vs. Tezcatlipoca". I hope McNallen is at least living in their heads rent-free all this time, or it's going to add up to serious money. But anyway...
So far, Josh's grasp of details has been... problematic (hehehe), so it should be no surprise that his characterization of the Freikorps in this context is equally flawed.
Now, obviously, I don't know what was in McNallen's head when he wrote that Facebook post, but I can tell you what I thought of it when I read it. He wasn't talking about the Freikorps that were mercenary units in the 19th century. He was talking about the Freikorps units that were active after World War I and before the ascension of the Nazi party to power in 1933.
Those Freikorps units were made up of nationalist (what would be called "right wing" in today's parlance) veterans, disillusioned after the defeat of Germany, They were chiefly involved in skirmishing with communist revolutionaries that threatened Germany at the time; many fought against the "Spartacist Uprising" and the "German Revolution" in 1919.
Were they violent? Absolutely, but so were their communist enemies. They were fighting to protect and preserve that Germany they perceived as being under direct threat by a determined and ruthless invading enemy; communists, bolstered by the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. The communists were just as violent as they were, but somehow SJW's always find a murder committed by a right-winger to be so much worse than a murder committed by a left-winger. Go figure...
It's also worth noting that, yes, Heinrich Himmler came out of the Freikorps movement, but so too did Hermann Ehrhardt. If you've never heard of him, it's probably because he refused to back Hitler's Munich putsch, and was going to be killed by the Nazis in the "Night of the Long Knives" in 1934, but managed to escape. And, according to historian Robert GL Waite, the Freikorps were one of the groups of "pathological enemies of the state" according to Adolph Hitler**. So it's more than a little inaccurate to paint the Freikorps with such a broad brush. Some supported the Nazis, some did not. But all fought to preserve Germany against an internal threat.
And that, I think, is where McNallen was going with his statement. He wasn't calling for a resurrection of a quasi-fascist movement, but expressing frustration that no groups in Germany had yet stood up against a dangerous and violent internal threat, to defend a Germany in danger of being overrun. In the 1920's, the threat was communism. Today the threat is Islamism. And how does Josh see that sentiment?
You have exhausted, for me, the good will that your hard work had earned you. In fact, you’ve ruined your own reputation. Many people have told me over the years that my concern about you was… misplaced, that I was misreading your words. However your words here have convinced me that it isn’t me who was misunderstanding, rather it is my friends who have misread and misunderstood. Where they had encouraged me to see tribalism, compassion, and reason, I can now only see ignorance, and clumsy racist apologetics.Wow. "People should stand up and protect themselves from a violent threat" turns into that? Would Josh have been happier if McNallen had used some other historical allusion? Maybe the Stasi? That sounds more like it would be to Josh's liking.
And now, it turns out, the people are indeed standing up in the face of the Merkel government's flat-out refusal to even acknowledge the problem (indeed, their attempt to cover it up), and in other nations as well. To which I say, good. If the government won't do the job of protecting the people from violent invaders, then the people must protect themselves.
So no, McNallen's reference to the Freikorps isn't "problematic". No reasonable observer could read McNallen's post (especially the accurate and complete version, not Josh's redacted version*) and see anything except a plea for folks to step up and protect themselves; certainly not an endorsement of Nazi policies or any other such nonsense. Josh's hysterical over-reaction to an historical allusion, completely missing the point of merely wanting to see something that is good protected (i.e., the German people), is what's "problematic" here. It's quite apparent his views on Stephen McNallen were set long ago, and this is just a convenient excuse to try to take a swipe.
* UPDATE: Josh states that the initial misquoting of Stephen McNallen's post was unintentional, and that his article has been updated accordingly. Good on him for that (it was the most minor point I brought up), but the rest of his post remains... problematical... for the reasons I outline above. ;-)
** Vanguard of Nazism: The Free Corps Movement in Post-War Germany, 1918–1923
UPDATE #2: Stephen McNallen has issued a statement. See this.