In Defense Of Milo Yiannopoulos


Oi Vei!, the Alt Right struggles with self-definition yet again. Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos is befuddling the Left:

Following Out magazine’s recent profile of Breitbart Senior Editor, Milo Yiannopoulos, leftists have trotted out one of their favorite buzzwords: “white supremacist.”

Lucas Grindley of The Advocate, who can be seen in this piece’s header image, wrote an article reporting on an open letter signed by over forty LGBT reporters and media professionals condemning Out for their profile of Milo.

And the anime/neo-Nazi wing of the Right:

I have previously viewed Breitbart as a type of ally, as they are the only mainstream site which is presenting a relatively far-right narrative. It matters to me that they stood up against the likes of Shapiro and Michelle Fields. It matters to me that they give honest coverage of the migrant crisis, as well as Black Lives Matter. Their support for Trump is important to me.

However, any positives this site has are completely negated by the damage that Milo is doing.

Milo is the number one enemy of our movement. He is attempting to destroy us, and Breitbart is enabling him.

Let us consider this situation in realistic terms:

Yiannopoulos is a provocateur who delights in offending everyone as a means of subverting the culture of offense, or the idea that any speech which disturbs someone or anyone is bad and should be banned. He is the manifestation of the old ANUS motto “Say FVCK for FREEDOM” which was symbolic more than literal: whatever the herd fears must be spoken, loudly, to prevent the herd from demonizing it fully and banishing it from discussion.

He is granted this privilege by the fact that he is immune from attack. As a part-Jewish flamboyant gay man, he comes from two protected minority groups and can speak his mind without someone accusing him of being a privileged white male. He has minority privilege instead, which counts for a lot: Thomas Sowell wrote many things that a white man could not have written without ending his career. Yiannopoulos is bullet-proof and he uses that to divide the Left.

He does not claim to be Alt Right; he claims to be a cultural libertarian or some variation of the above, and yet he introduces gateway ideas that lead people to the Alt Right with every one of his speeches or writings. Some of these are quite advanced and combine conservative and libertarian thought. Often, he expresses a spectrum of Social Conservative through Traditionalist and Reactionary thought.

In other words, he does not attempt to speak for any group, but serves as a wedge splitting apart the Leftist lock on public discourse, and then kicks the Alt Right through that gap. He is a sapper, an advance vanguard, and on the whole, he has helped the Alt Right far more than he has hurt it.

As Out wrote:

A professional mischief maker and provocateur, he loves a grand entrance. Wherever Yiannopoulos goes, the Loki from London swoops in with rapid-fire talking points delivered in a playfulness so foreign—and intoxicating—to most journalists and Americans that they are left standing in the rubble, dumbfounded.

Is there a risk of entryism? Entryism is best measured in terms of ideas, not individuals, because individuals can camouflage themselves as extremists like the Hollywood White Nationalists who were 50% paid informers for the FBI. On the far right, the greatest threats come from people who are wearing Nazi uniforms and spouting extremist doctrine, but then use that to backdoor Leftist concepts as normal. Entryism through doorway-opening is not likely, although some who are clueless may use the doorway concepts as a defense to going further; this is where most of the resentment of Yiannopoulos comes from.

The Alt Right benefits from internal argument, dissent and disagreement not because these things are valuable in themselves, as the Left alleges, but because they reinforce the reasons for positions instead of — as uniformity can do — rewarding repetition of those positions as dogma. A healthy community will revisit its core ideas frequently to assess them again, and will find its conclusions were accurate, modifying details but not the substance as is necessary.

This dispenses with criticism of Yiannopoulos as a political figure.

His personal life also attracts criticism. He is indeed part Jewish, as this image from the BBC shows:


And if we take his carefully cultivated image at something approaching face value, he is also a flaming homosexual who enjoys the company of African-American males. If the symbolism of this caricature Otherness does not induce a smile, there may be no hope for you, really. Do we need more nagging nannies and uptight aunts on the Right? We all know how well that worked in the 1980s with the jihad against heavy metal and pornography. Most Rightists dislike those things, but find state-sponsored action against them to be the wrong solution, both for its calcified rigidity and its potential for abuse.

Homosexuals contribute to the Right, as do Jews, Asians, African-Americans and others. We have to ask at one point whether uniformity is more important, or whether having voices that understand and promote our ideas is more vital. The latter makes more sense, since these voices are not advocating for personal inclusion, but for the establishment of Alt Right ideas in the political discourse. They often do so from their own nations, where they are working for Rightist sanity against the overwhelming tide of Leftist lunacy, and are not attempting to subvert us.

As far as homosexuality goes, it has long been the position here that it should be tolerated in segregated gay communities. Pogroms against gays turn us into monsters and force gay men to go into the closet, at which point they attempt to have normal families, causing collateral and genetic damage. Acceptance of homosexuality as a norm or ideal is similarly unwise as it affects only about 2% of the population. A sensible middle path is to accept it where it belongs, in the gay neighborhoods and oyster bars of the world, so that gays have somewhere to go and the rest of us are separated from that activity.

In an ideal Alt Right state of the world, Yiannopoulos might end up in Israel living in a pink neighborhood in a port town. This is not a concern at this time, as that day is too far removed for thinking about it to be fruitful (no pun intended). However, right now we need allies, and any who can comprehend what we are on about and make a good case for it are good allies, and we should embrace them and relish the havoc they are wreaking upon the lunatics of the Left.

Tags: , , , ,

18 Responses to “In Defense Of Milo Yiannopoulos”

  1. avraham says:

    I think Western Civilization is great and whoever supports it is on my side.

  2. Hostem Populi says:

    This is far too sensible a piece to be taken seriously by the Full Retard Right.

    • euciv says:

      Hear, hear.

      I will never know why some loons
      decided the smartest move would be for
      the Alt-Right/Lite to be at each others’

      In truth, Milo is serving as a gateway for
      normies to more realistic thinking.

      Sure you can point out that his attacking
      feminists/SJWs is picking low hanging fruits, but that’s the point: can’t reach all normies
      with the heavy stuff right away.

      Sad to think that Amerika-sytle realism is
      asking too much for some on the right. All
      of these bullets should have been shot leftward.

    • Hoyos says:

      That’s the biggest problem with “no enemies to the right”. It’s means signaling More Aryan Than Thou and flip siding “”Everyone to the Left Is An Enemy”. Using an insane definition of left for example.

      Even the definition of right/left from these people is insane. They define right as anything the left is against. It is purely reactive. It takes delight in shock for its own sake and is dehumanizing. It also ignores centuries of western thought during our greatest glory period.

      For example racism is wrong when you view race as indicative of character. It doesn’t mean shit when it comes to character, neither does intelligence really. The left is using it as a club to beat the right with so the Full Retard Right (I’m swiping that phrase) counters with a harsher view on race than Hitler himself.

  3. Paul Warkin says:

    There is the potential for confusion when he says things like this:

    The media desperately wants to define the alt-right by the worst 5 percent of its members. They take the genuinely anti-semitic racists — the stormfronters or Stormfags, the 1488ers, the Andrew Auernheimers — and use them to define the whole movement. The left is obsessed by white supremacy, which in reality makes up an infinitesimally small number of people.

    Since he’s using leftist terms (“racist”, “supremacist”), it’s unclear whether he means that things like racial scapegoating and genocidal intent are rare, or if he means that recognition of racial differences is rare. If it’s the later, he’s very wrong, as human biodiversity is an integral part of the Alt Right.

    However, this would be cause for loudly and confidently repeating the correction, rather than attempting a boycott of Breitbart for employing a figure who has been most sympathetic to the Alt Right and is successfully mucking up the left.

  4. VKR says:

    At its core the alt-right is pro-white. Milo attempting to define that out of the alt-right is a problem. Had he not done that nobody from the right would have a problem with him.

  5. Ivar says:

    This is the practical and sensible approach. I’m all for it.

  6. Wilbur Hassenfus says:

    I don’t think we’re in any position to turn down allies.

  7. D says:

    Mr. Stevens, I understand your sentiment and agree with you as usual. However, the conflict as I understand it is that Milo essentially started “punching to the right”. This plays right into the hands of the Leftist. How to address it?

    • Milo is, as I understand it, punching in all directions. He is by nature “snarky” and critical. For this reason, his critique of the right — which is not punching, as it is not directed at individuals but ideas — serves us by incorporation our ideas into the dialogue. If you have contrary examples, please post them.

      • Hoyos says:

        Plus who gets to say what’s on the right? The left?

        Admirers of the National Socialist German Workers Party as well as the racism of 19th century “scientific” progressives have some troubling leftist skeletons in their particular cupboard.

  8. Yooper says:

    I hear that. We’re getting our asses kicked and there’s not much time left on the clock.

  9. Travis lee says:

    Seems to me he is doing more good than harm.

  10. Paul Rain says:

    He defines the alt-right as being barely Jew-wise, barely aware of racial differences. Frankly, those are preconditions for understanding the world, preconditions for being alt-right in the true sense.

    He is one of Rockwell’s ‘chart forgers’- and the minimum response is shunning.

  11. Paul Bonneau says:

    Strange that in all this avant-garde thinking, such an old statist paradigm as “right vs left” remains unquestioned. This is the idea that the huge number of different views can be approximated by a simple, shallow measure, a projection of n dimensions down to one.

    Certainly a person who hates drugs and who likes guns might be considered to be on the right, and someone with the opposite opinions on the left. But what of someone who hates both drugs and guns? The model fails with only two variables.

    • Your question is answered by looking at what defines these systems: left = individualism/equality, right = hierarchy/realism.

      But what of someone who hates both drugs and guns?

      When, in all of human history, has “hate” been a reasonable measure of politics?

      Only on the Left.

      And there, sadly, is your answer.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>