Counter-Currents
Now in Audio Version! Milo-lita: More Musings on Milo
Spencer J. Quinn2,948 words
To listen in a player, click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”
Writers like myself have to be careful when addressing famous figures currently associated with the Alt Right. While I contribute as well as I can, offering insights, ideas, and disseminating information from the sidelines, what I do pales in comparison to what the movement’s leaders and central figures contribute. It is mostly out of gratitude and humility that I refrain from making critical comments about these people. A lieutenant is entitled to an opinion on what the generals are doing, but sharing those opinions when unsolicited by those generals would be impertinent indeed.
I do have a negative opinion of a small number of people on the Alt Right. But as a rule, I keep them to myself.
With Milo Yiannopoulos, however, I’ve decided to break this rule, in part because he’s not really part of the Alt Right (loosely associated with it, perhaps), but also because I have mostly positive things to say about him. He’s not a Ben Shapiro or a Jonah Goldberg (about whom I have also written), who are actively working against our interests despite being nominal conservatives. I’m weighing in on Milo mostly because he’s interesting, and because, in light of his recent scandal, he’s become a polarizing figure on the Alt Right, revealing fissures and divides that one day could possibly harm the movement. The sooner we begin to talk about these, the better.
First, I would like to remove my Alt Right armband and White Nationalist monocle and approach L’Affaire de Milo as a regular, non-political normie who recognizes the obvious: Milo creates amazing drama. He is, above all else, entertaining. This is by no means a slight. The ability to entertain is a gift, and people have a real need for it. Love him or hate him, Milo Yiannopoulos makes the news not just fun, but riveting. Millions now want to know what he’s going to do next, which is great for business if you’re in the media. Further, he looks the part. With his poofy blonde haircut and protean wardrobe, one must look to David Bowie or Madonna for comparisons. In fact, his story is a lot like that of a comic hero in a novel, and we’re watching the plot as it unfolds. The first act covers his brilliant rise as an acid-tongued provocateur. The second act depicts his days as one of the world’s most visible culture warriors. In the third act, he is alienated from the Right and earns bitter enemies on the Left. We’re in the fourth act right now, witnessing his crashing downfall and comeuppance. Will there be a fifth act? Will Milo succumb or overcome?
I don’t know. As with any great story, however, I cannot wait to find out.
I predict that in twenty years, there will be a Hollywood biopic about Milo, not to mention a reality TV show and Milo’s own late-night talk show. Biographers and screenwriters would be fools not to start revving their search engines right now. There’s a lot of money in Milo. Most people just don’t realize it yet.
In addition, if you’ll pardon the expression, Milo has balls of brass. He’s as outspokenly conservative as he is flamboyantly gay. He delights in tweaking the Left in nearly all of its sensitive areas. But he doesn’t tweak for the sake of tweaking. There is nothing about him that suggests he isn’t genuine about his politics and his contempt for the hypocrisy and tyranny of the Left. He’s also literate about it, seems to have unlimited confidence in himself, and is afraid of no one. “Dangerous Faggot,” indeed.
Milo’s greatest talent, I believe, is the speed with which he can formulate arguments or witticisms. He is frightfully fast. I have never learned terribly much from Milo. When I read his writing or hear him speak, as proficient as he is, I think to myself, “I can put those thoughts together too,” or, “I have said something similar before.” But to do it all in real time? On the fly? Without embarrassing myself? In front of millions of viewers? No way. Milo has a rare talent that allows him to do all of these things. It doesn’t take much for audiences to enjoy him.
Milo becomes most controversial when he goes down avenues that lead away from the mainstream. The Left barely engages with his flamboyant homosexuality and mostly with his politics. On the Right, it’s the other way around. Since Milo is center-Right to begin with, it makes sense that he has found a home in the Alt Lite. He’s a civic nationalist like President Trump. He gets along famously with fellow wit and gadfly Ann Coulter. He’s an outspoken Western chauvinist who recognizes quite clearly the threat that both the Left and Islam pose to our civilization. He knows that the Right must defeat both at all costs. This certainly makes him edgier than the National Review/Weekly Standard crowd. The Alt Lite is where he belongs.
To the right of the Alt Lite is where things get a bit dicier for Milo. For one, Milo is reportedly half-white and half-Jewish and refuses any clear-cut racial identity in either direction. In fact, he doesn’t discuss race much at all. These two factors alone are enough to disqualify him from many of the ranks of the Alt Right (or what some would call the “Alt White” wing of the Alt Right). Clearly, Milo has many of the same enemies the Alt Right has, and he is one of the most effective and charismatic combatants in the greater Left-Right culture war. So, it would seem that the Alt Right would be cheering him on, perhaps from a distance, but with the same enthusiasm it shows for other edgier conservatives (such as Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch or John Derbyshire) who aren’t quite Alt but still dare to show their faces in the mainstream political arena.
While Milo, of course, does have fans on the Alt Right (Vox Day is a good example), it seems that his currency had become quite devalued in such circles well before his recent debacle. Why this is and whether it is a good thing is something I believe many of us struggle with. He’s an ally, but does he do more harm to the Alt Right than good? Does he call too much attention to himself? Is he such a hedonist and drama queen that he repels more than he attracts?
The Alt Right’s main problem with Milo is not so much his homosexuality but the depraved levels to which he takes it. He brags about his black boyfriends and his promiscuous lifestyle. He can be terribly crude. He makes light of pedophilia, or rather the sexual abuse he experienced as a thirteen-year-old. I wouldn’t say the abuse he “suffered,” since, to hear Milo describe it, he didn’t suffer at all. In fact, the Catholic priest whom Milo claims took his virginity was nothing more than his Humbert Humbert, a man who could justifiably swear that it was rather the boy, that little nymph, who had seduced him!
His sin, his soul. His Milo-lita.
There are two powerful and sometimes competing ideological factions that I have seen in the Alt Right. I would call them the Traditionalists and the Libertarians. Sure, they both subsume all their lesser interests to their racial identity, as they should. In fact, they make excellent allies, but they are different. Of course, the Traditionalists despise Milo. They could never accept someone like him. He may talk a good game about many of the ideals the Traditionalists hold dear, and he may walk like he talks it right into enemy territory if necessary. But who he is and how he behaves belies all that. To a Traditionalist and man of the Right, Milo Yiannopoulos is nothing more than a quick-talking, immoral heathen. Someone not to be trusted. He’s saying the right things now. Who knows what he’ll say in the future?
The Libertarians are typically more inclined to defend Milo and forgive what they would consider his more flamboyant foibles. After all, we have a culture war to wage, and not all our allies will suit our fancies. Furthermore, Libertarians tend to value freedom more than most. So, what consenting non-adults do in the privacy of their own boarding schools and at seedy Hollywood parties, well, that’s not anyone’s business, is it?
Only, it is. Stefan Molyneux gives a well thought-out roundup of the whole messy affair which has finally brought Milo down. He (Milo, that is) made light of pedophilia. He claimed that some under-aged boys are competent enough to grant consent. He (perhaps unwittingly) blurred the line between a “boy” and a “young boy” when it comes to homosexual relations with older men. And he claimed to have witnessed the drugging and raping of young boys at Hollywood parties without going to the police or naming names.
After watching Molyneux’s 42-minute talk on Milo, it’s become clear that the Libertarian wing of the Alt Right is less interested in defending Milo than it once was. That’s bad, and Milo is now suffering for it. He’s lost his lucrative book deal with Simon & Schuster. He’s resigned from Breitbart. He was disinvited from CPAC. He gave a downbeat, yet classy, press conference. But despite his apologies and his categorical condemnation of pedophilia, some questions remain unanswered.
Here is the crux of the matter: what do we do about it?
From what I can tell, most on the Alt Right have shown a level of empathy for Milo and have kept their swords in their scabbards. They aren’t going after him, but at the same time, they aren’t exactly picking him up by his pink, frizzy bootstraps, either. And that’s understandable given the Alt Right’s perfectly reasonable ambivalence towards him. However, I would like to argue that perhaps we should at least reach out to him and offer encouragement during this difficult time.
For one, I don’t believe Milo really harms the Alt Right brand. He doesn’t claim to be one of us, and we certainly don’t take him for one of our own. He may flit around our periphery and say and do embarrassing things from time to time, but Milo has been around for a while, and the Alt Right, despite all the knocks it has been taking lately, is as influential as ever. I guess I just don’t see the mechanism which links Milo in drag talking about interracial fellatio to any broken dreams of the Alt Right. If one is repulsed by Milo’s antics, one is more than halfway to the Alt Right already. Traditionalists have a nice, cozy home in the Alt Right, and these are the people who are most disgusted with Milo. If anything, Milo is scaring such people away from the center and towards the real estate on the Right where such behavior is not tolerated.
And if one is not repulsed by Milo? Then it’s win-win for the Alt Right.
Also, we should consider Milo within the context of other non-Alt Right figures who combat the Left. I have already mentioned Robert Spencer and John Derbyshire. Others include Mark Levin, Michelle Malkin, Pamela Geller, and many more. They all do good work, no doubt, and share varying degrees of apprehension about the Alt Right. But is your average person as aware of them as they are of Milo? In other words, we can ask Milo to tone it down, but would Milo be so huge and fabulous if he did? Robert Spencer is nothing but toned down. While I love Jihad Watch and I am sure he is responsible for steering a goodly number of folks into our camp over the years, I get the feeling that Spencer doesn’t reach a fraction of the people Milo does. He’s not a star, you see.
My hunch is that the only people so repulsed by Milo that they would condemn the Alt Right along with him are people who are not terribly interested in politics to begin with. Such people are too lazy to do the fifteen minutes of research required to distinguish Milo from the Alt Right, or to realize what an interesting and perhaps even tragic character he really is. Such people are looking for reasons not to care, and if they don’t find it in Milo, they will find it in someone else. People for whom Milo pushes them away from the Right sure as heck won’t flee Leftwards, since Milo-like behavior is practically the norm over there. They will either show their squishy stripes and hang out in the center, or they will duck out of the Right-Left divide altogether. In other words, such people were never going to join the Alt Right to begin with.
Secondly, the Right is stronger with Milo than without him, and whether he disgusts us has nothing to do with it. After watching Molyneux’s prosecutorial exegesis on Milo, I am convinced as ever of Molyneux’s titanic sense of truth and justice. I just don’t agree with him. We’re at war. Politics today is a proxy for the civil war that I’m afraid will tear America to shreds in the coming years. Now is not the time for too many scruples. Of course, if Milo were indeed a pederast, past or present, we should throw him under the bus and make sure he stays there. If he were to promote pederasty or start speaking approvingly of organizations like NAMBLA, then we’ll drive the damn bus over him ourselves. If he were to even achieve Michael Jackson-levels of reasonable-doubt creepiness with young men who then accuse him of committing vile acts, under the bus he goes. On the Right, we should have zero tolerance for adults who prey on children.
But that’s not what Milo does or has ever done as far as we know. He’s guilty of making light of pederasty and saying a few things that may or may not blur the line concerning boys and consent. Consulting the recordings, as well as by applying Occam’s Razor, I find that some of this may have sprung from Milo’s rolling with one outrageous statement after another in order to entertain. How else can we interpret his outlandish claim that he’s grateful to the priest who molested him for perfecting his skills at oral sex? This is merely a brag, a joke even. Something said to elicit shock and laughter and not to be taken literally. Remember, Milo is not just a journalist, pundit, and celebrity. He’s also an entertainer. And sometimes, as Michael Richards of Seinfeld discovered a few years ago, entertainers can stray into dangerous territory when on a roll.
So, I am not terribly concerned about Milo’s sins. Nor should any of us be. Stefan Molyneux claims that the fact that Milo is better than someone like Lena Dunham is not an argument. Again, I disagree. When our enemies start talking about their unsavory characters, like Dunham, who in her memoirs admitted to molesting her younger sister and now gets a show on HBO, then maybe we can talk about Milo. Maybe. Until then, the fight continues, Marquis of Queensbury be damned.
My third argument comes in the form of a terrifying premonition. To those of us on the Alt Right who feel annoyed or disgusted by Milo, imagine how annoyed or disgusted you would feel if Milo were to switch sides and start fighting against us? Supposing one day, Milo were to read some of the abuse he receives in the comments sections of Alt Right Websites and then suddenly decide to turn on us? Unlikely, perhaps, but not unprecedented. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs effected such an about-face. So did Glenn Beck. And given the way Milo constantly reinvents himself with one stunt after another, it’s not entirely out of the realm of possibility that he would do such a thing as well. In any event, the Left would certainly take him in, and, make no mistake, with his star power and chutzpah, he could do damage to the Alt Right.
So I think it might be prudent if we didn’t push him away from us too hard.
My final argument stems from my opinion that Milo, despite his debauched lifestyle, is fundamentally a good person. Of course, his apologies and retractions during his recent press conference were entirely appropriate. He seemed sincerely chastened, as well he should be. But I’m thinking of a college talk he once gave in which a conservative student asked him how he should fight the Left on campus. Milo didn’t even hesitate in his response. He told the kid to study hard, get a real career, make money, marry a hot wife, have kids, and be happy. That, according to Milo, is the best revenge we can take against the Left. Upon hearing that, I was bowled over almost to the point of tears with the sweetness of such a sentiment. Milo, I realized, gets it. Here we have a profligate sinner, bent as all get out, a “dangerous faggot” who in all likelihood is flaming his way into Hell as we speak . . . and he realizes that it’s not about him! It’s about us. It’s about those of us who care about the future and the ancient ideals which built our civilization to begin with.
So, Milo, if you’re reading this, thank you for that. I hope you get your affairs in order soon and bounce back from all of this. I can’t speak for everyone on the Alt Right, but I’m rooting for you, baby. Even if it is from a distance.
Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/clients/030cab2428d341678e5f8c829463785d/sites/counter-currents.com/wp-content/themes/CC/php/helpers/custom_functions_all.php on line 164
31 comments
“To those of us on the Alt Right who feel annoyed or disgusted by Milo, imagine how annoyed or disgusted you would feel if Milo were to switch sides and start fighting against us?”
Milo does fight against us. He explicitly fights for racially-colourblind cuckservative ‘values.’
I don’t agree that attacking tumblr feminism can qualify someone as alt-right. It’s not a case of Milo being “alt-right”, it’s a case of the mainstream meeja being antifa-left. The Telegraph for example slurred him as ‘The Pied Piper of Hate’ on the frontpage, which is not a point in his favour, but a strike against the Telegraph for being farcical. Regardless, Milo would prefer by all accounts that we politically didn’t exist. Offering ‘encouragement’ simply because he has built a career out of being an edgytarian is not something I would advise anyone to do. I have zero interest in what Milo has to say, and I know that whatever he says, it will not be pro-white. Why advertise this creeps existence?
Not interested in Milo? so why did you read a crazy long article about him? Lye to yourself much?
Spencer has put out other good articles, and I take the time to listen to what he has to say, even if it is on someone I don’t hold in high esteem. I thought my criticism was a necessary counterpoint to the non-reciprocal, starry-eyed fangazing displayed here.
Milo is clearly erudite and capable, he could have chosen any other path in life but he chose the “muh black dicks” one. For the sake of Counter-Currents, a rebuttal was sensible.
I am really quite detached from the whole Milo affair. He is an interesting character. However, I will say this as a former social worker, that a 13 year old child may be quite precocious, but only an adult can groom, gaslight and blame the child.
First, I’m here only because Milo linked this article. I’m white, but wouldn’t touch the racism of the alt-white with a ten foot pole, it’s putrid!
That said, this is a great article. Especially the salient point about how effective Milo is in taking the fight to the Regressive Left into their breeding grounds universities.
As I wrote to the wonderful Charles Cooke of NRO fame, in defense of Milo, that for years I’ve seen movement conservatives take butter knives to this war with the Regressive Left when Milo is bringing an AK-47.
I’m not thrilled that Milo has flirted with some of the scum of the alt-right but hey America worked with mass murderer Stalin to defeat the Nazis, war is messy. The tyrannical lock step groupthink of the Regressive Left that is entrenched in schools, media and Hollywood has to be defeated and Milo is a damn fine solider in this noble cause!
“I’m white, but wouldn’t touch the racism of the alt-white with a ten foot pole, it’s putrid…the scum of the alt-right ”
I’m not even going to comment on that. I’m just going to ask those who find value in my criticisms of the Alt Right/Alt Lite/Alt Wrong to consider who’s being sent here from Milo’s neck of the woods. While you are it, listen to Millennial Woe’s honest and heartfelt talk at this past Saturday’s Indentitarian meeting in Stockholm, regarding the current “malaise” (his word, not mine) of the Alt Right since Trump’s election. And recall who predicted that the Alt Right would be ineffective in following up Trump’s victory with a strategic and integrated program.
“Putrid”? Do you understand that the majority (if not entirety) of the beliefs of White Nationalists were held by virtually all White people before the Left began hammering them with anti-White propaganda? That the very way most people now think about race is an unconscious capitulation to the rhetorical rules set by the Left?
Stop playing by their rules.
“First, I’m here only because Milo linked this article. I’m white, but wouldn’t touch the racism of the alt-white with a ten foot pole, it’s putrid!”
Do you consider the racism of the NAACP, NCLR, ADL AND SPLC putrid? Do you object to White Uncle Tom’s collaborating with and enabling it putrid? Do you believe that POC can even BE racist? And by the way why is racism wrong in the first place?
Actually, Milo is pro-white. He’s doing it by not playing the fake victim card. He mocks blacks and Muslims not because they’re black or Muslim per se but because they do crummy things and ought to be held accountable.
Awesome article! Thank you!
One of the posters on another CC article on the subject said it well: the Left hates Milo for what he gets right; not for what he gets wrong. I don’t think that this controversy will destroy his future, and while I could do with less girlish flirtatiousness and fewer cracks about Black partners, the smashing of Leftist sacred cows – in so short a timespan, no less! – is a feat for which I do have a good deal of admiration.
As long as he doesn’t try to signal his virtue by lambasting White Nationalists day-in and day-out, I say: bring on the next Berkeley.
Quality read. Thought provoking opinions.
Brilliant article.
I may not be an Alt-Right member, but I do appreciate this article in support of Milo.
Nice digressive, exploratory piece. It leads me back down some of the byways I walked during the past week, when I found myself doing a complete 180º turn on the Milo question. I was thinking he was just a clown, an embarrassment to himself and his “allies,” until I saw the deliberative viciousness with which he had been attacked. An astroturf Twitter group calling itself ‘The Reagan Battalion’ popped up out of nowhere, with no purpose beyond smearing Milo as a promoter of pedophilia (which he never engaged in or recommended) and thereby neutralizing him a popular speaker, invited to keynote at CPAC.
The ‘Reagan Battalion’ group was obviously tied to the murky Evan McMullin gang, but lamely attempted to distract us from that connection by planting an article in Vox-dot-com, in which it was claimed that the anti-Milo movement had actually been masterminded by an anonymous 16-year-old progressive-libertarian girl in Canada.
The dizzying, impenetrable layers of distraction made for a story that was totally incoherent to anyone who tried to follow it. But it accomplished its purpose by leaving the casual observer with the vague impression that Milo’s fall came about because he was outré and perverse, and Responsible Conservatives had become fed up with him. But Milo was not the ultimate target here; the Alt Right was; and never mind that the Alt Right disavows him. The stink of the phony ‘pedo’ accusations stuck to Milo, and they are meant to stick to the Alt Right as well.
Spencer Quinn rightly notes that Milo is going to survive this smear-blitz, but Milo was never the main target. This was merely another volley in the propaganda war that gave us Hillary Clinton’s inept “Deplorables” speech and the Trump “pussy grab” recording.
I too have no real interest in the Alt-right movement but this was an incredibly articulate piece and I’m responding to your commentary that I knew that “anonymous 16yo Canadian teenager” being source of his downfall was fake, planted news but I’m glad someone else recognizes it.
The facts did NOT add up in that story. Why is a female 16yo Canadian teenager so interested in American politics. And the language and argument they attributed to Anon Canadian teen didn’t fit. Lets just say the Reagan Battalion groups moves are impolitic.
“Milolita”. Nice.
Excellent, thoughtful article.
I think there is another faction, or perspective, on Milo aside from those of the Traditionalists and Libertarians whom you identify. Vox Day’s attitude mainly gets at the third perspective, which you allude to: essentially, it is an attitude that recognizes Milo’s faults and — more importantly — recognizes that _Milo_ recognizes his own faults, and seeks to be forgiving or at least emphathetic towards him on account of that. I am not a Christian, but I think that the word Christian best gets at the attitude I am contemplating.
The “Traditionalists” are essentially condemnatory and unforgiving in their attitude towards Milo. Interestingly enough, many 1488s / hard core Alt White-ists who are normally quite anti-Christian, take a similar tact on the recent scandal.
The Libertarians are not forgiving of Milo’s flaws: they _embrace_ them. They view Milo’s type of debauchery as something to celebrate and ostentatiously shove in people’s faces. “Yeah, he’s an unrepentant libertine, and that’s awesome.” This reveals the fundamental nihilism behind modern Libertarianism: it is ethically and morally ungrounded and puerile.
The Libertarians and Traditionalists are both missing an essential aspect of Milo’s psyche, namely that he is not entirely unrepentant. He is a damaged and partly-broken individual, likely because of the abuse he suffered and his own heretofore unhealthy cooping mechanisms. But he is clearly aware of this himself; at this point, his libertinism and debauchery are almost ironic and self-destructive in a shame-ridden sort of way. He wants to change.
Milo’s own example is a refutation of libertarianism, and serves to draw out and expose hypocritical self-righteous Christianity (traditionalism), which has acted puritanical and wrathful rather than forgiving and understanding.
I suspect Milo will either “flame out” and go to an early death, or he will reform himself: he knows that libertinism is not the long term answer.
At the same time there is no doubt that the identity he has taken on allows him to get his message out and to provide him with armour not granted to non-victim-statused Alt Right people, as Quinn notes in this article.
Vox Day’s attitude and those of the Alt Right who have stood with Milo, while recognizing his mistakes, are correct in my view.
I second your view on Molyneux. He is — and I say this to praise him — incapable of “contextualizing” untruth and moral shortcomings. He is absolutely strict in his application of the standard of truth. This enabled him to point out quite accurately the deficiencies in Milo’s statements. Molyneux spoke truth, but a bit of tenderness may also have been in order.
“To those of us on the Alt Right who feel annoyed or disgusted by Milo, imagine how annoyed or disgusted you would feel if Milo were to switch sides and start fighting against us?”
As another commenter pointed out, he already has and is is fighting against us. Before “Milogate” and before Richard Spencer was sucker punched (more precisely unexpectedly took an elbow to the face, possibly reinforced with a wrench) Milo had been attacking Identitarianism and White Nationalism with vigor and gusto. After Spencer was attacked on camera, Milo effectively justified and legitimized violence against him on the grounds of Spencer’s beliefs. In other words, he agreed with and teamed up the leftists in the media to justify violence against us.
The latest video Milo has made as of March 1st, 2017 is a minute long ans is a petty, anti-Spencer video that is by extension an attack on us. You should watch it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4gLx0wT4h4
He also jokes about and trolls non-Whites and SJWs the very non-PC humor that has attracted people to the Alt-Right, but then follows it up with and reaffirms basic-bitch cuckservative values, delegitimizing Identitarianism. He is in effect saying, “yes, its OK to think Alt Right humor us funny, we can make jokes like them too! But on a serious note those Identitarian, Alt Rightists really are morally repugnant.”
Keep in mind, this article is a defense of a man who in your own words, has “claimed to have witnessed the drugging and raping of young boys at Hollywood parties without going to the police or naming names.” …drugging and raping of young boys…Let that sink in for a minute. This is a man who “jokes” about justifying his own molestation and saying he would have molested himself too [see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePF78xrzSQY 1:35:35 – 136:39 for full context].
I have defended Milo in the past on the grounds he was beneficial to the AltRight despite our differences with him. Although he may still be beneficial to us in some regards, I think the time has come when he is more harmful to us in aggregate. On top of that, it is reasonable to infer he is a severely damaged, morally warped person and this has been made painfully aware to the public. I may not go on the attack against Milo for the reasons stated by the author and others (what would it matter if someone insignificant like myself did anyway?) but I am certainly not going to rush to his defense either.
The groveling, fanboy-ish tone taken in this opinion piece is irritating and a little embarrassing to be honest, fam. In Michael Polignano’s words, I think its time “we take our own side” and stop trying to appease those who attack and abuse us.
I don’t think we have to take sides in the Milo vs. Spencer tiff, and the fact that they are both trading darts and being petty does not mean that they are not on the same side in a broader sense of having common interests and enemies despite their differences.
“Keep in mind, this article is a defense of a man who in your own words, has “claimed to have witnessed the drugging and raping of young boys at Hollywood parties without going to the police or naming names”
The “police” already know but even if they wanted to do something they can’t for the system protects its own. Child actor Corey Feldman spoke out and no arrests were made.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEWS0kCQocs
And I’m sure if you google Hollywood child molesters you will find more claims.
He’s one brave man, Milo. I was an instant fan when I first came across his video. This brilliant article ‘explains’ much about the enigma of this man. I hope many more young people will rise up unafraid, like him, and challenge the evil lies of the Left.
I apologise for not addressing the subject of Milo, but I was more intrigued by your strategic analysis.
First thing to say is that the “Traditionalist” branch of the Alt-Right – the Social Conservatives and Racial Purists – those who believe that there is no place in the West for the flamboyantly gay or the Jews, are dead. 99.999% extinct. Demographically doomed. That genie will not go back into the bottle. You will not get people in any position of power advocating this stuff ever again. It is simply too extreme and too narrow. Don’t be fooled by rightwing echo chambers, this is the fringe-est of the fringe.
Secondly, the “Libertarians”/Alt-Lite-ists aren’t pure anarchists or amoral relativists, as you describe. They are only really libertarian insofar as they oppose limitations on speech: “de-platforming” right-of-centre speakers on campus; Hate Speech laws, and self-censorship in the MSM on certain issues. Perhaps they also support less taxation and less regulation. But they are not ideologically Libertarian – they believe in strong borders and police. They understand that liberty and freedom are merely the means to more cultural power. With more cultural power comes the ability to set the agenda. It is a pragmatic Libertarianism.
Furthermore, the “Libertarian” movement is a much broader platform – that has the ability to absorb parts of the New Atheist movement, “edgy” millennials, Alt-media, white women, conservative blacks & minorities, even Islam-wary feminists. It is the movement that can effectively stem the tide of Progressive virtues on Islam-apologia, third world immigration, “diversity for diversity’s sake” and occidentalism. It is the only chance in hell we have in keeping Western civilisation relatively in tact.
Thank you all so much for the kind words. I worked very hard on this article and am thrilled with all the attention it’s been getting as well as all the positive and constructive feedback.
One reason for Milo misjudging the tone when discussing his own sexual abuse, might be that his whole raison d’être has been to reject the Left’s exaggerated victimology. He spends a lot of time poo-pooing other people’s “hurt feeling”, and their attempts to make political capital out of them. The mistake he makes, I think, is to believe that society therefore doesn’t have genuine victims. That any admittance of pain or vulnerability is simply a plea for conversational immunity, or more government resources. I would like to see a slightly more nuanced Milo when he inevitably bounces back.
Spot on.
I have to agree with commentator G.P. on this one.
Do we need to wait for vile accusations of sexual assault to surface against Milo to throw him under the Bus? He openly praised pederasty in moral terms that the populace will never accept. He’s just as much NAMBLA in their eyes regardless of him actually committing such an act. Let’s be clear, Milo lauded the practice of grooming young boys of the kind we’ve seen with Catholic Priests. Do I even need to discuss how fucked up that is and the lives destroyed by such practice that Milo glowingly approves?
Quinn, you say “On the Right, we should have zero tolerance for adults who prey on children.” I agree, so why defend Milo when he gives moral support to the practice of preying on children? Now is the time to throw Milo under the bus. Milo may have been a useful tool, but that time has passed.
Lastly, perhaps we should reconsider whether “privilege shields” like Milo do more good than harm.
Milo, like the non-whites trotted out by cuckservatives are allowed to say things that normal heterosexual white men cannot say because they belong to a privileged class guarded from attacks that would be leveled against a white man. It allows normal whites to feel comfortable about supporting ideas that are pro-white because it comes from a person that is not one of them.
I’m not so sure this is good in the long run. It feels a lot like “Dems are the real racist” as it cedes moral authority to the Left. Whites feel compelled to accept degenerates like Milo and non-whites in order to not be homophobes and racists. All it does is reaffirm the moral supremacy of anti-white liberalism.
Perhaps cucky “privilege shields” are useful in getting whites to at least interact with pro-white ideas, but my fear is that will it just turn into DR3, reinforcing the idea to whites that brown people and degenerates like Milo are great if they simply preach Western Chauvinism. This is the approach seen with Civic Nationalists (aka the Alt-Lite), which are basically the new cuckservatives. And like the conservatives before, they’re already trying to purge the right of racists and homophobes. Milo was out there attacking white nationalism and white identity politics before this blew up. Thus, I’m deeply skeptical of the use of “privilege shields” like Milo.
It’s very odd because you say “the Right is stronger with Milo than without him,” when Milo at his core is 100% antithetical to the right (jew, homosexual, pederasty, race-mixer, drug addict, bathes in pigs blood, dresses in drag, twinks for Trump, etc.). And the sad part is, you may be right.
In any event, I’d like to see the right move away from the need to use degenerates/nonwhites to advocate for white ideas. But that can only occur if we criticize them for not being one of us. Milo’s praise for pederasty seems to be the right time to say he’s not one of us and doesn’t belong.
Mr. Quinn,
this is not about Right versus Left; this is about right versus wrong. And Milo is, most definitely, wrong most of the time, on many issues. This is always what has attracted me to the Alt Right, that most of them/us prioritize right (Truth) over wrong (Lies), and not just Right over Left, or vice versa, as conservative and liberal ideologues tend do.
I wrote a comment on Mr. Johnson’s article about the Milo affair a few days back: https://counter-currents.com/2017/02/the-unsinkable-milo-yiannopolous/#comment-1381021
If you advocate for the Alt Right to align with people like Milo, Michelle Malkin, et al., you are effectively advocating to align with this; basically with the (social) policy of the Catholic Church:
A Lesson for Planned Parenthood’s Pinup Girls
Michelle Malkin March 1, 2017
“Ekeocha actually traveled to African neighborhoods and interviewed women about the “noble cause” of elitist abortionists.
Catholic nuns, Muslim schoolgirls, millennial-age young women and elderly grandmothers all made their position clear:
“No to abortion!”
“We love babies, so we do not support abortion.”
“We don’t need any safe abortion as not[h]ing is safe in killing.”
Beneath their costumery of progressive benevolence, liberal Hollywood “helpers” and global do-gooders exhibit a cold indifference toward the actual wants and needs of their supposed beneficiaries in the Third World. They’re raising hundreds of millions for abortions, not for food, water and education.
This, Ekeocha accurately diagnoses, is “cultural imperialism.”
And, remember, it’s marinated in racist eugenics” – http://www.vdare.com/articles/a-lesson-for-planned-parenthoods-pinup-girls
“The “Latino” Oligarchy, as is often the case with Mercantile elites, is short-sighted and profit oriented. Their alliance with the Church has put in place a system that pays no heed to genetic inheritance. When the Catholic Church is in power in Latin America, whether the stronger ecclesiastical current of time is on the Right or Left, the arc of history will always lead to a country (even one as white as Argentina) that looks like Brazil or the Dominican Republic, with all of the politico-economic problems that entails. […] When Catholic teachings on sex and reproduction take the lead in policy making, these are the results. It is not a question of Left or Right but the systematic results of the Vatican’s institutional imperative.” – https://counter-currents.com/2015/10/white-nationalists-need-planned-parenthood-not-the-pope/
“Men like E. Michael Jones and Father Raphael Johnson can be called fellow travelers, to adopt the Communist terminology, but the primacy of their religious commitments diverts them from the primary goals of the Alt Right.
In the end, those fighting to impose the “One True Faith” do not care if we survive as a people. Ask any true believer and they will tell you that they have more in common with their co-religionist from the Congo than with a professor at MIT. The saddest thing is, sometimes it’s true. ” – https://counter-currents.com/2016/10/what-the-alt-right-isnt/
Congratulations to you, Mr. Quinn, and to Counter-Currents on having this article go “viral,” despite my disagreement with you Milo Yiannopoulos, etc.
Correction: … despite my disagreement with you *on* Milo Yiannopoulos, etc. …
Sorry, I discovered another mistake: … as conservative and liberal ideologues tend *to* do. …
I have been quite “under the weather” for about a week, with a bad and persistent case of the flu…
“And he claimed to have witnessed the drugging and raping of young boys at Hollywood parties without going to the police or naming names.”
For this alone he should be dropped. Considering the huge network of child molesters and their obviously conspiratorial nature we shouldn’t tolerate someone collaborating in that conspiracy. And we also shouldn’t tolerate someone who jokes about this behavior as that INCREASES the doubt about the existence of that vast pedophile conspiracy. Actually I’d be curious as to whether Counter-Currents believes that the pedophile conspiracy exists in our society in the first place. I think Aedon Cassile certainly does. How many articles on Rotherham have been published here?
We really have to repudiate Yiannopoulis.
“Once you cross the line, though — the bright line of puberty — things get more complicated.” — John Derbyshire, 2/24/17
Take shelter, people. Ted Sallis is about to have a conniption.
http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2017-02-24.html
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Regardless of Milo’s personal life, and also of his public comments about his personal life, he has been INVALUABLE to any non-leftist, to say the least, if only for his exposure of the intolerant PC mass hysteria running amuck on American university campuses. It is largely because of him that the eyes of millions of Americans have been opened to the fact that American universities have become essentially leftist indoctrination centers, neo-Maoist thought reform camps. Plus of course he’s a master at wittily shooting down 3rd-wave feminism, etc. I consider him to be one of the most influential people in the US nowadays, at least up until very recently, and have little doubt that he’ll be back, possibly even stronger than before. He’s got some of Mr. Trump’s teflon about him.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment