I’m of two minds about Milo Yiannopoulos. On the one hand, it’s hard not to like the guy: he’s funny, witty, heedless of feelings (yea!) and (usually) fearless. He takes on some of our worst enemies and makes them look so stupid there is no way in the world anyone could defend their stupidity afterwards. Plus, he’s popular, so he’s doing us some good while he’s at it, by helping to shape culture into a more politically-incorrect channel, and he’s just plain fun to watch (yes, I know all about that other stuff).
He has taken the seeds of pro-White activism—free speech and anti-establishment sentiment—to college campuses and made them “cool”. These are the seeds, because they are the things a person must have before he will accept ideals that are not sanctioned by the mainstream. Getting people out of the mainstream is almost as important as getting them into our movement—which of course, is the ultimate goal. And Milo has helped with that, mostly by being someone who has helped a lot to open up the channels of discourse so our voice can better be heard
On the other hand, there’s all that other stuff (he’s a miscegenist—the worst, a homosexual, etc.). And then, there are his ideological credentials—which don’t always glow so brightly: including the fact that he is clearly a social equalitarian, individualist/anti-identity politics, and culturalist. That last part was on full display this past week in a depressing interview he gave to CNBC which shows quite clearly that even Milo is still fearful of tripping the anti-White race taboo.
The interviewer gave a quote which described the alt-right in part as motivated by wanting to protect “White identity,” Milo’s response:
I think that ‘White identity’ and ‘White nationalism’ is a little misleading. I think it’s more accurate to say that the alt-right cares about Western supremacy rather than White supremacy. It cares about western values. It cares about liberal, capitalist western democracy. Democratic values, freedom, equality—that kind of thing. And it sees various threats to those on various fronts.
This response is disappointing. I’m not even going to bother getting into the fact that the vast majority of the alt-right clearly does not believe in equality, and a much smaller portion does not believe in democracy (although I do).
Watching this interview saddened me, not least of all because this man who has helped to give the movement for White identity a voice in the popular press still seems so remarkably unwilling to acknowledge his connection to a movement for White identity. And let’s be clear, that is what the alt-right started as, and what White Rights advocacy is all about. It is, despite the recent growth and shifts in the movement, still the core of the alt-right. And we need to make sure it stays that way. But it could get difficult if people like Milo, who represent to some extent the public face of the movement, continue to insist that it is either race or culture that the movement is concerned about. Actually, my experience indicates that race is critically important even to most of those who are concerned about culture. It is not either/or and Milo knows this too, because he wrote in his now famous “Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right” that:
The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness.
So, if Milo is familiar with this connection, why did he set race and culture up as a dichotomy when talking about the movement? Although I must admit, I fall into a category that doesn’t fit his description at all (I am purely concerned with race, not culture) I know that it is true that many in the movement are concerned about protecting Western (i.e. White) culture and/or cultural values conceptually as such. That part of what Milo says is not necessarily inaccurate, although I wish it were, it is however, extremely misleading.
Why would Milo wish to be misleading in this way? The only thing that can account for it is an unwillingness to associate a movement he has at least to some extent championed with a “shameful” ideological tenant: the protection and promotion of White identity. It is striking that even this man who has built a career on being “outrageous” finds a need to shield us/or be shielded from the “shameful” implications of uplifting White identity.
It is sad really, and damaging to a movement that is working for the racial uplifting of a race that has been so downtrodden and degraded in culture and society (i.e. White people). White people need a movement for our racial identity not just in the Natural sense in which all people need to support their racial identity, but also in the modern political environment just to survive, and just to get our rights respected.
There is not, and should not be, anything “shameful” about uplifting White identity, supporting it, living by it, being proud of it, and fighting for it. Ultimately, as White Nationalists and White Rights advocates we must make sure two things are achieved culturally: we must fight until it is no longer something of which to be fearful or ashamed to defend White identity. And ultimately, we must achieve a society which not only celebrates White identity but also protects White identity for the future.
Milo needs to simply be as bold as he has always been on all other subjects, and come out to say that there is nothing shameful about being White and being proud of it, that there is no difference between racial identity politics for White people and racial identity politics for any other racial group, and for goodness sake, he needs to stop shying away from just saying, “yes, these people are about White identity—and that’s ok.”