Milo Yiannopoulos stopped at the University of Houston this past Monday (Sep. 19), and gave a speech on the Alt-right. Its readily viewable on youtube.
As a White Rights advocate and White Nationalist this speech really said more to me about who Milo is than about what the Alt-right is. As usual with Milo, I’m of mixed opinion: some of it was great, some of it was confusing (his definition of identity politics anyone?), and some of it was just flat out wrong and obnoxious, and frankly, very liberal. I think though, that I came away with a better understanding of what exactly Milo’s own ideological positions are, many of which I strongly disagree with.
Here are some things to take away from it:
The Great Stuff:
Milo finally said “identity politics for everyone or for no one”:
Just last week I wrote a post about Milo’s CNBC interview where he discusses the Alt-right. There I said that at the very least Milo should go on record saying that identity politics for everyone but White people is not right. This week he said it:
Decide if you want identity politics for everyone or for no one. There is an anti-defamation league and an SPLC but there are no equivalents for other groups. No more anti-White racism in universities, in the media, and politics. If racism is unacceptable it has to be unacceptable for everyone.
I know that it is perhaps too much to hope that he actually endorse White identity politics, given that it is beyond obvious that he does not in fact agree with identity politics for anyone (and that’s his right!). At least he is always honest about not claiming to be a member of the alt-right. I did not think however, that it was too much to ask that he (1) be willing to admit that the alt-right is largely about White identity, and its founding membership are White Nationalists, aiming to create a movement of identity politics for White people, and (2) call out and condemn anti-White hypocrisy by saying that you must either have identity politics for everyone or no one. He’s still lagging on number 1, as I’ll get to, but he finally made a home-run with number 2. Way to go Milo!
Milo called out melanosupremacy explicitly as “anti-White racism”, and without reference to feminism for the first time that I have heard:
I have watched plenty of talks and interviews with Milo, and I have repeatedly seen him shy away from tackling the problem of anti-White ideology and policy head on. Whenever he has hinted at it, it has always been in some passing reference to “straight White males”, where all of the emphasis was clearly on “males.” Such statements would be followed up immediately by complaints about feminists, or examples of only anti-male ideals and policies. I have always gotten the distinct impression that he wants to get that mention over with as quickly as possible and not to be pressed on it. He has always mentioned melanosupremacy only in this way, always diminishing it next to feminism’s misandry, and clearly depicting the latter as the bigger of the two problems.
In this speech for the first time that I have heard, he spoke out against “anti-White racism” as such, all by itself, and credited it, not feminism, with being one of the “two primary motivating factors behind the alt-right.” He actually called out “anti-White racism” without tagging “males” onto the end! Great stuff (he did use the straight White male line at times, but that’s not bad in itself). Throughout the speech, he returned to this theme with several statements, including saying that the idea that only White people can be racist is a “brilliantly bonkers” idea, that there must be “no more anti-white racism in universities, in the media, and politics,” and for the first time that I have heard, placing “patriarchy” and “White supremacy” on equal footing as myths perpetuated by the left.
Additionally, he eluded to the fact that at heart, melanosupremacy is more important to the left than misandry, when he noted that the left will “turn on women. . .provided no Muslim gets offended.” He didn’t say it directly, but this is one of the proofs that hating White people is more important to the left than hating men (after all, it is really ONLY White men that they hate).
And this was gold:
Systemic racism and White privilege are bulls****. They don’t exist. They are systems designed to justify other people’s prejudices about you. And it is time to start calling them out.
Never the less, he can still do better: for one thing, he still refuses to say the phrase “White people” or “White Nationalist.” That’s next.
Milo directly references ideals of racial differences more blatantly than I have ever heard him do before:
Milo has made it clear he thinks there are biological differences between the sexes. But his position on the biological basis of race is more difficult to work out. He has alluded to it elsewhere, but I heard it more clearly in this speech than in any of the others I have listened too. It happened when he stated that “straight White males. . . invented almost everything,” and that the left are the “people who believe without any evidence that White men are ruining the world around them, rather than the truth, which is that they pretty much made the world around them.” Whatever one thinks of those claims, it is clear that they stem from and/or produce an understanding of inherent racial differences. I’m not complaining.
Milo said good things about Jared Taylor, and by doing so, treated an open White rights advocate and racialist as an integral part of the alt-right:
One of the biggest problems I’ve had with Milo is simply that I think he often attempts to cut White identity and White nationalism, and racialism in general, out of his descriptions of the alt-right. He often seems to ignore or gloss over this central part of the movement, thus undermining it. That has made me angry before, and while some of that was still on display in this speech, I was happy that he treated open racialist and White Rights advocate Jared Taylor as both a nice person and a leading alt-right figure when he used him as an example of how being “nice” to the left will not stop them from going after you:
It doesn’t matter if you are nice or not, if you don’t tow the party line they will try to end you anyway. . .the left has demonized and censored people who don’t take its taboos seriously. . .say what you will about Jared Taylor, who some of you will be fans of, but he at least has a kind and sweet manner, he is not some skinhead with a twitter account. Again it doesn’t matter whether you are nice to them or not.
The Not so Great Stuff:
What on earth did Milo mean with his bazaar definition of identity politics?
Most people, I think, would define identity politics as political advocacy for the interests of a certain identity group. That’s how I think of it, plus implications of racial loyalty, and all that. I assumed that Milo understood the term pretty much the same way. I was thoroughly caught off guard by his definition:
Identity politics is the idea that reason should be thrown out of the window as the primary tool that you use to understand the world, and that you should instead return to skin color, sexuality, and gender.
I’m not sure what he was thinking when he came up with this, but this definition is simply wrong. No one that I can think of would define it that way. Identity politics is not about abandoning reason, but about advocacy for the real or perceived interests of a certain group.
Knowing that this is the way he understands it is illuminating for why he claims to hate it so much.
What DOES “racism” look like to Milo?
Milo continually denounces “racism”. On CNBC he said “racism is bad. . .yes we know that!”, and in this speech he must have either directly or indirectly condemned so-called “racism” a good dozen times. For instance, he included “racists” along with feminists in what he termed the “very worst elements” of society that should be part of the “underton window” of unacceptable social discourse. And of course, his repeated refrain of X thing/person/policy is “not racist” serves to condemn it as something bad again, again, and again.
He condemns this largely meaningless slur, as if it was really something bad to be “racist”—and that puts me off all by itself. But the real question here is what exactly is he condemning when he condemns “racism”? What does “racism” mean to Milo, because he condemns it a lot, but never will define it?
Here are some things we know he does NOT think are “racist” from this speech alone:
- Having racial sexual preferences (yea!)
- Stopping Muslim immigration
- Pointing out anti-White “racism”
- Making racial jokes
- Not supporting Black Lives Matter
In the question and answer session afterwards he elaborated a little further, stating that he thinks only about 2-5% of the alt-right are “real racists”, and then still later stating that “it takes a high bar” for him to decide someone is actually a real racist. But still, no definition. He nowhere actually defines what he thinks is “racist”, he just knows he doesn’t like it, whatever it is. Oh Milo, sometimes. . .
Milo undermines the importance of race. . .again:
This is among the worst things about Milo. It is beyond obvious that he is in no way a racialist, and he seems to go out of his way to undermine the importance of race (and to some extent sex) as a valid category for social organization. This was on full display in this speech with numerous derisive references to “skin color” and occasionally gender, as things the left is stupid for caring about. Racial demographic displacement was also tellingly absent from his list of reasons why “immigration is a bad thing.” It also comes out in his condemnations of Black Lives Matter. Although I’m by no means a fan of BLM, I do think that their support of resegregation makes them perhaps the best Black interests group to have arisen recently (at least from an ideological standpoint, their violence is not acceptable).
No matter how much they may hate White people, White Nationalists will always have more in common ideologically with Black Nationalists than with race-denying social equalitarians like Milo. So, in this I definitely have more in common with the left than with Milo. Isn’t that a thought. . .
White Nationalism is NOT the same as White supremacism:
Towards the very end there is a moment where the terminology of “White Nationalist” and “White supremacist” are used interchangeably. They are not the same thing, and are not interchangeable. My experience on Stormfront and elsewhere has led me to the conclusion that White supremacists are a very small percentage of White Nationalists—even one of the most vocal self-described White supremacists on SF would frequently tell guest debaters that she was in the minority and she knew it. They are not interchangeable terms and muddling them or conflating them just perpetuates the left’s attacks on White people.
Milo tries to make the alt-right in his image:
I don’t know that he does it consciously, but he might—he said here that he is trying to persuade people that the alt-right are not the “bad guys” and that he is trying to “defend” the alt-right from the accusations of liberals. This might indicate he is trying to make us sound more like him. Intentional or not, he consistently undermines elements of the movement he personally disagrees with—most prominently racialist elements (although given the uncertainty over what exactly he considers “racist” this point may be debatable), by stating or implying that they make up less of the movement than they obviously do. As a White Nationalist and racialist, I find this infuriating.
One thing he definitely does is allow his own personal interest and affinity for the men’s rights and particularly the cultural libertarian wing of the alt-right, to guide his descriptions of the entire movement, such that he focuses inordinate amounts of time on the “trolls” and the people who just want to wind others up, and say shocking things to get a reaction. I actually thought his “Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-right” was pretty balanced, and even handed, although certainly not perfect. But when he is speaking he has a tendency to generalize the movement in a way that skews perception of it toward the cultural libertarian wing, and away from the racialist, anti-equalitarian core.
Since he, by his own frequent and vociferous admission, is not a member of the alt-right movement at all, it is extremely problematic that his descriptions are so skewed toward his own ideological preferences. Even though this speech was better than some, it still had problems with this. One thing he did admit in this speech: “I haven’t always gotten everything right on the alt-right.”
Milo Promotes Equalitarianism. . .again:
This is another one of the worst things about him: he is clearly a social equalitarian (i.e. someone who thinks people and society should treat everyone the same). This comes out from time to time. In fact, anyone referring to the left as “regressive” probably has some of these views: the very term “regressive” indicates that the left is going backwards towards caring about things like race and sex again, and that this is somehow bad. While it’s true that some in the alt-right—particularly those from the two wings that Milo hails from, the men’s rights/cultural libertarian wings—do largely hold to this view, the rest of the alt-right is soundly anti-equality.
In any case, this was most strongly evidenced in this speech when he defended a ban on Muslim immigration by saying:
We say, and particularly the left like so say, that equality and diversity, gay marriage, women’s rights, all of these things are crowning glories of our civilization—I happen to agree with them!—we should be very proud of many of those things. This isn’t the way to perpetuate it. This is the way to unravel it. This is the way to import large numbers of people in who do not share your values.
Support of equalitarianism and diversity are not the alt-right’s values, and, like race denial, this is simply unacceptable, and should be so considered on the alt-right. Let’s put that in the “underton window” Milo.
There is no systemic racism or White supremacy or White privilege but bad Black schools are not Black people’s fault?
Milo said, when discussing BLM:
you can accept that there are things that are wrong in the black community that are not the black communities fault, like for example they need better schools. . .
But, if Milo does not believe that these bad Black schools are Black people’s fault whose fault does he think they are? He needs to answer that. . .
Milo, what’s up with not being able to say the words “White people”?
This is a big problem of Milo’s. He just does not want to talk about White identity organizations. I have never heard him describe anyone in the alt-right as a White Nationalist, White Rights advocate, or pro-White advocate. Here it even took the absurd form of saying that there were no identity organizations equivalent to the SPLC and Anti-Defamation League, for “other groups.” That’s right. He said “other groups.” We all know, and he knows, that plenty of “other groups” have such organizations; ONLY White people are not allowed to have such organizations. It is clear that he must have meant White people when he said “other groups.” Why not just say it then?
Don’t Quote the Most Influential Melanosupremacist and Anti-White Bigot of all time; just don’t:
Milo quoted Martin Luther King Jr. King was perhaps the most influential architect of melanosupremacy in history. He hated White people and wanted us to lose our rights. Need I say more? No one who quotes him understands the plight of the White community accurately.
Identity politics does NOT divide, Nature does:
Milo also picked up the loathsome, and completely inaccurate, race-denial argument of establishment conservatives that paying attention to race “divides”:
If you allow groups by virtue of their skin color, or their sexuality, or their gender, to operate by different rules to other people, that’s identity politics, you are going to divide society, people are going to end up hating each other, and that is where the left is taking us.
It is obvious that the pronoun “us” is not useful or relevant when you are talking about racial divisions between racial groups. The various racial groups are not “us” they are each their own life-form. And as such, it is not bad, but actually good, that they be divided (not so much that they hate each other, but hate comes largely from integration not from segregation).
It is not the owning and practicing of racial identities that divides the races. By Nature primates are divided into races, and we notice that by Nature, and favor our own race by Nature. The science is so overwhelming at this point—even babies show own-race preferences—that it is Nature that divides “us”. Even our brains are wired to see race, and to prefer our own.
Racial division is not bad, and Nature—not nurture—divides the races.
Milo is basically one of the disaffected liberals he talks about:
During the speech he pointed out that he was receiving support from “disaffected liberals” who come to his shows because they are disillusioned with the extremes to which the far left has gone. He calls himself a conservative, but he just sounds like any other liberal to me (whether they vote Democrat or Republican I don’t care).
All of the foregoing shines the spotlight on something very important that every pro-White consumer of Milo should understand: he is really just a liberal like most of the liberals who hate us, the only difference is that he doesn’t hate us, and his intentions are good. He really believes that social equality is just, and can exist without causing injustice to any group. He really believes that identity politics is bad and that it leads to hatred and suffering. He really believes that culture is more important than race. He really believes all of this ridiculous, unscientific, and damaging stuff. But he really wants to help us. I would not accuse Milo of wanting to do White people harm. I think he believes he really is trying, in his own way, to help the White community get their rights back. His intentions are good, but he has gotten some things terribly wrong.
There is nothing wrong with being a Milo fan. He is doing many great things for us. I think at heart, he is trying to do the movement good. His intentions are good, and its fine to acknowledge and appreciate that, but just remember what the road to hell is paved with. . .ok?