Polarizing and sifting

The alt-right is a small movement; apparently it’s growing, but it’s still, in the context of the larger society, a small grouping of people. Maybe its aspirations toward gaining more widespread acceptance will lead it towards something like the GOPe’s ”big tent” approach: we have to curry favor with everyone and we can’t afford to exclude whoever seems to be ‘on our side.’

This ‘inclusive’ urge seems not to extend to social conservatives (oh, I momentarily forgot that ”conservative” is a dirty word in the eyes of many today, and it has no doubt been tainted) and traditionalists who hold to conservative versions of Christianity. Why? Because the alt-right has found a new darling in Milo Yiannopolous and a couple of others who are openly homosexual. So, forced to choose between homosexuals and more traditional normal people, the former will be preferred.

From what I am reading, it seems that Milo being assailed by the BLM and other riff-raff at DePaul University has given him a sort of hero status as of now. Before that I got the impression that he was, at best, a controversial figure on the alt-right scene.

I wrote just the other day about the disgusting spectacle of the lefties attacking Milo and denying his right to be heard. I stand by that; I think he has a right to be heard and those who attacked him are thugs and would-be tyrants. However, Milo is not alone in having been treated this way; think back to Ann Coulter, Jared Taylor, even the mild Tom Tancredo; all were attacked on stage by the usual rabble. I am sure there are many others if we bother to search online for such stories. Yet Milo is singular in being hailed as some new icon for the right (the alt-right, at least) after this incident. Why?

I am reading that he is a ‘fighter; he’s fighting for us’ and so on. But so are all the others who’ve been abused an attacked. Why is Milo suddenly so important that people are flaming each other on certain blogs and, in the case of at least one Christian blogger, rushing to Milo’s defense, while castigating his Christian critics?

No doubt even my questioning this situation as mildly as I am doing here will raise some hackles, given that Milo is now the new star and celebrity. But then I generally don’t understand when some people, whoever they are, are put on pedestals. I don’t ‘get’ the celebrity thing, or the effect that some people have on others which causes their followers or admirers to defend them to the extent of attacking known allies and even their friends who don’t share their adulation of said figure.

What this situation makes me think of is the ‘black conservative’ phenomenon among mainstream conservatives. We all know how Republicans and mainstream conservatives will run after every black personality who says some semi-conservative things. We saw it play out with Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Bill Cosby (who has proven to have feet of clay, though some still claim he was ‘framed’), Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and so many others. These ‘conservative black icons’ are hailed as being a way to ‘bring other blacks on board; if only they could see that all they need is conservative values’. They are seen as being a way to signal our ‘inclusive and welcoming’ philosophy. “See? We’re not racist, really, we’re not! Please believe us!” This may be because deep down, some, apparently many, on the right feel guilty about their supposed ‘bigotry’, and perhaps they need to prove to themselves that they are not ‘haters’. So when they think they have found a kindred soul in a black politician or candidate, they are thrilled; ”maybe I’m not really a bigot after all! I really like this guy!” I suspect they breathe a sigh of relief when they find blacks they admire. And it seems to really disturb them when their former idols prove to be less ”conservative” than they thought — and actually more faithful to their race than to ”conservative values”.

Time will tell whether Milo will be the gay counterpart of the ‘conservative black hope’ or whether he will continue to be a rising star on the alt-right — and possibly lead the already socially-liberal/libertarian alt-right towards general ‘gay acceptance’. After that? LGBT-friendly stances? After all, what was the saying? ”any group that is not consciously conservative becomes more liberal over time’?  Inertia always takes us towards the left.

And especially so if it sifts out those whose views are ”too” right-wing.

7 thoughts on “Polarizing and sifting

  1. Thanks for bringing up questions on Milo Minderbender, oh I mean Yiannopoulos. Do our enemies mock us? I think you are right that Milo’s role is to bend our position to accept every type of Diversity and genderality as being Alt Right. This sounds like controlled opposition of the third kind.

    Breitbart looks like an intel community creation to me, possibly including a hoax death. His big victories were over scandals that changed nothing like Anthony Weiner.

    Richard Spencer a few yours ago backed Amit Singh, an employee of the defense contractor community in Fairfax County against boring White guy Mark Ellmore for the GOP nomination for Congress. Amit Singh was the darling of the George Mason Libertarian set, who show up at local GOP conventions in NoVa. You can search on Go Amit Go to find Richard Spencer cheering on his co-libertarian security clearance intel community member. If that is the vanguard, Whites have little chance to get out of the wet paper bag we seem to be trapped in.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. FWIW, I genuinely see both sides in this argument. On the one and, Milo does put himself out there and fight – although whether his motivation is to push back against the left or to get publicity for himself or both is open to debate. I’ve read that he admits his homosexuality is wrong or maladaptive. In one sense, he’s not officially pushing it down people’s throats.

    On the other hand, he is an open homosexual who likes Negroes, and is of half-Jewish descent himself. I can see him being regarded as an ally (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) as well as being held in great suspicion or contempt.

    I met another member of the Alt-Right while briefly campaigning for Trump during the primary. When, in the interest of honesty (not wanting the issue to come up later and bite anyone in the backside) I made note of my genetic ancestry, this person was quite shocked, but still courteous and not automatically dismissive. However, he never called back again after my admission. I understand his or others’ concerns and fully respect their stance, while at the same time regret I cannot more fully participate in group activities due to something beyond my control.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sheila – thanks for your comment. I am not familiar with what Milo writes, as I’ve said in my reply to Nick, but it sounds pretty sleazy to me and the kind of thing that gays like to say/write in order to shock the Christians or any other ‘breeder’ who doesn’t approve of their behavior.
      I have had my share of gay co-workers and have had a good friend with a gay daughter so I’ve seen it in real life.
      I guess what I object to is that Milo (and potentially others) are being singled out as ‘heroes’ in the same way as racial minorities are — just because of their ‘special’ status. The idea is that they can act as our surrogates, and we need them to speak for us because ”they can’t be attacked because they are gay (black, Hispanic, Moslem, whatever) and they can say what we can’t. So they have to be our surrogates and spokesmen.
      Then the idea takes hold that ‘they’re not all against us; lots of them are good guys, just look at (fill in the blank), he’s on our side!”
      Voila: they become ‘necessary’ to validate our movement.
      That makes us weaker, thinking that we need outsiders to be our spokesmen.


      • Valid point, VA. My husband said essentially the same thing – this is how it starts. “Well, he’s not so bad” and then others are excused and it snowballs. There ought to be someone doing what Milo is doing who isn’t a special victim group member, but of course, no White guy, unless independently wealthy, could afford to put himself out there like that.


  3. “So when they think they have found a kindred soul in a black politician or candidate, they are thrilled; ”maybe I’m not really a bigot after all! I really like this guy!”

    Bingo! This is exactly what the “new conservative” movement is doing, except now it’s directed towards homosexuals like Milo. John Donovan is yet another on the Alt-Right that advocates for love between masculine men as something good – even something used to restore masculinity and curtail the negative effects of feminism. His criticism of the gay movement is not because of its unnatural way but rather because it makes men effeminate (as if to say gay sex between two manly guys is all the greater in creating a more manly society).

    The Alt-Right doesn’t care about this as long as the white race is preserved and they can worship Odin. They are white supremacists – and I don’t use that term loosely either. White supremacists are material reductionists, so they reduce a thing to one material component which is meant absolutely define it. Like Atheists explain the universe in terms of matter exclusively, white supremacists ( like the Alt-Right ) understand people in terms of their race alone. This affords them the ability to ignore other issues that do not directly hinder their agenda of preserving and advancing the white race. But our identity is more than our race alone – it’s the religion of our fathers, their traditions and customs; it’s our sexual distinctions and the relational bonds and orientation that depend on those sex distinctions; it’s our nationality…these things matter, too. When we lose sight of that, we get “gender neutral” bathrooms and the Milo’s of the world leading us.

    Regardless of whether Milo see his homosexuality as maladaptive, he refers to himself as the “dangerous faggot”, has followers he refers to as his husbands, exploits his homosexuality to create an environment of crude dialogue and was even carried into a conversation at a university by male students in a chair (he called a “queens” entrance). He constantly berates Ben Shapiro through shenanigans on Twitter, inviting him to engage in back and further tweets. Ben (a man I don’t like) decline. Milo responded: “Like my ass, my door is always open”.

    Sure, maybe he thinks he’s homosexuality is “maladaptive” but what does that mean for a man who says these things? Sorry, I agree with VA. Our acceptance of him, no matter how hard he fights for us, will only end with the blurred acceptance of his homosexuality (the college “conservatives” will be the first to embrace it).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well said. I haven’t read a much that Milo himself has written, but your point about his language and behavior being an implicit celebration of his homosexuality is very much on target.

      Given that you also brought up Jack Donovan, I wonder how you also regard Greg Johnson at Counter Currents? I’ve read some good things there, but he, too, is an open homosexual. I’ve seen a fair amount of back-and-forth at other sites regarding their suitability to be spokesmen for the Alt-Right, but don’t believe I’m in any position to comment.


  4. Thanks Nick. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me but I appreciate the kind words.
    I haven’t read what Milo writes but it sound pretty raw to me and as Christians (at least those of us on this thread are) we are not to take in that kind of thing. To the world, that makes us old-fashioned or prudish or judgmental but we’re supposed to reject this aspect of ‘the world’.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s