Free speech advocate Milo Yiannopoulos has told his followers to be “deeply suspicious” of anyone who “gives a shit” about skin color, sexuality, and gender. His comments somewhat resemble past ones he has made, but this time he appears to have been responding to media criticisms that he is a racist, misogynist, and Islamophobe. To maintain his celebrity profile, Return Of Kings believes that Milo Yiannopoulos is meticulously toning down his rhetoric.
“White pride, white nationalism, white supremacy isn’t the way to go,” he continued. “The way to go is reminding them and yourselves that you should be aspiring to values and to ideas.”
“You should be focusing on what unites people and not what drives them apart,” MILO concluded. “You shouldn’t give a shit about skin color, a shit about sexuality… You shouldn’t give a shit about gender, and you should be deeply suspicious of the people who do.”
SJWs have expressed their fury at book publisher Simon & Schuster for backing Milo’s new book and paying him a considerable advance. Having not won the election and with stunts like the “women’s marches” failing, leftist extremists are becoming more and more rabid.
In his recent address, Milo paid special attention to white nationalist and white identity platforms, saying that they are not solutions for America’s current political and social malaise. Remember that Roosh has fought a running battle with white supremacists who despise his Iranian and, to a lesser extent, Armenian parentage. Return Of Kings regards Milo’s assessment of white separatist groups as a topic of discussion. That said, he should have noted the deep irony of every non-Western country being able to protect its native ethnic mix whilst America and other European-founded states are expected to let in anyone and everyone.
The Breitbart editor went on to say that the Trump era should be about people trying to “reclaim for America some reason, some logic, some common sense.” Return Of Kings hopes this is all just a tactical move by Milo, a strategy he has employed before. For example, to potentially avoid extra criticism about race issues, he often speaks about his preference for black boyfriends.
After all, Milo should know better than most that the modern political scene is plagued by a lack of reason, logic, and common sense. The ascent of Trump might been spectacular. This is still very different from us enjoying a tolerable, let alone beneficial political climate. That will take time and for the foreseeable future we face enemies whose modus operandi is not only to avoid reason, logic, and common sense, but to engage in its exact opposite: infantile emotions, anarchy, and destruction.
Where and why Milo got this wrong
There are two significant problems with Milo’s call for an end to identity politics. Firstly, emphasizing values in and of themselves has done next to nothing for conservatism and traditionalism. One can look back to Ronald Reagan and even further to Barry Goldwater and find a goldmine of laudable values (and policy objectives to go with them), from freedom and liberty to hard work and generally honoring the best elements of the past. Have these been translated into reality? The answer is a decisive no.
We have faith in Trump to change much of this, but values alone are clearly not enough. Though men like Reagan and Goldwater look like titans compared to today’s cuckservatives, their resort to values was naive. In the case of the former, it won him and George H. W. Bush twelve years in office, but those years are now a memory and did nothing to really arrest America’s profound social and economic problems.
A values-centric approach presupposes that one’s opponents are rational, reasonable human beings capable of being persuaded by appeals to unity and the best interests of society as a whole. On advocating for free speech, Milo has a superb record. But his own career so far is a testament to the intractability of his enemies’ outlooks and even their propensity for violence. There are currently hundreds of thousands of people who want his book banned, and many millions of apolitical types will not bother to lift a finger in support of his right to freedom of expression. As eloquent as Milo can be, identity-less values will not win him—or us—the day.
SJWs and their powerful, wealthy enablers may be a minority of the population, yet they exert disproportionate control over the media and can shame liberal and conservative politicians into oblivion if they don’t toe the official or acceptable line. This media bias was particularly evident during the Presidency of George W. Bush and will be during Trump’s, but it started decades before. The game is as much about power and resources as values. The magnetism and drive of Trump and those like him aside, our anti-SJW corner—and a very broad corner it is if Milo’s words are anything to go by—lacks the logistical power to compete on a number of levels.
Secondly, Milo’s distaste for identity politics ignores fundamental and real differences between the sexes, cultures, and, other demographic subsets. Ideals like “gender equality” have brought us to the deleterious state of affairs we experience today. No amount of explaining to feminists and others like them what equality should mean has averted the slide towards an outright preferencing of females in almost all aspects of modern life.
Plus, platitudes about equality fly in the face of what really happens when, for instance, the two sexes try and behave in the same way as one another. In the most telling manifestation of “equality,” Return Of Kings is replete with articles about the dire effects of sluttish behavior on females. Likewise, the marriage of women to the government instead of men, even when they are technically married to a male as well, has ruined the majority of families.
The most startling element of Milo’s seeming abandonment of identity politics is that it defies the history he claims to champion. Conservatism is supposedly a recognition of the wisdom of the past, but this past was constructed by men in a social context dominated by heterosexual families and societies based on ethnic nationalism. If Milo’s conservatism is based on values sans identity politics, it is a made-up philosophy.
Has the alt-right begun consuming itself?
Milo Yiannopoulos has previously praised the alt-right without wanting to be a member of it. Given Breitbart‘s heavy involvement with the ideology, we are very concerned that one of its editors would chastize identity politics, just after identity politics, especially in regards to disaffected men, had won Trump the 2016 Presidential election. In hindsight, winning the election was the easy part. Post-November 8, many within the alt-right or those aligned with it, including men like Mike Cernovich and Richard Spencer, have either turned on each other or been attacked by an erstwhile ally.
My own personal feeling is that Milo’s move is strategic and largely about his own fame and profile. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this, as his quest for recognition and the public spotlight has usually dovetailed nicely with promoting free speech and humorously attacking feminism. Regardless, Return Of Kings considers that Milo is making a blunder. Because of the outrage over his first book, he has given Simon & Schuster or any other publisher carte blanche to make him tone down his image for any subsequent books until he becomes part of the mainstream that he has previously attacked.
Most of all, Yiannopoulos is running the risk of biting the hand that feeds him: young men who might superficially disavow identity politics, but who really crave the essence of conservatism and traditionalism: male-dominated societies based on progress, nationalism (the height of non-destructive identity politics), patriarchy, and strong families.