A people ‘in good shape’?

Alain de Benoist quote

I think Alain de Benoist is right about what constitutes a people ‘in good shape.’ Number one on his list of criteria describes much of what my blog focused on in its earlier days, but it seems much of America has become too cynical to look to our cultural and historical roots; much of the right has bought the Howard Zinn/NPR view of our culture and history, which is not just sad, but it is a huge blow to our sense of who we are — and it precludes Alain de Benoist’s number 2 criterion. How can we have a ‘will to destiny’ if there is no ‘we‘ anymore, or if there is not a ‘we’ worth preserving? We so divided by generation, by sex, by region, by religion, by ethnicity.

Lastly, Alain de Benoist is right on the money about how the left does not want to have an enemy — except for White people, specifically White, Christian, straight people, especially males. That enemy is the only enemy the deluded leftists/deracinated Whites/globalists want to recognize.

Another ‘Earth Day’ come and gone

EarthDay1990.jpg

Earth Day, 1990, as described by a contemporary news article. Actually I was there that day, in 1990, in Central Park. (Yes, I’ve admitted I was ‘liberal’ in the past, in my misguided younger days.) The article above sums up the hypocrisy of most ‘progressives’, in that it’s always ‘do as I say, not as I do.’ They give themselves a pass on ‘disrespecting Mother Earth’ by scattering literally tons of litter and garbage as they bemoan ‘harming’ the planet by our throwaway culture.

Earth Day in 2017 apparently featured their ‘March for Science’, which I understand was an occasion to focus on ‘climate change denialists’, and to proselytize for their ‘Climate Apocalypse Cult’, as someone in the dissident-right  blogosphere (accurately) calls it.

But speaking of denialists, where is the progressives’ devotion to holy Science when people like Nobel-winning scientist James Watson say things they don’t like? When it comes to matters of HBD and race/ethnicity, ‘progressives’ simply silence those who speak honestly about it. They like to pick and choose which ‘Science Truths’ they accept and which they will acknowledge.

Hypocrisy and double standards are always the order of the day for the left.

One little Earth Day factoid: one of the co-founders of Earth Day was (((Ira Einhorn.))) Some of you may remember him as the radical who killed his unfortunate girlfriend, whose body was found in a closet in Einhorn’s Philadelphia apartment. The news stories referred to his ‘composting’ her body. Maybe he was thus showing his respect for sound environmental principles. But true to form, the left denies that Einhorn was one of the founders of their sacred Earth Day. Don’t like a fact? Just “deny, deny, deny,” as Bill Clinton famously advised those caught in some wrongdoing.

Oh — and just for the record, (((Einhorn))) was not a ‘boomer’; he was born in 1940, so he was part of that ‘Silent Generation’ which produced people like (((Abbie Hoffman))), Tom Hayden, and many other lefty icons.

Easter being phased out?

Is Easter the next Christian holiday to be suppressed? CBN News reports that the major candy makers have taken the word ‘Easter’ off the packaging of the traditional Easter candies.

“Hershey’s, M&M’s, Lindor, Russell Stover, Dove, Rolo, and Twix have all produced Easter themed candy without mentioning the word on the front of their candy, according to a press release from the Liberty Counsel.

[…]”Earlier this month, Cadbury dropped the word “Easter” from the advertising of its annual “Cadbury Easter Egg Hunt”  in England.  As CBN News reported, the new “Cadbury’s Great British Egg Hunt” caused an uproar in the church and the government.”

Some Christians will say this is fine with them because Easter is really a ‘pagan’ holiday, or at least the secular aspects of it, such as Easter bunnies, eggs, and baby chicks are pagan fertility symbols. The same people would probably say they don’t believe in Christmas trees, Santa Claus, and all the modern trappings of Christmas. And truth be told, all these things are not Christian in any real sense, though they have traditionally been part of our celebrations.

Personally I am on the fence about this; I can see the viewpoint of those who say Christians should keep to the religious symbols and avoid the secular and pagan aspects. However I still object to the obvious ‘war’ on Christian holidays and the symbols thereof, even if some of our traditions date to the pre-Christian generations of our European ancestors. To let the secularists and the anti-Christians do this without any opposition or objections is capitulating to their agenda.

And the companies who are purging the name ‘Easter’ as well as other Christian holidays from their products and advertising should be made to feel the pain of losing their Christian customers’ business.  However so far it seems that most boycotts by Christians have proven somewhat ineffectual overall; the Christian faith is still losing out to corporate anti-Christian policies.

This kind of incident is also symptomatic of the corporate world’s disregard for their customers and their indifference to their customers’ satisfaction and goodwill. How many have noticed that most consumer products and services have declined markedly in quality?  I know I’m not the only one who perceives this change. Once upon a time (long ago), businesses supposedly believed in the old adage ‘the customer is always right.’ I doubt the businessmen really believed that, but reputable businesses tried to build good relationships with their clients and customers. Nowadays, if you are unhappy with a product or a service, you can complain, but complaints, no matter how politely and articulately they are made, are usually met with indifference at best, and with surly defiance at worst. Businesses generally let it be known that they are ‘sorry’ you are not happy, but that they ‘feel’ that their products and services are adequate, and if you believe otherwise, you are free to do business elsewhere.  ‘This is what we offer; take it or leave it. We’re satisfied that we are doing a good job” is the implicit message.

Most products, American-made or foreign-made, are shoddier, flimsier, less durable, and often uglier than those made a few decades ago. Foods are of much poorer quality, and I’ve heard this from many people.

There is a general breakdown of trust between businesses and their customers. Apathy if not downright hostility is all too common. This business of eliminating Christian symbols and names from products made purposely for a Christian market makes no sense whatsoever. But it’s to be expected, sad to say, in a society in which the traditional common culture and shared customs have almost disappeared.

 

‘Dear boomer-bashers’

At the Saboteur 365 blog, Paladin Justice re-posts and discusses a rather ugly meme directed at — who else? — baby boomers. Who composed this little ‘love letter’ to boomers is not clear, but it’s a good example of the kind of venom that is so routine on the rightward side of the Internet.

As my long-time readers know, I’ve made efforts in the past to counter this nasty rhetoric, based as it is on some kind of visceral resentment and animus. I’ve posted actual data based on polls and surveys,  and argued based also on historical facts. Yet it seems a waste of time and effort on my part; this blog is too obscure to make any headway. Or my point-of-view is out of step with the postmodern zeitgeist.

Obviously much of the young right shares with their leftist age-cohort the unwillingness — or is it inability? — to consider facts and reality, preferring instead to respond by ‘la-la-la, I can’t hear you‘ and by continuing the barrage of name-calling. Example: calling baby-boomers ‘retarded.’ Such wit; such repartee!

Yes, I know it’s only rhetoric, immature though it is; surely these people know that standardized test scores have declined steadily since the boomers were in school, as I suspect IQ scores have. Certainly boomers got a better education, having had to learn actual history, geography, spelling, grammar, and maths — before the educational system was politically corrected and dumbed down. But that’s irrelevant; boomers are ‘retarded‘ because the “younger” people say so. So there. Nothing to do with facts or actual intelligence levels.

What response can I offer, or do I let this childish tantrum-throwing go unchallenged? Personally I hate lies; I’m surfeited with lies in this age of falsehoods. We should all hate lies.

But it would really require a book to refute even some of the falsehoods and canards that are spread around the Internet. One person cannot do an adequate job. I have noticed that fellow blogger ‘dfordoom‘ does a valiant job of trying to answer these bashers, for instance, on a recent thread at Sailer’s blog, where the accusations against boomers cropped up. If I could easily find that thread and ‘dfordoom’s comment, I would quote it, but I can’t locate it.

As best I can recall, he answered that boomers were not old enough to have ‘fought for” for the ‘civil rights’ movement, desegregation, etc., as the linked meme falsely asserts. Boomers (as Paladin Justice could confirm) were mostly still in school when these things were well on their way to being accomplished fact. The ‘Greatest Generation’ were largely in charge in those days. Just how could an age group who were teenagers or elementary-age children be held accountable? Thus anybody who blames boomers for those events shows their woeful ignorance of history. In this day and age of the Internet, there’s no excuse for that. Yet these historically illiterate statements just go on and on.

Multiculturalism? The 1965 Immigration Act (the Hart-Celler Act) ensured that the demographics of this country were to become more non-white. Boomers were not involved in that. Teens and children do not pass laws in Congress or ‘fight for’ racial integration.

For the record, once again, boomers did not account for a large percentage of people in high political office until the 90s, when the Clintons rose to power in 1992. And at 43 or so, Bill Clinton was a mere boy compared to most of the politically powerful then. Congress was still dominated mostly by older people, as was the Supreme Court and much of the media.

I could go on, but I am sure this is all in vain, as the postmodernists who make up the younger generation are mostly uninterested in the truth, and focus on ‘feelings’, whether they are left or right-wing. The boomer-bashers are making up ‘history’ to rationalize their gut-level resentment and loathing of their elders. They do not have facts on their side — but that doesn’t matter to them, apparently.

I’ve often said to those who cheer for the impending deaths of their hated elders, (as illustrated in that meme wishing elderly boomers to be at the ‘tender mercies’ of “all those diversities”) that they need only wait for the demise of the old folks they despise; boomers are already dying.

And by the way, millennials oddly idolized David Bowie, who was a counterculture boomer, as well as Alan Rickman, likewise of that age group. Illogical, huh? If I’m not mistaken, another recently deceased boomer icon was Prince, a ‘late boomer.’

Yes, boomers are dying off — most real-life boomers being decent people who lived responsible lives, worked, and brought up families, and I expect these callow critics to celebrate their passing by mockery and sneering — and cheering, like that displayed in these memes. Those memes are a testament to how unfeeling our society, once Christian, has become. They reflect a hard-heartedness and callousness that would shock our grandparents and great-grandparents. Am I really alone in this feeling?

To mock the dishonest conventions of Political Correctness is one thing;  to repudiate all the euphemisms and willful denials of racial realities is brave and heroic, even,  in our age of lies. But wishing suffering (at the hands of ”all those diversities”) on our helpless elders is not brave or heroic or admirable; it’s petty, cold-hearted, and cowardly, directed as it is at people who are ailing and weak. That sentiment is something that is ‘not very White’ of those who harbor such animus. If that sentiment is the majority feeling, maybe our folk don’t deserve to continue as a people; maybe we should capitulate to the ‘diversity’ where fellow-feeling is an aberration. Maybe we are already becoming like those who were once subject to us. They’ve assimilated us, if we’ve lost our ‘hearts of flesh.’

No, Whites were not savages who abandoned our dying elders on ice floes or in the desert, though it seems that practice suddenly appeals to some of ‘us’ in this age of decline.

(For those who are not familiar with the older idioms, it used to be a compliment to a White man to say ”that’s mighty White of you,” or ‘You’re a real White man”, meaning someone who was honorable and decent.  Maybe the idiom has died out not just because of PC but because few people merit the compliment now.)

But let’s suppose hating boomers for their coarsening of the culture is justifiable — even though most boomers were not part of that debasing process. But suppose we decide all boomers are culpable. Then by all means, repudiate them and all they stood for. Show integrity; be honest and reject all that the worst of the boomers stood for, including the ‘sexual revolution’ and the plague of obscene language and deviancy.

But that’s not going to happen. Why? Because the critics paradoxically ‘hate the sinner and love the sin.

And it will go on; it seems there’s no stopping this trend, not even after the last boomer is six feet under, I suspect.

A glimpse into the millennial mind

As seen on Tumblr:

millennials

For those not up on lefty millennial jargon, ‘terf’ is an acronym for ‘Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist’, in plain English, a ‘radical feminist’ (is there any other  kind these days?) who does not accept ‘trans women’ as women.

I suppose you could say the ‘terf’ (who is being disinvited from following the Tumblr blogger who posted the above) still has some kind of tenuous grasp on what is called reality. No realists welcome in the lefty fold; it seems that’s a basic tenet of leftism in the millennial universe.

Then there was this gem from last November:

millennials 2016-11-23_025425

It appears that they didn’t do their job of ‘educating’ the wayward older generation, as their side didn’t succeed in electing Hillary — or even getting Bernie past the primaries.

But did ‘we’ win, after all, or did they? Time will tell. As I say, ‘they’ are winning the cultural/societal battles, handily. It’s about so much more than politics.

 

Celebrities and ‘change agents’

The recent death of another rock ‘legend’ is still being lamented on social media sites like Tumblr, even though most of the people there are not old enough to remember the latest deceased rocker.

He had something in common with other such rock celebrities who died during the last year or so: he was a rebel against conventional sexual morality. His criminal record, however,  is mostly swept under the rug in recent years, even before his death. And articles like that linked just above, from the ‘History’ channel, seem to downplay the seriousness of the allegations and to minimize Berry’s culpability. The racial aspect of it is highlighted by mentioning that an ”all-White jury” convicted him (of course Whitey is prejudiced and willing to convict a black man at every possible occasion) and the article defends him by saying his intentions were strictly honest and honorable. He ‘offered legitimate employment in his St. Louis nightclub‘ — but to a 14-year-old girl? Maybe she was ‘precocious’ as some euphemistically put it, but in what state can a 14-year-old legally work in a night club? And the laws were more strictly enforced in 1959.

This article from NPR’s website unabashedly blames the Mann Act itself, stating that it was expressly written to be used against people like black boxer Jack Johnson with his White (white?) mistress. The article also implies that the Mann Act was a response to what the biased writers call ‘hysteria’ over what was called ‘white slavery’, or the abduction of young women into prostitution in the early 20th century. The writers imply that many such women were not forced into that life, but were simply ‘sexually active young women’ whom society wished to punish for their ‘sexual freedom.’

The NPR writers attempt to revise history, implying that the attempt to curb prostitution was based on “hysteria.” In the last couple of years, I’ve read a great many books from older eras, books actually written then, not written by (post)modern writers and their tainted point of view, and yes, there was an ‘industry’ if you can call it that involving trapping young women, many of whom were rather sheltered and naive in those days, into a life of prostitution. ‘Inexperienced’ girls were most in demand and drew high prices. There were interstate rings of what would now be called ‘human trafficking’.  Hence the need for the Mann Act. Most of the reports indicated Jewish domination of these rings. Transporting of these girls extended across national borders too, with many girls and women sent across the Pacific to China and elsewhere, where Christian workers found many of them being held literally in cages or cells, disease-ridden and sometimes dying, after having been sold into that life. It is not fantasy or ‘hysteria.’

Now our jaded age thinks that such things are just a matter of personal choice; I’ve had many younger people tell me that prostitution is ‘just another job, a way to make good money’, and as Madonna famously said back in the 80s, ”It’s not exploitation if I’m in charge of it myself.” So prostitution can be ’empowering’ for feminists.

Madonna is another prime example of a celebrity who is serving the function of a ‘change agent’ by altering people’s ideas of what is acceptable, and by helping to subvert traditional morality. Some people, maybe most people, today say that sexual morality is up to the individual; whatever people choose, and/or do in private, has nothing to do with anyone else. But it does. We are social beings. Nobody exists in a vacuum. The consequences of people’s private behavior often affect society, not just the invididual(s) involved.

Celebrities of course have a much-amplified power to affect others’ choices, especially young and gullible people.

People like Madonna, and the recently-deceased David Bowie and Prince — and in his time, Chuck Berry, have had more influence than many like to think.

Michael Jackson, too, with his ‘androgynous’ persona desensitized us to certain behaviors. And celebrity alone enables such people to get away with much, as his story illustrated. People tend, these days, to have almost limitless capacity to overlook aberrant or downright immoral behavior from those that are called ‘talented’ or ‘geniuses’. Society theoretically condemns pedophilia but oddly it can be overlooked if the acccused is a popular public figure. Please notice, at the first link on this page, from a blog which is not at all PC, that the commenters, can only praise Berry.

In 1959, people were not so flexible in their morality and not so forgiving.

In time, though, it seems that Berry has been forgiven. If one wants to be forgiven of anything, it appears, the answer is to be ‘talented and famous.’

Meanwhile society suffers the consequences.

Foretold in 1932

Towardssovietamerica -Money quote - towardsovietamer00fostrich_0315

 

Towarssovietamerica - money quote 2 - towardsovietamer00fostrich_0316a

The above is from a book by Communist Party USA Chairman William Z. Foster. The book was titled Towards Soviet America, published in 1932. The writer goes on to describe what the Communist Party planned for America, and for the most part the predictions came true. The feminist movement was part of the agenda, along with the ‘sexual revolution’ which supposedly would ‘free’ women, and allow them a less inhibited sex life, while on the racial front, Foster said that all laws against interracial marriage would be abolished, with racial amalgamation being the goal. Overthrowing traditional attitudes took a few decades to accomplish from the time Foster wrote this book, but they did succeed in making interrracial unions legal. Likewise with their destruction of traditional sexual morality, and they succeeded probably beyond their wildest imaginations there.

However, either Foster was lying or just inaccurate in his predictions about other matters, as when he says that the media will be ‘taken over by the government’ (well, that was probably accomplished as the media appear to be an arm of the leftist establishment) but he further says that the media would then be ‘cleansed of their present trash of sex, crime, sensationalism, and general babbitry‘. On the contrary, the leftist triumph has meant ever more ‘trash of sex, crime, and sensationalism’; they revel in this kind of thing. They have sold it as ‘liberation’ and the ultimate freedom.

Foster seems not to have mentioned one of the fruits of the ‘sexual revolution’, namely the ‘gay rights’ agenda. Did Foster and his generation foresee this part of their plan, or was it just an inevitable result of their destruction of traditional Christian morality and their enshrining ‘personal freedom’ and individual autonomy as a great good?

 

Sham altruism

Those who can feel righteous indignation only about things that directly affect them may have some moral deficiency in their character, and it seems that such deficiencies are more common in our postmodern, narcissistic culture.

On the other hand, I’ve commented here that there is something bizarre and unnatural, not to say phony, about the left’s tendency to get outraged about some wrong that they perceive happening to people in far-off lands, or to their minority clientele/mascots. They have this maddening habit, these lefties, of taking offense on behalf of others who haven’t themselves complained of being offended. Example: the ongoing protests of athletic teams with names like ‘Braves’ or ‘Indians’. Polls have shown that many American Indians (‘Native Americans’, in PC-speak) say they find nothing offensive in such names; some even say the names have a positive connotation to them — yet leftist Whites and other minorities often show outrage on behalf of American Indians. Can’t the supposedly offended speak for themselves? Aren’t the lefties being condescending and paternalistic by claiming to be offended for them? The same thing happens when say, White Republicans set up a howl about how the Democrats ‘keep black people on the plantation’ or ‘liberals destroyed the black family/black community.’ I suspect those complaints originated in the minds of politically correct White people, not from black people themselves. I don’t think most black people would bite the (liberal) hand that feeds them, and provides ‘programs’ for them, programs that are the main source of income for many minorities.

On the Reason.com website, there is a piece about this kind of vicarious moral outrage on the part of the ‘social justice’ crowd.

“When people publicly rage about perceived injustices that don’t affect them personally, we tend to assume this expression is rooted in altruism—a “disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.” But new research suggests that professing such third-party concern—what social scientists refer to as “moral outrage”—is often a function of self-interest, wielded to assuage feelings of personal culpability for societal harms or reinforce (to the self and others) one’s own status as a Very Good Person.”

Two professors, Rothschild and Keefer, conducted studies which, to sum up, shows a definite self-serving aspect to this phenomenon — which is just what I would think. We give these meddling lefties far too much credit to ascribe ‘altruism’ to them.

“Ultimately, the results of Rothschild and Keefer’s five studies were “consistent with recent research showing that outgroup-directed moral outrage can be elicited in response to perceived threats to the ingroup’s moral status,” write the authors. The findings also suggest that “outrage driven by moral identity concerns serves to compensate for the threat of personal or collective immorality” and the cognitive dissonance that it might elicit, and expose a “link between guilt and self-serving expressions of outrage that reflect a kind of ‘moral hypocrisy,’ or at least a non-moral form of anger with a moral facade.”

It’s a veneer of morality and solicitousness but the motivation behind it is to present a moral pose, a front to the world, and to claim the moral high ground.

Don’t let’s be fooled by it.

H/T to commenter ‘Anonymous’ at Steve Sailer’s blog for the link.

Whose agenda is being served

The controversy around Milo continues to grow, and it looks as though the ‘right’, whoever that term includes at any given moment, is becoming more polarized around it. Some are saying that ‘the left’ is causing the division, and maybe the leftists are exacerbating it, as that serves their interest. So is the answer to just dig in our heels and defend Milo et al , in knee-jerk fashion, just because the left attacks him? Maybe they are trying to use simple reverse psychology to get the younger right-wing to rush to Milo’s defense, and in so doing ultimately legitimize the presence of flagrant homosexuality and even (through association) with alleged pedophilia. I mean, how can anyone on the right credibly reject pedophilia and pretend that Milo is not in any way associated with it? It destroys all credibility on this issue on the right. The left would like the right to shut up about ‘Pizzagate’ and yes, they would also like to lower the age of consent and decriminalize certain taboo behaviors. It would suit them fine if the right began to go soft on all these issues — which it seems is the direction the younger ‘right’ is heading.

Whose agenda is being helped by this defense of Milo? What is also happening is that anyone on the right, whether through religious/moral scruples or other concerns, criticizing Milo is being branded a ‘concern troll’ or a Bible-thumping fogey. Either way these defenders are sounding more and more like lefties every day, both in their socially libertarian mores and in their tendency to call names and hurl ad hominems at those who differ with them. There will either be no place for Biblically-faithful Christians on the new right, or the Christians who are not driven away will succumb to peer pressure and go along with this new-found ‘right-wing’ tolerance. Either way, this is not a ‘win’ for our side; the left will win ultimately, as they’ve done so far, with their insidious tactics.

And does the presence of Milo, even as an ‘outside ally’ benefit ethnonationalism or the pro-White cause? Championing a half-Jewish and pro-miscegenist personality helps the racially-aware right how, again? If anything it undermines the side.

‘Desensitize, jam, and convert’

The phrase above describes the strategy outlined by a pair of ‘gay’ activists back in 1988. These two activists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, co-wrote a book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s.

As of the 1990s, I think we could safely say their goal was pretty much realized. Think back to the late 1980s, those of you whose memories extend back that far: America’s ”fear and hatred”, or at least suspicion or disdain, of homosexuals was mostly neutralized by the 90s, with more and more people saying that ‘whatever people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, between consenting adults, is nobody else’s business.’ Or they became sympathetic to gays because of AIDS. Or else they believed the media propaganda that homosexuals were persecuted, bashed, even killed, just because of their (supposedly) inborn sexual orientation.

Just as the activist/writers Hunter and Madsen suggested, the media played a huge part in the growing acceptance of the homosexual ‘lifestyle’; TV series and movies featured more and more sympathetic gay and lesbian characters, and portrayed anyone who objected to this change as a narrow-minded, hateful fanatic.

According to marketing expert Paul E. Rondeau of Regent University, the plan was to “force acceptance of homosexual culture into the mainstream, to silence opposition, and ultimately to convert American society.” In Rondeau’s words, from his book Selling Homosexuality to America:

The extensive three-stage strategy to Desensitize, Jam and Convert the American public is reminiscent of George Orwell’s premise of goodthink and badthink in “1984.”

I’d say they mostly succeeded. Up until quite recently, though, there has been a core of resistance to gay acceptance, and that core was made up of the few remaining conservative Christians, along with a few others on the ‘old right’. There is also a considerable generational divide, with each new generation becoming more accepting of homosexuality. The millennials are the most pro-homosexual of all the generations.

This seems to account in some part for the lionizing of Milo Yiannopoulos, and the bizarre decision by the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to make him the keynote speaker at their upcoming conference. [Note: I now see that Milo has been ‘disinvited’, following the release of some Milo tapes in which pedophilia is spoken of favorably. But the substance of my comments are still relevant, re: Milo’s role.]

Twenty, or even ten years ago, it would have been unthinkable to present as keynote speaker at a conservative conference a flamboyantly homosexual figure, notorious for his outrageous persona and the lewd content of his videos and self-publicity. He makes it known that he is pro-miscegenation, (his preference for black male ‘company’) which makes it doubly baffling why supposedly pro-White ethnonationalists are among his most ardent defenders. In addition, Milo is half-Jewish (his Greek surname confuses the issue) while those who are part of his following are supposedly ‘Jew-wise.’ Makes no sense.

Oh, I’ve heard the usual arguments: his ‘gayness’ supposedly insulates him from the usual insults from the left; how can they attack someone of a victim group, especially since he actually prefers men ‘of color’? The fact is, though, that he is being attacked just as fiercely from the left, so he is not insulated or immune to the usual assaults.

The fact that the younger dissident right loves Milo is understandable when one considers that this is the ‘South Park’ generation, a generation which is, after all, just as post-modern and libertine in their ‘thinking’ as are the predominant lefties in the same age group. They are of one mind, left and right, on social and cultural issues except for race and nation, perhaps. And granted, those things are of paramount importance now, as they are being used to destroy the West, and Whites in particular.

So is Milo an ally with whom we should make common cause because he is an effective weapon against the left? Or is he being used, whether he knows it or not, as a battering ram with which to allow the gay cause to get a foothold within the right?

We can look at the FReepers as an example: many on the dissident right would call FReepers either ‘cuckservatives’ or ‘normies’, yet look at how they defend Milo here, and welcome his ‘joining’ our side. This post, for example:

So glad to see so much support for an ally on this thread.Beware though, the “Milo is a sodomite!” crowd will show up soon and start trolling.’

So, traditional rightists and Christians will now be considered’trolls’ and ultimately, if this trend continues, will be unwelcome, while the Milos and whoever follows him as the next ‘conservative gay’ are embraced wholeheartedly. Voila, both major parties will be gay-friendly, and pursue pro-gay policies as the ‘homophobic’ old guard will be shown the door.

This is a case in point as to how the left has succeeded in pulling both parties to the left, and how they have met with only feeble and dwindling opposition to their cultural Marxist agenda over the years. It illustrates the ‘long march through the institutions.’

It also calls to mind the familiar list of Communist goals, as outlined in the book The Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen. Just to jog your memory, goals # 25 and #26:

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

The right may think they are just being pragmatic and ‘using’ people like Milo to slap the left in the face, but the right should beware lest they end up being used and manipulated.