“Signed, White America”

Another hate hoax, this one with a slight twist.

“CHARLOTTE, N.C. (WLOS) – Police arrested a man who is accused of arson, ethnic intimidation, and committing a hate crime at Central Market in Charlotte on Thursday.

Curtis Dwight Flournoy, 32, is charged with burning a building of trade, malicious damage by use of an incendiary material, felony breaking and entering, ethnic intimidation, and anonymous or threatening letters.

Police searched for the man seen in surveillance video leaving a racist note, breaking a window at the business, and then setting a fire.”

When I read this, and saw the name of the accused, Flournoy, I jumped to the conclusion that the man charged was of Huguenot French ancestry; there are a number of people with names that are known as Huguenot names in that part of the South. My conclusion was wrong, as you can see by the photo of the accused.

In any case, it’s a relief to see that this ‘hate crime’ was likely not done by a White, but note this part of the story: the threatening note concluded with the signature “Signed, White America.”

Even without a signature like that, the media always, always assume that it is some White ‘hater’, when all too often the ‘hate crime’ turns out to be a ‘hate hoax.’ This fact is almost always swept under the rug by the mendacious media; when the crime is found to be a hoax, (usually by the person claiming to be the ‘victim’) they carefully bury that story on the back page somewhere.

In this case, it was not the victim who was the hoaxer, but Flournoy, pretending he represented ‘White America.’

But ultimately that’s the case with most of these kinds of hoaxes; the purported victim usually fakes the ‘hate crime’ with scrawled threats, ‘symbols of hate’ (so-called), usually a noose or a swastika or other such incendiary symbol. The point of claiming to have been victimized by some anonymous ‘hater’ or ‘nazi’ or [something]-phobe is not just to draw attention as we often assume, but to further the all-important ‘narrative’. As actual ‘hate crimes’ by White ‘bigots’ are pretty rare, once we subtract the many fakes, we see why it’s necessary, if you must have a ‘hate crime’, to act it out oneself. Pretty pathetic. Just doing the ‘hate crimes’ White bigots won’t do. If you want something done right, gotta do it yourself, as they saying goes.

In this case, the signature reveals the motive was not necessarily as much for the sake of threatening or driving out the Bhutanese man, but to keep the ‘White hater’ narrative alive. I would say that the perpetrator was targeting ‘White America’ more than he was this store owner. Just my opinion.

 

‘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.

Are people easily swayed?

In the midst of the ongoing disaster in Europe, there’s been a lot of discussion of how Germany — which seems to be Ground Zero in the escalating war against Europeans — has become so self-abasing and unwilling to defend herself. ‘How could the Germans’, it’s often asked, ‘go from being a proud and racially conscious people to being self-flagellating, willing to commit national suicide?’

The consensus seems to be that gradually, over the years since WWII ended, the German people were ‘re-educated’ into believing that their past was shameful and evil, and that they had to atone perpetually for their history, especially during WWII. Slowly, between 1945 and now, they became a passive, PC-whipped people thanks to relentless chaming propaganda.

In light of that popular belief, it’s interesting and puzzling to look at this poll, which was taken in Germany in March, 1946. The poll is in a book titled ‘Public Opinion, 1935-46’, edited by Hadley Cantril, published by Princeton University Press, 1951. See the results below:

Germans on race 1946ab

I would have expected different results. It appears, assuming that the respondents gave honest replies, that even by 1946, not that long after the end of the War, that they held very liberal attitudes on race and intermarriage, views that we now call ‘politically correct.’ What does this say, I wonder? Are people’s opinions that shallow and fluid, that they could be reversed so quickly? Surely the globalist, Babelist propaganda merchants (who were at work even then) hadn’t had time to thoroughly change public opinion in Germany.

Incidentally, the book in question has many polls on various subjects, taken in various Western countries, and it’s fascinating — and depressing, at times — to see how different most people’s views were in that time period. I expect I will post more from these polls.

 

The opposite of political correctness?

At TakiMag, Theodore Dalrymple — I mean (((Theodore Dalrymple))) offers some good points and clever turns of phrase in discussing political correctness. He describes it as a form of mass hysteria — which it does seem to be.  Then there’s this: “…the politically correct speak power to truth.

However, I felt as one of the commenters on the article said: this piece is an example of ‘bait-and-switch.’ It goes from being a scathing piece about PC to bemoaning and lambasting the responses to PC. The examples of rightist ‘hate speech’ which he cites,  are pretty over-the-top.

Did he cherry-pick those extreme examples, or are they more common than I realize?

I wouldn’t deny that some of the comments, ostensibly by ‘right-wing’ commenters online, can be callous, ugly, and sometimes objectionable even to many of us on the right. For example, I’ve seen comments over the years recommending that certain people be ‘incinerated’. I’ve seen comments from those ostensibly on the right  expressing approval over the rape or murder of certain people. I found this appalling. But these comments about ‘incineration’, rape, and murder were not directed at the traditional protected groups according to the PC hierarchy: they were directed at White people — but White people who are among the ‘out-groups’ for some on the right. The ‘incineration’ comment, for example, was directed at fat people  — and it was posted on that hotbed of ‘extremism’, Free Republic, of all places. Now, it may be that the comment or comments were later deleted by mods there, after all, the mods used to ban even mild posts perceived as ‘anti-Hispanic’ in the days before most people were so incensed about illegal immigration. The comments approving of rape and/or murder — by immigrants, actually, were in reference to baby boomers — who, according to many on the young right, deserve such a fate. However it appears that Dalrymple’s outrage about the ‘vile’ comments he cites was an outrage on behalf of minority groups/nonwhites. So who’s being politically correct?

Dalrymple should know that the left engages in worse rhetoric, or at least rhetoric equally bad, in reference to Whites/Christians/heterosexuals. One example of anti-White hatred on another blog was a social media post — Facebook, I think — calling for White women to be caught and killed before they produced more White babies. What’s that law about ‘equal and opposite reactions?’

All that aside, no one on the comment thread seems to question the authenticity of some of the over-the-top bloodthirsty comments Dalrymple gives. Considering what we know of the left, of their duplicity and dirty tactics — and the fact that they are known to employ online operatives to provoke, to derail and disrupt, and to deceive and slander, could it not be that the worst of those comments were written by lefties in order to direct anger at the right? The comments seemed almost to border on parody or caricature.

Whether or not some of the extremist sentiments are justifiable or understandable, it does seem that it’s counterproductive, at the least, to indulge in that kind of rhetoric. I don’t recommend being mealy-mouthed or so genteel as to be feeble in our self-expression, I think there’s a way to express strong sentiments without going beyond certain limits. Adopting the tactics of the left only escalates this trend of abandoning all discretion.

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.

On psychology

Emil Cioran quote_Wrath of Gnon

It seems self-evident to me, but apparently not to many people, as the correlation between the decline of the West and the pervasive influence of the psychological establishment is seldom discussed. Christianity is blamed far more often, despite the fact that it has been a central part of Western culture for centuries, whereas psychology’s rise seems to coincide with the decline of our society, and also the subverting and weakening of Christianity.Coincidence?

The subject certainly deserves to be noticed and examined more widely.

[Quote from Wrath of Gnon]

‘Hinduphobia’

A Free Republic poster links to an article from a news source in India, reporting that Hindu activists in America are demanding an apology from CNN. CNN’s crime? Hinduphobia.

To thinking Americans, CNN is synonymous with left-wing, anti-White and pro-multicultural content, at which it outdoes just about all the other purveyors of ‘news’ and commentary. So it’s hard to imagine that they would be anti-Hindu.

And just what did CNN do that was ‘Hinduphobic’? They had a series called ‘Believer’, in which correspondent Reza Aslan focused on Hindu religious figures and practices. The article does not seem to mention this specifically, but I would guess that the Hindu activists objected to a depiction of a guru and his followers who were shown eating human brains. Reza Aslan, the CNN reporter, apparently also consumed some of this unappealing meal, under coercion, some said.

So is it ‘xenophobic’, or more specifically ‘Hinduphobic’ to be shocked or repelled by a spectacle like that? We will have become a jaded people for sure if we can no longer be horrified at the thought of cannibalism, much less by the sight of it.

CNN displayed very bad judgement in showing that clip, even if they had displayed a warning before any such ‘graphic’ scene. What could have been their purpose in showing it? I doubt very much that they wanted to stir up antipathy towards Hindus, as dedicated as they are to the ‘all cultures/races are equal’ dogma. So what motive was there in showing it?

CNN’s faithful audience are no doubt mostly of a like mind. So I doubt that they would react to these scenes with disgust or shock or ‘phobias’ toward Hindus. Many leftists are very familiar with the various manifestations of the Hindu religion and culture. There are pictures online of some sort of Hindu cult members eating charred human bodies they pulled out of the Ganges. So this kind of thing is not completely unknown.

Are the Hindu activists defending cannibalism in an oblique way, here, or do they just object to having anyone shine a spotlight on it? That is, are they blaming the messenger?

I doubt, though, that most Americans, hearing of this controversy, would respond by hating Hindus; in fact we have become a very jaded and tolerant people for the most part, hardly blinking at this kind of thing, whereas once upon a time, cannibalism and other such gruesome things evoked real shock and horror among civilized Westerners. But we are a post-Christian people, unfortunately, and Hollywood has helped to desensitize us to all sorts of once-unthinkable things.

And we do seem to have become, overall, very accepting of this diversity which has been thrust on us, as you can see from some of the Freepers’ comments about how they prefer Hindus to some varieties of ‘diversity.’ The usual line is that ‘at least they’re not Muslims’ or some variation of that. Every ethnicity, Hindus included, has its defenders and advocates among White Americans. But how many White Americans are willing to defend their own?

 

 

 

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.

‘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.