Milo and Anglin: The Scylla and Charybdis of the Alt Right

There has been much written on the subject of the dangers or boons of Milo Yiannopoulos and Andrew Anglin to the Alt Right. I would rather we avoid them as much as possible and will explain why; but firstly, I will give a quick run down of the perceived positives and defences of the two that I have heard mentioned by other Alt Right commenters.

We'll start with Milo:

1. He is a stepping stone for normies to hop over to the Alt Right.

2. Related to the first point, his popularity in the media and on university websites means his function as a stepping stone greatens his importance.

3. He has never said himself he is part of the Alt Right and is therefore harmless to the movement, while providing the benefits listed above.

4. People will automatically recognise he is not part of the Alt Right by his perverse behaviour and so he cannot harm the movement, while again providing the benefits listed above.

5. He has helped to expose the lunacy and moral bankruptcy of feminism.

 

And now for Anglin:

1. We should never punch to the right; it's exactly what cuckservatives do and you end up drifting left.

2. Like Milo, he is mentioned in the media and so gets us attention from normies.

3. The Daily Stormer is just satire like The Right Stuff; he doesn't really mean the more extreme things he says. His website is semi-ironic, which attracts many young people.

4. He exposes the unhealthy Jewish influence on society.

 

I do not believe Milo will ever serve as a stepping stone to move people across to our position, simply because he is not right wing at all and does not espouse right wing ideas. Milo is as leftist as they come - not as extremist as a social justice warrior, but of the left nonetheless. Milo has always stated he is for equality. Equality as a moral good is one of the great foundational pillars of the left that the Alt Right has sought to demolish. Furthermore, in his "Dangerous Faggot" speeches and in interviews, he has stated quite catagorically that the Alt Right stands for equality. This is a deliberate lie.

 

Milo is as familiar with honesty as he is with a woman's lady parts. He holds the typical Jewish position in that he describes himself as a Zionist, yet states that the West is based not on race, but on ideas. In other words, he sees Israel as an ethno-state, yet White Occidental countries as proposition states. The double standard is as breathtaking as his statement that the Alt Right is not about race. If there is one single principle the Alt Right is about, it is racial separation for Whites and our right to self-determination.

 

Given his dishonesty about the Alt Right, he is hardly going to act as a stepping stone. Far from it, he is going to continue his role in misleading the masses and making sure they do not arrive at our position. Although he has never said he is part of the Alt Right, when interviewed by the BBC, he would not deny it when addressed as a spokesman for the Alt Right. It is a role I believe he will be pushed into as the acceptable face of the Alt Right. The Alt Right will be represented by a part-Jewish homosexual with a penchant for Negroes and the real Alt Right will be rebranded, as ever, as evil Nazis.

 

In an interview of Greg Johnson of Counter Currents, Vox Day argued that if Milo didn't exist, Hillarity Clinterus would never have made her speech on the Alt Right. That is simply not true. Hillarity's speech was borne of the fact that Donald Trump had used and paraphrased Alt Right memes in his speeches and talks. Milo, aside from once being part of Breitbart and hating feminists, was never in the picture. On the feminist question, it is no secret that on the political left, male homosexuals (including trannies) and feminists are currently at war with each other, which explains why Milo's rhetoric on feminism (((echoes))) ours:

 

"I no longer have privilege as a gay man. Did you know that?"

 

In the aftermath of Hillarity's speech, the media seemed obsessed with building up three particular characters as leading lights in the Alt Right - even though they had previously had nothing to do with the movement. Mentioning the likes of Milo, Alex Jones and Andrew Anglin was again deliberately disingenuous and another attempt to mislead the general public about what the Alt Right is and represents.

 

The three aforementioned characters - for acted characters they are - were identified and used in the speech for their respective extremity: Anglin for his Jollywood Nazi caricature, Jones for his crazy conspiracy theorist from the lunatic fringe, and Milo for his post-modern Charles Hawtrey impression. In all cases, the idea is to make the Alt Right look like a movement no sane person would want to associate with.

 

Anglin's Jollywood Nazi caricature is creating precisely the stereotype in reality Jollywood has created in fiction. Then the Jews can just sit back and say, "See, we were right all along." There is a reason Jollywood creates the caricature time and again, film after film, and it is not because the public are sympathetic to it - quite the opposite. Personally, I am not a National Socialist, but create this caricature in real life and you betray decent principled National Socialists.

 

The propaganda can also be used to further demonise the hard work of revisionist historians. It is difficult enough to get the masses to disbelieve the disinformation about gas chambers in concentration camps when real-life Nazi caricatures are goose-stepping around screaming, "Gas the kikes!" You cannot have it both ways, either you are on the side of revisionist historians, or you are on the side of Anglin.

 

People have said that I just don't get it, that I am too blind or too stupid to realise he is being ironic. I know the difference very well: The Right Stuff's Daily Shoah is both ironic and funny; Anglin is neither. In a recent podcast for Mysterium Fasces, Anglin stated in all seriousness: "I think the Alt Right should mean neo-Nazi. I'm a neo-Nazi and white supremacist." Note that well: not a National Socialist, but a neo-Nazi, the stuff of Jollywood.

Certainly, young people will choose Anglin over the crusty old revisionists. He is brash and flashy. He is much like Milo. He is also just as insincere. Wikileaks released a video last year of him with his Philippina "jailbait girlfriend" (his own description), which he tried to suppress. You can see the video here:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=53b_1426403408

On Stormfront, Anglin claimed that the video was taken back in the mid-2000s when he was unenlightened, but this is not so. The poster in the Human clothes shop he passes is for the BlackHuman collection, which was first launched in autumn 2011, so that is the earliest he could have been there. He has lied. 

 

He also certainly has a problem with white women, declaring on his Daily Stormer website, "your worst enemy is not Jews, White Man, but your own females." In another article he adds, "Establishing a psychological framework of viewing and treating women like children will help you in your dealings with women." He has also been supportive of non-White sex predator Roosh V.

 

But there is more: in 2012, the same year he set up the Total Fascism website, Anglin said in an interview with Paul Ironshore: "You see the way white people - and it is white people - went around the whole world, the whole world they went around, and fucked everybody...." The way he says the words "white people" displays all his hatred for Whites. But don't just take my word for it, listen for yourselves:

 

We have seen his like before. The elders among us will remember the case of Anthony Pierpont, co-founder of Panzerfaust Records, who simultaneously pushed both skinhead rock and class-A drugs onto Whites. He was discovered to have been partly of Mexican blood and a sex-tourist to Thailand, where he indulged in the local ladyboys.

 

Again, when anyone questioned his actions, his motives or his race, he had an army of fans to exonerate him. He now deals in property instead of drugs, which seems to be where criminals always end up. Of his life as a white supreeemist, he states, "Boy, this sure is more fun than hanging out with a bunch of white trash hypocrites and alcoholic internet activists."

 

The parallels between Anglin and Pierpont are astonishing, right down to the racial questionability. Is Anglin fully white? I suspect, from watching the video, he is at least a quarter Asian himself. But according to Anglin, anyone questioning his race is a homosexual. Milo is of course openly both Jewish and homosexual. Both personalities push people to the extremes one way or another. There is nothing wrong with taking an extreme position as humour, as it often attracts intelligent people; but do it in all seriousness and you will alienate those same intelligent people and be left with a rabble. This is what the political Left has found (witness the rise of the SJW) and what will also happen to the political Right if we do not guard against it.

 

Perhaps I am wrong about Anglin - I hope so, and perhaps he really did go from being an anti-White SJW to being a hard-core neo-Nazi in just a couple of months; but I am not wrong about his methods. "Gas the kikes" is simply not going to go down well with Joe Public - and we ought to remember that we are trying to win Joe Public over. That is not to say we do not address the Jewish question; we certainly must. Yet we have to expose and offer solutions for the Jewish threat in ways that are either sensible and realistic or else humorous. The two cannot gel though.

 

If our aim is to remain a marginal group, then we head off down Stormer Alley, but we will find it is a blind alley. On the other side, aligning ourselves with Milo because he has said a few negative things about feminists will lead us down Cuckservative Road. We know where that leads. We are making great strides on the Alt Right. Let's not ruin it.