Milo Yiannopoulos is as ubiquitous as he is annoying and perhaps all the more annoying in his ubiquitousness. Yet for some reason, he seems to be fawned over by many in the Alt Right, hence his ubiquitousness. Of course, to anyone who truly knows what Rightist values are, Milo is certainly not Rightist at all. He is a Whig, a liberal laissez-faire defender of corporate interests. He promotes mixed-race relationships, relationships to him in any case being all about stuffing as many large objects into his anal cavity as possible. He is of course himself mixed-race, which has led to psychological complex after complex, compounded by the fact that part of his racial heritage is Jewish, which always seems to bring with it its own peculiar collection of complexes. Like a spoilt child, he will say anything to shock, and many of his autobiographical stories are at the very least extremely embellished. Yet in this day and age, it seems he is to be held up as some sort of hero of the Right, which says a lot about these times and the people in them. For if this is a hero, how debased is the common man?
As I have said before, my personal opinion regarding homosexuality is if it is kept out of the public eye, then I don't care. There are people whom I've met whom I knew were homosexual. They didn't mention it; I didn't mention it, and we got along just fine. Milo certainly loves to mention it at every given opportunity and is therefore nausiating. The late, great comedian Kenneth Williams was Milo's complete opposite. Everyone knew he was homosexual: his mannerisms and overall campness gave him away. It was part of the comedy, but not in a crude and vulgar way like Milo's attempts at humour - which mostly relies upon teenagerish shock value for the 'OMG generation'. In contrast, Kenneth never mentioned his sexuality, except in private diaries that were plundered for tawdry documentaries and biopics after his death. It would appear, in any case, that he remained celibate his entire life and did not die of an AIDS-related illness.
The question has never been posed as to whether the diaries are really reflective of his personality or whether he just wrote whenever he was unhappy or frustrated, as some writers do. The BBC certainly turned him into a caricature of a repressed homosexual in their biopic of him, Fantabulosa, in which he was portrayed by Leftist actor Martin Sheen, currently in a relationship with the obnoxious (((Sarah Silverman))). The BBC most certainly had a vendetta against him, for Williams had unashamedly Rightist opinions and was even rumoured to have attended a National Front demo.
My opinion is that Fantabulosa was revenge for Kenneth's outspokenness against Michael Parkinson's sickly Leftist whining in an interview in 1973, in which Parkinson found himself tied in knots by someone far more intelligent and cultured and the sacred cow of equality was slaughtered. Parkinson, a Yorkshireman I would love to kick up hill and down dale all day long, is here reduced to the vacuous, "Can I say I think that's crap?!" and finally ending the debate in stuttering defeat by turning to Poet Laureate John Betjeman: "Sir John, could you have a calm word, because Ken and I are getting rather excited?"
Not to be defeated after a single round, a debate was organised and broadcast between Williams and Communist union leader Jimmy Reid, who later joined the Scottish National Party, which shows just how left wing they are. Michael Parkinson was again the host, which meant, of course, that the debate was biased from the very start, given Parky's own outspoken politics. Then there is the audience. This was ostensibly made up of people who wrote in to participate and field questions to Williams and Reid, and one notices that the general public of 1973 find Reid's Marxism abhorent. So what the BBC did was to plant Leftists into the audience for Parkinson to go to. This is exposed because one such member of the audience, David Hart, was honest enough to admit that he did not write in, but was invited by the BBC (see video below at 42:00).
The obvious plant is Diana Pierce though, whose alleged personal cicumstances are used to make Williams' assertions about natural inherent difference seem evil, when in fact, they bring in a strawman argument about the unfairness of society. Parky goes to her time and again. When Williams gives the example of a child with brain damage never being able to achieve the same level as a normal child, suddenly Parky informs us that Mrs Pierce has a brain-damaged child and she gives a wonderfully pre-scripted emotive monologue:
I want Nicholas to reach for the stars, and possibly this never will be, perhaps he'll only be a little boy who picks daisies, but I want him to be the very best daisy picker that there ever was.
Oh, the tricks the BBC pull. Nevertheless, Williams came through triumphant and also showed Rightist positions to be both practical and compassionate. Williams' position is the correct one: everyone has the right to the basic prerequisites for life, but for anything more, one must struggle to become better, and this is what separates a True Rightist from a National Socialist, who would covet power and luxury without merit. For the National Socialist, the struggle ends with the creation of a White European Ethnostate; for the True Rightist, this is a prerequisite to achieve greater things. This is why the National Socialist struggle after (and even before) achievement of the Ethnostate descends into purity spiralling. And I know National Socialists will tell me it is not so, but I see their comments on social media every day.
Kenneth Williams will always be remembered as one of Britain's comedy greats, but it is often forgotten that he was an exceptionally intelligent and cultivated man who largely educated himself through, as he says during the debate, the use of Britain's free public libraries, art galleries and public concerts. It is a lesson to anyone aspiring to achieve greater things. He often came under fire from Mary Whitehouse, the founder of the National Viewers and Listeners' Association, a pretty powerful lobby group concerned about the decline in standards on TV. Yet Kenneth Williams' brand of humour is that of the postcards one finds at the seaside, that, even further back, of Geoffrey Chaucer: bawdy and firmly British. Whitehouse could have been a great force for good, had she not been such a Puritanical Christian fundamentalist and had she realised that she and Williams ought to have been on the same side. Finally, fans of Milo ought to look at Williams and see not only how far away they are from being right wing, but how far Milo is from being intelligent and witty. It is a reminder of how far we have yet to climb, but Williams' example reminds us that True Rightist thought makes that climb possible.
One thing that should strike home with any viewer of that interview with Kenneth is the clear level of education and intelligence and the class that he shows. Now compare and contrast with any modern celebrity interview shows. A reminder of how far things have fallen and how much dumber the average audience is that TV producers would not expect the audience to be able to cope with TV like that. Kenneth and others of his calibre also show an acceptance of his sexuality was around then without constant violence and the power of the law needed, as long as it was private and not promoted as the right way to do things for all, as it now seems to be in schools.
I also get the feeling from your article and that interview (and sometimes other material of that period) that the assault was well under way with some desperate defenders of sanity able to see above the crowd and the cliff ahead we were being marched towards. Some were defending against it but all too many were meekly obeying and following, even if inside it all seemed wrong to them. The nature of the majority to obey has always been there and is probably a healthy thing that allows societies to form, but how to balance that nature with the need for the elites or aristocrats to be healthy and sane and have the best in mind for those masses? It seems that we now obey the elites to the point of pulling the trigger of the gun at our own heads. Some of the stuff I've heard of written into law at that time and even earlier is shocking in its bulldozing of tradition and liberty, but does give hints as to this all being no mere accident, happy or otherwise and that certain elements have long since desired this deconstruction of all things European and to see us sink and have had long plans to do so. The average person has no concept of things beyond a few years or at most their own lifetime. Elites raised within certain tribes or subgroups look to their grandsons and their great grandsons or longer sitting on the thrones. If your people relied upon being the shifting parasitical elites of societies all over then it makes sense you'd get very good at doing this, even through natural selection alone.
I'm not sure on the NS to TR comparison as I can never be entirely sure on how NS would have worked out in the long term or without the threats on the border it had. It may have evolved and been a transitional form. Impending massive war on all sides and hostiles within and without trying to tear it apart for rejecting the path laid out after WW1 makes it difficult to know what it could have been. A love of and return to nature for the people under NS seems to have been a key part of it in the long term plans from what I've seen in NS theory and a notion of it evolving over time seems to be embedded within it at that level, after their people were secured from impending hostiles. So much of the history we rely on has been handled and altered by certain groups to their own ends to the point where we have absurd parodies now thrown up on TV or film screens that are so beyond the truth that even their own forged histories don't agree with it. At best we know how NS coped with a really bad hand and heavy infiltration to start with and a constant war and war build up footing. There's also the heavily hinted at aspects of infiltration even within that movement to corrupt it where possible. But it is a risky path and possible dead end for the modern right to obsess too much over that movement and its period in history, apart from taking any sound lessons that history and the mistakes of the past can teach. It was a movement very much for that dire situation, time and place. Other new ones will have to be made for now and the future.
I've heard this 'possible evolution of NS' argument many times now and to me it just sounds like the 'we've never had real communism' argument of the Left. And I've noticed that the people who embrace NS tend to have started on the Far Left. And one can see why, because NS is a mixture of the Radical Right tainted with aspects of the Extreme Left.
I may write a full article on what is wrong with NS, but the main points are that it was specific to one particular ethnic group of Whites, was created to deal with problems at a specific point in time, had to use state oppression and spying on the populace at large, replaced the family with the state (especially with the Lebensborn project) and, like communism, wished to create a totally conformist mass.
That would be worth a read. It's not like the mainstream can be expected or trusted to educate people on these differences or matters. Everything outside of a very narrow band of mainstream is all the same to them. Larping as historical NS or Hollywood ones is a dead end, of course.
The short story A Squire's Trial addresses some of these points, including the use of systems and tools for a time that you might not prefer, in a good manner for those of us who aren't as experienced to have heard all the points before now. I am far from an expert but my impression was that these measures were essentially a treatment for an ill patient, rather than the lifestyle they'd hope for the patient forevermore. This would apply especially to the generations born free of the taint of the current era. Having generations that were basically mentally ill and badly educated and under huge threat meant you couldn't release them into the wild right away and expect it to work out. It does seem stress that the historical NS was of its time and a flawed implementation of what they saw as the true overarching concept behind it. If it was possible for you to include mention and thoughts of it explicitly or it's concepts in your article and how you feel about it that would be useful.
"I am far from an expert but my impression was that these measures were essentially a treatment for an ill patient, rather than the lifestyle they'd hope for the patient forevermore. This would apply especially to the generations born free of the taint of the current era."
I'd like to see some concrete evidence for that. Impressions have to come from somewhere.
The Russell Davies who edited the Kenneth Williams Diaries is not the same as Russell T Davies who produced the new Doctor who. I'm sure of this because he was often interviewed on tv.
One thing that should strike home with any viewer of that interview with Kenneth is the clear level of education and intelligence and the class that he shows. Now compare and contrast with any modern celebrity interview shows. A reminder of how far things have fallen and how much dumber the average audience is that TV producers would not expect the audience to be able to cope with TV like that. Kenneth and others of his calibre also show an acceptance of his sexuality was around then without constant violence and the power of the law needed, as long as it was private and not promoted as the right way to do things for all, as it now seems to be in schools.
ReplyDeleteI also get the feeling from your article and that interview (and sometimes other material of that period) that the assault was well under way with some desperate defenders of sanity able to see above the crowd and the cliff ahead we were being marched towards. Some were defending against it but all too many were meekly obeying and following, even if inside it all seemed wrong to them. The nature of the majority to obey has always been there and is probably a healthy thing that allows societies to form, but how to balance that nature with the need for the elites or aristocrats to be healthy and sane and have the best in mind for those masses? It seems that we now obey the elites to the point of pulling the trigger of the gun at our own heads. Some of the stuff I've heard of written into law at that time and even earlier is shocking in its bulldozing of tradition and liberty, but does give hints as to this all being no mere accident, happy or otherwise and that certain elements have long since desired this deconstruction of all things European and to see us sink and have had long plans to do so. The average person has no concept of things beyond a few years or at most their own lifetime. Elites raised within certain tribes or subgroups look to their grandsons and their great grandsons or longer sitting on the thrones. If your people relied upon being the shifting parasitical elites of societies all over then it makes sense you'd get very good at doing this, even through natural selection alone.
I'm not sure on the NS to TR comparison as I can never be entirely sure on how NS would have worked out in the long term or without the threats on the border it had. It may have evolved and been a transitional form. Impending massive war on all sides and hostiles within and without trying to tear it apart for rejecting the path laid out after WW1 makes it difficult to know what it could have been. A love of and return to nature for the people under NS seems to have been a key part of it in the long term plans from what I've seen in NS theory and a notion of it evolving over time seems to be embedded within it at that level, after their people were secured from impending hostiles. So much of the history we rely on has been handled and altered by certain groups to their own ends to the point where we have absurd parodies now thrown up on TV or film screens that are so beyond the truth that even their own forged histories don't agree with it. At best we know how NS coped with a really bad hand and heavy infiltration to start with and a constant war and war build up footing. There's also the heavily hinted at aspects of infiltration even within that movement to corrupt it where possible. But it is a risky path and possible dead end for the modern right to obsess too much over that movement and its period in history, apart from taking any sound lessons that history and the mistakes of the past can teach. It was a movement very much for that dire situation, time and place. Other new ones will have to be made for now and the future.
I've heard this 'possible evolution of NS' argument many times now and to me it just sounds like the 'we've never had real communism' argument of the Left. And I've noticed that the people who embrace NS tend to have started on the Far Left. And one can see why, because NS is a mixture of the Radical Right tainted with aspects of the Extreme Left.
DeleteI may write a full article on what is wrong with NS, but the main points are that it was specific to one particular ethnic group of Whites, was created to deal with problems at a specific point in time, had to use state oppression and spying on the populace at large, replaced the family with the state (especially with the Lebensborn project) and, like communism, wished to create a totally conformist mass.
That would be worth a read. It's not like the mainstream can be expected or trusted to educate people on these differences or matters. Everything outside of a very narrow band of mainstream is all the same to them. Larping as historical NS or Hollywood ones is a dead end, of course.
DeleteThe short story A Squire's Trial addresses some of these points, including the use of systems and tools for a time that you might not prefer, in a good manner for those of us who aren't as experienced to have heard all the points before now. I am far from an expert but my impression was that these measures were essentially a treatment for an ill patient, rather than the lifestyle they'd hope for the patient forevermore. This would apply especially to the generations born free of the taint of the current era. Having generations that were basically mentally ill and badly educated and under huge threat meant you couldn't release them into the wild right away and expect it to work out. It does seem stress that the historical NS was of its time and a flawed implementation of what they saw as the true overarching concept behind it. If it was possible for you to include mention and thoughts of it explicitly or it's concepts in your article and how you feel about it that would be useful.
"I am far from an expert but my impression was that these measures were essentially a treatment for an ill patient, rather than the lifestyle they'd hope for the patient forevermore. This would apply especially to the generations born free of the taint of the current era."
DeleteI'd like to see some concrete evidence for that. Impressions have to come from somewhere.
The Russell Davies who edited the Kenneth Williams Diaries is not the same as Russell T Davies who produced the new Doctor who. I'm sure of this because he was often interviewed on tv.
ReplyDeleteThank you for that information. Amended.
Delete