Print this post Print this post

Milo Yiannopoulos & “Allies of Color”

Milo1,710 words

Milo’s Profile of the Alternative Right

If you don’t already know of the provocative, homosexual Jew-turned-Catholic Milo Yiannopoulos—commonly referred to simply as Milo—you should check him out,[1] and if you haven’t read his recent co-authored “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right” on the (relatively) mainstream conservative website Breitbart, you should do so before continuing.

Despite its title, Milo’s profile of the Alt-Right is aimed at an anti-GOP establishment conservative audience (i.e. Breitbart readers, Trump supporters—those ripe for defection to the Alt-Right). For the critical reader, it is effectively a thinly veiled attempt to promote the Alt-Right. It is conspicuously framed in a way that convinces “normies” that the Alt-Right is not as scary as it seems, makes some good points, and is fun, funny, young, rebellious, and cool. The inevitable result of this is readers who don’t agree with us yet will start consuming our content; effectively desensitizing them to our taboo criticisms and getting them to enjoy and laugh with us at our irreverent memes. This often leads people along a path that eventually ends with them embracing our line of thinking.

I should remind any objectors that this has been the trajectory of many Millennials on the Alt-Right today: they started out by simply finding our explicitly racial, anti-feminist, and un-PC memes funny (but not taking them seriously), and as time and engagement with our memes progressed, they started seeing the legitimacy of our points and eventually embraced our ideas. This is not just some plausible theory. Anyone meeting and speaking to young people on the Alt-Right, myself included, can attest to this fact.

So after I first read Milo’s aforementioned profile of the Alt-Right, I was excited and enthusiastic to discuss it with my compatriots—and to send it to those I’m in the process of “red-pilling” (which I did with great success, I might add). Although most of my respected friends and contacts shared my opinions on it, I was disappointed and surprised (though perhaps I shouldn’t have been) to see a lot of irrational criticism from people identifying as Alt-Right and others from the racially conscious community (many of whom are on the White Nationalist fringe which RamZPaul calls the “14/88ers”, some of whom notably reject the Alt-Right as too soft on race, homosexuality, Jews and so on).

I find this apparent division on the topic in our community to be disconcerting, so I feel compelled to address the two main unfounded criticisms of Milo’s piece.

The first is that Milo is establishing himself as a leader of the Alt-Right, and this is proof the Alt-Right is being co-opted by Jews and homosexuals. There isn’t much to say about this criticism except that the idea that a gay Jew could ever be a leader of the Alt-Right is patently absurd. The Alt-Right is overwhelmingly aware of the Jewish Question and critical of Jewish influence and power. We are also pro-family, pro-natal, and uphold heterosexual norms. The Alt-Right is, by and large, critical of homosexuality, especially in its effeminate and flamboyant manifestations (like Milo) and even more so as a defining identity. So this criticism is unfounded and absurd, and such suggestions should be treated as such.

The second criticism—often connected to the first—is that Milo is co-opting the Alt-Right by saying we are not really serious about “racism,” “sexism,” “anti-Semitism,” and so on; that we are all just joking. Whatever else you might want to say about Milo Yiannopoulos, he isn’t stupid. There is no way he actually believes his statements to that effect. Even leftist writers from Vox are able to see through this obvious charade:

“Are they actually bigots? No more than death metal devotees in the 80s were actually Satanists,” he and Bokhari write. “Just as the kids of the 60s shocked their parents with promiscuity, long hair and rock’n’roll, so too do the alt-right’s young meme brigades shock older generations with outrageous caricatures, from the Jewish ‘Shlomo Shekelburg’ to ‘Remove Kebab,’ an internet in-joke about the Bosnian genocide.”

Setting aside the idea that anti-Semitic caricatures are hilarious, Yiannopoulos’s defense of the alt-right is just obviously untrue. Anyone who has ever read alt-right material can testify to their deadly seriousness. These people write multi-thousand-word treatises spelling out their ideas and grievances with mainstream conservatism.

Yiannopoulos and Bokhari’s piece even admits this (one of the many ways it internally contradicts itself, as is quite common in Milo’s writing). “The alt-right is too sophisticated to be mistaken for a mindless knee-jerk reaction,” they write. “Some enjoy violating social norms for shock value, while others take a more intellectual approach, but all oppose the pieties and hypocrisies of the current consensus — from both Left and Right — in some form or another.”

Here Yiannopoulos essentially admits that the alt-right is chock-full of genuine racists, anti-Semites, sexists, etc. — but says it doesn’t matter because they’re tweaking the leftists.

As argued before, his argument is conspicuously framed in such a way as to convince “normies” that the Alt-Right is not as scary as it seems. In other words, he’s contributing to the rightward shift in the Overton Window. This profile is clearly opening an explicit rightward pathway from more mainstream anti-conservative establishment gathering points like Breitbart to the Alternative Right.

Milo and “Allies of Color”

It should be stated in no uncertain terms that Milo is not one of us and never can be. So how are we supposed to treat a flamboyantly homosexual Jew like Milo, who is nevertheless contributing to our cause?

I believe we should view and treat Milo as an “ally of color,”[2] so to speak—someone who is not one of us, but an ally of sorts by right of his net contributions to our movement outweighing the harm he may cause us.

One might object here and question whether Milo has really contributed enough to warrant “ally of color” status, so allow me to qualify him.

Whatever Milo Yiannopoulos’s true motivations or disagreements he may have with us—both of which I think are irrelevant, much like my attitude towards whatever Trump actually believes—he is someone in a unique position to get away with politically incorrect statements in the mainstream. As an overtly gay man of Jewish descent, his criticisms fly in the face of and weaken leftist narratives. It is a particularly infuriating thing for defenders of political correctness to deal with, since he is a financially and commercially successful entrepreneur with an impressive social media following and is the technology editor for a large conservative website. He is a relatively high profile individual and they can’t deal with him as they would normally deal with us. And Milo has done more than simply troll SJWs and co-author a single positive profile of the Alt-Right. He also wrote the Foreword to Vox Day’s highly recommended and useful book, SJWs Always Lie, and regularly criticizes and attacks our enemies in flamboyant, scathing, attention-grabbing, and often hilarious ways on Twitter and in YouTube videos, TV interviews, podcasts, speeches, reports, and essays.

Not only is Milo a sort of Internet celebrity that openly promotes the Alt-Right, but in January 2016 he also co-founded the Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant, “a scholarship exclusively available to white men who wish to pursue their post-secondary education on equal footing with their female, queer and ethnic minority classmates.” Milo’s grant originally planned to disburse fifty $2,500 grants in the 2016–17 school year, one hundred the following year, and two hundred the year after that, but according to a YouTube Livestream fundraising appeal on April 3, 2016, the grant raised more than expected and now plans on providing one hundred grants in the first year instead of the original fifty. In the same video Milo states that in addition to the $25,000 plus money for administrative and legal fees he has already contributed, he will match an additional $25,000 in money raised for the grant. According to a report on the grant by William Bigelow on Breitbart:

Beyond the practical application of offering needy students the financial wherewithal to attend college, the grant will also heavily focus on the network created between prospective students and their mentors, and among students with other students. The founders of the grant plan to do advocacy work or release policy or research papers based on the results of the grant.

Ironically, assuming the grant realizes its plans, I think it’s safe to assert that Milo Yiannopoulos has probably contributed more than many explicit, pro-White advocates. So yes, I think Milo more than qualifies as an ally of color.

“Ally of color” status does not mean someone is beyond criticism. When an ally of color does something or produces content that aids our cause, we should encourage them, giving them the appropriate positive reinforcement. Likewise, if an ally of color does something or produces content that detracts from or harms our movement, we should criticize them, providing them with negative reinforcement proportionate to their transgression.

Reinforcement should be employed intelligently, thoughtfully, and strategically, though. It’s important to strive for perspective and see the bigger picture. Donald Trump’s disavowal of David Duke and White Nationalism is a good example. Although Trump is not an “ally of color,” he can be treated in the same way for the purpose of this illustration. He might not be one of us politically, but he is still doing us a lot of good by attacking political correctness and voicing a number of ideas that help our cause. So should we provide Trump with negative reinforcement when he disavows David Duke, White Nationalism, and the like?

No! Someone with perspective should be intelligent enough to realize that if he did not disavow us, it would cripple his ability to positively influence the political and cultural environment that has been pushing the Overton Window to and energizing the right.

In short, Alternative Rightists (including the racially conscious community, Identitarians, and functional White Nationalists) need to take a more strategic approach to dealing with allies of color such as Milo Yiannopoulos.


1. Milo’s Wikipedia page. This explanation and profile of Milo at Vox is also worth reading.

2. In case it is removed, Richard Spencer and Nathan Damigo’s podcast “Allies of Color” is mirrored here.

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Anonymus Chronicler
    Posted June 6, 2016 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    There are obviously “allies of colour”. Please goolge Nicolae Steinhardt, a half-Jew from Romania who was an active volk-ist intellectual between the 2 World Wars. There were also other, full Jews supporting the largely anti-Jewish National-Christian (incl. Legionnaire) movement. In the brief period whe the National-Legionnnaire state became a reality sadly almost all of these Jews were shall we say inconvenienced (persecuted? perhaps too strong a word…) by the new regime. When the military dictatorship supported by Hitler overthrew the far more Hitler-supportive Legionnaire regime (this was done for military purposes), many Legionnaires and a significant number of volk-ist intellectuals were arrested by Gen. Antonescu’s government, including some Jews active in such circles. Gen. Antonescu used the Legionnaires essentially as cannon fodder but most of our historians record that they generally fought very bravely for our country against the USSR.

    And here’s the interesting bit. When the USSR won and imposed its communist regime, the commies sent to the local gulags every intellectual they could find, right wing or not and any elite essentially the country had – anyone associated with any of the previous regimes. Nicolae Steinhardt was asked to rat on friends and acquaintances of his (some of whom were Legionnaires, some of whom were only volk-ist in a general sense) and he did not. In fact he categorically refused. I’m reminded of this stanza: “Wenn alle untreu werden, so bleiben wir doch treu”. So he was arrested and conicted of being a “Legionnaire” himself. In the stalinist prison, he converted to Orthodox Christianity and after being released much later on he became a monk. He wrote a very influential book who’s helped very much in bringing people to the Church (though Romania is a very religious country to begin with) and which also indirectly imparts volkist ideas without being obvious. We have many such intellectuals from the interbellum period. He is one of our many Solzhenitsyn-s.

    This is what a “Jewish ally” looks like. Perhaps also check out the work of one Russian Jew Israel Shamir. He attacks the Jewish question head on though we might disagree with his rather non-biological approach (perhaps too common for the Russian Eurasianist approach…). These are not Milo, and Milo isn’t them. Milo is a – what are they called? – “cultural libertarian”, who has seen a temporary benefit in benefiting us. And, indeed, for the moment, he does benefit us. A temporary alliance of convenience, nothing more. The fact that he openly and vociferously promotes degeneracy is rather difficult for me to get over.

    • Anonymus Chronicler
      Posted June 6, 2016 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

      Just a quick note: when I speak of “Romanian intellectuals”, the vast majority of them are ethnic Romanians. THOSE ones were right-wing. Among Romanian-language Jewish intellectuals (who were/are a small minority of our intelligentsia as a whole) most were left only very few were to the right.

  2. Steven
    Posted April 16, 2016 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    Is there actually any evidence that Milo is half jewish? Yes he says he is but I have not been able to find any conclusive evidence on who is mother actually was.

    I would be very careful about believing anything Milo says. He is a narcissist and I say this not to attack him but because it is a fact. The guy loves and craves attention and it seems he’ll say anything to get it. Honest people are usually humble people since they do not care to make themselves appear more special than they actually are and will tell you the truth even if it’s unflattering or uninteresting.

    For instance he says he dad was greek but Yiannopoulous is not his real name. He was previously known as Milo Wagner which is a German last name but he claims he was born as Milo Hanrahan which is a distinctly Irish last name. Also he claims his father was Greek and Catholic but aren’t most Greeks Orthodox?

  3. Lew
    Posted April 10, 2016 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    This article boils down to that old saw self-censorship is good. There is a lot of evidence that isn’t true. So many Milo is no ally on that basis alone. A good example of a voice who is not one of us but still an ally is Pat Buchanan. If Milo were just a young, degenerate version of Pat Buchanan and no different in principle from Buchanan save matters of personal style, that would be one thing. He isn’t. The difference is that Pat Buchanan’s anti-PC writings predated the penetration of racialist ideas into the mainstream. Buchanan didn’t conveniently come along, with Jewish owners and editors behind him, after racialist ideas began penetrating the mainstream, to damn the ideas with faint praise. There is no reason in my view to think that milo and brietbart are up to anything good. They’re Jews. The gullible and foolish can believe what they want.

  4. Posted April 8, 2016 at 5:10 am | Permalink

    Mr. Paulson,

    Firstly, I’ve just posted a follow-up to my initial write-up of the Brietbart piece, and some of the elaboration relates to this discussion.

    As you know, your analysis is similar to what the mainstream analysis has been – on VICE, NRO, the VOX article you mention and probably a lot of other sites. They are arguing that Milo was whitewashing the movement for the purpose of promoting it. Coming from a supporter of the hardcore alt-right, however, this is naive in my view.

    For one thing, I didn’t mean to imply Milo himself would set himself up as THE LEADER. Though I see how it could have been taken that way. What I see him trying to do is play a public role in deciding what is and isn’t alt-right as he attempts to mainstream the movement. That a Jew could play such a role is not theoretical – Paul Gottfried has been doing this for a long time. The damage this one Jew has done is incalculable.

    By putting himself at the center of mainstream coverage of the alt-right, the Jew Milo could then decide who is promoted as a leader in the movement. He did this within his debut subversion piece. You have plenty of people who are willing to sell us out for celebrity.

    I can pretty well guarantee that the next step for him is going to be interviewing select members of the alt-right who he knows will go along with the narrative he’s presented – “it’s all a big joke, except the parts we agree with.” Some portion of the hardcore supporters of the movement will go along with this, thinking it will bring us into the mainstream, and then he can slowly replace our ranks with people who shout-down anyone talking about Jews.

    And let me just say this again: this is not theoretical. Gottfriend has already successfully done this, to the point where Kevin MacDonald will go on podcasts and agree not to say the word “Jew.” I recently heard MacDonald on a podcast which I won’t name where he and the host talked for five minutes about Robert Kagan and the word “Jew” was not said.

    It is very, very naive to think you are smarter than the Jews and you can invite them in, then play them in order to support your own agenda. These people have been doing what they do for a long time. They are good at it.

    You should also do the research on what Milo did to Gamergate. I’m sure you aren’t interested in that particular subculture, but it is extremely instructive if looking at his present tactical maneuver. I mentioned this in my article, but you didn’t mention it in yours. I cannot stress how important this is. It doesn’t make sense to argue that he purposefully Jewed GG but he’s coming to the alt-right to help it – even if you believe Jews ever do anything to help White people (your point about the grants is taken, but one such as I would counter that this was done to produce credibility, and ultimately required very little effort given that he already had celebrity status).

    Furthermore, you should look at the chatter which has come after the Breitbart piece. People are coming out of the woodwork with “new ideas” about how to “mainstream the movement” and these ideas are overwhelmingly stupid. A certain vlogger cited in Milo’s piece recently produced a ten minute presentation claiming that White countries shouldn’t be exclusively for White people and he knows this because he met a very intelligent woman in Eastern Europe who explained to him that Russians are actually secretly Mongoloids.

    Tolerating an endless stream of nonsensical gibberish because “oh, well, maybe it will make us more popular” strikes me as simply stupid. The core narrative cannot be altered or the whole thing falls apart.

    You are also assuming that the best way to appeal to the target mainstream audience is with a flamboyant homosexual, an argument which I am not able to follow at all. Clearly, the reason you think Milo’s appearance on the scene is useful is that he could draw in non-intellectuals. But the overwhelming majority of this demographic is going to be uncomfortable with a flaming homosexual who talks non-stop about sucking dick.

    Lastly, whether or not the masses of the real alt-right supports Milo’s endeavors is irrelevant, because he isn’t talking to us, he’s talking to millions of normie Breitbart readers, so I assume you view the negative aspect of my article that I may turn him off to the movement by attacking him*. If you are right, and this Jew just randomly wants to promote White interests out of the goodness of his heart (or for his career or for reasons of personal rebelliousness or whatever motivation you would ascribe to him), then my own published opinion is no more harmful to this than yours. Yes, I am plainly opposing him, while you are saying you will manipulate him into doing our work and then dispose of him. Presumably, your position is more offensive to him than mine.

    *Okay, you could also say that there could be a situation where Milo introduces people to the alt-right and they then go look at see people attacking Milo and this turns them off, but that seems like a stretch, especially when Milo is making a point to direct people toward individuals who have been friendly to him.

    Ultimately, either you’re right or I am, and it isn’t going to be long before we find out. I am predicting that Milo will pull in his followers and find willing dupes to pull from the existing movement and attempt to water-down the message, particularly removing the Jewish question, and also telling us that we don’t really want White countries, we just want some type of political and social representation as Whites and less non-White immigration – a situation which will still lead to extermination.

    I just want to add here that I’m open to having backchannels with any of you more respectable chaps. I know there is the impression among boomers that I am some type of skinhead madman, but this comes from an inability to understand youth humor and the overall goal of the site, which has nothing to do with my own particular aesthetic becoming the basis for a political platform. One would hope that at this point, given the popularity I’ve achieved, people would grasp that it was all part of the plan.

    I’m always open to constructive criticism, such as was presented here.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted April 8, 2016 at 8:29 am | Permalink

      I don’t really agree with this analysis for the following reasons.

      We can’t really choose the press coverage we get. And we can’t expect people in the press to be friendly or sympathetic with us, or to agree with us. Hell, if most of our “press” within the movement is negative, even though it comes from people who are basically on our side, what reason do we have to expect better from mainstream media people?

      Thus is strikes me as highly perverse and self-defeating to react with such fear and hostility when we actually get some mainstream coverage that does us some good. And I think that either by accident or by design, the Yiannopoulos-Bokhari article does us some good. By making the basic logic of ethnic politics understandable to conservatives, the article prepares their way toward conversion. And by presenting all the really “scary” people on the Alt-Right as either unserious or marginal, the article seeks to undo the atmosphere of taboo and moral panic that the establishment uses to keep people away from us. The article in question portrays the Alt-Right as a safe space for exploring an intelligent critique of mainstream conservatism. How does that harm us?

      But no, your reaction is to drive it away with pitchforks. I just don’t see this as constructive. Although you do point out that if Milo is really on our side, his secret is apparently safe with you, whereas Greg Paulson would expose his agenda to the world.

      I don’t think your fears of being co-opted or taken over are well-founded.

      Yes, there is always a battle against mainstreamers. Yes, the mainstreamers get really excited by articles like the one in question. Yes, they think that such coverage is evidence that we should keep going soft. But according to such people everything counts as evidence for going soft. But this is our problem, which we need to police internally. It is certainly not a reason for looking a gift horse in the mouth.

      My position is that we should both scourge the mainstreamers in our ranks mercilessly when they talk about jettisoning essential principles, and welcome the opportunities presented by mainstream coverage to get new eyes on our material. Don’t you think it is best that when a new crop of normies shows up at our sites that their first impression is not that we are paranoid, ungracious, and unapproachable?

      As for Paul Gottfried: he has been around the AmRen and now NPI/Radix wing of the movement for 25 years. During that period of time, Kevin MacDonald published his four path-breaking volumes on the Jewish question and started The Occidental Observer. During that same period, The Occidental Quarterly was founded, which has published MacDonald for years and is now under his editorship. Thus whatever occult power of suppressing discussion of the JQ that you suppose he wields, it clearly was not operative then. So what has changed? Has MacDonald stopped writing about the Jews? A quick look at TOO shows this is not the case. The only thing that has changed is that MacDonald’s theoretical work now focuses on whites. What has made us so susceptible to Jewish manipulation and takeover? Good questions that you think we would want to answer, in order to inoculate ourselves against Jewish subversion.

      Unfortunately, a couple of paranoid cranks, Tanstaafl of Age of Treason, and Raven Gatto, who is primarily a Facebook presence, have been promoting the truly nutty idea that MacDonald has now stopped blaming the Jews and is now blaming whites (as if both parties cannot play a role in the current mess), and that MacDonald’s shift in emphasis is due to the evil influences of people like Paul Gottfried, Colin Liddell, and little old me. These paranoid notions are carried into your discussion forum by memetic plague rats such as Cledun (a guy who bats 1000 in picking literally insane mentors), and I think your own thinking has been infected as well.

      Milo does not have the power to pick or promote leaders in the movement. Why? Because our movement does not consist entirely of people with such low self-worth and poor judgment that we allow the press and anti- groups like the SPLC and the ADL to choose our leaders. If this were true, Matt Heimbach, who aggressively courts the press and talks to the SPLC, would be a major leader. Richard Spencer has also gotten quite a lot of press in the last few years. But is he our leader? Not really. Part of the problem, of course, is just “crabs in a bucket” jealousy. But a bigger part of it is that White Nationalists, of all people, are the least likely to allow people in the mainstream media to pick our leaders.

      So let’s treat mainstream press coverage as a real opportunity not an imaginary threat.

      • FKA Max
        Posted April 8, 2016 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

        I agree with, Mr. Johnson.

        Andrew, you have achieved much with DS in terms of traffic, etc., but at the end of the day and in the long-term quality always beats/trumps quantity. Be proud of what you have achieved, but do not think might(trolling) or traffic makes right. Going by that logic Jews would be right, which is obviously not the case. Popularity is a slippery slope. Popularity is very high maintenance, as both you and Milo, and the Jews, are, I am sure, aware of.
        Just for full disclosure I have been a commenter on TOO as ”FKA Max”, and I usually try to avoid and do not like forum/site-hopping, but I felt this topic and issue too important to remain silent on. You are gifted, Andrew, but just like all of us you have weaknesses/blind spots. I think Mr. Johnson pointed some of these weaknesses/blind spots out to you in his reply, and I think it would serve you and DS well, to take some of his friendly and respectful advice and counsel to heart.
        All the very best to you, Andrew, and continued success and inspiration in your endeavors.

  5. Lokuum
    Posted April 7, 2016 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

    I see no reason to attack Milo. But I’m concerned about dependency. If we become dependent on the out-group, they will control us. Many Jews are in a position to help. Hell, they could make us mainstream over night! . . . then fish wrap the following Sunday.
    We have to do this on our own. And it’s a long process. And we’re still at the beginning. We are not ready.
    At this point, Milo doesn’t concern me. I’m more concerned about the enthusiasm over this day’s slight changing of the wind.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted April 8, 2016 at 7:37 am | Permalink

      How do you envision becoming dependent on a gentleman from the press? How do we lose agency by being the subject of news stories? If we are that weak, then we aren’t going to survive.

      • Lokuum
        Posted April 8, 2016 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

        I said, dependency on the out-group, not one “gentleman” in the media. And, yes, we are weak, very weak. As a group, freakishly weak.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted April 9, 2016 at 8:50 am | Permalink

          Sorry, but your fears on this strike me as irrational.

  6. mark
    Posted April 7, 2016 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    Aren’t leftist ‘useful idiots’ usually attention whore posers? Maybe this is the beginning of an influx of useful idiots for us. It would make sense since the Alt-Right is the new edgy ideology like communism before it.

  7. Ryan
    Posted April 7, 2016 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    If a movement allows outsiders to define it without being prepared to bite back when it is framed disingenuously then is that a movement/train of thought one of vitality & confidence or meek?

    I don’t see how this feeling to publicly reward people who give us attention but define us disingenuously need to be rewarded by some kind of agreement or ‘tolerance’.

    Clap clap, thank you Milo you brought us to the attention of your readers in a highly read conservative news site but this is our real stance and most importantly here are our reasons.

    If Milo is truly on our side then he will have no problem with people criticising him. If he is on our side he would know that such people are not anti-immigration because it is anti-PC but because we want to live around our own kind.

    Likewise we are not critical of jews because of being anti-PC but because of the disproportional involvement of these semites in stigmatising Europeans who want to live around their own kind.

  8. Facio
    Posted April 7, 2016 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    As long as you stick to the Alternative Right label, that’s fine. You can have Milo and all the “Allies of Color” you wish to include in your movement. Just don’t start calling yourselves the New Right, that name is reserved for the Real Whites..

    • Ragnvaldr
      Posted April 7, 2016 at 5:34 pm | Permalink


  9. Leon
    Posted April 7, 2016 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    After the article on Breitbart, I have to say that there is something to the criticisms of Yiannopoulos, and to the concern that he and his colleagues are trying to “co-opt” the Alt-Right. He repeatedly states in his article that Alt-Righters who post ‘racist’ or ‘antisemitic’ posts don’t really mean it, that they are just pretending to believe in these things. He even goes as far as to say that a true Alt-Righter has no problem with race-mixing, that only a ‘1488er’ should be bothered by that. What he’s doing is simultaneously validating this sort of leftist terminology -i.e. ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’ = evil, while at the same time channeling resentment of political correctness and anti-White discrimination into a safe cul de sac.

    Your response seems to this criticism is just that Yiannopoulos doesn’t believe what he wrote, which strikes me as a weak defense. Besides, his entire analysis of the Alt-Right seems to rest on this false taxonomy put forward by Jewish psychologist Jonathan Haidt which states that about half the population of the West is made up of ‘natural conservatives’, who desire stability and the status quo, and ‘natural liberals’, who are comfortable with diversity and radical social experimentation, and that principled Alt-Righters (who in his view are distinct from millenial memsters) belong to the first category. In the first place, as those on the Alt-Right know, there is absolutely nothing natural about modern liberalism. We’ve seen countless examples of how liberals who praise diversity the loudest tend to avoid it all costs in their own personal lives.

    More importantly however, anyone who is an Alt-Righter and a Millenial is, by definition, not a natural conservative. But this doesn’t mean (as Yiannopoulos implies) that we’re all nihilistic trolls who don’t believe in things we claim to support online. We simply believe in identity, tradition, and reality because these things happen to be good and true, and because we’ve seen first hand the damage that cultural marxism has wrought, and that radical egalitarianism doesn’t work. I’m a child of the 90s. For me, equalitarianism, multiculturalism, and political correctness are the past. The return to identity, tradition, and a brave new ethnonationalist world are the future. I don’t need people slowing things down by trying to reconcile the truth with politically correct bullshit.

    • Facio
      Posted April 7, 2016 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

      Milas is basically synthesizing the pro-Whites into something less dangerous to the establishment Jews and then take over through influence one can buy with money.. as this is what it seems to be happening.. . I would opine that indeed he’s trying to hijack the movement.. Historically, pro-Whites have tried to use our enemy’s agent to push our agenda and it never worked out well for us.. As the saying goes.. You’re not going to out Jew the Jew.. it’s better to keep them as far away from us as humanly possible..

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted April 8, 2016 at 7:32 am | Permalink

        How exactly is Milo Y’s writing a news story about the Alt-Right the prelude to a Jewish takeover? There are leaps of logic here that make you seem, frankly, like a paranoid. How, exactly, are you going to prevent people in the mainstream media from writing about us?

        • Leon
          Posted April 8, 2016 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

          I didn’t mean to imply that Yiannopoulos was staging any kind of ‘takeover’. That I agree would be paranoid. Here’s where my worry lies. In his article introducing people to the Alt-Right, Yiannopoulos sets up several faulty distinctions, namely between ‘1488ers’ and normal people who are OK with race-mixing and diverse societies, and don’t really mean it if they should ever suggest anything that might be viewed as ‘racist’ or ‘antisemetic’. What he is doing in my view -intentionally or not- is recreating the dynamics of political correctness within the alt-Right, with ‘1488er’ replacing words like ‘racist’. Therefore, if some frustrated White ‘natural conservative’ (for lack of a better term) comes to the alt-Right, he’ll be more likely to reject anything too un-PC as being the product of ‘1488er’ wackos, which means he wont go all the way to shedding mainstream anti-White values.

          Keep in mind, this is all coming from someone who has little time for neo-Nazi wannabes. But although at first Yiannopoulos’ description of ‘1488ers’ struck a chord for me, I worry about the consequences of this sort of labelling, as I explain above. I have to wonder then, if all this really does us more good than harm. Maybe we be better off if people came over despite media hostility, ready to reject political correctness en bloc? For these reasons, I think it is wrong for alt-Righters to consider Yiannopoulos an ‘ally’, and I think that all of our publications should treat him and his analysis with extreme suspicion.

  10. Dr ExCathedra
    Posted April 7, 2016 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    Don #1 makes a very good point. Milo is a bit like Trump, a permission-giving “gateway drug” to loosen the hold of the Cathedral/Synagogue on White minds, even though he himself is not on board with The Program. After all, to make use of the guy is not the same as canonizing him. Most people convert step by step, especially when the level of taboo is so high. He’s not my cup of tea, but he makes my enemies crazy and uncomfortable and opens up new possibilities for people who might otherwise not allow themselves to engage in CrimeThink. Not bad.

  11. Don
    Posted April 7, 2016 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    The only way to talk to our Cultural Marxism, Postmodern society, is to give a dose of it’s own medicine. Milo plays identity politics just like everyone else.

    “It just so happens I’m X, so I know what I’m talking about.”

    “I am the queer/proletariat that society hates. I can make society better.”

    “This is all for the greater good that all lives matter. Trust me, I want what you want, but I know better.”

    Like Donald Trump, it’s a way to play the game.

    White Nationalism tries to get away from the game of “professional” egalitarianism. Milo and Trump play the professional, but in hopes that something can turn around.

    The 2015 American Renaissance debate between the two teams of Peter Brimelow/John Derbyshire and Sam Dickson/Richard Spencer argued what was the right path to go. Dickson and Spencer’s new world order won.

    Maybe, we are in a historical period of a millennial awakening. Like Planet of the Apes, Taylor believes he is on another planet. He later denies that it is Earth. Finally, at the climatic end, it is Earth. Horrified and shocked.

    Millennials thought they were a protagonist to an epic novel. Then trolls came about. The snowflakes denied to hear the truth. Eventually, with Milo and about, they will all wake up. A sudden event will occur. A real coming-to-age.

    We are witnessing a change. A generational conflict. Growing-up. Old people dying out.

    The world we know as political-correctness, dishonest cubical farms, “Above-it-all” cocky elitism among our people, will come to an end.

  12. Joseph Curwen
    Posted April 7, 2016 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    We have to keep in mind the difference between “us” and “them”. This flamboyant character Milo is one of us? No, he is a jew and a effeminate homosexual. Is he working in securing the existence of our people and a future for white children? No, he is only making noise in the internet in order to attract attention.

    About the homosexual matter. Yes, not all homosexuals are against securing the existence of our people and a future for white children, there are exceptions like Donovan. However, if you ask those “good” homosexuals to choose between our cause and his “lifestyle” what will they choose?

    There is such thing as “allies of color”? No, by definition they are not us; ergo they are not fighting and will not fight for the white race. Yes, sometimes they can agree with one or two points of our agenda, but that does not mean they are allies. In the end they will fight for them, not for us.

    Looks like the alt-right has some unconscious need to please the enemy: “look at us, we have jews and homosexuals in there, see, we are not bad!!”

  13. John
    Posted April 7, 2016 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    Milo could be classified as a “vaccine”: an anti-body made from the anti-White disease that can be used to inoculate young Whites against Cancerous religion called Political Correctness. People like Milo are like bottled water – Drain every drop out of him to accomplish the goal and then cast aside the empty container. Survival is a ruthless business.

  14. Redking
    Posted April 7, 2016 at 8:19 am | Permalink

    I agree. Some of the criticism of Milo has been unhinged, but I would also extend that to criticism of Roosh. Yes, Roosh is indeed a kebab but he is not under attack by SJWs because he is a kebab or bangs white women (SJW find that laudable), but because he has explicitly defended western civilization. That many on the alt-right joined with the SJWs to attack Roosh is saddening and strategically flawed.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted April 7, 2016 at 8:48 am | Permalink

      I disagree. Roosh has no business sexually exploiting and — if he is to be believed — raping white women. If White Nationalists don’t get that, I question their priorities and commitment to white survival.

      • Redking
        Posted April 7, 2016 at 9:07 am | Permalink

        Roosh didn’t rape any white women and didn’t admit to doing so. What he has admitted to is drunken hookups that resulted in sex. Claiming that is rape is untenable which is why you bring up “sexual exploitation”, as if he is a corsair kidnapping these women rather than these white women doing because they want to do it. If you view sexual encounters of this kind as ‘sexual exploitation’ then you don’t understand half of humanity.

        If you really believe this go up to some white women burning the coal and explain to them that they are being sexually exploited. Do you really believe that these women are being sexually exploited?

        I can’t speak for you personally but there is a major issue in this movement in that there are an enormous amount of men that can’t seem to relate to women, and thus can’t get any women. Thus it is easy to view women wantonly burning coal as being innocent white flowers being ‘sexually exploited’ by black men. However this is an inversion – a lot of these women, perhaps most, deliberately seek out encounters of this kind.

        Now what is needed is to change the reality on the ground. Control of the media means that we could change all that. Coal burning could be made to be reprehensible and an offence that makes one a social outcast, etc.

        Right now you are on the level of ‘Roosh bad because kebab’ while giving comfort to our very deadly enemies.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted April 7, 2016 at 9:28 am | Permalink

          Patriarchy is premised on the assumption that women are not fully responsible agents and therefore need men to look out for their interests. The Man-O-Sphere pays lip service to this truth, but since it is really all about the sexual exploitation of women, Man-O-Sphereians absolve themselves of patriarchal responsibility and the guilt of being cads by adopting the premise that women are fully responsible for all the bad consequences of sexual freedom. Basically, you guys are just the mirror image of feminism, which is another movement that stands for maximizing self-indulgence and minimizing consequences (by offloading them on others). Roosh the Doosh is poison.

          • Redking
            Posted April 7, 2016 at 10:40 am | Permalink

            So your plan to get white women on board is to absolve white women that have sex with kebabs or coal by describing them as being ‘sexually exploited’? Sorry, that’s dumb.

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted April 7, 2016 at 10:52 am | Permalink

            Sorry, that’s a dumb straw man. I honestly don’t care about “getting women on board.” The primary focus should be creating a dynamic and effective movement, which means that we should be concerned with performance and quality, not sex ratios. The last thing we need are female narcissists whose only purpose in being here is to be adored as “a woman in the movement” as opposed to men and women who contribute value to the cause.

          • Redking
            Posted April 7, 2016 at 10:59 am | Permalink

            Well, I certainly agree with you on that point. On the other you should understand that Roosh is not under attack because he bangs white women – perhaps from this side, but not as far as the SJWs are concerned. If Roosh was really raping white women and said that white women deserved it because they have white privilege, do you think there would be an outcry? No, obviously no.

            The problem that SJWs have with Roosh is that he is defending western civilization, has mentioned favorably Kevin MacDonald, and so on. There no point linking hands with the likes of Anita Sarkeesian and affirming their falsehoods about Roosh being a rapist. You don’t need to defend Roosh but don’t make it easy for our enemies either – after all, if their tarbaby Roosh is gone it could be one of us next.

            The Roosh problem, as you perceive it will be resolved when the National Question is resolved. No point in seeking out enmity until then.

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted April 7, 2016 at 11:04 am | Permalink

            I am attacking Roosh because he bangs white women. I don’t care what the SJWs think. I don’t let my enemies pick my friends. I decide who is a friend and who is an enemy. Roosh is an enemy. There are lines you cannot cross, and he crosses them. How can we oppose Rotherham or Cologne and coddle Roosh? How can we stand in solidarity with Polish nationalists and defend the author of Bang Poland? You need to get serious about white survival. Roosh does not belong in white society. Let him write about Kevin MacDonald from Kebabistan.

          • Slav
            Posted April 9, 2016 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

            Im a polish-white nationalist, I don’t see how white knighting helps polish nationalists. Women are not children, they choose what race of men they date. But it’s never womens fault.

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted April 9, 2016 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

            Women are not children. Women are women. But women on the average do lack the agency and thus the responsibility of men. That means that men need to take responsibility for them. That is the whole foundation of patriarchy. Claiming that women are equal to men is feminism, whether your goal is feminism or simply to absolve men of any responsibility for women or guilt for mistreating them.

  15. c
    Posted April 7, 2016 at 4:21 am | Permalink

    Some good points. But surely there is reason for concern that such figures:
    -are caricatures who will flake or sell out when the fashion changes.
    -are using their ‘networking skills’/native talent for histrionics to establish themselves as popular voices, only to attempt to control, sabotage, fracture, misrepresent, or re-direct the movement at a later stage. This can be done without nominal ‘leadership’ but by the direction of funding and the control of the media presentation.
    -sincerely prefer Western European people and their polities and wish to contribute in their own way, but will default to the best interests of their family and friends as soon as the European people become any less ‘tolerant’ than they are now (i.e. tolerant to the point of breaking).

    The author rules out the second possibility. I do not, and I hope that I am excused for thinking it far from “absurd”.

  16. Ragnvaldr
    Posted April 7, 2016 at 1:39 am | Permalink

    Allies of color? That concept sounds incredibly Leftist to me.

    My Norse Germanic kinsmen are busy strengthening the folk soul, while the Americans are proposing it is wise to insinserely wave the subversive pink apologist flag.

    False brotherhood is a perversion of the Cultural Marxist. I suggest the author do some meditating on the concepts of honor and fidelity.

    • Shub-Niggurath
      Posted April 7, 2016 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

      If “allies of color” is too Leftist, I don’t know what signifier will suffice in getting the idea across that we can utilize the capacities of non-whites and even degenerates to propagandize and spread our infectious memes.

      Now we know all too well that the medium is the message, that the form of the message (a degenerate Jew) overrides the content in our contemporary media-saturated society. But that is why these are free floating subjects that we utilize and do not integrate. We do not create a “space” for race-mixing, for debauchery, or for effeminacy. We maintain our patriarchal WN core, and repel the ones we don’t want coming our way, while reaping the benefits of the ones we do want coming our way.

      • Ragnvaldr
        Posted April 8, 2016 at 12:21 am | Permalink

        Long ago before the Christian conversion of the Germanic peoples there were sacred grounds referred to as the Gard. Outsiders with peaceful intentions were allowed into the Gard. It was a tradition to name the area and keep the grounds clean.

        I do appreciate the sentiment of the article, in that it seems more productive to create an atmosphere of mutual respect with the utgard. Remembering Loki the trixter ruled his own realm of utgard. But the gods and goddesses still accepted Loki despite his errant ways….they were well aware of.

        Utgard used in the sense of those outside of the garden. Where inagard might describe those within.

        I think it laudable to attempt to develop some form of short hand to express the concept. Can’t really help there, but the idea is definitately rooted in cultural history and traditions. Along with purging or taunting those who fail to maintain sensible decorum.

        Having mutual respect does not necessarily make for allies. But it is something of value public discourse is often lacking today…

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4


    The Node


    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes


    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance


    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy


    The Path of Cinnabar


    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace


    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above