Within the last few years, self-proclaimed conservative and darling of every obnoxious classical liberal Milo Yiannopoulos has roared onto the scene in a burst of glitter and flair to defend masculinity against the evils of feminism. Well hold on, Chuckles. Just because you hate all the right people doesn’t mean you’re batting for the right team. The enemy of my enemy isn’t necessarily my friend.
The major flaw of every right wing movement with the exception of ROK is the same flaw of every left wing movement. They want to burn something down but have no plan on what to build it with.
Milo is only anti-feminist because today that’s the easiest way to get attention. Homosexuals are, almost by definition, attention whores – the lispy affectations and glaring fashion fails are a willful choice to stick a middle finger to normal America. Milo has a lot of good reasons for attacking feminism, but he just wants to replace it with a catty male chauvinism. Milo doesn’t love masculinity so much as he just hates women, hence him “marrying” another man.
Now, I’m not criticizing everything he’s said and done. There’s a lot I would agree with him on, and his “I’m Catholic. I know God loves me. Because even though God hates fags, he hates feminists more.” is one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard.
But let’s not make him our token gay conservathot. He’s just repeating what others have said better, only this time with gay sarcasm.
Milo and Ben Shapiro are the latest edition of Anne Coulters and Glenn Becks – a glorified comedian who has witty insults for your enemies but doesn’t have a philosophy to build upon. Comedy in politics, theology, or any kind of worldview should always be the icing, not the cake itself. Comedy is the sour cream on top of a baked potato. The tomato and vinegar sauce drizzled on a pork shoulder that has been hickory smoking for 24 hours. The mushrooms on the steak.
The Milos and Shapiros are the right wing version of Jon Stewart – except only mildly annoying instead of ruining-a-whole-generation annoying.
Milo isn’t exactly advocating for traditional sex roles. He doesn’t support chastity until marriage. He isn’t interested in creating a stable nuclear family to propogate his beliefs. He doesn’t have a philosophy about sexual intercourse except that it’s fun. His sense of fashion is ugly, loud, and fake. How is he any different from the feminists he claims to oppose?
“But what about Jack Donovan?”
I’d be lying if I said I didn’t love A Sky Without Eagles and bought copies for my friends. I’ve interacted with him a little on the internet, and he’s always been a very polite, open person. I don’t want to criticize him, because I really like most of what I’ve read from him, but people keep bringing him up as a special exception, and I feel like we need to be internally consistent.
Jack Donovan’s vision of masculinity is sterile. He says it’s about the tribe, but a tribe for him is just friends. The masculine for Donovan is defined almost entirely in reference to itself instead of to the feminine and posterity. You don’t get a sense in his writing that masculinity and femininity are designed to fit together as two pieces of a whole humanity.
Donovan rightly teaches that masculinity is about power, but for him there is no direction in which power should be applied. He admits this in “Train For Honor”. You can work on your muscles and sleep with a hundred women in a year and prove to everyone who was mean to you in high school that you aren’t a loser anymore, but then you’re still defining yourself by others’ standards. Why are you working on your muscles? Why are you obsessing on your notch count? Is there something you’re trying to create, or do you just want to look good on Facebook?
The philosophy of Donovan doesn’t build society. It builds a a neo-Viking meadhall in the woods of Virginia that sounds totally awesome, but it doesn’t affect the broader society. His philosophy is entirely inward looking. Donovan’s philosophy is sterile, because it’s just another off-shoot of hedonism.
And here we get to a core problem with homosexuality (or any form of sexual hedonism). Because sodomy separates the sexual act from procreation, it has to find other ways to create something. And so for most homosexuals in the West, that’s a huge subculture. And because they cannot (or rather, choose not to) naturally propogate their line, they must grow their ranks by recruitment. The hedonist is never satisfied with just breaking society’s conventional morals – he must demand you accept them as normal. You must join him. The great of crime of Sodom in Genesis wasn’t merely the sodomy – it was the attempted rape of their visitors.
“But I’m not gay!”
Before the 1972 pornography classic Deep Throat, very few heterosexual couples in America engaged in oral sex. And it still wasn’t very common until Bill Clinton. I meet more and more men who have engaged in anal sex with a woman. Are you sure the pinkos haven’t recruited you to their lifestyle?
The homosexuals of America have turned our culture into a giant gay pride parade. Straight people attend and bring their children. Elected officials give speeches about how important it is. The pride parades have been stretched into pride week and now pride month. It never stops. It’s a cancer that must consume everything, both defining itself by how different it is and seeking to become normal. It’s a lifestyle and a subculture best compared to a stagnant pond overgrown with moss and mold. The homosexual act itself is self-destructive and self-loathing. The only interest it has in “love” is to ruin the term for everyone else.
A few homosexuals like Jack Donovan understand this and hate the pride culture as much as the rest of us do, but those like Milo only perpetuate it. To buy his books and attend his speeches and give him internet attention just because he hates all the right people is to throw away the very essence of masculinity and femininity. It’s as ridiculous as feminists welcoming Muslims with open arms.