MILO AND COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

...Do we need to?

by Colin Liddell

The big news, not just in the Dissident Right but everywhere (including Mongolia), is the Milo Yiannopoulos Paedophilia Scandal.

This is yet another example of the "tyranny of words," where a public figure is expected to have a flawless record of statements that all line up with a consistent moral position, even when many of those statements are made in fast-flowing conversations, reacting instantly to other people, with shifting perspectives and changing levels of irony. As Cardinal  Richelieu once said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." Nowadays when "they" want to gun for you, they have your whole online history to construct their nooses from.

I'm not too concerned about the precise details of what Milo may or may not have said, implied, hinted at—or even what he may have done. Honestly, that is a form of trainspotting. The guy is a popular, flamboyant homosexual, and I've had him tagged as that from the beginning. And like anyone of that sort, a little digging will normally turn up some pretty interesting and disgusting dirt. Those who weren't born yesterday all get that. Never mind skeletons in the cupboard, I'm pretty confident his cupboard is like the closet out of The Witch, the Lion and the Wardrobe with a boneyard where Narnia should be.

But what made Milo interesting for us on the Dissident Right, who always kept a healthy tactical distance, were two things: (1) he revealed how far someone could go with "gay privilege," and (2) he did this by turning it to "politically incorrect" ends. 

Couching hard-hitting viewpoints on Islam, SJWs, and feminists with exclamations of how much he loved Black cock got him pretty far. By Odin! Was it really that simple? Who knew you could get away with saying all these right-wing things just by being, well, such a "flagrant fag"? Although, we kind of suspected...

One possibility is that he is just another 
character by Sacha Baron Cohen.

I for one was not at all surprised, as I had seen similar things in the past. Back when the BNP were making breakthroughs in the UK, it was called "cognitive dissonance." I remember the BNP using it to get their message across. Having a right-wing message spouted by an obviously right-wing type simply limits its effectiveness, because, just by looking at the speaker, people have already decided roughly what he is going to say and are already offsetting for it and resisting it. But what if you get someone—a woman, a gay, even an ethnic—to say the same things? Then, of course you present the audience with a cognitive dissonance, which they feel driven to resolve by taking the message "on board."

In short:

"Why on earth would someone like that (who should be an SJW, advocate for mass immigration, etc.) be saying those things? I'd better listen and find out."

This is why Milo has been so effective.

This cognitive dissonance was also the thing that got under the skin of the Left so much. This was because they couldn't help feeling that Milo, as a rampant homosexual, should be on their team. Their hatred for Milo has clear affinities with 1930s anti-Semitism, a form of hatred that was partly powered by the fact that Jews were enough like Germans that the fact of their difference added its own virulence to the distaste felt for them as the mere "Other."

The mere "Other" is seldom hated with any virulence.

While the Left soon found that they couldn't stand him, more generally his homosexuality opened a lot of doors for him, especially with conservatives keen to show they weren't quite so stuffy. This is basically what generated the invitation (since rescinded) to speak at C-PAC. 

A straight White guy could never have gotten such reach in the mainstream media with those views. Milo was obviously very well aware of that, and was even daring to see how far he could push things.

One topic that a straight person would have to be extremely wary of touching is homosexuality, but Milo, fortified with his gay privilege, was increasingly challenging the Left in this area too. Recently he made statements on mainstream TV shows, including his recent spot on Bill Maher's show, saying that homosexuality was linked to pederasty and that he would be happy to be "cured" as he couldn't have children as a gay person.

Although he always took care to make sure that he didn't sound pitiable when he went down this road, basically: 

"I have a fabulous time being gay, but I know all its flaws, dahling!"

It was in this context that he was prepared to discuss his own homosexualization as a teenage boy by older men, leading to the discussions that were then mined for quotes to suggest that he was advocating pedophilia. 

The worst that can be said about Milo is that he has "mixed feelings" about inter-generational relationships between mature men and teenage boys. Essentially that would be the real position of practically any gay man, although some of them might regard it as impolitic to admit it publicly. Instead, they prefer to trot out the myth that homosexuality is something that comes fully formed into the world as soon as someone passes the age of consent and is entirely equivalent with normal sex.

As I said above, everything that you are now hearing about Milo—even if it comes out that he has buggered actual children and family pets—is not news to us in the Dissident Right. We will not be surprised by any of it. We always knew Milo was Milo, and recognized the weird power this gave him in our degenerate society. The only thing of real interest to me is: What does the existence of the scandal itself signify? There is, at any given time, enormous amounts of scandal material extending in all directions, but not all of it becomes scandal. The question therefore is always: Why this scandal now?

There are two possibilities. The first is that what we are seeing here is a Leftist defensive action against one of the most effective anti-Left and more recently anti-gay-privilege weapons. The second is that it represents a long overdue attack on—or downgrading of—homosexual privilege. 

Let's be clear, homosexuality is a swamp waiting to be drained. It is something that requires a strong critique and a lot of moral input from the rest of society, something that has been absent for decades now. Gay networks operate with comparative impunity and exert a disproportionate amount of influence on society. Therefore a campaign to end gay privilege—essentially the cucked attitude where society lets them get away with things straight people would be hung out to dry for—is much to be desired and something that we should fully support. 

Given the fact that no one is as well equipped as Milo to launch such a campaign, it is worrying to see Milo attacked for being what all of us always knew him to be. This looks suspiciously like the Left rallying to shut down the one person best able to shine a light on the dark side of homosexuality. If, however, Milo's defenestration represents a growing intolerance for gay privilege, then this may just another sign of the world moving in a Dissident Right direction.