MILO: Mainstream Conservatism Is The Answer

Admittedly, I was never a fan of MILO.

As time goes by, I am less and less of a fan. Why was MILO ever associated with the Alt-Right?

“The reality is, if you force everyone to play identity politics, if you insist in pitting whites against blacks, women against men, straights against gays, the reality is you guys are gonna win and the left isn’t going to like it very much,” declared MILO. “But there’s a better way. Don’t fight identity politics with identity politics.”

“White pride, white nationalism, white supremacy isn’t the way to go,” he continued. “The way to go is reminding them and yourselves that you should be aspiring to values and to ideas.”

“You should be focusing on what unites people and not what drives them apart,” MILO concluded. “You shouldn’t give a shit about skin color, a shit about sexuality… You shouldn’t give a shit about gender, and you should be deeply suspicious of the people who do.” …”

Yeah right.

That’s the same neoconnery you can find at National Review or The Federalist. Breitbart‘s content was nothing but a dog siren to white identity politics during the election. It was the White working class that put Trump in the White House. Not blacks. Not Hispanics. Not Asians. Not LGBTs. Civic Nationalism fell flat with all of those communities. No, it was the dramatic surge in the White working class vote which lifted Trump to victory in all of the key battleground states. He won the election by developing a personal bond with the White working class. He talked to them about their interests, not values or abstractions.

As for identity politics, MILO’s brand is being a flamboyant avant-garde homosexual, a kind of mainstream conservative Liberace. He hosted a “Gays for Trump” party at the RNC. He had lurid photos from Lucian Wintrich’s “Twinks for Trump” photoshoot plastered all over the wall. MILO doesn’t want to mainstream White identity politics. Instead, what he is trying to do is make homosexuality more acceptable on the Right. It is Ben Shapiro conservatism except with twinks, blood baths and fancy clothes.

“MILO wears glasses by Givenchy, $350. Distressed blue jeans by True Religion, $329. Brown leather belt with gold buckle by Louis Vuitton, $450. Light pink dress shirt by Brooks Brothers, $92. Sparkly purple suit jacket by Angelino, $225. Burgundy crushed velvet slippers by Crockett & Jones, $370. Socks by Ralph Lauren, 3 pairs for $21.98. Jewellery and pearls, too much money to count.”

Forget White Nationalism. What does this have to do with populism or nationalism or Western civilizaton? I can’t stand the narcissism, materialism or the firehose of homosexuality:

“On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:40 PM, MILO wrote:

Some kind of racist that just got railed for 18 hours in a hotel room by his black boyfriend. You fucking morons.”

FYI, he’s not proud of his race. Instead, MILO boasts about his clothes and getting railed for 18 hours in his hotel room by his black boyfriend. That inoculates him against the charge of racism. He’s called a racist anyway and people are even being shot at his events now. No matter. He desperately wants the world to know that he is getting gangbanged by lots and lots of black guys. (Emphasis Added)

Oh, and conservatism is the answer!

Note: I read lots of conservatives. Maybe it is just me, but I would take Rod Dreher over MILO any day. If we are going to have conservatism, I prefer the pro-family, non-pozzed version.

61 Comments

    • I didn’t, but lots of idiots did.

      At the end of the day there nothing in it for any non-White, or race mixer to support homelands for Whites. WN is a liberation movement and that means liberation from them.

      They want to live WITH Whites, but they don’t want White areas to REMAIN White.

      • Yeah, all the idiots who did should be hanging their heads. If ‘idiot’ is even the right word. Some are that dumb, some saw a door opener, and the intentionally destructive saw a trojan horse.

    • Just like “progressivism”, “traditionalism” lead to the pozz pool, the difference is that it is a dirt road instead of an autobahnen.

  1. The only reason he opposed Islamic immigration, is so he and his fellows could parade around in front of children with their asses exposed and not get thrown off tall buildings. All non-White immigration is welcome in White countries except Islam. Of course Israel is just for Jews, amirite boys? He doesn’t give a toss about Whites.

  2. I really wish black men preferred ‘white’ (mutt white, rather) men.

    If faggots want to be gang banged, let them. It’s this having to get me and mine ‘railed’ that I have a war with.

    I don’t think he wants to turn the world homosexual. He just wants homosexuals to rule the world. And jews.

  3. Emma Lazarus’ poem makes America sound like the garbage dump of the world?

    Why did we blame Castro for dumping trash on the US? He was only fulfilling Lazarus’ dream.

    We should have build another Statue of Litter-ty near Cuba with the sign, “Give us your criminals, nutjobs, murderers, rapists, junkies, freaks, perverts, crooks, and retards. We are America, and we take everyone.”

    Globalism is a flood, a deluge like the Great Flood of Noah’s story.

    Now, it’s good for different lands to be joined by sea routes so that they can do travel and trade. Water is useful in serving as both barriers and bridges. They keep nations separate from one another but also allow them to trade by ships. So, different nations can have both separateness and connected-ness.

    But globalism is like flooding the entire world under water. Nations no longer have control over the uses of water. Instead, the globalist deluge drowns out all independence and sovereignty.

    We don’t want Waterworld.

    It’s funny. Globalists scream about Climate Change and about how sea levels are rising to flood the cities… but they are indifferent to the dangers of the globalist tide that threatens to drown every nation, culture, and tradition out of existence.

    If we follow the vision of the Jewish Globalists, only Israel shall survive as an Ark while the rest of the world becomes covered in the globalist tide.

    ————————-

    Finders keepers, Sowers reapers.

    The American Continent was there for any people to find and build upon. Africans, Chinese, Hindus, Muslims, Turks, and etc could have done it if they had the vision, daring, resolve, and energy. They didn’t.

    Europeans did it. So, they found it, and they built upon it. So, it is theirs by historical right.

    And yet, the New Elites say that whites in the West have some historical duty to ‘share’ their achievement with the rest of the world? Why? Other peoples could have done what whites if they had the foresight and fortitude. Was it white folks’ fault that most peoples decided to stick to their Old Wold places and habits?

    Imagine what white folks had to go through in the beginning to build this nation. Chop down trees, build roads, form communities, construct factories, construct channels, and tons of hardship. Why did they do all that? To hand it all over to strangers and foreigners? NO, they did it for their descendants/posterity.

    Surely, the early Zionist who toiled to make Israel into a nation didn’t make all that sacrifice to hand it over to a bunch of Muslims, Hindus, Chinese, or Nigerians.

    Crazily enough, the New Elites don’t just say this for the New World but for even Europe itself. Europe too must welcome immigration to ‘share’ and hand over its land and legacy to ‘New Europeans’.

    If the globalist logic is that the New World doesn’t belong to whites since whites took it from Indians, this argument can’t be made about Europe since Europe was always the homeland of Europeans.

    But even in the New World, the globalist logic makes no sense. If whites took from the indigenous folks of the New World, their moral duty is to them. It is not to the entire world.

    If the white man took from Gernomino, treat the chief nice. Give him some beef, liquor, cigars, and casinos. What does the white man owe to Patel, Wang, Abdul, and Cucumonga? When it comes to blacks, whites owe ONLY to those whose ancestors were brought as slaves.

    ——————————

    Why should white Americans(or, for that matter, black Americans and American Indian Americans) keep taking in immigrants who are either hostile towards White America or MADE hostile towards White America by people like Cohen?

    Why is invasivism a good thing?

    Immigration is invasion at current levels. In small amounts, newcomers can meld in with the native majority and assimilate, especially if the native majority hold the levers of power.

    In the current US, the power is held by people like Cohen who pass out to every newcomer, “Whitey is your enemy”. Given the Culture of Hostility, why should White America take in more demographic imperialists?

    ————-======

  4. His whole brand is based on his identity as a flamboyant male homo with a posh English accent that Americans love.

  5. Milo is a disgusting pervert. I never thought he was a conservative. As to being a WN, he obviously never was that either. WNs do not need queers like Milo in their ranks anyway. We are stronger without the pervs.

    • I don’t know that no gays should be tolerated. Not all are perverts. And claiming they are just gives the other side power. Don’t waste one ounce of political capital. We have none to spare.

  6. It’s okay if Richard Spencer lisps like he were as queer as a three dollar bill, but bad when Milo does it. Lulz

  7. Why not challenge Milo to debate a real Nationalist?

    Let’s push for him go toe to toe with HW, Jared Taylor, Richard Spencer, etc. Breitbart could even livestream the event.

  8. It’s not a matter of insisting anything about Identity Politics. I was a social democrat until the primary battle in 2007/08 woke my suspicion that the left is an empty shell.

    What’s happening is that whites will inevitably vote white, as a tribe that transcends class.

  9. I didn’t fall for him. Not even once. Stay true to your beliefs above all; when right and wrong take front seat everybody will naturally fall into their rightful places. I’m not straight because I’m adhering to some identity, but because I know that morality is not a matter of perspective.

  10. I like(d) Milo for his effectiveness vs 1/2 of our enemies while not punching Right.

    This statement is definitely troubling.

  11. He got the Alt-Right label via association with “Alt-Right” juggernaut Breitbart (/s), and by virtue of the fact that he eagerly taunted feminists and other SJW fronts that mainstream conservatives normally left alone.

    And maybe also because he was a safe target for the leftist media, who wanted to show how terrible the Alt-Right was without actually exposing people to dangerous ideas like race realism and ethnonationalism.

    He works well enough as a gateway for fresh minds that are starting to question the value of social justice politics, but not so ready for heavier things like the JQ. Tolerable so long as he makes himself useful. Right now the Alt-Right seems to be generally keeping him at arm’s length and that is well and good for me.

    • So his main impact is dividing white women and men. Is that really accidental?

      Anyone who chooses to respond to reactionary whites with more reactionariness is as bad as the instigator.

  12. Politics is always us vs. them. Saying “identity politics” is being redundant. Milo is engaging in identity politics. He is simply not engaging in racially based politics. Unsurprisingly he is a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is a necessary trait in Leftists.

  13. Feminism and Consumerism were bound to mess up the world.

    They are against nature and mess up the organic balance of things.

    To understand this, imagine 4 people: 2 men and 2 women.

    Suppose there are 2 well-paying jobs.

    We need to take human nature into consideration: Men will marry women without jobs, but women don’t wanna marry men without jobs.

    These are the possible outcomes.

    1. Two men get the jobs. Each can afford to raise a family, and each is willing to marry a woman without a job. So, each marry a woman. So, two men have jobs and they have wives. Everyone gets something. Men have jobs and wives, women have husbands, wives have family. Two incomes support two families.

    2. One man and one woman get the jobs. Each can afford a family. The man with the job marries the woman with the job. In contrast, the man without the job cannot a mind a mate since women don’t want men without jobs. So, the woman without the job doesn’t marry the man without the job.

    Since the man with the job and woman with the job married, both their incomes serve just one family. Meanwhile, the man without the job has no money and no family. And the woman without the job doesn’t want to marry the man with no job, so she has nothing too.

    So, we have all the good stuff in one family and nothing for the other two. Also, since both man and woman work, there is a chance that they will have no kids or just one kid. All that combined income goes to serve very narrow interests. Two get it all, the other two get nothing.

    3. One man and one woman get the jobs. Each can afford a family. The man with the job marries the woman without a job. In contrast, the woman with the job remains unmarried because she doesn’t want to marry the man without a job. Under this formulation, three get something while the male without a job get nothing. The man with a job has a wife, the woman without a job, and they can have a family. The woman with a job has money even if no husband. She has no family but she has money to have fun with.

    But the man without a job has no money and no wife. Such a man is destined for White Death.

    4. Two women get the jobs, and that means the two men have no jobs. Since women don’t want to marry men without jobs, the women spend all their income on themselves in wild consumerism. They don’t want a family with loser men with no jobs. Since the two men got no jobs, they lose status and hope.

    Of the four options, only #1 offers something for everyone.

    #3 isn’t so terrible since 3 out of 4 get something.

    #2 is awful because 2 get everything while 2 get nothing. Still, its saving grace is there is formation of at least one family.

    #4 is horrible because 2 get everything but there is no family. All that money is spent on fleeting vanity and hedonism.

    Now, one might hope for a world where 4 people can have 4 good jobs, but the world isn’t like that. There is only a limited number of jobs that can support families.

    When women entered the work force in big numbers, they took away lots of good jobs from men. Every woman who got a good job robbed a man not only of a job but of a family. When a man takes a job from a woman, he doesn’t take away her chance of having a family since men with jobs will marry women without jobs.

    When women take jobs from men, it leads to men losing their market value as marriage prospects. Women not only take the jobs form men but also the hope of family, the most important thing in life(because people, as life-forms, are created from families and pass down their genes and memory by forming their own families).

    When women have high-paying jobs, their standards go up in the mating game. But since fewer men have good jobs, the ‘ideal man’ is harder to find. So, women with jobs face a drought in marriageable men. Since they only want to marry a successful man and will not settle for anything less, many women would rather blow all their money on vanity and self-pleasure. So, the income that, in the hands of man, could have supported a family ends up serving the vain piggery of a woman hooked to SEX AND CITY lifestyle.

    How did we end up like this? It’s because we forgot the lesson that we are, first and foremost, organisms or life-forms. The role of life-form is to sustain itself. Everyone will die one day and so will his/her loved one, the partner in life. So, how do they ‘survive’ after death? Through their children who are continuation of their DNA and cultural/personal torchbearers of their forebears memory. That’s what Judaism is about, indeed how it got started. It was about remembrance of ancestors by descendants, and it all went back to the Covenant.

    Now, we are more than mere life-forms like animals. We have advanced brains, and we need ideas, values, and culture. Still, all those things only exist in and matter to the living. All the books in the world mean nothing without people to read them, and every person is the product of man and woman(unless we create a Brave New World scenario of clones by the state). We are more than biology, but it begins with and is made possible by biology. Without biology, there is no being.

    And the main source of meaning is in the family since every person was created by father and mother and since every person can only ‘live on’ after death via the DNA passed down to his/her kids who are also the cultural/personal torchbearers of their parents’ lives.

    But for some reason, the cult of individualism made us forget that every individual is a ‘continual’, merely one link in the long chain of life. He didn’t pop out of a book or materialize out of the thin air or come into existence by a musing of someone’s mind. Every person is born biologically and become human emotionally.

    Because we are surrounded by books, movies, and fantasy, we seem to think reality can be created via the imagination and ‘creativity’. We’ve replaced creation with creativity. It’s no wonder that we’ve come to accept something like ‘gay marriage’. We confuse reality with fantasy, as if the world is created and sustained by wish-fulfilment. We confuse reproductive fact with creative wish. So, if two lesbians want to believe that they ‘had a kid’ together, we better go along with this charade. If a man says he is a ‘woman’, we are pressured to comply. If a bunch of freaks wanna hair-split sex into 50 genders, we are supposed to take it seriously as intellectualism and science.

    Also, consumerism divorced pleasure from purpose. Life-forms feel pleasure of food and sex because they must eat to survive and they must have sex to produce new life. But consumerism created technologies that allowed wanton eating and wanton sex for pleasure alone. So, piggery became the New Normal, as with fatso Lena Dunham who gorges on cakes while sitting on the toilet. It’s like she has to eat and shi* at the same time. And like an animal, she humps everyone, and she can sustain such behavior because there are contraceptives, pills, and abortion. This kind of porno-propaganda or pornoganda has, in some ways, become America’s main cultural message to the world. America is an exceptional country? Or an excessive cunt-ry?

    Also, the idea of freedom has become nihilistic. It’s good to be free, but for what purpose? In the end, we must make use of our freedoms. And in making any decision, we are choosing one freedom and losing all the others. If we choose to study medicine, we don’t have free time to study other things. We must commit to medicine. If we study chemistry, there are other stuff we can’t study. If we decide to read a book, then we can’t read another book. We have only so much time and energy for so much. So, even though we want freedom, every choice ‘imprisons’ us with one endeavor and locks out all the rest. It’s like the scene in SUPERMAN. If Superman is to save one bunch of people, he can’t save another bunch of people. He can’t do everything. He fails to save Lois Lane and brings her back to life only by cheating.

    https://youtu.be/JpBfR7GT5zE?t=2m43s

    So, we must raise a question about the thing that is more important than freedom. We mus ask, what is the main purpose and meaning of life.

    After all, suppose there’s a society where everyone is forced to be a husband or a wife.

    And suppose there is another society where everyone is free and uses his/her freedom to only indulge himself/herself and not have families.

    In the end, isn’t the former society better off since it has families and new life? It lives on and sustains itself.

    In contrast, what good is the other society in the long run? Sure, freedom is nice, but if people used their freedom to just indulge themselves, they’ve left no legacy for the future… like so many hedonistic white folks are doing today.

    Now, we want freedom, but we need to use that freedom wisely. But everything in our ideology and culture fills our hearts, minds, eyes, and ears with the wrong lessons and vile temptations. If Lena Dunham, madonna, Emma Sulk, and Ashley Judd are the ‘role models’ for womenkind, no wonder there are so many problems. Stalinist, Nazi, or even Sharia culture is better for women. After all, the Muslim Order, repressive as it is, lasted for 0ver 1000 yrs. How long can the current West last? In the end, the worth of civilization isn’t measured by trending ideas or fashionable values. It is measured by its ability to survive and continue. The current West pontificates about its pride of ‘western values’, but if those lead to the fall of the West, they were the wrong values.

    Now, I’m not saying that the only choices are between western decadence/excess and Sharia Law. There is something in between. It’s like Aldous Huxley in BRAVE NEW WORLD REVISITED called out his mistake in BRAVE NEW WORLD of offering only two options: the world of neo-primitive brutality and orgy-porgy techo-hedonism.

    We can be both free and find meaning.

    As we are life forms, we are made of families, and we continue through families we create who carry the DNA code, remember their parents/forbears, and preserve the culture/heritage. Family is bio-socialist. Socialism sacrifices the ideal of absolute individual liberty with a system of relations calibrated for the maximum good of society. So, even though taxing the rich at higher rates than others is ‘unfair’ by libertarian principles, it is deemed necessary since the rich can afford to pay more for the GOOD of society. So, socialism takes into consideration the difference between being rich, being middle income, and being poor. In a similar vein, bio-socialism takes into account that men and women are not mere individuals to be understood by abstract theories. It’s not just about individuals and choice. Men and women are biological creatures brought into being by a certain biological process, grow ideally in a sound family environment, and whose legacy is assured by forming families of their and having children. So, family becomes the foremost bio-socialist unit in the formulation of what is best for society. In the aforementioned scenario of 2 men and 2 women in a society with jobs, bio-socialism will favor 2 men getting the jobs since everyone will get something. 2 jobs held by 2 men can support 2 families.

    But the family has come under attack by feminism and other nutjob ideologies. Also, the role of mother has been mocked as ‘having babies’ as if that is all a woman does: lays babies like a chicken lays eggs. In fact, babies soon grow into children, and creating a child is the process of creating a human with mind, heart, ideas, values, and etc. Every day, millions of new neurons are added to children, and the process of their growth is fascinating. Besides, what is a more rewarding ‘thing’ for a person to create than another thinking & feeling human being with heart and soul? Besides, all the products and services offered by professions and jobs exist only to serve human beings. So, creating and developing a new human being is the richest experience in life. It’s why Michael Corleone says at the beginning of GODFATHER III(though bad movie) that the most precious things in this world are children. No matter how rich Michael is, he will die, and then the ONLY people who will remember and care about him are his survivors, the kids and grandkids. His money and his mansions and cars have no mind, no heart, no nothing. Only life remembers life.

    But in our world, the Ideal is for a guy with good job to marry a woman with a good job(which means one less man with a good job who can afford a family), and since are too busy with work, the raising of the kids is left to PC ideologues(teacher hacks) and the Mammon of Pop Culture that corrupts children from a young age.

    The modern world is great for giving us freedoms that our ancestors didn’t have and didn’t know how to have. And initially, modern people had both freedom and meaning, a sense of purpose. They were freed from traditional bonds but still morally and culturally informed by those bonds and values. It’s like Michael Corleone has freedoms that his forbears didn’t in Old Sicily, but having grown up in a culture of family and values, his individuality is shaped by those values. He has freedom but also cultural compass.

    But as the cult of freedom took on a life of its own via ideological arrogance and hedonistic excess, the connection to a sense of purpose was lost.

    Ideology gave people a sense of permanence through ideas when, in fact, ideas only exist in the minds of people, life forms. No people, no ideas. Ideas are nothing without minds to appreciate them, and minds are bio-mass of life-forms.

    If ideology gave people a false sense of permanence via books & arts, entertainment made people feel that the Moment is Forever. Thus, people lose sight of the larger sense of time and history as they’ve become hooked to pop music or movies that glorify the orgiastic hysterics of the moment. Humans went from organismic to the orgasmic. So, even middle aged men and women still feel like teenagers as they listen to pop music and watch hollywood movies about caped heroes. Or when they play dumb video games.

    We need to find a way to reconnect freedom with meaning and purpose.

    All these pussyhat feminists bitch and whine about ‘freedom’, as if Trump is going to turn them all into chattel slaves. But in fact, the real problem women face today is lack of meaning and purpose with all their misguided freedoms. They have freedom, but the choices they’ve made are terrible, not least because our reigning ideology and culture encourages women to act like SEX AND CITY, Lena Dunham, Miley Cyrus, Emma Sulk, or one of those trashy shallow pseudo-intellectuals who write for NYT or yammer on NPR.

    In a way, the odd alliance of feminists and Muslims suggest at something buried in the feminist psyche. There is something within them that is crying out for meaning, order, purpose, and continuance. Is it any surprise that Lindsey Lohan is leaning toward Islam?

    Only a neo-fascism can restore the order and balance in Western Man and Woman.

    The history of mankind has offered people four basic choices:

    1. Forcing people to do what is the right thing.

    2. Forcing people to do what is the wrong thing.

    3. Giving people freedom, and people freely doing the wrong thing.

    4. Giving people freedom, and people freely doing the right thing.

    The best of all possible worlds will have most people in #4 mode.

    The worst of all possible worlds will have most people in #3 mode.

    Why is #3 worse than #2? Why is a world where people are forced to do the wrong thing better than one where people freely do the wrong thing?

    Because in the #3 scenario, there is still a political/social power that can make people do the right thing under a new policy. It may be currently forcing people to do the wrong thing, but with a change of course, the system can force the people to do the right thing.

    In contrast in the #3 scenario, the people have the freedom/power to do the wrong thing, and there is no higher power to stop them or correct them. This is why black problem today is worse than black problem during slavery. During slavery, whites forced blacks to be slaves, the wrong thing. And slavery had to end. But since whites still had the power, they could make blacks do the right things with the end of slavery. In contrast, the corrupt and free blacks of today won’t listen to anything since they got the Agency and Power. But to do what with their freedom? Turn cities into Detroit and Baltimore. Blacks used their freedom to turn their communities into neo-jungles and bitch,whine, and holler like mad baboons. And since they have all the freedoms and rights under the law, they can just go on acting loutish.

    In contrast, blacks in Cuba are in scenario #2. Cuban Socialism doesn’t really work. It is the wrong thing. It keeps blacks doing what is economically backward and inefficient. BUT, the state still has control over the blacks, so if state policy were to change one day for the better, blacks can be pressured to do the right thing under state power. But a lot of American blacks are hopeless. They got the power and freedom and they used it for total lunacy and jungle behavior. And there is no power above them to say NO.

    One might say #1 and #4 have same results and so are equally valid. Whether people are forced to do the right thing OR use their freedom to do the right thing, the end result is people doing the right thing. Still, we want freedom. We don’t want to be forced to do stuff by some tyranny.

    Under system #1, even those who want to do the wrong thing have no choice but to do the right thing.

    Under system #4, those with the freedom to do the wrong thing still choose to do the right thing. That is true morality, but increasingly harder to come by these days because of family breakdown, cultural decadence, moral degeneration, and etc. After all, in order for people to freely do the right thing, they must be inculcated with good, sound, and healthy values and outlook and understanding. But just look at the state of PC and Pop Culture. We are raising kids to be self-absorbed tards and snowflakes and loons. Why so many kids get tattoos? They have no sense of time, of tomorrow. They don’t think, “yrs will pass and I might look back and find this tattoo really stupid.” No, all they care about is the NOW. If they think it’s cool NOW, they must get it and just fuc* tomorrow.

    In order for #4 to work, we need a society that promotes culture and values of maturity, sobriety, dignity, and integrity, like what Vito Corleone had(except for the organized crime thing, but then he was pressured into by that no-good Fanucci who was fleecing the neighborhood).

    But if #4 is rendered impossible because our culture creates tons of idiots with PC and junk culture, then the only option is to go back to #1.

    #1 is unpleasant even if it forces people to do the right thing because we want to be free and also, we want people to do the right thing out of moral sense than out of social coercion. Still, #1 is the only option when #4 fails and we slip into a state of #3. The black American community, at this point, can only fix its problems through #1 option. Too many blacks have freely acted to be a total tards and chillun.

    It’s funny. Life is a form of energy.

    The modern world has tons of energy made possible by electricity. Look at Earth at night from space, and you can see entire areas lit up by tons of electricity. We see the most lights in Western nations and East Asian nations. So much industrial and recreational energy… and yet, so little life energy, so little energy of reproduction. Modern folks are like moths before an artificial light. They are addicted to the false life of industrial energy that fills them with light, convenience, and entertainment, but they have lost the sense of real energy, that of life itself. Because industrial energy is so powerful, those who huddle around it feel so alive, but it’s all an illusion. Watching TV filled with flashing images or playing some roller-coaster video-game may make one feel alive, but it’s all illusion. Being around all that industrial energy has sapped modern man of life energy, that of family and creation of new life for legacy.

    In contrast, the dark continent of Africa is having lots of kids and producing lots of life. They lack in industrial energy but they have something far more valuable: life energy.

    And they will eventually move to the modern world with its aging and dying populations who prefer the artificial ‘life’ of industrial energy over the real energy of life around family and culture.

    Some people say we need to return to Christian values, but I don’t know. Christianity is a mixed blessing.

    Christianity is like coal. It offers lots of spiritual heat and moral warmth. But it has to be handled with care with good ventilation. Why? What does coal produce? Carbon Monoxide or CO which is odorless and lethal.

    So, the Church needs good ventilation system. Yes, the Church teaches us to love mankind and be forgiving, and etc. That is a good message to warm the soul. But too much of anything is never any good. And excessive utopian save-the-world sermonizing of Christians can have the effect of CO.

    So, we need to ventilate the Church. Give us the sermon about love and forgiveness but air out too much sanctimoniousness that turns people into holier-than-thou pied-pipers of their race to extinction.

    Also, Christians need to be reminded that Jesus never said the world of man could be saved. He only said that man should try to be good and seek the Lord’s grace in the afterlife.

    ===-===

  14. Milo is an entertainer an actor. Jews and Gays have tended to do well as entertainers, actors, comedians. But, even if a successful actor/comedian seems to sort of like us or at least not hate us, the pressure is on him to get work in the industry and that means going with the flow – wanting to be at the Golden Globes, the Oscars. This happened to the beloved actor Andy Griffith, somewhat less with Opie – Ron Howard.

    The reality is we’re just not going to have successful actors, comedians or Hollywood LA musicians on our side, unless they are in the closet.

3 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Video Surfaces Of MILO Defending Pedophilia – AltRight.com
  2. Video Surfaces Of MILO Defending Pedophilia – Occidental Dissent
  3. Cuckservatives: MILO Is Conservatism’s Problem – Occidental Dissent

Comments are closed.