May 6th of 2017 will mark the fifteenth anniversary of the assassination of ‘far right’ Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn – a syncretic character whose contradictions were considered quite baffling to conservatives in that simpler year of 2002. In that post-9/11 environment, when most of Europe was still ruled by conniving socialists eager to open the continental floodgates to African and Middle Eastern immigrants so as to shore up their electoral bases, here was an anomaly: a vituperative opponent of Islam and proponent of Dutch nativism, a free market economist, and a Euroskeptic at a time when the bloom on the nascent EU rose hadn’t even reached its peak, let alone begun its fade. He also happened to be a proudly uncloseted homosexual of the decidedly mincing variety – the type who was often photographed with a pair of fou-fou dogs in his lap – a passionate feminist (the patriarchal nature of Islam is what he seemed to loathe about it the most), and an atheist who detested the Dutch Reformed faith of his homeland as much as, if not more so than, Mohammedism. “Does. Not. Compute.” intoned the traditionalists of the day. “One cannot be both William AND Mary!!! How can these things possibly be???”
Oh, for the innocence of the past. These days, such inconsistencies are de rigueur to a modern right that caters to edgelords and dank meme necromancers.
Case in point: the inexplicable popularity among a sizable component of the alt-right for one Milo Yiannopoulos, the attention-crazed British sodomite whose affected ‘outrageousness’ is so grating he makes the similarly light-in-the-loafers Fortuyn look like butch Ernst Röhm in comparison. He is the quintessence of those whom God gave over ‘to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient’ (Rom. 1:28). Witness his David Bowie-like propensity to change his physical appearance every couple of hours, his fondness over his own catty self-aggrandizement (he prefaced his ‘Rally for America’ at UC Irvine with the declaration ‘Happy Hill-o-ween! Peace be upon me. Welcome to the Dangerous Faggot Tour, I am your host and the supervillain of the Internet, Maharambe.’), his referrals to Donald Trump as ‘Daddy’, his avowed predilections towards black men. You gotta be kidding me. Even the likes of Harvey Milk understood that, when campaigning for debasement, it’s prudent to tone it down a notch or two in public so as not to make blissfully ignorant upper middle class suburban liberal supporters vomit.
Still, there is no denying the influence that Fortuyn has had and Milo (I’m not typing out ‘Yiannopoulos’ all the time) currently has. Dutch head of the PVV Geert Wilders has acknowledged Fortuyn’s mentorship regarding his own racial awakening, and as stated before, Milo has influenced a coterie of like-minded alt-right shock jocks – the odious bisexual Gavin McInnes being a particular standout. Half a century ago, both these gentlemen would have been fortunate had their reach extended past a drag act in a seedy Greenwich Village bar. Their ardent cult followings act as yet another herald of the moral catatonia the West mistakes for beauty sleep.
Fortuyn and Milo both came to Conservatism Redacted from decidedly left-wing backgrounds. In the case of Fortuyn, he started out as a full-fledged Marxist professor of sociology – specifically a Maoist, which is richly ironic given his later claims to be a champion of strictly European ‘values’. Though he began to drift rightwards in the early 90s, he remained enough of a Maoist to adhere to the concept of permanent revolution (hey, just like Joel McDurmon!) and to heed well these words of the Chairman: ‘It is man’s social being that determines his thinking. Once the correct ideas characteristic of the advanced class are grasped by the masses, these ideas turn into a material force which changes society and changes the world.'[1. Where Do Correct Ideas Come From? May 1963] Homosexuals being very much in the vanguard of the ‘advanced classes’ of the twenty-first century, Fortuyn eagerly awaited the chance to become Dutch PM so that he could inculcate his special blend of anarcho-capitalism and unseemly lechery among those clog-wearing and tulip-cultivating rubes down below. By all accounts, in an era in which Jean-Marie Le Pen was gaining legislative inroads in France and Jörg Haider was doing likewise in Austria, this was not at all an unreasonable ambition.
Whereas Fortuyn came by his Marxism via the theoretical route, Milo came by his through the much more influential cultural route. His was a very cosmopolitan – or, if you prefer, mongrelized – upbringing. Born in Greece in 1983 to a Greek father and a half-Jewish mother from Britain, he relocated to southern England after his parents’ divorce, where his mother remarried a man Milo has long insisted has numerous ties to the mob. Not the kind of childhood that portends well for the rearing of a future counter-revolutionary, you have to admit. Making that all the more unlikely was Milo’s coming of age in the post-Thatcher United Kingdom, with that exalted lady’s ethos of ‘me first, my family second, and there is no such thing as my volk’ being considered the ultimate reaction against stultifying Labour statism. The predictable result was a generation of angry young Brits who responded in a predictably post-Christian manner to the Blair/Brown/fellow traveller Cameron years: by embracing extreme hedonism. Having done quite well as a web entrepreneur, and punk rock being soooooo passé by this time, Milo instead opted to embrace a lifestyle of sissified gaudy opulence, perfectly responsive to a voyeuristic generation long addicted to the peccadilloes of various Kardashians on the tee vee. His influence was guaranteed.
Significantly, both Fortuyn and Milo also came from Catholic backgrounds. Fortuyn was a lapsed papist whose first experience with pederasty was reputedly with an altar boy. Milo is a practicing (!!!) Catholic who is fond of proselytizing in trademark flamboyant fashion for the untrue church, not to mention bragging about fellatio with one ‘Father Michael’. Rome’s practice of condemning the act while embracing the perpetrator of said act is obviously alive and well within the laity, as well as within the priesthood.
When it came time for Fortuyn and Milo both to embrace the right, the key issue in both their planks was anti-immigration in general, and anti-Muslim immigration in particular. Riding a wave of popular native resentment in both instances, they quickly secured themselves devoted audiences. One fly in the ointment, though: their objections to this unholy influx proved to be about as far removed from Christian morality and western tradition as possible. Y’see, both swore up and down that they were NOT racist, and they did NOT have a problem with sub-Saharans, sub-Arabians, and sub-Indochines mingling their seed with the firstborn stock in and of itself. No, their beef was strictly with Islam itself. Disappointing, but hey – better one volley lobbed than no volley at all, right? Can’t we be content that they at least share our loathing of Islam?
No, we can’t – because the sole reason both take umbrage with that accursed doctrine is because of its unenlightened attitude towards their contumacy of choice. In decrying ‘multiculturalism’, they save their rancour towards those who would dare tamper with the long-established homosexual underworlds of Amsterdam and San Francisco. Both freely admit this. Fortuyn’s avowal (translated from the Dutch):
I don’t hate Islam. I consider it a backward culture. I have travelled much in the world. And wherever Islam rules, it’s just terrible. All the hypocrisy. It’s a bit like those old reformed protestants. The Reformed lie all the time. And why is that? Because they have standards and values that are so high that you can’t humanly maintain them. You also see that in Muslim culture. Then look at the Netherlands. In what country could an electoral leader of such a large movement as mine be openly homosexual? How wonderful that that’s possible. That’s something that one can be proud of. And I’d like to keep it that way, thank you very much.
Fortuyn’s unsubtle equating of Calvinism with Islam, of course, is very much deliberate. If only there were some way to deport all those interlopers as well!
Milo, as well, defines Islam strictly in terms of a stumbling block towards the satiation of his own lusts. From Breitbart:
Muslims are allowed to get away with almost anything. They can shut down and intimidate prominent ex-Muslims. They’re allowed to engage in the most brazen anti-semitism, even as they run for office in European left-wing political parties. And, of course, politicians and the media routinely turn a blind eye to the kind of sexism and homophobia that would instantly end the career of a non-Muslim conservative — and perhaps get the latter arrested for hate speech when he dared to object.
Yes, friends and neighbors, for all his vaunted ‘political incorrectness’, Milady Milo still feels compelled to reassure us that he harbors no ill will to the Thirteenth Tribe. Hence he is allowed a national podium, including university campuses where a speaker who ever professed Christ with boldness or with timidity would be automatically banned for life.
If more proof were needed that neither individual held a firm philosophical (never mind theological) opposition to multiculturalism in general, one only needs to look at the repellent one-liners both are on record as delivering that reveal their true feelings about the exotic strangers within their midst. Fortuyn: ‘I don’t hate Arab men–I even sleep with them.’ Milo: ‘I lift young black men out of poverty every day. Sure, the next morning my driver takes them right back there but whatever.’ Further comment would be superfluous.
It also goes without saying that the mainstream media completely overlooked the blatant androgyny on display from both perverts and stubbornly insisted they were representative faces of right-wing ideology. It was almost as if they had declared the war over sodomy won and resolved, and such decadence from titular movement leaders a fait accompli – which, of course, is precisely what they believe. In the case of Milo, witness Berkeley’s hypocritical statement of defence as to allowing him to speak on campus – taking a page out of Voltaire’s playbook and proclaiming that while they vehemently disagree with his worldview, they will defend to the death his right to express it. When was the last time Berkeley granted such laissez-faire to an even nominally conservative speaker, and will their newfound magnanimity extend to advocates of theonomy and kinism in the future? I’m not holding my breath, and here’s some investment advice: don’t you, either. For another example, witness militantly cultural egalitarian Reason magazine’s recent article claiming Frederick Douglass would have found common cause with Milo. I actually have no problem believing this would have been the case, but unlike the disciples of Ayn Rand I hardly find that cause for celebration.
In Fortuyn’s case, the media’s eschewal of the obvious took place largely after his slaying, in no small part due to the character of his assassin. What more natural enemy of a queer hyper-libertarian/Dutch nationalist/secular humanist than a vegan militant animal rights crusader and Islamophile? Such is precisely how Volkert van der Graaf described himself, claiming that he was on a one-man crusade to protect the squatters’ rights of Mohammedans in the Netherlands. And hey, why not? After all, Fortuyn’s double-minded politics certainly were no less glaring than van der Graaf’s, who apparently was not fazed by the documented cruelty of Muslims towards beasts of all kinds, especially in their barbaric kosher-influenced halal methods of butchery. An overt desire for self-extermination counted for more in the eyes of the world press than the more covert method favored by Fortuyn, and they dutifully proclaimed the murder a simple case of a ‘far-right’ extremist being gunned down by a misguided yet sincere global federalist. Try to find a major news outlet today who will describe the assassination in any other terms but those.
As the right has all but conceded their loss in the culture wars to the denizens of ‘Do what thou wilt’, both Fortuyn and Milo have, disgracefully, continued to find regard within certain subsections of that community – most notably, among those elements of the alt-right utterly divorced from Western Christian traditionalism who have embraced the tactic of extending the middle finger towards anyone who still advocates relative civility, whether on the right or otherwise. Vox recently published an article comparing Trump favorably to Fortuyn, noting that the former could very well have been influenced by the latter’s anti-immigration stance and willingness to ‘shock polite society’ out of its slumber. And of course, in an already-infamous incident, CPAC recently announced that Milo would be its keynote speaker for its upcoming conference…and then was forced to rescind that invitation when a video surfaced in which Milo appeared to condone pedophilia in his trademark bitchily flippant fashion. His devotees swear up and down his intent wasn’t celebratory, but that hardly matters. The fact remains: he feels compelled to seek recourse in such prurience over and over again. If we are to shun filthiness, foolish talking, and inconvenient jesting, as per Ephesians 5:4, the fact that anyone gives this caricature the time of day displeases God mightily. CPAC will be a long time removing this blot from their record, and deservedly so. May they go under.
The chances that the new Trump administration will distance itself from Fortuynism/Miloism, alas, appear more and more remote. ‘Let us be unequally yoked, just as long as we all strive together to get America back on track’ appears to be his motto. As reported by Lifesite News:
President Trump is keeping in place a special international LGBT “envoy” established by the Obama administration to promote acceptance of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism abroad in the name of U.S. foreign policy.
The decision to preserve open homosexual Randy Berry as Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons was reported Monday by the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade. It is another blow to pro-family advocates who oppose the LGBT agenda and are counting on Trump to root out homosexual and abortion activists from the foreign affairs bureaucracy after eight years of Obama’s leftist policies.
“If this report is true,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, “keeping Berry only signals to the world that the extreme agenda of the Obama years is still deeply entrenched in the State Department.”
Congrats, Pim. Much as you despise all Christian terminology, your martyrdom was not in vain. Your fellow rats have commandeered the sinking ship. God will have the final say as to whether they can successfully navigate it back to port, though. This is our great solace and comfort.
| Tweet |
|
|
|
