Why Milo Yiannopoulos is more Marxist than the liberal professors he despises Knaip Follow Sep 19, 2016 · 7 min read

First of all, I’m not trying to undermine Milo’s political stances by arguing he is an actual “Marxist”, on the contrary, from my point of view that’s a compliment (and you know he can’t resist a compliment, like most people with fabulous hair). I’ll give it to you straight first: Milo is the one functioning as a Marxist in nowadays political discourse, but the subject isn’t as simple as that. Let’s debunk a few misconception towards Marx himself: he wasn’t the hippy, cuckoldly sensitive SJW you’ll meet in US college campi, for instance, he was a strong opponent of what we know today as “gun control”, as we can see from this excerpt from 1850’s “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League”: “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”

Also, Marx didn’t demonized capitalism. Of course he wanted to overthrow capitalism, that’s the core of his political project, but he acknowledged that capitalism was the most advanced mode of production society had organized in history. He was aware capitalism meant progress when compared to the previous systems, and being able to see this in the XIX century wasn’t easy. Most reactionaries today are against child labour or a 16-hour workday, but even back then (when those working conditions were common in British factories) Marx recognized capitalism was going to liberate the workers from oppressive feudalistic institutions and practices. When it comes to what we’ve come to know as “political correctness” Marx was strongly opposed to it, he was accused of being anti-semitic and blatantly racist because he was against what we call today “multiculturalism”: he considered every country that wasn’t going through an industrial revolution inferior. He argued that capitalism would spread across the world and suppress the “barbaric” and “ahistoric” way of living of “inferior societies”, basically predicting globalization.

Back to the matter at hand: Milo is an obvious capitalism apologist. In a recent interview he said that he doesn’t understand how someone can be against a mode of production (capitalism) that has brought us Western democracy, freedom of press, technological developments and so forth. How can a capitalist apologist be a “Marxist” then? Let’s take a look at post-modernism. Post-modern thought is the mother of “cultural appropriation” and basically all “identity politics”. It got the working-class chasing its own tail. Instead of organizing themselves collectively, they are more worried about their sexual identity, or their racial identity, hell, even whether or not they are furries and who can stick a furred plug up their bums without being called cultural appropriators. Identity politics is what enabled ultra-reactionaries politicians such as Hillary Clinton to present themselves as “progressives”: they’ll mollycoddle “different identities” while conducting imperialistic and disastrous military campaigns. Nowadays they are more likely to cause the 3rd World War than any other actual right-wing politician, they are more likely to foment national extremism by being excessively welcoming to immigration. How can that be? How liberal professors can’t see it? The answers rests with Milo: in our time the trolls are the only ones telling the truth.

One of the principles of historical materialism is that one should historicize historical materialism itself. What Marx meant by it was that “truth” is contingent to the historical moment and that one should always think of phenomena as simultaneously historically conditioned and conditioning history. Shouldn’t that be obvious? Not to liberal professors. They can’t see that from a historically materialist point of view, Hillary Clinton is a huge step backwards, despite presenting herself as “progressive”. On the other hand, the unapologetically conservative Donald Trump is the one making the right decisions: he wants to de-escalate tensions with Russia, he doesn’t pledge automatic allegiance to NATO, he doesn’t want a perpetual war with the Middle East, he doesn’t want to spend the taxpayers’ money on mindless military endeavors, he wants to make economically advantageous deals with countries that are now perceived by the “progressives” as “evil”. To sum it up, he wants to behave like a classical bourgeois leader, and that’s excellent. Hell, one can even see the old-fashioned union becoming relevant again in the US: with people massively working, comes worker solidarity. What about Hillary? She wants to “break glass ceilings”. More women, gay, trans, lesbian, racial minorities doing individually things that allegedly weren’t done before. What’s the advantage of this to the working-class? None. It won’t mitigate racism, transphobia or any ‘ism’ and ‘phobia’ for that matter. It’ll only stimulate more narcissism. Instead of focusing on what unites them they’ll be left chasing their — furry — tails and getting triggered by dissenting opinions.

Milo thinks dialectally. That’s easily inferred by his assertion that the trolls are the only ones saying the truth. And he is right. The trolls are the only ones being subversive, and our time is asking for overt subversion. Milo understands this all too well. The only answer to the groupthink mentality spread by the bourgeois-democratic media and their cohorts is to disrupt their narrative. Break the circlejerk they have naturalized, the idea that every identity should be embraced and cherished. Milo also breaks their narrative by being unpredictable. I can imagine how an interviewer must cold-sweat before conducting an interview with him: no matter what he asks, Milo will break his expectations. He won’t allow him to control the narrative. And even when they think they have won and painted a bad picture of him, it’ll backfire (doubt this? Check the interview ABC did with him recently). By thinking and acting dialectally Milo broke the media’s capacity to induce consensus. Now they are pressured to profoundly change themselves.

Milo’s discourse and praxis are so strong they now have a real influence on the global political stage, especially after Breitbart’s CEO has been appointed by Trump as campaign manager. While liberal professors and the like see this as an abomination, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to the left: someone needed to bitch-slap the pinkos and take away their intellectual comfort. Last week Trump acted as unpredictably as Milo when he trolled the media into speaking about the “birther” subject, only to disrupt their narrative and use broadcasting exposition to his own benefit (I speculate the brilliant publicity stunt was a direct influence of former Breitbart CEO, now Trump’s CM).

The new Left, contaminated by post-modern ideals of identity equality and overvaluation of the Self, ready to embrace the “different” as long as it fits a long-told comfortable narrative, afraid of subversion and challenging ideas, is aghast. They are powerlessly watching subversion coming from the most implausible of places: the “conservative right”. The liberal professors are lost because they returned to Hegel while simultaneously abandoning the dialectical thought process: they chose not to understand contradiction any longer. They are afraid that what a politician says (Trump) is “more harmful” to “minorities” than what a politician actually does. To a Marxist it should be obvious that picking the non-globalist candidate is not only what will drive history forward, but also the ethical decision, I don’t say this as an accelerationist, with the candid argument that “Trump is so bad it’ll be good for the working-class in the long term”, but because looking at Clintons’ past actions (both of them), they are the ones pushing neoliberalism and globalism to its limits, while being purportedly sympathetic for the “oppressed” (as long as those oppressed fit a carefully constructed media discourse). To exemplify how liberal professors are oblivious to the implications of embracing the established narrative I’ll resort to Obama. Obama is the first president since the 70’s that actually decreased the number of government employees. In his first term there was a reduction in GE of -2.8%. Reagan, on the other hand, increased government employees by 8.3%. What about the military numbers? If we compare Obama to Bush, there is no doubt that Obama launched much more offensives than Bush: 7x more drone attacks in Pakistan, 112x more aerial strikes in Iemen, 19 aerial strikes in Somalia, doubled the number of stationed troops in Afghanistan, not to mention Libya and other disasters. But hey, who cares? What matters to the liberal professors is that he is against the “anti-gay” laws of Russia! Who gives a flying f*ck if he doesn’t say anything against Saudi Arabia for condemning to death its gay population?

That’s the sort of hypocrisy Milo is exposing. Milo is breaking glass ceilings but not in the way the media wants it. They don’t want a gay man that is not cuckolded by the feminists’ not-so-figurative strap-ons. They don’t want a gay man referring to himself as “faggot” and debunking long-established codes of speech dictated by political correctness. They don’t want a gay man stranding from their narrative. History is full of contradictions, and as an old-school Marxist I can honestly say I’m glad to see post-modernism being destroyed by the very own political resistance they stimulated. I’m genuinely happy to see SJWs being multi-triggered everywhere. For that I thank you, Milo.