Milo Yiannopoulos, FreeSpeech.TV, December 6, 2019
If you’ve heard about a “civil war” happening on the front lines of American conservativism, but never bothered to find out more, here’s the crux of it: One side, represented by Establishment Republican organizations like Turning Point U.S.A. and the Daily Wire, is ferociously defending increasingly discredited positions on immigration and capitalism that are at odds with the Republican voting base and even their own members and readers.
This is the side of Charlie Kirk, who recently had to issue a shriveling apology for recycling a Hillary Clinton policy during his speaking tour: that anyone who graduates from an American university should get a Green Card “stapled to their diploma.” Yuck.
On the other side are the groypers, a loud and growing contingent of young conservatives unsatisfied by Republican gatekeepers. Supporting them you’ll find a silent but growing contingent of true believers, nationalists and noisy internet culture warriors who supported Trump the last time around but are getting increasingly ticked off as they see little movement on immigration or wall-building.
It’s true that this side of the aisle contains some genuine racists—remnants of Richard Spencer’s thankfully deceased alt-right—and people who flirt in an ugly and reprehensible fashion with Nazi ideas. But that’s a small slice of an emerging youth movement that in my view we should embrace and seek to enlighten, rather than reject and name-call.
Philosophically speaking, conservatism is retreating from untrammeled “freedom” to a more ordered “liberty.” Conservatives are returning home to Edmund Burke, who often spoke of ordered liberty. Liberty, said Burke, cannot exist outside of an ordered system; liberty is in fact derived from order. Personally, I think a little from Column A and a little from Column B is about right.
Conservatives are also starting to realize that although race isn’t everything, it’s also not nothing. As New York Times science correspondent Nicholas Wade wrote in his 2014 book A Troublesome Inheritance, race is real, in a statistical, genetic sense. It isn’t a “social construct.” It has observable biological consequences: For instance, some diseases only occur in some races. We need to know about it to best help and most efficiently treat patients in hospitals and to correctly tune public services.
Also, and there’s no point lying about this, I.Q. differences do persist between races in every study, no matter how many environmental factors are controlled for or when the study is conducted. It’s fashionable to say that I.Q. is a western-centric, white-biased, selective test that doesn’t represent the totality of a person and doesn’t take into account the different skills that are valued in different cultures. It is true that I.Q. is a general curve. Certainly, there are individual blacks smarter than most whites. I am married to one of them.
But broadly speaking, I.Q. is oddly resilient as a predictor of future life success. I don’t meant to get bogged down in this debate; I’m merely pointing out that the subject is messy and complicated and that the T.P.U.S.A. side grossly oversimplifies (a better word would be “lies”) about it for reasons best known to themselves. And they keep getting busted.
As Wade daringly admitted in 2014, genetic differences might explain why some cultures languish in penury while others flourish, because genetic inheritances might produce different patterns of behavior. That’s a pretty explosive claim, but it’s not me making it. It’s one of liberal America’s most distinguished science reporters. The reason I’m harping on about it is, of course, immigration. Trump’s most ferocious supporters are looking at the people pouring into their country and asking if their country is doing a good job attracting the best and the brightest from overseas.
Can mere ideas win, as Conservative, Inc. would have you believe in their dangerous quest to persuade us of the case for mass immigration? Or are there unbridgeable cultural differences, some of them perhaps rooted in biology, that will always keep certain groups at odds? That’s the question at the heart of the current schism on the American Right. Leading one army, but with what you might call more tempered views than some of his followers, is cheeky podcaster Nicholas J. Fuentes.
How has Nick Fuentes managed to captivate and charm so many? He is undeniably talented, charismatic, quick on his feet and influential. But he is also still only twenty-one years old, which means either that he’ll be around for decades, and that this is just the start, or that he’s headed for an ugly implosion. I’m intrigued by him, and by the movement he’s leading, and although I don’t like everything they have to say, I’d rather have them on my side than not—especially if they can be persuaded that religion, and not race, is the ultimate source of culture.
Like it or not, Fuentes is at the head of the most exciting right-wing uprising since, well, me. That said, his army of fans don’t think much of Milo. And a lot of my viewers don’t think much of Fuentes! But I have a hunch we’ve got more in common than we do keeping us apart—and, that we’re probably talking to media caricatures of one another.
That’s why I’ve invited him to join me tonight for a special episode of Friday Night’s All Right. It’s his first ever in-studio interview, and it’s my hope that America will get the measure of him without the dishonest mediating layer of Establishment media—or the lies of the Establishment Right—getting in the way.