Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Tuesday, February 21, 2017 7:42 pm

What we have learned this week about U.S. conservatism

I would not have bet a beer on the likelihood that Nazi provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos could do anything useful. But this week, and quite by accident, he did: He found that the moral depravity of U.S. conservatism does, apparently, have a bottom. I just wish it were not as deep as it is.

Milo (normally I’d use his last name on second reference, but I’m lazy) had been invited to be not just a speaker at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, but the keynote speaker. The conference provides a lot of entertainment and amusement for people who are not batshit, but it also serves as a canary in the coalmine for U.S. politics by offering a beauty contest of current and future GOP political candidates.

So this was the guy who was to get this week’s main spotlight. A guy who had risen to fame by fomenting “Gamergate,” a huge harassment campaign against women in gaming. Who led a racist harassment campaign against Leslie Jones, who appeared in the all-female “Ghostbusters” reboot. Who, though not a U.S. citizen himself, reviles immigrants. Who’s openly gay, yet mocks efforts to make life better for LGBTQ people.

So what did Milo do to be shown the door so ungraciously? A video surfaced in which he suggested that, hey, just maybe pedophilia had gotten a bad rap.

To hear him tell it, he was just engaging in freedom of speech. And there’s a certain truth to that. He has the absolute right to say that. And everyone else has the absolute right to recoil in moral revulsion, which pretty much everyone else did. CPAC, the biggest GOP event short of the quadrennial Republican National Convention, revoked its speaking invitation. Simon & Schuster, which had offered Milo a book deal, rescinded it. And Breitbart, whose then-editor, Steve Bannon — yes, the same Nazi who now advises the president* –had hired Milo, fired him. (Which, by the way, means that Milo, who’s here on an O visa, no longer has a job and has to leave the country. I wonder how this has affected his views on immigration.)

In 1983, Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards supposedly quipped to reporters that the only he could lose an election would be to be caught with a dead girl or a live boy. To judge from what has happened to Milo, Edwards is right; a live boy is too much for U.S. conservatives. We still don’t know about the dead girl, and given everything else that the GOP and the intellectually bankrupt American conservative movement generally will sit still for, I’m afraid some girl, somewhere, actually is going to have to die before we find out.









  1. […] SOURCE […]

    Pingback by What we have learned this week about U.S. conservatism – Greensboro 101 — Tuesday, February 21, 2017 8:06 pm @ 8:06 pm

  2. The Media Strikes Back: Milo, Lies, and Videotape

    by Dystopic | Feb 21, 2017 | Culture War

    Yesterday, I spent a lot of time discussing the matter of Milo’s supposed support of pedophilia, with both detractors and supporters. I am prepared to take my position on the matter. The fact is, you have to stand up for what you believe to be right and not let fear give your enemy power over you. The Alinsky manual itself instructs us:
    Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
    We often ascribe to the media more power than it actually possesses, especially when we’re in a position where PR can make or break us. I’ve long known that I could have been much more successful if I had turned my coat, become a Benedict Arnold, and gone over to the Left. They like traitors, they worship the faithless and the easily corruptible.
    I made the decision a long time ago that I would give up lies. You see, I was once a very accomplished liar, given over to dishonesty and self-aggrandizement. I was so good at it, I could fool myself. There were many reasons for this, and I don’t want to sidetrack this post by delving too deeply into them. But the day came when I couldn’t look myself in the mirror anymore. I didn’t like what I had become.
    I swore honesty, for like the alcoholic who has given up liquor, and dispenses with the bottles, for the temptation is too great, lies were not safe for me. Not even the little ones. Especially the little ones.
    So let’s lay this thing out with a respect for truth, something the lying, self-aggrandizing media has never had as long as I’ve been alive.
    Did Milo kiddy-diddle? No. No evidence of this has ever surfaced, so far as I am aware. There are no chat logs of him discussing how he wants to rape his 8 year old cousin, such as in the case of Sarah “Butts” Nyberg. There are no accusers coming forth to say that he molested them. There are no convictions, or even court cases. Nothing. So the insinuation that he, himself, is a pedophile has no basis in fact, no evidence whatsoever. The insinuation is a subtle lie.
    Did Milo defend pedophiles? No. Evidence exists that he did the exact opposite. He has exposed multiple pedophiles in the past, including the aforementioned Nyberg. Salon, one of the publications attacking Milo for this supposed behavior, has published many articles defending pedophilia, calling it a sexual orientation (something Milo has absolutely never done). People like Meryl Streep have given standing ovations to convicted pedophiles, like Roman Polanski. Do you really think any of this is based on principle? That the media has suddenly developed a conscience when it comes to molesting children?
    They don’t care. They want Milo gone. And by extension, they want Trump gone.
    Did Milo defend the practice of pedophilia in any way? No. I’ve reviewed the unedited video [the video has since been taken down – can’t imagine why] and Milo’s response. In both, it is clearly and emphatically stated that he has no problem with the age of consent, and does not condone pedophilia. Yes, in the same video he is purported to be supporting this behavior, he denies supporting it.
    So what did Milo do wrong?
    Well, he did make a mistake. In fact, he made several mistakes. Again, let’s be honest here.
    First off, he went into too much detail about something that, quite honestly, we don’t want to know about. To be fair, part of this is his trolling, provocateur personality. But even so, most of us really don’t want to hear the gruesome details of gay sex. To be fair, I don’t want to hear the gruesome details from straight people. Folks like Lena Dunham ought to shut their yaps about this, too. But in this case, he definitely gave way too much detail. It got positively squicky.
    Second, this issue became personal for him, because he was abused at a young age. So instead of it being a far away issue he could treat more objectively, it became a matter of emotion with him. I can’t blame him for this, mind you. But this is how the Left will destroy you. They will find a weak part of your psyche and subvert it. They will make you act with emotion instead of reason, they will infuriate you, and embarrass you.
    Third, Milo apologized profusely for his poor choice of words. He should know better. There is no forgiveness to ever be had from the political Left. He did choose his words very poorly, mind you. There is no disputing that. But he should never have said I’m sorry. At best, he could have said “you know, I really shouldn’t have gone into so much gory detail, but you… you shouldn’t lie about what I said.”
    But let’s be crystal clear, because I suspect even my readers are divided on this issue: you have done or said something that can be used to assassinate your character.
    Again, for clarity: you have said things that the press could assassinate your character with. I guarantee it. Every single person reading this right now has said something which the press could twist into a knife and plunge into your gut. All of you.
    You don’t need to like Milo, or approve of his behavior. In fact, I don’t approve of some of the outlandish things he’s done. The bathing in pig blood stunt was just weird.
    Rather, what you need to realize is that the press is striking back against Donald Trump right now. It’s another Alinsky tactic. Three Alinsky rules are pertinent here:
    No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough.
    Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
    “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.“ Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
    First, the media perused Milo’s work for a potential hot issue. The video in question was published on January 4, 2016. So they poured through his material looking for a hit piece, just like journalists drove all the way out to the sticks to find a pizza shop that didn’t want to cater a hypothetical gay wedding, in order to serve a narrative. They found a hot issue, and made it hot enough that Milo had to respond. Step one.
    For step two, they went to the conservative right, who are largely Christian, and spun this story in a way to disgust them as much as possible. Like I said, they can do this to every single person reading my blog. Have you ever said something hasty to someone? Ever written anything controversial? Anyway, the media put pressure on the right to drop him, because, they say, here is a guy who doesn’t live up to your standards. Make it so the right destroys Milo. Then the media can wash its hands of the character assassination.
    Now, in the larger picture, this is part of an effort to destroy Donald Trump. You see, the media has finally learned that Donald Trump can’t be destroyed via conventional media tactics. He has been dealing with them since the late 70s, he knows them, and he never backs down. He is a hardened target. They’ve tried frontal assaults, they’ve tried siege tactics, they tried to sneak in the back door, and nothing has worked.
    This attack is the first smart thing they’ve done since the election.
    But they can still isolate him by destroying all of his prominent supporters, one-by-one. The supporters are less hardened to media blitz than he is. And if his support dries up, his administration will be a fortress cutoff from the countryside. They can starve his administration and regain power in 2018 and 2020. Especially, it should be noted, if they manage to drive a wedge in the right wing in the meantime.
    If Milo had diddled kids, I’d drop him immediately. If Milo defended kiddy diddlers, I’d drop him immediately. No evidence of either has been put forward. All we have is a hit piece constructed of cherry-picked quotes from an old video. Now, again, honesty here. I do think he made several mistakes here (but he’s human, it’s going to happen). But is it really worth throwing him to the wolves for? Think about that very carefully, and know that you could be next. No, not could be, will be. If the media succeeds with this, they will keep doing it.
    Don’t let the media isolate and freeze out targets this way. Throw the Alinsky manual back in their faces.
    If you like Milo, do it for him. If you don’t like him, do it because you could be next. Never let the media get away with dishonest character assassination, even if the target is someone you have issues with. You cannot embolden them with such successes. Don’t support liars. Take it from one who learned better.

    UPDATE: Milo has resigned from Breitbart. They got their scalp. They’ll be emboldened, now. I certainly hope that next time, we will fight instead of cave in.
    In case anyone thinks this isn’t premeditated, note that Salon deleted their pro-pedo material before attacking Milo. It was a cynical, calculated political move. The tweet is still up, but it goes nowhere.

    ADDITIONAL UPDATE: Evan McMullin confirms his involvement with this whole affair:

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Wednesday, February 22, 2017 1:33 am @ 1:33 am

    • 1) That whistling sound was the point going right over your head. The point is that conservatives are perfectly OK with a lot of awful stuff, including but not limited to race-based vote suppression and manslaughter via ACA repeal. 2) Milo did indeed argue that some 13yos are capable of giving consent, a position for which there is no sociological, psychological or neurological evidence. 3) Conservatives have never hesitated to take Democrats out of context to get a scalp, so EVEN IF what Milo said was harmless, which it wasn’t, you’d have no grounds to complain.

      Comment by Lex — Wednesday, February 22, 2017 7:53 am @ 7:53 am

  3. If they take down Milo you are next

    By Sarah Hoyt

    *I’ve spent the last day and a half in dread, looking at the coordinated attack on Milo, and the debacle on the right. As someone who was never-Trump before it was cool, and who only capitulated because she was never-Hillary more, and an anti-communist from the time she could understand the word, I felt divided when people piled on on never-trumpers. But this is ridiculous and has passed all bounds of civilized behavior.

    The charges against Milo are contrived from a) video editing and b) rumor and innuendo and c) pretending no one ever used the word “boy” to mean man, thereby meaning playboy is for 10 year olds and “playing with the big boys” means middle schoolers.

    IF the attack on Milo were about, say how outrageous he got before the election (he’s been walking it back since. I suspect he gets a little battle mad as I tend to.) I’d shrug and say “whatever”. However this is a contrived and false attack and one that apparently came from the right but is teaching the left the way to take every one of us down. You might not like Milo or his lifestyle, but you should not under any circumstances, applaud this means of taking him down. And if you do, I hope you experience likewise and get to experience what you like so much. There is a good chance you will. They’ve tasted blood with Milo. We’re next.

    If You Let Them “Get” Milo, You’re Next

    Look guys, this is where Sarah takes her gloves off, turns the picture of Heinlein to the wall to spare him the worst of the rant, puts her hands on her hips and gives you the blunt and painful truth. I swear you’re not going to like it and I swear to you that you need to hear it.

    So, this kerfuffle with Milo Yannopolis, let’s be frank: have you seen the non-edited videos? Have you been to his page? No? Then shut up.

    He might have used infelicitous terms, but not all that infelicitous. He might have got caught in explaining too far – as someone who used to write for Classical Values, the blog devoted to overthinking it, I can’t complain – but he’s always been a bit more intellectual than the rest of the right and VERY intellectual for a shock-Jockey. But that is it.

    Yes, he used “boys” when he meant men. So do you, every fricking day. No? Then what’s with Playboy, “one of the boys”, “playing with the big boys.” Unless you mean kids under the age of 12, you too used boys to mean men.

    Second he talked about relationships between younger men and older men as nurturing, comfortable. Yeah, and? He also said that he thinks the age of consent is about where it should be. And for the US he is right.

    The US, you say? What does that have to do with it?

    Well, dear heart, if you think that the age of consent being 18 (it’s actually 16 in most states, but never mind) is a law of nature, you should perhaps meditate on George Bernard Shaw’s dictum: Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.

    This is where Milo got into overthinking, when he started discussing how strictly speaking pedophiles are attracted to those people who haven’t undergone puberty (or are undergoing puberty.) He’s absolutely right, but he was perhaps over-intellectualizing. The truth is that laws of consent usually slice the do no harm/prevent harm very finely indeed, and are set when most of the population of the country can be assumed to have passed through and undergone puberty.

    For instance the age of consent in Portugal is 14. By 11 I had undergone menarche. My best friend, OTOH, didn’t go through it till 16. However hers was very late, and doctors were involved. Most people got it at 12. So 14 seems like a fairly safe age of consent.

    You’re not going to prevent people who go through it earlier from having sex (OTOH I found an interest in physics and electronics prevented me pretty effectively till much, much older.) But you want to discourage outright predators. So 14 is about right for Portugal.

    Do I mean girls of 14 (or boys for that matter) know what they’re doing? No. But I also don’t think they know what they’re doing at 18. Left to me, I’d set the age of consent at thirty, and human population would plummet.

    You can have an unequal relationship at any age, one that scars you and breaks you for life. You can’t really legislate those. The best you can do is stand by to pick people up when they fall. And the best you can do as a parent is make sure your kids know how complicated a decision it is, and how many ramifications sex can have that they don’t understand. (I keep telling my kids “Wait till 45!” I don’t think they’re listening.)

    The best you can do as a legislator is keep people from making decisions when their bodies are still not working right and they know nothing of life.

    No Milo was about right and the law of consent in the US of about 16 in most states and 18 in some is about right. It’s just about protecting kids who are still not physically adult. It’s all the law can do. the rest falls to parents.

    Now leaving that aside, and returning to this. Milo has busted three pedophiles. He is vocal in saying that pedophilia can’t be condoned. BUT an unholy alliance of left and right edited a video of him talking and did away with his book deal and removed him from Breitbart.

    And idiotic socons are piling on, telling us that “Milo doesn’t belong on the right” and that his (rather effective, frankly) talks about his private life are “disgusting.”

    Maybe they are, but if you’re going to kick out everyone who isn’t middle class US, blond, Southern Baptist, you’re never again going to hold power in this country. Which is exactly what the left wants, and what you’re preparing.

    Because NONE of you are clean. It is possible to demonize all of us, with ridiculous things NO ONE should believe. I’m sure somewhere or other (often) I made a joke about “Mediterraenan people uber alas” usually when people accuse me of being racist or white supremacist. It wouldn’t take much to plaster those everywhere and have some idiots say I don’t belong on the right, either. The fact that I’ve been accused of being a White Supremacist is proof to you that the left SMEARS. It’s what they do.

    For years, in publishing and in the arts, if you weren’t a hundred percent behind them, the whisper campaign started: “She’s white supremacist.” “She’s racist.” “She’s an homophobe.” (Yes, I have been accused of that. By the left AND the right.)

    And if the right buys into this, denounces and piles on, it just gives power to the left. Do you see them distancing themselves from irresponsible, economically corrupt Hillary? No. But you self-righteous little goody two shoes can’t wait to distance yourselves from Milo.

    And his is how you give the left the rope to hang you with.

    Milo is taking fire, because he can communicate with college students; because he’s getting a following; because his VERY EXISTENCE denies the stereotype that the right is racist/sexist/homophobic. The left HAS to destroy Milo.

    And if you cooperate in his destruction, you are next.

    You can tell them “you took that out of context, and you should be ashamed of yourself for rushing to judgement.” You can mock them with the Shaw quote. You can call them the judgmental prudes they are.

    Or you can let Milo be taken down and cower in the dark, waiting for the knock on your door.


    Comment by Fred Gregory — Wednesday, February 22, 2017 5:26 pm @ 5:26 pm

    • Horseshit, Fred.

      Comment by Lex — Wednesday, February 22, 2017 5:27 pm @ 5:27 pm

  4. My oh my , what a deep thought intellectual reply. I guess when you are backed into corner you are reduced to mindless rejoinders . Sigh ! (-:

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Thursday, February 23, 2017 1:01 am @ 1:01 am

  5. Fred, your idea of proving Milo didn’t endorse sex with 13yos was to quote someone who approves of sex with 14yos. I’m pretty sure I’ve got the high ground on this one.

    Comment by Lex — Thursday, February 23, 2017 6:38 am @ 6:38 am

  6. Milo Yiannopoulos got punished despite having done nothing wrong!

    Sometimes the Lefties in this country get lucky. They have a truly dangerous adversary like Milo Yiannopoulos, someone who bravely and wades into the fight, and does so in such a way that he exposes to the maximum number of people how monstrous the ideological enemy really is — and then self-righteous “conservatives” take him down without the Left having to lift a finger. This is just so wrong. You’d think that people, especially those on the Right, would have learned something from the Trump “grab them by their…” debacle but, nooooo, they just fall into the same traps over and over.

    Ask yourself what it was that Milo did to earn his banishment from the same halls and institutions that once welcomed him with open arms. You may be surprised by the answers. (I should state here that I’ve read the entire transcript of Milo’s more controversial remarks. You can too. Here is his defense and clarification.)

    Did Milo confess that he molested a child? No. He never said he did. He has asserted steadfastly and strongly that he never has. And no one has crawled out of the woodwork claiming that Milo molested him. Lena Dunham confessed in her autobiography that she molested her little sister . . . but no one cared.

    Did Milo actually molest a child? See above. He has not said he did so; he has said he never would do so; and no one has contested anything he said.

    Did Milo say that he wanted to molest a child? No. Ne never said he did. Indeed, he’s consistently asserted that he finds the very idea repugnant. And again, no one has crawled out of the woodwork claiming that he and Milo had a great conversation once upon a time about their desire to molest a child.

    Has Milo insisted that pedophilia isn’t really that bad, which is what one of Slate’s now-erased writers did? No. He has never advocated pedophilia, although he’s made it clear that an older gay man introduced him to gay sex (whether before or after puberty is not clear). Where Milo differs from Lefties when it comes to his having been victimized is that he doesn’t define himself by what happens to him. What Milo has done, though, is to be one of the loudest voices arguing about protecting children from sexual predators, starting with allowing predatory pedophile males into little girls’ bathrooms, which is something the Obama administration insisted was a sexually confused man’s civil right.

    Has Milo tried to foist a gay agenda, with all of its bizarre behaviors on America and America’s children? No. Certainly Milo’s persona is all about being gay. He’s not the one, though, who’s advocating that we start teaching small children about gay sex or that we put books touting explicit gay sex in the library’s at America’s public schools. If that’s what you want, you have to go to Kevin Jennings, whom Obama appointed as his “Safe School Czar.” Part of Milo’s shtick is to stop pretending that gays are saints.

    Did Milo talk about pedophilia in a podcast? Yes. Yes, he did, although not in the way the self-righteous crowd claims.

    In the context of that broadcast, Milo made two highly accurate statements, the first of which has nothing to do with pedophilia. What he said is that it’s very common for older gay men to mentor younger gay men, whom Milo called “boys.” Anyone who’s spent time around gay men, as I have given a lifetime in the San Francisco Bay Area, understands that there’s a whole gay culture around older men and younger men. A good example would be Barney Frank and his “boy”friend, who was 30 years younger than Frank. If gays want to talk about prepubescent children, believe me, they know how. “Boy” in this content manifestly meant older (i.e., legal) teen/young adult, not a child. Once Milo clarified that point, it should have been over.

    The other conversation Milo had was a linguistic one: He said, accurately, that pedophilia is a very specific type of sexual perversion that involves lusting after prepubescent children — something he specifically disavowed. The conversation then touched upon post-pubescent children. It was in this context that Milo said that the way the law draws bright lines ignores the fact that children mature sexually at different ages. As I noted in my post yesterday about Milo, watching the children in my community grow up has shown that some kids are completely physically mature by 12 or 13, while others are still working on physical maturity by 18 or 19.

    Milo characterized himself as sexually mature at an early age, which may have been true. Or it may have been the case that, since he himself was sexually molested, he became more sexually aggressive, which is often the case with children who are molested. Milo also said that, if you’re gay, having an older mentor is helpful, especially if you are moving into the sexual side of your nature — which is also true, and most gay men (as Milo said) will admit that if pressed.

    What Milo never said is, “I know all this about little boys and spotty young teens because I’ve had sex with dozens of 13-year-old boys and helped them discover what it means to be gay.” He never said that, nor did he say anything like it. This was a hypothetical discussion about a factual reality in the gay world.

    Having unloaded these truths, Milo nevertheless completely agreed that the legal age of consent is a good thing and lands on the right age. The unspoken conclusion driving that statement had to have been that, given the broad spread in age of sexual maturation, it’s appropriate for the law to err on the side of caution to protect the maximum number of children from sexual predators.

    If I’m correct that Milo was thinking the above, well, he’s right — he’s right about it for same-sex relationships and he’s right about for heterosexual relationships. Pedophilia’s vile and we need to protect the greatest number of children from it. Given that some kids mature slowly, the law should reach out to accommodate them. I agree. You agree. Milo agrees.

    And lest I get dragged down into the muck by people saying that I’m excusing Milo and therefore advocating pedophilia or teen sex, no, I’m not. Pedophilia is an unutterably evil thing to do to a child and ought to be punished to the full extent of the law. As for me, when I was a child and now that I’m a parent, I liked (and like) the idea of a 1950s world. Back then, the media didn’t relentlessly sexualize children and teens. Society as a whole encouraged young people to hold on to their virginity until they were married — or, if they didn’t seem destined for marriage, to wait at least until their mid-20s and to be safe and discrete. People are still people and things will always happen, but the cultural norm was to delay sex so that young people could mature.

    Looking at the detritus of today’s sexual revolution — which our media still pushes — I believe that teen sex (i.e., post-pubescent or adolescent sex) is emotionally damaging, and that’s true whether teens are partnering with people their own age or older. One of the nicest things I ever read was Steve Crowder’s post about the wonders of saving sex for marriage.

    Despite my values, I’m neither blind nor stupid. I know how the world works. I therefore know that a significant portion of the students in my kids’ high school, if they escaped middle school with their virginity intact, did not graduate from high school that way.

    With that real world in mind and with what Milo actually said in mind, rather than what he’s accused of saying, remind me why he got destroyed? Why did Simon & Schuster dump what would have been a massive money-maker? Why did half of Breitbart’s staff suddenly start screaming about scarlet letters and exile?

    Why? Because people jump to conclusions and then they like to virtue signal.

    Let me take you on a little walk back in time, all the way back to October 2016, when suddenly Donald Trump was a rapist or the next best thing. “He confessed!” insisted the Left and the self-righteous Right.

    In fact, Trump did not confess to any misdoing. In response to Billy Bush’s goading him on in the company of a bus full of men, after first saying he, personally, loves to kiss women, Trump then stated a truism: When you’re rich, women will let you do anything. Or, to quote him, he said, “And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. . . . Grab them by the p*ssy. You can do anything.”

    Don’t believe me? Watch this video, which goes through every second of the misrepresented conversation to find the truth — and the truth is that Trump played along with the locker room talk, and talked about (unsuccessfully) trying to buy his way into a woman’s bed, but never — never — confessed to rape or assault.

    Not only did Trump not say that he grabbed women’s p*ssies, it’s fun to speculate what he might have said if that conversation had continued. Given that he was buddies with the Clintons when this conversation took place, he might have said something like, “As for me, I don’t do that kind of thing, but I’ve seen Bill Clinton get away with it every time. Women see him and they let him do anything he wants. He’s grabbed more women by the p*ssy than . . . well, the number is yuuuge.”

    Milo just got Trumped, and it’s as wrong with Milo as it was with Trump.

    You know what else hacks me off about this whole thing? People are desperate to knock Trump and Milo off a moral pedestal even though neither man ever made the slightest attempt to climb up on such a pedestal. Neither pretended to be anything but vulgar or crude. And both have been open about they fact that they love sex with the objects of their desires (women for Trump, men for Milo), and are perfectly willing to think and talk about it when asked.

    Despite the facts on the ground, people are shrieking as if these two men were up in the pulpit every Sunday thundering about sexual licentiousness and sinning against God. There’s no hypocrisy here and they shouldn’t be punished as if they were hypocrites.

    In Trump’s case, the American people spoke and said that they fully understood that Trump is what, in the old days, used to be called a “man’s man.” They also said that they understood that talking about something is not the same thing as acting upon it. They were willing to believe that Trump did nothing wrong.

    Who’s going to speak out for Milo, though? Although he says he decided voluntarily to leave Breitbart, and he did it with great grace, the fact is that the self-righteous ones on Breitbart’s staff drove him out. And who’s going to publish his book, which makes important points about behaviors that are antithetical to freedom? When it comes to attacks on freedom, the Left is infinitely worse than the Right, but things like this — where the Right does the Left’s dirty work — remind us that conservatives are not without sin. Far from it.

    Milo, here’s a message from me to you: Don’t give up the good fight. You did nothing wrong. You were your usual self: blunt, crude, outrageous, and outspoken, but you were not criminal or perverted. Keep fighting the good fight for intellectual freedom. If we drive people like you out of the public conversation, not only are we less free, but all of our baser instincts, instead of being addressed, fester and grow increasingly rotten.

    I want to close, not with more of me, but with a beautifully stated email I got from one of my readers, a woman I’ve come to admire greatly over the years:

    I really appreciated your going to bat for Milo over this most recent controversy. I have a lot to say on the subject of pop culture’s encouragement of adolescent/post adolescent sex — both straight and gay — and the mistaken confusion of adult/post puberty sex with pedophilia. FWIW, I have a strong impression that a large percentage of the “pedophilia sex” scandal in the Roman Catholic church was actually sex between gay priests and post-puberty boys. Something I absolutely condemn, but it’s not pedophilia.

    When my children were adolescents, I was aware of more than one instance of teen age girls being active with men over 18, indeed, over 21. I’m sure Teen Vogue and Teen Cosmo wouldn’t blink a lash about that. I think Milo, once more, has struck a nerve, exposing the hypocrisy of the cultural/political left. I hate to see him hung out to dry.

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Friday, February 24, 2017 1:21 am @ 1:21 am

    • Posting long opinion pieces doesn’t change the fact that Milo argued that 13-year-olds are capable of giving consent.

      Comment by Lex — Saturday, February 25, 2017 12:30 pm @ 12:30 pm

    • Also, too: Read this (and follow the links) and weep.

      Comment by Lex — Saturday, February 25, 2017 1:12 pm @ 1:12 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: