Let it be war, then

Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon- but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.
-- Attributed to Captain John Parker at Lexington Green, 1775
It would appear that everybody's favourite Dangerous Faggot, Milo Yiannopoulos, has landed himself in a spot of hot water after supposedly making comments that supported paedophilia:
The head of the American Conservative Union is defending his decision to invite controversial speaker Milo Yiannopoulos to the annual CPAC conference – even though he withdrew the invitation after videos containing 'out of bounds' comments emerged. 
Matt Schlapp, who heads the ACU, told MSNBC's 'Morning Joe,' indicated he was aware of anti-Semitic statements by Yiannopoulos, but decided to invite him to highlight campus free speech issues. 
'I think when it comes to what he does on campus … You have a right to be heard in America and you have a right to be heard on campus. And it’s not fair on campus that just voices that emanate from the left seem to be cherished and not voices from the right,' Shlapp said. 
But he took back the invitation after videos came out where Yiannopoulis described the benefits of 'coming of age relationships' – though the outspoken conservative said he was not defending pedophilia.
I stress the "supposedly" part because there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Milo is now the subject of a sustained campaign to destroy him publicly. His status, his celebrity aura, and his following have all reached the point where the regressive Left can no longer tolerate his existence- because he reveals their hypocrisy, their bigotry, their closed-mindedness, and their extreme paranoia to the entire world to see.

Interestingly, none of the media stories that I have seen so far- from both the Left and the Right in the media- actually show or provide the clips that have caused this uproar. This means that, if you and I didn't know better, we would have to rely on the lying legacy media to tell us what to think.

But we do know better. And this is 2017. So it isn't all that difficult for people who are actually interested in the Truth to go and find it.

To whit- here is a compilation of the clips that supposedly show that Milo Yiannopoulos supports or at least does not outright condemn paedophilia.

Watch the whole thing, and then make up your own mind as to whether Milo is a flaming (literally) hypocrite:


Once removed from the filter of the lying media, it becomes perfectly clear that Milo's only crime was to be highly imprecise with his language and very sloppy with his definitions.

Since we cannot trust the media to tell us the truth about what Milo actually intended to say, and whether he was in fact sloppy with his definitions and his language, we must therefore turn to what the man himself said:





Therefore, once we step away from the media's lies, we are left with several inescapable conclusions.

Milo does not support or condone or in any way paper over abuse of minors. Milo was imprecise in his language and probably a bit foolish in his choice of topic. Milo did not make adequately clear the line between humourous and serious conversation.

But Milo did not, in any way, do or say anything to deserve the treatment he has received thus far from his erstwhile publisher, his supposed "friends" among the cuckservatives, and from CPAC.

Now here is where, inevitably, unfortunately, and quite annoyingly, I have to state where I stand in order that people don't misinterpret what I am saying.

First: Paedophilia is among the worst crimes that any human can commit. Sexual abuse of children- note, not young men or young women, CHILDREN- is abomination. Burning at the stake, crucifixion, impalement, and drowning are too lenient as punishments for paedophiles.

At no point does Milo disagree with any of this. At every point, he states clearly that he finds paedophiles disgusting and abominable. As he has stated himself, he has worked hard to out paedophiles in his professional life.

Second: grown adults having sexual relations with teenagers below the established age of consent is illegal, and with good reason. There is a specific age above which it is assumed that a young man or woman is wise enough, and sexually mature enough, to be considered an adult. You can argue and quibble and prevaricate all you like about where that line should be, but the fact remains that it exists and must exist in any law-abiding society.

Milo Yiannopoulos explicitly stated that he agrees entirely with the concept of an age of consent. His failure lies in refusing to elaborate or define exactly what he considers to be the age of consent.

Third: I strongly disagree with Milo's specific comments related to teenage boys having sexual relationships with their older teachers (regardless of gender). If you agree with the concept of an age of consent- and I do, as Milo does- then sexual relationships between someone below the age of consent, and someone above it, is statutory rape.

That is the line of the law. It may be arbitrary and there are surely individual exceptions where people under the age of consent may well actually be capable of giving consent. But the law says what it says in black and white.

Fourth: I disagree with and loathe Milo's personal predilections and lifestyle. I find homosexuality abhorrent and unnatural. I have so stated in a number of my posts and I state it again here for the record. I do not condone or endorse a homosexual lifestyle in any way. I certainly do not endorse a male homosexual lifestyle at all.

I also state, clearly and for the record, that I stand with Milo today.

This might seem to some to be a highly contradictory position. It is nothing of the sort. One can support an ally even when one disagrees personally with his lifestyle, his decisions, and his point of view.

Milo is an ally in our war for our culture. He has proven to be frighteningly effective at debating leftists- because he ticks off so many of their class-warfare boxes, and yet he argues on the basis of devastating rhetoric rooted in dialectic, fact, reason, and evidence.

Allies like that need and deserve our support.

Milo is not of the alt-Right. He has said so himself repeatedly. But without Milo Yiannopoulos, the alt-Right would not be nearly as formidable and powerful as it is today. We owe him.

We can disagree with him. We can condemn his lifestyle. We can get annoyed by his swishing faggotry. But we must not turn our backs on a friend who has gone to war on our behalf, and exposed himself repeatedly to terrible risks in the process, when he needs us the most.

So I state now that I stand with Milo in this war. I will buy a copy of his book, no matter where it ends up being published. If he requires funds to cover legal fees against the lawsuits that are sure to come, I will donate, under my real name and with my own money, to him directly.

His war is our war, and it is well past time that the fight was taken straight to the legacy media. Their lies, their faithlessness, and their betrayal of the very people who once trusted them, must be held over their heads as the Sword of Damocles. They must be weighed, judged, and found wanting.

And now, they must be destroyed. That is their fate, and they deserve it.

Comments

Popular Posts