Milo Opinion of Angry Pundits

February 21st, 2017

Secular Conservatives: Your Money is on the Dresser

I see Milo Yiannopoulos is in trouble.

Let’s see if I understand this right. He is gay. He is conservative. He is loved because he is aggressive and angry, and probably because conservatives like to point to him and say, “See? We’re all about the gay.”

Isn’t that about right?

To me, he’s just Ann Coulter or Ted Nugent with gay mixed in. I’m not suggesting he’s as smart as Ann Coulter or even Ted Nugent, but he seems like someone conservatives love simply because he makes their adversaries suffer. I never thought he was good for the GOP.

It seems like conservatives are divided. There are those who admit that the GOP is the party of Jesus and those who think we’re just the party of stinginess. Yiannopoulos appealed to the latter group.

When I say we’re the part of Jesus, I just mean Christianity is the primary thing that binds us, and it’s the primary reason people hate us. I’m not suggesting the Republican party is a religious organization or that we’re as morally superior as we like to think we are.

People are accusing Yiannopoulos of endorsing pedophilia. I don’t know if that’s correct, but based on my reading of his remarks, it seems pretty close to the truth.

Most of us don’t distinguish between pedophilia, which is the abuse of prepubescent children, and the abuse of teenagers for whom puberty has at least begun. Yiannopoulos seems to be in favor of the latter. It’s not pedophilia, exactly, but it’s still bad, so the difference may not be very important here.

He talked about lusting after older men and having sex with them at the age of 13 or 14. He described himself as the aggressor. He also said positive things about relationships in which older homosexuals serve as emotional anchors for “boys” with whom they have sex.

It seems fair to say that Yiannopoulos supports sexual relationships between teenage boys and grown men. Isn’t that exactly what homosexuals are always telling us doesn’t really happen (in spite of the fact that our cities are full of teenage male prostitutes)?

Does that make him sufficiently immoral to justify the things CPAC, his publisher, and (allegedly) Breitbart are doing to him, to distance themselves from the smell of his scandal? I think so. The mistake was embracing him to begin with. His moral positions put him too far outside the camp, and apart from that, do we really need someone who makes us appear more mean-spirited? Aren’t we trying to fight that baseless image?

It’s always hard to decide whom to align oneself with. President Trump is an adulterer who owns casinos where people go to get drunk and gamble. On the other hand, he is helping Christians, Israel, and the unborn, and we had no better alternative. If we’re to be criticized for backing him, it should be for backing him in the primaries, not the general election. In the general election, the alternative was a bona fide horror.

Solutions that offend God are bad, regardless of which political party resorts to them. I shouldn’t say “resorts” with regard to the Democrats, because they don’t have to be coerced to oppose God. They voted against him four times, by voice, on TV, at their own convention. They oppose God in their hearts, so they jump at any chance they get to offend him with their actions and policies. Anyway, Yiannopoulos was a stealth dumpster fire from the time he first gained prominence. We shouldn’t have expected anything good to come from promoting him.

We will reject him now, in all likelihood, and you know what Shakespeare said: “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” He’s not a woman, but given his temperament, he is likely to react like one. He may become the ex-girlfriend from hell. Remember David Brock?

You have to wonder what feckless conservatives have told him in confidence. Will he disappear quietly, or will some outfit like Huffpo (founded by a scorned traitor) seduce him and use him against us?

I just remembered…Breitbart himself…Saint Andrew…helped start Huffpo. What funny heroes we have.

I didn’t develop my opinion of Breitbart from watching the news or reading his site. I developed it from behind-the-scenes knowledge, starting before his site existed. When I see the T-shirts with his face on them, I don’t get the same feeling other conservatives get.

Politics is interesting, but religion is what makes or breaks a nation. I may comment on political stories because they’re intriguing, but I am not a participant in the political game. Not even on a blogging level. I never link to anyone any more. I rejected PJ Media when they asked about writing for them. I don’t contribute to campaigns. I will never go to a Trump rally. That stuff doesn’t work.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

5 Responses to “Milo Opinion of Angry Pundits”

  1. Ruth H Says:

    The mistake was embracing him to begin with.
    Yep, you are right. CPAC embraced his celebrity and invited him. They should have left it at that, now they have the same egg on their face as Berkeley. They knew who he was, they knew how he acted, they knew what he said. I do not see this as they are correcting a mistake, I think they have embarrassed themselves and us. As a Christian conservative we love the sinner and not the sin, but we recognize what is going on. It just makes me angry they invited him in the first place, like an invitation to their prom. They must have thought they were having that press event. I could rant about this, but it is your blog.

  2. Steve B Says:

    I followed him briefly. I had only see some YouTube videos of his commentary at various colleges and liked his Coulter-esque snark backed up by facts. Buuut….then I listened to more, and was turned off by his over-the-top gay talk and vulgarity. Like you said, it’s not like you don’t really know what you’re getting with him, but I thought I could overlook his lifestsyle aspects. But it’s difficult because he’s so in your face about it.

    This last bit though. Statutory rape is statutory rape. The legal definition of a “child” is under 18. The news is peppered with stories of female teachers who have sex with their 15 year old students…and lose their job and go to jail.

    Homosexuals don’t get a “bye” just because, baby they were born that way. Or something.

  3. Lee Says:

    I think people saw him as useful insofar as his shenanigans tended to highlight the shocking extent to which PC speech codes and the philosophy behind them have wrecked public discourse.

    I don’t see a lot of value in him outside of that but I haven’t paid a lot of attention to him either.

    As for the GOP being the party of Jesus, I will agree that Jesus would also oppose abortion, but I doubt he’d be a registered member. (Full disclosure: I am registered Independent)

  4. Chris Says:

    Milo was an interesting case in demonstrating the sin of lust and pride as much as anything else. He made his name reporting on the Gamergate scandals, and based on my observation a lot of the attention he received from that went to his head. He got the idea that he needed to be provocative instead of simply doing his job. So he starts up a college tour that’s basically designed to incite young adults to act in the most emotionally, and in some cases physically, violent way possible, and instead of winning more people to his side, he made himself an easy target for scandal.

    He became a secular version of the 80s televangelists, and its probably not a coincidence that he was struck down by his penchant for similar predilections.

  5. Steve H. Says:

    I never understood why conservatives liked him. I will say this for him: the persecution he and his fans received proved some points about leftist hate.