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: https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin/status/833863025434251264
This was pointed out to me when I wound up on the organizing board of a local Tea Party – which got some considerable media interest in 2009. Another board member was a lawyer, and a fairly experienced one at that.
He was absolutely dead serious when he told us at one meeting – that we would be visible, and likely the targets of oppo research. And if there was anything at all embarrassing or criminal in our pasts – or anything that could be made to appear to be embarrassing or criminal – to be prepared. (As it turned out – a couple of other board members did have vulnerabilities in that regard, It came out later, but not through oppo research done on them.) He told us that we might very well be walking into a storm if we continued with the Tea Party – and to do so with open eyes.
I had at that time, written a short memoir about my odd family, so all the interesting stuff on me was already out there, But you are right about this being an attempt to isolate Trump and deprive him of allies and backers.
Character assassination has replaced the more literal variety these days. But the impact is nearly as great.
And we’ve all done or said something that can be used this way. If the Pharisees could make Jesus Christ himself look bad, they can certainly do it to you.
I’m standing by Milo. I’m disgusted but not surprised about the timing of this video release: right at the time when he was putting the cherry on his career by finishing his college tours, releasing his book, and speaking at CPAC. It was so obviously orchestrated by the hard left AND the establishment GOP. They hit him hard this time, but I have faith that he will survive and rise out of this. On a more general note, we have GOT to figure out what will BUST this extremely effective Alinsky equation. We MUST figure it out, and soon – because this will simply continue until the powers are back in their hands and this brief flare of hope for getting our country back on track is snuffed out and it’s over.
Milo will bounce back. Think of Bobbie Knight, who actually did deserve some of the criticism thrown at him. It all means absolutely nothing now. With Milo, this will be behind him well before the year is out and he’ll be stronger for it (yes, I’m channeling Nietzsche here.)
And to bust this Alinsky crap?
TURNABOUT IS FAIR PLAY.
LET THE GAMES BEGIN.
The Alinsky tactics are so transparent at this point, I don’t know how anyone on the Right still falls for them.
We should all know better. I hope he does bounce back.
I was surprised at how many did fall for it. Stefan Molyneux practically stabbed stabbed Milo himself. Unbelievable.
Let’s put this in perspective, here:
Milo is a flamboyant gay guy with the ‘wrong’ ideas and beliefs – IOW, he’s not a devoted acolyte of the Progressive theology.
Thus, he is evil bad badevil. And his words can be rearranged, edited and twisted to make him a pedophile, which makes it true, of course.
OTOH:
The progressive left – especially in Hollywierd, which sets the artistic and cultural standard for progressives – absolutely ADORE Roman Polanski, a rather skilled filmmaker who, nonetheless, once drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl.
Polanski has RightThink, though, and his sins and corruption slide off him as if he were coated in Teflon.
I don’t think I’m one of only a handful of people who realizes this.
In fact: I think this will, over time, blow back quite violently in the face of the MSM and progressives in general. If Simon & Schuster, Breitbart or CPAC were to reverse their decisions regarding Milo, that blowback would arrive more quickly and with greater shock.
How is what Milo said/did any different from what George Takai said/did? https://ericallenbell.com/2017/02/21/liberal-gay-activist-george-takei-advocates-pedophilia/
It really isn’t. But Takei is a good Leftist, so it’s okay.
My wife and I are as much anti-gay agenda as you can be. And yet, we were aware of Mr. Yiannopilos’s comments when he made them a year ago
. He honestly addressed an issue that had affected him. What’s the deal? it’s that he’s effective, so he must be destroyed.
Exactly.
If only Milo had been on Star Trek and then done absolutely nothing else with his life. He’d be the toast of the airwaves! https://youtu.be/6hDSOyuuSi4
I didn’t even know who Milo was before a month ago…had only heard him mentioned by friends before the Berkeley riots. Even after that, when I looked him up and watched a few interviews, I had no investment in him one way or another, no real opinion on him aside from being amused by his successful trolling of the Left.
But this whole thing…..totally agree with you. I cringed when I watched the video/read transcripts of what he said, not because it appeared that he was justifying child molestation (he wasn’t), but because he was stupidly grabbing the biggest third rail he possibly could and making himself an easy target for political/media assassination.
It’s so incredibly disingenuous, what’s happening here, because anyone who’s spent any real amount of time around gay or straight men can tell you (if they’re honest, that is) that when it comes to the age-of-consent issue, it’s far from a fringe thing to hear men (gay or straight) suggest or outright argue that underage guys aren’t always victims. With gay culture in particular….give me a break. The entire twink Thing is about older men finding guys who look and act like they’re 13-18 (or actually ARE that age, in some cases)—hairless, skinny, undeveloped. There’s a whole population of young gay guys fitting that description who pay rent and get the newest iphones and better drugs than they could ever afford on their own, by having some sad old man as their sugar daddy. I mean, get REAL. It’s not even like it’s some underground secret.
I happen to strongly disagree with the position that it’s ever ok to mess with anyone under 18. I do not waver on this. But it IS a thing that people talk about just as, or more, frankly than Milo did—when they’re not being recorded or otherwise scrutinized, that is. I’ve heard more straight and gay men than I can count ponder the issue along the exact same lines—straight guys quite sincerely insisting that they would’ve LOVED for some hot teacher to hook up with their teenage selves, gay men talking about their own experiences with older men when they were underage and insisting that it was fully consensual and positive. Again, I don’t agree with any of it and I think they’re wrong to entertain the notion because of some anecdotal memory or belated wish fulfillment. But to behave as if the things Milo said are from some outer darkness is just ridiculous. It’s clearly a calculated hit job. However, he did stupidly open himself up to it.
Milo is talking about a real problem, and trying to square it with the abuse he suffered also. You can tell this is very personal with him. He has a hard time articulating his position here precisely because it is personal.
But beyond all that, the important thing to note is that he did no wrong, committed no crimes, and excused no actual pedos in their behavior.
Milo: Jokes about self – left assasinates
Roman: Rapes girl – left defends
His problem is that he didn’t come out swinging the way Trump would have.
Milo: Jokes about self – left assasinates
Roman: Rapes girl – left defends
His problem is that he didn’t come out swinging the way Trump would have.
So are you saying that we should have defended Polanski if he was on the right?
Yep.
“If Hitler invaded Hell, I should be sure to speak favorably of the Devil in the House of Commons.” — Churchill
In war (and make no mistake, that’s what this is), you win first.
Roman Polanski was guilty of a crime. Milo was guilty of nothing.
Irrespective of politics, that’s all that should matter here. But the Left wants to bring politics into everything, to excuse some, and tar others.
That question does not follow logically from what she said.
There is no symmetry between supporting a victim putting a happy face on something that was done to him and supporting a perpetrator who was convicted of raping and sodomizing a non consenting victim.
Exactly. Thank you.
Non Sequitor – Your Facts Are Uncoordinated….
Here’s a 2:47 two hours and forty seven minute video of Yiannopoulos talking the dirty to the fellows in question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azC1nm85btY
Can’t imagine there’s an extended version that this was abridged from.
“Salon deleted their pro-pedo material before attacking Milo.”
Was it before?
I saw somebody sharing a screencap from 4chan that allegedly predicted the media blitz, but I don’t think the timestamp was right.
It’s important to get these facts absolutely correct, in my view, because they’re documentary evidence of media collusion.
Also: isn’t it ironic that what got Milo in trouble was perhaps the least conservative, most progressive thing he’s ever said
Absolute correctness in this matter is unlikely, unless someone leaks the media timeline for us. We don’t know how long the media has been planning this hit. Since the video is over a year old, it could have been a *very* long time indeed.
But Salon didn’t delete the pro pedo stuff even after being criticized for it. That much is certain. So they have to have another reason to do it much more recently…
…logic would suggest this whole affair.
Oh, for the Love of Life Orchestra. Does Evan McMullin really think that groveling to the right masters will make him President someday? Chances are it won’t even get him laid.
I think he’s just pissed that 4chan pulled the rug out from under him with that Russian prostitutes trolling. So he goes after Milo.
People like Meryl Streep have given standing ovations to convicted pedophiles, like Roman Polanski.
Just to be clear: the girl Polanski was convicted of raping was precisely the age Milo was talking about. throughout the video: 13.
Indeed. Convicted of an actual crime… and that’s perfectly okay with them.
Not only was she 13 and under the age of being able to give consent she told Polanski she did not give her consent and he forcibly raped and sodomized her anyway.
Milo though also presumed to be unable to give informed consent nevertheless seems to have been a willing participant.
Maybe a small point but not one in favor of the progs.
So by making that statement, you’re saying Milo deserved to be sexually abused when he was 13.
Got it.
Here is the Joe Rogan interview that was also involved in the takedown…
Milo was dual targeted. The Left hate him for his ideas, but he has also been a target of the old-guard Right, especially the religious wing, because of his lifestyle. In this case, I think the old-guard Right dug up the dirt on Milo, since no leftist would have listened to that feed and recognized the ickiness of how it sounds. When it came out that he was going to be elevated in the Right’s hierarchy via the coveted keynote spot at CPAP they dropped a dime on him, and the Left media was only too happy to pile on in destroying a common enemy.
Very well stated. Thank you. (Haven’t been to this site before. Will return.)
Jonah Goldberg has hated Milo for a long time, and he is one of the people on the right who helped take him down.
Whatevs, Jonah. Not sure this scalp matches your decor.
Milo’s defenestration has very little to do with what said in the video than with his political enemies in the conservative establishment. The video was just a pretext.The “religious right” was not behind it. They realize that they have lost the cultural battle over homosexuality and are now concentrated on trying to maintain their religious liberty and freedom of association. Milo is unthreatening to them on this point. Remember the pizza parlor that had been nearly ruined by screeching gay activists over its refusal to cater a hypothetical same-sex wedding? Milo visited them to apologize and assure them he supported their liberty of conscience.
The people responsible for taking Milo down are the neoconservative – Straussian cabal that runs NR. It is nothing short of amazing how many articles have appeared at NRO within the past few days that are about or at least refer to the Milo flap. The latest one, by Jonah Goldberg, pretty much spiked the football about the NR/McMullin camorra’s success in his defenestration.
Just as the War of 1812 was a sort of side-effect of the Napoleonic Wars, so the Milo flap is a side-effect of the long struggle between the NR crowd and the paleoconservative types they thought they had purged forever from the ranks of “respectable” conservatism back during the first term of George W. Bush, when they fulminated their bull against “unpatriotic conservatives” such as Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak, who opposed the Iraq war.
Suddenly Trump appeared on the scene in 2015, questioning the wisdom of the Iraq war (like Buchanan and Novak), challenging open borders, so-called “free trade” agreements, and other shibboleths of neoconservative orthodoxy. He attracted support from numerous ordinary Republican voters who turned out to have – surprise! – views that don’t agree with the noble myths, the politically-correct pieties, that are now de rigueur in establishment conservative circles, most notably the Straussian assertion that this is a “propositional nation” and that anyone can and should become an American just by nominally acceding to the proposition.
What does NR think of this? They say it is a revival of “Buchananism” (Jay Nordlinger’s description). Pitchfork Pat has come back to haunt them, like Grendel’s mother, after they thought they had slain the monster. Buchananam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret!
The terrible “alt-right,” you see, isn’t just the Stormfront denizens, though that is how NR likes to portray them. It includes the old paleocons, Rothbard-style libertarians, right-wing anti-war types in the tradition of Robert Taft, the “neoreactionaries,” people like NR exiles Brimelow and Derbyshire who point out inconvenient truths about race and ethnicity, and a host of others that (in Mel Bradford’s words) don’t believe all men are created equal in any but “the special, and politically untranslatable, understanding of the Deity.” NR is horripilated.
Milo’s sin was not with whomever diddled him when he was 13, or with whomever he is diddling now – it was in the article he wrote for Breitbart, called “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right,” in which he gave the first publicity outside some obscure blogs and websites, to the large numbers of people on the right that don’t sympathize with the type of conservatism represented by NR, the Weekly Standard, or Commentary. I suspect that Hillary would never have mentioned the alt-right had not the term been introduced into wider use through his article at Breitbart. She might not have gone off on her rant about the basket of deplorables, which did her no good in the election. Milo is thus partly to blame, both in the eyes of the left and in those of the #NeverTrump, crypto-Clintonites at NR.
Breitbart has become a widely read and very effective source of right-wing opinion journalism, outstripping NR and other long-standing conservative organs, and Milo was one of its stars. That’s why the knives have been out for him. His homosexuality is a side show. Of course his refusal to be part of conventional gay grievance-group politics infuriated the left. It was not central to the deadlier hostility directed at him by Conservatism, Inc. The CPAC invitation, after he emerged mostly unscathed from an appearance on Bill Maher’s show, brought matters to the breaking point. Like another young man with a Greek name (Icarus!), he flew too high –
“farfalla ardita,
troppo è salita
presso alle sfere,
le piume altere,
sì, sì, perdè.”
Thanks for this – yeah, this is my take on it. Milo has my full support and I think he’ll come out of this okay – I’m sure he’ll have no trouble finding another publisher for his book. I’m worried that Youtube will ban him, though, I’ve heard they’re already following Twitter’s lead on shadowbanning.
As for whether Milo defended kiddy diddling, it depends on what you mean by a kid. If under 13, then no, he has always clearly opposed that. But from his comments he did appear to defend grown men having sex with consenting 13 yr olds, which is definitely not something he should be defending.
Yes, because a cleverly edited tape convinced you he WASN’T the kid he was talking about in that sequence. FYI he said the age of consent was about right, he was just insisting that HE had been more mature than that.
But you like your lies spliced and edited, so eat them. And wait till they come for you.