Je Suis Milo, Yanno? by Kate Paulk

*No, this is not going to become all Milo, all the time.  In fact this is probably the last post DIRECTLY about it unless something more happens.  It’s just that the owner of this blog and some of her friends have also been victims of “high tech lynching.”  We know the signs and we say: the character destroyers won’t claim another victim without our fighting against them.  Because we know the marks of this game and where it ends – SAH.*

Je Suis Milo, Yanno? by Kate Paulk

The last few days have seen the unedifying spectacle of holier than thou conservative types gleefully joining in the “break Milo” gang-bang, presumably in the belief that because his lifestyle is immoral anything bad that happens to him is something he deserved in some way. I hope for their sake that they fail.

Because people like them doing everything from looking the other way from the thick smoke rising from crematoriums near the “work camps” with the skeletal workers to joining in the “kick ‘em in the goolies while they’re down” party are the people evil regimes like the Nazis and the Communists need to stay in power. As long as the self-styled good people will look the other way when the fuckers target someone, they can consolidate their hold until they’ve got control of all the levers of power – the media, education, bureaucracy, government…

Let me be absolutely clear here. The stickybeaked moralists who are claiming that Milo Yiannopoulos somehow brought this shitstorm on himself because his lifestyle squicks them are endorsing lying to eliminate a person. They are endorsing show trials and guilt by association and all the evils of every fucking Communist regime ever. They are endorsing the tactics both the Soviets and the Nazis used to crush dissenting voices and enemies of the regime. In short, they are the Good Jews who kept quiet in the hope they would not be sent to the camps and wound up in Hell anyway. The Good Germans who never saw a thing. The Good Russians who knew nothing about the Gulag, Citizen, nothing at all.

When – as will happen if those of us who refuse to be intimidated fall – they face the firing squads or the Gulags or the death camps or the Holodomor, they will wonder why. Briefly. Then they will face the unenviable truth when they are asked, “Did you fight this evil?”

Because the answer to that question is that they did not fight. They helped. By refusing to tarnish their halo even a little, they opened the gates of Hell and welcomed Satan inside. They are the priest who passes the injured traveler for fear of becoming unclean, not the Samaritan who ignores the dislike, even hatred between his people and the traveler and helps the injured man. As such, they are the good intentions on the path to Hell.

And they disgust me. The air of sanctimonious righteousness, the condemnation of someone who doesn’t act quite the way they do, the fucking prissy wowsers who can’t stand that someone they disapprove of is being heard, is winning respect, and is doing a better job of fighting evil than they are…

The diseased flaccid dicks who created this piece of rancid shit to smear the man are at least openly evil. The tight-assed moralists standing back-to-back with the people who should be their worst enemy are just as eager to control everyone else as the openly statist fuckwit throwing metaphorical (and sometimes literal) turd grenades. They think because they call themselves “conservative” it makes them good and righteous and proper, and all the while they’re arm in arm with Satan – who is happier than a pig in mud.

If you are not condemning the use of lies and rumor to destroy someone – or even attempt to destroy someone – you are the Enemy of civilization. You are the orcs. The demons. The useful idiots.

I don’t care whether the target is a nice person or not. I don’t care if the target is the fucking Grand Poo-Bah of the KKK, the Big Wahoonie of the Black Panthers, or the fucking Biggest Bag of the Daeshbags. If you lie to destroy him, you are worse than he is. If you accept those lies, knowing that they are lies, because you disapprove of him, you are worse than he is.

The Soviet Union’s multi-generational plan to destroy the USA was to tear us apart from within by exploiting our differences and turning them into battle lines. If you are truly conservative and you care at all about Western civilization, the United States, or even looking at your festering vile mug in the mirror every morning, why in the fuck are you helping to destroy what you care about? Are you that much of a useless drongo?

Or are you just so sure you’re right that you think your shit is pure gold?

It’s not. It stinks. And so, oh righteous conservative, do you.

299 thoughts on “Je Suis Milo, Yanno? by Kate Paulk

  1. Hey, isn’t there something about not bearing false witness that tightass moralists are supposed to pay attention to?

      1. Something like that: but who cares? It’s not like they pay attention to the bits they don’t like.

        1. There’s that asterisk that points to the footnote “unless you really don’t like the guy.”

  2. Gee Kate, why don’t you tell us how you really feel? I keep getting the feeling you are holding back.
    You are 100% correct. As soon as we permit lying and misrepresentation to convict an individual our civilization is dying. This is why “innocent until proven guilty” is assumed in our legal system and why perjury should be one of the most heinous and severely punished crimes in the legal system. I entertain visions of a yearly “auto-de-fae” for the purveyors of false information where “Mad Mike’s” woodchipper plays a prominent role. If the scumbags and fellow-travelers get the idea that there is real blood involved and it belongs to them then maybe the enthusiasm for creating and spreading the lies will diminish.

          1. “What is this? It seems strident, but I can’t make much sense of it.”

            “Is from Australia?”


            “Then it’s a rant in ‘strine’.”

            “I thought they spoke English?”

            “After a fashion, yes.”

            “And if this came from, say, Brooklyn?”

            “Then it would be a script to a sequel of Johnny Dangerously, most likely.”

            1. Can we see that version? I think it would be really, really nice.

              I’m reminded, actually, of Larry’s article about how to get guns, for liberals, which he wrote some months back when Trump was elected and the screaming and crying and claims about cattle cars and camps were being waved about. He didn’t hold back on his scorn, he didn’t mince words, he told the libs they were idiots for the gun control, and… predictably, the Perpetually Offended scolded him for not being more gentle in tone.

              He mocked their tone policing, because the post was getting more hits and attention – thus spreading further than the other more polite posts telling the chicken littles that the sky wasn’t falling down, here’s how you get over that.

              Honestly, I think that’s why they HAD to go after Milo; he wasn’t being polite about it, getting more eyes on the matter… and getting people on his side.

              Nazi wasn’t working any more. So they had to start with something else.

              (What next? They’ll snarl “Christian” as an insult?)

              1. ShadowDancer, I think in some parts of the United States (E.G. much of New England, Any where near San Francisco or Seattle) it usually is an insult especially when proceeded by Evangelical. I take it as I’m doing my job:-).

                From the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:11-13 NET translation)
                Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you and say all kinds of evil things about you falsely on account of me. Rejoice and be glad because your reward is great in heaven, for they persecuted the prophets before you in the same way

                As for Milo, I disagree with him on almost everything, but people taking him deeply out of context to character assassinate him is beyond the pale.

                The only good thing it shows is that the SJWs/Democrats/Progressive movement is so desperate it’s attacking minor D rank celebrities out of desperation. They’ve wandered off into the weeds. Here’s hoping they spend 40 years in the desert. The current lead nominee for the DNC bears little resemblance to Moses so with luck they’ll never get out.

                1. The only good thing it shows is that the SJWs/Democrats/Progressive movement is so desperate it’s attacking minor D rank celebrities out of desperation.

                  They must keep attacking lest they turn inward and consume themselves.

    1. I always liked the Old Testament system. A perjurer gets what he tried to foist on his victim.

      1. There’s actually a lot I like about the Old Testament system. A biggie is that anyone punished for stealing is punished by requiring to restore things four-fold to the victim. As far as I can see, the system doesn’t get a cut.

        In pondering this, I’m convinced that our system of punishment would benefit greatly if they appealed to this principle — that Government could not benefit from fining people — and that any fine should have at least a tangential benefit to the victim.

        (Some things, like parking tickets, can’t literally reimburse potential victims; however, I would imagine that such fees can be donated to a fund to help car accident victims, for example…)

        1. Well, theoretically, parking fees and fines are supposed to maintain the places to park (pavement and curbs for street parking, the lot or garage for off-street). Some localities do actually keep the revenues separated, at least in their fund accounting system. Others, I have heard, ripped out their street meters at least, because they were actually losing money on them.

        2. Thus, there were no prisons. Thieves paid restitution, more serious crime was punished by stoning. Regardless of the institutional hooey of the 20th century, Mosaic law was a very effective deterrent.

      2. This. Or, as the origin of the word testifying was explained to me, in old Roman courts, men who were giving evidence did so with one hand on their scrotums, thus pledging with their most precious bodily part that what they were saying was true and that if caught in a falsehood they would lose that (those) part(s).

        Would certainly put a damper on cops ‘testilying’

        1. Not an iota of truth in that one, I’m afraid. Testis meant ‘witness’ in Latin before it referred to the male genitalia. The latter meaning came by way of analogy with Greek.

            1. Yes… which is why it’s so tempting to believe it, and why so many people pass it on without checking its accuracy.

              Kind of like the accusations against Milo, except that it doesn’t ruin anybody’s life.

                1. I can’t say I’d object to a clause in the justice system to the effect that someone bearing false witness of a crime receives the penalty *of the crime they bore false witness about*.

                  1. Neither would I –
                    “Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
                    Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
                    Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
                    ’twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
                    But he that filches from me my good name
                    Robs me of that which not enriches him,
                    And makes me poor indeed.”

                  2. *slight smile* Well, yeah, neither would I. But lots of folks recoil from the ‘an eye for an eye’ concept of punishment. (I’m well in support of false rape accusers of both genders and any sexuality getting the punishment they were falsely accusing someone of. And if an adult is using a child to make those accusations of someone else, the punishment should, in my opinion, be worse, since there is (presumably) more than one innocent person being harmed in that case.)

                    1. There are practical problems with that (aren’t there always?)

                      First, there are things that are so heinous that you’d never get a jury to convict (some you’d have trouble getting a DA to prosecute) because a finding of guilty would make them party to a horrible crime, albeit a crime sanctioned by law.

                      Second, … take the recent instance* of the young woman being charged with falsely accusing two members of the football team of raping her. The two athletes were stripped of their scholarships and forced to quit school; would raping her restore what they’ve lost? Then there’s the question of who would impose the punishment on this stupid girl — I doubt the two athletes would be interested in further “knowledge” of her, especially in a public venue. Would the court appoint police officers or officers of the court (e.g., bailiffs, attorneys — although I admit to images of Dan Fielding’s reaction to such a charge)?

                      Thirdly, often the accuser is not the true perpetrator of the greater miscarriage of justice. In the instance cited above, the true criminality was that perpetrated by the kangaroo court and institution which unjustly tried, convicted and penalized the two accused. What penalty would be properly levied against those persons? Raping them would likely prove insufficient, stripping their scholarships ineffective. An actuary could probably apply the rules employed for determining financial costs of wrongful injury/death to determine the net lost lifetime earning power and make the wrongfully charged financially whole but that seems inadequate to the purpose.

                      *False rape charges again expose injustice of campus kangaroo courts

                    2. What Shadowdancer wrote was gramatically ambiguous, I’ll admit. But I’ve always understood it to mean that false accusations should get the same punishment as the normal punishment for the crime they accused someone of. I.e., if you falsely accuse me of rape, your punishment isn’t to be raped, your punishment is whatever the normal punishment for rape is (X number of years in jail, most likely). Is that what you meant, Shadowdancer?

                      I’d be fully in support of that (the false accuser gets the punishment that he/she was trying to inflict on someone else), with the caveat that the once the false accuser has become the defendant in the trial, he/she ALSO gets full due process, including proving beyond a doubt that he/she knew the accusation is false. I.e., a simple case of mistaken identity would not lead to punishment for false accusation, because the accuser was honest, albeit mistaken.

                    3. (Sorry, just got back from grocery shopping)

                      But I’ve always understood it to mean that false accusations should get the same punishment as the normal punishment for the crime they accused someone of. I.e., if you falsely accuse me of rape, your punishment isn’t to be raped, your punishment is whatever the normal punishment for rape is (X number of years in jail, most likely). Is that what you meant, Shadowdancer?

                      Yes, that is what I meant. The false accuser should have the same punishment that would have been delivered to the accused (as opposed to the false accuser suffering the crime which is being accused.)

                    4. The one problem with the “false accuser gets the punishment that the accused would have received” is in instances where the victim feels that he or she might not be believed. This got mentioned briefly by one of the bloggers on Instapundit the other day (in an instance in which a false accuser did get punished, although much more lightly than the man she accused would have been). If, say, someone is actually raped, and the fact-finding ends up devolving down to “he said, she said”, then the victim might be reluctant to come forward if they think there’s a chance they might be accused of making a false accusation.

                      It’s something that you would need to be very careful with.

                    5. I didn’t say that this should be the punishment for the accuser if the accused were found ‘not guilty’; rather, if it became established later that the accusation were false , as opposed to ‘not guilty’ (the latter has the chance of there simply not being enough evidence to convict.) This would cut down on the ‘morning after regret’ false rape accusation, and deter most who would use it as a weapon (except the most determined to destroy the other’s reputation.) At present there is barely any punishment for a false rape accuser (note that I hold no gender distinction for this) wheras the accused has their reputation shredded and life ruined. Thus, the law, and society’s attitude at present, greatly enables false rape accusations, especially via media inflation.

                      Rape isn’t just about the sex, after all, but also about power over the victim.

                    6. “Better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be punished.”

                      “He said / she said” should NEVER be enough, unless there is clear physical evidence of coercion.

                    7. Just a note, the students were not expelled from Sacred Heart, nor did they lose their scholarships, or at least that is what Sacred Heart itself is telling us. (Though at least one CT newspaper didn’t seem to be bothered updating its story with Sacred Heart’s information release.)

                    8. I had linked, elsewhere this page, a NY Post editorial on the incident at Sacred Heart University. Included in that editorial was

                      The accused men said the encounter was consensual, and multiple witnesses backed up their account. But before the cops could finish their investigation, both men had reportedly lost their football scholarships, forcing them to quit school. (Sacred Heart categorically denies that it rescinded the scholarships.)

                      Somewhat fuller coverage is provided in an earlier article:

                      Teen charged with lying about being raped by college football players
                      Two college football players who were suspended from their team last year and saw their scholarships revoked after rape accusations have been cleared by police after authorities say their accuser recanted her story.

                      Nikki Yovino, 18, of South Setauket, NY, has been charged with second-degree falsely reporting an incident and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence in connection to an incident at a Sacred Heart University football party in October, the Connecticut Post reports.


                      One of the students has since been readmitted to the university, but he’s no longer a member of the football team and lost his scholarship. The names of the students are being withheld by Hearst Connecticut Media and one of their attorneys told the Connecticut Post that he just wants to put the incident behind him.

                      Sacred Heart officials declined to provide information about specific students, including the identities of the two former football players and whether they had been reinstated by the university, citing federal privacy laws in a statement to The Post.

                      “Sacred Heart never expelled the two students nor was any student stripped of scholarships because of any allegations,” university spokesperson Kimberly Primicerio wrote in an email. “Whenever there is any kind of incident at Sacred Heart University, we go to great lengths to ensure due process for all parties involved. The way that this particular case is playing out certainly demonstrates the validity of our procedures.”
                      [END EXCERPT]

                      Apparently at least one of the accused players believed his scholarship revoked. Neither was “suspended” by the school, but without their scholarships neither, apparently, could afford to matriculate. Because Sacred Heart is withholding information, it is impossible to determine whether the accused are over-stating their punishment or if SHU is lying, either directly (false statement) or indirectly (misleading statement.)

          1. I stand (well, sit) corrected. As Kate notes, it *sounds* good both as a motivation to keep to the straight and narrow and in line with the direct, bloody-minded rep the early Romans have.

  3. I’m not sure if you are targeting just one small spectrum of his critics or if you are simply unaware of the arguments many of these “stickybeaked moralists” are actually making. The fact is, Milo had supported attacks on them during the Presidential election. David and Nancy French were sent

    “images, for example, of my youngest daughter, who we adopted from Ethiopia many years ago, who at the time was 7 years old – images of her in a gas chamber with a – Donald Trump in an SS uniform about to push the button to kill her. I saw images of her Photoshopped or, you know, artist’s rendering of her face in slave fields.”

    Yiannopoulos dismissed these in a March 29 article on Breitbart saying the “Meme Brigade” was just doing this for the “lulz”. It wasn’t funny. One might dismiss this as the work of the “1488rs”, also talked about in that article, but there are no walls between these factions. There was certainly crossover. Something tells me the character Shlomo Shekelburg, also used by the “Meme Brigade”, is not a positive portrayal of a Jew. Waving these away as Shock Tactics was disgusting.

    Milo did more than just apologize for this, he participated. According to Ben Shapiro:

    “he personally Tweeted a picture of a black baby at me on the day of my son’s birth, because according to the alt-right I’m a “cuck” who wants to see the races mixed”.

    Many of them acknowledge he has backed off the Alt-right since the election. That does not erase what he did. It had very little to do with his homosexuality and much to do with his actions. He gave them far more reason to dislike him than his lifestyle. While I do not like how he was attacked from the Left, I cannot bring myself to feel the same acrimony towards those on the Right who attacked him or, more often, stood by and let him be attacked by others. Alliances work both ways. Milo Yiannopoulos
    would do well to remember that in the future.

    1. Shapiro hasn’t exactly been covering himself in glory during and after the election. Is there any evidence to support the claims he references?

      1. NONE of us covered ourselves with glory in 2016. In the cool light of morning, we need to take a step back and a deep breath and realize THE LEFT IS STILL THE ENEMY.

        1. That Churchill remark I quoted yesterday regarding the devil comes to mind, as does Benjamin Franklin’s statement that “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” As you say, the key thing thing to remember is that the Left is the enemy. We don’t need any more internecine strife among the opposition to the Left. Sure, some open policy disagreements are fine, not everybody is in lock-step on every issue. But this type of thing needs to be nipped in the bud.

          1. The trouble with Churchill’s remark is that it led to the survival of the Soviet Union, the Party thugs who had murdered more people than the NSDAP going unpunished, the enslavement of Eastern Europe, the Cold War, and the intellectual corruption of the West. That makes me cautious about an across the board policy of allying with anyone who has the same enemy. The Left goes in for “us vs. them” thinking in a big way (and thus, for example, embraces both gays rights activists and Muslims, who are not natural allies); I don’t think imitating their strategies is necessarily a good idea.

            1. I’d say that FDR appeasing Stalin at Yalta and earlier had more to do with Eastern Europe in Communist hands than Churchill and FDR allying with Stalin against Hitler. Still, you raise a good point. However, I’m willing to ally with just about anybody fighting the left, as long as they aren’t absolutely antithetical to western civilization. So radical Islamists and actual Nazis need not apply.

              1. Also, it’s entirely possible that the USSR would have survived *without* Western assistance. The real question comes down to how much aid the Allied Lend-Lease gave the Soviets in 1941, the only year that the Germans actually had a chance of reaching Moscow. And how badly losing Moscow would have cost the Soviets. I personally suspect that losing Moscow would have been catastrophic for the Soviets. But while my gut instinct is that enough aid did arrive from the West to make a difference in helping the Soviets keep the Germans away from the capitol, I’m not as certain about that particular point.

                Note that I’ve encountered plenty of people on the internet who will argue *both* of those points. So I do not consider either of my opinions on the matter to be definitive.

                1. I’ve encountered plenty of people on the internet who will argue *both* of those points.

                  I cannot think of a single topic ever discussed on the internet for which I have not seen people able and willing to argue both sides … including whether the benefits of breathing oxygen are even more over-rated than Meryl Streep.

                  I have even known people to argue both sides of the preceding statement.

                2. A few years ago, there was a long and extremely erudite discussion on on whether Lend-Lease (and British) aid was necessary to the survival of the USSR. The participants examined many issues, citing data from authoritative sources. For instance, they examined the relative productivity of various sectors of the Soviet economy, to determine how much manpower was made available for the army by Lend-Lease replacement of Soviet production.

                  They noted that the great bulk of Western aid arrived in 1943-1945, when Soviet survival was already assured. But some arrived in 1941-1942, when the Soviet position was most desperate.

                  And the conclusion (accepted by all participants) was that it was too close to call. The aid that arrived during the worst crisis was small – but the margin of survival in that crisis was very small.

            2. the strategy is fine. Retaining principles is enough to differentiate us from them. Look, if Milo REALLY had said “I like me some 13 year old boy” I’d have been the first to say “Drum him out.” PARTICULARLY if there were no hint of humor in it, or some sign that said he’d done stuff like that in the past. But considering this is the worst they found on him, he’s innocent of anything gravely evil.
              An asshole? He’s a professional one. If that is a reason to destroy someone’s life and livelihood, though…. how many people consider us assholes?

              1. Personally I prefer surly curmudgeon, but will stoop to asshole if provoked.
                Look, this is the same classic character assassination that the left has always done. The difference is that with Trump it didn’t work, so naturally they are compelled to double down with ever more aspersions on everyone standing in the way of their socialist narrative.

              2. if Milo REALLY had said “I like me some 13 year old boy” I’d have been the first to say “Drum him out.”

                Hmmmm … my inclination is along the “Look all you like, but don’t stare, don’t ogle, don’t drool and if you dare I hope you aren’t attached to all your origiinal body parts.

                Mind, I would have the same reaction to such an expression regarding a 13 year old girl.

                Frankly, anybody crazy enough to get emotionally involved with a thirteen-year-old deserves the consequences. Them kids that age are nuts.

              3. I’m a bit more tolerant, even. Think or say whatever you like – it’s actions that count.

                I’d be fine (well, not willing to do anything nasty myself), until he said, or someone proved, that he had some 13 year old boy. Then it would be time for a fire ant hill, stakes, and some honey…

              4. Considering he’s actually helped get 3 pedo’s convicted I’d say there is some strong evidence he doesn’t support it. (According to him anyway, did a quick google search but right now it’s all on fire with news about his resignation).

                The fat lady isn’t singing yet and I don’t think this is going to play out the way the Conservatives or Liberals who’ve been jumping on this wagon think it is.

                After all this I’m more likely to purchase his book.

                1. No, the cases are real. At least one of them I remember while it was going down. We have friends in common.
                  Look, rumor — I haven’t found the source — has it a quarter million oppo research was done on him. And the best they found was a video that could be cut to SOUND bad. I don’t know about you, but my life is NOT that clean. There are probably five or six videos and posts they could splice/take out of context. A place we call Vile 666 does it routinely. Like every other week, either to this blog or Mad Genius club. It’s so common we no longer care.

                  1. Good to know! I figured they were or he wouldn’t have mentioned them but didn’t have time to do more than a cursory search.

                    It’s not reassuring that they seem to have taken down Flynn and now Milo. (Though I think Milo is going to come back swinging and this is going to do more to grow his fans than shrink them).

                2. Keep in mind that when Milo talks about pederasty, he’s talking about *pre-pubescent*. I understand he’s personally clarified this point. Or in other words, he’s generally referring to people who (usually) aren’t even teenagers yet. So when he talks about busting three pederasts, he’s talking about nailing people who were going after kids even younger than 13.

                  Having said that, it’s been pointed out that in the interview he also states that he thinks the age of consent is about where it ought to be. So while we need to be aware of the distinction in Milo’s mind (because you can be sure that sooner or later someone on the Left will bring it up if you get into enough arguments), that still doesn’t mean that he supports sex with teenagers as a general rule.

                  1. Given that the age of consent is defined by legislatures and executives, isn’t Milo simply endorsing democratic processes? Isn’t anybody condemning Milo for saying he thinks the age of consent is about where it ought be really condemning Democracy and America?

                  2. Correction: Milo said that pedophiles go after younger than puberty age.

                    Pederasts go after those who have had puberty, and are pre-teen and teenagers.

                    Mind you, even in European laws there are exceptions to the ‘has sex with someone younger than the older person’ rule – usually a difference of age within certain limits (5-7 years difference) – the wikipedia link I gave earlier (or was it in ATH?) gives a short description of the nuances in the law given in different countries; most of which have an age of consent that falls at 16.

                    1. The term used in the psychiatric literature is apparently “ephebephilia,” from Greek ephebe, a youth. Pederasty is a ethical term, not a psychiatric one, and doesn’t seem to pair properly with “pedophilia.”

                      Of course, most people who aren’t psychiatrists seem to use “pedophile” to mean anyone over 18 who has sex with anyone under 18 (substitute the age of consent in your state; the last I checked it’s 18 in California). Even if one is 18 years and 1 day, and the other is 17 years and 364 days.

                    2. In current psychiatric usage it also appears to include desire for adolescent girls.

                      As I have had the matter explained to me by a classics professor, in ancient Greece, the two categories of humans for sexual purposes were “free adult men” and “everyone else.” For a free adult man to accept the sexual advances/sexual penetration of another free adult man (or anyone else, I suppose) was degrading: some of the rudest epithets in Classical Greek, such as eurypygon [wide-ass] and katapygon [down-ass], describe such men. Sex was something that free adult men did and others had done to them. The ancient Greeks probably would have regarded modern “gays” as mostly perverts and the idea of “homosexuality” as disgusting.

                      Two of the heroes of Athenian democracy, Harmodios and Aristogeiton, were remembered as “pederastic” lovers.

                      My own view is that, whatever the state of the laws, regarding sexual attraction to adolescents as a psychological abnormality is hopelessly out of touch with reality. Sexual feelings commonly awaken in adolescence, and are often directed toward other adolescents, and it seems better that it should be that way—how desirable is it for adolescents to have the hots for adults? And even though a sensible adult probably wouldn’t want an adolescent sexual partner, it’s unreasonable to expect adults not to remember those feelings, or not to be able to look through the eyes of their adolescent self. And through much of history, it was common for marriage to take place soon after puberty; human beings likely evolved under conditions where sexual attraction for a partner of adolescent years was the typical course of development. Though there were societies that married girls right away but required boys to wait, including, I think, ancient Greece.

                    3. The claims about “penetration” being the shameful thing are vastly overdone — for, well, modern day political reasons. You even find claims that a certain Greek term meant “passive partner” when it was freely applied to adulterers and in many other contexts that make it clear it meant “lustful.”

                      I recommend Courtesans & Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens by James Davidson for a clearer discussion of what they actually thought, and why it gets so confused nowadays.

            3. “The trouble with Churchill’s remark is that it led to the survival of the Soviet Union…”

              You familiar with the “historian’s fallacy”?

        2. Eh, I can’t and haven’t brought myself to attack people nominally on my side, but the point is that Shapiro was and still is doing it. Dishonestly at that. Shapiro knows better, and for him to dance to the Left’s tune of attacking the people the Left wants to attack, shows that he’s completely lost the plot. A plot he helped write.

          They will come for him, and I’m going to have a hard time defending someone who decided to frag Milo.

          1. What are you accusing Ben Shapiro of? He has been the target of many vicious anti-Semitic attacks by Milo’s followers. In return, he has been quite fair in his treatment of Milo.

            Is Milo going to debate Shapiro, now that he no longer has the excuse of not being allowed to by his employer?

            1. I thought “attack”, “Shapiro”, and “dishonestly” were fairly clear. Since they appeared in different sentences, allow me to synthesize for you: Ben Shapiro is dishonestly attacking Milo. Milo, of course, being the person under discussion.

              An example which fits in nicely with the two most recent posts about Milo here:

              Are you seriously suggesting that Milo is responsible for the behavior of his “followers” on Twitter or wherever? I expect such juvenile gulit-by-association tactics on Left-ish sites, not here.

              1. I looked at the post, and I fail to see how Shapiro is being dishonest. It’s not clear at all that he’s saying we should abandon Milo because of this latest smear; indeed, there are reasons to dislike Milo and his tactics without resorting to such.

                Shapiro’s point — that we shouldn’t ally with someone just because the Left hates them — is a valid one. And it’s a major reason I have in disliking Milo in the first place. But that’s independent as to whether he should be smeared in this way that he’s been smeared.

                1. “I looked at the post, and I fail to see how Shapiro is being dishonest.”

                  Because he’s about one step away from Godwinning his own column. Is this really about David Duke and the KKK? Only the more obtuse among us would think so. His entire argument rests on the flimsiest veneer of concern – that if you support someone just because the Left hates them then that’s bad. But Milo – the person we all know he’s talking about – has much more going for him than someone the Left simply hates. And the connection to the KKK, no matter how oblique is as transparent as it is dishonest.

                  “Shapiro’s point — that we shouldn’t ally with someone just because the Left hates them — is a valid one.”

                  Actually, it’s damn close to a strawman for the reasons I just articulated.

                2. Shapiro’s point — that we shouldn’t ally with someone just because the Left hates them — is a valid one.

                  Ally, perhaps not. Needs more info.

                  Not shoot at them as long as they’re shooting at the Left? Absolutely.

              2. Show me where he is dishonestly attacking Milo. The post in your link (I only see one not two.) is tangential to the Milo controversy, mostly referring to the knee jerk reactions of some Trump supporters.

                I am also still waiting to hear whether he will finally go through with debating Shapiro on Crowder’s show. This will have a major bearing on whether I decide to view Milo as one of the good guy’s, or just another opportunist.

                1. … whether I decide to view Milo as one of the good guy’s, or just another opportunist.

                  Whichever he is, Milo should take heat for only the sins he’s actually committed. Which ought be the principle we’re defending.

                  Regardless of which he is, they’re gonna tar us with Milo just as they tried to hang Richard Albatross Spencer around our necks, so we might as well fight this one on principles of Justice and Fair Play and not whether we like the smell of Milo.

                2. I addressed this in my response to Alpheus above.

                  As for whatever kick you’re on about whatever this debate is, I don’t give a fig about it one way or the other, so you’ll be waiting a long time for a response.

              3. Sorry, Gmmayo, but Mr. Shapiro isn’t being particularly dishonest or disingenuous in the link you gave. Yes, In hind-sight, what he wrote implying that Trump was Literally Hitler, turned out to be wrong, but early in the game it was perfectly reasonable to think that Mr. Trump was a Clinton tool.

                I’ll see if I can dig out a back issue of NRODT to find his thoroughly dishonest hit-piece on the alt-Right. It reads like a perfect imitation of the usual lefty, “There, Jim, we can observe the savage conservative in his native habitat….” Blech.

                Ben Shapiro gets anti-Semitic tweets because (1) There are still a handful real wannabe neo-Nazis mixed in with the Fed’s infiltrating them. (2) Some cold-blooded types don’t mind play-acting as same to flush out pseudo-cons who will run screaming to Daddy Gummint to saaaave them from the scary scary free speech and (3) young trolls to whom mid-20th century history is as vividly important as Masada is to us old fogies think it’s hysterical to watch the Shapiros flail about squeaking and wailing over some stupid picture.

                1. I don’t think we can rule out the idea that Trump was a Clinton tool that she lost control of.

                    1. I’d even entertain the idea of collusion between the two at the beginning; then when it looked like he had an actual chance of winning instead of just pulling a Ross Perot, all heck broke loose.

    2. It still doesn’t justify taking down on a lie, James. Sorry.
      Also, if the right won’t forgive each other for the craziness of 2016, we’ll all go down together.
      Both sides were insane. I was called names from both sides, sometimes on the same day.

      1. There was a delightfully strange movie in 1975, Der Richter und sein Henker*, released in the English-speaking world as End of the Game, directed by Maximilian Schell and starring Jon Voight, Robert Shaw, Jacqueline Bisset, and Martin Ritt.

        It is the story of the final confrontation between an (about to retire) police inspector and his nemesis, a man who challenged him thirty years before —

        “I could murder her in front of your eyes and you couldn’t prove it.”

        — and gone on to become a master criminal. To close his casebook the police inspector ultimately brings him down by [SPOILER ALERT] framing him for murder.

        That’s permissible in a movie. Life ain’t a movie.

        *The Judge & His Hangman

          1. What I remember is a character’s last words: he applauds his killer because he sees the cunning moves that lead up to his death.

    3. The charges that are presently being leveled against Milo Yiannopoulos are based on a deliberate distortion of things he said. They are lies. Does lying about someone become justified when you believe that people did not get sufficiently offended by unsavory truths?

      Didn’t your mother teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?

          1. So far its had a pretty strong track record of getting the courts to manufacture rights the Left desires manufactured, so I wouldn’t consider them mistaken in that believe. Misguided and evil, perhaps, but not mistaken.

          2. They’ve spent years manufacturing rights. It’s just that they’re counterfeit rights, with no constitutional watermarks to show up under UV.

        1. And here I thought they only did that in New Orleans. I may have uttered “My kingdon for a left turn” more than once when I lived there.

    4. So at what point should Milo be held accountable for his actions? I refuse to accept a moral equivalency of calling someone a Trumpkin to attacking that person’s children. If you doubt Milo sent that photo to Shapiro I’ll point out Shapiro has just as much proof of that happening as Milo has of denouncing the Alt-right. Both have said it happened. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a very bad idea. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy that simply holds a single like interest. If my enemy’s enemy attacks me, I now have two enemies. I have no reason to help my enemy if he gets hurt. Conservatives that did not support Trump, many of whom now accept him as their President, have no reason to consider Milo a friend unless he shows a willingness to start acting like one.

      1. When? How about when he’s not being pilloried by the left for things he DIDN’T DO?
        Because if the left eats him, they’ll eat us next.
        Hold him accountable all you want to. No one is telling you to be his best bud. JUST to defend him against OBVIOUSLY false accusations.
        Can you understand the difference?
        I not only dislike VD I think his ideas are crazy. But when he was kicked out by SFWA for pissing off an SJW (objectively) I defended him because that was wrong and because professional status shouldn’t depend on not pissing off SJWs. I still think he’s an idiot (as big an idiot as the SJW in fact.) IF she’d been the one kicked out for pissing him off, I’d have defended her. BECAUSE the fact my professional association would throw people out on petty crap affected me, not just them.
        In the same way the left taking someone down with fake accusations, besides being revolting, threatens me, and you and everyone to the right of Lenin. Call Milo an asshole if you wish — I think he’d agree and probably laugh — but at least say a good word for him in the house of commons.
        BEYOND that, on the 2016 fight, which has bloody nothing to do with what’s going on now:
        I don’t doubt he sent the photo to Shapiro. But I also don’t see it as attacking a person’s children, unless Shapiro ran to show it to his newborn and newborn undrestood. OR of course, unless it IS a picture of the newborn. Since none of those apply, the implied insult was to Shapiro. Crass sure, stupid, sure. And?
        As for walking it back, Milo started walking a lot of that back in the last several weeks, and distancing himself from the alt-right, including his speech to the college my kid attends.
        What more do you want? Do you want him to ask pardon on bended knee? Do you see that happening after Shaphiro has run around calling him a pedophile, which is far worse than calling anyone a traitor to the party (which is implied in cuck, though, yes, the subliminal meanings are much worse.)
        And it wasn’t just calling people a Trumpkin. Sorry, I was on that side.
        The fight was heated because we thought the Trump supporters were traitors, and told them so. They otoh were — they thought — fighting for hte only candidate they believed could win. They might have been right, though not the way they thought. For them it was an existential fight for our last hope.
        Turns out they might have been more right than us. The people holding on to the “But I was right” are objectively doing more damage to the cause.
        Shrug. I’m not a psychiatrist. I know how I get in a fight, and perhaps because of that I’m willing to excuse a lot. Maybe it’s cultural.
        But no one is asking you to say Milo is a wonderful person. Hell, all we know is the online/public persona who is a bit of a professional asshole.
        What we’re saying is “now is not a good time to have a duel, just because the other side painted someone on your side.” Aim left. Fire left. Fight with the right afterwards.
        I’m convinced time is coming that the big fight will be Libertarians vs. conservatives. But if we fight NOW it ends in our defeat.

        1. Ordinairily Aye woodn’t dew thys, butt …

          … fighting for hte only candidate they believed could win.

          Yew misssssspelled “teh.”

      2. How is claiming he supports or is something he is not, that everyone knows as far as we can know is not the truth, holding him accountable for his actions?
        If you stole from someone and I framed you for rape, would that be holding you accountable? Of course not! Should you not be defended from the false accusation just because you were guilty of another crime?
        Condemn the man for what he is-he’s offensive, tasteless, annoying, and childish, and never for what he isn’t.

        Honestly, some folks need to stop listening to their emotions and start using their logic.

      3. No one is arguing Milo should not be held accountable for his actions. The point here is that it is not his actions for which he’s being held accountable. Being guilty does not justify framing him; that only makes sense in neo-existentialist German movies.

        1. What the wallaby said.

          Let’s say we have two fellows, Sam and Ralph.

          Sam is a fine, upstanding person, pillar of the community, etc. ad nauseum. And Ralph is thief who will make off with anything not bolted down – and given time and a wrench, a good amount of that, too.

          To call Sam a murderer, when he’s not murdered anyone, is wrong. But it is also wrong, for the very same reason, to call Ralph a murderer. Ralph is a piece of… work.. and a thief, yes, but he, just like Sam, hasn’t murdered anyone.

          Wanna go after Ralph? Have at it. But go after him for being a thief – he’s actually guilty of that.

          1. …and I am suddenly having flashbacks to that old Warner Brothers cartoon about the sheepdog and the wolf.

          2. Aaand. Even this reasonable argument raises my hackles because Ralph isn’t a thief. He jokes about thieving. He’s hung out with people who MIGHT be thieves. But at the end of the day, when pressed, it turns out he doesn’t steal.

            We’re in the position that FIRST they accuse Ralph of thievery, but when that doesn’t do the trick, they cry, “murder.”

        2. Exactly. Milo DIDN’T DO anything for which anyone should tar and feather him. Ergo, his attackers have zero justification to be engaged in a massive ad hominim attack on a man as a means of denying him the right to free speech; and their success in doing so makes it just that much easier to attack each of us later.

          Part of the problem with ultra-conservativism is they have just as much a drive to tell other people what to do as so many leftists do; only about different things usually of a religious nature. I lean more libertarian than conservative in that aspect; since if they aren’t harming me and mine, then it’s not my business to tell people how to live, much less force them to do so.

          How’s Dr. P always put it? We’re the friends of freedom everywhere, but the defenders of only our own. Milo may be a Brit, but he’s a legal resident here in the States. It’s up to us to defend his and our rights.

      4. Hold him accountable for what he has done, not for things someone lies about him having done.

        There is a difference, you know.

      5. How about when you have even a shred of actual evidence that he’s actually done something wrong rather than being framed for BadThought?

        Got an underage kid he’s actually molested? Take him out. Until there’s some actual unmanufactured evidence of real harm by him to a real person, he deserves the same presumption of innocence YOU do.

    5. Being rude, crude and outrageous is one thing, sending nasty memes is one thing, but has Milo ever tried to make out that they were guilty of real, predatory, criminal behavior?

      Nasty memes doesn’t cross into the real world the way their inaccurate depictions of Milo did.

    6. Excuse me? “Milo sent nasty memes and photoshops so it’s just fine that he be attacked and silenced by false accusations of child sex abuse”?

      FUCK that. By all means call him to account for what he actually did. But do not support “justice” by such underhanded means. Do not support an attempt to destroy someone with falsehood – with fucking blood libel.

      I don’t care whether he’s a horrible person or not. I don’t care what horrible things he’s said or emailed. He’s not being targeted or attacked for that: he’s being targeted and attacked with *lies* because he’s winning against the Communists-in-all-but-name *and* making the Loyal Opposition look like the spineless go along to get along types they are.

      The man is innocent of this crime. If he has committed a crime worthy of hanging, then hang him for that crime. Do not support a witch-hunt based on lies

    7. Sounds like you’re fine with guilt by association. And you’re hanging out with some real asswipes. A word to the wise brah. Word to the wise.

    8. I ’m not sure if you are targeting just one small spectrum of his critics or if you are simply unaware of the arguments many of these “stickybeaked moralists” are actually making. The fact is, Milo had supported attacks on them during the Presidential election. David and Nancy French were sent

      Really? You cannot tell the difference between “Someone says something yucky on the internets which you are free to ignore and slander, libel, and a co-coordinated international media attack on your livelihood.

      Good Lord man.

      You really have drunk the Soc-jus cool-aid. Next thing you know you’ll be copiously pointing out that if only that bad Me. Solzhenitsyn hadn’t written such awful, awful things about Mr. Stalin he wouldn’t have been sent to the gulag


  4. There are the crimes of commission and the crimes of omission. To disseminate a lie is false witness (which includes mis-handling the truth to create a false impression) and that is a crime of commission. To stand by and let it happen without challenge is a crime of omission.

    1. So every single person on earth is guilty of a crime unless they speak up in Milo’s defence?

      How many other people are unjustly accused in a day? How many millions of crimes have YOU committed today, by your own standards?

      1. Based on the threads here, it’s more of a case that, “every single person who is busy on the internet’s with time to speak up about Mr Yiannopoulis’ case, but who stays silent because “icky gay stuff” or “icky alt-Right stuff”

        …bearing false witness

        1. Why is Milo Yiannopoulos’s case more important than every other topic on earth right now? Why is it that everybody on the Internet must stop talking about whatever they are talking about, and talk about him instead? Sorry, not buying it. Your standard doesn’t work any better than CACS’s.

          1. I’m sorry Tom, but it’s not my standard. I was just trying to point out that the person who said that “silence” -in this case – = “false witness,” didn’t seem to be saying that a person has to speak out about every injustice happening everywhere or he’s complicit. I don’t actually agree with that.

            Though in some cases silence can equal complicity.

            My apologies for being less than clear. MY standard is this: If you would ordinarily have piped up and said something about an injustice – something YOU agree is dead wrong – but choose not to, THIS TIME because the guy getting the axe annoys you = complicity.

            1. Anyone on the superversive, Western civilization, freedom, truth and beauty side IS under attack by the Morlocks in the dinosaur media.

            2. Obviously, I think everyone who can has a duty to stand up for those things, but you can choose how to fight and when. That’s an individual judgment call. Most of the best ways don’t involve actual fighting and aren’t on the internets.

            3. But IF you are fighting on the internets, then, yes, the standard probably does apply to the Yiannopolis case.

            Because my friend, if we do not all hang together, we will all hang separately.

  5. The appropriate response tactic here is SOP for the Left: shame them for attacking a victim of sexual violence, shout (correctly) that the video was deceptively edited, repeat “taken out of context” over and over, call them h*mophobes, redirect this to Obama’s former Safe Schools “czar” Kevin Jennings or the Democrats’ embrace of Harry Hay, or how NAMBLA always endorses Democrats for office.

    Redirect and counterattack. It’s the key to their success because they know that defending is a losing strategy in a war. Take the focus off Milo (he’ll survive) for a bit and shine the light on their side. It’s all the Left does because they know all of their sides are ugly. And they know their monsters are far worse.

    And treat frauds like McMullin for the closet Lefties they are. He needs to be delegitimized, ridiculed, and hounded for the false flag that he is. He’s like a Green Party spoiler for the Right. Anyone who uses “Nazi” as ignorantly and carelessly as he did when referring to Milo deserves to be ostracized until he returns back to his place of origina on the Left.

    I’m not all for purity purges on the Right, but I am for running the obvious false flags out of town. And when the Left has us playing defense, they’ve already won.

    1. They’re accustomed to people cringing and apologizing when they go on attack. They’ve demonstrated that they have no idea what to do when they’re actually attacked.

      So let’s attack. But with facts – there’s so many damning facts out there we’d be idiots to use their “lie until people believe there has to be something there” standard.

  6. The Soviet Union’s multi-generational plan to destroy the USA was to tear us apart from within by exploiting our differences and turning them into battle lines.

    No, I am sure that cannot be — diversity is power, I’m sure I’ve read that from all the Left-Leaning politicians, and they’d never lie to us.

      1. Except this diversity is all antennas built to incompatible wavelengths. I’m pretty sure ganging together a multi-mile length VLF wire antenna, a Ka band dish, and a x-ray detector gizmo would not net much.

          1. And mess with radio reception when I drive past. (But then everything does that.) And confuse the holey heck out of space aliens who find it.

  7. This is the second time in like two weeks that people have tried to destroy a controversial and influential person. First PewDiePie was a Nazi and now Milo is all for pederasty. Having followed both a long time, both charges were ridiculous to me. I don’t either will end up much worse off then they were before.

    1. PDP was a test run. Getting big companies to drop a person for stuff that they intended as shock humor. I’ll admit I didn’t follow him so sorta speaking out of my tailpipe but the stills looked to be in the style of stupid human tricks or using the obscene for laughs. Not my taste but definitely not the first time I’ve seen it.

  8. I don’t agree with all of Yiannopoulos’s political views (he’s a conservative and I’m not), and I don’t always like his tactics. (His homosexuality and his early sexual experiences don’t concern me.) But even if I totally despised him . . . it seems to me that a lot of his attackers believe that their despising him means they don’t need to be careful in passing judgment on him. It seems to me that it’s precisely in dealing with people you loathe that you have to be most scrupulous about judging them fairly and respecting their right, because they’re the people who tempt you most strongly to be unjust. And it appalls me that so many people don’t grasp that, and are comfortable with their own lack of concern for justice.

    1. Exactly. I was advised years ago to be the most careful when grading papers from students I did not particularly enjoy having in class. Why? To be triple sure I did not take my irritation with their classroom behavior out on their academic work. A good life lesson in general.

    2. Yup. It’s easy to be tolerant of things and people you agree with. Tolerating those you oppose, and allowing them the same rights of expression, association, and self-defense as you insist on for yourself is a lot harder. But essential for anyone who truly believes those rights to be universal and inherent.

      1. I would go further than that and say that people you like, agree with, or support, are not people you “tolerate” in the first place. There has to be some dislike before speaking of toleration makes sense.

        1. This is of course logically and rhetorically true. However, the left (mainly) has been working hard to redefine “tolerant” to mean “accepting.” We have to be vigilant in keeping the word to its actual meaning, and calling them out whenever they misuse it.

            1. Well, I’m trying to be tolerant, by the actual definition. Hmmm. Maybe not tolerant, just polite. It’s an effort…

                  1. See, the thing is, tolerance is really what measurements are OK – if the design says 5″ plus or minus 0.1″, that defines the range of measurements (4.9″ to 5.1″) of that physical object that will work as a part in the overall design.

                    But in the real world there is something called tolerance stacking: In any random assembly of parts, you’ll likely get one part slightly larger but still within the OK range, and the next slightly smaller, so often things balance out. But an assembly of parts that all happen to measure individually at one or the other outside range (say, all at the maximum, or all at the minimum) could end up causing the assembly to not function, or to stop functioning in the absence of lots of lubrication – that is, the tolerances can’t be thought of in isolation, they have to be evaluated in total. And you also have to take in wear.

                    The same thing happens in societal tolerance – if everything is somehow forced to be on the minimum side, eventually all those min tolerances will stack up and cause things to not work anymore.

                    This is where the social lubricant of open discussion and debate smooths things out and reduces wear. But open discussion and debate are under widescale attack, and in this case, attack from both sides, see McMuffin and friends.

                    I actually disagree somewhat with The Professor here: This may be how you get More Trump in the short term, but proceeding down this road is how you get things seizing up and melting down. The only real hope is to increase the societal lube by encouraging wide open debate. By blocking words, the only route remaining is action, and that scares me a lot.

                1. As a point of linguistic history, the attitude toward dissident religions and such used to be called “toleration,” which derive from the verb “to tolerate.” The modern form, “tolerance,” derives from the adjective “tolerant,” meaning “inclined to tolerate.” One might choose toleration as an action or a policy, even against one’s inclination, out of the belief that to do so is right and/or prudent; on the other hand, a person might be excessively and imprudently inclined to tolerate. “Toleration” seems less likely to be confused with a feature of physical measurements, too. . . .

          1. They do that, when they’re not proudly proclaiming how they’re “intolerant towards intolerance” which by some strange coincidence tends to mean people who disagree with them.

            1. “Intolerant towards intolerance” would seem to guarantee self-hatred, wouldn’t it? Of course, that would require both honesty and self-awareness, neither of which seem in great supply among the “tolerant” left.

              1. If they had any self-awareness they might. They see it (as well as being “bigoted against bigots”) as something to be proud of since the people they’re screeching at are “obviously” evil so it’s okay (or even good) to hate them. *sigh*

    3. I once heard a public defender frame his job defending obviously guilty clients as making sure that procedure was followed scrupulously, because if it started to slide with the obviously guilty, it would spread until the innocent were convicted on inappropriate evidence.

    4. Amen, William. Amen. That is exactly my issue here.

      If the man has done something horrible, then bring him to account for that. Don’t try to convict him on lies.

    This is the true face of evil, the real Nazis, the Brown Shirt thought police.
    Young grade school teacher for Ghod’s sake, takes pride in using violent protest and riot to deny someone their right to free speech.
    Evil of me I suppose, but cannot help but hope that she is there on the front line one day soon when one of their destructive attacks is met with a live fire response.

    1. That is someone who should not be teaching.

      Unfortunately, that is also someone who has been brainwashed into useful idiocy. She would likely crumble and wibble about her feelz if she ever faced serious resistance.

      1. If CA keeps doign what its doing, then many of the useful idiots here will have the opportunity to crumble and wibble about their feelz when the power goes out.

    2. I have really been enjoying Tucker Carlson’s nightly taking down of the Idiot Leftie of the Day, with nothing but polite reason (and some very funny facial expressions).

  10. Milo made his fame and fortune(?) being shocking and controversial. He finally tripped himself up on the third rail that is pedophilia. Is it fair, given the numerous flirtations and practitioners of pedophilia by the left who get a pass? Of course not but we all know that’s how the left and the media do things.

    While I’m sorry that this has happened to Milo I can’t get overly outraged about it. It was a self inflicted wound.

    1. Good holy f*ck. He didn’t trip himself up. No, it was not. The f*cking video was edited. This is like saying he shot himself on the head ten times. Can you please see my post on the subject and its links? Please. Running your mouth and spreading rumors is actually bearing false witness.

      1. You’ve missed my point. The media is duplicitous as we all know. Making any comment about something as emotionally charged as pedophilia is asking trouble if you aren’t one of the protected elite. Given Milo’s provocative in your face style and his…. adventurous lifestyle left himself particularly open to such a smear.

        Now I don’t disapprove of how Milo liked to taunt and mock his opponents, quit the opposite, but he should have known that his enemies on the left (and those on the right who were less enthused with him) were laying wait for such a misstep. Any discussion of underage sex regardless of his actual verbiage was going to be used against him because that’s who those tools are.

        It’s like a famous big game hunter joking about illegal hunts and then being surprised when PETA twists his words and comes after him. It sucks, it’s totally unfair but when you play the kinda game that Milo did against the weasels on the left you better be damn careful to protect yourself from such attacks.

        1. Oh yes.

          It’s Milo’s fault that some asshole twisted his words like that.

          We’re not to blame the asshole but we’re to tell Milo that “he has to be more careful”.

          Sorry TBLAKELY, the assholes are completely to blame not Milo.

          By the way, if you try saying “But that’s not what I meant”, then I’ll respond “Then you should be more careful about you said”. 😈

        2. Oh, please. You can’t guard yourself from having your words twisted. it’s impossible. If you put out content, you’re going to put out stuff that can be twisted. As I told you, it happens to me several times a month.
          What you’re advocating is double think and watching every word you think and write. you can’t fight that way. I did it for years. All you can do is drive yourself insane.
          As for “You’ve missed my point.” Well, maybe you should have explained yourself better, tovarish. To the gullag with you.

          1. You can’t guard yourself from having your words twisted.

            Wellllll … maybe you should just STFU, which is the goal of the Milo-knackers.

            Solution Unsatisfactory

            1. Yep. Precisely. This isn’t about Milo. This is about getting those who talk back to shut up already.
              And to them I say “These are my middle fingers. Behold, a matched set.”

              1. I am sorry to advise you that the particular gesture you describe is of Roman origin —

                The “one-finger salute,” or at any rate sexual gestures involving the middle finger, are thousands of years old. In Gestures: Their Origins and Distribution*, Desmond Morris and colleagues note that the digitus infamis or digitus impudicus (infamous or indecent finger) is mentioned several times in the literature of ancient Rome. Turning to our vast classical library, we quickly turn up three references. Two are from the epigrammatist Martial: “Laugh loudly, Sextillus, when someone calls you a queen and put your middle finger out.”

                (The verse continues: “But you are no sodomite nor fornicator either, Sextillus, nor is Vetustina’s hot mouth your fancy.” Martial, and Roman poets in general, could be pretty out there, subject-matter-wise. Another verse begins: “You love to be sodomized, Papylus . . .”)

                — and as the descendant of Carthaginian colonizers your use of that gesture is cultural appropriation, akin to Hannibal’s troops looting the Italian countryside.

                *A great gift book for all Huns and Hunnettes, be advised it is somewhat Eurocentric

        3. Which there is NO WAY to do. They are simply looking for an excuse to trigger people’s prejudices, and a lie is even better than the truth for that purpose, because it allows additional gaslighting.

    2. False accusations of pedophilia trivialize pedophilia, adding useless noise to a signal of import. This has the long-term effect of enabling pedophiles. Sure you wanna do that?

      1. Since the Ctrl-Left includes NAMBLA sympathizers, I’m sure they don’t mind that as collateral damage.

    3. No. By that standard any cop who is injured by a criminal has a “self-inflicted wound”.

      By all means condemn Milo for the things he has ACTUALLY said and ACTUALLY done.

      This is a tactic that is *always* used first against the controversial and disliked. It’s a test balloon. If there’s no objections, it will be used again. And again. And the scope will always widen, until it’s Enemies of The State, and you didn’t applaud the Great Leader as long as everyone else, Citizen. You must be enemy of the state. Enjoy your show trial and long vacation in Siberian work resort.

  11. You’ll notice was leaked shortly after the Berkley riots blew up in the face of the anti-Milo crowd.


          1. Twenty-five is evidence of being slow to learn.

            It is not without reason that the GOP is called The Stupid Party.

            1. It’s the kind of really *special* institutionalized stupid that takes a law degree and decades of indoctrination to learn.

            2. I dunno. Maybe if it happens a twenty-sixth time, I might start to take this seriously.

  12. “Or are you just so sure you’re right that you think your shit is pure gold?
    It’s not. It stinks. And so, oh righteous conservative, do you.”

    This brings up an important point I have yet to see covered well. They’re burning Milo over a couple of off-the-cuff comments and a joke, culled from hours of video.

    If you think you have never said or done anything that couldn’t be ginned up like this, you are delusional.

    Meaning, anyone the Mob decides they don’t like, they will dig up, or simply make up, a reason, and that will be that.

    I don’t have to like Milo and I don’t have to like what he said. You don’t get to use something said in jest as sufficient cause to cost a man his job and a lucrative book contract.

    Let him be charged, tried and convicted in a court of law for pederasty, THEN let slip the dogs of war. I’m fine with that.

    1. Ah, but you see this is why we are at fault for driving the hard left bat shit crazy. Every time in the past when a conservative was accused of any dirty deed, substantiated or not, the conservative right drove the miscreant from the fold and bent over backwards in way of apology.
      But when the puppy kickers accused Larry, then Brad, then Sarah and Kate and Amanda of all being white racist misogynistic Mormons they did not slink away. Nope, they (the girls at least) threw out their chests and called “liar liar pants on fire!” Bad that, but containable as it never intruded on the general public, but then they struck gold. Trump, on a bus, years ago, making an off color remark. Hallelujah! Do him up right and proper like Palin, and Thomas, and Paula Deen, and so many others. And he didn’t slink away either. I don’t recall that he or his people ever even acknowledged the dirty business. At most wrote it off as old news.
      You see, the biggest gun in the left’s arsenal has failed them, and it’s driving them mad as a result.

        1. GamerGate is not so clearcut.

          Yes, the gamers clearly and unequivocably told the SJWs to go stuff it. The problem is that it’s starting to look like the game publishers have folded. Even Japanese publishers have made moves that seem to be motivated primarily by a desire to avoid upsetting the SJWs.

          On another note, some of the commenters over at Ace’s blog have mentioned that after GamerGate, there was apparently a MetalGate. Apparently the SJWs got it into their heads that they would try and dictate terms to the metal music community. From what I’ve heard, it didn’t go very well for the SJWs.

          1. I wrote about it very briefly, as that was a very, very brief attempt to go after metal.

            My son died soon afterward, and most of that just didn’t seem important any more, or even vaguely amusing.

            I’m still waiting for them to go after gangsta rap, but I’m not holding my breath.

            1. If they do, I’ll spring for the really, really expensive gourmet popcorn. Because the looks on the still-think-they’re-18 70 year old white leftist protesters and the I’m-tough-on-the-‘Net 20-somthings when they collide with the gangsta thugs . . . priceless.

              1. Have you seen this “meme” going around where a smaller person is confronting this “Jock” type (apparently in a High School)?

                The caption reads “Steve” forgot that he wasn’t arguing on the internet. 😈 😈 😈 😈

              2. ehh, its priceless enough to watch them try to go toe to toe with a 6’4″ metalhead that moves engines in and out of cars for a living…

      1. The whole bit with Trump is especially poignant when you pull up the video where Obama and another guy make fun of him, extensively, in a press dinner.

        Trump took revenge in the best way possible, and this is part of the reason why I pray daily for his success as a President.

        The Left’s weapons are failing them. Screeching “RACIST! HOMOPHOBE! BIGOT!” stopped working. So they switched to “LITERALLY HITLER! LITERALLY NAZI!” … and that stopped working too. Now they’re going for something they’re actually not all that opposed to and screaming “PEDOPHILE! PEDOPHILE!” In each of these cases, the truth be damned, it’s the slander that’s their weapon, and it’s …getting blunted.

        Burn the witch based on say so doesn’t work all that much any more, but I think we’ll see a lot of this happening again and again until the Right figures it out – or they’ve chased them all away to more proactive right-leaning groups.

          1. More and more with the Left, I’m reminded of a “joke” that I’ve heard and used.

            “I’m not crazy, it’s the rest of the world that’s crazy”.

            I joke about it but the Left seems to believe it. 😦

          2. They have achieved epistemic closure, a philosophical ouroboros in which their heads are shoved ever further up their rectums. closing the loop between consumption and defecation, creating a self-sustaining self-licking ice cream cone.

            1. RES you glorious b*stard. I almost needed a new keyboard due to spewed coffee. I will now hence and forevermore refer to the left as suffering from a fatal case of epistemic closure…

    2. Cardinal Richelieu. “If you give me six lines written by the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”

      Nobody is safe when “justice” is meted out by the howling mob wound up by some convenient lies. That’s why I’m pushing back, even though it’s more like pissing in the wind. It’s something that I have to do if I want to be able to look at myself in the mirror each morning.

      1. Exactly – Milo is a character, a Guy (in the English sense) and a clown – but I do not like that he is being railroaded in the court of public opinion by some kind of underhanded effort, powered by an internet lynch mob.

  13. Yeah, Kate!

    I’ve been going through all the Milo tour talks on Youtube for the past few months – if you watch the whole of a talk, and not selectively edited bits, Milo has one theme he repeats over and over: if I haven’t said something that offended you, I haven’t done my job, that the speech that needs to be protected isn’t the speech everyone agrees with, and that even though everyone in the audience heard something offensive, no one died. Either people learn how to deal with offensive, even bullying speech, or we’re going to have censorship, there’s no middle ground, and censorship is unacceptable.

    (I also note that he’s mellowed out a lot from the earliest talks through the more recent ones. I tend to not take seriously the catty gay guy talk, and listen more when he’s being serious, and that’s when he can be a truly nice guy.)

    Do I like everything he’s said and done? Nope. But I haven’t died.

    1. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me. Well, unless my boss calls to tell me I’m fired. Then I’ll be a little injured financially.

      Over the last week or so I’ve been stories about a BLM leader claiming white people are ‘genetic defects’ and looking around for outrage. . .crickets. I’m not sure how that doesn’t count as racist speech since that’s pretty much about as racist of a statement as I can imagine.

      1. That was pretty disgusting, yes, and brainless. Given some of the other comments made by that same BLM leader, I suspect the person lacks the ability to understand the actual genetics involved.

        And would be appalled to have someone use something like, oh, sickle cell anemia as the basis for condemning black people as “genetic defects”. It’s that eye-rolling stupid.

        1. I suspect it’s more than genetics he has problems understanding.

          What still bothers me (and will continue to bother me) is that statement seems to be totally fine to all of the media ‘elites’ and other people on the Left.

          But at the same time the fact that statement is getting so much press is (hopefully) going to be a big wake-up to some of the people that are still not paying attention to what’s going on.

          1. They haven’t realized yet that things have changed. They don’t have a lock on public opinion and their “sheep” have realized the shears are taking more than a bit of wool.

            1. Shouldn’t the fact we don’t have President Hillary be a big f*ing clue that things have changed? The wailing and shrieking was amusing at first but now it just convinces me that they need some serious psychiatric care.

              1. They’re too used to reality being bent to their perceptions to realize the bubble has burst. I think some of them think if they have a big enough tantrum everything will go back to what it “should” be.

              2. No, they think that’s because the Russians “hacked” the election. In their tiny overheated heads it couldn’t possibly be because Hillary managed to disgust more people than Trump did or similar. No, their Destiny was thwarted so it means there was some sort of cheat involved! *eyeroll*

                1. Because somehow letting people know more truth about Clinton and the Democrats that she liked is illegitimate.

          2. Even in the field of biology:

            “Melanin enables black skin to capture light and hold it in its memory mode which reveals that blackness converts light into knowledge. Melanin directly communicates with cosmic energy. White ppl are recessive genetic defects. This is factual.”

            She, BTW.

        2. It’s the way she uses Birth of the Nation as a how-to guide that gets me.

          “White ppl need white supremacy as a mechanism to protect their survival as a people because all they can do is produce themselves. black ppl simply through their dominant genes can literally wipe out the white race if we had the power to,”

            1. It is the sort of argument that one simply does not engage, but rather backs away slowly, making placating noises. Engaging an argument such as that is guaranteed to leave you one standard deviation stupider.

              That is seriously, Saturnian spider invaders crazy.

                1. I’ve never seen the movie. I usually find the presence of Adam Sandler in a movie ample cause to eschew watching. But there is one bit …

                  Principal: Mr. Madison, the Industrial Revolution changed the face of the modern novel forever. Discuss, citing specific examples.

                  [Billy clears his throat several times]

                  Billy Madison: Uh… Okay. The Industrial Revolution to me is just like a story I know called “The Puppy Who Lost His Way.” The world was changing, and the puppy was getting… bigger.


                  Billy Madison: So, you see, the puppy was like industry. In that, they were both lost in the woods. And nobody, especially the little boy – “society” – knew where to find ’em. Except that the puppy was a dog. But the industry, my friends, that was a revolution.

                  [Long pause]

                  Billy Madison: Knibb High football rules!

                  [the crowd erupts into cheers]

                  Principal: Mr. Madison, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

      2. That’s because you are using logic and reason instead of Critical Race Theory and Foucould’s and Fanon’s arguments that minorities, even when in positions of power, can never be racist, because of structural imbalances in society, and so on, world without end.

        And now I’m going to go wash my hands after typing that [manure].

      3. Yeah, there’s a Mr Metokur video on youtube that’s having a lot of fun with this kind of stuff.

  14. Anna Egorova, a WWII Russian fighter pilot, remembered her mother ”kneeling before the icons, as she firstly listed all our names, the names of her children, begging God for health and wisdom for us, and then at the end of each prayer repeating: ‘God save them from slander!’”

    “Back then in my childhood, I didn’t understand that word, but now (after her brother was arrested as an Enemy of the People) it was exposed before me in all its terrible nakedness”

    We’re certainly not at the 1930s Soviet level presently, but the trends are in the wrong direction.

    1. We’re certainly not at the 1930s Soviet level presently …

      Yet that is the avowed goal of the Left’s leadership (“Except this time we’ll do it right!”)

  15. To quote another Jewish young man talking about someone caught doing something sexually immoral: “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone …”

  16. And just a reminder: they were so deeply concerned about the threat Milo posed innocent 13 year olds that they waited nearly a year to make a big deal about this. Hell, if he WAS guilty, the people behind this release would still need to held to account.

  17. To quote another Jewish young man talking about someone caught doing something sexually immoral: “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone … “

  18. Ms Paulk was oh so careful to lump all conservatives into those attacking Milo.

    I venture to say that that was unseemly, hypocritical, and mendacious.

    While I lie on a couch in a hotel room recovering from cancer surgery–unable to speak clearly yet and still taking most of my nutrition through a tube in my nose–I am rather deeply offended by this type of bigotry coming from Sarah Hoyt’s blog.

    Many of us who are actual conservatives do not actively support or celebrate homosexuality; but we don’t attack it any more than we attack any other form of sin–and we all have at least 31 flavors (read Paul’s Epistle to the Romans). Some people, notably Milo’s opponents, can’t see the nuance there. I’m somewhat shocked to see the same rhetoric flowing from Ms Paulk.

    I am not holding my breath waiting for an apology from anyone. We all have bad days. But please stop judging people by group labels you apply incorrectly. Those who oppose our liberties might start labeling us trigglypuffs.

    1. Speaking as a Political and Religious Conservative, I think you’re seeing Bigotry that isn’t there (here on AccordingToHoyt).

      I’m a regular here and while I’ve disagree with Kate from time to time, she is Not a Bigot.

      1. I will accept that. But not liking Milo or even not celebrating Milo is far different from attacking him. And Ms. Paulk I think missed that distinction.

        I don’t want to seem unduly slow here; but I don’t recall defending attacks on Milo or anyone else. I simply pointed out the comment where Ms. Paulk said “conservatives” as though we were a monolithic bloc is just as bigoted as if she said “blacks” or “Catholics” or “women”.

        She answered with enough venom to help me decide what flag she’s fighting under.

    2. Are you attacking Milo because of the blatant lies being thrown at him? Are you blaming him for someone else editing a video to make him look bad?

      If the answer is no, then I have no argument with you. My argument is with that particular flavor of nauseating self-satisfied wowser who preens with morality but doesn’t hesitate to attack when a convenient lie presents itself.

      If you weren’t recovering from major surgery, I’d say you’d had someone’s false flag shoved so far up your rectum you waved that flag every time you opened your mouth. As it is, I would respectfully suggest that the aftermath of surgery and possibly cancer treatment in general has limited your ability to correctly judge what you’re reading.

      No, I will not apologize, because you are effectively doing EXACTLY what that branch of so-called conservatives attacking Milo have done: you are accusing me of something false: bearing false witness against me. I accept that you are impaired at present and misread my intentions. I forgive you for this.

    3. Please keep in mind that major surgical procedures can impair one’s judgement; refrain from jumping needlessly to conclusions. I doubt other readers here share your impression that Kate’s screed was a broadside fired against conservatives as a category.

      It is the attacks based on false information and the eagerness to not inform oneself about the actual facts which she is decrying.

      Good luck with your recovery and ain’t it wonderful we live in an era in which cancer is no longer an indisputable death sentence.

    4. Best wishes on your recovery. MomRed (11 years remission this April, G-d willing) described her treatment as exchanging six months of misery for ten years of life. At the moment it looks like she’ll get more than ten.

  19. This reminds me of the Log Cabin Republicans at CPAC kerfuffle a few years back. There is a sizable number of social conservatives who don’t realize that they have decisively lost the culture war, especially when it comes to homosexuals. They seem to think that gays and Republicans are natural enemies, which isn’t good for the party.

    1. Actually, Jeff, it’s more like we realize we can’t win the culture war until the “Gods of the Copybook Headings limp up to explain it once more”.

      Right now, we’re in a position as a society of having enough wealth to indulge deviancy and laugh at the institutions that have been proven to work for millennia. That’s going to change. Evangelicals are practically the only culture in America that’s breeding over replacement level.

      So we’ll vote for Trump simply because he’s not an active enemy of Christianity, unlike any number of Leftists and “libertarians”. The Church can survive Trump.

      1. No, you’ve lost. At least where homosexuality and marriage is concerned. The days of gays being persecuted in the West are over and never coming back. You might be able to win on the “cake baking” front, but to do that you’ll need allies, preferably gay allies, and calling people “deviant” and bragging about birth rates – as if culture is transmitted genetically – aren’t good ways to get them.

        It’s true that troubled times aren’t good for minorities, but you’re a minority as well. Don’t be surprised if you find yourself in the same camp as Milo.

        1. No, it actually doesn’t have anything to do with “persecution”; what it will have everything to do with is that it won’t be seen as a preferred lifestyle option to be encouraged even at the expense of suppressing the religious. Which is where we are now.

              1. That’s not going after a church, it’s going after a proprietor of an event space that happens to be a church. I don’t agree with it, but the law in that matter is quite clear. Let me know when someone sues to have a pastor officiate a gay wedding.

                1. Who owns the building? The church congregation.
                  Who is going to be forced to curtail their activities in the building they own unless they host an event their faith finds morally objectionable? The church congregation.
                  Who is going to be bankrupted trying to defend against these lawsuits that the filers confess is intended to produce that result? The church congregation.

                  “In opposing the Ohio Pastor Protection Act (HB-36), the group Equality Ohio announced that they would target churches, forcing them to rent church facilities to groups that oppose their beliefs.”

                  Your position is that as long as the members of the church adapt their beliefs to suit your prejudices, they might be suffered to live.

                  You are a typical liberaltarian who just LOVES government force in the service of your prejudices. Hypocrite.

                  1. You are a typical liberaltarian who just LOVES government force in the service of your prejudices. Hypocrite.

                    This…libertarian to me means “legalize pot” and “use government force to make people who disapprove of my sex life shut up and kowtow to me” until proven otherwise.

                    Gay marriage proved libertarians love government force as long as it to enforce things they like. “Who will get hurt if two men can marry” was the libertarian battle cry and as soon as I could show people subjected to force by the government because the didn’t embrace those two men marrying libertarians were silent.

                  2. No, the landlord has to host events in the building that they find morally objectionable. That the landlord in this case is completely irrelevant. I’ve never been a fan of religious exemptions. For the most part if “G-d says I can’t (or should)” is a valid reason then so it “because I don’t (or do) want to.”

                    Now regarding that “liberaltarian” crack. First off, FUCK YOU. Secondly, pull your head out of your ass and read what I wrote, specifically the bit about “I don’t agree with it…” No wonder you don’t realize you’ve lost the culture war, you’re completely divorced from reality.

                    1. Because that’s what the stupid law says. My point isn’t that this is what should happen, it’s that this happens to everyone who runs an event space and the fact that it’s now happening to a church makes it no better or worse.

                    2. Far easier said than done. Making the case for discrimination is an uphill battle. But if this church does decide to engage in civil disobedience over this, they’ll have my support.

                    3. I read exactly what you wrote, both here and elsewhere.

                      Fuck you? Not with Michael Moore’s dick.

                    4. No, I simply have full exposure to your hypocrisy and don’t plan to tolerate it.

                      You are no more capable of leaving the world ruthlessly alone than a hog can resist slop.

                    5. You again attribute to me a position that I have explicitly denounced. You either cannot read or you cannot understand. Those are the only two options. Pick one.

                    6. Apologies, ma’am. No excuse, ma’am.
                      Explanation is that I’m working my way through several days of back comments while replying to new ones.

                    7. I will ask if you recognize Green-on-Blue, where someone is pretending to be an ally. Say advocating the application of a law to a religious institution in violation of the First Amendment while inventing a definition of religious institution to “prove” his point and allow the use of government force.

                    8. Well, IMO I think Sarah would prefer that sort of question to be sent privately to her.

                      IE The question might “restart” or “continue” the argument that she’s trying to stop. 😉

                    9. Jeff has been here forever. That’s not what he’s saying. This is blue on blue where you two are having way too much fun fighting to actually understand each other.

                2. Bullshit…in CT a school district was sued for renting a church’s separate meeting hall for graduation due to renovations despite it:

                  1. Being low bid.
                  2. The only option with adequate parking
                  3. All religious material was removed or covered to avoid even the appearance of establishment.

                  Who sued? The ACLU for the school district taking the same contract as any party approaching the church was given for an establishment clause violation.

                  If the church isn’t “a proprietor of an event space that happens to be a church” even for the school to rent on the same terms as an establishment violation then the state telling them who then can rent to is a free practice violation.

                  Libertarians and liberals (but often that is repeating myself) want it both ways: Churches aren’t special if we force them to go against their beliefs but are special if they want to participate in secular life and thus must be excluded:


                  1. Okay, first, don’t insult any of my regulars by calling them liberals.
                    Second, while this might happened in Connecticut it sure as hell doesn’t happen everywhere. My kids too SATs and other mass-exams in the Presbyterian church across the street.
                    IF a church is in the habit of renting their premises, they should not be protected. If they’re NOT and only use them for religious ceremonies, then they should be protected.
                    This won’t mean anything, because our law/enforcement right now isn’t in the business of rationality.

                    1. The worship center at my church seats about 3,000 and is rented by the city symphony for their performances. About ten years ago it hosted a secular ceremony honoring Gold Star mothers that was attended by both the sitting Republican senator (Liz Dole) and her Democrat challenger (Kay Hagan.) Our voting precinct (as are many in this state) is at a church.

                      It would be very interesting for anybody to try and push such nonsensical regulations around here. Maybe in Charlotte …

                      A church renting out facilities as a public service no more voids its sacred status than my renting a room during the Furniture Market would make my home a motel. The distinction revolves around “primary function” and not occasional usage. Certain statuses are “protected” inn the sense that the church cannot refuse to rent an otherwise available facility to a Black (or, if AME, a White) congregation for use, but the abuse of such categories by the authorities is not license to desecrate no matter how many judges say otherwise.

                  2. Sounds like you have a hell of an argument against the ACLU. I advise you to take it up with them.

    2. It’s because activist gays ARE natural enemies of conservatism. And they get Alltel the press. But as wit the alt-Right it’s the adjective that’s the critical factor. That and the press lies line a dog

  20. “The Good Russians who knew nothing about the Gulag, Citizen, nothing at all…”

    Germany was seduced by Nazism. Russia was raped by Communism.
    Just sayin…

    Cracking article Ms Paulk!

    Je Suis Milo!

    1. *scribbling note to self* “Germany seduced by Naziism, Russia raped by Communism,”
      An elegant turn of phrase, which I am stealing for future use. Thank you!

Comments are closed.