Post: #1701

(02-22-2017 11:29 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  The whole thing smelled like an imaginary story, and so I gave it no notice from the beginning.

It's not imaginary.

Post: #1702

Pedophilia is such a strong taboo that no one wants to touch it.

I have read books about real pedophile predators and the level of psychologically manipulative sophistication, the capacity for bending children, parents, and even communities to their will through deception and intimidation, in addition to the indefensible sexual acts they perform, really deserves the term that has its own taboo in the Manosphere: Creepy.

I once watched a Louis Theroux video about pedophiles, and after a few minutes it really made my skin crawl, I mean really. At first it was the pride and defiance of the pedophiles themselves, but then later, it was something about even addressing the subject grossed me out, and I started to find the therapists and caretakers who worked at the institution creepy themselves, and finally, even Theroux seemed a bit off for choosing that topic.

We understand the concept of taboo on the intellectual level, only in reading these books and watching this documentary, I could feel the power of taboo welling up in my own heart and mind. Taboos aren't just for the cultures and people we call primitive, taboos are alive and well in our own psyches, not just pedophilia, but rape, real rape, incest, and you know the rest, anything that makes you so uncomfortable that you don't even want to talk about it.

Milo was flip, Milo was dismissive, Milo was transgressive, like he always was, and about every issue under the sun.

He wasn't outed at the time because his enemies took those interviews and kept them in their back pocket until it looked like he was going to be popular, and then they launched a coordinated attack on him. I think QC is right about the free speech issue because it is, as Professor Jordan Peterson has said, fundamental to our functioning as a free society. If we can't fight with words, we fight with fists, and people you disagree with go underground, and make their plans in secret.

Sp5, free speech is not a red herring, it is what allows us to operate a free society and not degenerate to the level of the Antifa.

The authoritarian left has gotten so bad, that a lot of people ended up holding their noses and voting for Trump. We can see in this thread, a kind of qualified support for Milo that operates on the same principle. We may not like Milo that much, or condone his lifestyle, but to allow him to be shamed and ostracized and scapegoated for reckless comments he made a couple of hours in on a couple of podcasts from a few years ago?

No.

I have said earlier in this thread that he might have easily just been the homo trying to get a rise out of the straight guys with these comments. Or he might have been, as the SJWs say, expecting his *lived experience* to trump common wisdom.

I don't really know and don't really care. I have read some of this NAMBLA literature, and also knew a guy back in the 80's who defended pedos, though never admitted to being one, and reading those things, and listening to that guy I felt like divers must feel looking into the black eyes of a shark up close. No love, no compassion, no humanity, just an empty vacuum of a predator looking to feed.

On a basic, intuitive level, I cannot connect this to what Milo does or what he is. I could be wrong, but I feel you are comparing neutron bombs to spit balls.

In an interview, I heard Dennis Prager say to Dave Rubin that the explanation for the success of the left has been their ability to reduce a complex issue down to a simple epithet. Racist. Sexist. Homophobe. Pedophile.

He did not, however say why it has been so effective. My belief is that the reason this has worked for so long goes back to what I was saying earlier about taboos. They are alive and well in our culture, despite the fact that we pretend to have reasoned our way beyond them. The left not only call you names, but they choose names that label you as a breaker of taboos. A character worthy of ostracism.

Dark. Deplorable. Nazi. Unhinged. Campaign In Disarray. Pedophile.

It is behaviorism at its most stark.

Do what I say, you dog, or you will get an emotional shock on your snout. And there is no reward for this kind of behaviorism, only punishment or not-punishment, and if you don't believe me, look at what happens to anyone who makes the mistake of apologizing for their taboo behavior.

I am not a Darwinian, though I still believe that we all have some deep communal fears within our souls, and one of the most powerful is running afoul of the community.

It should work like this:

A community has shared values. If a group member flouts shared rules, they get reprimanded by a parent or teacher, or taken aside by a policeman or clergyman and told to shape up. If that doesn't work they may have to spend their afternoons in detention or a weekend in jail.
Eventually, if they show they have zero respect for the beliefs of the other members of their community, they might find themselves openly shamed by anyone and everyone.

Further down the line is ostracism, and even further, scapegoating. Last stop on this train is murder.

I think we all instinctively understand this and respond to charges of shameful behavior and possible ostracism in a uniform way, by apologizing and changing our behavior to stay in the group.

The SJWs have completely taken advantage of this power loophole in human behavior, except they don't follow all the steps of warning, reprimand, punishment.

No, they leap directly to shame because they know what power it has on an individual. Call it a strife hack.

Except they have one big problem. They don't speak for the group, they are only engaging in power tactics, and that is why you see so many contradictions. They are fine when Lena Dunham commits incest, but outraged when Milo isn't immediately condemning ebephilia and even hebephilia.

We have seen over the past few years though a loosening of their ability to name and shame and dominate, and that is why they have become so strident, and why we see all the insane behavior and false accusations of fascism towards Trump. And the recent infamous false rape accusations on college campuses.

Concepts expand, and almost everything becomes rape, or at least sexual assault, and not using a person's made up pronoun now causes "actual harm." Use my pronoun, or you will be responsible for my suicide.

They are losing power, and no one give that up without a struggle. Soon everyone will know someone who was fired or got kicked out of school for something insignificant or stupid, and the cunning, unprincipled use of the threat of taboo violation will lose its power, because there will be a culture wide realization that these feral leftoids do not speak for society at large, and never did.

People are already laughing at them, and accepting their hysterical labels with humor. Deplorables at a Deplora-Ball.

Pretty soon all of this stuff will lose its power, and the regressive left will be all out of gas.

And we will put this epitaph on their tombstone:

"No One Left To Shame."

Post: #1703

(02-22-2017 11:56 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 11:29 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  The whole thing smelled like an imaginary story, and so I gave it no notice from the beginning.

It's not imaginary.

I think he meant "nonstory".

Post: #1704

As unfairly as Milo has been treated (haven't we all said things and changed our mind about it later?), the bottom line is that the timing of of the recent attacks on the right give us plenty of time to recover. None of this is serious.

These attacks on Flynn, and Milo, would have been devastating and possibly fatal had they happened in October or November. But we have two years until the next election and thankfully none of this shit matters. New stars will be born if guys like Milo drop out. The demand and financial incentive is there for anyone who can spread the message of nationalism and common sense.

For example, Fox News was born in the late 80's as a reaction to the hostile left, and although Fox News is pretty cucked nonadays, it used to be the dissident right and was created after years of leftist news monopoly. Likewise even if the left controls the biggest internet platforms we still have years left during the Trump era to get our shit sorted when Trump is gone.

Post: #1705

Richard Spencer and Nick Griffin (the British version of the former) are trading tweets about Roosh and Milo

Would link but I'm on my phone

Post: #1706

(02-22-2017 11:14 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  I'm amused by people who were grasping at wild theories in PizzaGate yet are now defending brazen advocacy for man/boy sex.

Wild theory fits general narrative to use against "enemies": Must be true!!!

"Hero" advocates for sex with early-pubescent boys: SMEAR CAMPAIGN

Post: #1707

Also for all the guys who say the right has "no platform"...

What do you think 4chan and 8chan are? These sites are massive and draw insane traffic. The strict free speech makes it a natural home for the right.

4chan: 6.4 million visits a day, estimated worth 661 million. http://www.worthofweb.com/website-value/4chan.org/

8chan: 94K visits a day, estimated 2.3 million. http://www.worthofweb.com/website-value/8ch.net/

The fact is our side is massive, but it's shunned from the institutions. 4chan represents the plebeian masses while 8chan is the elite vanguard of the right. The growth of both of these sites is strong. As long as they remain I'd say the right always has a platform for speech. It just lacks a way to make money.

Post: #1708

I agree with Sp5.

As conservatives we NEED to uphold traditional values, virtues, and proper morals. Homosexuality and pedophilia are both mental illnesses that should not be condoned.

They are not good for the moral fabric of society.
There are tons of conservative reporters that I prefer to Milo, and I don't care if this is a smear piece or not.

Fact of the matter is, he said what he said.
Lots of us our falling into the same mind tricks that we scold the SJWs and leftists for falling into.
Just because he is branded as something we all identify with, doesn't make him immune from scrutiny.

I refuse to support Milo from here on out. Period. Never really liked the guy either, and to be honest, it's because I don't tolerate the homosexual lifestyle.
Fighting against the collapse of our moral fabric is more important. There are better people you guys can support.

Post: #1709

^ How can two bulletin boards compete with the ubiquitous television/movies/music/print establishment? Most Americans have never even heard of those two sites, nor could those sites provide the imagery that convinces (manipulates) the vast majority of people.

Post: #1710

I just used an argument that I read yesterday on this thread. Some liberal gay acquaintances of mine on social media were cheering the recent news about Milo. So, I posted this question, "I'm curious. I've seen some comments on the Internet by people saying that their gay friends make comments just like Milo's when they think they're around friends. Is this true or a homophobic stereotype?"

The response was dead silence. Not a single further comment was posted in the thread.

Post: #1711

(02-22-2017 02:34 PM)scrambled Wrote:  ^ How can two bulletin boards compete with the ubiquitous television/movies/music/print establishment? Most Americans have never even heard of those two sites, nor could those sites provide the imagery that convinces (manipulates) the vast majority of people.

Most Americans under 30 don't watch TV anymore.

Post: #1712

(02-22-2017 02:37 PM)C-Note Wrote:  I just used an argument that I read yesterday on this thread. Some liberal gay acquaintances of mine on social media were cheering the recent news about Milo. So, I posted this question, "I'm curious. I've seen some comments on the Internet by people saying that their gay friends make comments just like Milo's when they think they're around friends. Is this true or a homophobic stereotype?"

The response was dead silence. Not a single further comment was posted in the thread.

Nice. You got them to execute a voluntary no platform on their own comment thread.

Post: #1713

Bannon should use Milo to get the pedophiles in the establishment.

Molyneux has done a good video explaining why Milo isn't a pedophile but he is also to blame in some aspects.

Post: #1714

Adam Carolla having a semi serious conversation about Milo, what he actually said, the difference between words and actions, changing morality throughout history, is what he said actually bad, the difference between Jared Fogle and Milo.

If he gets too popular, you could use this as evidence that Carolla is a pedophile.

I wish there was a filter that could remove the voice of his lady sidekick. She is the only one arguing that Milo's speech will lead to pedophile behavior.

Post: #1715

(02-22-2017 02:37 PM)C-Note Wrote:  I just used an argument that I read yesterday on this thread. Some liberal gay acquaintances of mine on social media were cheering the recent news about Milo. So, I posted this question, "I'm curious. I've seen some comments on the Internet by people saying that their gay friends make comments just like Milo's when they think they're around friends. Is this true or a homophobic stereotype?"

The response was dead silence. Not a single further comment was posted in the thread.

Use this, if you'd like:

Quote:If Liberalism has chosen to side with Islam, to the extent Leftist marchers are now chanting 'Allah Ackbur!" in public, then why aren't you terrified for your life, given Islam's negative and violent attitude towards homosexuality and how quickly the Left has flipped on every core component of its belief system since Trump's election, now being Anti-Russia, Pro-CIA, Anti-Sex, Anti-Free Speech, and Pro-Violence - all deeply-abhorrent ideas to pre-Obama Liberalism.

What makes you think they won't also flip to an Anti-Gay stance to appease the Muslims, particularly as they're obviously-intending to use them and minorities as agents of violence insurrection to overthrow the status quo?"

The Left has bought a new puppy. You're not so cute to them any more, particularly as your behaviour of your tiny voting block is repellent to the much larger voting block they're now courting.

Post: #1716

(02-22-2017 02:37 PM)C-Note Wrote:  I just used an argument that I read yesterday on this thread. Some liberal gay acquaintances of mine on social media were cheering the recent news about Milo. So, I posted this question, "I'm curious. I've seen some comments on the Internet by people saying that their gay friends make comments just like Milo's when they think they're around friends. Is this true or a homophobic stereotype?"

The response was dead silence. Not a single further comment was posted in the thread.

Kudos ,Mister Cee!

Post: #1717

For those who missed it, here is Milo's press conference from yesterday in full:

Post: #1718

Just heard on Fox Business that Breitbart was going through changes even before the Milo comments and they're planning to go "more mainstream."

Breitbart is done. It's going to betray the very thing that built them their fanbase in the first place. They're going to be irrelevant like National Review.

Post: #1719

Don't make me laugh that NO ONE IN THE MEDIA WANTS TO TOUCH THE PEDOPHILIA aspect.

The reality is that underground it probably goes on constantly and the elite with 100% certainty wants to push in on society - it will just take time - case in point:

Propaganda via media:



Propaganda via entertainment:

TV series The Mick.
That kid by the way kills dozens of rabbits in one episode and they claim that he is just an innocent kid and there is nothing bad about this.

Just innocent child's play - not normalization of children having sex (the boys in the tub are 13 or younger by the way)

They do it by pushing sex of this girl who plays a 17yo girl:


The actress is in her mid 20s, but plays a 17yo who gets banged silly by a 30yo man.

I get it - sexually mature individuals below 18 may have sex, but the globalists will not stop there.

Mind my words - in 20 years you will see pedophilia becoming just a sexual orientation.

The globalists know that they are bigoted and they don't give a shit - any reason was good enough to take down Milo. They would have found a different way to attack him if it were not this.

Also an interesting take by BlackPigeonSpeaks - he doesn't think that Milo will go down over this. He is popular enough to create his own popular Youtube/Podcast/Social Media platform - he may even go to GAB and take his 300.000 fans with him en masse.





The truth of the matter is that this pedophilia crap is pushed arbitrarily by the media sometimes with the 17,99999yo girl as with the 6yo one. There is a cut-off in biology and that is sexual maturity - that happens roughly at age 16-17 for women. Most age of consent laws in most countries take this into account. Pedophilia is in my idea only relevant when children are truly children - are aka not sexually mature. That gay men go lower than 16 is clear, but I don't condone this of course - on the other hand I know that gays have been doing this since the dawn of time and I don't expect them to stop. And I don't think that Milo condones this either with non-sexually mature gay men.

The truth of the matter is that if he were a leftie, then this comment would go under and no one in the media would mention it. Also he is not controlled opposition or he would not be attacked that way either.

Post: #1720

(02-22-2017 03:58 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Breitbart is done. It's going to betray the very thing that built them their fanbase in the first place. They're going to be irrelevant like National Review.

I've mentioned in the past my theory of power dynamics: you inevitably become whatever you intend to overthrow. Power is simply too corrupting for most people.

Post: #1721

(02-22-2017 03:58 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Just heard on Fox Business that Breitbart was going through changes even before the Milo comments and they're planning to go "more mainstream."

Breitbart is done. It's going to betray the very thing that built them their fanbase in the first place. They're going to be irrelevant like National Review.

That is a...wishful thinking from Fox. Or...in other words...fake news.


As of this moment, Breitbart is doing fine. If memory serves, they are even more visited than Pornhub.


Why would they fix something that is not broken?

Post: #1722

(02-22-2017 04:43 PM)Irenicus Wrote:  Why would they fix something that is not broken?

To gain mass appeal. There's far more money to be made in dealing to the lowest common denominator, which generally involves removing complexity, nuance, intelligence and anything that might turn offend the sensibilities of the masses. This is why Progressive Ideas spread so easily, because they initially sound-appealing when not examined-closely, (or, hell, even given a cursory examination).

This is why I've kept saying both Milo ('I love big black cock!') and Richard Spencer ('Whites need a safe space') only have niche appeal, whilst Trump has mass appeal.

I've watched many discussions over the years between Musicians and the Suits, where the Suits hold a chisel to the marble of the Talent, and chip away at the rough and unique edges to make for a more appealing sculpture for an undiscerning eye. The problem is, they're not True Sculptors with an Artist's Eye, so their attempts are clumsy, and often deeply-misguided. (Work with hit producer! Spend more than the cost of your album making a video! Wear these stupid clothes! You need a gimmick! Can you remove the politics?)

You end up removing the appeal to the original, committed and deeply-loyal audience and going for the short term appeal of an audience that is easily-distracted by the next new bright and shiny thing that comes along.

It's the difference between (what was at the time considered) an extremely-large cult appeal of a 500,000 records sales market in 1986:





and the mainstream mass appeal of a 10,000,000 records sales market:





Remember the first video was in 1986, at the height of bright and shiny, sexy girls, big hair, bands gurning to the camera, expensive videos on MTV. Meanwhile 'Fall On Me' - which has become *the* template for the modern lyric video - cost $600. See how it only has limited appeal, but, at the time, I remember it as being a striking and unusual piece of work.

Contrast with the same band on a Major Label just four years later: the tweeness puts my fucking teeth on edge.

I remember a scuzzy pop-punk band from my Uni Days, with enough underground cred to name their first album after a song from Nirvana's first 1989 album, (before their breakthrough in 1991), signing to a major label in 1990 or so.

The first video, made by street artist friends at the university:





The second, major label video, who immediately chipped away all their rough edges into one of the most painful fucking videos I've even seen.





'The Hummingbirds' flamed out with their second album a year later, because Grunge had hit and they look liked the Wiggles. REM lost 8 million of their 'new' fans by their following album, and entered a period of increasingly-diminishing returns ever after.

This is just how the process works. Everyone is faced with a choice to abandon their original audience in terms of wider popularity. If Breitbart chooses to go the 'day-glo retards acting like toddlers' route, that's their choice. I'll find something else to read.

------------

As a digression on art and mass appeal in general, my take on this is that we're long past the concept of a Monoculture with Mass Appeal for All. Netflix - as toxic as the staff is - recognises Niche is now king, hence "Dear White People" and reviving Cult Shows. In a time of Universal Blandness, it is working your own unique niche with your own original voice, rough edges and all, that is more likely to appeal to a loyal, committed audience of people rather than being interchangeable with everyone else. This loyal, committed audience will spend money on your work - the mass market will download it for free.

This is why I end up taking some unfashionable roads with my music: I'm not concerned with what's popular but by following where the art is leading, and 'fashion' is transient anyway: what's currently-trendy (used to) sound really dated even a few years later, until the great stagnation of popular art hit in the late 2000's. What I can be is uniquely-me, and if consumers want more of it, I'm their only source. Contrast with modern culture, where the same 5 production teams are writing for Beyonce, Katy Perry, Rhianna, Madonna, etc.

I've noticed I fell into a working pattern of determining whether a song was 'good' by this rule: could anyone else have written this? Of course, this means a large part of the population is going to respond with "What the fuck is this?" but those people who do get it are going to lovingly-embrace it: "This is exactly what was missing in my life."

Post: #1723

That actress in the mick was in a decent show called The Messengers (lasted one season), which was about angels. Its sad to see her go to a more degenerate show to become more popular.

Post: #1724

Joe Sobran's writings ring true.

The Great “Gay” Racket
http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/010419.shtml

A Gay Man’s Manifesto
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030729.shtml

Post: #1725

Milo Yiannopoulos

"Well, that was a horrible few days. But it's over now. I hope to have some big announcements at the start of next week. Those establishment cucks have literally no idea what they've done."

Bonus points for using the word "cucks".

The Dangerous Faggot Strikes Back. Knowing his ego he could turn this into a sort of movie.