jump to navigation

Video Exposes “Social Conservative”/Leftist Joint Op to Bring Down Yiannopolous February 23, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in cultural marxism, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, persecution, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
trackback

UPDATE: Just a note, I use scare quotes around “social conservative” and “conservative” in this piece because the people involved have covered themselves with this cloak, even though the key players are not either, to my mind, in reality.  Egg McMuffin is an opportunist who is collaborating with very toxic left-wing sources to try to wound Trump.  He, like the Left, is trying to re-litigate the election by other means.  This “Reagan Battalion” is relatively new and at least partially funded by democrat operatives.  Sounds like a sure fire paleo-con site to me!

Some amazing work below by Sargon of Akkad.  I’d like to leave this matter of Milo’s fall behind, but this simply adds too much to the picture to ignore, and also reveals the depths to which certain “conservative” groups will go in their attempts to destroy Trump.

You don’t have to watch the whole thing.  The last 8-10 minutes switch to a different but related topic.  But the first 17-18 minutes are absolutely must see.

Before I get into the revelations, however, let me note that I’ll address more aspects of the Milo situation at the bottom.  This is a complex matter, in which no one is completely free from guilt.

Having said that, what has Sargon (among others) found out?  First of all, there was a leak on the massive and often problematic 4chan site Sunday about noon forecasting exactly what was about to break on Milo.  This was obviously a leak from someone within the “mainstream” media, and showed exactly what was about to be dumped on Milo and, more importantly, why.  In a word, it was all about damaging Trump, gradually eliminating allies and so poisoning his name that democrats would – against all odds, and they are steep – win control of the Senate in 2018 and then move to impeach Trump, for what, at this point, I have no idea, because he’s barely had time to actually do anything.  For breaking their little leftist hearts, I suppose, and showing that their permanent electoral majority, at least at the presidential level, may not come to pass as they so fervently hoped.

So, this was obviously an orchestrated takedown.  It was not just a random release of something some independent sleuth “found” – it had been out for over a year, and I had seen parts of the Joe Rogan show in question.  But who orchestrated it?  Well, a self-interested cabal of self-described “conservatives” who happen to be tightly affiliated with, and funded by, democrats, and, oh yes, that paragon of virtue and former CIA operative, Evan McMullin.  A quarter of a million dollars of oppo research allegedly went into this effort, which just goes to show how much the establishment will waste money on things that could be found for free with a little interest and hard work.

The key part of the video is from 11:00 to 17:00.  This establishes the connection between the site that broke the news, with highly edited videos, the NeverTrumper brigade on the “right,” democrat operatives, and Evan McMullin.  I know some folks voted for McMullin out of exasperation over their choices in the two major parties, but his involvement here – which he has admitted – perhaps reveals more of his true character than his public rhetoric.  The story exploded incredibly fast, over a matter of minutes and not hours, precisely because all had been worked out in advance behind the scenes, as the 4chan leaker revealed.

McMullin’s goal, and that of the NeverTrumpers who worked with him to pull this off, is ultimately to destroy Trump a la the lines laid out by the 4chan confessor – whose post, I must remind, came out many hours before the first post broke at the “Reagan Battalion” site. So, this is NeverTrumpers making common cause with the leftist media, leaking stories in advance to destroy a despised target.  This is hugely revelatory.

As Sargon notes, this is not about concern for children.  None of these people and groups involved in the Milo takedown have expressed concern about numerous statements from leftists either saying the same thing, or admitting/doing far worse, ranging from Richard Dawkins to Leah Dunham to George Takei to Brian Singer.  But of course their is not criticism for these folks, they’re part of the great left-wing machine, and the Left always protects it’s own.  It’s quite different on the “right,” of course, where invective for conservatives who buck the establishment is often far more severe than anything directed at the democrats and their allies.

Having said all that, Milo, to a large degree, made this destruction all but inevitable by his bizarre and damaging comments on his own experience at the hands of a Catholic priest, and another unnamed individual.  Now there are some that hold that Milo can only “save” himself by coming forth and directly ID’ing those who abused him, or other men he’s allegedly seen taking part in boy-rape.  As Sargon points out, however, this would be an even shorter path to destruction for Milo than his disastrous comments, as making these allegations without proof would invite massive defamation suits and would simply discredit him in another way – which may be why some of these folks are demanding he do just that, to complete the destruction.  They would inevitably then turn around and lambast him for ruining “good people’s” names without proof. He’s stuck.  However, if you’d like another point of view regarding this imbroglio, see the video at the bottom.  It’s much less sympathetic and demands that Milo name names as a way of proving his opposition to pedophilia.  I certainly can sort of understand why folks would be demanding this, and I can also understand the severe criticism of Milo’s very warped views of “man-boy” relationships, a view almost certainly imposed on him by his abusers, but I still don’t think the demands entirely reasonable or fair, and the criticism may become a bit harsh at various points, mixing sad humor from a wounded soul with deeply heartfelt beliefs.

In a previous post on this matter, I said, as I’ve said before on other matters, that people who experience child sex abuse are never quite right again.  I have probably erred a bit in saying this, which was based both on my own experience associating with people abused as kids and out of my great desire to convey the total horror of these acts and their impact on children.  I don’t think the degree of damage that occurs to a child in these absolutely disgusting situations can be overstated.  But in my desire to convey this, I may have unintentionally conveyed that Grace cannot overcome such damage or even appeared to be discouraging towards survivors attempting to recover from abuse.  Neither was my intent, in fact, it was the opposite, to maintain a proper level of righteous outrage against these kinds of acts, but I probably need to temper my default rhetoric somewhat.  I plan on doing so going forward.

Regarding Milo, and George Takei, and Corey Feldman and Corey Haim, and probably far too many to name, this is just heartbreaking. The two Coreys, thank God, did not so internalize their abuse as to proclaim it wonderful and good, as the first two in my list did.  As Joe Rogan notes here, in a video I don’t recommend you watch save for the first 1:30, we must wonder just how many of those who proclaim affinity for the sodomite lifestyle are not doing so because they were abused by men as children.  My thinking is that it would be a shockingly large number, quite possibly, the distinct majority.  This event is so shattering and soul-destroying that some people not only have their sexuality changed, but apparently feel compelled to go back in time and redefine it as a “good,” in order to deal with it emotionally.  As the video at the bottom notes, pedophiles deliberately seek out disaffected young boys, boys who either have problems at home, or who are unsure of themselves, who are shy and uncomfortable and don’t fit in, and then shower attention on them and make them feel “wanted” and “loved.”  Once they have broken down the poor soul, they then move to their real objective, the satisfaction of their unnatural, perverted, hideous desires.  That a Catholic priest once again played a role in this………it is such a shame it is unbelievable.

And as the video at bottom points out – it’s long, but worth your time, as this man is an expert in dealing with recovery from abuse, physical and sexual – it is not uncommon at all for childhood victims of abuse to apologize for and defend their abusers, even blaming themselves for the abuse (making themselves the “aggressor” in a sexual relationship with an adult).  Of course this self-damnation stems from an attempt to reconcile soul-destroying behavior from someone in a position of authority, who violated the most sacred trust imaginable.

Anyway, I think I’ve said my piece on this now and put out all the nuance I planned.  Milo’s comments were surely warped, but I’m not sure how personally responsible he is for them.  But this must be a warning to all of us of what kind of evils will emerge from the growing subculture of Sodom and Gomorrah – how many other devotees of these sins share similar twisted beliefs because of their own nightmarish experiences?

These men do have a history, for those who care:

Advertisements

Comments

1. oakesspalding - February 23, 2017

Well, in some ways a blog comment box is quasi-private, so I’ll say this. I’ve publicly defended Yiannopoulos in my small way because I’m not sure it’s appropriate to hit a guy when he’s just been the object of (as you note) a malicious attack and smear campaign. But I actually think things are worse than even Stefan Molyneux suggests. I was hoping Milo would “come clean” in the press conference. But in my view he made things worse. I’m not talking about his advocacy of “intergenerational” homosexual affairs per se, but rather of his basic truthfulness regarding his own experiences, among other things. People (including his nominal allies) will slowly begin to pick his statements and stories apart. That will be too bad for his cause (pro-free-speech, anti-PC) and also too bad for him. And I’m really very sorry for that, on both counts.

2. The Lord's Blog - February 23, 2017

Reblogged this on Jean'sBistro2010's Blog and commented:
Fall out……………

3. Kathleen - February 23, 2017

Laying this mess at the feet of social conservatives is both inaccurate and unfair.

And disappointing to see here of all places from a devout and admirable Catholic.

The right of center party “Reagan Battalion” involved was Neo-Con and Never-Trump.

Hopefully the reference here can be made accurate. Even if this is passing along something from another source it would be appropriate to correct the false charge rather than tactically reinforcing it for all the obvious reasons.

Thanks.

Tantumblogo - February 23, 2017

WHY DO YOU THINK I USED QUOTES THROUGHOUT?!?

Tantumblogo - February 23, 2017

Sorry to yell in the original. I was in SAP and had all caps on. But I think I scare quoted the terms enough to make plain I’m far from convinced of these people’s bona fides as conservatives. I also updated the post to make that clear OK!?

NickD - February 23, 2017

McMullin is certainly no social conservative. He puts on the veneer so he can campaign credibly and attract socially conservative voters. But his true platform–the one he has to keep quiet–is neo-con regime changes and drumming ever more loudly for war with everybody. As Rand Paul said about John McCain, “If he’d been elected president, we’d be at war in six different countries.” But with McMullin, it’d be more like 60 different countries.

TL;DR- McMullin is not a social conservative, even if he claims to be

4. Kathleen - February 23, 2017

Sorry for any offense on my part, Tantum. You’ve long been one of my favorite bloggers and you and your family are in my daily prayers.

But the quotation marks can convey a variety of things.

I appreciate the clarification, thank you.

Tantumblogo - February 23, 2017

No problem. I can see how folks would be confused.

5. MFG - February 23, 2017

I would tend to agree with Kathleen that this isn’t the fault of soc-cons. They were in their right to oppose Milo’s invite to C-PAC since he wasn’t a conservative. Did the left take advantage of it? Yes but we can’t withhold moral concerns because we’re scared the left may use our principles for nefarious efforts.

As for the video’s concerns about McMullen, I agree but it’s a mistake to call him a soc-con. We know he was wishy on sanctity of marriage (he was more libertarian) and his CIA work just didn’t fit the mold of someone concerned about the dignity of human life. People are painting broad brushes and not making a distinctions on who exactly are social conservatives. He is someone to remain weary about.

Tantumblogo - February 23, 2017

Anyone can call themselves a social conservative. I can call myself a leftist. It would be dumb for me to do so because my beliefs are entirely counter to leftism, but people with few scruples who wish to work the political system may choose to call themselves they are not.

This is a complex situation, as it was designed to be. That means something. I haven’t said any of the individual responses were wrong (CPAC cancellation, book deal cancellation, firing from Brietbart), I don’t believe. It seems very harsh to destroy someone’s livelihood over a few comments out of tens of thousands made, but whatever. The CPAC disinvite doesn’t bother me at all. The attempt at total ruination does.

I would add that, whatever he is, Milo probably holds far more consistently conservative opinions that many people who have been given a platform at CPAC.

We also have to wonder at the timing between CPAC making what was to many a surprising announcement, given Milo’s track record, and this takedown that occurred barely 48 hours later. Perhaps the truth of that will come out at some point. Milo is a highly unlikely keynote for CPAC. Quite an odd mix. A speaker, sure, but not the keynote. Make of it what you will.

It would be silly and hypocritical of me to denounce social conservatives, as I most obviously am one. We have mountains of evidence over decades that many who call themselves “conservatives” of many stripes simply aren’t. This applies to some who would use the label “social conservative” to advance their agenda. I’m certain there are many convicted social conservatives who were scandalized by Milo’s awful justifications on this matter, and rightfully so, but that’s not who orchestrated this effort. Those who orchestrated this effort are making common cause with the democrat party and their media operatives to try to reduce Trump’s support and ultimately, take him down. That does not stem from love of country, or desire to serve one’s fellow man, but from a desire for power and riches and keeping one’s perceived high status in a society.

6. Margaret Costello - February 23, 2017

Thanks for the clarification on being hopeful in recovering from childhood abuse:+) God’s grace is so powerful He can heal even these horrid traumas:+) God bless~

Amillennial - February 24, 2017

One often must be open to receiving His grace, however…


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: