Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Incredulous on January 25, 2017, 06:20:57 PM
-
Here's a video sample:
Milo delivers a verdict on abortion (https://youtu.be/Y9nJ3VnJu6I)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2LCeSYVEAAWlBM.jpg)
Claims to be a homo, jew, Trump conservative... and a trad Catholic. :scratchchin:
-
You forgot to put yes or no.
He's authentically Jєωιѕн and homo. He's a fake Catholic. The alt-right is a creation of the Jews. Most of the people at Breitbart are Jєωιѕн.
-
I follow Milo.
He takes freedom of speech very seriously; ridicule and controversy are his M.O..
He's quite gαy, but at his latest talk he said he was going to undergo conversion therapy...in order to really piss off liberals.
I think there is a speck of appreciation for Traditional Catholicism in the back of his mind. He's alluded to it a number of times.
If you can stand him, he's hilarious.
-
There is no such thing as a Jєωιѕн Catholic. You can be a Catholic who has an insight on what it is to be Jєωιѕн or you can be Jєωιѕн with a particular insight in what it is to be Catholic.
-
There is no such thing as a Jєωιѕн Catholic. You can be a Catholic who has an insight on what it is to be Jєωιѕн or you can be Jєωιѕн with a particular insight in what it is to be Catholic.
:facepalm:
I think it was his mom who was Jєωιѕн.
-
Is Milo Yiannopoulos authentic or a concocted media character?
Who cares? Not knowing who this person or his views, would be a confirmation that a Catholic is living a Catholic life.
-
Is Milo Yiannopoulos authentic or a concocted media character?
Who cares? Not knowing who this person or his views, would be a confirmation that a Catholic is living a Catholic life.
Just my opinion, that as we live in this "Jєωιѕн virtual reality" media world, it's healthy to question what is real or concocted ?
Is Milo an artifice for just another zionist agenda?
The articulate homo "Catholic" who can stir-up the left? Is it real?
I tend to think Rum is correct, but we can always pray that the real Milo is converted to a chaste Catholic life.
-
I think Milo is just another zio psy-ops to make ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity "acceptable" in the ultra-conservative and "traditional" populations. He is very smart and personable- even charming ( albeit filthy) and espouses orthodox tenants that we are eager to hear from ANYBODY, while he injects foul language and perverted homo sex innuendo (for laughs?) in the mix. His target is the conservative leaning "college "age student who ultimately is tired and embarrassed at being typecast by the false memes of the left, (homophobia, sexism, racism, lalala) and Milo breaks this conservative stereotyping by dissing the and laughing at the progressive left, all the while making everyone VERY comfortable with his ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ platform.
This (Milo) is a very sophisticated operation. Mossad?
-
Ah, you've identified a more precise political motive.
Thank you for your perspective Josefa Menendez! :detective:
-
You forgot to put yes or no.
He's authentically Jєωιѕн and homo. He's a fake Catholic. The alt-right is a creation of the Jews. Most of the people at Breitbart are Jєωιѕн.
You're right because Paul Gottfried created the alt-right.
-
Milo built a scholarship fund available only to white men. Apparently the money was used to line his own pockets. Google it. It's called the Privilege Grant. A woman that he hired quit over it.
-
Many homos are drawn to Traditional Catholicism for aesthetic reasons (and not theological ones). gαy "queer eye" knows good art and music and architecture when he see it, and the banal Novus Ordo doesn't appeal to him.
-
Milo is a fraud. He kisses another "conservative" Catholic who is married and has children.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7OKlfhKz9tk
-
Milo built a scholarship fund available only to white men. Apparently the money was used to line his own pockets. Google it. It's called the Privilege Grant. A woman that he hired quit over it.
SemeticControversies covered that: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Milo-Yiannopoulos-A-Jєωιѕн-Fraud
-
I think Milo is just another zio psy-ops to make ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity "acceptable" in the ultra-conservative and "traditional" populations. He is very smart and personable- even charming ( albeit filthy) and espouses orthodox tenants that we are eager to hear from ANYBODY, while he injects foul language and perverted homo sex innuendo (for laughs?) in the mix. His target is the conservative leaning "college "age student who ultimately is tired and embarrassed at being typecast by the false memes of the left, (homophobia, sexism, racism, lalala) and Milo breaks this conservative stereotyping by dissing the and laughing at the progressive left, all the while making everyone VERY comfortable with his ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ platform.
This (Milo) is a very sophisticated operation. Mossad?
Spot on. Jews only feel comfortable in environments which allow them to engage in subversion. Only a state that is overtly anti-Jєωιѕн can put a stop to their shenanigans.
-
We'll see. He's not for everyone, that's for sure.
-
That hairstyle tells me all I need to know about Milo Yiannopoulos.
-
He seems like a massive troll and pot-stirrer.
-
Alright for sure Milo is a media machination. On one of his interviews he was talking about doing and defending having sɛҳuąƖ relations with a Catholic priest and then he defended the acts. Described them as pleasant memories. He is a repulsive, wretched, disgusting, piss poor (if at all which is a huge stretch by any Catholic standards) excuse for a Catholic and is a guaranteed plant meant to discredit what little credibility the Catholic Church still holds.
-
Is Milo Yiannopoulos authentic or a concocted media character?
Who cares? Not knowing who this person is or his views, would be a confirmation that a Catholic is living a Catholic life.
There are legion of "political conservatives" personalities like this in the world, why should real Catholics ask the question above about this one in particular? Likely because he being a young aberrosɛҳuąƖ and looking and acting like one, is fighting the liberals. I ask again, why even think of asking the question above? Why watch this person for more than 3 minutes? I watched him debating liberals once because it popped up on YouTube. I knew nothing about him, never heard of him. I immediately saw his effeminacy and concluded he had nothing Catholic to offer. I think I watched him 3 minutes. Why give this person space on Cathinfo with a question like the OP?
All these people from Billy Graham, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump to Milo Y are of the World, they are "conservative" options given by the enemy, like the High Anglican churches and Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod are conservative options to Catholicism. They are all flavors there to draw people away to hell, teachers according to their owns desires. They are given power by God, allowed to exist, as a punishment upon those that do not listen to the voice of God. These "conservatives" are all on the road to hell by their own choosing.
I'll leave it at that and let all of you think for yourselves on this:
The Future Church: How Ten Trends Are Revolutionizing the Catholic Church By John L. Allen page 390
Peruvian journalist Federico Prieto Celi gave me another reading July 12. He theorized that the growth (of Protestantism in South America) is in part linked to conscious American policy. He cited a famous remark of Theodore Roosevelt to the effect that, "I believe it will be long and difficult to absorb these countries into the sphere of the United States as long as they remain Catholic."
-
“Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo (Give me chastity and continence, but not just yet)!”
? Augustine of Hippo, Confessions
-
“Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo (Give me chastity and continence, but not just yet)!”
? Augustine of Hippo, Confessions
WWII: Gunner fell 22,000 feet WITHOUT a parachute and survived https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/wwii-gunner-fell-22000-feet-without-a-parachute-and-survived.html
(Thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God.)
-
of course he's a fraud.
he's also a candidate for Antichrist.
-
He should be considered an enemy because he's a Jew. Plain and simple. It's not notable that a Jew says something that's true, which Milo does quite often. The Jews are like their father and use the truth to promote lies. LaramieHirsch is either very naive or one of them.
-
The Jews are like their father and use the truth to promote lies. LaramieHirsch is either very naive or one of them.
You got me rum! You got me! How did you see through my disguise?
-
You forgot to put yes or no.
He's authentically Jєωιѕн and homo. He's a fake Catholic. The alt-right is a creation of the Jews. Most of the people at Breitbart are Jєωιѕн.
Is that Old Testament Jєωιѕн?
Or is it тαℓмυdic Jєωιѕн?
There is a difference.
Please cite your sources (and please not just "Jєωιѕн names")
-
There are no more Old Testament Mosaic Jews left. Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law.
When they say "Torah" they mean тαℓмυd.
-
at this point there are only 2 things i like about him: He ticks off the Left and he is going through conversion therapy. But i can't see why anyone would call him/herself "gαy".. well, actually, now that i think about it, when i was young i had my rather silly and ignorant moments so yeh... he is young. that explains it
-
He's an authentic ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and that's enough for me to discredit him as a legitimate "conservative". I don't believe anybody on the public scene is allowed to stay there unless they fit a certain niche. The basic rule of thumb is: anything but traditional Catholicism. Debauched Catholics on all sides are welcome but if you're trying to go the trad route, you aren't going to get much attention unless you've got easily exploitable flaws. To be a superstar like Milo, you're going to need a lot of help and directed exposure.
When he first started making appearances on television he was always wearing well tailored suits and kept his ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ banter to a minimum.. Gradually, he let his flamboyant personal style out more and more and began getting disgustingly explicit about his sodomite proclivities. He is probably a gαy conservative shill in the mold of a secular Michael Voris without the burden of pretending to be reformed.
Interestingly, Milo's only kryptonite is uber Jew Zionist Ben Shapiro. He absolutely won't debate him. Just like every other blogger or pundit out there, we can't give people a free pass just because they laid a smackdown on some other common enemy.
-
I will be curious to see what comes of his gαy-conversion therapy that he talks about.
Incidentally, I stumbled across this today:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbreaker/ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-wrong-something-somewhere-inside-says-yes-milo-yiannopoulos/
Milo Yiannopoulos Thinks ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity Is Wrong
February 4, 2017 by Martin Hughes
I’ve recently argued that Milo is not a provocateur. He is a Catholic guilt evangelist (before you disagree, read this — the actual evidence is pretty damning). Several have disagreed with me on my blogs on the subject, but the more I look into the issue, the more clear it seems to be that he is a Catholic evangelist. Although he flaunts being gαy for laughs, he is on a mission to show that it is a sin, that it’s wrong, and that being heterosɛҳuąƖ is superior — along with a host of other Catholic norms.
You can see this in some of his earlier work, like the time he debated Boy George on gαy marriage for ten minutes. He was arguing that it was wrong.
You see, before Milo bleached his hair, wore designer clothing, and began to present his words as comedy routines, he was a writer for the Catholic Herald who was a vocal opponent of gαy marriage, and quite serious about his stance. In a 2011 post entitled “Why I’ll Never Be A Parent” (which has since been removed, but is accessible via The Wayback Machine), he made clear that he would never have a child because “it’s wrong to expose an innocent child to the possibility of gαy influence.”
He states that gαy people, somehow, deep-down know that what they’re doing is wrong. He states that this feeling that they are doing something that is wrong is the reason for several phenomena:
The feelings of alienation and rejection it engenders are responsible for the sorts of repugnant tribal posturing you see on the streets of Soho on a Friday night, as bitterly unhappy queers engage in degrading and repulsive behaviour, simply because they want to feel a part of something after a lifetime of marginalisation.
They see themselves as faulty, so they exaggerate their imperfections in the company of others they see as similarly defective. Ironically, it’s precisely that profound feeling of being somehow broken that means a gαy man’s sɛҳuąƖity often comes to be the defining characteristic of his personality. Who wouldn’t want to protect a child from a path that leads to such destructive self-loathing?
Some of us in society think that churches and other religious institutions have impeded on the free expression of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity by reinforcing cultural norms through preaching, shaming, and societal backlash. This is extremely common. The church’s attempts in the United States, for example, to successfully ban same-sex marriage in several states before 2015’s Supreme Court decision is one of many examples of the very silencing of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ expression that many of us outside the church have been fighting against.
So you have two sides. One side is trying to expand and validate the free expression of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, and the other is attempting to limit it and invalidate it. And in spite of the fact that he is gαy himself, Milo Yiannopoulos is clearly in the second group. That’s why he was opposed to gαy marriage.
Before you tell me I’m wrong, remember that he said this in the above debate with Boy George (6:03):
I think that gαy marriage is another one of those things that helps to reinforce to people that it is a perfectly acceptable, normal, possibly even desirable lifestyle choice and I don’t believe that. [emphasis added]
That’s why he’s against it. And here, he’s serious. He’s not jovial or joking. Being gαy, in his mind here, is wrong, and he is against gαy marriage because he wants to protect the concept that it is wrong.
There is a distinct choice we can make here regarding the marginalized individuals in our culture. The side of Milo Yiannopoulos is profoundly pessimistic. It surveys our current situation and postulates that we can’t really change it, so we should enforce it. The discomfort with currently marginalized lifestyles that we have in culture, due to a long history of Christian norms, is something that needs to validated, protected, and strengthened in order to protect children.
For all the talk regarding “free speech,” the goal here is not free speech, but censorship through public ostracization of lesbians, of transgender individuals, and the protection of the status-quo of race relations in this country. You can see this, for example, in serious articles he writes about the need for both a mother and a father to raise a child. For example, in a serious article written in 2015 entitled “Kids need a mum and a dad,” he mentions a study that purportedly says children raised by same-sex couples struggle with emotional problems as evidence that same-sex couples should adopt children. There are two noteworthy items here. First, by saying same-sex couples shouldn’t adopt children he is further stigmatizing these couples and thus reinforcing any damage social prejudice may enact in the lives of their children. Second, and even more troubling, is the fact that the link Milo uses in the article is not to the study itself, but to an article entitled “Kids of gαy parents fare worse, study finds, but research draws fire from experts” (emphasis added), and more than half of the article is about the problems with the study — the small sample size, the fact that the study relied mostly on stats from lesbian households with at least one parent who had been divorced from a previous heterosɛҳuąƖ marriage, the fact that the study was funded by conservative groups, and the fact that the person who conducted this infamous study himself — Mark Regnerus — admitted to its flaws and unreliability. This was in the article that Milo read to write his article, and he ignored all of that in order to defame same-sex marriage.
This is a person with an agenda. He is actively opposed to progress that legitimates transgressions of the church like same-sex marriage; he wants to further invalidate these things and protect church morality.
It’s like this: instead of reinforcing Christian norms, as Milo seeks to do, we are choosing to escape from the norms of the church — a church that says how you have to act, who you can marry, what gender you have to be. And for awhile, we have been opening the door.
Today, no one is slamming the door shut in “pop culture” more than Milo Yiannopoulos. And that’s why I care about this fight so much. I want to keep that door open. I don’t want ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ people to be forced back into the closet, as Milo claims is his endgame in a 2015 article. I don’t think people should think, as Milo stated in mid 2016, that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is evidence that people have original sin and thus need Catholic Christianity. I don’t want transgender people to be even more ostracized and bullied, as one was by Milo late last year, just because the head of Milo’s church calls them an abomination. Unlike Milo, as an atheist I don’t want to hobble people and limit people by using Christian bigotry in culture to shame them. I want them to be free to express themselves without being limited by overmoralizing individuals who intimidate them on the Internet to reinforce Pope-policed morality.
I’m an atheist, and that’s why I believe human beings, and the love we have for each other, should not be restricted or governed by the lies constructed by the Pope’s puppet God. We’re trying to get away from that, not validate it or enforce it — as Milo Yiannopouolos is so strongly attempting to do.
-
Like Voris, he was already presenting himself as "Catholic enough" to masquerade as Catholic pundit before anyone even really knew about his ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. The conversion talk is an attempt to lure more conservative Catholics over to his camp. Let's use the best case scenario: he miraculously converts and officially renounces his gαyness. Like Voris, he will enjoy the sympathy of those who love the sinner not the sin and will continue to enjoy a very public life only this time as a great defender of the Faith! No public penance necessary for all his rhetoric and open contempt for the Church on the issue. All is forgiven! Let him help us help ourselves by leading us on toward our cultural salvation...
He needs to disappear from the public scene. Let his life be one long penance for the sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance. Let him only open his mouth in condemnation of his former lifestyle but then only as a private citizen. Let him cease to be a pop culture figure. Let him give up the spotlight, give up on the money train that comes with it and do something else with his life. If we allow him to start speaking for Catholicism while protecting him from the consequences of a public life of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, we will be in no small measure condoning it. We should forgive, but we should not forego due punishment.
Even if there will ever be such a "conversion", my skepticism remains. sɛҳuąƖ vices are extremely difficult to get rid of. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a sɛҳuąƖ vice wrapped up in a satanic rejection of the natural order. To use his own words, such a "dangerous fαɢɢօt" ought not be tolerated in public even after conversion, no matter how genuine it may be. I would no sooner hire a "reformed" pedophile as a babysitter. There's a good reason why these sorts of sins were punishable by death back in the day. Not only are they deeply ingrained once they are habitually committed, but the very thought of them is a scandal to the mind for all those around them. The fact that this does not invoke horror in most people today, even "conservatives", indicates the amount of mind-rape which ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and all its attendant sɛҳuąƖ perversions are guilty of on an international level.
-
He's an authentic ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and that's enough for me to discredit him as a legitimate "conservative".
Same here.
Even if there will ever be such a "conversion", my skepticism remains. sɛҳuąƖ vices are extremely difficult to get rid of. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a sɛҳuąƖ vice wrapped up in a satanic rejection of the natural order. To use his own words, such a "dangerous fαɢɢօt" ought not be tolerated in public even after conversion, no matter how genuine it may be. I would no sooner hire a "reformed" pedophile as a babysitter. There's a good reason why these sorts of sins were punishable by death back in the day. Not only are they deeply ingrained once they are habitually committed, but the very thought of them is a scandal to the mind for all those around them. The fact that this does not invoke horror in most people today, even "conservatives", indicates the amount of mind-rape which ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and all its attendant sɛҳuąƖ perversions are guilty of on an international level.
Well said! :applause:
-
He's an authentic ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and that's enough for me to discredit him as a legitimate "conservative". I don't believe anybody on the public scene is allowed to stay there unless they fit a certain niche. The basic rule of thumb is: anything but traditional Catholicism. Debauched Catholics on all sides are welcome but if you're trying to go the trad route, you aren't going to get much attention unless you've got easily exploitable flaws. To be a superstar like Milo, you're going to need a lot of help and directed exposure.
When he first started making appearances on television he was always wearing well tailored suits and kept his ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ banter to a minimum.. Gradually, he let his flamboyant personal style out more and more and began getting disgustingly explicit about his sodomite proclivities. He is probably a gαy conservative shill in the mold of a secular Michael Voris without the burden of pretending to be reformed.
Interestingly, Milo's only kryptonite is uber Jew Zionist Ben Shapiro. He absolutely won't debate him. Just like every other blogger or pundit out there, we can't give people a free pass just because they laid a smackdown on some other common enemy.
Interesting comment and I think you've hit a nerve with the Ben Shapiro "kryptonite" observation:
Milo won't engage his fellow yid, Ben Shapiro, because his zio-script writers won't let him.
Milo exposed (https://youtu.be/xUQv3iv9fqk)
Milo is the concocted "Alt-right" spokesperson, who's just another neo-con shill for zionist interests.
It took us a lengthy forum discussion to examine the patient, but it looks like we found the cancer.
-
Yeah, Jews and Zionist "Christians" are the only ones granted a place at the cultural conservative table. Anyone else is just a dog looking for scraps.
-
I don't understand how the interests of the global elite (Jews, Masons) are served by the alt-right as such.
I can understand it in relation to Milo. I get "controlled opposition." But from my exposure, I don't see how the movement (or whatever you want to call it) is, at large, under that control.
I've mentioned Bishop Sheen before, and how people have alleged that he might have been controlled opposition. I don't know of any proof, but his perfect orthodoxy followed by zero resistance is certainly suspicious, and I'm sure many Catholics followed him to spiritual peril.
However, it makes sense to use religious (Catholic figures) this way, because Catholics are taught to follow shepherds. The alt-right doesn't (and hasn't) followed that mantra. So if you have a bunch of Richard Spencers, and whomever else, all railing against feminism, liberal propaganda, and just generally getting the social state of the world correct, the chances of the alt right population following them off a cliff (if they were to leap off one) seem slim. I don't think the average alt right "pew sitter" would follow the alt-right talking heads into a buzzsaw. Their allegiance is intellectual, whereas the allegiance of Catholics to their shepherds (or should I say hirelings?) was actually jurisdictional, i.e., it was morally obligatory for Catholics to obey their shepherds (and this was used to the advantage of the infiltrators). No such relationship exists between alt-right people and alt-right leaders.
Now granted, my exposure to the alt-right has been minimal. Maybe I just don't have all the facts. But from what I've seen I just don't understand how the alt-right fits into the plan.
-
Honestly, at this moment in time it doesn't matter if he's a Catholic or a homo. He's just been turned into a rock star by the protests and it helps the conservative cause.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/avb8cwOgVQ8[/youtube]
-
Not sure if you're being facetious or not.
I like Watson (that's his name, right?). He's sharp, and he understands things. But I wouldn't share his excitement about being counter-culture. It reminds me of how Bishop Williamson rightfully pointed out the inherent instability of a culture, civilization, country, etc. premised in revolution and rebellion. So conservatism is the new counter-culture... that's nice, for this generation. I believe it's true, too, but only because modern values are inherently anti-authority and individualistic. Now, I suppose that's "preferable" to being inherently insane (like the current liberal left who deny that being male or being female mean anything), but its certainly not sustainable, and it will inevitably (and in a relatively short period of time, as regimes go) be overthrown by a later generation.
One thing "we" (the Christian conservatives) have in our favor is that by the time we're the dominant culture, leftists will have bred themselves to insignificance. Maybe. So we might have "more time" to insert more decency, truth, and classical reason into the present conservative counter-culture, so that it can actually persist. But short of ever doing that, it's literally doomed to fail.
So I'm not as excited about it as Watson.
-
At the same time, Watson might be a little to enamored by the notion of simply being popular (as a movement) to realize a more important, and bleaker truth:
I think that one of the reasons the alt right has "taken" off (inasmuch as it has) is more profound than just being sick of leftist tyrants. I think that the alt-right is emblemized by mid-twenty males. They woke up one day (or over a series of days), looked around, and despaired at everything they don't have. They have no family because their parents are divorced and it's not like they can get married because the women either have careers or children out of wedlock (with multiple guys, to boot). They have no children, or if they do, they're being raised by a woman with a number of guys (or no guys) who works in a call center. They're not GOING to have children because again, the available women either don't want them or already have as many as they want. Of course, they have no land, because it's not like they're going to inherit it from their parents who lost their homes 2006-2010, and they sure as hell can't afford it because they themselves are working for maybe $15/hr in a small apartment with a cat, struggling to pay off at minimum ten thousand dollars worth of debt for a degree that has proved to be worthless because everyone else has it and employers are back to caring about experience. In other words, they quite truly have no future. What would be completely ordinary and taken for granted sixty years ago: you go to primary school, meet a decent girl toward the end, marry her, work at a local manufacturer who pays you enough to buy a house, have kids, grandkids, rinse, repeat, die happy at least on a natural level-- is now extraordinary. The twenty-five year old today who can make this happen is not the norm at all, he's the lucky one!
The alt-right is composed of men whose legacies have been aborted by feminism, and they're pissed off about it. I've not heard many articulate it to that extent, so maybe my assessment is off, but I think more likely it's just such a bleak reality that they don't really want to talk about it. So while it may indeed be the new counter culture and it may indeed proceed from anti-authority and hyperindividualized sentiments, there's plenty of traditional sentiments at play here to, ones that are so essential and instrumental to mankind's basic functions-- indeed, sentiments that are virtually inextricable from mankind's basic functions-- that I don't think one can deny the role they play in the equation, even if it's not consistently articulated.
-
Yes, the poor dangerous fag is nuts.
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/09/IMG_0696-1.jpg)
Bottom-line: He advances the ʝʊdɛօ-masonic agenda of over-turning Christian society.
-
Milo has placed that one tiny drop of poison (sodomy) into the conservative message, infecting it and pushing for tolerance.
And in doing this, he has became the perfect Jєωιѕн shill for these times.
-
.
One thing "we" (the Christian conservatives) have in our favor is that by the time we're the dominant culture, leftists will have bred themselves to insignificance. Maybe. So we might have "more time" to insert more decency, truth, and classical reason into the present conservative counter-culture, so that it can actually persist. But short of ever doing that, it's literally doomed to fail.
Please do not mistake my pointing out that his appeal to the youngest generation is some sort of approval of his lifestyle - it is not.
Maybe it would be good to refer to him as a "useful idiot" in the sense of his role in the conservative cause.
He has somehow, in part because of the left's violent attacks on him, suddenly made it "cool" to be conservative. That will go a long way over time going forward in gaining the necessary numbers needed to defeat liberalism.
However, I disagree with your point about liberals "breeding themselves out of existence." Yes, it's true - they rarely marry and hardly reproduce. But, unfortunately, the only conservatives who reproduce are us Traditional Catholics, and we do not make a difference due to our low numbers. The rest of the conservatives in the world are practicing birth control and not reproducing, just like the liberals, while the Muslims breed like rabbits.
Until SOMEONE in the conservative movement makes divorce and birth control "uncool" again, their numbers won't increase much.
-
One thing "we" (the Christian conservatives) have in our favor is that by the time we're the dominant culture, leftists will have bred themselves to insignificance.
This is very important. Probably the only good thing about the leftist derangement, is that they are not breeding; but contracepting and aborting themselves into extinction.
-
One thing "we" (the Christian conservatives) have in our favor is that by the time we're the dominant culture, leftists will have bred themselves to insignificance.
This is very important. Probably the only good thing about the leftist derangement, is that they are not breeding; but contracepting and aborting themselves into extinction.
I wanted to add here I'm not saying of course, that contraception and abortion are good things for these liberals, but what is good is that, as they are not reproducing, there is hope that the next generation will hold to traditional, conservative values, instead of the deranged ideas of the lunatic Left.
However, mw2016 brings a good point also. These values are not necessarily Catholic. In the big scheme of things, only a small percentage of Christians are having large families whereas Moslems are (and have been for decades) breeding massively. This is because unfortunately, Christians contracept, divorce, and abort, just the same as Pagans and other worldly, as if we were not different.The comparison is astonishing. Most Moslem families have 8 or more children.
-
However, mw2016 brings a good point also.
This is because unfortunately, Christians contracept, divorce, and abort, just the same as Pagans and other worldly, as if we were not different.The comparison is astonishing. Most Moslem families have 8 or more children.
Yes, it would be good if we could somehow convince the Protestants and Novus Ordinarians to stop contracepting and divorcing.
-
Milo says about abortion:
"...you'll be plunged headfirst into a lake of hellfire. It's wrong, it's murder, don't do it."
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y9nJ3VnJu6I[/youtube]
-
https://www.google.com/amp/www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/19/video-surfaces-of-milo-yiannopoulos-defending-pedophilia-acu-board-reportedly-not-consulted-on-cpac-invite/amp/
This piece of shit (pardon my language, but it must be said) endorses pederasty. He's not a conservative. He's not even a moral character. He needs to get off my screen forever.
-
http://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-milo-yiannapolous-disinvited-from-cpac/
Yeah- this one was on Drudge.
Homos are all chicken hawks. Boyabusers all.
-
I'm always amazed at "conservatives" who fawn over this gal. "Milo's 'gαy,' yes, but he's a 'gαy' CONSERVATIVE!" - a "conservative" who also apparently approves of pedophilia. How utterly, uh, "shocking."
-
Milo says about abortion:
"...you'll be plunged headfirst into a lake of hellfire. It's wrong, it's murder, don't do it."
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y9nJ3VnJu6I[/youtube]
I just can't believe that it's this ^ guy you are discussing!! Unbelievable! :shocked:
-
http://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-milo-yiannapolous-disinvited-from-cpac/
Yeah- this one was on Drudge.
Homos are all chicken hawks. Boyabusers all.
Ay yi yi! I had not heard this story! I had no idea he said such things. I just saw it moments ago, being reported on Fox News - how shocking!
Needless to say, he's done. There is no recovery from this in the eyes of the public, he's done. No matter what he has to say about free speech.
D.O.N.E.
-
Milo was accused by T Carlson of being a provacatuer(sp?) and he admitted it..... :reporter:
-
I'm always amazed at "conservatives" who fawn over this gal. "Milo's 'gαy,' yes, but he's a 'gαy' CONSERVATIVE!" - a "conservative" who also apparently approves of pedophilia. How utterly, uh, "shocking."
Deport him back to England. They can have him.
-
Seems the Leftist Media is about to make most people here happy, as they destroy various undesireables on the Right:
https://archive.fo/Dblxv#selection-4421.0-4429.267
FYI the MSM has a huge fucking media onslaught that is set to go live Monday to scorch earth Milo and destroy him via the pedophile label.
I'm part of a mailing list (not giving my real name or the name of the list for the sake of protecting my ass from retaliation) but they have been sitting on the story for a while, because they thought Milo was small fries and wanted to wait until he got big enough a thread to go nuclear on.
The journalists are pissed the fuck off Maher put him on the air and more so, pissed off his book deal had not been revoked (and some are pissed that Milo got a book deal from the same publisher who dropped Zoe Quinn's book, along with a larger signing bonus than most of the publisher's social justice authors).
There are also those who want to hurt him simply as a proxy to hurt Steve Bannon/Breitbart. since their attempts to attack Bannon have largely failed. Not to mention people on the left being pissed off that most people sided with Milo over the rioters. Rioters, that were paid for by Soros through a variety of fronts and laundered through companies that can't be traced back to him.
Expect a steady drumbeat of "Milo is a pedophile" and "Milo must be dropped from CPAC". The later is especially important, in terms of the divide and conquer long game the press is playing: the press wants a cινιℓ ωαr with the McCain/Graham wing of the GOP and the Trump/Ryan wing so as to weaken the Republicans in 2018. The overall plan is to make the Republicans fear social shaming from the media and the left more than they do their actual constituents who love Trump, in hopes of regaining the House and enough Senate seats to pull off an impeachment of Trump
It matters in so far as it's an attempt to go after anyone connected with the alt-right silenced and destroyed publicly.
Case in point, there are a couple of journalists sitting on some nasty shit Gavin McInnes did when he was with Vice. Stuff Shane Smith personally helped said reporters gather (since Shane hates Gavin and would gladly backstab in a heart beat).
Also know they have been soliciting shit on Steve Crowder, Laura Southern, Ann Coulter, along with trying to get their grubby hands on as much anti-PC footage and audio they can gather to take down Anthony cuмia, since cuмia keeps surviving every hit they try on him.
They are going the long view angle.
The right are at a crossroads in that a younger generation has risen and going conservative, which kills their plan for a never-ending wave of kids being born and each generation being SJW types.
The media in particular, has started to notice as well that after years of ignoring the internet, that the libertarian wing of the GOP have started colonizing their own segment of the internet that grows stronger every day. They blame Bannon for this; Bannon was the one who saw the need (one that Breitbart himself ignored) that you need to make conservativism sexy and young; Fox News may have served a purpose, but it's too tied to older folks and more so, bound to the old axis of religious right/big business, that Trump's election and the youthquake shattered with Trump's ascension.
Milo, Southern, McInnes, Crowder, Compound Media are basically the right's version of MSNBC/Vice/Daily Show/Colbert Report. I'd also toss in Alex Jones, but Jones is considered a whole other beast in than the others in a lot of ways, by my fellow journalists so I'm leaving him out.
Them being on the internet also puts them beyond the traditional media's reach to silence them. And they are bringing in the young conservatives and converting jaded, pissed off liberals to the right.
They want them dead, now while they are still on the brink of mainstream acceptance, because the left is TERRIFIED of the right having their own version of John Stewart/Stephen Colbert/Samantha Bee/John Oliver types and the mainstream media definitely wants to kneecap the right claiming any significant internet territory to rival the left's control over most of the internet.
Have no fear, kids. I've got the Great Catholic Monarch on my side. I'll just make an appeal to the king tomorrow, and this'll clean up this nasty political mess in no time. Those names on the list are expendable, and un-Catholic anyway. There's no defending them, as they're not Catholic. And, after all, America is the greatest Christian nation on Earth! So, I'm sure that God will come down in a pillar of fire and cleanse all of the evil away.
I'll just spend my time wisely, ignore most of this, and read pre-Vatican II encyclicals.
-
Also, there is this.
Salon, who is largely responsible for this week's news, has scrubbed all of its old pro-pedophilia articles, in the hopes you never knew they flirted with the idea.
http://theralphretort.com/salon-removes-old-articles-tried-justify-pedophilia-2020017/
Meh! Who cares? Catholic before Conservative! I'm sure I'll be just fine, so long as I keep my head down. :cheers:
-
Honestly, at this moment in time it doesn't matter if he's a Catholic or a homo. He's just been turned into a rock star by the protests and it helps the conservative cause.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/avb8cwOgVQ8[/youtube]
How is the "conservative cause" helped by a self-appointment spokesperson supporting pederasty (sex crimes against children)?
-
http://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-milo-yiannapolous-disinvited-from-cpac/
Yeah- this one was on Drudge.
Homos are all chicken hawks. Boyabusers all.
Ay yi yi! I had not heard this story! I had no idea he said such things. I just saw it moments ago, being reported on Fox News - how shocking!
Needless to say, he's done. There is no recovery from this in the eyes of the public, he's done. No matter what he has to say about free speech.
D.O.N.E.
That is true.
And he just resigned as the editor of Breitbart News:
Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart amid child sex comments
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/21/media/milo-yiannopoulos-downfall/
-
Seems the Leftist Media is about to make most people here happy, as they destroy various undesireables on the Right:
https://archive.fo/Dblxv#selection-4421.0-4429.267
They are not saying much about this horrible female, Sarah Silverman, are they? Although this Jew has made some seriously disturbing, deplorable statements as well and calling them comedy. What a bunch of filthy degenerates!
Where is the libtard outrage then? Double standard!
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/not-funny-sarah-silvermans-tweet-child-molestation/
-
They are not saying much about this horrible female, Sarah Silverman, are they?
That's because this attack has nothing to do with morality or child abuse.
This attack, as well as the future attacks you'll witness in the next few years, are blatant and direct attacks by the Left--in a grand attempt to take down President Donald Trump and to change the narrative in order to show "that the Right is dysfunctional."
How is the "conservative cause" helped by a self-appointment spokesperson supporting pederasty (sex crimes against children)?
Amazing. Today's news conference was all about how he doesn't support pederasty.
So far, the primary thing he's been pushing is the Left's hypocrisy when it comes to "Free Speech."
-
Semitic Controversies has a good overview: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/02/is-milo-yiannopoulos-paedophile.html
Though the article says he was molested by a priest. I thought he was being facetious when he said that part, in reply to the interviewer's comment about Catholic priests.
Catholics shouldn't identify with a movement created by Jews, so his downfall doesn't bother me one bit. I wouldn't be surprised if he rebounds in some way. He is correct when he says in the press conference that his leftist critics don't care about children and are only attacking him for political reasons.
-
Catholics shouldn't identify with a movement created by Jews, so his downfall doesn't bother me one bit.
Have no fear then! The Left is going down the line.
You'll have a Leftists-controlled Congress and radical Leftist president again, soon enough. Your dream come true.
He is correct when he says in the press conference that his leftist critics don't care about children and are only attacking him for political reasons.
They spent $250,000 in research to find this out and release this "news" at the most damaging moment.
DOWN WITH THE RIGHT! DOWN WITH TRUMP!
-
You'll have a Leftists-controlled Congress and radical Leftist president again, soon enough. Your dream come true.
All presidents are controlled by Jews, if not Jews. I voted for Trump because I saw that Jews are engaged in an undeclared cινιℓ ωαr, with Likudniks bending to whites and Christians on certain issues to get support.
I've never been a true believer in the alt-right or Trump as you have.
Bill Maher could have invited a Joe Sobran-type on this show. Instead he invites pro-Jєωιѕн "iconoclasts" with the kosher stamp of approval like Coulter and MIlo. It's all a Jєωιѕн game.
-
I've never been a true believer in the alt-right or Trump as you have.
Bill Maher could have invited a Joe Sobran-type on this show. Instead he invites pro-Jєωιѕн "iconoclasts" with the kosher stamp of approval like Coulter and MIlo. It's all a Jєωιѕн game.
We do not live in a Catholic monarchy. You KNOW I often push to normalize conversation about that idea. But the reality is that our place in the US is like that of Catholics in India, China, or Japan. America is comprised of Puritan-minded people who absolutely hate Catholics. Our oldest history involves English Puritans executing Catholics, sabotaging the Catholic French presence that colonized Canada, and ransacking the Spanish missions in the south, massacring any Indian who dared to convert.
We have the political system that we have. To be indifferent to it is to ensure a lifetime of Obamas--only worse.
The only way, short of miracles, for Catholics to win the social spaces is for us to engage the enemy politically, and with the limited resources at our disposal.
If that means catapulting a burning dumpster over the walls, then so be it.
-
I think Milo is just another zio psy-ops to make ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity "acceptable" in the ultra-conservative and "traditional" populations. He is very smart and personable- even charming ( albeit filthy) and espouses orthodox tenants that we are eager to hear from ANYBODY, while he injects foul language and perverted homo sex innuendo (for laughs?) in the mix. His target is the conservative leaning "college "age student who ultimately is tired and embarrassed at being typecast by the false memes of the left, (homophobia, sexism, racism, lalala) and Milo breaks this conservative stereotyping by dissing the and laughing at the progressive left, all the while making everyone VERY comfortable with his ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ platform.
This (Milo) is a very sophisticated operation. Mossad?
Yes totally Mossad as the rest of Breitbart are.....excellent points written above, one thing to add: Milo's main purpose (even above the acceptance of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity by conservative people) is to continue the pounding of the zionist war drum in getting the entire conservative population to fall into a "Christian" Zionist mind frame....once that happens (and God forbid if it ever does), there can never be any criticism of Israel from anyone of the "right"
-
:facepalm:
-
Milo says about abortion: "...you'll be plunged headfirst into a lake of hellfire - [/color]. It's wrong, it's  murder, don't do it."
This seems to ruin a political prediction broadcast by Rush Limbaugh, a decade-or-more ago: That sodomy-promoting "gαy" activists would abandon their long-established leftist solidarity with the feminist activists for the Orwellian-labelled "woman's right to choose", and switch to opposing abortion, but not until 3 conditions are met:
· The hypothetical "gαy gene" is discovered, an event eagerly awaited by sodomite-activists who argue that it must exist, because it would scientifically validate their dogma that "gαys are not defined by what [they] do, but who [they] are"[×]; and
· the presence of such a gene can be tested early during pregnancy; and
· women begin a new trend of aborting babies that test positive.
-------
Note #: Can Milo Yiannopoulos be genuinely ignorant that unrepentent sodomites already have their tickets punched for that fiery lake, so they will provide company there for the abortionists?  Speculation on the nature of Hell becomes even scarier when one adds a thorough infestation by unrepentent sodomites.
Note ×: An example of choosing one's conclusion first, then seeking evidence or data that's intended to prove it. It's thus a perversion of the scientific method, but isn't that what one should expect from perverts?
-
Can Milo Yiannopoulos be genuinely ignorant that unrepentent sodomites already have their tickets punched for that fiery lake
His dark humor is a coping technique.
He has admitted that he's doomed, and he's hinted in his talks about getting help, if anything, just to piss off the liberals all the more.
There is a child within the man, and this fiasco was unfair on a few levels. On the other hand, he dug his own hole in this episode.
If he continues to utilize degeneracy as his trump card (!) against his enemies, then in the fullness of time, we shall see that he took a dark path at this crucial juncture in his life.
If he decides to change and amend his ways, as a lot of us are hoping, then he will have followed a higher path that many will cheer.
I find this to be a sort of secular parallel to the Michael Voris scandal. Michael Voris, I think, is the better example.
I can find a lot of sense in this podcast discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wsZSE-iJAk
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/2wsZSE-iJAk[/youtube]
-
Looks like Milo is getting ready to expose whatever he's got on #PedoGate.
I hope he does this, no matter what I think if all the rest of this.