Degenerate #BLM storms stage to censor Milo; security does NOTHING

[angelatc]

I also don't like how he presents himself. I've probably watched close to 100 Sargon of Akkad videos but I can't make it through any of Milo's videos that are longer than 10 minutes. Sargon comes off as a much more intelligent and likable person.

I hate video in general which is why I probably am not really very familiar with either of those two people, but Milo is definitely a provocateur, a showman, intentionally over the top. I think we live in a video age where that cult of outrageous personality sells better calm intellectualism. Not that HRC is an intellectual, but Trump's ascension is indicative of my theory.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I hate video in general which is why I probably am not really very familiar with either of those two people, but Milo is definitely a provocateur, a showman, intentionally over the top. I think we live in a video age where that cult of outrageous personality sells better calm intellectualism. Not that HRC is an intellectual, but Trump's ascension is indicative of my theory.

This is probably true. Sargon of Akkad is the intellectual type and will have respectful debates with his opponents.

[silverhandorder]

I dont like how he says cuck either lol.

About being a showman it's funny but he sometimes breaks character and talks intellectual to you. Especially towards the end of Q&As.

I personally appreciate him because what he is doing is not easy and he has to deal with a lot of hate.

[osan]

Yeah. "We're" definitely the weaker sex - delicate $#@!ing flowers who need government to level the playing field because "we" can't compete seriously on "our" own merits.

Jesus Angela... have some mercy on our eyes.

Bleeding retinas aside, if this grease-whale worked that hard at a gym, she'd be down to three or four tons in no time.

Sheesh.

[dannno]

I hate video in general which is why I probably am not really very familiar with either of those two people, but Milo is definitely a provocateur, a showman, intentionally over the top. I think we live in a video age where that cult of outrageous personality sells better calm intellectualism. Not that HRC is an intellectual, but Trump's ascension is indicative of my theory.

He makes a pretty good point that any rando who started saying the stuff he says would automatically be labelled racist, homophobic, misogynist, prude, etc... but for his character, that $#@! just doesn't stick, nobody can label him those things and so he has sort of a bullet proof vest when it comes to telling the truth on stuff like this.

[osan]

Milo Yiannopoulos does do some good things, for sure. But I dislike his fanatical support for Donald Trump.

Well then disagree with him on that point and don't judge him based on that disagreement. Shoot - I will acknowledge any valid point someone make and will always give credit where due, no matter how it is. Hell, if Obama declared the sky was blue, I'd agree with him.

I have a difficult time understanding how it is that some people (not implying you're one of them) will damn a man to hell for holding one or two positions with which he is in disagreement - depending on the issue, of course. But in this case, this Milo fellow says valid things about contemporary "feminism"... you know, such as it's cancer. A more direct and elegantly true statement about it would be difficult to contrive.

He seems¹ to think that being against political correctness is the only thing that matters², which I strongly disagree with.

1: Keyword there, SEEMS. Doesn't seem that way to me, but then I don't watch much of what he does, just a thing here and there, so you may know more on it that do I.

2. From my admittedly limited perspective, I get no such impression from him. I do, however, get the message that he thinks this is a really important issue, and I wholly agree with him. PC is far more dangerous than many appear to perceive. We could discuss this for days on end, for all the tentacles this cancer spreads into every corner of life.

I'm much more concerned with limiting government

Dismantling PC is one of the most singularly significant steps toward realizing this valid concern you hold.

He also uses the word "cuck."

Is that bad?

I also don't like how he presents himself. I've probably watched close to 100 Sargon of Akkad videos but I can't make it through any of Milo's videos that are longer than 10 minutes. Sargon comes off as a much more intelligent and likable person.

You don't have to like him. But what does your apparent distaste for his manner have to do with the question of the validity of the points he makes?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I also don't like how he presents himself. I've probably watched close to 100 Sargon of Akkad videos but I can't make it through any of Milo's videos that are longer than 10 minutes. Sargon comes off as a much more intelligent and likable person.

Nicer? Maybe. That's mostly subjective anyway. More intelligent? No way.

Milo has prove himself when debating feminists, both on television and in formal, academic settings. I've never seen him lose a debate. It's true that he has a flamboyant persona that he plays up, but he has it where it counts, intellectually. Sargon on the hand, is bad at debating SJWs. Really bad. He debated Kristi Winters very recently, and he got smacked around. While watching it, my mind was flooded with counter-arguments to what she was saying, that Sargon never brought up. It was a sad sight.

Sargon is a 2nd Wave feminist, as are most MRAs, MGTOWs and so-called "anti-feminists". They're still buying into social justice narratives and claim to fight for "equality". This applies to Milo too, but not anywhere near as badly. This is why people to the right have had such a hard time debating with leftists; they cede pretty much all of the narrative, and just try to debate the conclusions. Milo isn't there yet; he's only about half as right wing as I am, but at least he debates the presuppositions instead of just trying to get to a different place from the same starting point.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Oh by the way, a sociology professor resigned over this. She said free speech is "delusional" and that "objectivity reinforces inequalities".

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/0...ng-milo-visit/

This is Stalinism with a human face. Nothing less. Yeah, but lets go back to talking about how annoying Milo is

[Danke]

[Tywysog Cymru]

Well then disagree with him on that point and don't judge him based on that disagreement. Shoot - I will acknowledge any valid point someone make and will always give credit where due, no matter how it is. Hell, if Obama declared the sky was blue, I'd agree with him.

I have a difficult time understanding how it is that some people (not implying you're one of them) will damn a man to hell for holding one or two positions with which he is in disagreement - depending on the issue, of course. But in this case, this Milo fellow says valid things about contemporary "feminism"... you know, such as it's cancer. A more direct and elegantly true statement about it would be difficult to contrive.

Is Milo the only person to do that though?

1: Keyword there, SEEMS. Doesn't seem that way to me, but then I don't watch much of what he does, just a thing here and there, so you may know more on it that do I.

2. From my admittedly limited perspective, I get no such impression from him. I do, however, get the message that he thinks this is a really important issue, and I wholly agree with him. PC is far more dangerous than many appear to perceive. We could discuss this for days on end, for all the tentacles this cancer spreads into every corner of life.

I'll have to watch some more of his videos but I haven't gotten the impression that he cares about much of anything besides triggering feminists.

Dismantling PC is one of the most singularly significant steps toward realizing this valid concern you hold.

Would dismantling PC help end the wars, would it make privatization easier? Don't get me wrong, I hate what PC is doing to North America and Western Europe, but it's not the most pressing concern.

Is that bad?

"Cuck" is a childish insult.

You don't have to like him. But what does your apparent distaste for his manner have to do with the question of the validity of the points he makes?

He does make many valid points, but then again so do a lot of other people I don't care for.

Nicer? Maybe. That's mostly subjective anyway. More intelligent? No way.

Milo has prove himself when debating feminists, both on television and in formal, academic settings. I've never seen him lose a debate. It's true that he has a flamboyant persona that he plays up, but he has it where it counts, intellectually. Sargon on the hand, is bad at debating SJWs. Really bad. He debated Kristi Winters very recently, and he got smacked around. While watching it, my mind was flooded with counter-arguments to what she was saying, that Sargon never brought up. It was a sad sight.

I saw that debate and I thought Sargon won.

Sargon is a 2nd Wave feminist, as are most MRAs, MGTOWs and so-called "anti-feminists". They're still buying into social justice narratives and claim to fight for "equality". This applies to Milo too, but not anywhere near as badly. This is why people to the right have had such a hard time debating with leftists; they cede pretty much all of the narrative, and just try to debate the conclusions. Milo isn't there yet; he's only about half as right wing as I am, but at least he debates the presuppositions instead of just trying to get to a different place from the same starting point.

I understand that a lot of people think that the solution is to simply reject everything associated with modernity (like the alt-right), but I disagree with that.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Is Milo the only person to do that though?

He's one of the most effective. Perhaps the most.

I'll have to watch some more of his videos but I haven't gotten the impression that he cares about much of anything besides triggering feminists.

That's an added bonus. Someone who gets up on the podium and dryly reads facts won't resonate with people the way Milo does.

Would dismantling PC help end the wars, would it make privatization easier? Don't get me wrong, I hate what PC is doing to North America and Western Europe, but it's not the most pressing concern.

Wars, maybe not. Privatization, absolutely. Are you unaware of what SJWs think of the free market? They describe the West as a "White supremacist, cis-hetero-normative capitalist patriarchy" FFS.

I saw that debate and I thought Sargon won.

I don't see how anyone can think that. He was on the defensive the entire time, pretty much.

I understand that a lot of people think that the solution is to simply reject everything associated with modernity (like the alt-right), but I disagree with that.

That's not what the alt-right does, you're thinking of NRx. Even then, most neoreactionaries (and I do self-identify as one) don't hate things like capitalism and science. No one fully rejects "modernity" in its entirety.

What's being claimed is that the much-touted "social progress" of the last two centuries was either scientific or economic progress in disguise, or flat-out societal decay. "Social progress" is a myth.

The way to debate SJWs is to realize and defend the following:

-Equality of any kind is a lie
-Organic hierarchy is a good thing, on the whole
-Patriarchy is also a good thing
-Tradition is necessary to a functional, sustainable and free society
-Aristocracy is inevitable and desirable
-Civilizations worth living in will always be male dominated
-Gender and race are real biological categories, not social constructs

MRAs will always lose, because they're still trying to create societies based on fantasy and wishes, not cold hard reality.

[osan]

Is Milo the only person to do that though?

No grok question.

I'll have to watch some more of his videos but I haven't gotten the impression that he cares about much of anything besides triggering feminists.

He does a lot of that and I say that it is a good thing. These women would be amusing, were they not so dangerous. They need to be called out at ever turn and their nonsense exposed and destroyed without mercy because this is precisely the sort of thing that, if left unchallenged, eventually normalizes. The next thing you know, legislatures are voting bills into law and courts are upholding them, those laws toeing the line of demands of these mentally deranged women.

Would dismantling PC help end the wars, would it make privatization easier?

It might. PC is straight out of "1984", which is to say that it centers largely around the dismantling of normality. When people are trained away from the concepts and values of "right" and "wrong" such that they no longer believe in such things, the "state" can then foist damned near anything upon them because they have no frame of reference from which to assess and given proposition. This is a central objective of the tactic called "PC".

Don't get me wrong, I hate what PC is doing to North America and Western Europe, but it's not the most pressing concern.

I must disagree. When the mental landscape of the average man is razed into a flat, bland, undifferentiated plain that stretches for as far as the mind can reach, the tyrant has enabled his ability to make any commandment reasonable in their minds.

Do not discount the salience of PC to the goals of power. It is fundamental in paving the way for those who would seek compliant serfs.

[heavenlyboy34]

No grok question.



He does a lot of that and I say that it is a good thing. These women would be amusing, were they not so dangerous. They need to be called out at ever turn and their nonsense exposed and destroyed without mercy because this is precisely the sort of thing that, if left unchallenged, eventually normalizes. The next thing you know, legislatures are voting bills into law and courts are upholding them, those laws toeing the line of demands of these mentally deranged women.



It might. PC is straight out of "1984", which is to say that it centers largely around the dismantling of normality. When people are trained away from the concepts and values of "right" and "wrong" such that they no longer believe in such things, the "state" can then foist damned near anything upon them because they have no frame of reference from which to assess and given proposition. This is a central objective of the tactic called "PC".



I must disagree. When the mental landscape of the average man is razed into a flat, bland, undifferentiated plain that stretches for as far as the mind can reach, the tyrant has enabled his ability to make any commandment reasonable in their minds.

Do not discount the salience of PC to the goals of power. It is fundamental in paving the way for those who would seek compliant serfs.

Indeed! PC is as destructive to language and rational thought as Newspeak. If the State and various connected institutions/interests can control language, they can control debate and policy parameters-and thus leave those of us with dissenting opinions $#@! Out Of Luck.

[Jamesiv1]

ok, I was getting a kick watching a bit of Milo here and there, but I think I just became a full-on Milo fan.

This guy has license to talk $#@! about E V E R Y B O D Y ! ! ! ! ! ! LOLOL

9:05 didn't know he is Jewish on his mother's side

[Jamesiv1]

19:10 "Bringing this all back to Trump"

Well-spoken bit explaining the Trump phenomena - it's not a political revolution, it's a cultural revolution.

That's why nobody gives a damn about Trump's policies, or that he is inconsistent about his policies.

lol

Good point too, about why Bernie ain't gonna win (Bernie is 20 years too late - and his revolution is political, rather than cultural = boring)

[r3volution 3.0]

-Equality of any kind is a lie
-Organic hierarchy is a good thing, on the whole
-Patriarchy is also a good thing
-Tradition is necessary to a functional, sustainable and free society
-Aristocracy is inevitable and desirable
-Civilizations worth living in will always be male dominated
-Gender and race are real biological categories, not social constructs

That's all well and good, but I don't see what it has to do with the goal of reducing the size and scope of government (that's still our common goal?). The sort of culture that these alt-right culture warriors are promoting is not incompatible with most of the objectionable things the government is doing. That is, a populous which accepted those principles you list would not necessarily reject socialism (it would just be a blood and soil type of socialism, rather than a proletarian type). Basically, in its vulgar form (which is to say the only form which you can reasonably expect to become widespread), it's the culture of the Third Reich. To be clear, I'm not saying that this culture entails national socialism, only that it doesn't preclude it. And, if that's the case, what good is it?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Guess the audience and panel were trying to take the high road, but it was a little embarrassing when pretty boy and the host didn't at least take their microphone back from that little Marmoset.

Oh well, that's what happens when you leave the gate open at the zoo.

[dannno]

ok, I was getting a kick watching a bit of Milo here and there, but I think I just became a full-on Milo fan.

This guy has license to talk $#@! about E V E R Y B O D Y ! ! ! ! ! ! LOLOL

9:05 didn't know he is Jewish on his mother's side

Ya, I'm not voting or supporting Trump because of his policies, but he is probably the 2nd best thing that could have happened to the GOP this primary.

That was a pretty good video - I really liked his speech and QA at UCSB too, even though he said he wants to deport me on at least two counts

[Tywysog Cymru]

That's an added bonus. Someone who gets up on the podium and dryly reads facts won't resonate with people the way Milo does.

That is true, but that's because people have low attention spans and gravitate towards the loudest speaker.

Wars, maybe not. Privatization, absolutely. Are you unaware of what SJWs think of the free market? They describe the West as a "White supremacist, cis-hetero-normative capitalist patriarchy" FFS.

But that isn't the main argument given by the left for it's fiscal policies. The main argument is that the right hates the poor.

The way to debate SJWs is to realize and defend the following:

-Equality of any kind is a lie

Equal protection under the law is a good thing I would say.

-Organic hierarchy is a good thing, on the whole

What exactly is organic hierarchy?

-Aristocracy is inevitable and desirable

Why?

-Gender and race are real biological categories, not social constructs

Gender yes, race no.

He does a lot of that and I say that it is a good thing. These women would be amusing, were they not so dangerous. They need to be called out at ever turn and their nonsense exposed and destroyed without mercy because this is precisely the sort of thing that, if left unchallenged, eventually normalizes. The next thing you know, legislatures are voting bills into law and courts are upholding them, those laws toeing the line of demands of these mentally deranged women.

But is it our number one concern?

It might. PC is straight out of "1984", which is to say that it centers largely around the dismantling of normality. When people are trained away from the concepts and values of "right" and "wrong" such that they no longer believe in such things, the "state" can then foist damned near anything upon them because they have no frame of reference from which to assess and given proposition. This is a central objective of the tactic called "PC".

I must disagree. When the mental landscape of the average man is razed into a flat, bland, undifferentiated plain that stretches for as far as the mind can reach, the tyrant has enabled his ability to make any commandment reasonable in their minds.

Do not discount the salience of PC to the goals of power. It is fundamental in paving the way for those who would seek compliant serfs.

But most people who support our government's horrible policies do it not out of political correctness. Support for big government comes from a misguided compassion for the poor. Support for wars either comes from nationalism or fear.

[osan]

But is it our number one concern?

How does one quantify/prioritize such things? Regardless, it is very high on the list precisely because of that which underpins it, which is the real but latent problem.

But most people who support our government's horrible policies do it not out of political correctness. Support for big government comes from a misguided compassion for the poor. Support for wars either comes from nationalism or fear.

I agree, but point out that this is only a partial answer. The cancer that is PC is undergirded by the most strident and merciless authoritarianism imaginable. It is cold like a fish in that there is nothing sacred that stands between it and its objectives. It destroys human normalcy in order to gain leverage over human action. That is as rankly evil as anything one might care to name.

[parocks]

This PC has been going on since the late 80s - at least. It seems more awful than ever before.

Everything - across the board - is more awful than ever before.

The PC arguments that the angry feminists and their allies were using in 1986 are the same as today, but those college students now have jobs, and the media across the board is behind the PC arguments at this point. Whether this PC stuff is important, I don't know. Everything is awful, worst ever, across the board. Every President is certain to be the worst President ever, and the US is the worst country in the world, next to Israel. Whatever chance there was for things to get better is gone, and it's just all about watching what new bad stuff there are.

Men win some war between men vs women in a context of less government, and lose in a context of more government. Women need government to impose their wishes on others. Where's legalized prostitution? Shouldn't that be something that happened already? Screwing - not ok? Crazy people mutilating their genitals and forcing themselves into any bathroom they want - perfectly normal.

Prostitution and marijuana - what are the arguments against? Morality? Bible? We live in a gay marriage and she-male world. Morality and Bible as arguments weren't able to win against gay marriage and she-males, Prostitution aren't the craziest newest freakshow, but getting high and getting laid are things that people have been doing for thousands of years. World's oldest profession - weed in Egyptian tombs. Completely normal behavior which is banned on morality grounds vs completely nuts behavior, considered far more awful by traditional morality, is now considered ok. The people in charge of almost everything completely suck and are getting worse. That's what we have.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

That's all well and good, but I don't see what it has to do with the goal of reducing the size and scope of government (that's still our common goal?). The sort of culture that these alt-right culture warriors are promoting is not incompatible with most of the objectionable things the government is doing. That is, a populous which accepted those principles you list would not necessarily reject socialism (it would just be a blood and soil type of socialism, rather than a proletarian type). Basically, in its vulgar form (which is to say the only form which you can reasonably expect to become widespread), it's the culture of the Third Reich. To be clear, I'm not saying that this culture entails national socialism, only that it doesn't preclude it. And, if that's the case, what good is it?

Several things. First of all, that wasn't supposed to be a complete list of my opinions or values, it was specifically a list of truths to counter SJW narratives about gender, race and society at large. If they were discussing economics, then criticisms of government intervention and anti-capitalist rhetoric would be forthcoming.

Moreover, I don't think aristocracy or organic hierarchy actually is compatible with national socialism. There's nothing organic about totalitarianism or state-socialism. One could even argue that the nation-state itself is inorganic. Both Nazis and Italian fascists were opposed to traditional German and Italian aristocrats. The Nazis killed revolutionary conservatives on The Night of Long Knives.

[parocks]

How does one quantify/prioritize such things? Regardless, it is very high on the list precisely because of that which underpins it, which is the real but latent problem.



I agree, but point out that this is only a partial answer. The cancer that is PC is undergirded by the most strident and merciless authoritarianism imaginable. It is cold like a fish in that there is nothing sacred that stands between it and its objectives. It destroys human normalcy in order to gain leverage over human action. That is as rankly evil as anything one might care to name.

Israel is pretty much "rankly evil".

[r3volution 3.0]

Several things. First of all, that wasn't supposed to be a complete list of my opinions or values, it was specifically a list of truths to counter SJW narratives about gender, race and society at large. If they were discussing economics, then criticisms of government intervention and anti-capitalist rhetoric would be forthcoming.

From you?

Sure

From the average alt-righter?

Nope, they're about as anti-capitalistic as the average progressive.

Moreover, I don't think aristocracy or organic hierarchy actually is compatible with national socialism.

The underlined, in its vulgar form (see first post), just ends up as power worship.

There's nothing organic about totalitarianism or state-socialism. One could even argue that the nation-state itself is inorganic

Yes, I agree, but what you're talking about is not what the alt-right and Milo's general audience is thinking.

If they ever take power, you will be lined up against the wall and shot, right after I am.

P.S. Think about the relationship between the German aristocracy and the NAZIs. Initially, many were keen on the NAZIs as a bulwark against the revolutionary communists. Later, they found themselves in Auschwitz or fleeing for their lives across the border. Populist nationalist movements are incompatible with the Old Order, despite some superficial similarities (mostly consisting in shared hatred of the egalitarian left). Kuehnelt-Leddihn had the right idea about this, drawn from personal experience.

In short, never encourage a howling mob, no matter what they're howling at the moment.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

That is true, but that's because people have low attention spans and gravitate towards the loudest speaker.

I don't think that's why. Someone who can present facts with flair and panache will always keep the attention of the people more than someone who presents it straight. That's what HL Mencken did. I don't think that making a good argument with a bit of showmanship takes away anything from the argument or the arguer.

But that isn't the main argument given by the left for it's fiscal policies. The main argument is that the right hates the poor.

And they hate the poor because they're privileged straight white cis-males. It's a huge reason millenials oppose capitalism; they think it's a system that only helps the privileged.

Equal protection under the law is a good thing I would say.

It depends on what that specifically refers to.

"One law for the lion and ox is oppression"-William Blake

What exactly is organic hierarchy?

Hierarchy that emerges from free association. An intact family, a church, a mentor and student and a private business are all examples of organic hierarchy.

Why?

All societies will inevitably serve aristocratic interests who can make their way to the top of the civilization through whatever means they can. It's better to have an open and clear aristocracy and not a covert, hidden one. That way, their incentive structure can be a healthy one and who they are can be out in the open.

Gender yes, race no.

Race yes. Younger scientists aren't affected by the ridiculous race taboo, and scientists in China don't give a single $#@! about Western political correctness. The evidence that's incoming will make the reality of race absolutely undeniable.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

From you?

Sure

From the average alt-righter?

Nope, they're about as anti-capitalistic as the average progressive.

The alt-right is too broad to identify an average member. It is true that low-information, plebe-tier white nationalists have taken center-stage within the "movement", and they have a ridiculous penchant for ethno-socialism, in-group egalitarianism and bizarre economics theories. The kind who think "Mises was a joo0o!" is an argument. The thing is though, there's a reason why the race-focused WNs are resonating more than the more economically literate Neoreactionaries. Immigration is going to be the most important issue of the early 21st Century throughout the West, like it or not.

Plenty of others are very libertarian, very pro-capitalist and want a small government. The alt-right is an umbrella term, not a movement or an ideology.

The underlined, in its vulgar form (see first post), just ends up as power worship.

That could happen, but it could happen in a monarchy too, or any hierarchical system.

Yes, I agree, but what you're talking about is not what the alt-right and Milo's general audience is thinking.

I think Milo's general audience isn't actually the alt-right. Most of his fans are disenfranchised conservatarians, anti-progressive left wingers, classical liberals and anti-SJWs in general. The alt-right seems big online, particularly places like Twitter and 4chan and that effect is exacerbated by Trump's rise. In reality, that's not true. As Ron Paul fans should know, it's easy for a movement to look big on the internet, but that doesn't translate to the real world.

If they ever take power, you will be lined up against the wall and shot, right after I am.

Not too worried about that. Reddit $#@!posters will make lousy revolutionaries.

P.S. Think about the relationship between the German aristocracy and the NAZIs. Initially, many were keen on the NAZIs as a bulwark against the revolutionary communists. Later, they found themselves in Auschwitz or fleeing for their lives across the border. Populist nationalist movements are incompatible with the Old Order, despite some superficial similarities (mostly consisting in shared hatred of the egalitarian left). Kuehnelt-Leddihn had the right idea about this, drawn from personal experience.

That's true, but support of fascism as a bulwark against communism was a common mistake at the time. Mises himself thought that Austrian fascism was a far superior alternative to revolutionary Marxism, and he was probably right in that case. Say what you want about Mussolini, but he didn't have death camps in Italy, and Italian Jews didn't start getting killed until he became Hitler's lapdog. If Italian and Austrofascism became the main contingents of the fascist movement, it would be remembered quite differently.

In short, never encourage a howling mob, no matter what they're howling at the moment.

I agree with that, but the problem is that howling mobs can have legitimate concerns. Some would argue that Ron Paul's fanbase was a howling mob.

[Anti Federalist]

Phuk a brick... what in hell are you talking about? I have no idea what any of those things means.

Is is me, or has there lately been something of an explosion of new jargon in the world? Sometimes I feel as if I no longer speak English... like Rip Van Winkle having just awakened after a 500-year nap. "Trigger", "microaggression", "safe space", "cis-gender**".



** Seriously, what in copulating hell is that supposed to mean? It is waved about by these angry lesbo-trannies as if it were some sort of grave insult. The world no longer makes the least sense to me.

Welcome to my world.

[Anti Federalist]

Oh by the way, a sociology professor resigned over this. She said free speech is "delusional" and that "objectivity reinforces inequalities".

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/0...ng-milo-visit/

This is Stalinism with a human face. Nothing less. Yeah, but lets go back to talking about how annoying Milo is

These people are insane.

[Danke]

These people are insane.

I hope they let the door hit them on their way out.

[ProBlue33]

You're supposed to care about leftist mobs running roughshod over people they disagree with, yes. You think it's going to stop with Milo? The left won the culture war by dominating academia and media.

It's amazing I even have to explain that. You just don't like Milo because he's a Trump fan, and you're suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Hey there is even an article on that
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...ment-syndrome/

I think at the end of the day, many that were for Ron Paul will look at what the further reversals will be with Clinton, and then the total entrenchment of the far left, verses at least some push back from Trump to stem the tide of lunacy, on a variety of subjects..... immigration, gun control just to mention a couple.
Besides we don't know if Trumps way will fail until we try it, but we do know Clinton's way will fail, been there done that.


On that Milo video, he calls himself a Libertarian, he has some interesting perspectives on the current state of culture in 2016 and how it is effecting the rise of Trump.