Posted on 02/22/2017 6:02:37 AM PST by DWW1990
In opposing the godless and bloody French Revolution, Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, concluded that,
"I should therefore suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France, until I was informed how it had been combined with government; with public force; with the discipline and obedience of armies;…with morality and religion;…with peace and order; with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things too; and, without them, liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long. The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: We ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations."
Like many corrupted by liberalism, the liberty enjoyed by Milo Yiannopoulos has not served him well, because it seems that most of what he “pleases to do” is vile and vulgar.
(Excerpt) Read more at trevorgrantthomas.com ...
Probably the best article I’ve read on Milo and why he doesn’t appeal to me. As I’ve said for over a year, like Andrew Sullivan, America (and its licentiousness) has been very bad for Milo.
It’s always great to go back to the roots of conservatism when so many people need a reminder of what we believe and why. It’s too bad that a fad of exhibitionism and vileness has been given a safe space for a phony form of conservatism.
Exactly! Great post!
If calling out and rejecting “man-boy love” is any kind of a “high standard” for you, you need new standards.
I’ve never cared for what Milo represents either. Nothing more than a “speech pornographer” (as another put it) as far as I’m concerned.
For me, it was the endless self-promotion and self-love.
A humble person, he is not (like most in his state).
A lot of people here do not follow him on Facebook. He shows another face there.
Yes, when they out themselves as de facto NAMBLA members.
Milo is a troll. I heard some of you say, “but he is our troll.” Which is true. Normally he is saying things we agree with. But he says lots of things that we don’t like. Many of them are style issues. But sometimes he goes to places we are not going to follow.
I personally don’t like when he calls people stupid. Its a childish charge that normally means that he has run out of ammunition. Instead of explaining why someone is wrong, he just calls them ignorant.
But conservatives need to be careful. We always seem to back people who say the right things. Even though Milo admits that he will do anything. And he will say anything. Its ok to defend his rights to say anything. But we should realize that its only free speech that unite us and Milo. None of us could spend 24 hours with him. And he could easily defend lots of things that we don’t agree with. Free speech is a two edged sword.
However what has happened to Milo, has been felt by women, blacks, gay, and Hispanics that espouse a conservative point of view. The left attacked Kellyanne, and did everything they could to separate Trump from the CBC. Its very important to the left, to make sure that conservatives big tent only has white males in it. They cannot allow any of their traditional groups to have any conservative spokesmen. That is the real reason why we should feel bad for Milo. We allowed the lefty wolves to cut out a member of our herd that was unique to our kind. So we will have a hard time getting and keeping a foothold when they are able to kill those who might appeal to those who are not white straight males.
This guy has it upside down. The reign of terror at the universities is being run by the leftists and the administrators not Milo.
No Milo is not perfect, but there’s been no one else on our side that has been anywhere near as effective in taking on that reign of terror.
And I don’t see none of the sanctimonious, holier than thou, critics here fighting the cultural terrorists on campus.
I remind everyone that during WWII we allied ourselves with the Soviets.
Milo uses shock therapy and uses it very effectively to bring the conservative message to young people.
How exactly is it absurd? What in common did we have with Russia, before, during, or after the war except for the common goal of defeating Germany? Or China for that matter? Both of whom were allies during WWII.
Following the end of the war, Operation Unthinkable was conceived and contemplated to drive Russia out of Eastern Europe. While eventually rejected it was the catalyst that led to the Cold War with Russia. Who were American allies in that Cold War? Why Germany & Japan of course.
So in reality alliances are formed and changed many times over. In fact, since this expose of Milo was engineered by NeverTrump noe-cons, those now trashing Milo have now opted to form an alliance with NeverTrumpers.
I contend that getting Trump elected will result in American lives being saved.
The point of the original statement, that you chose to dismiss as absurd, had little to do with saving lives and every thing to do with alliances. That is why I contend that statement was neither absurd or incorrect. It purpose was to show the benefit of alliances. What might have happened if that Russian alliance had been maintained and the Cold War had never happened? We will never know, but we do know the consequences of severing that alliance immediately following WWII. It was anything but beneficial.
The reality is that moral chains must be applied from within. Applied externally results in resistance as to why one must apply those moral chains themselves. Realization that moral chains are as much for their personal benefit as the are the benefit of society as a whole must be realized by the individual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.