This guy always struck me as a self-aggrandizing homosexual creep.
+1
I don’t disagree with your assessment.
However, Milo’s ability to skewer leftists is not matched by many on the right.
Maybe you ought to read his artices at Breitbart. They are excellent. Milo is very confrontational and flamboyant but he reaches the young voters and his political positions are very sound.
I’m going to post a link a bit of the article in case BB deep sixes it (hat tip seventhndr & Parrallax):
by MILO21 Sep 2015
Today, Salon gave a platform to a self-confessed pedophile to explain his urges in sympathetic terms. “I’m a Pedophile, But Not A Monster” reads the headline. It’s a long, self-pitying screed that ends with a call to be “understanding and supportive” of adults who crave sexual intimacy with children.
Forgive me if I’m not first to start the standing ovation. In fact I’m pretty sure most people will find the existence on Salon’s website of this post both shocking and distasteful.
The timing of Nickerson’s post, barely a week after multiple high-profile progressives rallied around progressive activist Sarah Nyberg, couldn’t be more suspect. Over the past two weeks, an alarming number of left-leaning commentators have rallied around the self-confessed transsexual pedophile and progressive activist who defended white nationalism.
In other words, progressives who got fired up about whether green and purple was a “rapey” colour scheme were suddenly fine with discussion of incestuous pedophilia from a 22-year-old in a chat room full of teenagers. It has been a somewhat grotesque spectacle to watch.
But these two incidents are merely just the latest in a disturbing trend of pedophilia activism on the Left, which has gone out on a limb time and time again to normalise child abuse. From the 1970s to the present day, organised pedophilia has been a recurring problem for the supposedly progressive movement.
The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) had early support from Allen Ginsberg. In the UK, the Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE) sought acceptance on the Left by affiliating itself with the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), then run by prominent Left-wingers. Leading members of the Labour party, including Patricia Hewitt and Harriet Harman, were tarnished by their association with PIE, but many of them remain in positions of power in the Labour party.(snip)
What’s happening here? Why are defences of pedophilia so rampant on the Left? And why are pedophiles so attracted to the progressive movement, as opposed to conservatism, libertarianism, or even anarcho-capitalism?
The most likely answer may be difficult for left-leaning readers to accept. For decades, moral relativism has underpinned radical left-wing thought. This is particularly clear when we look at how abuses in Muslim communities are treated. When the Conservative government in Canada labeled female genital mutilation and forced marriages as “barbaric cultural practices,” they were criticised by leading Canadian leftists.
See also: the breeziness with which feminists ignore abuses against women all across the Muslim world, and the timidity of gay rights campaigners to challenge Muslims on gay rights. Not Islamists, you understand, but mainstream Islamic society, in which simply being gay can get you killed in a dozen countries or more. Oh, and Rotherham, where moral relativism and the fear of being seen as “racist” got 1,200 white girls raped.
In the U.S, where a left-wing administration is in charge, relativism has even seeped into the military. As was recently reported, American soldiers in Afghanistan are now being instructed to ignore the sexual abuse of boys by Afghan allies. Campaigners against religious barbarism like the UK’s National Secular Society have condemned the relativism at the heart of radical left-wing identity politics, but to no avail.
There is a very serious debate here on FR and Twitter about whether merely the ability to skewer lefties and to expose their hypocrisies alone is sufficient to support someone.
Many Freepers are insisting that Milo’s definition of “some” 13-year-olds as “sexually mature” doesn’t qualify as pedophilia or pedastery, and that (true) leftist whackos are out to destroy him because he presents such a specific threat.
On the other hand, IF (as it appears to me he does) Milo defends sex with “mature” 13-year-olds, then is there a cutting off point for support? ANY cutting off point? 12-year-olds? 10-year-olds? I don’t see where it stops. If he has an argument with specific age laws, that might be one thing, but to see it as ok, we’re down to the old prostitution joke where the guy asks the woman to have sex for $1m and she says yes, and he says, “what about $100?” and she says “What do you think I am?” and he says, “We already established what you are. Now we’re negotiating a price.”
You’re in trouble now!
People who call themselves Conservatives who have cheering him on are examples of people who, consciously or not, are accepting as valid the same sort of double standard that Whoopie (it wasn't rape, rape) or the "it's only sex" media thugs defending Bill Clinton.
Conservatives had better realize they can't accept as valid the same double standard the globalist elite the propagate and win the war against them.
One unrepentant sinner made into a sicko by abuse and molestation making your enemies look bad doesn't justify championing the unrepentant sinner you agree with.
CPAC even inviting the guy in the first place makes a mockery of the word "Conservative". They're either all frauds or full of frauds with enough leverage to deliberately damage the people who they claim to represent and appeal to.
JMHo