Search the Community

After watching the MILO video, I am very confused. I had never actually thought about how the NAP relates to age of consent. Specifically in the case of milo at age 13 and the priest. I am not disagreeing with stefans interpretation, I fully understand where he is coming from, especially about Milo not reporting the people hosting "parties" with underage boys. My confusion more specifically, is if a 13 year old consents to sex with an older man, how has the older man broken the NAP unless it is a forced event? I am assuming from stefans tone that YES it does, however I can't seem to find his arguments on the subject. In the podcast Stefan refers to what happened to Milo as rape/molestation. If stef invents a time machine, goes back to that moment, and subdues the priest, has Stefan violated the NAP? As such, in calling the priest a rapist while Milo declared it was consensual, is Stefan not implying that force was moral to use against the priest? Is he in the podcast expressing a will to violate the NAP stefs subjective idea that a 13 year old should not be with a 29 year old? Or is there some logic I am missing?

One of the things that has gotten a lot of people to rally against the establishment even before the election is pizzagate. Alex Jones was under constant attack for not covering it and not focusing his whole attention on it, even though he's been warning people about child trafficking elites for decades. Cernovich has acknowledged pizzagate himself. Milo was rumored to have been advised to stay off the pizzagate topic for the time being. Joe Rogan himself acknowledged it and his podcast reaches literally millions of people. Pizzagate is a topic that if you denied it you would instantly get attacked with a barrage of evidence that's far too convincing for comfort. People haven't inferred it, they just stayed off topic because the rabbit hole is way too deep and way too dark. Ever since Trump took office HUNDREDS of arrests were made (and are made) regarding child trafficking rings and THOUSANDS of children have been saved. The point I'm trying to make is that our side has been the one championing the rights of kids whilst the opposition have actively been promoting pedophilia for years. Now I want you to keep in mind these bulletpoints from Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals with regarding to subversion: >>Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. >>Make the enemy live up to its own rules. The liberal outlets that have been promoting pedophilia have now wiped the record clean, I'm talking about Salon here specifically. Stefan is the ONLY ONE and I mean the ONLY ONE that criticized Milo's views, and rightfully so, regarding underage sex. Everyone else however have attacked Milo not because they stand for the rights of children but because they have always hated Milo. All you hear from the Milo detractors is that Milo's an attention whore, narcissist, opportunistic, dumb, a typical homosexual, and so on. Not one stood on principle saying his comments were inappropriate. They jumped at the first occasion to cast him out REGARDLESS of accusations. So if you take all of the points I made into account, where are we now? There us one group of people that distanced themselves from Milo because they have been made to live up to their own rules. Then there's another group that has always been against Milo which have been given the ammunition to take him down. The third group is treating this as nothing more than another hit-piece on Milo, of which there have been literally dozens. The movement has been polarized. These three groups will turn on each other if we don't stop it. The way I see it now is that we either >> Cast Milo out, taking a huge blow within our ranks. The pedophile agenda will start to get pushed again by the radical left but now against a significantly weaker opposition. >> Stand behind Milo, because they were just words, and continue fighting back against the radical left, which promotes and engages in pedophilia, no less weaker than before. Yes, it is an argument from effect but in a war the most important thing is not principles, ideology, or honor, the most important thing is winning and if we lose this fight we'll have to deal with a lot worse than some guy's psychological pathology. They're actively making toddlers take sex-ed courses for crissake ! What kind of future are we willing to risk in so we can enjoy the luxury in the present of standing for our principles? We saw what the left wants to do to us. We saw how they infiltrated our ranks. We saw how they use our own principles against us. We saw the kind of muscle they have. They took a shot at Flynn and got him fired. They took a shot at InfoWars and they lost millions of dollars in revenue. They took a shot at Milo and he was falsely branded as a pedophile, cancelled the most anticipated book of the year, and got him fired from Breitbart. They are going after everyone in the alt-media so now it's not the time to waver. Ask yourselves, how comforting the thought of ostracizing Milo and sticking to your holy standards will be in a future where NAMBLA decides your toddler's curriculum?