Bloomberg: Breitbart writer Milo makes money from gay “sugar daddies”

“Alt-Right” leader, and Breitbart News writer, Milo Yiannopoulos, was profiled today by Joel Stein in Bloomberg News.

As background, the Alt-Right are white supremacists, many of whom have a reverence for vulgar Nazi imagery, who also have issues with women, gays, Muslims and Jews. And Breitbart is the Web site of Donald Trump’s campaign manager Stephen Bannon. Bannon bragged earlier this summer that Breitbart was “the platform for the alt-right.” So this story directly reflects on the Trump campaign.

The profile alleges that Yiannopoulos said that the last time he was in Los Angeles, he was picked up at a bar by a man who gave him $10,000 after a night of sex. Yiannopoulos says the man gave him another $10,000 following a second evening of fun. According to new stories, Yiannopoulos was in Los Angeles as recently as this past May 31 (possibly later).

This claim that Yiannopoulos receives money from “sugar daddies” comes immediately after the profile tells us that Breitbart only pays some of the $1 million cost of Yiannopoulos’ nearly 30 staff members. Beyond Breitbart, the staff salaries are also subsidized by donations from conservatives, and from Yiannopoulos own family money, according to the story.

Here’s Yiannopoulos’ admission to Bloomberg:

milo-yiannopoulos

Alt-Right leader Milo Yiannopoulos. Photos by @Kmeron for LeWeb13 Conference @ Central Hall Westminster – London

Although some of his staff are paid by Breitbart, Yiannopoulos says he’s got almost 30 people on his payroll at a total cost of about $1 million a year, not including his salary. “My salary is really big, too,” he says. Some of this is paid for by donations from conservatives. Some comes from family money. Yiannopoulos says he and a business partner bought several apartments in his huge complex years ago when it was first built, slowly selling them off for a profit. He says he also hangs around a lot of rich people, some of whom were his sugar daddies. Last time he was in Los Angeles, he says, a white man at the Sunset Tower bar hit on him and gave him $10,000 after having sex with him twice and another $10,000 the following night.

And here is more from Bloomberg about Yiannopoulos and the Alt-Right:

“Milo is the person who propelled the alt-right movement into the mainstream,” says Heidi Beirich, who directs the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups and describes the term “alt-right” as “a conscious rebranding by white nationalists that doesn’t automatically repel the mainstream.”

The Bloomberg profile brings several unanswered questions to mind:

1. The claim that Yiannopoulos was given $20,000 after two nights of sex sounds as if it could run afoul of prostitution laws. As Yiannopoulos is on staff at Breitbart, and Breitbart is run by Trump’s campaign CEO, this allegation directly reflects on Donald Trump. If the head of Hillary Clinton’s campaign employed an alleged prostitute, we’d never hear the end of it from either the media or the Republicans.

2. The article is unclear as to whether any of Yiannopoulos’ own money goes to fund his staff, and if so, whether any of those self-funded staff do Breitbart work. If you look again at the paragraph above, Bloomberg’s Stein doesn’t directly say that Yiannopoulos himself pays any of his staff salaries. Stein says some of the funding comes from “family money.” But it is unclear if that means money given to the staff directly by a member of Yiannopoulos’ family, or whether it means money given to Yiannopoulos by his family, and then Yiannopoulos himself pays the staff. The distinction is important due to the fungibility of money. Any money Yiannopoulos spends — whether it be staff salaries or political donations — would arguably be tainted by the alleged “sugar daddy” money. However, even if Yiannopoulos used any of his own money to pay for the staff, we’d still want to know if that staff worked on any Breitbart matters, or whether they only worked for Yiannopoulos on other matters. (There’s more on Yiannopoulos’ staff in this Buzzfeed piece.)

3. Did Yiannopoulos claim the alleged “sugar daddy” money on his taxes?

4. Is Trump campaign CEO Stephen Bannon, the head of Breitbart, aware of Bloomberg’s claim that his staffer, Milo Yiannopoulos, earns money from “sugar daddies”? And can Bannon attest categorically that none of this alleged money made its way into Breitbart’s operations?

5. Is the Trump campaign aware of the allegation, and what is their response?

6. Are the California state, and Los Angeles city, authorities aware of these claims about Yiannopoulos?

7. What is Milo’s immigration status, and does it permit income from additional work?

8. US immigration law has an interesting section, which would appear to be relevant were someone to come to the US and be involved in prostitution:

(D) Prostitution and commercialized vice

Any alien who–

(i) is coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitution, or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status,

(ii) directly or indirectly procures or attempts to procure, or (within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status) procured or attempted to procure or to import, prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or receives or (within such 10-year period) received, in whole or in part, the proceeds of prostitution, or

(iii) is coming to the United States to engage in any other unlawful commercialized vice, whether or not related to prostitution,

is inadmissible.

Finally, I’ve spoken to a source familiar with the escort business in Los Angeles, DC, NYC, Las Vegas and London. They assure me that the top professional escorts in Los Angeles only get half of the $10,000 alleged in the Bloomberg article. And that’s over a period of a weekend. The source added: “And those guys are Abercrombie & Fitch type supermodels. Milo would be lucky to get $200.”

Having said that, the amount is irrelevant. The Bloomberg story appears to make a quite serious accusation that could have repercussions for Breitbart, for the Trump campaign, and for Yiannopoulos himself.

I’d be remiss not to mention that this entire affair is bringing back memories of the Jeff Gannon/James Guckert episode of a good 11 years ago. You can read more about that here.

Please support our independent journalism with a generous donation. Help us defeat Donald Trump in November. (If you prefer Paypal, use this page.)

Follow me on Twitter & Facebook:




Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

110 Responses to “Bloomberg: Breitbart writer Milo makes money from gay “sugar daddies””

  1. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Sounds just like the Teabaggers. What’s old is new again.

  2. Iwasonetwo says:

    Read this once almost verbatim out of a Sydney sheldon novel in the 80’s. This made up garbage isn’t even original.

    One point though. …alt right is not about anything racial nor superior of one group’s values over another (group)

    Alt right is alternative to the corruption in the controlling republican party. It developed to include everyone both republicans and democrats… And independents and everyone else to work together to bring equality and fairness back to the citizens before the elitists on both sides of the political aisle further ruin the country for their own greed and privilege.

    That hasn’t been working very well for 90 percent of the country.

  3. Capt. Quantrill-deplorable SOB says:

    The author of this crap is a left wing nut job. And they wonder why no one pays any attention to the left wing media cabal. People are awake now chumps!!

  4. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    Not going to take the risk.

    No matter how it shakes up, I’m going to head to New Zealand. $3000 US of my money is committed to that already, and much more will be later. A big part of this is what you and Mead describe. Combine that selfishness (and that’s what I’ll call it) with the heartlessness that is expressed when, during the holiday that commemorates the birth of a man that preached towards peace on Earth and good will to other people, people will beat down, trample, and KILL each other over some cheap plastic crap from China, and no matter who wins, we all lose. Seriously. Ask yourself this. If Sanders or Clinton would have won, would you have pulled together for the good of the country, would you have sat back and let them burn, or would you have pushed them to burn even if they were doing good by the country just because you disagreed with them. For most people in the US, the answer would be #2 or #3, regardless of their political affiliation. That right there is a big part of why we are where we are right now. And it’s a crying shame. And electing Clinton President won’t solve it, any more than Obama crushing first McCain then Romney fixed it before.

    And your estimation of Trump would be true if it weren’t for the fact that Trump isn’t the disease. He wasn’t voted as GOP Candidate in spite of his philosophy. He was voted for it because of it. His beliefs aren’t atypical of the GOP. The only thing atypical about him is instead of whispering about that philosophy (Fascism or Jacksonian notwithstanding), he screamed it from the rooftops. Trump is a symptom, and the GOP Congress will not exercise it’s power against him. End of Line.

  5. MarkM says:

    And my apologies for not responding to this earlier. Professor Mead’s use of the 4 schools of American thought – Jacksonian, Wilsonian, Hamiltonian, and Jeffersonian – is primarily derived and driven from his observations of US foreign policy. He is a little less coherent on the domestic policy side, but I still find the site Mead helped found
    http://www.the-american-interest.com/
    a fascinating read, especially on the current problems of what Mead tends to describe as the “Blue State” model. I must admit, I am hardly the first to diagnosis Trump’s support as Jacksonian:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436544/donald-trumps-jacksonian-voters-andrew-jacksons-nationalist-politics-are-back
    You should particularly like this one – they really hate Trump’s policies and candidacy and are at pains to tie him to some of what they regard as the worst parts of the Jacksonian ethos:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-jacksonian-candidate/483563/
    In this one, the link is the shared populism of Jackson and Trump:
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trump-andrew-jackson-president-2016/2015/08/27/id/672260/
    This focuses on a Tea Party/liberty rebellion as the source of Trump’s grass roots support:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/the_new_jacksonian_rebellion_and_trump_too_.html

    I didn’t say I revere Jackson – some of what he did was clearly outrageous, bigoted and just plain dishonorable. On one hand hand, my gut/initial reactions tend to be close to the Jacksonian school as described by Mead. And yes, for example, that means I have very little respect for the so-called “international law” and tend to view it (somewhat cynically) as the victors justifying their actions based on the sins of the losing side. Bottom line, “International Law” only has teeth to the extent to which the great powers chose to enforce it – and thus I have no problem with the American Service Members Protection Act (more commonly known as the “Hague Invasion Act”).

    That being said, even if elected, I really don’t think that Trump has enough of an organization or the political clout to turn the US into a fascist state, even if Trump’s instincts would be to do so. I join Glenn (Instapundit) in observing that the media succeeds in its’ watchdog role far better when the President has an (R) after his or her name. We may even see Congress wake up and reclaim some of its power to trim back the administrative state and associated bureaucrats. So, as pleasant as New Zeland can be, I don’t think you will need to flee a Trump Presidency.

  6. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    No, I don’t. It’s probably buried in the thousands of other lawsuits Trump is a party in, though.

  7. MarkM says:

    Interesting article – appreciate the link. I spent some time researching this. Do you have any link to the underlying lawsuit that Greenberg filed? – I can’t seem to find it for some reason. The reason I ask is that I’m curious to see who were the named defendants.

    BTW – to be completely clear, I did not vote for Trump in the primaries. I sincerely wish the Republican Party had nominated someone else. I also wish the Democratic party had not nominated Clinton (and wasn’t that thrilled with a Bernie candidacy either).

  8. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    I thought of our discussion when I saw this article.

    Yet more example of how Trump’s merely a grifter and opportunist. Face it, buddy. Trump isn’t a principled defender of Truth, Justice, and the American way. He’s a grifter, using you like he’s used plenty of other people, and willing to go full Fascist to get to where he really wants to be, in power, with the treasury open to be drained.

  9. ceejm says:

    Milo is just a sad, depressed, loser, crying out for love.

    So he builds up this fantastical, glamorous, online, fantasy life, which is 99% fake

  10. ceejm says:

    Milo is just a fantacist.

    He doesn’t have a huge staff – 99% of the people who work with him are unpaid interns.

    He doesn’t have personal wealth – the guy sells cheap T-shirts, coffee mugs. and baseball caps on his website, for fucks sake

    He’s constantly trying to scam Trump supporters, for money. His latest venture was a fake Trump Superpac, that he was asking Trump supporters to pay into – and the money was going to him.

  11. ceejm says:

    well, he’s just against prositution

  12. Richard K says:

    So it seems that the writer is both homophobic and likes to slut shame.

  13. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    If I read your first paragraph correctly, your position isn’t all that radical. In 2005, our pastor often said that clergymen and clergywomen should not be able to sign marriage licenses. That way every couple would have to have a civil ceremony. If they want, they can then have a religious ceremony.

    I disagree with you about having states decide on marriage laws. A precedent was set with Loving v. Virginia. I grew up in North Carolina, and they would never allow marriage between people of different races and people of the same gender. Just look at what is happening there now. If SCOTUS were to try to take away those marriages, the uproar would be major. If they didn’t take away the marriages that already exist, they really can’t deny marriage to others.

    “So, my question to you is do you support laws which would require Catholic Charities to facilitate the placement of a child with a homosexual couple?”

    As long as Catholic Charities does not accept any funds from the government, they can be as bigoted as they want. The reason is simple. I pay taxes, so I should expect that even a tenth of a cent (or less) of my money should not go to anyone who would discriminate against me.

  14. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    Jacksonian Ideals

    I was busy, so I didn’t read that link. And now that I have? Wow. What a load of unmitigated disjointed bull$#!+. The ideology, at least as presented by the author, is not internally consistent, and has so many escape clauses to exclude people you don’t like, it’s a wonder the country didn’t fly apart if it did give credence to this ideal.

    Let’s look at it closer, shall we?

    Self reliance? For the average Trump supporter, they may think that Trump’s positions are centered in self-reliance. Work hard, get ahead. Pretty American all around, and with some good effects when not taken to excess. The problem is that even if his supporters believe in it, Trump sure doesn’t. You keep toiling and toiling for Trump and his fellow billionaires. And if you think he’ll ever let you get to his level and displace him, his family, and his closest friends from their rightful place at the top? Well, he’s got this beautiful, just beautiful bridge for sale. He’ll throw in the best beachfront real estate in Arizona, for free! It’s great! YUGE deal! :)

    Equality? Pish posh. Neither Trump nor his supporters believe in equality. For his supporters, at best, they think that White Americans are all equal, but even those people have so many escape clauses from seeing others as equal that it is useless in practice. Gay, not Christian (Southern Baptist at the extreme), not American? You’re off the reservation, and it’s open season on your tail. Trump himself? If you believe he thinks you’re his equal, he’s laughing at you. He’s smarter, stronger, faster, healthier, sexier, and just plain better than you.

    Individualism? Hah! You try to find your way, and you try to find your way. Trump’s above such petty concerns. Trump is too busy bilking people of their last dimes, through Trump University and Trump Foundation. If you build something for him, your lawyers better be top notch, because otherwise his contracts, which are ‘heads I win, tails you lose’, will have gotcha after gotcha ready to suck down more money from you. He’s likely to stiff you for the labor costs, and if you happen to get him pinned down in any way that results in a dollar bill going to your pocket instead of his? He’ll declare bankruptcy and snatch it away from you. Because he’s better than you, and doesn’t have to worry about that silly individualism.

    The only thing that Trump himself accepts is the last ‘pillar’ Mead refers to. He likes it so much he expands it far beyond free-spending and loose credit. He takes it straight over to ugly exploitation, including of the types he decries to his audiences.

    What about political views? Is Trump Jacksonian in politics? Well, Mead insists that their core tenet is democracy and liberty. Let’s look at some of Trump’s closest allies views on Democracy.

    Trump’s Economic Adviser is this charming gentleman by the name of Stephen Moore. What did this shining example of liberty, justice, and the American way say? Brace yourself for it. “Capitalism is a lot more important than Democracy.” Wait. WHAT?! “I’m not even a big believer in democracy.” Oh wow. He goes on to say he doesn’t oppose the right to vote, but in his belief, it’s better to have rich people and the population in ideological shackles than it is for people to be both poor and free.

    I guess Trump picked this guy as his economic chief because he agrees with the whole ‘democracy can go if it gets in the way of us getting fabulously rich.’ After all, why would Trump praise the likes of Russia or North Korea? Could it be that both nations have hordes of poor people doing back-breaking labor for peanuts while fabulously rich people lord over them from on high? Is that the model Trump wants here in the United States?

    I get that we aren’t going to see a perfect match for Hitler’s Germany or Mussolini’s Italy in Trump’s America. What we might get (assuming this isn’t all a show by Trump) is a third data point on what Fascism looks like. Trump will create a uniquely American brand of Fascism, maybe peppered in parts with Jacksonian ideals (hey, that’s the shared fabric the ‘in-group’ can share, like Germans for Germany and reclaiming the glory of the Roman Empire for Hitler and Mussolini respectively). But make no mistake. It will not be good for those who aren’t in the real in-group, which is Trump, his friends, and the few rubes he lets in to give the rest hope. The only solace I can take in all of this is that we DID go through Andrew Jackson as a President, and the US managed to survive him (though not without almost sparking a civil war — which answers the question of ‘what happens if I say no to Jackson’s policies’ — crushed by the US Military. So much for liberty! :) ). On the other hand, Jackson didn’t have Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany to study for inspiration. And while Trump isn’t talking about sending the JewsMexicans to the Ovenswoodchippers, in all fairness, when Hitler was at the same phase of his political career that Trump is at right now, he wasn’t talking ovens and trains either. His plan for the Jews of Germany at that point? Mass Deportation. Doesn’t that sound familiar.

    But walking down the road of history on Andrew Jackson was interesting. It sure reminds us that our early political figures were themselves human, and in many cases, stains on the underpants of humanity every bit as bad as the modern versions. And that people revere him (including you?) says many, many bad and scary things about them (and you if the answer to the previous question is yes…).

    At least we’re on the internet so they can’t challenge me to a duel. And a victory by Trump in November will result in me working on my Kiwi accent starting the third week in January, so I’ll at least get off the ship before it catches on fire and starts sinking…

    (Sorry for the late response. I was working on a few things. Including a contract with an immigration firm in New Zealand…)

  15. MarkM says:

    Did you read the link regarding Jacksonian beliefs and compare it to your list of fascist characteristics? If you did, you would have noticed that a lot of your points of criticism with respect to what you characterize as fascism are things that many of Jacksonians find praiseworthy: fiercely patriotic (“Jacksonian patriotism is not a doctrine but an emotion, like love of one’s family”), a disregard for any rules if necessary to achieve victory when fighting what is perceived to be a dishonorable enemy (“dishonorable enemies fight dirty wars and in that case all rules are off”), military service as a sacred duty resulting in significant support for a large and strong military (“for Jacksonians, spending money on the military is one of the best things government can do.”), obsession with national security and honor, a disdain for elitists – whether they be intellectuals or so-called artists, and an obsession with crime and punishment (as criminals fall outside of the Jacksonian social compact). There are reasons other than big F- Fascism to like some of what Trump has been saying. This should be no surprise – Trump is a surprisingly populist figure given his background.

    Mass media – yes, seriously, with some exceptions, it is definitely in the tank for Clinton. The dispute between Megyn Kelly from Fox and Trump is a sideshow at best. Trump did say some mean things about her and refused to go to one debate where she was a moderator. He may have some views on the media that I do not support. I remain a believer in and defender of the First Amendment and do not think Trump poses a serious threat to it, no matter what anti-journalist posturing Trump has done. The basic reality remains, however. The vast majority of reporters lean towards the Democratic party. I believe that Republicans make up less than 20% of all reporters – and when they were allowed to contribute, they contributed disproportionately to the Democratic party. Here are some cites you might find more convincing:
    “After months of holding back, modern-day journalists are acting a lot like Murrow, pushing explicitly against Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. ” from
    http://www.cjr.org/analysis/trump_inspires_murrow_moment_for_journalism.php
    The leaked DNC-media emails described here are very interesting:
    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-raimondo-trump-media-bias-20160802-snap-story.html
    I particularly like this quote: “Any objective observer of the news media’s treatment of Trump can certainly conclude that reporters are taking a side in this election — and they don’t have to be wearing a button that says “I’m with her” for this to be readily apparent.”.
    See also, http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/even-this-liberal-sees-media-bias-at-gop-convention/

    Now Hillary has gotten some grief – but can you imagine what the press would say about a Republican candidate which went as many months as she did without a single press conference? Frankly, I tend to believe that Hillary should have been indicted on the email issue after having read the relevant reports. So why are you surprised when the press brings it up in their coverage on her? There is a lot of smoke attached to Hillary – some simply dismiss it and some believe she has gotten away with more than what would send an ordinary citizen to jail. (I also note in passing that Bill Clinton was eventually disbarred for cause.)

    We agree there is no evidence of Trump trying to commit election fraud – my apologies if I misinterpreted your comment above and in your linked article. My responsive point was that the election fraud has tended to be on the Democratic side, not that it was right or somehow justifiable. I’m aware that neither article I linked was 100% on point, but I did think they were interesting and from nominally left-leaning groups. I probably should have searched a bit deeper for better articles. My point with respect to Chicago’s long history of voting fraud cannot reasonably be rebutted, unfortunately:
    http://www.salon.com/2016/02/14/election_fraud_chicago_style_illinois_decades_old_notoriety_for_election_corruption_is_legendary/
    I just tend to wince when folks assert that this is all better now.

  16. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    I am always willing to defend free speech – why aren’t you?

    That’s a mighty fine straw man you got there. It’s an ironic straw man, which is the rarest of the rare. And what’s funny is you have no idea what the real threat to freedom of speech and the press. And as long as the government doesn’t sanction you solely for your speech, I’m happy. In fact, I wonder why you are bringing it up at all. No one is saying Milo should be banned for his speech. But if he violated immigration law, we’re gonna find it very hypocritical for you to get all bent out of shape about the law being enforced against him while screaming it should be the letter for Hispanics. Heck, we’re gonna find that slightly racist, to be honest. :)

    Mass media
    Seriously? Mass Media has been harping solidly on Clinton’s e-mails, her health, and her ‘optics’ for weeks now. When Trump came around and spoke on his 7 year crusade to prove Obama a foreign pretender (excuse me, when he came in and gave 30 seconds of his hotel promotion to say Obama is a US citizen after years claiming otherwise), the Media merely called him a liar, then went right back to hauling out every last vaguely skeleton shaped object they could find out of Clinton’s closet. Trump has the media wrapped around his little finger. They’re afraid of him, refuse to critique the most grotesque abuse of his, and treat him with kid gloves, all while hammering Clinton left and right, incessantly, with few exceptions.

    I notice you don’t even attempt to handle the express example of Trump’s handling of Fox News and Meagan Kelly. She dared ask him even the slightest critical question, and he talks about blood coming out of her “whatever”. That you ignore this says bad bad things about you, my friend.

    Corporate Power
    Pshah! “Oh, he’s wealthy, so he doesn’t need the power of government to get rich!” What a load of pure, unrefined male bovine excrement you’re shoveling out for us today! Trump’s corruption is extensive, detailed across the web by sites both Right and Left and all points in between. Touching on the previous point, if the Media was not under Trump’s thumb, they’d have no room to cover kittens, local issues, or football after they cover each and every thing Trump has done just in his private life. I’m just not watching the right TV channels, right? :)

    Cronyism
    Trump’s campaign is one friend in high places after another, and the RNC is being taken out to the cleaners. From his private life through his paying off politicians and bragging about it with money from his charity using other people’s money. And if that’s not enough? Boy are Trump’s Rentals raking in the dough from Republican Donors. Isn’t that funny?

    Fraudulent Elections

    In my defense, I did mention that so far, Trump himself has not shown an active fraudulent attack. This was the ‘tangential’ characteristic I was mentioning. :) But your articles are funny. Perhaps you should read them closer. :)

    But here’s a very interesting thing here. When confronted with even the tiniest hint of your side being accused of voter fraud, you immediately scream BUT THE DEMOCRATS DO IT TOOOEOEOEOE!!11!1shift+one!11!!11!exclamationpoint!11. MOST interesting. Almost like you believe if the Dems are doing it, it makes whatever you do OK. I happen to believe that voter fraud in all its forms is wrong. This includes things like making photo ID required to vote, then charging $30 to provide that photo ID (excluding poor people from getting it), closing all the DMVs in the minority part of town (making only those minorities who can drive be able to get photo ID), limiting DMV hours so that working people must take time off to get their ID, and all the other tricks that the Powers that Be have used to keep the Undesirables from voting (such as Poll Taxes, Poll Tests, and so on). This is as prevalent as things like ballot stuffing, fake votes, and so on…if not more so. :)

    But that’s all beside the point. I actually left myself an opening here.

    I see you have no issues with my findings on nationalism, disdain for human rights (!), identifying scapegoats, military supremacy, rampant sexism, obsession with national security, suppression of labor power, disdain for intellectualism and the arts, and obsession with crime and punishment. I’m glad you agree on those. And I’m happy you found my post on the web. Wish it would get out more, because so few people realize how close to adding another data point to Fascism we are. Trump is dangerous. As the old campaign slogan in Louisiana went, vote for the crook. It’s important.

    PS: I leave you with this sobering thought. Even worse than suppressed speech is compelled speech. Trump will go beyond suppressing speech to compelling you to inform on your neighbors. I am not sure what level of blind partisanship is required NOT to see that as something only found in the basest of dictatorships, but that’s what Trump wants to bring.

  17. MarkM says:

    You missed my more radical position – which was getting the State out of the “marriage” business altogether and converting all existing marriages under State law to be “civil unions”.

    To be clear, I would join in the fight against miscegenation laws at the state level. However, I do not support expanding the Federal government without explicit invocation of the amendment process (which the Founders made deliberately difficult, of course). If individuals wanted to organize boycotts, limit “official” governmental travel to states with miscegenation laws on the books and take other steps to force the removal of any such law, I personally would support that as well. As I said, I generally don’t like the government in the bedroom with respect to matters between two consenting adults. But, absent a constitutional amendment, I would strongly prefer that those issues be fought and won down at the state level.

    You and I also agree on that the government should not be able to force a church to do anything. And by church, I would tend to include such groups as the Little Sisters of the Poor and Catholic Charities. So, my question to you is do you support laws which would require Catholic Charities to facilitate the placement of a child with a homosexual couple?

    All of that being said, I do hope you have a fulfilling and lasting marriage with your spouse. May the two of you continue to find joy with each other and share that joy with the world until death parts you (for a time). In short, I hope you have all of the joys and triumphs associated with a long term, traditional marriage. :-)

  18. MarkM says:

    I think I stumbled onto this while researching another response elsewhere. For the record, my home go-to pages for reading tend to be instapundit and reason, not RedState. I am always willing to defend free speech – why aren’t you? Frankly, my immediate personal reaction to a group of marching Nazis would tend to mirror that demonstrated by the Blues Brothers. To be more precise, my gut level reactions tend to be rather Jacksonian as defined by Professor Mead in his rather famous article: http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html

    The one major exception is that I fundamentally do not trust the government to make the decision as to who can speak, so I end up joining the US Supreme Court in its’ classically liberal position with respect to the First Amendment. Similarly, I endorse Voltaire’s actual quote – “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.” as well as the summary version usually attributed to Evelyn Hall: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

    I would disagree with you slightly on your analysis of Trump on 4 points:
    (i) Mass media – Trump clearly does not control the media – otherwise,we would not have seen quite so many shots taken once he became the nominee. If you don’t think a number of major media outlets have not shown bias against Trump, then I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. Now, from your perspective, he may deserve everything they are saying – but I assume you are familiar with the Jim Rutenberg quote: “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”

    (ii) Corporate Power – Trump himself is a wealthy man. As such, he may have the virtue of not needing the Corporate Power post-Presidency to become wealthy. Some of his positions, especially in connection with immigration, are directly opposed by most of the traditional Main Street chamber of commerce types. Trump is coming in not as a corporate type but as a populist. He is not backed by many of the usual suspects – like the Koch brothers.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-koch-idUSKCN10C2W8
    http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35713168
    Trump has clearly received less in the way of donations from Goldman Sachs than, say, Hillary.
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/goldman-sachs-bans-top-staff-from-donating-to-trump-reports-2016-09-07-91031857
    So, between Trump and Hillary, I’d actually predict corporate power would be less protected by Trump.

    (iii) Cronyism – You are making much of Trump taking meetings and threatening to purge Obama hires. This is one where I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to support your current hypothesis. Unfortunately, this one is anyone’s guess. Trump may be a truly “clean broom” or he may appoint cronies. We don’t know yet. I would tend to submit that we do know more about Hillary’s record – and starting with the White House travel office controversy back in the day to her latest Clinton Foundation cash-for-access antics, what we know is not good.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/14/editorial-hillary-clintons-history-of-cronyism/

    (iv) Fraudulent elections – If anyone is rigging the elections, I do not think it is Trump. Now, there maybe some hacking-type attempts on the voting machines – but we have no way of knowing today which way that will cut. The only evidence to date I’ve heard on voting fraud in the primaries suggests that Hillary was the beneficiary:
    http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/
    See also –
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438981/donald-trump-voter-fraud-warning-hes-right-media-philadelphia-pennsylvania
    (and historically, the dead vote in Chicago has been reported as non-trivial and in favor of the Democratic party).

  19. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    He’s actually planning on going all the way to the source and repealing or ignoring the First Amendment….

  20. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    Hi. You seem to be lost. Red State is that way: ———————–>

    But you make a few good points. The Left has thrown the Fascist/Nazi card when it was inappropriate. I have cautioned against this from as long as I have been political, because of this very thing. I always suggested that one should study Fascism and Nazism first before throwing the term, and when you do, throw it with supporting evidence. I’d accuse Bush and Cheney of pandering to little-f fascists, for sure, but I’d caution that the GOP and Fascism are removed from each other, by enough to make the comparison absurd to all but the most ideologically blinded.

    But it’s 2016 now. Trump is outright Big-F Fascist. And like I suggested back in the Aughts when people were throwing out the accusations, here is my evidence. It’s long, mind you, but the bottom line is that Trump hits solidly on 12 of the 14 characteristics of Fascism, and hits tangentially on the 13th. And if he wins, he gets a shot at the 14th.

    And like John said, the Alt-Right is a product of the shock-posting sh!tfest that is 4chan. They send pictures designed to stun people, including Goatze, 2 Girls One Cup, and…well, nazi pictures. And you’re here defending them. Congratulations. That’s what you stand for. :)

    On second thought, don’t go to RedState. They take a dim view of being associated with that kind of filth. Free Republic…no, 4Chan /pol/ would be better for you. ;)

  21. Houndentenor says:

    I was hoping he’d answer but of course he wussed out. Typical.

    I hear these shitstains talk about preserving European culture and the like and I want them to say what they mean because I don’t get a sense that they mean opera, ballet, symphonic music and classical theater. Of course there are all kinds of non-white people who participate in all of those things. I”m a musician. I care if you can play or sing. My standards are too high to give a crap about how much pigment is in your skin. What a stupid thing to care about. Only someone who is incredibly small minded holds that as any kind of measure of a person’s worth.

  22. WellThatWasEdgy says:

    It’s not about “my particular strain”, it’s a simple statement of fact. The alt right was conceived as an ethno-nationalist movement. Milo doesn’t identify as an ethno-nationalist (or as an alt rightist), so it stands to reason to say that he isn’t a “member” of it, and certainly isn’t a leader or node of influence in it.

  23. Luth Stirner says:

    Well, if you think about what kind of white people this “ethno-nationalist” identity politics appeals to, it’s clearly not most white people. Like many fringe ideologies it’s very appealing to young men. Just like young men of non-white backgrounds are more suceptable to other extremist ideologies. Social immaturity, disillusionment following and exacerbated by a deeper sense of entitlement, a still-developing frontal lobe.. these are the risk factors.

  24. Luth Stirner says:

    lol please enlighten us on the subtle nuances of your particular strain of alt-rightism

    i didn’t realize there were alt-right hipsters. “i was a racist piece of shit before it was cool on 4chan”

  25. Doug105 says:

    Yes but they won’t whisper Ayn Rand’s sweet words about job creators during sex.

  26. Houndentenor says:

    “…at the end of the day he just wants to troll obese SJWs out of a compulsion for attention and clicks.”

    Well, I can’t disagree with you there! LOL

    But why would I base my “identity” on race? Or rather, why would race be at the top of my list of how I think of myself?

  27. WellThatWasEdgy says:

    In large part because he doesn’t identify as alt right, and also because the alt right is fundamentally an ethno-nationalist phenomenon. It’s not merely about being politically incorrect, or trolling, or being critical about immigration or feminism, but about creating an entirely new mode of discourse in American politics , one grounded in race and identity. Milo is not particularly interested in that- at the end of the day he just wants to troll obese SJWs for out of a compulsion for attention and clicks.

  28. Veratus Maximus says:

    I always know Milo sucked. But I didn’t know he sucked for money.

  29. Donnakbach says:

    Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !st200f:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    !st200f:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash500WebConnectGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!st200f:….,……

  30. Donnakbach says:

    Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !st200f:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    !st200f:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash500WebConnectGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!st200f:….,…..

  31. MarkM says:

    Clarence Thomas has an interesting philosophy about questions from the bench. Historically, he hasn’t like them and prefers the written papers. If you want to find his thoughts, you have to go to his decisions – and he has authored a significant number of them.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/thomas.dec.html
    In the last term alone, he filed 30 dissents and concurrences – more than any other justice. I’ve had the privilege of hearing him speak to a conference of lawyers and yes, I regard him as a leader worth listening to.

  32. Kim says:

    This boy is lying.

  33. Akiko Shibari says:

    “Jeff Gannon”, Steve Bannon. What is their relationship? It would be irresponsible NOT to speculate!

  34. Houndentenor says:

    Speaking of…where’s Melania? She has not been seen since the convention.

  35. Houndentenor says:

    Hirsi Ali is an important voice. The rest of your list are jokes to anyone with any sense. Clarence Thomas? The man who has barely spoken from the bench in the past 20+ years? That’s your idea of a leader? What a laugh.

  36. Houndentenor says:

    Given that it’s Milo, who knows what’s true or not. I’d guess not. He must think that getting $20k for sex is something to brag about, as if that were even a believable story.

  37. Houndentenor says:

    You mean like they paid David Brock back in the 90s to make up shit about Anita Hill and Hillary Clinton and attribute it to sources? Yes, I believe that.

    Milo has taken Ann Coulter’s act and coked it up to mammouth dimensions. He uses all the techniques he deplores on the right and then exploits the outrage that results to fuel his popularity among the sick fucks that follow him. And everyone keeps playing along.

  38. Houndentenor says:

    Could you explain why he’s not alt-right?

  39. Houndentenor says:

    I find this story a little hard to believe. Not that Milo is above such a thing. His coke habit along must be expensive! But that someone willing to pay that much for sex couldn’t do a LOT better!

  40. “But I’ve spent so much of my lifetime hearing the Left characterize any movement on to their right as fascist, bigoted and hateful that I tend to take those accusations with more than a grain of salt.”

    You’re right about that. People on the far left were always far too prone to cry “fascist, Nazi!” Then the Alt-Right came alone and started sending Jews online pictures of Nazi Germany, Nazis, concentration camps, ovens. And suddenly, the Nazi monicker fits. I’ve seen the tweets, I’ve received the tweets even though I’m not even Jewish. They embrace Hitler, revere Nazi Germany, praise the Holocaust, and throw it all in Jews’ faces. They’re literally Nazis.

  41. Milo also, allegedly, thinks he makes $10,000 a night. I’ve found that it’s often best to take what people say with a grain of salt. One of the Alt-Right’s signature moves is pretending this is all a game. So being their spokesman while denying any connection would be consistent.

  42. You’re with the alt-right, so I suspect you’ve read things much more homophobic ;) But thanks for pretending to care about civil rights.

  43. Okay, though I’d be curious if Milo signed any statements promising not to work here, claiming he never committed any crimes, etc.

  44. AT most he’s written a few articles? Seriously?

  45. He says he got paid $10,000 for sex too. He says a lot of things. Clearly this is someone where one must cut through his many statements and find the truth. From Bloomberg News:

    As Donald J. Trump has become the candidate of the alt-right, Breitbart News has become the movement’s voice. The two merged semiofficially in August, when Breitbart’s chief executive officer, Steve Bannon, quit his job to run Trump’s campaign. And Yiannopoulos, whose byline on the site is simply “Milo,” is Breitbart’s most radioactive star.

    “Milo is the person who propelled the alt-right movement into the mainstream,” says Heidi Beirich, who directs the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups and describes the term “alt-right” as “a conscious rebranding by white nationalists that doesn’t automatically repel the mainstream.” Beirich says she’s not even sure if Yiannopoulos believes in the alt-right’s tenets or just found a juvenile way to mix internet culture and extreme ideology to get attention. “It’s like he’s joking: ‘Ha ha, let me popularize the worst ideas that ever existed,’ ” she says. “That’s new, and that’s scary.”

  46. Actually, I looked into that angle, and added this to my story a day or so ago:

    Finally, I’ve spoken to a source familiar with the escort business in Los Angeles, DC, NYC, Las Vegas and London. They assure me that the top professional escorts in Los Angeles only get half of the $10,000 alleged in the Bloomberg article. And that’s over a period of weekend. The source added: “And those guys are Abercrombie & Fitch type supermodels. Milo would be lucky to get $200.”

  47. goulo says:

    Thanks. Still, that “it’s hate speech” reaction to “Make America Great Again” seems kind of fringe (as far as I’ve noticed). I only recall seeing him being accused of saying America is not great now, anti-patriotism, etc. as a response to that slogan.

    When I see people talk about hate speech, racism, homophobia, etc in Trump’s campaign, it’s generally about very concrete examples which direct talk about Muslims or whatever, not about this vague “MAGA” slogan.

    But indeed, it seems you can find examples of people accusing anything of being hate speech. :)

  48. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    My question was relevant to me.

    Where do I come out on the issue of marriage equality? Well, I have a great husband. Nuff said?

    “I do not believe the definition of marriage should be up at the Federal level. This issue should be decided at the state level under state law.

    There are many states that would still have miscegenation laws if the federal government hadn’t make a decision about defining marriage. Do you feel that would be okay?

    Why do I prefer to call my union marriage instead of a civil union? Why should I want to be a marginalized citizen. If I accepted civil unions, I would be saying that I wasn’t as good as straights. Besides, I’m certain the two adopted children I had with my late husband would like to think that Dad and Papi were married.

    Churches cannot be forced to officiate over same gender marriage. The government basically cannot force a church to do anything. The proof is my first husband and I were married in a Lutheran church before marriage equality existed in our state. The government could not stop it.

    “a “married” same sex couple

    Those quotation marks answered my original question.

  49. goulo says:

    > “Make America Great Again” was not hate speech when Bill Clinton used
    the slogan while campaigning in 1992, was not hate speech when Reagan
    used the slogan for the 1980 election and is not hate speech today in
    Trump’s hands.

    I agree; but I honestly don’t recall anyone saying that “Make America Great Again” was hate speech in Trump’s hands. (Can you give any links to someone calling that slogan hate speech? I sincerely don’t remember ever seeing it.)

    Rather, people have said various OTHER things which Trump or his supporters say are (often pretty obvious) examples hate speech (e.g. that no Muslims should be allowed entry into the US, that Mexico is sending rapists into the US, and that kind of stuff).

    (Granted, some have criticized Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan as unpatriotic or whatever for implying that America is not great now, which I find a bit silly and hypocritical given its history of use by various candidates of both major parties, but that is not at all the same thing as calling it hate speech.)

  50. Graceldowning3 says:

    Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !sr256f:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    !sr256f:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash556DigitalOceanGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!sr256f:….,…..

  51. Graceldowning3 says:

    Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !sr256f:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    !sr256f:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash556DigitalOceanGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!sr256f:….,….

  52. MarkM says:

    I’m not sure as to the relevance of the question in this context. What do you think is the current conservative position versus what is the current alt right position on that issue? And given you’ve stated your orientation elsewhere, where do you come out on that issue?Frankly, this is an issue that I’m not sure there is a good answer that is going to make everyone happy. And I don’t want my answer to foreclose the possibility of recruiting folks from the LBGT community over to the conservative cause …. Look at it this way – US conservatives are still far more LGBT friendly than most of the Muslim world (but that is admittedly a VERY low standard).

    To answer your question, however, my position is as follows. (i) I do not believe the definition of marriage should be up at the Federal level. This issue should be decided at the state level under state law. (ii) Historically, I’ve always I supported the concept that some kind of civil union should be available with all of the equivalent legal rights and responsibilities as a marriage – just a different name. Given the resulting push back, I’ve never seen a tactical advantage in pushing to call it a marriage and some real possible disadvantages (like all of the law on common-law marriages for example). On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind if the state changed the terminology for everyone and got out of the “marriage” business. In France, for example, a civil union is created in a civil ceremony and the marriage in a separate religious one (but the civil union is required to be in place first). (iii) I don’t think the concept of a gay marriage or civil union undermines straight marriages more than the easy divorce laws already do. (iv) That being said, I’m not supportive of requiring a church which does not recognize gay marriage perform one, nor am I supportive of forcing a baker to make a specialty cake for that wedding with 2 grooms or 2 brides on top. (Similarly, Catholic Charities do a lot of good in the world – even if they won’t support a “married” same sex couple adopting for example.) On the other hand, that same baker should not be able to refuse service (sell to the couple) if the cake is not specifically customized with respect to the religiously objectionable activity …

  53. quax says:

    Well, I guess Western values are a bit in the eye of the beholder. I am German, living in Canada, and to me a core Western value is the emancipation of the Western world from religion. And while freedom of speech is an important pillar of all Western societies, only the US made it completely sacrosanct (something Trump wants to change BTW by remaking US libel law).

    In Canada there is the legal concept of hate speech, and in Germany as a result from WW2, Nazi propaganda is a criminal offense (i.e. denying the Holocaust will get you in jail if you try to publish on that or popularize that view).

    Back in the day, I was actually quite taken by Reagan, and I cannot fathom what the GOP turned into. I don’t throw the term “Fascist” around lightly, but watching the recent speech Trump gave on immigration is simply frightening. Scapegoating a minority, and instilling hatred for it like he did when he pumped up the crowd is despicable. And yes, intentional or not, it is very reminiscent of the kind of mass events that accompanied the rise of fascism in Germany.

  54. APracticalMan says:

    Homosexuals have a propensity for mental illness and Milo Yiannopoulos is obviously afflicted. Given the bitterness of their lifestyle, I’m not surprised when they turn on their own.

  55. Liora51 says:

    No but I sure have noticed that Trump uses a lot of women like toilet tissue. And that the press treats his lies like they are no more important than his whoring.

  56. Jason Willis says:

    You are hilarious. Please keep talking, the screenshots are priceless.

  57. Jason Willis says:

    A little touchy, eh? Be very careful when you reply lol

  58. WellThatWasEdgy says:

    I don’t object to the idea of leaders, but Milo isn’t one of them and he isn’t alt right to begin with.

  59. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Well, that is interesting. Do you just object to the word “leader”, or do you feel he’s not alt-right?

  60. WellThatWasEdgy says:

    Because I identify as an alt rightist (more or less), and I think it’s important to demarcate between who can genuinely be called alt right and who cannot.

  61. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Wow. This must be important to you. Why?

  62. WellThatWasEdgy says:

    I can’t believe no one has made what should be an obvious observation, namely that there is no way that Milo is worth 10k/night. He isn’t an attractive man by most standards and beyond that is extremely effeminate. Gay sugar daddies drop big money on early 20-something gym rats struggling to pay off student loans, not on mid 30s queens who look like a rejected character form a 90s sitcom

  63. WellThatWasEdgy says:

    He isn’t a leader in the alt right whatsoever. At most he has written a few articles that chronicled it’s origins and ideas (which where problematic anyways), but people in the alt right don’t consider him to be a leader of the movement.

  64. d3clark says:

    Are you forgetting your comment about HRC below? That sounds like an attack to me.

  65. Moderator3 says:

    Don’t let the screen door hit your butt on the way out.

  66. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I could say I’m not gay. I would be lying, but I could say it.

  67. trytoseeitmyway says:

    I didn’t attack anyone. I sad the article was homophobic. You classified it as an attack, and said, “Be careful of your next move.” So obviously that’s using your power to prevent me from elaborating. You’re less a moderator than a bully, right? Now you invite me to develop my point, while leaving the implied threat in place. “Luke, it’s a trap!”

  68. Milo is not the leader of the alt right. He even says that himself.

  69. Moderator3 says:

    Go for it.

  70. trytoseeitmyway says:

    I’d explain but Moderator 3 has threatened me.

  71. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Man! I’m glad I’m not Canadian, because I would be inadmissible. I certainly can’t afford those fees.

  72. Hue-Man says:

    John, comments below ignore the wide latitude the U.S. ICE officials exercise in dealing with foreigners and how little is based on “normal” ideas of evidence. A Canadian’s experience at the U.S. border has received wide coverage.

    [Matthew] Harvey has not been excluded for having a criminal record, or for trying to smuggle drugs into the U.S. He’s being punished for providing a seemingly harmless answer to a question posed by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection service.

    “They said that I was inadmissible because I admitted to smoking marijuana after the age of 18 and before I’d received my medical marijuana licence,” he said.

    He’s been banned for life from entering the U.S. (and, yes, the computer controls do work at land and airport entry points).

    For the rest of his life, Harvey must now apply for advance permission to enter the U.S. as a non-immigrant. The travel waiver, which costs $585 US ($750 Cdn), is granted on a discretionary basis, which means it may be good for a year, or two, or five, depending on the
    discretion of the approval officer.

    When the waiver expires, Harvey will have to apply again and pay the fee, again, which is going up to $930 US ($1,200 Cdn) later this year.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pot-border-banned-waiver-1.3752278

  73. Veratus Maximus says:

    I always knew Yiannopoulos sucked. But I didn’t know he literally sucked for money.

  74. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    No, I read your comment history like the ones on “PCGamer.

  75. Zed Clampet says:

    Way to make sense. Just keep typing words.

  76. Zed Clampet says:

    Did you learn about generalizing about people from your poor retarded momma?

  77. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I’m not certain where you stand on same gender marriage? Can you give a definite statement?

  78. MarkM says:

    Maybe I’m attributing virtue to the alt-right that isn’t there. That is possible. But I’ve spent so much of my lifetime hearing the Left characterize any movement on to their right as fascist, bigoted and hateful that I tend to take those accusations with more than a grain of salt. The insanity that passes for “reasoned discourse” feels like it is right out of 1984 in some ways. “Make America Great Again” was not hate speech when Bill Clinton used the slogan while campaigning in 1992, was not hate speech when Reagan used the slogan for the 1980 election and is not hate speech today in Trump’s hands. And if this means I’ve allied myself with thugs in the name of protecting and expanding freedom, I can live with that better than I could with betraying my basic values.

    To answer the question you did not ask, I tend to characterize myself as solidly conservative (for US values of conservative, of course). And yes, I do believe in those Western values – like the value of family, the necessity of protecting free speech even if it is speech I would spend my life opposing, the virtues of basic Judaeo/Christian morality, the efficiency and desirability of small/distributed government, admiration and support for the separation of powers within the government to prevent tyranny, an originalist approach to reading and interpreting the US Constitution, an individual right to keep and bear arms, etc.

    The only places I depart from the conservative mainstream tend to be where I are more libertarian. While I believe Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (as it should be a state-level issue), at the state level, I also support a woman’s right to have an abortion prior to the fetus becoming technically viable outside of the mother. As long as things between 2 adults remain consensual, I tend to support the results reached via a broader reading of the right to privacy – though, once again, I don’t tend to regard that as a mandate from the US Constitution but rather one we should be pressing our elected representatives to follow. Similarly, I suspect the “War on Drugs” hasn’t worked and philosophically have problems with the usual justifications for criminalizing both drugs and prostitution – though arguably most such justifications are well within the Western Legal tradition.

    So, do my Western values have any points of commonality with the alt-right? As long as the alt-right is in its current posture and not controlling the government, I suspect we’d find at least a couple of points of agreement – (i) the perception that our currently overreaching Federal government needs to be trimmed back, (ii) the need to protect free speech and push back against PC speech codes, (iii) the undesirability of most affirmative-action type programs based on race, (iv) opposition to continued expansion of the welfare state, and (v) disdain for the Black Lives Matters movement as currently constituted. (The latest betrayal of BLM’s underlying constituency in connection with the charter schools issue drives me a little nuts, actually, but that’s not just a different subject, it is an entirely different volume.) I can see enough points of alignment that even if it turns out Trump has allied with the alt right, I can vote for him over Hillary (or any subsequent candidate put up by the DNC if it comes to that) in good conscience. Trump was not my choice at the primary level, but now that he has the nomination, he has my support.

  79. Moderator3 says:

    You have posted this over 30 times on the internet. That makes you a spammer.

  80. Moderator3 says:

    This is your first time here, and you begin your visit by attacking. Be careful of your next move.

  81. Phil in FLL says:

    So far, that’s a waste of keystrokes, which you’ll realize when you read your comment over again.

  82. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Did you learn about being a moron in all your gaming experience?

  83. Zed Clampet says:

    Funny. This article is written by someone who appears to be a moron in ways I didn’t even think were possible.

  84. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Why is this homophobic? Is selling your ass something that all gay man do? If it is, will I lose my gay card for not selling mine? I’ve been gay for a long, long time, and have only met one guy who was selling his.

  85. trytoseeitmyway says:

    You noticed how Hillary whored out the State Department, right?

  86. trytoseeitmyway says:

    This is one of the most homophobic articles I have read in a long time.

  87. quax says:

    The only commonality between your Western values and the alt-right ones, is that they share the first letter.

    (At least for your sake I hope so).

  88. quax says:

    Perfectly in character.

  89. Daniel Duerst says:

    Check out the INSANE footage of the anti Milo Yiannopoulos protest at DePaul University. MUST WATCH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn-l3C8kn94&list=PLoQTg3myRNTeBbH_wcuw6VEX77ZiFst8H

  90. GeorgeMokray says:

    “They are telling this of Lord Beaverbrook and a visiting Yankee actress. In a game of hypothetical questions, Beaverbrook asked the lady: ‘Would you live with a stranger if he paid you one million pounds?’ She said she would. ‘And if he paid you five pounds?’ The irate lady fumed: ‘Five pounds. What do you think I am?’ Beaverbrook replied: ‘We’ve already established that. Now we are trying to determine the degree.”

    Source: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling/ (and Milo Y)

  91. MarkM says:

    Milo doesn’t think he leads the alt-right movement in case you missed that. That is also clear in the article. Having the current administration ban Milo from re-entering the United States on such flimsy grounds would generate a huge amount of publicity – publicity of exactly the sort that I suspect Milo would find useful in his advocacy. How exactly again would that not be playing precisely into what Milo wants? (I can just see him arranging for appearances via skype/facetime/etc… can’t you?)

    I also take exception to characterizing the entire alt-right as “neo-nazis”. There are clearly some members of the alt-right which are not “new” nazis – they, in fact, are classical nazis in the worst sense of that term. (I believe Milo himself called this group the 1488 crowd in his article describing the alt-right:
    http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/ ).
    There are also a variety of other folks – some of whom come from the manosphere in reaction to the excesses of feminism, some of whom just have a rebellious spirit and no respect for authority (troll brigade), what Milo calls natural conservatives (mostly folks who actively are concerned with the downsides of change and the rapid rate of change), etc.

    For myself, I think the current defenders/members of the alt-right are making a mistake when talking about “white” culture when they should be focusing on the defense of the broader “Western culture”. I’ve said this before in various discussions, actually. More specifically, in the fight for liberty and against the Left in the United States, I recognize such luminaries as Somalian-born writer and human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, Representative Tim Scott of South Carolina, and Piyush “Bobby” Jindal as natural allies and voices of reason. I really do not care where their ancestors each came from on the globe. Each of these is a potential ally in the fight to preserve and sustain Western culture.

    Just my 2 cents.

  92. Yes, but you’re giving examples of apolitical people talking about their past. Milo, who is one of the leaders of a modern day neo-nazi movement, is allegedly talking about 4 months ago. And he gave no indication that, if the Bloomberg allegations are true, of changing his ways. You have to realize he’s a huge political target right now. And his ongoing need for publicity will likely only makes things worse. Washington is very unforgiving to people who soar too high in self-promotion, famously going back to Mike Deaver, but I’m sure there are others as well. And the criminal justice system is very unforgiving of people who lead neo-Nazi movements — just as David Duke. I don’t think what he’s doing is wise, but time will tell.

  93. MarkM says:

    Hm … even if he committed the crime, the probability of the US banning him for that reason is relatively low. Given his political profile, someone might try to prosecute him on these grounds – but I’d be shocked if that went anywhere.

    As to not bragging or admitting of about a crime, I’m not sure where you’ve been the last 10-15 years or so. There are more than a couple examples of celebrities which have done just that ….

    In her book, Lena Dunham describes examining her sister Grace’s genitals when they were children out of curiosity, bribing her with candy for kisses and casually masturbating while lying in bed next to her. She explicitly characterized herself as a sexual predator. (She has since apologized for her “insensitive” language.) As far as I can tell, her story telling has not harmed her career (much to the disgust of the Right).

    In a 1994 Vanity Fair cover story, television and tabloid star Roseanne Barr (Roseanne Arnold at the time) confessed to Kevin Sessums that she had worked as a prostitute in her twenties, turning tricks in a mall parking lot.

    James Lipton made headlines when he revealed to Parade magazine that he used to work as a pimp in the 1950s.

    Al Pacino used to be a kept man in his younger days. He said, “At 20, I lived in Sicily by selling the only asset I had — my body. An older woman traded food and housing in return for sex.”

    Jay Z has never shied away from talking about his former drug-dealing past. In 2009, Jay told Oprah Winfrey, “You become addicted to the feeling, the uncertainty and adrenaline and danger of that lifestyle.” He is by no means the only one – there are clearly a number of self-admitted ex-drug dealers in the rap game.

    Snoop Lion admitted to Rolling Stone magazine that he used to work as a pimp, and this was after he had already become a celebrity.

    Dr. Maya Angelou, when she was fairly young, worked as a prostitute and brothel manager, activities which she describes candidly in her 1974 memoir Gather Together In My Name.

    When publicizing his latest film at the time, Rupert Everett admitted in 1997 that he “sort of fell into” prostitution after being approached outside a London Tube station and worked as a “rent boy”.

    Idris Elba revealed in the October 2013 issue of GQ that he used to deal drugs when he was a struggling actor in NYC.

  94. Craig says:

    Hateful pearl wearing little fruitcake!

  95. I didn’t fall for anything. Bloomberg alleges that Milo just confessed to a crime that could get him banned from the US for life. I’m thinking if Milo was lying, and bragging, then he may have made a huge mistake. One does not brag about a crime.

  96. MarkM says:

    You do realize that Milo specializes in being outrageous, yes? I tend to regard this as master level trolling. For what it is worth, you are the not the first to fall for it.

    That being said:
    (a) It would not shock me if certain US conservatives were financially supporting Milo’s efforts. Historically, he has been effective at reaching a younger demographic than the current average conservative.
    (b) It would not shock me if Milo had sex with some of his US supporters. For better or ill, Milo is a celebrity of a sort and that has historically been one of the perks accompanying such celebrity.

    Milo is clearly a smart guy. I really doubt there was an explicit (or even implicit) quid-pro-quo between the donation and the sex in question. So congrats, you just gave Milo what he wanted.

  97. Patriciatwagner1 says:

    Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !rs415f:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    !rs415f:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash665DirectCommerceGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!rs415f:….,….

  98. So Milo is a mooch and a whore. I’m not surprised.

  99. Liora51 says:

    Seems like a lot of whoring goes on in the Alt right.

  100. Richard Williams says:

    What Milo really means is that no one at the bar wanted to go back to his hotel with him. So, out of desperation Milo offered the only man left in the bar 10K to go with him. It didn’t matter that the man was 60 (as I am). The second night and second 10K was just a figment of Milo’s imagination.

  101. Tigernan Quinn says:

    There’s no way this is true – there are actual, attractive rent boys out there for many fewer dollars.

  102. Zorba says:

    And so are you. :-)

  103. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Thank you. He really is a great guy.

  104. Canadian Observer says:

    I know I shouldn’t, but….

    “$10,000? Is that the going rate for a scat bottom these days?”

  105. Zorba says:

    Now, now, Mike, trust your husband. Since he’s with you, it obviously shows that he has much better taste than running after someone like Milo.

  106. AussieB says:

    Are Trump or Bannon the sugar daddies

  107. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    It doesn’t matter if it’s $25 or $10,000, he’s still a whore. I really don’t have a problem with someone prostituting themselves, but I prefer they admit it.

    Now I’m going to check our bank account and see what my husband was doing the last of May.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS