A Brief Word on the Milo Paedophilia Scandal

There have been a few major events over the last few months that if I wasn’t such a lazy bum who has little inclination to post anything here anymore I should really have commented upon.  One such event, of course, was Donald Tump’s victory. Yes, I believe the online men’s rights movement – that the much missed and loved Angry Harry created – was at least a butterfly that did play a role in the storm that ultimately swept Trump to office.

Another notable event occurred last week, not of such obvious significance as America being made great again, but perhaps of much more relevance to our little corner of the Manosphere –  the witchhunt against Milo Yiannopoulos for ‘pro paedophilia’ comments he made in a podcast a year ago and only recently ‘exposed’.

I jestingly accused Milo of being a paedocrite here just a couple of weeks ago in a rather remarkably prescient satirical article I posted on the ‘rescue’ of young looking sex dolls by British police.

The intensely emotional scene was rudely interrupted by a question from Milo Yanapopolopohomolos, editor of controversial ‘alt-right’ news site ‘BriteFart’. Milo asked if it was obscene that the police were devoting so much resources to rescue young looking sex dolls when they had ignored the horrific rape by Muslim grooming gangs of thousands of real underage girls in towns such as Rotherham. Milo also asked if the police arresting ‘paedophiles’ for having sex with dolls was misguided when such dolls are clearly a substitute for real ‘children’. Indeed, did this not clearly prove the point of The Anti-feminist’ that paedohysteria is not about protecting children from abuse, but about protecting the older women’s ‘pussy cartel’? Milo was immediately arrested for Islamophobia and suspected paedophilia and later sentenced to life in prison. Only he wasn’t, because he’s a paedocrite himself, overcompensating at every turn for being a homosexual head of a right-wing movement.

The reason I called out Milo was that he has something of a history of accusing SJW opponents of being ‘pro-paedophilia’, even doxxing one in particular.  As indicated in my article, this is not surprising perhaps as the overtly homosexual head of an alternative right movement seeking acceptance in the God Fearing US of A.  I was unaware of the podcast.  I do know that Milo has taken a look at this site in the past, at least in relation to my own exposure of David Futrelle as a complete paedocrite subhuman.  And his comments on his podcast certainly mirror the arguments that we have resolutely tried to shout into the wind against the American paedohysteric hijackers of the MRM such as Paul Elam.  The essential idea that sexual attraction towards post-pubescents is not paedophilia, is not ‘ephebophilia’, but is simply being a man.

I haven’t listened to the complete podcast.  As far as I know, Milo – the world’s most famous anti-feminist – didn’t mention the age of consent in connection to the fact that it was feminists who raised it to 16 (or 18) in the USA and UK in the Victorian era with the specific aim of ‘controlling male sexuality’.  As far as I know, Milo didn’t mention that in the UK, Victorian feminists raised the age of consent to 16 (and tried to have it set at 21) in the very same parliamentary bill that criminalized homosexuality as an offence punishable by death. More’s the pity.

Milo quickly and unsurprisingly found himself ostracized by the American conservative establishment.  His planned speech at one of their prestigious institutions cancelled, his book deal dropped.  For a few days, Milo’s ‘apology’ was rather vague.  Of course he denounced child abuse, paedophilia etc.  Well, everybody at this site does too.  We just don’t accept the feminist sex cartel’s definitions of child abuse or paedophilia.

However, a week later, and a million extra Facebook followers later, he’s become a little more specific in his apologies.  He himself was abused by a subhuman paedophile at the ripe old age of 16 (legal in every civilized country except half of the USA).  Maybe the American conservatives who would like to see sodomites hung from the noose will forgive him after all?  Maybe his publishers will relent if he makes clear that the age of consent should be 21, in line with the latest femihag NGO recommendations (Equal, of course, for homosexuals and heterosexuals)?

What the Milo scandal has made clear is that the alt-right needs to sweep away the Conservative establishment, not burrow their nose in its wrinkly ass hoping for acceptance.  The Alt-right, influenced by the ideas of the MRM and more generally, the Manosphere/Red-Pill online movement, is a new Conservative Libertarian home for the generation brought up on hardcore tube porn, the brutal secular truths of evolutionary science, and the future promise of sexbots and holographic girlfriends.  There’s no going back to 1950’s America, and there’s no going forward with the lies of feminism and the Social Justice ‘Progressives’. Paedohysteria is one of the greatest of those lies and one of the most damaging to all the things that anyone with a real understanding of the word ‘Conservative’ should value.  It is a colossal lie that is only maintained by the kind of intimidatory witchhunts for anyone speaking against it that we just witnessed with Milo. Despite this, it will be one of the first lies to fall, and the scandal of last week should have been a defining moment in its fall. Sadly, Milo didn’t quite hold his nerve.

“In the future, everybody world-famous will be accused of paedophilia for 15 minutes”

(Andy Whorehole – 1968)


12 thoughts on “A Brief Word on the Milo Paedophilia Scandal”

  1. But the alt-righters, such as some Neoreactionaries, /pol/, White Nationalists, MyPostingCareer, National Socialists, twitter trolls, Paleoconservatives, dissident Trad-Cons, not to mention many “MRAs”, are convinced that there is an active, international, well-organized conspiracy to “normalize and legalize pedophilia”.

    They believe this is the next thing on the Left’s agenda. And as we all know, by “pedophilia” they mean horny 14 year old teenagers with developed breasts and hair on their pussies having sex with their 18 year old boyfriend/ONS in a club *AS WELL AS* 50 year old homosexual perverts raping kindergarten-age kids.

    They (pretend to) see absolutely no difference between those 2 things, and if you argue that the “age of consent” should be lowered to, say, 12 — or abolished altogether, as had been the state of affairs in the entire world a few centuries ago, before the Angloes came up with the concept, back when sane courts were allowed to exercise judgement regarding the “innocence” or lack thereof of sex-hungry teenagers — all those groups I mentioned would call you a “degenerate” and a “pedophile” and henceforth disregard all your arguments. You can’t argue with them that the age of consent should be abolished, or lowered to 12, 13, 14, or even 15 — and you’ll have much more success arguing that it should be raised to 21.

    At this point it’s probably for the best if the Conservative-Feminist Coalition manages to raise it to 21. I want every blue-pilled normie to see the absurdity of the situation. Let them raise it to 25 “just in case”. You know – to “protect the children”. If all men, every single male, be regarded as sex criminals, that would do more to collapse the entire system than futile discussions about the legitimacy of “hebophilia” or whatever. Let it all burn, I say.

    These alt-right groups are supposedly composed of intelligent people, yet for all their high IQ, their thinking on this issue is wholly binary rather than probablistic. If one thinks probablistically, one realizes that a case-by-case approach to teen sex is the most logical, that perhaps 5% of 12 year old teens are willing to have sex, and 1% of 11 year olds, and 0.2% of 10 year olds, and therefore, instead of having an “age of consent” law, you take this very extreme case of a 10 year old teen who had sex with a male, say, 3 years older than her, and judge whether or not she was “innocent”, or belonged to those 0.2% of teens at this age who masturbate to orgasm every day and fantasize about sex. You can then punish, or not punish, based on what is discovered about the teen. Case by case.

    Now when these geniuses hear such a proposal, all their brains can hear is “this guy thinks it’s sometimes okay for 10 year olds to have sex, therefore he thinks it’s always okay for them to have sex, therefore he supports them having sex”. When in fact, it’s very clear I think 99.8% of 10 year olds are not willing to have sex, and I deliberately picked up this age because it’s controversial, to prove the point that it’s not a “yes-no” case, but rather, “yes” for some, “no” for others.

    A reminder, by the way, that in many countries when such laws were introduced, the age set was indeed 10, because they were realistic enough to realize that in those very rare situations when 10 year olds end up having sex, it is sometimes because they sexually matured early (some women have their first periods very early in life), and were horny and curious to try sex for the first time. And sometimes not. Recall that up until the late twenties, female brains are 4 years older than male brains in terms of development, so in this case, a 10 year old female is on the same mental level as a 14 year old male.

    Well at this point all the ed-hominems come out, because it is assumed that if one is willing to “go there”, that is, to consider extreme scenarios in a thought-experiment, well, obviously he has personally raped — anally — several dozen young teens, just before breakfast this very morning. I should not be making this disclaimer, but no, I don’t find 10 year olds attractive – my whole motivation here is proposing that if two teens aged 10 (female) and 10-13 (male) fuck each other enthusiastically, which happens very rarely, but still does happen, then no one should be punished for it, because there is no victim, just horny teens doing their thing. So there shouldn’t be an “age of consent” law – only case by case. Or perhaps set it at 9 or 10, if you must have such a law, because the judge can’t tell between a girl who likes playing with dolls, and a “girl” who is dripping wet between her legs and wants to experiment with a “boy” who is around here age.

    Btw, HBD (human biodiversity) should tell you that while among white females, something like 0.2% of 10 y/os would be willing to have sex, among 10 y/o black females, who usually mature earlier, that percentage is probably more like 1% or 2%.

    Now try making this argument to alt-righters and see the results. There is no hope on the alt-right on this issue, unfortunately. In fact, among non-MRA-affiliated websites, only at blog.jim, a NRx (Neoreaction) blog, can you propose these ideas without invoking the witch-hunters. Which is why other alt-righters call Jim a “pedophile”. Expectedly.

  2. I may have been in the MHRA for a short time, but I’ve never seen the Manosphere support people who have sex with children, nor I understand why we should do it.

    I doubt that being a man means being attracted to teenage kids, they are still in their adolescence, as a man I find it horrifying to even think about it. I’m not even attracted to women under 23 or 24, I like a mature woman who knows how to talk about something smart and have a stable relationship, not that she spend the day playing the xbox and talk about kid’s things.

    Which I think would be quite sensible, I do not think that a child under 21 is able to have a relationship, even with a peer, much less with a grown man, is demonstrated by psychology that brains do not develop until 23 or even 25, so they are unable to understand their long-term actions. There you see girls of only 18/19 in magazines like Playboy or Penthouse and then regretting to have done it, the worst are the men who are not even horrified by it. I personally denounce it.

    IMHO sex with a child of 16 is abuse and all society thinks same, even Milo agreed with that and I’m glad that this is being taken seriously, I dislike that some old MHRA tell me that before there were men who dating girls as young as 13 and nobody do anything to avoid it.

    I repeat, I am a grown man and I like grown women that is normal and natural, not underage children, if there are laws against sex with minors it’s just because it is understood that before 18 kids are vulnerable to perverts, nothing more.

  3. I’m not even attracted to women under 23 or 24,

    I stopped reading at that point. I’m pretty sure your comment must be satire. God help us if it’s not.

    And to the small band of regular readers I have left who still wonder why I don’t post here very often. It’s because usually when I do, I wake up in the morning after posting the night before and find the only comment here is something either from a complete paedocrite MHRA subhuman as above, or a femihag threatening to cut me into tiny pieces etc. If you read this blog, if you’re a real man, let your voice be heard now. Cheers.

  4. @Evans – Having read your comment in full, and having the best laugh I’ve had in ages, I’m pretty sure it’s obvious to everybody that you’re a woman. If you really are a man I’d put money on you being a hardcore paedophile. The Manosphere might be full of paedocrites but there is no way even the worst would use language such as :

    “I’m not even attracted to women under 23 or 24, I like a mature woman who knows how to talk about something smart and have a stable relationship, not that she spend the day playing the xbox and talk about kid’s things.”

    How sad is a woman posing as a guy in order to shame other guys for preferring younger females? Stop employing your Daddy State to imprison and rape men (and teenage girls) just because you can’t attract a decent mate in your life. You disgusting rapist feminist whore.

  5. Top cop argues that men who look at pics of topless 17 year old girls shouldn’t necessarily go to prison. Complete femihag meltdown and calls for him to be sacked.

  6. Interesting thread on ‘Slut Hate’ : http://sluthate.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1033577

    In Hungary, South America, Japan, Germany and most other countries, men dot on 13 to 14yo girls all the time. Nobody considers them pedophiles. Nobody.

    In the UK and USA and other feminist anti-male shitholes, if you even look at a picture of a 14yo in a state of undress, your accused of being a high risk child sexual predatory of toddlers and small children. Its utterly bizarre that people think such horrid things. Even in the UK and USA 40 to 50 years ago (when people were more sane and rational), nobody would even consider you a potential toddler rapist just for consuming (then-) legal adolescent female erotica such as the photographs by David Hamilton.

    Irrational Hysteria strongly condemns any low level sex crime such as looking at adolescent girl erotica (that has Zero victims, or buying a tween-sized rubber sex doll) and the climate of hatred perpetuated by our criminal justice system and misguided media that brings about these senseless acts of moral panics carried by paranoid pillocks based on zero scientific evidence to the contrary.

    It’s gotten so bad that we know see 14yo boys filming themselves with their 14yo girlfriends… and now these boys are arrested for federal child porn offences and called pedophiles and dangers to the public etc.

  7. I posted this article to reddit r/mensrights yesterday, expecting it to quickly get voted down by a sea of paedocrite MHRAs, or even removed, but it actually received 17+upvotes when I checked last night. Maybe things are getting better..

    On the subject of Angry Harry, one of my favourite memories of his blog is when he wrote about the thrill he gets from seeing a long e-mail or comment left from a feminist hag and he just clicks delete even without reading the first sentence. I just experienced that thrill again just now. Magical!

  8. Evans wrote:” I do not think that a child under 21 is able to have a relationship, even with a peer, much less with a grown man,” What a load of rubbish! 20 year olds are not children, and teenagers are not children. Definitions: Childhood = up to 12 years of age, adolescence = 13 to 18 years of age, adulthood = 18+ years of age. I even read those definitions in a science textbook in the school library when I was in year 8 in high school in 1977, so it just goes to show how much the language has been manipulated by the Cultural Marxists in 40 years.

  9. mrz wrote:” attraction to 14 year olds isn’t pedophilia. ” That is correct. A Paedophile is someone who has a primary or exclusive attraction to young pre-pubescent children, particularly to girls under 10, or boys under 12. Paedophilia is a clinical condition ( possibly even a sexual orientation ), whereas child molestation, or child rape is a crime. I call those who commit sexual abuse against children ‘child molesters’ because that is what they are. A large percentage of those who meet the clinical definition of Paedophilia are non violent, non offending types. Of those who molest children, only a small percentage are true paedophiles, the rest are opportunistic, sociopathic predators.

  10. You are reading the comments of Evans, a new age, hardcore beta, entirely feminist infested “conservative” hanging on to a grotesquely warped, manipulated worldview with the lowest T levels on historical record. A just-barely cuck. Keep hitting them with both fists. I’ll keep reading.

  11. You know that looking for someone’s alias can find a lot of information and make people pay for their crimes… shopenberc, a well-known hebephile known for trying to flirt with pubescent children in pubs and other places. I leave this message to know the crimes of this scourge and their ring of child predators, even shopenberc is in fact known in pedophile activist websites as “an old friend of pedophiles like Tom O’Carroll”, which I hope thanks to this records, these scourges will pay for their crimes. Not a girl can being a victim anymore if we can stop these perverts at time.

  12. @Paul – you tin foil hat wearing aspie paedophile paedocrite – my name is an amalgamation of the philosopher Schopenhauer and the author Houellebecq. I am not known in ‘paedophile activist websites’. The only rare times I leave comments at other sites is at a handful of other men’s rights sites. I have no connection with Tom O’Carroll whatsoever and linked to his site before I was aware of his notoriety as a ‘paedophile activist’. However, his blog that I link to covers (very elequently) nothing but the present out of control hysteria and insane feminist laws that have led to it. If somebody has seen something there that is genuinely ‘beyond the pale’ then they can quote it here and I’ll remove him from my blogroll. There is no reason for me not to link to his site as there is nothing I have seen that is troublesome. As far as I now most of these ‘paedophile’ or ‘ephebophile’ activist sites consider my. blog, and the MRM in general, to be ‘misogynist’ and are actively pro-feminist. I notice that Tom O’Caroll doesn’t link to this blog, probably for that reason. I just took a look at his site for the first time in over a year and reading some of the comments left there I see that one of his ‘ephebophile’ readers is even having a pop at him for linking to our old friend Eivind Berge. This despite the fact that men’s rights site like ours attract the pitchfork wielding paedocrite conspiracy nutters for linking to his site.

    @Paul – I think the police are finally realizing that most of you tin foil hat basement dwelling conspiracy theorists are extremely dangerous hardcore violent paedophiles projecting your own disturbing psychotic and sadistic child sex fantasies on to others and are consequently keeping a very close eye on you.

Comments are closed.