There Is No Need For Dangerous Faggots: On Milo Yiannopoulos And The Liberace-Style Of Making Politics.



The very recent news of Milo Yiannopoulos’ “resignation” from Breitbart allows me to share with you a couple of reflections of – as is typical in Yiannopoulos himself – very politically incorrect nature.

I visit Breitbart every day, and in the last week or two I was peeved not a little at seeing those very disgusting pictures of Yiannopoulos on the site almost every day. My impression of the man was that, whilst he said a lot of things that were sensible and reasonable, he had a very basic, very fundamental flaw: like in most homos, his perversion was clearly his dominant character trait, the “feature” that defined who he is. Nor have I ever believed his repeated protestations of being a, so to speak, involuntary fag who would very much like to be straight, as everyone who really thought that way would avoid dressing and behaving like a flaming queen immediately afterwards. For this reason I have often read what the man wrote, but I could never stomach any video of his, nor have I ever given him any meaningful space on this blog. Basically, the man was like a well of fresh water in order to reach which you have to drill through thick strata of excrement. Thanks but no thanks, Mr Liberace. There will be other wells. 

The specifics of Yiannopoulos – momentary, I think – fall are also less transparent that many would want you to believe. It is true that the man has not – literally – advocated sex with pre-pubescent boys. However, I think this is fairly irrelevant from our perspective. Like most homos, the man has clearly no problem with sex with very young boys, and be they grown up physically. The “growing process” crap with which homos tend to snare confused boys of questionable virility is obviously present in him, too and no, I don’t care a straw that he says he has been “abused”. Sodomy is always abuse. Homos tend to like very young, very thin boys. You wonder how deep behind the surface the paedo is lurking. 

Most telling to me, though, is that Breitbart decided to ditch Yiannopoulos, which I think indicates a high probability that they know more than we do and have decided that they are better off without him. Everyone who knows Breitbart a little realises that, if they had had confidence that Yannopoulos is sound – at least on pedophilia -, a) they would have started a crusade and extermination war against the liberals clamoring for his scalp and b) they would have relished the fight. They can be such pitbulls that they surprise even yours truly, which in my eyes makes their decision to “resign” Yiannopoulos the more telling. 

And what is the moral of the story? It is that you can never trust a homosexual, particularly one that has “outed” himself and thinks he is Liberace. The very fact that he is homosexual tells you that something is very wrong with him; and as a Catholic you know full well that when Satan has already made such inroads into a man’s conscience, chances are he will do further damage. Thinking that a homo will be a perfectly decent man besides the “detail” of his homosexuality is – particularly in the presence of openly effeminate behaviour and associated circus antics – as naive as to think that a fox can gain her way in the hen house and be happy with one victim or two. The high rate of suicides and psychosomatic diseases, and the high percentage of pedophiles who are homosexual, make it clear enough. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of matter-of-fact, sensible information you will ever read from the Buggers Broadcasting Communism. 

Conservatives have tried to make excuses for him, because they liked what he had to say. “He uses his homosexuality as a weapon against the attacks of the liberals”, some said, or “this is only a vehicle used to spread the message among the young”. 

Rubbish. No decent person can condone indecency in the name of turning an indecent generation away from it. Yiannopoulos’ antics could have never been justifiable, much less “good”, in the name of a higher good. You see how these people often end up anyway, because their own deep seated disorder is a constant menace to themselves.

Breitbart does not need Yiannopoulos, and Yiannopoulos needs to put his life where his mouth is and convert to decency, living the morality he preaches.  

It always peeves me when libtard scalp hunters can claim a victory. But this wasn’t a very difficult target.  

There is no need for dangerous faggots. There is, in fact, no need for faggots of any sort. 




Posted on February 23, 2017, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 14 Comments.

  1. The guy exposed the tenants of the Faith to groups of young people who otherwise wouldn’t have heard it. For that, I am grateful. For his sins, may he be given the Grace of a good confession and firm purpose of amendment.

    • For his sins, may he given grace of final repentance. For his scandals, may he disappear from the scene. The young people have been exposed to a faggot and told this is Conservatism.

  2. The absurdist, fake “conservative” Milo fans are pathetic. It never ceases to amaze how the same people, who decry the loss of moral and cultural norms, are at the same time waving high their “we love Milo” placards metaphorically on numerous “conservative” web blogs and comment boards. In the end, the Left, and especially their homosexual, transgender, invert faction, had a Pyrrhic victory by taking down this degenerate. They have, in reality, suffered a larger defeat. They have exposed and discredited one of the highest aspirations of the sexual anarchy movement-the normalization of “man boy love”, with the concomitant goal of eliminating age of consent laws.

    • Yes.
      If these are our heroes, what does this say of us? And was he not normalising faggotry among Conservatives? I do not want a world in which a flaming pervert goes around saying things (however right they are) and everyone applauds and gets exposed to the rubbish as if it were something normal.

  3. Well said, Mundy:+) God bless~

  4. M, you’ve always written the best articles about sodomites, seems like you hammered down hard the wedges into the hearts of those faggots. Thanks a lot wise man. Wishing that our Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and lay faithful have the abilities to learn and guts to tell the truth about this intrinsic evil which is undermining the Catholic Church inside out.
    “It’s part of Satan I think to say that this is “gay.” It’s anything but gay.” Senator Michele Bachmann, 2004.

  5. You are right on this one. I feel sorry for the fellow but I think it points to the total dysfunction of society as a whole. Even the ‘good guys’ aren’t good; maybe better than the ‘bad guys’, but certainly not good. I pray for him to detach from the victim pose and just get on with normal life, if he can.

  6. I am sympathetic to the argument made here. Would that we lived in decent times where decent people could stand up and be counted. Imagine a prince of the church doing his job, but here we are hoping that said prince would possess a tenth of the pseudo-courage of a Milo. ‘No no, we can’t make people feel bad ‘they quiver.

    Milo ‘s sin is profoundly indecent, and while all sin is, certainly his is more than most. Nay, perhaps his sin is the most indecent— except for the sins of the church men whose sodomy is not (for most of them) the disgusting living out of physical perversion, but their spiritual perversion.

    In the bible fornication and apostasy go hand in hand. In our age, we seem noy contented with rejecting God the old fashioned way, but the new way- making our rejection our belief and our belief rejection. The statement of the head of the Jesuits is the spiritual pair to sodomy. It is loathsome, disgusting, debased, and damnable.

    Milo is no saint… He is more like Hosea’s wife. We should not lionize his sin, not him. We should call for his repentance and pray that his conversion be not fully to the truth of faith and morals. Nevertheless we should also recognize that God uses broken people to see our own sins. Milo should not be our hero, nor anyone’s, but he should stand as an indictment. An indictment of the west, but most especially an indictment of the spiritual sodomy of relativism that in this case through abuse actually led to Milo’s own physical struggle with sin.

    May milo convert fully…. And may God’s judgment be swift on those who pollute his bride.

    • You see, if he had been one of those repentant, “non-practicing” homos, dressing and behaving in a decent way, one would have had a different attitude. But he kept smashing his faggotry on people’s face. It might have had some circus-like, freak show novelty appeals with neocons; but decent people don’t like being disgusted for the sake of a political stance.

    • I agree- a non-practicing homo would be far easier to accept. But Hosea’s wife continued to be the harlot, and this was precisely God’s point. A chastised and morally faithful Milo does not thrust our sin back in our faces- but the truth of the disease of the west being lamented and proclaimed by a practicing faggot reveals God’s ironic chastisement of us. If milo was holy, we could say – ” oh he’s right about x,y, and z. Let’s follow” but we look at him now and see Not man’s cooperation with grace but our profound rejection thereof.

    • Very profound.
      But I keep thinking that in the end a sustained presence of MY on Breitbart would have made the youth more, not less, tolerant of the evil of sodomy.

    • “…. And may God’s judgment be swift on those who pollute his bride.”

      Well, there goes the hierarchy, I guess….

  7. “There is no need for dangerous faggots. There is, in fact, no need for faggots of any sort.”

    Tell that to the hierarchy, which has protected and promoted fudge packers for at least a millennium.

    Just sayin’

%d bloggers like this: