I wanted to take a few minutes this evening to post my, and ultimately The Beltway Times’, opinion on the Milo Yiannopoulos saga while his current controversy continues to trend on social media. Though we’re a diverse group of contributors here at The Beltway Times, we started this project with a common goal: sharing news and opinion that enables others to question their mainstream perspectives and to reconsider their allegiances to the corrupt and insufferable mainstream media.
The biggest part of that goal is protecting our contributors’ rights to free speech, always. As editor-in-chief, there have been times where I’ve decided to tone pieces down, delete a few f-bombs (including my own), and more, but that’s pretty typical for a brand new organization seeking to build a baseline group of followers — our goal so far has been to avoid alienating people where we can and sometimes this is accomplished through the wonders of editing.
But Milo Yiannopoulos is not a new face in the media; he no longer needs to take those same considerations.
After glancing at Twitter and Facebook before deciding to write about this, the clear objections people have to Milo are that he’s -ist this and -ist that, that he’s not well read, or that he doesn’t make sound, logical, or even credible arguments. The Beltway Times doesn’t speak for everyone, and we recognize that he isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but if your opinion of the man is based on what leftists have been telling you about him, you simply have not been listening or paying attention. If your opinion of him is based on the bullshit we got from the conservative ACU today, who considered Milo’s exclusion from CPAC a victory, then you haven’t been paying attention either, and you’re just as much an enemy to the conservative cause as the hacks at Mother Jones, Huff Po, the Daily Kos, or Vox are.
If you had been paying attention, you would have seen Milo appearing in national broadcasts, debates, and at public appearances for years now. You’d have enjoyed his eloquent style of maintaining a sense of British wit while blending it with an exceptional grasp of history as it relates to modern political perspectives, and you would have cheered the way in which he delivered the (our) conservative message. That is after all the goal of anyone who is willing to stick their neck out against the progressive locomotive of oppression — the furthering of Republican ideals, liberty, and a reverence for the true sense of freedom that requires us at times to break free of the mainstream mindset that has kept people with unique ideas tied down for so long.
The corner which Milo presently operates from is precisely where his detractors have placed him.
He started with proper statements in media, polished and respectful debates — the appearances that mainstream groupies consider the kind of “real”, journalistic approach in their quixotic quest for credibility.
Where did that get him? Not far. Not because his message lacked effectiveness, but the opposite — a gay, often flamboyant conservative had to be suppressed because he refused to think the way he was “supposed” to think.
His experience is comparable to that black Republicans experience after every position they take, and after each word they speak in defense of Republican ideals. When you’re supposed to think in one way — the progressive liberal way — there is no room for free-thinking, expression, speech, or otherwise.
Frankly, Milo should have lashed out sooner. It was a blessing, not a curse, that Milo often took his arguments to an extreme. Those arguments have proven, time and time again, that naysayers will see a headline shared on Facebook or in some hit piece and internalize it without taking a moment to reflect upon the content within.
In Milo’s words you’ll find some of the most well-researched and well-spoken political arguments one could make.
When he goes off on what seems to be a ridiculous tangent, with a seemingly hateful or extreme title, there’s always a serious point to it. What people cannot seem to stomach is the way in which Milo fuses articulate arguments with a semantic approach that often borders on absurdity.
But this is where his detractors, to include conservative ones, fail to understand him. Milo’s absurdity is the point.
The absurdity is the message. When Milo clashed with Leslie Jones of the new Ghostbusters movie, the focus was on their Twitter war and not on the absurdity of people who were in essence labeling those who criticized the movie as racist. When he presented the idea of feminism being akin to cancer, the public reacted to it with the absurd notion that modern, third-wave feminism was in no way different than the feminism and courage of the suffragists — because the brand of feminism that calls for letting yourself bleed through your yoga pants isn’t absurd at all these days, but Milo’s words are.
When he argued that “Gay Rights Have Made us Dumber” (I wonder how many read the title and assumed Milo was straight?), he argued that studies have shown gays to be of higher intelligence, and he compared the modern day gay community to the past, citing that back in the day, gay men still got married and had kids as a means of hiding themselves.
He continued by arguing that if gay men went back to those days, they could make a valuable contribution to society by passing on their intelligence to their offspring (while citing that today, gay men have children less often). Of course no one would imagine a world in which we forced gay men to get married (to women) and procreate, and neither would Milo, but he did cite studies indicating that raising children in families with same-sex parents wasn’t always the celebratory parade of rainbows and awesome costumes it is assumed to be.
Nearly half of lesbians have been violently abused by their partners, and children can witness that. The absurdity here was used not to make an argument in favor of forcing gay men to take wives, but to ask the public to stop bullshitting everyone by pretending that the gay community was immune to the ills that any other man or woman in the world can fall victim to.
You can go on and on about Milo’s use of the absurd in his writing, but failing to recognize it — or even respect it (even if you disagree with him) — indicates laziness on your part. And that is where we come in to the picture here at The Beltway Times.
If you are too sensitive, and too obtuse to consider a line of reasoning that veers sharply from the norm, we don’t need you.
The movement was successful without you — we showed this much to be true in November. If you are so pompous so as to think that a person making an against-the-grain argument is somehow a threat to you and your personal sovereignty, we thank you whole-heatedly because it was because of people like you that we watched President Trump take his oath of office in January.
The goal for any republican, or at least it should be their goal, is to break apart the ridiculous, and absurd, structures upon which present-day political sensitivities have been built.
My use of the word “sensitivity” here is quite deliberate, for today’s political discourse and its “sides” upon which this discourse sees battle, far too often rests on how what you say (or do) makes someone feel. It is through the styles of people like Milo, of which we agree with and in some regard attempt to emulate, that we are able to shed light on an inconvenient truth: your sensitivities, how you feel, or whatever emotion gets tapped in the midst of political battles doesn’t. mean. shit.
This is often where alternative media sources — from editorialists like me to provocateurs like Milo — lose a lot of people, and that’s okay. We trudge on and we move on to writing whatever comes next, but the point remains the same: we have arrived at the realities of modern American politics — its “PC” nature, its quibbling and bickering, its inability to be persuasive or create meaningful change — because we have allowed people to feel their way through life. As individuals, of course we want to believe that we matter, that we have gifts to share with friends, loved ones, the world, and so on, but when we elevate that kind of thing to the arguments we make in favor of national-level doctrine — the kind of stuff that affects every single person in America — we move from highlighting what makes us unique and worthy as individuals and into the realm of selfishness.
It is emotion that enabled people to ignore evidence as they burned down shops and pillaged cities like Ferguson or Baltimore.
It is emotion (and idealism) that enabled people to claim they gave a shit about the 10-15 million people in the country who lacked health insurance, fully knowing that the Affordable Care Act was going to screw over an exponentially larger group of Americans. It is emotion that allows people to ignore political realities as they relate to political history- namely how Democrats ignore how they are unilaterally responsible for things like “institutionalized racism” while forgetting about their proclivities for things like slavery, lynching, internment, and segregation. It is emotion that allows progressives to make lazy, petulant arguments against such claims by stating that “the parties flipped after 1964”, while ignoring that our argument is not about the minutiae behind how the parties changed (slightly) over time, but how progressive liberals continue to practice all of those things, today, through the clutches of heavy-handed government, ghetto creation, and the chaining of those most marginalized to the welfare state.
When I claim that today’s Democrats, to include black Democrats, never stopped populating their plantations, I’m the guy who people call absurd. Never is it considered that the notion that Democrats actually stopped owning slaves, or that they stopped segregating after 1964, is the real absurdity. Milo might make a zany argument in his own right, but what impact does it have outside of requesting that you take a second to think outside of the box? Have you ever considered that employing absurdity just might have a place in present-day journalism — especially considering how corrupt and deceitful mainstream journalism has proven itself to be?
At present, the mainstream tells us to sit back, trust in the government, and let them handle all of the wrongs out there.
In conjunction with progressive government entities, and progressive academic minds, that same mainstream media asks us to trust that they are simply there to help, to provide a glimpse into the truth, and to uphold a standard that is so time-tested and honorable that to question it at all is indicative of an absence of patriotism. Again, that is nothing but an appeal to emotion. It’s lazy, and when you consider the impact that has on a free society that sends people to vote on things every year, it’s downright criminal.
So long as there are people in this world like Milo, the public will be better off for it.
It might be a difficult reality to accept, but it is through voices like his that we can move forward, together, in acceptance that feelings don’t matter. What you do matters, what people vote for matters, what people vote for that affects what you do matters. Nothing is more or less true, or more of less dangerous, because of how it sounds. Kind words have gotten us nowhere and seeking refuge within them is irresponsible and abjectly defies American values. It’s not that an entity like CPAC isn’t within its right to deny Milo access to their event in Washington, D.C. this week — Milo of all people would probably be among the first to remind us of that — but to question the decision is imperative when considering what it is exactly that we are fighting for.
Getting angry about extreme or absurd rhetoric is fine, but pretending that the influence of gentle, sheepish rhetoric bears no threat is a death wish. Writing or speaking in a style like Milo’s is an invitation for you to reconsider some of the bullshit, nonsensical norms we have been asked to ingest for decades- the kind of bullshit that brought about things like “hope and change”, which left everyone behind (especially minorities), increased instabilities in the Middle East, or the veneration of “activists” finding seats on the Supreme Court.
The Beltway Times will always stand behind those who seek to take a stand against the norms that gave rise to the inherent oppression, and intolerance found within progressive ideology.
The Beltway Times will always stand behind those who employ techniques that defy the tide of mainstream journalism in an attempt to change it, for the better, for the sake of our future. The Beltway Times will never recant an opinion because someone had their hearts torn after reading it, it will never apologize for sending someone to a safe space, and it will never stop promoting the cause publicly.
The Beltway Times stands with Milo Yiannopoulos during a time in which what we already knew to be true has been proven once more: there are a lot of folks out there who still refuse to lend us an ear. Perhaps they never will. But The Beltway Times will never cease shouting the message from the top of its lungs, and we hope that journalists like Milo continue to follow suit.
Stephen Butka is the Editor-in-chief of The Beltway Times. Follow him on Twitter @BeltwayButka.