Conservatism is the NEW Counter-Culture

It’s a weird week for politics. I’m logging this record on SRC so that we can use it as a benchmark over the next year or so. And to remember what we thought was important in a week when the State Department was cleaned out and the EPA got back in the business of protecting the environment from bureaucrats.

After the furore over Milo at CPAC, here’s another Brit, James Delingpole, on what actually happened to conservative culture in the fallout.

Oh my God. I think I’m going to be sick. I’ve just read yet another piece by yet another US conservative commentator explaining in the kind of elegant terms that help explain why National Review so successfully called the US presidential election result – not – why the apparent downfall of Milo Yiannopoulos is somehow a good thing for conservatism. Apparently, Milo was never a proper conservative, or some such shit, so CPAC was right to rescind his invitation. And ew aren’t his paedophile comments on that incredibly obscure internet podcast he did a year ago just like SO DISGUSTING and just so unconservative? No, actually not. I tell you what’s really disgusting: limp-penised excuses for right-wing commentary doing yet again what the mainstream right always does to hamstring its arguments, drain its strength and concede the culture wars to a much cleverer and more vicious enemy. It throws yet another of its best advocates and bravest fighters to the wolves in order to demonstrate how reasonable and sensible and moderate real conservatism is. Well I’ve a question for you cucks, for that’s what you are. (I hated the term cucks and refused to use it for years because it seemed so needlessly macho and reductive. But hey, you deserve it, and much worse than that. You’re also quislings, traitors and, yes, you have very, very small, limp penises). How well did you perform when you were invited onto the Bill Maher show? Oh no, wait. Silly me. You weren’t fucking invited. And had you been invited, you wouldn’t have been clever and funny and charming in such a way as to win round a liberal audience and a liberal presenter determined to ensnare and destroy you. Because you don’t have the tools; you don’t have the sense of mission purpose; you don’t have the remotest understanding of how the enemy works. If you did you’d realise the reason conservatives have been losing the argument for years is because of people just like you. Get this, morons. What happened to Milo yesterday has nothing whatsoever to anything he said – and everything to the Alinskyite isolate and destroy tactics of the left, which you useful idiots are now helping to endorse. Well done, idiots. As someone said yesterday, that English fag has done more for the cause of US conservatism than US conservatives have in three decades. I understand why you’re envious of his success, even to the point of rejoicing in his apparent destruction. But he’ll be back, stronger and richer, after this episode. Oh and Donald Trump will still be president, doing the kind of actual conservative things that you lot were too squeamish to advocate, in case anyone noticed how conservative they were and thought you weren’t nice like liberals are.

As an aside,  Milo was abused by a priest and is tireless in his war on child abuse. He does try to shock and  is the first to admit that what got him uninvited from CPAC was his own fault.

This is Milo’s post:

I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim. 

I would like to restate my utter disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors. I am horrified by pedophilia and I have devoted large portions of my career as a journalist to exposing child abusers. I’ve outed three of them, in fact — three more than most of my critics. And I’ve repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophilia in my feature and opinion writing. My professional record is very clear. 

But I do understand that these videos, even though some of them are edited deceptively, paint a different picture. 

I’m partly to blame. My own experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous. But I understand that my usual blend of British sarcasm, provocation and gallows humor might have come across as flippancy, a lack of care for other victims or, worse, “advocacy.” I deeply regret that. People deal with things from their past in different ways. 

As to some of the specific claims being made, sometimes things tumble out of your mouth on these long, late-night live-streams, when everyone is spit-balling, that are incompletely expressed or not what you intended. Nonetheless, I’ve reviewed the tapes that appeared last night in their proper full context and I don’t believe they say what is being reported. 

I do not advocate for illegal behavior. I explicitly say on the tapes that I think the current age of consent is “about right.” 

I do not believe sex with 13-year-olds is okay. When I mentioned the number 13, I was talking about the age I lost my own virginity. 

I shouldn’t have used the word “boy” — which gay men often do to describe young men of consenting age — instead of “young man.” That was an error. 

I am certainly guilty of imprecise language, which I regret. 

Anyone who suggests I turn a blind eye to illegal activity or to the abuse of minors is unequivocally wrong. I am implacably opposed to the normalization of pedophilia and I will continue to report and speak accordingly.

Previous statement: