Donald Trump, Milo Yiannopoulos and Cultural Libertarianism?

Trump finally gets to show us all what big hands he’s got.

It’s pointless to even write about Trump, it only feeds the beast. Whatever you say is inevitably subjected to, and twisted by a perverse sense of logic, spun in a way so as to support  a new ideology that resembles something dreamt up by the mind of a prepubescent delinquent in the throes of an elaborate meth binge. I say ideology but at the centre of an ideology there must be some sort of coherent idea, and as yet I’m not sure that Trump has ever had one of those. Trump simply thrives off of attention, whether it’s good or bad. Like Oscar Wilde once said,

There is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that’s not being talked about.

Since Trump’s inauguration, I have on a couple of occasions been in conversation with people who expressed opinions along the lines of how certain past writers would be reacting to this current state of affairs. Writers and social commentators like George Orwell, Christiopher Hitchens, Tom wolfe, Norman Mailer and Hunter S. Thompson, each of whom possessed the ability to express their observations with a well honed laser like focus and precision that enabled them to clinically dissect their way to the heart of any situation. While I agree that they were all exceptional writers, I disagree that they would have found Trump to be a muse worthy of any great journalistic endeavour. This opinion might surprise you, I’m not saying that Trump wouldn’t have shocked them like he has nearly everyone else, but as a subject of skillful and considered pieces of journalism Trump is severely lacking. The reason for this is that Trump is too easy a target, about as big a challenge as shooting fish in a barrel. Writing about Trump is like trying to get your voice heard amongst a crowd of drunken, vociferous football supporters, whatever it is you have to say, no matter how enlightening, will inevitably be drowned out by chants that imply the referee is addicted to masturbation.

Trump is the tip of the iceberg, a clown at the head of a vanguard, beating a drum heralding in the dawn of a new era. A post-truth age, the epoch of the alternative fact. Every literary or artistic movement is a rebellion to that which preceded it. For what has seemed like an eternity, the catch-all, inescapable terms that have been used to define postmodernism have shackled the potential for artistic creativity and expression. Political correctness has been perhaps the most pervasive and pernicious progeny of the fetid fertility of postmodernism. Recently people have asked the question what would Obama’s legacy will be? And the answer is simple, Obama was a part of the system that produced an audience willing to listen to Trump’s perverse rhetoric. The ambiguity and lack of identity that has resulted out of the centrist, middle ground politics of presidents Jimmy Carter through to Barrack Obama, helped spawn this love child that we now see kicking and screaming before us, the brat that we are labeling the Alt-Right. But, as they say hindsight is 20/20, it’s fairly straightforward to see how we now find ourselves in a Bunyanesque slough of despond.

I’ve seen the healthy cynicism of a generation of our youth trying to satisfy its intellectual needs by feeding off of the vast, barren plains of the internet. Somewhat like an all you can eat buffet at McDonald’s,  while appealing to the palates of the masses and satisfying the hunger of only a few, its nutritional deficiencies leave the consumer inevitably suffering long term health issues as well as preventing them from ever gaining the experience of, and sustenance from, a more wholesome diet. It is impossible to understate the role that the internet has played in facilitating the rapid and alarming rise of the alt right.

Milo Yiannopoulos

Perhaps the most universally hated in America is half British half Greek, 100% gay Milo Yiannopoulos.

A polemicist, an agent provocateur, or what the digital age reduces to calling pejoratively, a troll. Right now Milo is the voice of the Alt Right, and a self proclaimed cultural libertarian. Yiannopoulos is an advocate for the freedom of speech, thought and expression. As a half Greek half British, 100% gay pseudo-celebrity aggressively defending America’s first amendment, one might quickly disregard this most improbable of characters. Initially demonized to me by the headlines of articles, that until this week I’d never even bothered to read as he appeared to me to be nothing more than a celebrity whose agenda was just to put make the Opinions of the new president look moderate, even warm and fuzzy. He uses his sexuality as a weapon in a carefree and blatantly offensive way, often making casual references to how he has a penchant for fellating black men,  to intimidate his listeners and put them immediately on the back foot. Leading a rainbow colored crusade up to the heavily fortified citadel of political correctness. Adopting a siege warfare mentality,  loading his verbal trebuchets with payloads of acerbic vitriol and charging at the doors of decency with an enormous battering ram shaped like phallus. Yiannopoulos has declared war against what most people would consider common decency.

Milo Yiannopoulos’ The Dangerous Faggot Tour has provoked a firestorm of criticism as it makes its way across the universities of the United States, and that’s nothing less than what has always been his intention. Only 32 years old and a senior editor of the alt right American news website Breitbart, he has been responsible for producing articles with the titles Would You Rather Your Child Had Feminism or Cancer, and Birth Control Makes Women Ugly and Crazy. He shot to infamy after having been banned from Twitter for branding one of the female stars, Leslie Jones, of the unwatchable Ghost Busters reboot, a dude and a man.

This was a far as I’d got with this blog article before the enigmatic Milo’s already volatile career took a rather dramatic turn as a result of comments he made during a show streamed live on YouTube over a year ago, coming back to haunt him. The opinions that Milo expressed were  quite easily interpreted as being that of an apologist towards paedophilia. These comments have resulted in him losing a book deal which had record pre-sales, and having to resign from his post at Breitbart, but given the publicity they have gotten him I’d be very surprised if lost any sleep over the public condemnation he’s recieved. It is from this point on that continuing to write about Milo has felt like jumping down a rabbit hole into a world of nebulous, vague and fallacious reasoning. The comments that Yiannopoulos’ made during the Drunken Peasants show streamed live on YouTube in January 2016. The video is attached below. If you only wish to listen to Milo’s most inflammatory comments, (which I advise as the show itself reminds me of one of those conversations that you’d get into at a bar at two in the morning, in some small town, jerky chewing backwater that the United States has been so adept at nurturing) then they start at around 56 minutes. That’s not to say that the opinions he expresses prior to this are in any way reasonable, it’s just that they tend to become less memorable once he starts to discuss the issue of paedophilia and the age of consent.

Milo went on to express a similar set of opinions When he appeared on Joe Rogan’s radio show some six months later. Watching the video below left me with the same uncomfortable feelings I  experienced while reading Nabakov’s Lolita. What makes Yiannopolous’ comments that much more disturbing is that he relates the stories in the first person, a trick that has been in the armory of story tellers since the dawn of time and one that didn’t escape Nabakov.


Paedophilia is always a highly dangerous topic for humour. Myself, I only know one paedophile joke and I take into very careful consideration the company that I’m in before I venture to tell it. If I’m honest the joke itself is pretty weak and really just trades off of the shock value that the joke teller has decided to tell it. I’m no comedian, in fact when I told people I intended to be a comedian they all laughed at me, well they’re not laughing now. But even to me, the subject of  paedophilia appears to be somewhat anaemic at best in its opportunities for humour. It’s considered the fifth worst topic to make a joke about by the website http://www.ranker (a website whose name alone is enough to make me smirk like a mischievous school boy who’s just been caught staring at his teacher’s breasts). They list the top 5 inappropriate topics of humour as follows:

  1. Rape
  2. Miscarriage
  3. Burn victims
  4. Animal cruelty
  5. Paedophilia



Milo’s interview with Joe Rogan is disturbing and there should be little doubt that it was ever intended to be anything else, but a person doesn’t have to spend much time or effort to find people saying things that can be reasonably argued as being equally inappropriate. The jokes made by the comedians in the video compilation below make reference to the real life cases of the murders and abductions of children, people jumping to their deaths on September 11th, and the practice of necrophilia with victims of the holocaust, but none of these were capable of courting the controversy that Milo has achieved recently.



Is Milo Yiannopolous just a new type of celebrity spawned out of the moral vacuum that is the internet? A direct descendant of the genealogy of shock humour? The inevitable progeny that had to follow on from Lenny Bruce, Andy Kaufman, Bill Hicks, Dennis Pennis , and Frankie Boyle? My own personal opinion is that Yiannopolous is just a pioneer for the next generation of media whore. I’m not even sure that Yiannopoulos even exists or whether he’s just a character that has been skillfully constructed just to annoy the masses. The combination of far right, flamboyantly gay Catholic, and Breitbart editor, is a volatile mixture that will raise the hackles of anyone who considers themselves to be “reasonable”. But, I very much doubt that these ingredients were something that have randomly coalesced to form society’s most toxic cocktail, instead they have been skillfully blended together in order to serve us with the most indigestible aperitif possible. Essentially Milo is a new Sacha Baron Cohen character with the exception that we don’t know the person who is playing Milo, and it is this that makes his character so entertaining. Milo is shock art in the genre of social media for the 21st century and as such he’s about as original as a Star Wars reboot.

Anyone older that forty will remember that back in the late eighties through the turn of the millennia Madonna produced a number of music videos that were quickly banned by MTV and therefore immediately garnering them more attention and ensuring that they would be immortalised in pop folk lore. Entertainment has always found room to accommodate the shock artist and it always will. It would be wrong to consider shock art as a necessary evil, it’s an essential part of the fabric in the tapestry of entertainment.

A tongue in cheek piece of art work by Maurizio Cattelan showing the Pope at that time Pope John Paul II after being struck down by a meteorite.

What can, and can’t be said? What is and isn’t acceptable? Who decides what is decent? Is there anyone decent enough out there to be empowered with deciding upon decency? Isn’t it always the case that if somebody doesn’t like what they are watching or listening to always has the right to reply or walk away?

Shock artists have pervaded every medium of society and entertainment, from comedy, through to politics, from sport through to art. Polemics have been offending their way to making a living since the time of ancient Greece. The word itself deriving from the Greek Polemikos, meaning warlike or confrontational.

Going one step further Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ. A photo of a crucifix submerged in the artist’s own urine. This proved too much for a group of French Catholic Fundamentalists who destroyed a print of the photograph that was on display.

I had intended to finish this piece with the following quote by Volataire:

‘What a fuss about an omelette!’ he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that!


It is from this that we hear the somewhat tired and overused saying, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. This is commonly misattributed to Voltaire, instead, these are the words of a biographer of Voltaire Evelyn Hall, whose aim it was to summarise Voltaire’s ideas on the freedom of speech.

One thing that we probably can’t deny is that this week Milo Yiannopoulos dropped the cultural libertarian version of the atomic bomb. It’s difficult to find any meaning in the destruction he’s left behind if we are to allow a person’s right to the freedom of speech to include the right to make the comments that Mr. Yiannopoulos decided to make. Despite the grotesque nature of some of his comments, I do still stand by every human’s right to be able to say whatever they wish, no matter how gratuitous, inappropriate or disgusting it might be. Ultimately the audience must be responsible and exercise their right to respond, not to listen, or marginalise people that express views that promote the suffering of others.

So for today at least, I can still say that I disagree with what Milo says, but will defend to the death his right to say it.




76 thoughts on “Donald Trump, Milo Yiannopoulos and Cultural Libertarianism?

  1. Enough-is-enough February 28, 2017 / 1:53 pm

    Your analysis is facile and flawed.

    Freedom of speech is not a “right”. It is a privilege trimmed by law. That’s is what you should (quote) “die fighting for”.

    Humor can be offensive and no matter how distasteful some will argue freedom of speech. But Milo is NOT humor. He is part of a hard-right milieu that, among others, goes out of its way to provoke shock and risk causing hatred.

    So, as merely an example, if he wants to say “teen boys like getting sucked off by old men” then that is not a right. To imply it is not a right either. also, to imply that certain black actresses are of low intelligence is not a right. Neither could ever be taken as humor.

    You need to distinguish between the act and the motive behind that act before making facile assertions that do not bear scrutiny. Yes, comics get much wider latitude because their intention is only ever to examine what is funny. That cannot be said of MY.


    • jimdroberts February 28, 2017 / 1:56 pm

      I actually agree with you.


      • Enough-is-enough February 28, 2017 / 2:11 pm

        Then I misunderstood your final para. Libertarians should understand it is another’s liberty to be free from such harassment and distress. The law draws a line in all walks of life and for example is why the police cannot just bash down your door for the sake of causing you harassment and distress. Their “right” of “action” is trimmed by law. Ditto “free speech”.

        The privilege of free speech does not (no pun) trump the liberty to be free from harassment in all instances. It is a question of always examining motive. And sometimes, even comics have to rein it in.

        Maybe you should write a codicil??


      • jimdroberts February 28, 2017 / 2:18 pm

        I’ve spent a lot of time over the past 7 days watching Milo and alt right videos on YouTube. I’m pretty horrified at how a far right ideology is being pushed through what they have rebranded to appear as a campaign for the freedom of speech. I can assure you, I believe these are terrifying times.


  2. Brandon March 10, 2017 / 5:13 am

    How goddamn hard can it be to not get so offended by things people SAY? How is it that you people find it justifiable to essentially police thoughts, since words are simply spoken thoughts with ZERO tangible action associated with them?

    If someone has sex with 13 year olds, we have a tangible problem. If someone physically attacks blacks, or Muslims, or whomever, we have a tangible problem.

    If someone TALKS about those things and has no record of action relating to their words (whether they are perceived in a joking or serious nature), grab yourself a tissue and move the f*ck on.

    Of course, if there is reasonable belief that someone’s “hateful” words are strongly held convictions that may (or already have) turned to action, it’s completely justifiable to investigate the possibility of damaging action. Hence why statements that are perceived as threats of imminent action are taken seriously.

    As far as the commenter asserting that free speech is not a right – you are obtusely and categorically wrong. In America, free speech is fundamentally recognized as a universal human birthright with some exceptions relating mainly to national security. The comparison to police search and seizure is so incredibly off-base, it’s insulting. Police have no “God-given” right to search your house. It is a privilege given to to them by the government and by extension, the people.

    You’re right – it is indeed terrifying times for those who value individuality and personal freedom. The “mere” fact that people such as the commenter above exist and somehow rationalize the reduction of free speech to a “privilege” (!!!) is an Orwellian nightmare.

    As a footnote – Milo’s controversial statements were categorically not of pedophiliac nature. He specifically spoke of young teens who are physically and mentally mature. “Mentally mature” is subjective, since a young teen may be more mature than his/her peers but not when compared to an adult. Physical maturity, which is the the subject of pedophilia, is not nearly as subjective. Individual young teens can, and commonly do, go through puberty at a much earlier age than their peers. In the crude example of a PHYSICALLY MATURE 13 year old, moral corruption is certainly at play – pedophilia is not. Just because man-made age-of-consent laws dictate legality within society (rightly so), doesn’t mean those same laws apply universally to the term “pedophile”, which is determined by nature.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Enough-is-enough March 10, 2017 / 8:16 am

      Re your final para — in YOUR opinion. For the rest of it, Milo is a hard-right British wanker who expects his words to be taken seriously. THAT is the point. INTENTION.

      He INTENDS for his words to be taken seriously. Live by the sword and all that. Unlike a comic.

      And free speech is only EVER a privilege and there is nothing “Orwellian” about it. That is what the hard-right/far-right love to preach (sucking thumb sound “but we are only practising our RIGHT to Freedom of Speech”. WRONG.). Hear of the laws of sedition, or say, the laws of defamation? Or laws to protect against verbal harassment?

      So stop having such a hissy fit and read some Orwell so at least you can speak from some perspective of knowledge because you will find Orwell’s 1984 is much more about his fear of the usage of language to CONTROL. In such regards it is by no accident that the main protagonist works in the Ministry of Information where words are deployed to control. Which is what Milos is all about. Using words to exert control and leverage, towards hatred. That is that the hard/far right do and then get their knickers in a twist when they get called out.


      • jimdroberts March 10, 2017 / 2:54 pm

        Thank you for taking the time to contribute to what I hope can be a discussion that we might all benefit from.

        I believe that the freedom to speech and expression are fundamental to our existence. Prohibiting these freedoms is tantamount to restricting the life a person has the right to live. The freedom of speech, is as John Locke says pre-political, and forms our natural right to life, liberty, and property.

        When you start to mention laws of sedition and defamation, these are obviously not pre-political, but represent strictures imposed on society by governments.

        You could start to reply by quoting Rousseau’s “Social Contract,” and there would be mileage to such a response, for if we choose to live in society we also choose to adhere to the laws necessary to make that society work. However, Rousseau’s famous quote could be considered, and I think this is one of the concerns at the hearty of the alt-right, “man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains.”

        I’ll be putting out a new post over the weekend looking into the alt-right’s history, and the characters who are behind pushing its ideology. Please feel free to post ideas of things you feel need to be considered.

        Again, many thanks.


    • jimdroberts March 10, 2017 / 2:38 pm

      Thank you for taking the time to make a thoughtful and well expressed comment.

      I’ve been researching the alt-right pretty intensely for the past few weeks with the aim of trying to get to grips with their ideology, and to try and understand the new political paradigm that we appear to have entered.

      What I can say is that the alt-right ask questions that are deserving of informed, considered responses, not the visceral, incomprehensible hysteria that liberals have so far provided. Right now the alt-right sit in control of a one way debate, that might not be their choice, but for as long as their sensitivities prohibit liberals from engaging in meaningful debate, the alt-right becomes the de facto ideology that will be driving the United States until the liberal’s get their shit together.

      I hope to publish a post over the weekend stating a brief history of the alt-right, and the people behind it. Please let me know what you think, or provide me with ideas that you think must be taken into account when looking at the alt-right.

      Again, many thanks.


      • Enough-is-enough March 10, 2017 / 2:55 pm

        “Alt right”????

        You mean the “hard Right” and that is NOT a brief history. Using the hard-right’s politically correct re-badge is just what they want, in order to deflect. There is nothing “Alt” about it. Milos is a hate merchant. A far right hate-merchant, who ironically, but totally hypocritically (so typical of extremers), is immigrant blood himself.

        My guess is that you are privileged, white and middle class and therefore think that there is a “case” to afford these sickening re-badges the oxygen they require let alone the extremist nut-jobs who crave their limelight. Let alone a craven British wanker who thinks that teen boys can be legitimate fodder for sexual predators. A gay man does NOT have the need to seduce teen boys — fuck that stereotype —- as you find the “need” to discuss his type and therefore grant him another vile badge of legitimization. The man proved he has no limits —- and that is the most worrying thing about him and his type. You should be asking, how in god’s name did his type get so far.

        Your entire posture is to legitimate them and their “questions”. Which is very “full” of you but for all I know you are just another one of them.


      • jimdroberts March 10, 2017 / 3:12 pm

        I think the best way I can sum up how I consider Milo Yiannopoulos’ comments that encroached on the subject of peadophilia, is that I disagree with what he says, but would defend with my life his right to say it.

        While I found his comments jaw droppingly inappropriate, at the same time I am not comfortable with giving anyone a mandate empowering them to control what people can and can’t say.

        There’s a big difference between being an advocate for free speech and being a Nazi. What does concern me is how the alt-right have hijacked the cause of free speech to make it look like you have to be on the far right to be a supporter of it.


  3. Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 8:36 am

    He’s not the alt right, or hard right…. he stated many times that they hated him.

    On your article, I concur with you, freedom of speech is a right, for both good, and bad, it must be protected. If it is not, we’ll end up like Britain where they arrest you for being mysoginistic.


    • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 9:03 am

      So not only are you hard right, but like all hard right, you peddle falsehoods. Lies in old-fashioned non-jargo speak. Re your comment that in the UK one can be arrested for expressing a pov that is “misogynistic”???? BULLSHIT

      If, by “misogynistic” you mean intentionally targeting a particular individual with written words to cause her harassment and distress — YES. And quite rightly so.

      So, just to give you clarity that even you will understand:

      —- Words expressing a pov on “misogyny” — NO.

      —- ACTS of “misogyny” in the form of words — YES.

      Clear now? I admit it requires some degree of deftness to make the distinction but there is a distinction IN LAW. Or are you going to continue peddling “false truths” (i.e, to use the hard-right’s politically correct term for it)???.


      • jimdroberts March 15, 2017 / 9:22 am

        White, heterosexual, middle class males are the group in society that has to tread the tightrope of self censure more than any other. The term “hate speech” is reserved almost exclusively for whenever a white man expresses an opinion that other people don’t like.

        The extreme nature of political correctness today means that as a group, white, heterosexual males have been persistently attacked by every group that can’t find a safe space. Well if we apply the same rules to everyone we all become victims. A society of victims blaming everyone else for why they couldn’t make something of our lives.

        Life is tough, sometimes people will say things you don’t agree with, you might even be “offended”, but does this make you a victim with a lifetime excuse to explain away your own mediocre achievements?


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 9:47 am

        Sorry, it is clear where your bias is. I was disabusing a right winger such as yourself as to the correct position re the law in Britain given (i) I am British (ii) I am a lawyer of over 30 years call (iii) I am male (iv) I am white.

        For the rest of it, you wanna feel victimized, that’s your choice. There is not only irony to your posture but downright hypocrisy: “I I feel hurt and down-trodden and therefore must be able to say what I want irrespective it may cause the same to you”

        WTF happened to GOOD MANNERS? Oh! That’s a form of self-censorship that is just so odious today…And if you are feeling victimized because of your demographic, then do something about it, not by insulting progressives but by pointing out where progressives have over-reached — but without the “chip-on-shoulder” rhetoric that EMBARRASSES white males such as me.

        —–> you do not need to speak for me or my demographic thank you. Your “chips” are yours alone and it would be a mistake that most white males concur with you. They do not and are just as sick to death of your hijacking matters on their implied behalf. Very “royal” of you. But no thanks.


      • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 9:43 am

        Your disgusting, if I, (ex.) as a British cop; see you telling a lady off for whatever reason, I will have to arrest you for harrassing her.

        Ironically, you could’ve been telling her off for desecrating your mother for all I care. Yet, by your words, your harassing her.

        If you disagree with her, and she panics because of it; by your words, your causing her distress….

        …Your a bloody lunatic, what’s wrong with you?!

        Don’t you see how insane that is?!

        If your married to a whore, and she divorces you, while taking everything you own. If you, yes you, so much as attempt to lawfully oppose it. By your own words, your causing her distress, even when she so much as feels like it at any time.

        How can you not see what’s wrong with that?!

        Freedom of speech must be protected, regardless of wether it’s right, or wrong!


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 9:50 am

        WTF are you ON about? The law swings BOTH ways and is GENDER BLIND

        —-> Unlike you who only sees what he wants to see and peddles it regardless….


      • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 9:48 am

        Just as well, don’t you dare go trying to defend yourself. You’ve shown your colors, and arresting people because they differ in view points is nothing more than the act of a dictator.

        I see you have more in common with Stalin, and mossoulini, while aspiring your best to replace Hitler. People like you are the reason freedom of speech must be protected.


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 10:01 am

        What? Because I do not like misogyny — i.e. hateful things said to a woman ONLY because her gender???

        —-> Sign me up for the fascist police lol! Where is the application form?

        You and your type really do not get it. It used to be that men kept their peace out of respect for the “fairer sex”. Now it’s just a fucking free-for-all — a race to the bottom unleashed by “free speech”.

        Learn some goddam discipline and quit whining about how you cannot lambast a woman using terms that are gender specific and leveled against her only because she is a woman. Yo bitch!


      • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 10:12 am

        Disgusting, you really don’t even understand what your supporting do you?

        Laws led by reasoning of harassment merely because the person disagrees is the epitome of what Stalin used to kill all who opposed him.

        Being able to tell someone that they’re insane, when they’re trying to force people to ignore what’s before them, is reason enough to protect freedom of speech.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 10:16 am

        You do a disservice to the millions who died under Stalin’s rule, by such talk.


      • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 10:20 am

        You desecrate everyone who died against all dictators for forcing your ideals upon others. Your concept that allows others to be arrested for differing in view, makes you the worst of all. You are worse than Stalin, and worse than hitler.

        You are the reason that freedom of speech must be protected.


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 10:22 am

        No, listening to hyperventilating cry-babies is the reaosn why free speech has gone too far. In your case? WAY WAY WAY too far.


      • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 10:27 am

        Really? You never protected anything did you? Your nothing more than a frail child, aren’t you? I pity creatures like you, disgusting as you are, but yet, we should still make sure to be rid of you.


      • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 10:29 am

        Freedom of speech, regardless of right, or wrong, must be protected. You fail to understand, and there are enough comments for people to see the insanity that you are.

        The insanity the left represent, and the horrible reasoning of people like you.


    • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 9:17 am

      Complete narcissist twaddle who has never studied law (yet speaks as if he has authority) stops short by claiming to be pro Jew. Never ever completed university despite two efforts. Whence, a lazy-assed dimwit dressed in the wrapper of a received-pronunciation accent.

      “The Left hates the west just as much as the Muslims do”. Just about sums it up. Madder than a March hare.


      • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 9:51 am

        All you do is curse at people, a bloody creep like yourself should leave, while everyone is still sensible.

        Your blinded by your agenda, as you force it down everyone else’s throat.

        Disgusting brutes like yourself should disappear.


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 9:55 am

        Sorry, it is the hard right who are “brutes”. If everyone were has odious a YM or other hard rights, we would have Armageddon. He is not moderate. He is a nutjob who also thinks sexual predatory conduct against teen boys below the age of consent is acceptable. QED.


      • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 10:07 am

        You don’t even bother to discuss about what he talks about. What the hell are you even trying to argue against?

        You merely try to pollute everything with fallacies, while ignoring the dangers of what you represent.


  4. Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 10:02 am

    It seems like the comments are not allowing me to reply to the creep that calls himself enough is enough.

    The wretched creature merely sees what it wants. When it’s unable to make a point, it labels, and displays the rhetoric of a six year old. It protects itself by closing the argument without bothering to discuss it. If any of you see this creature, I suggest you call the pound immediately, it’s dangerous.

    Don’t bother trying to have a proper discourse with it, as it merely attempts to override everything with fallacies.


    • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 10:08 am

      … much for your being a “ravenous battle wolf” lol. Arf! Arf!


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 10:21 am

        I agree with you: “disgusting” is a better name than “Ravenous Battle Wolf” — and much pore apposite. 🙂 GO FOR IT!


    • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 10:24 am

      You can’t even bring a proper response, yes, enough is enough.

      Disgusting people like you who oppress men, and women, who are diverse in views, should be persecuted for acts against humanity. Like your teachers before you, you too, should share in being convicted for their crimes.


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 10:42 am

        More hysterical hyper-ventilation from a hard-righter like yourself??? Ya godda love it lol!

        When push comes to shove, hard-righters such as yourself are really lil’ cry babies — who use words and images of hatred to deflect from that essential kernel — and are always the ones who go on and on about their version of their so-called “free speech”.

        You iz avvin’ a larf. Mate. Go suck your thumb and run off to mammy.


      • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 10:52 am

        Your pathetic.

        I never said I was hard right, or even alt right. I’m a conservative with minor classical liberal views.

        You, on the other hand, support the oppression of free thought, and free speech.


  5. jimdroberts March 15, 2017 / 10:55 am

    Like two ships passing one another unwittingly in the night, I’m not sure what points either of you are debating. What are your points of view regarding freedom of expression? I can see that the wolf fully defends the right, I’m not sure what “enough” thinks about how you reduce someone’s freedom of expression, how is this enforced in a so called democratic country, what are the implications of controlling what people say?


    • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 11:24 am

      Ah, you don’t realize it? I never stopped it from saying anything, just been saying it should be stopped for its insanity, and charged for supporting acts of oppression of diverse thought, and speech.

      That it’s a menace, and what not, for that’s what it is. Though regardless, it doesn’t stop it from saying anything, nor will I stop it from spouting its rhetoric.

      There’s truly nothing that’s really democratic, but the system we have, is the best so far. This isn’t something to enforce, more of something to allow. Regardless of its consequences, but know, if something should threaten it, I will protect it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 11:36 am

      It’s not about “controlling” is it??? It’s being an adult and taking responsibility for your conduct. You preach hate speech, take the consequences or shut up.

      People used to self-censor all the time. It was called good manners. Nowadays, hard-righters dressing themselves as mere “conservatives” have to (they CANNOT button-it) spout bullshit to the point of misquoting another country’s law. My response? STFU already. Have manners to get your facts straight before vomiting your lies. And then? When told that, they start bawling.

      What worries me is that hard righters bawl their eyes out about “freedom of speech” ONLY because they want to peddle/incite hatred based on lies.

      I am a lot less bothered about a moderate protesting about lack of freedom of speech than the hard right —– because the intention is most likely entirely different.

      You will note, when I started commenting on here, I made distinctions based on intention. It seems you either do not read, or my words go out the window. So again: INTENTION. It would behoove you to make that distinction in your analysis. Because so far, I have not seen it deftly demonstrated to the degree I think you should expect of yourself, surely???

      Liked by 1 person

      • jimdroberts March 15, 2017 / 11:44 am

        This to be fair, is an excellently made point. Thank you for making such a contribution.


      • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 12:10 pm

        Being an adult, taking responsibility? I pointed out the fact that you supported arresting people for mysoginy being the default label used against people, that by your words would be considered causing harassment, and distress to a women as insane.

        Manners? So I can’t point out the ludicrous reasoning in how easy it is for people to be abused just because a women calls foul? I can’t call you a nut job for supporting political correctness?

        I’m not a hard right, or alt right, but the fact that you portray yourself as moderate when you commit fallacy by disregarding a persons standpoint by a specific situation in their history is bigotry at its finest.

        What distinctions did you make?

        Merely on manners, and that the person who wrote the article doesn’t represent you? I don’t care about manners, when you disregard someone just because they did not go to a university. I don’t care about your petty preferences when you support putting leashes on others into a policed society of social norms dictated by trends of radical progressives.

        Again, I will call you insane, for that’s what you are.


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 12:16 pm

        I did NOT support “arresting people for mysoginy”. I never said that

        MORE of your false truths, which are sheer lies because you can read it yourself. This is what I wrote:

        “So, just to give you clarity that even you will understand:

        —- Words expressing a pov on “misogyny” — NO.

        —- ACTS of “misogyny” in the form of words — YES.”

        Typical hard.righter: you just do not know when you stop flapping those cry-baby chops of yours.


      • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 12:41 pm

        Mysoginy is one of the default label used to criminalize dissenting opinions on a frequent basis in 2016. A nobel prize winner lost his job due to an off hand remark on females. Take responsibility, sure, lose his job, no.

        By your words you meant on what causes harassment, or distress, when concerned with mysoginy. It’s full definition is perverse enough without you simplification. Otherwise, you did support it, as your not against it.

        Ex, milo, he causes distress, he harasses. He’s a provocative person, that’s his job, he’d be arrested if he went back to England.

        Here’s your quote:

        So not only are you hard right, but like all hard right, you peddle falsehoods. Lies in old-fashioned non-jargo speak. Re your comment that in the UK one can be arrested for expressing a pov that is “misogynistic”???? BULLSHIT

        If, by “misogynistic” you mean intentionally targeting a particular individual with written words to cause her harassment and distress — YES. And quite rightly so.

        So, just to give you clarity that even you will understand:

        —- Words expressing a pov on “misogyny” — NO.

        —- ACTS of “misogyny” in the form of words — YES.

        So yes?


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 12:54 pm

        MY will be arrested for a whole lot more should he ever try to groom underage teen boys for some hard-right serious sucky-sucky, as he seems to condone/promote (all under the guise of “free speech”). YES???????


      • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 1:08 pm

        So? Does that change the fact that you willfully chose to ignore the topics he talked about? ”

        Life isn’t white, and black, dumbass.

        It’s a whole lot of grey, how bout you show some restraint in your bigotry. Try to listen, and “understand” what he is talking about. Maybe if you listen to him, will you be able to get a basic understanding on how corrosive Progressives are.


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 1:15 pm

        I dont ignore. I just will not get so over excited about a self-admitted would-be (by all accounts according to his own words) groomer.

        And especially one who dropped out of university (heard of that???) on TWO occasions. I will not listen to his uneducated, ill-informed view of the law. Waste of my life.

        Now, no doubt he can speak from a position of knowledge on other things, such as underage teen sucky sucky (again, based on my interpretation of his own words), but I’m not interested in those aspects of his vomiting either.

        Admit it: you are in love with him. You think he’s gorgeous, right??


      • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 1:24 pm

        Wow, you lost the argument, you can’t defend yourself. The guy looks ok, but it’s sad you can’t even bother learning from people with different views.

        You do realize there are many billionaires that didn’t finish college right? Not to mention that college is a disgusting hell hole at the moment because of people like you forcing their views on others without even bothering to learn theirs.

        Your a failure, goodnight.


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 1:55 pm

        As a person with over 30 years skin-in-the-legal-game, I have nothing to “learn'” for a guy who could not even finish University twice over, let alone would like faint at the mere sight of a law book.

        I can see that for blithering ioiots, fools, desperados, weaklings, intellectual dumplings, and those who are simply “in love” with MY, might be tempted. And of course, fascists. Fascists love him. Even muslim fascists —- because he just makes moderate fascists hate the west even more.

        But he’s full of shit.

        Liked by 1 person

      • jimdroberts March 17, 2017 / 5:24 am

        I’ve watched a huge number of Milo’s videos and must admit that at times he does come across, like you say, as full of shit.

        But this is where you seem to be completely missing the point of the argument. Just because a person is ‘full of shit’ doesn’t mean that they don’t have a right to articulate that shit. If we lived in the world you seem to aspire to we wouldn’t be able to have the conversation we’re having now.


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 17, 2017 / 6:31 am

        And that is why the world is going to hell in a handbasket. I have no problem with his making comments of which expertise is not required. But I have a problem when someone who is not a lawyer starts with the legal analysis. Especially when it is to further a hard-right agenda

        Remember the hard right in the US???? Watch Trumbo. How they now parade on their right for “free speech” having caused so much misery — and, as then, the hard right are nothing more than big cry babies. big cry babies most of which are middle aged white males who hate that their perceived “power base” is being equalized.

        For the rest ot, it is clear that this “debate” is constrained to the narrow monocularism of an entirely domestic US paradigm. Sod all to do with where the far right is so very ready to cause real damage hand in hand with Putin.

        The US experience of free speech is very special but by no means universal. It is by no accident that the publication of Mein Kampf in Germany is still very controversial let alone for decades was banned. So put that into your “freedom of speech” mix and go figure. And if you are this then to deride the Germans as “fascists” because Mein Kampf was banned then that is just about one of the most offensive things one could level at a country that is far more liberal than the US on so many levels.

        Right now: the rise of the far right, under re-branded “alt right” gives everyone pause for thought as to what freedom means and the extent to which freedom of speech must be curtailed to preserve more fundamental freedoms.

        The fact of the matter is despite all of the hard right’s negative views of Germany’s policy on immigration, you are on average more than 5 time less likely to be attacked in Germany by an Muslim immigrant than one is in the US by a white Northern European-descendants that the US’ far right love so much. I would argue precisely because, amongst others, Mein Kampf was banned for so long with the threat of imprisonment for publishing it. QED.


      • jimdroberts March 17, 2017 / 7:43 am

        Have the far right hijacked the issue of the right to free speech in order to legitimize themselves to the mainstream public?

        For me this right goes beyond the political paradigm of right and left wing politics. The right to free speech is natural and pre-political and as such cannot really be championed by any one political ideology.

        From the start of my research into the alternative right I have been concerned by how they are promoting themselves as the people who will uphold this basic right.

        At this point I’m liable to refer to John Locke’s inalienable rights (all of which he considers pre-political) life, liberty and property. Why the ideology of alt right conflicts with Locke is whilst they prescribe themselves as the protectors of free speech they use that speech to limit the liberty of others.

        Am I somewhere near close to being right with these ideas?


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 17, 2017 / 8:15 am

        Forget John Locke. Think in terms of Thomas Paine.

        The law is king, the king is not the law

        It starts only with that understanding. And understanding that some rights are more inalienable than others. and that means to the extent there is a perceived danger of harm coming to the vulnerable by dint of the hard right then yes, for the vulnerables’ sake, to protect their most fundamental freedoms, freedom of speech absolutely is and should be curtailed as a matter of law.

        Germany did that for decades re Mein Kampf. and I support that 100%, in fact 1000%, because I do not share that US-White man’s monocular “luxury” that freedom of speech trumps EVERYTHING. It just does not, when that intention (mark that word again) is male fide.

        And when I read what you and everyone else writes on here: I wager it is written from the narrow perspective of white US men — most likely middle aged and older. A very narrow special interest group for whom “Freedom of speech” trumps everything irrespective of intention.

        You have a hate crime issue going on in the US now. Muslims are in danger of becoming the US’ new class of niggas (and I use that word very carefully knowing how toxic it is) and it starts by Freedom of Speech being used to promote such restrictions on their real freedoms of movement, as a virtue for national security. A downright hard-righter’s wet dream. Bush never did that for godssake. Wake up! How far do you think the US could go? You had no hesitation locking up the Japanese in WWII did you? Innocents locked up based on the slant of their eyes. So you have “form” for it.

        It starts now, by realizing the “debate” on “freedom of speech” is simply an all-convenient smokescreen/distraction perpetuated by white men who in real terms want to get on in the meantime attacking the more fundamental rights of Muslims for example, no doubt. Look what is happening and look a what you are so so so concerned over instead — that women complain about misogyny (Ravenous wolf)??? Jesus!

        Put simply: your country is restricting the freedoms of those based only on their ethnicity and religion, and you think the rest of us give two hoots about the Mr. white-middle-age-American man’s self-serving definition of “freedom of speech” so he can have even more pops at Muslims and women alike??? Jesus! Go figure.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 2:13 pm

        And just so you dont lay there self-congratulating yourself as you suck your thumbs in your crib thinking of MY, this is what I said first time around.

        If, by “misogynistic” you mean intentionally targeting a particular individual with written words to cause her harassment and distress — YES. And quite rightly so.

        So, just to give you clarity that even you will understand:

        —- Words expressing a pov on “misogyny” — NO.

        —- ACTS of “misogyny” in the form of words — YES.

        Clear now?

        So, in the UK, are word expressing a pov on “misogyny” illegal? NO.

        Are ACTS of “misogyny” in the form of words so as to cause a woman distress or harassment, illegal in the UK?? YES.

        Liked by 1 person

      • jimdroberts March 17, 2017 / 7:05 am

        It’s great to have someone so informed weigh into this discussion. On the basis of what you’ve just said I can’t say I disagree with how the U.K. Interprets misogyny.

        Again, thank you for taking the time to help further my understanding of this mine field.


    • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 11:48 am

      For the negative aspect of controlling what people can, and cannot say. Well, look at Sweden, turkey, Stalin, Germany, England, mossoulini, and china.

      In the US, we also have that problem with feminist, and the left. Milo tried to make a speech, and someone got shot, when the protestors tried to force them to cancel it.

      In colleges, and universities, it was to the point that if you said anything about supporting trump. You’d be mobbed by them, people would get attacked, and demonized in public.

      If you tried to argue back, and if you tried to defend yourself. They would incriminalize you. Some places would even force you into seminars, and gender study courses, while calling you a potential rapist.

      A mans mother committed suicide, after a woman put false rape charges against her son. He was in jail, when she committed suicide, and when he was finally let go. The woman responsible got a lighter sentence.

      How does this all apply to freedom of speech? Well, it applies to being able to point out the issues, without fear of being silenced. If people come to a consensus, congratualations. If they don’t, and you suffer regardless, then try again.

      If you want a more obvious answer, go to Saudi Arabia, and denounce the Quran, see what it gets you.

      Liked by 1 person

      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 11:55 am

        Typical “them and us” bunker mentality. Since when did I say that Saudi Arabia was the epitome of god sense????

        I get sick to the hind teeth of hard righters’ hyperbole so that they can peddle hatred. Your post is just another example. You “dont point out issues” y, you spout inaccurate bullshit

        Just because you have so-called “freedom of speech” does not mean you are QUALIFIED to exercise it on any given subject that takes your fancy. It is called making a royal tit of oneself. Have the good manners to refrain from so-doing. Spare us your rants based on ill-gotten gains.


      • jimdroberts March 15, 2017 / 12:02 pm

        Can’t say that I disagree with any of what you say, especially about once a government is empowered to decide what can and can’t be said that government is likely to use it to prohibit all forms of dissent making them above criticism and no longer accountable to the people.


      • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 12:23 pm

        I see what you are, an elitist snob, qualified? Plz, a bigoted fascist such as yourself is the least person qualified to state what’s proper.

        Saudi Arabia was an example you twit, and even then, hatred?

        I never stated I supported in spreading hatred, you did. You support such foul circumstances unto others, being the very reason that diversity came frothing at its mouth. Safe spaces, and political correctness has caused people to become social rejects. They’re to the point that they have panic attacks when a conservative so much as even enters their safe space.

        You want an issue, your social construct is a failure that has to be remedied.


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 12:47 pm

        Typical. Tell a hard-righter to exercise restraint, because they are ill-qualified to speak, and one is branded “elitist”.

        Is that what you say to your proctologist, as you bend over??? “You eiltiist”?

        —-> No! Of course not: you take it like a man and STFU!!!!


      • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 12:59 pm

        Pathetic, what even is a hard righter in your view? Telling someone to bend over? So you admit that you view yourself in a position to order others?

        Exercise restraint? Since when have you asked for restraint? Because I point out your fallacies? Because I point out how you label, then ignore dissenting opinions? How you view going to a university, as a form of authority? So you view yourself above people who didn’t finish university as well? How the hell are you not an elitist wannabe?

        Take it like a man and shut the fuck up? How bout you take it like a man, and understand people are tired of your bullshit? Take responsibility for the failures you progressives have wrought upon us all last year.


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 1:09 pm

        There you go: you just cannot stop the flap, flap, flap.

        Dammit girl: In the 1920s you would have given a whole new meaning to the term flapper of course with your best party dress on Now wouldn’t that be a sight ,)???


      • Ravenous Battle Wolf March 15, 2017 / 1:13 pm

        Why do you always fall back on insults? How does that bring any support for your agendas? Why do you run away?


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 15, 2017 / 1:57 pm

        Sorry, but while you were busy soiling your panties, you failed to notice how many insults you first hurled in your cocktail dress-.


  6. Brandon March 17, 2017 / 4:34 am

    Whoops, forgot to subscribe and ended up missing all these replies.

    Jim, based off your replies in the comments, I can’t see much fault in your thought process, especially in pointing out that the right to freedom of speech is a pre-political conception. Going back to the ludicrous comparison to police search and seizure; no one on the planet is born with a natural right to put on a badge and break into any house he or she wants. In fact, we are born with ZERO right to search and seizure of another individual’s property. The privilege of doing so is obtained through general public consent (though true “public consent” may be quite a bit idealistic at this point in time). This is the very definition of a privilege. A right, by contrast, starts at conception as fully guaranteed, only trimmed by what are deemed reasonable restrictions in the political/social scope.

    To quote Enough-Is-Enough’s lunacies one more time, “You should be asking, how in god’s name did his type get so far.” I’m sure you’ve turned a deaf ear to this one many times, Enough; YOU are the reason for this. When the stranglehold of political correctness and the thought police go to insane lengths (i.e. colleges banning the use of “offensive” words, throwing shitfits over “fat-shaming”, etc), the backlash will be just as harsh.

    PC culture has driven otherwise good-natured men and women to the point of snapping. When common sense and courtesy is no longer enough for the left, which endlessly yearns for new restrictions for the sake of “safety”, people stop caring about your feelings altogether. As a comparison: I offer a homeless man a snack – if he “shames” me into not giving him more, he go right ahead and fuck himself, initial kindness be damned.

    So, in other words, we no longer give a rat’s ass how offended you are. Your “normal” is not normal. “Normal” is telling your kids to treat people nicely as a general rule of social decency – “Normal” is NOT legislating restrictions on words or phrases that may damage one’s feelings. “Normal” is also teaching your kids that, sometimes, mean things will be said to them and it’s their responsibility to shrug it off as weightless words.

    Liked by 2 people

    • jimdroberts March 17, 2017 / 4:43 am


      Thanks for taking the time to write such an excellent comment. I agree with you To such a degree that you seem to be better at articulating my own thoughts than I am, either that or I’ve invented another Internet alter ego and you are actually me replying to my own blog, taking the time to confirm that I’m in agreement with myself.

      I’d better get some rest soon otherwise one of these Internet doppelgängers might just manifest themselves in a non-digital format and start ranting utter nonsense.

      Ohhh, too late.


      • Brandon March 17, 2017 / 5:09 am

        Ha! I won’t lie, it did take a while to put the thoughts to words when sleep deprivation hit after only a few sentences.

        This blog and it’s comment section has certainly been one of those most interesting discussions I’ve seen in a while, and you seem to have a healthy/realistic skepticism of BOTH sides of the table. I’ll be checking out more of your work when my brain is awake again.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 17, 2017 / 9:30 am

        Before you get too smug with your self-serving pov, here is grist to your mill:

        Google under fire as government pulls ads over extremist content

        Candidly, you type of people are either hard-righters or you are truly so so so effing yesterday. If the former, kindly declare your interest as such and I will not spend a nanosecond more reading your views because you are simply “grooming” people like me so that you can have the freedoms to then peddle your hatred. Otherwise, wake the fuck up.


      • jimdroberts March 17, 2017 / 9:41 am

        Do you really consider the opinions that people have expressed thus far to be of an extreme nature?

        Truly that fascinates me, while at the same time coming across as being just a touch hysterical.

        The second paragraph of the article reads:
        The government joined a number of organisations, including the Guardian, in pulling advertising from Google and YouTube after discovering that ads had appeared alongside inappropriate content.

        This raises the obvious question as to who has been empowered with determining what is and what isn’t inappropriate content? What are the rules on what can, and can not be said on the internet?

        Fascinating times.


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 17, 2017 / 10:03 am


        Wow. Yours in the country that persists with Gitmo

        At this point, there is no point discussing with you as you are clearly a white middle aged American male and thus only has that narrow self-interest. Thank god jurists such as myself are constrained by the law to consider the wider perspectives.

        Re what can be said on the internet? ANYTHING, which is why SELF censorship in the form of pulling ads etc is the only way to fight Google and its dogged Americanism.

        In the US, you have the Constitution. In the EU we have the European Court of Human Rights. Hence the difference. The former is a construct fashioned over 2 hundred years ago by white men, the latter is ever evolving with the express duty to preserve not just constitutional rights but HUMAN rights.

        It is a shame you are blinkered in your thinking because the only document you consider is the US Const., which is deeply flawed from a Human rights perspective because it does not entreat human rights above all else. Hell! To pacify the slave owners at the time, property rights are even more important and certainly a legal species recognized as having the force of the rule of law as against “mere” human rights!!!!!!

        And that is the problem, This hinky US thinking has infected the world so you do not understand what Human Rights really mean. Hence you think it is a scandal that an American corporate should be told to get rid of the EXTREME RIGHT.

        Profit eh??? Always about the dollar. When push comes to shove: fuck human rights when there is a constitutional right that can be advanced that allows a buck to be made on the back of that.

        To go full circle: Gitmo says it all. It could never EVER happen in the EU. It would be against the LAW. And still you dont “get it”

        Liked by 1 person

      • jimdroberts March 17, 2017 / 2:22 pm

        This is my favorite response. It manages to combine a heady mix of human rights, hysteria with a few too many high energy, caffeine infused energy drinks. The end result is a melange of legal terminology intermingled with a passionate rage so palpable that the reader is left in fear that you’re somehow going to manifest yourself out of the screen and initiate a violent attack wielding a baguette that conforms to all EU specifications.


      • ENOUGH-IS-ENOUGH March 17, 2017 / 4:28 pm

        Ah so not only are you an american who resorts to mis-characterization when erudite points defeat or educate you, but typical, you are an American Brexiter. So you share a common plan with Putin. Well done!

        Soon, you will fully revert-to-form and be calling me an “elitist” as part of your Pol Pot fundamentalism

        Keep telling yourself the US Const. represents the sole font of Human rights! Go on, keep trumping Free Speech over and above more fundamental rights. Keep telling yourself that you’d rather have that, than have someone with balls adjudicate protective measures! Make an ass of yourself. An American ass of course.

        Your’re not interested in a discourse. You are interest only in right-wing monocularism. Worse??? That makes you hard right. QED.


      • jimdroberts March 17, 2017 / 9:53 am

        The internet I being taken over by right wing pov, a fact that Yiannopoulos refers to:
        The pressure to self-censor must be almost overwhelming for straight white men — and, for most of them, it appears to be, which explains why so much of the alt-right operates anonymously.

        Proving this point look at what happened a year ago when Microsoft launched an ai Chat Robot

        The internet can’t be policed with the level of vigilance that you seem to be hoping for. Sensible well thought out argument is the only thing that can prevent the machinations of the alt-right from getting out of control.


  7. Brandon March 17, 2017 / 4:57 am

    Also, Jim –

    Your comment about an authoritative government dictating what is ok to say is spot on. The more laws the government holds over people, the less power the citizens have to stop any form of corruption.

    Up until the 2016 election, can anyone honestly say the the federal government even remotely feared or respected the public? Washington is in no way, shape, or form in touch with the dirty commoners they rule over. The Clintons are perhaps the easiest example of gross corruption in full public knowledge, yet they are untouchable because they essentially rule over themselves.

    Local, county, state, and federal governments should ALWAYS be looking over their backs in fear of public dissent, in order to maintain a free state. The only way to accomplish this is by reigning in the size of the government and the legislation they can enact, thereby reducing the buffer between policy makers and the common citizen.

    While I don’t agree with everything Trump says and stands for, he represents the closest form of fear in the eye of the established political circle. At long last, the American people finally broke the mold and rebelled against what their “overlords” fed them. This was made none the clearer by the incredibly sad, pathetic, and drawn-out attempt by the RNC to push Jeb Bush (really… Jeb Bush??) onto us prior to the primaries.

    Trump has risks. With the current state of the federal government/citizens of America power balance, I, as many others did as well, decided that those risks were worth the possibility of rolling back the inequity of power.

    Liked by 2 people

    • jimdroberts March 17, 2017 / 5:12 am

      Do you keep the company of friends as erudite and as eloquent as yourself? Because if you do I’d really appreciate it if you could ask them to look at this blog. I admit a lot of it’s utter garbage, but I’m hopeful that it contains nuggets that might interest people enough for them to consider making thoughtful, well informed responses.


  8. charles the moderator March 21, 2017 / 6:01 am

    Typical. Tell a hard-righter to exercise restraint, because they are ill-qualified to speak, and one is branded “elitist”.

    Not necessarily, but writing, such as the following quote, certainly does, as far as this yank is concerned.

    …the show itself reminds me of one of those conversations that you’d get into at a bar at two in the morning, in some small town, jerky chewing backwater that the United States has been so adept at nurturing…


    • jimdroberts March 21, 2017 / 6:12 am

      I’m guessing that you’re a jerky fan.


Comments are closed.