[Guest post by Nate Winchester]

In case you’re reading this in the future and have forgotten what we were all talking about back in February of 2017, a quick refresher.

A conservative speaker (or at least, an anti-left speaker) named Milo had several media pieces released about something he said over two years ago that apparently had to ferment before it became a scandal.  The uproar over this lost clip caused Milo to get dis-invited to an event, lose a book deal, and a writing gig with a website.

The reactions to it trend towards 3 groups.

1) The Leftists who could care less about children (see here) but want to take down a cultural opponent.

2) The Rightists who oppose Milo as a public face for them.

3) The Rightists who support Milo.

Now groups 1 & 2 are both howling at group 3 asking “why? Why do you support this guy?”

Rather than come down one way or another in the kerfuffle, this post will instead answer that question.  Because group 3 can actually be divided up into two more subgroups.

The first group consists of those who may or may not agree with Milo, but insist that after he falls, you will be next (example), like the infamous poem, “First they came for…”  This is also the only group I’ve found leftists that support Milo in so far.

Survival is an easy enough motivation, what about the second group?

Well like all other things in modern life, this can be explained by CS Lewis’ book The Abolition of Man.  (Seriously, it’s the only thing you need to read to get what’s going on today.)

“We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”

See, if you look closely, when we get to full-on Milo support, it trends towards younger people.  New generations that have been simmering for long years in an education and culture thoroughly dominated by the zeitgeist of the Left.  A zeitgeist that long ago abandoned honor and principles as necessary for man and nihilism as the only truth.  You can pick any number of reasons why (such as “honor is patriarchal”) but fundamentally it was because in a conflict the first side to abandon honor or rules enjoys an advantage over the side that adheres to them.

Because “the Youth” is always liberal, the Left thought it could use a lack of standards to finish crushing the Right and then enjoy unchallenged years of dominance.  The problem is that “the Youth” isn’t always liberal, it’s always rebellious, and as soon as they started noticing it was really the Left in charge (the 1950s being long past) their rebellion against it would begin.

A rebellion with no lessons or training in honor and standards.  Because the Left never believed a new generation might arise against them having been instructed in the very rules of war the Left taught.
So for those wondering what happened to “the Right” when it comes to Milo?  Behold the fruit of the seeds you planted.  You have raised up an enemy every bit as ready and willing to fight as dirty and nasty as you do.  Why do so many still support Milo completely?  Because that’s how they were trained.
Loading Likes...

2 thoughts on “Milo

  1. Sarah Hoyt

    Or perhaps because some of us grew up in socialist countries, are used to agit prop and contrived accusations and watched THE WHOLE UNCUT VIDEO to find the accusations are the most complete bullshwa. Which you can’t say you don’t know exists because it’s referenced in my blog post. But perhaps I do you wrong, and you only read the title.
    It seems to me that you’re more akin to those who shouted “Give us Barrabas” because they were misinformed and didn’t want the crowd to turn on them. Also, it fit their model and they were WAY too happy with their ignorance to change.
    PFUI. Those youth could give you lessons in courage. They have resisted the brainwashing of their “betters” to be conservatives, and you call them “men without chests.” Do you lack a mirror, sir?

    1. Nate Winchester

      Hi Sarah!

      No I read your blog (I’m subscribed to it) and thought your post was one of the best defenses out there. That’s why I linked it.

      They have resisted the brainwashing of their “betters” to be conservatives, and you call them “men without chests.” Do you lack a mirror, sir?

      I have heard more than a few youth bemoan the lack in their education of the old lessons and values, usually when older folks begin discussing the classics. Sometimes I have even been the complainer. Should I not take them at their word?

      Besides as anyone who has read tAoM can attest, the fault in the Men without Chests lie not in themselves, but in their teachers. If I was to call them illiterate because of their own laments at being unable to read, is that an insult to them, or their instructors?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *