Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Ryan Sorba on Milo Yiannopoulos: Cultural Marxist in Not So Conservative Clothing

By Ryan Sorba

“Never bother with leftists… Aim higher. This was my instruction. Try to get into large circulation, established Conservative media.” –Former KGB Agent Yuri Bezmenov[1]


Milo Yiannopoulos is a thirty-two year old pansexual British citizen.[2] His legal name is Milo Andreas Hanrahan, and he has written poetry under the pen name Milo Wagner[3] and gone by the names Nero and Caligula on social media, after two Roman despots who molested children and tortured Christians.[4][5]

Yiannopoulos dropped out of both the University of Manchester and Wolfson College. After a short stent working for the UK’s Daily Telegraph, and facing a series of business corruption charges in England, he migrated to the United States on an O-1 Visa (O-1 visas are granted to individuals believed to possess extraordinary ability, acclaim, or achievement).[6]

In October, 2015, Yiannopoulos joined the staff of Breitbart Tech as an editor, a position that created inroads with Conservative college groups, who began inviting him to their campuses to lecture on subjects such as free speech and political correctness. 


Yiannopoulos identifies himself as both a practicing Catholic[7] and a Conservative, but in practice he advocates for neither. While I am not judging the motives of his heart, I am observing that he does not advocate for Catholic moral teachings (in word or self-professed deed) and, contrary to all Conservative principles, he advances the agenda of Cultural Marxism. He appears to have no concern for the truth about either.

Yiannopoulos is notable to because he advocates for a Cultural Marxist sexual ethic among Conservative youth. His advocacy to date, tends to follow this pattern:

1.     1. He poses as a harmless politically-incorrect comedian. This serves to disarm well-meaning Conservatives students.

2.      2. He presents himself as a defender of freedom of speech and Western Civilization. This serves to cultivate Conservative good will

3.      3. When invited to speak on campus, he talks about his sexual behavior, giving it a veneer of conservatism by discussing free-speech and insulting liberals. 

      These tactics can put conservative students in a position where they end up allying themselves with his objectionable views on sexuality because they're allied with him on grounds of free-speech. They are his host, and he is speaking on their behalf, therefore they may feel obligated to defend him. Without paying careful attention to parse out the issues involved, they can end up tacitly endorsing - or worse, adopting - the deconstructionist sexual ethic he represents and embodies, potentially compromising or neutralizing, not only future dissent, but their own personal future as well. Thus, the end result of Yiannopoulos' work is actually a splitting of the loyalty of Conservative students relating to Cultural Marxism’s sexual ethic.

Yiannopoulos identifies himself as a Conservative, but a brief summary of Cultural Marxist thought, set alongside a few quotes from his interviews, will draw out the underlying threads of his warped worldview brightly: which is to serve as the personification of "polymorphous perversity," as subversion takes place, which includes 

Herbert Marcuse and Cultural Marxism in America

Cultural Marxism grew in America alongside the rise of Frankfurt School Critical Theorist Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), who has also been called, “The Father of the New Left.” Marcuse studied under Continental philosopher Martin Heidegger in Freiburg from 1928-32, updated Marxism to suit modern conditions, and laid the ideological groundwork for the college radicals and sexual revolutionaries of the 1960’s. His goal was to convince “young whites and militant ghetto blacks to mount a revolution” to overthrow the United States government.[8] 

Marcuse wrote a number of books, including Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, and an essay, Repressive Tolerance, which argued that for modern society to achieve the objective of tolerance, "intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes [and] opinions" would be required. He cultivated this "intolerance" by teaching students in the 60's to be "critical of everything" by participating in "The Great Refusal" and to always see themselves as "Alienated" by remembering to focus on the unbridgeable chasm between their subjective and imaginitive ideals and their less than ideal real lives. He taught children to see themselves forever as, "repressed victims." 

In other words, Marcuse was out to change public opinion and morality. Primarily, he wanted teens and young adults to become sexual outcasts in order to use them, by giving them a so-called "purpose" for which to mount a violent communist revolution. With these goals in mind, Marcuse also coined the now iconic phrases, “Free Love!” and, “Make Love Not War!” [9]

Bureauracracy as a Foundation for Ideological Subversion

After angering fascists in Nazi Germany as a Communist antagonizer, Marcuse moved to the United States to help the Office of War Information and Strategic Services craft anti-Nazi propaganda -a good cause unto itself. After WWII, however, Marcuse turned on the United States government, and used his quarrelsome zeal to initiate a Marxist-Leninist process known as “Ideological Subversion” in America, starting in the 1960's. 

Ideological Subversion is a four-phase progression which aims to destroy a nation from within and thereby render it more susceptible to takeover in a Marxist revolution, both forcibly -through violence (which is where Herbert Marcuse comes in) and bureaucratically –by what communist student activist Rudi Dutschke (influenced by Critical Theorist Antonio Gramsci) referred to in 1967 as, “the long march through the institutions” (the establishment of a "Deep State"). The phrase "long march through the institutions" is a reference to Chinese communists who, under Mao marched across the whole of China in their communist revolution.[10] 

Together, Marcuse and Dutschke created the two-part plan for revolution that would be used by Leftists in America for the next six decades. Marcuse wrote to Dutschke in the 1960's stating: "Let me tell you this: that I regard your 'long march through the institutions as the only effective way..." Thus, Dutschke advocated for a long strategy of incrementalism, of nesting communists in secure jobs as teachers, professors, bureaucrats, journalists, movie-makers, and as bosses in charge of all "the great chains of information and indoctrination." His purpose was to create a shadow government, that could seize power after Marcuse's "victim class" rose up to riot and shut society down, at least until a future president stepped down and a charismatic Marxist so-called "savior" emerged to restore order under communist reforms.

Thus, the two parts of the modern Marxist plan -that of Dutschke's "long march through the institutions" and Marcuse's the four phase process of "Ideological Subversion," began in the United States in 1960's. During this time, Leftists began to advocate - ostensibly of course - for the steady build up of bureaucratic agencies to help manage local, state, and federal government affairs and for establishing new sexual categories and other racial subgroups who would be brainwashed into seeing themselves as "victims" forever.

The Long March through the Institutions

From the 1960's through 2016, as America listened to pop music and watched sitcoms, Leftists were busy sucessfully advocating for evermore bureaucratic agencies and quietly appointing each other to positions of power within them, while working hard, but quietly of course, to keep Conservatives out. They also worked to place each other in positions of power within churches, courts, news channels, newspapers, entertainment companies, and colleges. Their goal was to work to make as many Americans as possible feel a sense of pride in seeing themselves as "critical," "alienated," "unhappy," and "victims." They also sought to destroy marriage and the family and to create a godless horde of sex and drug addicted youths with nothing left to lose but their lives, in a revolution. 

The bureaucratic agencies were key, however. They were designed to create a hidden foundation of political power, which essentially manages everything practical related to government programs and handouts, rendering the President and Congress incrementally superfluous to the average American. Thus, these bureaucracies and the bureaucrats who lead them have been lying in wait, like a lion in cover, to seize power from a future U.S. President. This is supposed to occur when the third, "Crisis/Insurgency" phase of the Cultural Marxists "Ideological Subversion" plot is completed. 

During the "Crisis/Insurgency" phase a revolutionary horde of trained protestor-rioters, like those belonging to "Black Lives Matter" and "Antifa" and "Occupy Wall Street," for example, rise up suddenly, riot, and create chaos, until they attain the ability to "shut society down." 

Through constant rioting and repeated attempts to shut society down, their underlying goal is to make the American people "desperate" for a return to "order" and to lose faith in their President and Congress. Before restoring order, however, the "peaceful protestors" are supposed to demand that the President and/or Congress step down before they'll disperse. At that time, the Leftist politicians who allow the protests to continue, because they also want revolution. In addition, the Leftist bureaucratic heads are supposed to "agree with the people," boycott work, and protest, with the goal of helping to shut society down, including key government programs -programs designed to make the people dependent, so that if those programs do shut down, their recipients will rise up and riot as well. 

Then, as mentioned, amidst the chaos, a political standoff is supposed to occur, until a charismatic Marxist leader emerges (Barack Obama would be a good candidate, at the present time, for example), with a "New Plan for America," which results in its radical transition from a Free Republic to a Marxist form of government, in policy only, however, in all but name that is. They will not call it "communism," at least not at first.  

Thus, the purpose for the build up of a multitude of unecessary bureaucratic agencies, responsible for many government programs, is to help Leftist bureaucrats slowly accumulate power over said programs, so as to increasingly render the President and Congress unecessary "clowns." Then, after society is shut down, their purpose is to boycott work, so as to participate in the shutting down of society, as their carefully cultivated (in many cases paid) rioters make the events appear to be the result of a natural and spontaeous "uprising of unhappy citizens." 

By shutting society down, the bureaucrats and rioters then work together to make the people desperate for order, while demanding that the President of the United States step down. As this occurs, a charismatic so-called Marxist "Savior" emerges to restore order under a new Communist bureaucratic regime (in all but name). 

The existence of this Leftist bureaucratic regime is what Conservatives have finally taken notice of, and begun to refer to as, "The Deep State." It is the Cultural Marxist's and Critical Theorist's necessary foundation for a future revolution. It is set up and designed to lie in wait, for a future Marxist revolution in America. It is one aspect of Marcuse's, Dutschke's, and Gramcsi's plot for revolution, and they dubbed it: "the long march through the institutions." Today, Donald Trump has only begun to "drain the swamp" of these revolutionary bureaucrats by firing as many as possible. If we have a contested election in November 2020, however, it is possible that they would try to pull off a revolution early, as a last resort, despite the fact that they are unready for it. 

Aside from this foundation, laid by Critical Theorists Marcuse, Dutschke, and Gramsci, the other more traditional four phases of Marxist "Ideological Subversion," which were primarily advocated for by Marcuse, include: Demoralization, Destabilization, Crisis/Insurgency, and Normalization.

Step 1 of Marcuse's Portion of The Plan: Demoralization

The Urban Dictionary defines Demoralization as the “gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, and law and order to re-assemble society in the future as a communist utopia.”[11] In all cases with Marxist revolutionary designs, the objective is to "deconstruct" Classical Western society so that a Communist "utopian" society can be "constructed" on the ruins. 

The Marxist intellectual script for Demoralization is "Critical Theory." Through the work of Herbert Marcuse, Critical Theory combines the work of Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx to recast history, not merely through the lens of class struggle for the equal ownership of the means of production, but more comprehensively, as the overall struggle for pleasure against a society’s authoritarian impulse to repress pleasure, for the sake of profit (longer work hours, less pay, etc. equates to less pleasure for the poor, more for the rich). Thus, Leftists actually want to coax the government and business owners into worsening the work and financial conditions of their workers during the Demoralization phase. They want workers to be poor, unhappy, and living their lives as single or as "atomized individuals," and to identify themselves with one of an assorted number of carefully designed "victim classes," which will cause them to become evermore willing to protest and riot when the time comes to "shut society down." 

As the brain behind Critical Theory, Herbert Marcuse helped relocate the chief academy for his revolutionary theory, The Institute for Social Research (ISR), from Frankfurt, Germany, to Geneva, and then to Columbia University in New York City in 1935.[12] Today, the U.S. headquarters for Critical Theory studies has become The New School for Social Research in Greenwhich Village, New York, cofounded by John Dewey, a democratic socialist who refused to take an oath of loyalty to the United States and held that "education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform."[13] The college now has an enrollment of over 2,000 faculty members and about 10,000 students –all studying Marxism. 

In addition, today, college campuses around the nation, from the University of Michigan to the University of New Mexico, and Sacramento State University, among various other universities, house satellite centers of Critical Theory studies.  

"Demoralization" via "Polymorphous Perversity"

According to the Epoch Times, an anti-communist publication: "The writings of Karl Marx and other communists describe the family as a form of private ownership of individuals to be abolished... Communist regimes place love for the Communist Party above love even for one's parents, spouses, or children, encouraging people to struggle against their own kin. ... Friederich Engels ultimately hoped for widespread "unconstrained sexual intercourse," which is about dissolving traditional marriage and ultimately eliminating the family institution. []

To Demoralize America, Marcuse argued that a society’s imposed sexual boundaries and norms must be overturned and replaced by “Free Love,” which he also referred to as “Polymorphous Perversity,” a clunky phrase he stole from Freud. Polymorphous Perversity is the Cultural Marxist’s ostensible final goal for a society it is trying to Demoralize. Polymorphous Perversity will be achieved, he argued, when all sexual behaviors are leveled and seen as equally valid. All sexual behaviors, that is, except those which take place within the bounds of marriage. Marriage must be destroyed because lifelong monogamous matrimony is deemed both sexually discriminative and pleasurably repressive.

The real reason Marxists seek Polymorphous Perversity and the destruction of the concept of Traditional Marriage, of course, is because the two goals work in tandem to destroy the ethical precepts upon which the traditional family in founded, which is the institution through which each new rising generation learns to be self-reliant, free, and therefore, "civilized." Self-reliant individuals are the backbone of a self-reliant nation that celebrates self-reliance, and therefore also freedom and Capitalism -which is capable of creating more wealth in a minute than communism has in 200 years. 

Millions of self-reliant individuals and families constitute the building blocks of a self-reliant and free nation. Would you rather be self-reliant and free to voice your opinion in the marketplace of ideas, or would you rather rely on on the government for a tiny check and be censored and powerless to promote your point of view? At any rate, Marxists see the family as an institution they must bring to its knees before their firing squad of politically correct censors, so that every individual becomes utterly reliant upon and loyal only to a domestic super-state: led by a secret elite group of so-called "Philosopher Kings," the chief agents the communist party or "Occ-Soc" (Occult-Socialists).

Marxism, of course, has never produced equality of income, or even equality of pleasure for that matter -both are absurd concepts that would never work in this world. Equallity of income and shallow pleasures (re: addictions), however, are usually abandoned by Marxists after they have taken over a society, during the final, "Re-stabilization" or "Normalization," phase. During this phase, marxists put everybody back to work in less than ideal circumstances and murder the protestors that worked toward revolution on their behalf. After the revolution, the protestors will grow angry when the "utopia" they had dreamed of does not materialize and, since they had been groomed as trouble makers, the marxists want them gone so as to achieve longterm stabilization.

Thus, cultural marxism’s real purpose, is simply to serve as a vehicle for revolution and the subsequent enslavement of the world to a ruling class of pride-filled Occult Socialists (Occ-Soc) who see themselves a "superior," a class of so-called, "Philosopher Kings" who employ a political puppet elite to provide the people with the illusion of freedom, as explained in Plato's, so-called "Republic" and George Orwells excellent, Animal Farm.  

Thus, in order to propel a society toward their goal of revolutionary protests, marxists need a victim class, and this victim class is built up through "Polymorphous Perversity." Polymorphous Perversity requires Critical Theorists and other Cultural Marxists to engage in and openly promote a very specific kind of sex –that which is stigmatized, taboo, or outside of the bounds of the socially normative. Once one new behavior becomes normalized, the bar must be continually lowered, until all abhorrent sexual behaviors are equalized and nothing is considered taboo.[14] Nevermind that all this lowering of standards empties the words "normal" and "standard" of all meaning. As a growing number of dullards see themselves as "sexual class victims," they'll be more and more willing to revolt and accept the occult religious beliefs that undergird marxism.

From Marcuse’s perspective and for the purpose of Cultural Marxism, sex is for the personal pleasure of anybody, with anybody, any number of bodies, and anything, including children, objects, and animals –so long as anyone anywhere says, "Thou shalt not..." the sexual anarchist says, "I shall ... you sexual colonizer, and you will approve of it, or else." The "or else" is key here, as it provides the reason for the "revolt."

When the Marxists fulfill their dreams: when marriage is destroyed and sexually transmitted diseases are liberated, when as drugs are taken more and more by lonely and isolated individuals, and when the cost of living grows higher and higher, and when the population descends into debt, and when a majority see themselves as perpetual "victims" of the the status quo, then the time will come for the process of Destabilization, which is when the protests turn into riots and actual attempts to shut society down. 

Now, back to Yiannopoulos..

Milo: In His Own Words

Yiannopoulos’ Marcuse inspired speaking tour is entitled, “The Dangerous Faggot Tour.”[15] He essentially spends a couple of hours convincing intellectually vulnerable college Republicans and Libertarians to support his politically incorrect “freedom of speech” to argue in favor of, and embody the principle of, banishing all sexual restraints by tolerating and defending Marcuse’s Marxist psycho-sexual category of “Polymorphous Perversity” –in all but name.

For example, Yiannopoulos starts out by telling students that he only dates black homosexuals because it offends his mother’s sensibilities.[16]

He then takes the concept a step further when he tells students that he “only likes black di**” because the practice of inter-racial homosexuality is primarily “transgressive” –a violation of accepted or imposed boundaries or norms. He then states that all homosexuality is primarily “transgressive” and that is why he likes it.[17]

Yiannopoulos finally takes the concept all the way by specifically stating that he is only erotically attracted to behaviors that are “forbidden” or considered “taboo.”[18]

To many, Yiannopoulos appears to be a new sexual category, one that they can’t quite seem to figure out. It is clear, however, that Yiannopoulos performs as an embodiment of Polymorphous Perversity –an old Marxist category that sexual revolutionaries have been waiting a long time to feel safe enough to unleash; a “Marcuse-O-Sexual.” 

This analysis squares with the fact that Yiannopoulos spends much of his time critiquing the broad concept of political correctness and promoting free speech. He does this to unlock the door of the Conservative mind, which he then hopes to crack open to Polymorphous Perversity. It is his way of disarming and desensitizing Conservatives to the Marxist campaign to overthrow societal more’s, boundaries, and norms for socially acceptable behavior relating to Marcuse’s pleasure principle in general, and regarding Polymorphous Perversity in particular.

This is the agenda of Yiannopoulos.

Yiannopoulos provokes because he seeks attention. He seeks attention because his medium is his message –himself, as exemplar of a post “born gay” next step for sexual identity politics.

Yiannopoulos wants to open the American mind to a new pan-sexual identity cult, which is nothing more than old Frankfurt School Marxism as outlined in Eros and Civilization, play for play. He is attempting to do to our current culture what Kinsey did in the 40’s, even under the guise of Catholicism and Conservatism!

Yiannopoulos is not simply a provocateur but a calculated promoter of the Cultural Marxist concept of Polyamorous Perversity. 

Wake up and Good Morning America!

Consider Yiannopoulos’ language on the Joe Rogan Experience radio/internet program, bragging that he lost his virginity in an “interracial five-some with two drag queens” at thirteen years old. Who knows if the story is true, but every angle of the statement is carefully calculated to challenge norms and mores.[19]

Unfortunately, at fourteen years old Yiannopoulos was molested by a Catholic Priest, but he states that he doesn’t believe the incident was abusive. In fact, he states that he is “grateful” for the priest that molested him! Here, it should be noted that sexual abuse is the most common cause for the strongest and most persistent forms of same-sex attraction, either perpetrated by an older man, a teen, or another child who abused, then goes on to teach his friends what he learned from the perpetrator. In many cases, less resilient victims will go into denial that they are being abused in order to retain a sense of safety and control in the midst of trauma. In this denial, they convince themselves they enjoyed their abuse, to retain a sense of safety. It is also common for them to convince themselves that they pursued their perpetrator and in some cases they actually do pursue other men to convince themselves they were not abused and were never really unsafe. As one homosexual stated in an undercover video taken at a gay bar in Palm Springs: "I pursued every man that I could, because I wanted to get back at somebody. That's, I think, what actually made me gay." All this denial, however, only leads to revictimization and a greater likelihood that the abused child will go on to fall prey to the victim to perpetrator cycle. 

Now, for Yiannopoulos' statement: 
If it wasn’t for Father Michael I would have given far less good head. I was in my teens… I was a very mature fourteen year old. It wasn’t molestation. It was perfectly consensual. When I was 14, I was the predator. I was the instigator. I was chasing everybody. I was aggressively seeking out the sexual company of adults because I knew it would horrify people. It was my way of rebelling. I think I would make a good priest.[20]
Yiannopoulos then claims to be an “angel of God” and to have a “first class ticket into Heaven” before calling his molester a “great guy” and protecting the abuser by refusing to give his name. Yiannopoulos went on to speak vaguely of another experience stating that, “some of the boys there were very young around that time. There were a lot of drugs, a lot of twinks who were running around having sex with older men.”[21]

Again, Yiannopoulos refuses to name who he is speaking of in order to protect their identity and ability to molest more boys.

On another radio program entitled, Drunken Peasants, Yiannopoulos continues advocating for man-boy love, stating that it can be a “hugely positive experience” for a boy. He goes on to say that sexual abusers can serve as a “rock” and provide “safety” for boys:
In the homosexual world, particularly, some of those relationships between younger boys and older men – the sort of ‘coming of age’ relationship – the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable sort of rock.[22]
As long as Yiannopoulos speaks he continues to challenge sexual norms. He went on in the same interview to joke about having sex with both objects and animals.[23] He then referred to Donald Trump in sexual innuendo as “Daddy”[27]  and he brought up a time he claims he was offered $20,000 to have sex with a stranger.[24]

Just when you think there is nothing left that could be considered taboo Yiannopoulos continues to surprise. For example, he recently excited some social conservatives by claiming that he was thinking about going back to heterosexuality, but he went on to explain that his reason for making the statement was because being gay is no longer seen as taboo. It has become overtly mainstream, he claims. He laments that too many gays have become bourgeoisie, driving nice cars and going to Pilates.[25] He states:
It’s almost seen as a mark of moral virtue to be homosexual… I think that I might have to join the only remaining marginalized group, which is straight white males, and become heterosexual for a while.[26] 
Note that he didn't claim to want to be a married white male. That would be "repressive," and therefore, counter-productive to the eventual "revolution," you know, the one that will never succeed and result in the destruction of men who have been abused and brainwashed. Yes, Cultural Marxism is a travesty on top of a disaster.   

Yiannopoulos goes on to combat sexual taboo somemore, however, by criticizing what he perceives as sexual repression on the left by the few remaining 90’s second-wave feminists, who he sees as sexually conservative by accusing them of being “sex police.” 

Lastly, in typical Dialectical Marxist tradition, Yiannopoulos appears to seek to divide and conquer Conservatives, to "create a new party," one allied with disaffected leftists. He states:
The Republican Party is no longer fit for purpose… I want the existing structure of parties to be ripped apart and something new to be imagined, something new to be constructed. I want disaffected liberals who are most of my fans actually, and libertarians, and classical liberals… to join together.[28]
If Yiannopoulos is willing to state that he is a “practicing Catholic” while engaging in and promoting and taking public pride in this kind of sexual behavior, which is an obvious lie, then why would he have a problem portraying himself as a “Conservative” while promoting the exact opposite agenda, that of Marxism? 

So, is Milo Yiannopoulos a Cultural Marxist? Either that or he is one of heck of a "Useful Idiot," as defined by Soviet Marxists, just like his earlier manifestation in Conservative politics in the United States, Alex Knepper. 

Recently some Cultural Conservatives unfamiliar with Yiannopoulos have been overly sympathetic toward him. They believe he is simply an abuse victim standing against the New Left and political correctness. Nothing could be further from the truth. He is the "New Left," a Cultural Marxist category incarnate, co-opting the Conservative movement to divide it and weaponize its defectors against Cultural Conservatism’s Judeo-Christian values of faith and family. Faith undergirds “eternal” matrimony. Matrimony, in turn, undergirds the family, real community, which is the institution upon which which self-reliance is developed. Millions of self-reliant individuals make up self-reliant families, cities, states, and nations. But, both faith and family must be destroyed to usher in the Frankfurt School Marxist sexual and pedophilic nightmare envisioned by Marcuse and embodied by Milo Yiannopoulos.

God help us.

Blogger Widgets