Published on January 12th, 2018 | by Ryan Sorba0
Milo Yiannopoulos: Cultural Marxist in Not So Conservative Clothing?
Milo Yiannopoulos is a thirty-two year old pansexual British citizen. Yiannopoulos’ legal name is Milo Andreas Hanrahan. He has written poetry under the pen name Milo Wagner  and gone by the names Nero and Caligula on social media, after two Roman despots who molested children and tortured Christians.
Yiannopoulos is a dropout of both the University of Manchester and Wolfson College. After a short stent working for the UK’s Daily Telegraph and a series of business corruption charges were levelled against him in England, Yiannopoulos obtained approval to migrate to the United States on an O-1 Visa for “aliens with special abilities.”
In October of 2015 Yiannopoulos began as editor of Breitbart Tech. He used his position to make inroads with Conservative college groups, who began to invite him to lecture on their respective campuses in favor of free speech and against political correctness.
Yiannopoulos claims to be both a practicing Catholic and a Conservative but if you listen to what he says carefully it is easy to see that he actually does not even attempt to practice Catholicism (in word or deed) and is actually an advocate for Cultural Marxism. He appears to have no problem lying about both however.
Yiannopoulos is notable to DefendtheFamily.com because he advocates for a Cultural Marxist sexual ethic among Conservative youth groups. His advocacy to date has involved three basic steps:
- He poses as a harmless politically-incorrect comedian to disarm Conservatives college students
- He presents himself as a defender of freedom of speech and Western Civilization to cultivate Conservative good will
- Conservative students then invite him to speak on their respective college campuses where he lectures obsessively about his own abhorrent sexual behavior, camouflaging it all as Conservative by simply insulting liberals and discussing free-speech. Insulting liberals then leads Conservative students into a position in which they must defend his abhorrent views on free-speech grounds, which in turn leads them into a sort of Stockholm syndrome in which they feel allied to the Marxist sexual ethic embodied and represented by him, since they are his host and he is speaking on their behalf. Thus the end result actually splits the loyalty of Conservative students relating to Cultural Marxism’s sexual ethic, potentially neutralizing their future dissent or even leading them to support it.
Despite the fact that Yiannopoulos claims to be Conservative, a brief summary of Cultural Marxist thought coupled with a few quotes from his interviews will highlight the chief principle underlying his warped world view brightly.
Cultural Marxism in America proliferated alongside the rise of Frankfurt School Critical Theorist Herbert Marcuse, the “Father of the New Left.” Marcuse studied under Continental philosopher Martin Heidegger, updated Marxism to suit modern conditions, and laid the ideological groundwork for 1960’s collegiate communist radicals and sexual revolutionaries. His goal was to convince “young whites and militant ghetto blacks to mount a revolution” and overthrow the United States government. He is the author of Eros and Civilization, Repressive Tolerance, and coined the now famous phrases “Free Love” and “Make Love Not War.”
Marcuse’s work initiated a Marxist-Leninist process known as “Demoralization” in America, the first of a four phase process designed to destroy a nation from within so that it can be taken over by Marxists in a revolution, either forcibly or bureaucratically –what Antonio Gramsci referred to as, “the long march through the institutions.”
The remaining three phases include Destabilization, Crisis/Insurgency, and Normalization.
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.”
Critical Theory is Marxism’s modern intellectual blueprint for Demoralization. It combines the work of Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx to see history not merely through the lens of class struggle for equal ownership of the means of production but more broadly and on a deeper level 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).
Marcuse helped transplant the chief engine for the Marxist process of Demoralization, The Institute for Social Research (ISR), from Germany to Geneva, and finally to the United States in 1935. It was housed at Columbia University. Today college campuses around the nation from the University of Michigan to the University of New Mexico and Sacramento State University house satellite centers. The U.S. headquarters appears to be The New School for Social Research, a full blown university in Greenwich Village, New York founded by among others, Colombia University Professors like John Dewey who refused to take an oath of loyalty to the United States. The college now has an enrollment of over 2,000 faculty members and about 10,000 students –all studying Marxism.
Marcuse argued that a society’s imposed sexual boundaries and norms must be overturned by “Free Love,” which he also referred to as “Polymorphous Perversity,” an overly intellectual phrase he stole from Freud. Polymorphous Perversity is the Cultural Marxist’s ostensible final goal for a society it is trying to Demoralize. It will be achieved when all sexual behaviors are leveled and seen as equally valid, except those which take place within the bounds of marriage, which according to Marcuse must be destroyed because lifelong monogamous matrimony is considered a sexually discriminative and pleasurably repressive institution.
The real reason Marxism seeks Polymorphous Perversity and the destruction of the concept of marriage of course is because the two goals work in tandem to destroy the traditional family structure, which is the institution through which each new rising generation learns to be self-reliant. Self-reliant individuals are the backbone of freedom and Capitalism. Millions of self-reliant individuals and families constitute the building blocks of a self-reliant and free nation. Marxists therefore see the family as an institution they must bring to its knees, so that the individual is reliant upon and loyal only to the state.
Marxism of course has never produced equality of income or Polymorphous Perversity –both are absurd concepts that would never work in reality. These concepts are usually abandoned for Marxists after they have taken over a society, during the Normalization phase. Marxism’s real purpose is to serve as a vehicle for revolution and the subsequent enslavement of the world to an elite.
In order to drive a society toward the goal of Polymorphous Perversity Marxist activists must engage in and openly promote a very specific kind of sex –that which is stigmatized, taboo, and outside of the bounds of the socially normative. Once a new behavior is normalized activists must continue to raise the bar until all behaviors are equalized and nothing is considered taboo.
From Marcuse’s perspective sex ought to be enjoyed by anybody, with anybody, any number of bodies, or anything, including children, objects, and animals –so long as the behavior is considered “stigmatized.”
Now back to Yiannopoulos.
Yiannopoulos’ Marcuse inspired speaking tour is entitled, “The Dangerous Faggot Tour.” 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.
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.
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.”
For many Yiannopoulos appears to be a new 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 a simply provocateur but a calculated promoter of the Cultural Marxist concept of Polyamorous Perversity. Wake up 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 meant to challenge norms and mores.
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:
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.
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.”
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.
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. He then referred to Donald Trump in sexual innuendo as “Daddy” and he brought up a time he claims he was offered $20,000 to have sex with a stranger.
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. 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.
Note that he didn’t claim to want to be a married white male. That would be repressive.
He goes on to combat sexual taboo 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.
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.
If Yiannopoulos is willing to state that he is a “practicing Catholic” while engaging in and promoting 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 actually a New Left Cultural Marxist category incarnate, co-opting the Conservative movement to divide it and weaponize its defectors against the Cultural Conservatism’s Judeo-Christian values of faith and family. Faith undergirds “eternal” matrimony. Matrimony in turn undergirds the family, which is the institution in which self-reliance is learned. 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.