3 Facts That Prove Milo Is Not A Conservative

For quite some time now, there have been those on the alt-right, as well as on the left, that label self-proclaimed “internet troll” Milo Yiannopoulos a “conservative.” This makes no sense at all. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to disprove these claims, as I will attempt to do here.

1. “Inflammatory” Is Not The Same As “Politically Incorrect”

Let’s get something straight here: political correctness is nonsense. There is no such thing as politically correct. Either something is correct or it’s not. Political correctness just tries to discredit speech that might possibly offend someone by labeling it as politically incorrect, rather than actually disproving it.

Being politically incorrect simply means telling it like it is, disregarding the SJWs that tell you that what you say is hate speech just because they disagree with it. However, Milo is not known for being merely politically incorrect. Instead, he tries to be downright inflammatory with his rhetoric. This has nothing to do with conservatism. Yes, conservatives don’t subscribe to the leftist notion of political correctness, but that doesn’t equate to being blatantly offensive.

2. Milo Is A Virtue Signaler

We’re all familiar with the concept of virtue signaling: saying or doing things that you know will garner you favor among a particular group of people. An example of this is people whining about institutional racism. Rather than combat racism, they find a way to say what most of us already know: racism is bad. No kidding? But rather than actually do anything about the real (and rare) racism that does exist, they prefer to generate praise for themselves by espousing a generally accepted point of view.

Milo Yiannopoulos does this as well, in a slightly different way. Rather than support conservatism, he tries to appeal to the alt-right type people; those that have taken a somewhat extreme reaction to the leftist, SJW culture of whining and random accusations of bigotry. Milo takes a somewhat extreme reactionary position himself, thus generating appeal for himself amongst those people. Again, this has nothing to do with conservatism.

3. Milo Is A Populist

Populism does not equal conservatism. Populism is about representing the common man, to put it simply. The views of that demographic are not necessarily the views and qualities that make up conservatism. Milo is popular amongst the previously mentioned group of people that are fed up with the culture of fascism that has become all too common in todays society. Milo simply espouses the views of those people.

The left uses Milo kind of like a straw-man. They call him a conservative, then they attack his actions as though they are a part of conservative ideology. Meanwhile, there are those on the “right” that say that Milo is going to lead us into a “new conservatism” (which is an oxymoron). Both of these need to stop. Seriously.

What The Left Should Learn From This Past Election

It goes without saying that the left is pretty upset about having lost the presidential election to Donald Trump. It probably doesn’t help that they also lost both the Senate and the House of Representatives to the republicans. But this should not be a total loss for them. The important thing about failure is that you can learn from it, so that in the future you can avoid making the same mistakes again.

Here are three important things that the left should learn from this defeat:

1. Stop Crying Racism (Or Sexism, Homophobia, etc.)

It might be hard for the left to stop doing this, since it is virtually the only play they have in their political playbook. It’s their fallback answer to pretty much every argument: “if you can’t beat them, call them an intolerant bigot!”

But where they really messed up was when they started to act as though being white automatically makes you racist, being a man automatically makes you sexist, and if you disagree with something (e.g. Gay Marriage) it means you must be deeply and irrationally afraid of it (that’s what the ‘phobia’ in ‘homophobia’ means).

To rational, thinking people, it should come as no surprise that this doesn’t encourage people to vote for you. Instead, it alienates them from your cause and causes them to say “Screw this. I’m voting Trump.”

2. Stop Virtue Signaling

Simply put, virtue signaling is the practice of expressing viewpoints that are accepted/approved within a particular social group with the intention of making the members of that group say “what a virtuous person you must be!” This is often used as a substitute for actually doing anything to solve a problem.

An example of this is when leftists say that we must fight against institutional racism. The point of this is to demonstrate that they are anti-racism and therefore must be virtuous people. The logical flaw here is that saying that we must fight institutional racism does nothing to combat any actual racism. Plus, institutional racism is completely made up, but that’s for another article.

So it’s no surprise that constantly signaling your virtue makes you come across as not only vain and self-centered, but lazy and/or incompetent because you haven’t actually solved any problems.

3. Stop Portraying Your Opinions As Facts

This is largely thanks to the left-wing nature of the mainstream media. The left loves to take ideas that they like and thrust them upon an unsuspecting public in an effort to make these ideas seem like widely accepted truths rather than opinions.

A good example of this is transgenderism. Rather than actually helping people with gender identity disorder, the left thinks it’s better to humor them by making the public pretend they are a different gender than they actually are. They actively push this idea on the public in an effort to make it appear normal. That makes it easier to shut down anyone who dares to disagree.

Shockingly, cramming your opinions down other peoples throats doesn’t make them sympathize with your many causes. Rather, it causes them to look elsewhere to find someone who can put a stop to your social justice warrior behavior. Enter Donald Trump.

Conclusion

So, will the left learn from these mistakes? So far it seems as though they just don’t get it yet. But don’t worry. They still have 4+ years of DJT to figure it out.

Hillary Leads The Popular Vote. Why That Doesn’t (And Shouldn’t) Matter

It’s no surprise that the left has lost its mind following the election of Donald Trump in November. Besides rioting in the streets, some have called for recounts, threatened electors, and unofficially declared Hillary Clinton the real winner because she leads in the national popular vote. There’s only one problem: the popular vote doesn’t matter. Like, at all.

Democrats, as their name would suggest, seem to think that America is, or should be, a Democracy. In their ideal system, the people’s votes are counted and the candidate with the most votes is declared the winner. In that situation, the popular vote would be the deciding factor. That is not the way the founding fathers designed our government to work.

America is what is known as a constitutionally-limited, federal republic. A republic is a system of government in which the power is held by the people and is vested in elected officials that represent the citizens. A federal republic is a republic that is comprised of a number of smaller governments (in our case, the states). The citizens of each state elect officials to their state government, who in turn represent the states in the federal (central) government.

This means that the the federal government is a collection of states, not a collection of citizens. This is an extremely important concept that the left doesn’t seem to be able to understand. That’s why there are Democrats and Republicans. One party advocates a democratic form of government, while the other supports the form of government that the founding fathers created. You know, the one that America actually uses.

Constitutionally-limited is possibly the most important part of our government. This simply means that the powers of government are kept in check by the law. This serves to ensure that the government never oversteps its bounds.

So why is a democracy so horrible? As a popular quote says, “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” A pure democracy is incompatible with freedom for a number of reasons:

1. In a democracy, the majority imposes its will on the minority. If you have 10 million voters and the vote is split 60-40, there will be 4 million people who are forced to accept the choice of the other 6 million.
2. Therefore, the will of the individual is irrelevant. Or rather, it is dependent on his agreement with the will of the majority. The larger the number of people, the worse this becomes for individual liberty.
3. These two points wouldn’t be so bad were it not for one important truth: most people are unqualified to elect people to the government. Many people vote arbitrarily, or vote based on the candidates appearance, or vote based on promises that the candidates may or may not keep.

A federal republic is superior to a democracy because it acknowledges one simple fact: most people shouldn’t be trusted with power. A federal republic limits the consequences of an individual’s choices so that they don’t infringe on the liberties of others.

So now we come to an important point: how can a republic be superior if the majority of people didn’t get the candidate they want? Well, that’s where constitutional limitation comes in. The left has, especially during the last eight years, consistently worked to erode the limits of the executive branch, disrupting the balance of power in the government. That’s why the left has gone so berserk over Trump’s victory. They empowered the presidency far beyond its intended function, and now it’s falling into what they deem to be the wrong hands.

How The Mainstream Media Killed Itself

It’s been a long time coming, but the mainstream media is now officially dead. According to Gallup, the trust of the mass media among Americans was down to 32% back in September. After the election, the Wall Street Journal reports an approval rating as low as 19%.

The funny thing is, the media did it to itself. Taking opinions and disguising them as objective reporting doesn’t count as journalism. But for years now, that’s exactly what news outlets like CNN and MSNBC have been doing. Sometimes bias can be disguised by portraying objective facts, but cherry-picking those facts to paint the picture you wish to portray.

For example, when the media acts like Donald Trump’s demeaning comments about women are just as important as Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information. Both may be true, but portraying them as being equally bad is a gross error. Unlike dodging FOIA requests by using a home-brew email server, speaking rudely about women has nothing to do with being president.

And that’s just a recent example. The reason it became so obvious now is because, in the past, the media would often try to hide their bias, at least partly. But during this election cycle, the media was so out of touch with how the American public thinks that it assumed a vast majority of people would be on board with the idea that Trump could never be president. This caused them to shed their cloak of false objectivity and speak openly about how they really felt.

And the public noticed. Once the election was over and Trump won, everyone saw the stark contrast between what the media thinks and what the people think. And this contrast applies even more broadly to the political left as well. The people have rejected both the left and the media that supports it. Maybe, just maybe, calling people racist just because they’re white, or sexist just because they’re men, turns people off to your cause.

But that’s another story.

Media Bias Fact Check?

I recently came across a website called Media Bias Fact Check, which claims to rate the right/left bias of various media outlets and determine their level of trustworthiness. Now, don’t get me wrong, I think journalistic bias is a big problem, especially in the mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC, and such). However, there is a problem with that site that I think needs to be addressed.

The site seems to think that the more biased a website is, in either direction, the more untrustworthy it is. That would be true, if and only if both the left and right sides of the political spectrum were equally untrustworthy. That is not necessarily the case. Leftist ideology tends to be based on feelings and opinions, while the right takes on a more practical, real-world approach to policy.

Look at it this way: if you have a group of people that think the sky is blue, and a group that thinks it’s red, which one is correct? The Blue Skyers of course. Now imagine we have a website that reports on both groups, but seems to be biased in favor of believing the Red Skyers. That would be bias that results in untrustworthy information, because the Red Skyers are wrong. If, however, the website leans towards believing the Blue Skyers, their information would be more trustworthy because of their “bias.”

And that’s where the problem of media bias lies. In order to actually be objective, you can’t be completely neutral, unless both sides are equally wrong. Neutrality involves taking a position directly between the two sides so as not to favor one over the other. But if you are to be objective, you have to report the facts. If the facts happen to line up with one side’s ideology, so be it. To the ignorant, you may appear to be biased in favor of that side, but that’s simply a side effect of true being truly objective.