Someone was able to find a tape of Milo Yiannopoulos supposedly advocating pedophilia. I’m not a big fan of Milo. He claims to be a libertarian but he is not. He is an entertainer, a meshumad (converted, literally “destroyed”) Jew who does some good by exposing faux-liberal insanities, intentionally triggering people to see how reptilian they are.
This is how the game goes. If you can find some dirt on someone and take it out of context so it sounds bad, while of course everyone knows what the man was actually saying, we can all pretend we don’t and add another layer of fakeness to a ludicrous discussion where everything is already jammed with layers upon layers of meaningless nonsensical outrage.
For context, here’s the gist of what he said. He said that there isn’t a real problem in terms of sexual consent with sex between a minor who is sexually mature and able to make his own decisions, and an older man. What this boils down to in the end is that Milo is saying that the number “18” has no ontological significance in terms of sexual maturity and ability to make decisions on one’s own. One could theoretically achieve this status at, say, 13 or 14, and agree to have sex with an older man.
Is that a very bad idea? Of course. Is it gross and perverted? I would say so, yes. Should parents do everything they can to prevent this from ever happening? Of course. Can it be stopped by force from a libertarian perspective though? Probably not. That’s the essence of it.
Had he said this about an 18 year old, there would be no controversy. The controversy stems from the fact that he’s saying the number 18 has no real significance other than an artificial determination of the “age of consent”. From a libertarian perspective, Milo is correct. 18 has no significance. What is significant is a child’s ability to take care of himself without his parents’ help, to homestead himself in essence, take ownership of himself. Some children can do this at 10. Not many, but some. In Jewish law the minimum age is 6, when a father is no longer halachically obligated to support his child.
If we were to carry through this logic that ended Milo then, all religiously observant Jews who consider the Talmud to be authoritative could be accused of child abuse. But none of us just let our kids roam free at the age of 6 just because Chazal say we theoretically could do that.
So, too, Milo is not “advocating” that 13 year olds have sex with older men. He’s simply saying that if a 13 year old were to take ownership of himself and make such a decision, that society would have no right to prevent this by fiat law that 18 is determined to be the age of consent. His parents maybe would have a right to stop the child, if the child still lives it home and evidence shows that he has not taken ownership of himself even if he claims he has. But in the case where a 13 year old moves out of his parents’ home, he effectively has taken ownership of himself, even though his decisions will probably be quite bad and detrimental compared to those of more mature people.
Obviously, all but the most thoroughly insane – those who actually believe the neopolitical correctness they spew as to be an actual value rather than a publicity stunt to get pageviews and social media clicks – know what Milo was saying. But the world we live in is completely layered in veils of illusion that we all have to pretend are real.
So his book was cancelled, his career is probably over, it looks like he’s going to get fired by the very people who claim not to care about publicly weaved illusions, and the left can now feel all sanctimonious and rub in all of our faces that they “exposed a pedophile” and saved so many young lives while they continue rioting and destroying the property of innocents in protest against people that make them act like 5 year old children.
And western society, both left and right, digs itself deeper into the hole they are mutually digging together.