Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Church Militant gets what so many miss

So, here's the story. The Jesuit's America Magazine - "The Catholic Magazine with the lowest white blood cell count!" I believe is their tagline - decided to interview Milo Yiannapolous. I guess someone went "Oh, this is an outspoken politically active gay guy who just got married and he's Catholic? I bet he aligns with our outlook." and just went in on this blind. Anyway, the result was both interesting and hilarious, so naturally the magazine rejected it. All well and good, Milo posted it on his site and everyone had a read. Probably with greater circulation than if the magazine actually followed through.

So far, so good.

What's surprised me is that Church Militant decided to run the interview instead.

And then, when people reacted to it - they stood by their decision and offered four reasons why they decided to publish the interview.

I'll leave it to whoever shows up here to read - it's good stuff - but what's funny, and encouraging, is that Church Militant... these radical Catholic traditionalists, all stuck in the old ways... managed to see the value in at least discussing Milo's views, and presenting them. They see something there, no matter what sins he confesses to. They see the value of a gay guy who outright rejects the idea that the Church needs to conform its teachings to his outlook - and who sees the value (even the salvation) the Catholic Church offers.

I suppose it's wrong to say 'they see the value of a gay guy'. They see the value of someone who's got charisma, who's witty, who's conservative, and who is actually aggressive. They see a guy doing the job that no bishop, no priest, no Pope is willing to do, and directly locking horns with feminism and saying, "There is nothing of value you have to offer."

And let me tell you... more than a few people have started to listen to right-wing arguments on sex and life and culture due to this kind of engagement. Everyone knows that feminism is oppressive, everyone knows that SJWs are oppressive. Yet it's falling to guys like Milo - and typically, some more troublemaking priests, at best (now and then a bishop like Poprocki) - to actually go on the attack.

You find him too fallen? Too vulgar, at times? Too off-putting?

Too fucking bad. The conservatives were too 'respectable' or too damn untalented or too afraid to do what was necessary. So the fringe have picked up the reins.

5 comments:

Mike said...

I think I triggered folks at W4 at least once by pointing out that "if a flaming homosexual from Britain" is substantially more aggressive at advocating for us and pushing back on the enemy then most of "our men," that is "lose the Mandate of Heaven" (as the Chinese call it) level bad fortune for us.

Crude said...

It's true. Or it would be except I'm with the side they dislike at this point.

Crude said...

I'm also fairly certain that Milo's biggest critics on the right generally have never even listened to a full talk by him. They're as clueless as the liberals who will parrot something they heard, like 'HE SHAMED A TRANSEXUAL GIRL IN THE AUDIENCE' and they seem to think that's all you need.

Come to think of it, the alt-right in general - here meaning 'any right-wingers outside of the Acceptable Bubble' - tend to get similar treatment. It's one more reason why "muh principles" is a load. They switch from that line to hyper concern for appearances at the drop of a hat.

Amos Bellomy said...

That Milo interview is actually fantastic, even better than I thought it would be.

Crude said...

Yeah, it really is.