Milo Yiannopoulos

Here's What Happens When You Accuse Michael Moynihan of Being in Denial About NAMBLA Because Maybe He's Gay

A Fifth Column shoutfest with former Daily Caller opinion editor Rob Mariani, who was recently bounced for publishing Milo Yiannopoulos

|

By every account I've seen, including his own, Robert Mariani got a bum deal from the Daily Caller, the conservative website that relieved Mariani of his opinion-editor duties after he solicited a column from controversialist Milo Yiannopoulos about Kevin Spacey. So we invited the freshly unemployed young man onto The Fifth Column, the weekly podcast (and Sirius XM POTUS program) featuring Kmele Foster, Michael C. Moynihan and myself, to talk about this specific experience, ruminate on the potential pitfalls of skirting up to the acceptability edges of opinion journalism, and reflect on the values (or lack thereof) of publishing Milo and similar outrage-inducers in the first place.

It was on the latter point that things went pear-shaped. Moynihan asked Mariani what useful perspective Yiannopoulos brings, Mariani asserted that it was worthwhile to note that in "the '70s and '80s, there were NAMBLA floats at every single gay-pride parade," Moynihan disputed that assertion with some vigor, and we were off to the races. Here's the whole clip; fireworks are teased near the top, but the exchange really gets started around the 12-minute mark:

Some related reading:

* Me, on trolls vs. velvet-ropers

* Robby Soave, on Milo's "Sad, Aborted Free Speech Week Disaster at Berkeley"

* Elliot Kaufman, in National Review, on how "Campus Conservatives Gave the Alt-Right a Platform."

And here's Moynihan doing a Vice News piece on the fading provocateur himself:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

121 responses to “Here's What Happens When You Accuse Michael Moynihan of Being in Denial About NAMBLA Because Maybe He's Gay

  1. Milo Yiannopoulos is Returning to Relevance

    Like a refilled pinata.

    1. No. People like pinatas

      1. Only to hit them with a stick.

        1. That would be a hate crime. Watch Nick Sarwark doesn’t declare you an undesirable

  2. It’s like I wrote to that Sam Harris piece: Are you honestly just unapologetically defending the principle of ‘free speech’? There’s no place for that at Reason. Take your hate speech somewhere else.

    Also, let Kmele make his point before you and Moynihan gang up on him.

  3. Mariani asserted that it was worthwhile to note that in “the ’70s and ’80s, there were NAMBLA floats at every single gay-pride parade

    This is what we call “hyperbole”.

    Why does Moynihan hate figurative language?

    1. Moynihan is a self-hating narcissist.

  4. In the guy’s defense, Moynihan had just said (obviously sarcastically to anyone who knows anything about him, maybe not so to someone who doesn’t) that he was a gay man. And Moynihan’s arguably over-the-top reaction to this possibly mythical gay historian’s assertion might account for said historian’s reluctance to come out of the closet on a portion of the gay community’s perhaps flirtation at one time with NAMBLA floats.

    It will be interesting to see what guests the podcast is able to fish out of the conservative waters after this treatment. Not that in this day and age we don’t all love an echo chamber, but being able to debate alternative views with some amount of reasonableness might help booking people other than just friends of the Fifth Column’s brand of libertarianism.

    Still love all three hosts, though.

    1. And Moynihan’s arguably over-the-top reaction

      If there is one thing he knows about it’s 70s and 80s gay culture.

      1. And what decade of gay culture are you most familiar with?

          1. Is that some sort of gay code for the 00s?

            1. Let’s just say I have a brown bandanna in my back left pocket.

        1. The Gay Nineties

          1. Are you from the frozen tundra?

      2. Actually, no, he doesn’t. NAMBLA was not castigated with anything like the viciousness of today’s conformal gays and, while there weren’t actual “floats” for NAMBLA in the pride parades, NAMBLA was a consistent “marching” presence at all of them before the various “pride committees” decided to ban them in the late ’80s. I know. I was there.

    2. They’ve had guests there have been stark disagreement with before. Mariani was making a pretty weaselly argument and they were justified in coming down on him, though I’ll agree Moynihan’s reaction was excessively irritable (as he admitted).

          1. What’s going on here? Did I lose my hearing? Hello? HELLO?

  5. Also, it’s kind of bad form in my opinion to berate your guest after you’ve ended the interview and when he’s no longer around to defend himself, poorly as he may do it.

    1. If I recall correctly, that wasn’t the first time theu have done that.

      I have vague recollections of a previous time it happened with a left wing guest.

      1. And as I recall it was because the guest had to end the interview and the hosts expressed reluctance in continuing in his absence. (Was it DeRay Mckesson?)

        1. It was a professor who wrote a book.

          Do you even Fifth, bro?

      1. Now that Crusty’s gone, do anyone of you other commenters even like him? He seems kind of annoying. And he’s not even at all good at getting firsties.

        1. Someone took their meanie-face pills this morning.

        2. Crusty doesn’t want firsties. He likes being the closer.

  6. Milo, famous for being the least clever gay man in existence. I suppose that isn’t nothing.

    1. Don’t you mean second least clever gay man in existence?

      1. Who’s the first?

      2. You leave Jared Kushner alone.

        1. Damn it, I was hoping for a funny response.

            1. I don’t know. He said someone fucked dogs the other day and I was fit to split. Haha, dogs are for petting, not fucking. Wacky

              1. Try telling that to the CDC

        2. Tony, have you ever pleasured yourself to Jared Kushner’s angelic voice?

          1. I’ll leave that to his cellmates.

    2. Sour grapes, Tony? Maybe some day someone will invite you to speak at them for money.

      1. Tony’s got the unclever part down, but he isn’t famous for it, and that eats him up.

      2. Getting paid to say it’s okay to call women fat. Capitalism!

        1. Green doesn’t look good on you.

        2. What an odd endorsement of capitalism

  7. What happens is Moynihan smugly infers The Daily Caller is a garbage publication while simultaneously working for Vice News?

    1. Yeah, but Vice is intentionally garbage.

      1. Well, the Daily Caller was the first publication to uncover the journolist group and Bob Menedez’s love of underage prostitutes, so I can see why Moynihan thinks it’s garbage

          1. I think this was back when he briefly decided to identify as libertarian and MC’d Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty event. That wacky SOB

      2. No, Vice is unintentionally garbage.

    2. “Infers”

      Do you mean “implies”?

        1. I can’t understand you with your inadequate use of quotation marks.

  8. No offense to Moynihan, but your podcast could use a lot more Kmele and a lot less of Moynihan. I guess I did mean offense, in hindsight

    1. Every Fifth Column episode ever.

    2. I don’t mind Moynihan, but he does tend to run at the mouth a bit too much. More Kmele is definitely always good.

      1. Kmele also babbles, just in a different way. It can take five minutes of caveats before he gets to a point.

        Which is generally how I talk when I’m being serious, and what I consider good and proper for real debate. I think prefer hearing from Moynihan because he’s not that, and has deep knowledge of interesting things. Moynihan for the knowledge, Kmele for the subtlety and levelheadedness, Matt for his infectious joie de vivre.

        1. Honestly, a lot of the time when I listen to them, I forget who is talking. But I enjoy hearing most of what all of them have to say.

          1. Moynihan is like an IPA and Kmele is a nice Belgian white.

        2. Foster’s style is that of a man doing a solo show.

        3. Which is generally how I talk when I’m being serious, and what I consider good and proper for real debate.

          I dubbed this ‘The Problem of Importance’ a crippling issue in modern political discussion. People always want a person to explain the: why-should-we’s, the merits, the benefits, or just the facts in a nutshell; of any given issue in a few sentences. A lengthy explanation or a commentary that doesn’t hit the mark in a single sentence is often ignored. We as Libertarians should understand this well as we advocate for changes of the system and often it takes a reasoned point by point explanation of why, e.g., the national sex registry is bad idea that punishes way too many people who aren’t dangerous to society.

          People think ‘importance’ is whatever they say is ‘important to them’ but it’s not; that is an incorrect definition. What is important to a person is the things that they actually devote their finite amount of time too. For example, when the Iran Nuclear deal is going down and they’ve been in closed door discussions for two weeks and the last day comes and the group votes for an emergency 72-hour extension to finalize details — that’s actual, tangible, examples of ‘importance’; it’s not defined but what we, rather what we do.

          1. (continued)

            But of course plebeian talks later about the Iran deal or other such issues that “are so important to me” are summarily dismissed or accepted in the bare space of a minutes discussion. Often with the other party simply deeming that the person talking isn’t of their favored politics and that’s the end of it right there.

            The reality is that we discuss major issues every single day on this forum, but in truth a whole day, a week, a year could be spent discussing the topics of just one article. And should be if we:
            1) were actually in a position to affect the topic
            2) Truly cared with conviction about the issue and people understanding it correctly.

            But the problem of importance is our scarcity of time. As well as the inability of principled discussion to thrive in an environment where everyone just wants to put their 2 cents in on every single passing issue — not too mention the fact that most peoples 2 cents won’t even be fair consideration of the issue, just political pot shots about Obummer dealing with Iran, etc.

  9. Perhaps Moynihan should Google Harry Hay.
    http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=990
    Moynihan when he gets pushback will raise his voice and filibuster.

    1. Yes, he definitely should. I knew Harry Hay and can think of no one more courageous and principled.

  10. Why is Kmele so universally loved? I don’t know, but he has the perfect voice for talking guys off ledges.

    1. Why is Kmele so universally loved?

      That question makes you the William Weld of the reason blogs.

      1. He’s a good kid.

    2. He’s really calm and reasoned in his arguments. He’s a good moderator for that reason and it feels rare in a field that attracts more firebrands.

      1. Woah- I would have figured Nick Sarwark for a Moynihan fan rather than a Kmele fan. You learn something new everyday

        1. I like to keep people guessing.

          I mean, I’m not Nick Sarwark. He lives in Phoenix I’m from Tucson.

          1. So, you know where he lives, eh

            1. Yes, he is a used car salesman in Phoenix. That is also just a coincidence.

      2. It was a rhetorical question. But yes, I agree. Kmele is a breath of fresh air.

      3. He’s also very, very wealthy, and people like that.

      4. He is also devilishly handsome and always right.

    3. Because he knows how to match a shirt and tie

    4. Kmele is my least favorite, even though I probably agree with him the most on principle. I think Matt and Michael make far more interesting and knowledgeable points, and I’ve learned a lot more from them. Their conversational style is great too. Personal preference, I guess.

      1. Michael has an impressive amount of knowledge to draw from, and occasionally musters this awesome anger towards the right people (his rant about reactions to Otto Warmbier was incredible), and Matt is one of the few Trump critics that makes coherent and fair arguments on a consistent basis

        But occasionally Kmele takes a stand that’s so heroically defiant that I can’t help but keep him as my favorite. Plus yeah, I agree with him the most by far

        1. Yeah, Kmele has some surprising takes, especially on foreign policy. My favorite conversations are Kmele vs. Matt/Michael on foreign policy, since all three seem to care most about it. I still don’t really understand the Cold War, and Matt and Michael are the only libertarians that I hear regularly discuss it and draw from their Eastern European experiences.

          1. That’s the problem: the Ms have some firsthand knowledge on that stuff, but it’s not Kmele’s bailiwick. It’d be great if they could bring in a non-interventionist (or whatever you want to call it) working from a more empirical than ideological stance, for a more substantive FP conversation from the Kmele-libertarian POV.

      2. I trust Moynihan the least, because I agree with him the most. I trust Kmele second least, and I trust Matt Welch the most, because I only agree with him around 75% of the time.

  11. Listening to Mariani crystallized a huge pet peeve of mine in the current free speech drama: when speech is described as having a conversation. It reframes the discussion and brings moral approval into it, such that we’re now defending the merit of the speech itself. ‘Speech’ feels pretty neutral, while ‘a conversation’ feels inherently constructive and worth defending outside of a mere liberty argument. Who can be against having a conversation?

    But we can think that not all speech has merit. A lot of speech or ideas or conversations are dumb and not worth having at all. Yeah yeah, if someone’s invited to speak somewhere or submit articles to a publication, it’s generally a bad thing for third parties to come in to stop it, even if there’s no ‘loss’ in that speech being shut down. But Milo is dumb and has nothing to say. If the Daily Caller or Berkeley Republicans want to hear from Milo, okay, but we can still say it’s stupid of them to do so. We can hold that position and still be free speech zealots. I see a conflation that seeks to get you into a box of affirmatively approving of the specific speech in question, or else you’re an illiberal enemy of free speech who hates the open discussion of ideas.

    1. I think it’s that disconnect that gets at Moynihan (and Welch?) in these discussions. Those sympathetic to the speech being criticized want allies to swallow the whole hog and validate the value of the speech rather than just the liberty to spout it, even if (or because?) this tactic creates more tension and drama in the free speech debate.

      Also, love Moynihan crankiness (and understand it, with how ridiculously awful the MTA has been recently), but agree with Fist that it’s pretty shitty to continue slagging on the guy after he’s hung up. I understand wanting to comment on the preceding interview, and not wanting to derail the interview with criticisms, but eh, not the best thing to do.

        1. ^ This guy’s awesome

    2. I agree. There was a good piece at the American Conservative a few days ago about the Columbia Republicans’ invitation of Mike Cernovich as a pure troll tactic. The Columbia Democrats didn’t call for protest, but held a counter event with guests who were at least willing to discuss topics seriously.

      1. Sure and that was a rare incident of allowing a speaker to proceed. But, when you criticize illiberal attacks against a speaker by first letting everyone know that you find the views of the speaker to be distasteful and counter-productive you undermine your whole position of being a ‘free speech zealot’. You seem to suggest that speech alone justifies violence, when the only thing that should be criticized is the violence and the heckler’s veto.

        Also, who isn’t a troll? People can draw clear lines with Milo and Cernovich (I don’t know much about him), but Jason Reilly of the Wall Street Journal was shut-down at a college campus. Heather Macdonald was shut-down at a college campus. Charles Murray continues to be shut-down at college campuses. When you concede these points to the illiberal faction than everyone will become a ‘troll’. And to be frank, a faction of libertarians have been unbelievably miserable on this issue and have really undermined the perception that libertarianism is about liberal values.

        1. Good point about trolldom. It is a spectrum, isn’t it? Everyone that hopes to evoke strong feelings in a reader or listener is at least a little bit trollish, unless it is purely inspirational speech aimed to evoke only positive vibes. Can you imagine if people only went for positive vibes? We would all be puking on patchouli fumes. You need a nice balance of agreeement and conflict in discussions.

        2. when you criticize illiberal attacks against a speaker by first letting everyone know that you find the views of the speaker to be distasteful and counter-productive you undermine your whole position of being a ‘free speech zealot’.

          Only to morons.

          1. I’ve never understood how it’s supposed to undermine rather than strengthen the speaker’s defense of free speech. But… eh, it’s Friday and this place is dumb – yeah, I’m not a moron. And again, this argument strikes me as people sympathetic to the criticized speech trying to shame critics into defending the content.

            I mean, hell, look at all the snark and criticism of goofy anti-Trump protests. We all know these guys’ gut reaction to a DSA or Occupy or BLM speech controversy is, “Oh lord, these people are dumb. ‘Course it’s their right to make dumb protests, but still.”

        3. The Charles Murray thing bothered me. I heard him speak on a more conservative campus, where he was defending the success of adoptions by gay parents in the Q&A (based on data, of course). I think you’re right that the range of who can be considered a troll is broader than it should be, since it’s based on resultant outrage, not intended outrage or content. But I feel pretty safe calling Milo and Cernovich trolls, as well as the people who invite them. If they weren’t getting attention, I don’t know if they’d be interested.

        4. I think that to say “I find X reprehensible, but I’ll defend his right to speak” is a very powerful statement for free speech. In putting it that way, you are making it completely clear that you are for free speech regardless of the content. I get your point, but I think you read too much into the critical preamble to a defense of free speech. I’m not sure how you conclude that such a statement in any way suggests that speech alone justifies violence.

          1. Zeb nails it again.

          2. It would seem that the emphasis should be on the violence and the attempt to silence more than the speech, itself. Especially when the person hasn’t even spoken yet. The attacks that Charles Murray receives, for example, have to do with a book that he wrote in the 90’s which most people have never read and accept misinterpretations about. It’s easy to denounce the speech of Milo while defending his right to speak as he brings nothing to the conversation, but Murray is different, no? I don’t agree with the Bell Curve’s conclusions, mainly because I don’t find sociology conclusive. But, am I abetting the illiberal faction by prefacing that I find Murray’s book to be off the mark, while also stating that he has a right to speak? Does that lend credence to the notion that Murray has nothing of value to offer in speaking, which I don’t believe to be the case? Is the average person astute enough to separate the two separate concepts that you disagree with one says from still supporting their right to speak?

            1. It would seem that the emphasis should be on the violence and the attempt to silence more than the speech, itself.

              I agree with that, for sure.

              But I think that when you are trying to persuade and not just condemn the bad behavior of anti-speech assholes, the rhetorical device of saying you are opposed to what X has to say but defend X’s right to speak all the way is an appropriate one to use.

              Anyway, we’ve had this argument before. What you are saying is valid, but it cuts both ways. Yes, people might wrongly see your criticizing Murray (for example) as making the defense of speech secondary. But people will also wrongly see a failure to mention that you disagree with someone as a tacit endorsement of what they are saying, which will also lead them to ignore your points about free speech.

              1. That’s a fair Catch 22

              2. i think there is some conflation here of:

                – “people disagreeing with what someone says”
                and
                – “people objecting to someone’s speaking at all

                the former is to take issue with the substance and content of what someone says.

                to actually ‘disagree’, you actually have to identify the specific point of contention (not just vaguely refer to “racist ideas” or “hate speech”) quote the arguments being made, and show how they’re flawed, etc.

                in 99% of the situations we’re talking about, its almost NEVER anyone taking specific issue with things some ‘disinvited/heckled speaker’ actually said/wrote.

                you’d think if people ‘disagreed’ so strongly with the content of someone’s arguments, they’d happily engage in debate with them (like Charles Murray, for instance) and intellectually thrash them so badly that, for the rest of time, people would be quoting/citing the thrashing any time anyone else dared advance the same claims.

                instead, all we see is the latter. It isn’t ‘disagreement’ at all; its entirely ad hominem-based claims that said person is so “racist” or “hateful” or “offensive” etc. that their mere presence can only be responded to with shrieking and violence.

                people here sometime seem to claim that objecting to this latter, ‘de-platforming’ behavior is “trying to protect someone from criticism”. …as though protesters were actually engaged in some battle of ideas, rather than purposely evading one.

        5. You seem to suggest that speech alone justifies violence, when the only thing that should be criticized is the violence and the heckler’s veto.

          Only to morons.

        6. And if you criticize the speaker after defending their liberty to speak? I know you’re gonna talk about what you wanna talk about, but neither of us said anything about prefacing remarks with personal condemnation.

    3. Milo is dumb and has nothing to say

      I find it hard to believe you’ve ever actually heard him speak. You could take any one of his speaking events on his college-tour, or one of his interviews w/ joe rogan… while you might end up disagreeing with a lot of what he has to say, he’s certainly not stupid, and he has no shortage of opinions.

      I mean, if you think someone should be denied a platform because of their lack of wit, vacuity, it makes one wonder how you tolerate Robby Soave still being in print

      I’ve never been a fan of Milo. its that i find that most of his constant critics – like robby – usually never actually citing any specific reasons for why he’s so especially vile and unworthy. if they do, its just a list of ‘things they heard’ about him.

      i honestly don’t even think the opinions people express about “milo” are really about him, specifically, at all.

      Its that he basically serves as a symbolic figure representing the “Alt-light”, writ large, which some people desperately want to distinguish themselves as having nothing to do with. So they constantly go, “Ugh! ick! boooo” whenever his name is breathed. which is pretty fucking gay itself.

      1. Its that he basically serves as a symbolic figure representing the “Alt-light”, writ large, which some people desperately want to distinguish themselves as having nothing to do with. So they constantly go, “Ugh! ick! boooo” whenever his name is breathed. which is pretty fucking gay itself.

        It’s also funny because he has said — frequently — he is not a member of the alt-right. He covered them as a reporter because nobody else would, but a lot of them HATE his guts.

        He has labeled himself a cultural libertarian for a while now.

        Much of the condemnation of Milo is similar to the condemnation of Rush Limbaugh years ago. Just bad stuff they heard about him but with precious little details.

        Milo is actually very clearly intelligent and quick-on-his-feet and is willing to make arguments nobody else will make. He loves campiness as well.

  12. “Moynihan asked Mariani what useful perspective Yiannopoulos brings . . .

    Milo exposes the elitism of the elitists who refuse to engage him.

    He exposes the contempt they have for average people who share his views–which is all most of those people need to confirm that if their views are widely ignored by elitists, then that justifies continuing to hold them.

    After all, if the elitists hate Milo for espousing them, the thinking goes, then there must be something good about them.

    Milo is like Tony. No, he doesn’t really say anything intelligent, but it’s good batting practice for the genuinely stupid people we meet in the lunchroom and around the water cooler who aren’t much smarter than Tony (or Milo).

    1. Here is the best all-around comment on the phenomenon that is Milo. Had to google it to find it. Agree or disagree as you will.

      Fluffy|2.20.17 @ 1:27PM|#

      Sure he’s a troll.

      But the type of troll he is is absolutely necessary, at this particular moment in America.

      The anti-free-speech collectivist left has been trying for generations to find the magic set of words they needed to shut down the speech of everyone on the right.

      A few years ago, they found it: they roll around like soccer players taking a dive whenever anyone disagrees with them, and scream out that they don’t “feel safe”. And assholes like Robby help them.

      The most important thing to be done right now for the future of freedom in the world is for us to let “women, minorities, and the transgender” know that their fucking worthless feelings aren’t important enough for anyone to lose a molecule of liberty over them. If we can hold that line, we can fix the rest over time. If we can’t, we’ll lose everything, and probably in my lifetime.

      The only way to do that is Milo’s way. I was convinced of that before he even started, and having watched him proceed I’m even more convinced of it now.

      1. The *only* way?

        Milo is an embodiment of the vacuous politics of the modern right. It has no ideas other than “Leftists suck and I’m gonna make fun of them!” Another such embodiment is the president of the United States.

        And it’s because they all read the same stupid shit on the internet that makes them think that an arcane academic debate over pronouns is literally worse than Hitler.

      2. Well, lets see. Do people on the left win a mater of debate, such as whether or not NAMBLA groups marched in Gay Pride Parades, by getting angry enough to silence their debating opponents?

  13. This is a tough argument, with Moynihan’s objection that NAMBLA absolutely positively wasn’t a mainstream segment of the gay community. Moynihan may be right, but possibly only technically right? Allow me:

    GAY POLITICS BEFORE STONEWALL

    NAMBLA’s emergence in the late ’70s came at a critical time in the history of gay politics, right in the midst of the broad transformations of the post-Stonewall era. For the first time, mainstream America was being exposed to some of the breadth and complexity of gay and lesbian life. Newspapers covering the new pride marches began to show leathermen, drag queens, sadomasochists, and exotic fetishists of all stripes. Against this background, NAMBLA, with its earnest troupe of two dozen men waving hand-lettered banners made from bedsheets, looked like a new sexual subspecies, one among the many which were blossoming in the bright open space cleared by gay activism.

    In fact, NAMBLA was nothing new. It was, in many ways, more of a throwback to the closeted, radical past of the pre-Stonewall era. Largely undocumented, its history has been excavated in a number of excellent books, first in John D’Emilio’s outstanding Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities. Relying on oral histories, D’Emilio uncovered the outlines of a long underground struggle dating back at least to the aftermath of World War II and “homophile” groups like the Mattachine Society and One, Inc. We need to go back at least this far to understand NAMBLA.

    1. The organization resembles Mattachine and One, Inc. in an astonishing range of details, including strong affinities with anarchist and communist groups, a peculiar, unresolved mix of openness and elaborate secrecy, and an ideological underpinning of “sex radicalism”?a far cry from the constructive engagement of current gay politics. So how can gays ever expect “a place at the table” if this disruptive intruder insists on being seated with us? NAMBLA, precisely because it is demonized everywhere (especially inside the gay community), has emerged as an uncanny, living trace of the early homophiles, and a deep, deep thorn in the side of gay people who want to believe that inclusion can be gained through complete openness. What to do with the pedophiles who are shouting “solidarity” alongside of us? The answer, for most gay organizations, has been to join the chorus of voices telling NAMBLA to please just shut up.

      I dunno, I give points to Moynihan on this– generally, but from my quick read of this– it appears NAMBLA’s history within the gay community is… complicated.

    2. This seems like a good place for me to insert this bit of NAMBLA history gathered, as it was, personally as a member of NAMBLA:

      A frequent question is the extent to which NAMBLA, specifically or boy-lovers, in general, enjoyed any degree of acceptance by the gay community in the 1970s and 80s. The landscape in, what was essentially, a milieu of liberation in the face of extreme oppression was, indeed, very different back then. The grand bargain that would begin to take shape in the 1980s in which boy-lovers were thrown under the bus by mainstream gays in the interest of attaining wider social acceptability was just beginning.

      For a number of years we were, indeed, welcome in gay pride parades although I don’t recall that we ever had “floats” as such but I did march myself, along with other NAMBLA supporters, in a number of marches in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver and New York wearing NAMBLA t-shirts and carrying NAMBLA banners. In the first such march, I was a young man of nineteen and we had, not only men, but boys openly participating in those events. In the early days, we were enthusiastically welcomed by the gay community. It would only be much later, in the late-80s, that we would come to receive any expressions of hostility but, even then, it was far from unanimous and we still received cheers of support. It was only when we were specifically excluded from marching by various parade committees that we could no longer openly march.

  14. To this day I suspect NAMBLA was manufactured out of whole cloth by Peter Schwartz as an excuse for licking the blacking off of Republican boots instead of using a platform and spoiler votes to repeal superstitious laws and roll back communism. Since the early 80s the only reference to the anti-concept has been a Southpark episode.

  15. It took a several minutes of searching “NAMBLA” in the New York Times archive to find three articles that indicate NAMBLA groups marched in Gay Pride Parades. It’s ironic how the conversation in the podcast shifted towards the superiority of intellectual debate over shock value or erotic content after one star shot down a guest’s assertion by freaking out when the guest told the truth.

    1. This 1994 New York Times film review, Men Who Love Boys Explain Themselves says,

      Nambla’s opponents, like Tom McDonough, who founded a conservative action group called Straight Kids U.S.A., are also heard from. Mr. McDonough is shown yelling “Baby-raper!” in a demonstration outside the apartment of a Nambla member. Participants in the 1993 gay and lesbian march on Washington express chagrin at having a Nambla contigent march in their ranks. And a Nambla member, Renato Corazzo, is shown monitoring obscene hate messages on the organization’s hot line.

      Nambla, founded in 1978, claims a membership of around 1,500. Besides the hot line, it publishes a monthly newsletter illustrated with photos of pubescent boys.

    2. This 1997 New York Times article is about how people viewed Mayor Giuliani. It says,

      I EXPLAINED why I didn’t vote for Mayor Giuliani in the last election. I look at the gay pride parade coming up the avenue and I see the gay activists and they are followed by a group from Nambla, the pedophiles. And in back of the pedophiles come, smiling brightly and waving their hands, the two aspirants to be my Mayor, Mr. Dinkins and Mr. Giuliani. I couldn’t under those circumstances vote for anyone that would march in a parade with pedophiles.

      I, however, have to be fair-minded, and that was the only thing I had against the man at the time. And it is the only thing I have against him now. But I must say this: I think he should be congratulated on the job he’s doing and the effort he’s putting into it to change New York and do what he can, and I will be voting for Mr. Giuliani when his term is up, when he runs again. I really have to when I see what he’s up against as far as the Democrats who have announced.

      I can’t let just one item that I disagree with him on blind me to the good that he has done.

      1. The one about Giuliani is a real gem. I mean, sure, both he and Dinkins marched in the Gay Pride Parade that included NAMBLA, but Giuliani drew the line at letting porn shops cluster in Times Square. This if fucking ridiculous. How did porn merchants end up being less respectable than NAMBLA?

  16. This 1994 New York Times editorial calls for more Republicans, Muslims, bisexuals, transgender people, and people of color to join the Gay Pride Parades so they become more diverse. It says,

    What a thrill to be writing to you on the eve of the Stonewall/Gay Games celebration in New York City. With all of those activists, socialites and girljocks on hand, marching may not be the only workout you’ll get. — Heather Findlay, editor, writing in On Our Backs, a bimonthly for lesbians published in San Francisco.


    Are you tired of being represented in the news media by Luke Sissyfag, Act Up and Nambla (the National Man-Boy Love Association)?


    Yes, Virginia! It’s O.K. to be gay and Republican! It’s O.K. to care about high taxes, crime, excessive government, as well as human and gay rights and aggressive funding for the fight against AIDS. It’s even O.K. to care about values which will preserve and strengthen our gay relationships, homes and spiritual lives. — Message accompanying membership form in the newsletter of the Log Cabin Club of New York, an affiliate of the national Log Cabin Federation, for gay Republicans.

    1. Do you have an upshot to all of this? Should the gays be worried?

      1. Tony, the title of this post is “Here’s What Happens When You Accuse Michael Moynihan of Being in Denial About NAMBLA Because Maybe He’s Gay”. It turns out Moynaihan is in denial about NAMBLA marching in past Gay Pride Parades. Thesis disproven, game, set, and match.

        1. Did you listen to the video?

          1. Were you listening to the dude’s story?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.