Dangerous

by Steve Lancaster7/23/17
Milo Yiannopoulos  •  I guess just about everyone has heard about Milo. The drama, the riots, the cries of outrage not only from the crazed left, but also the crazed right. It seems there is almost no one he hasn’t pissed off to some degree. However, aside from Britebart readers and a growing following of conservatives and libertarians, not many people know exactly what it is that makes the humble man so volatile and dangerous.

My first thought was to make this a standard review, but on second thought, it seems to me that I will just interject a few thoughts and let Milo speak for himself; something he is very good at doing.

Something most conservatives and libertarians should have written on their mirrors, “Purposefully or unwittingly, a generation of Americans now exists that is terrified of critical thinking.” I personally would content that critical thinking has been over since the 70s, but I’ll give Milo the benefit of doubt due to his tender age.

Political correctness, unlike the old political correctness of the 70s, takes on special meaning for the non-critical thinker: “The new brand of political correctness, popular on college campuses and social media, is the idea that no speech should exist that directly challenges politically correct ideas. To campus crybabies, and the professors who have been breastfeeding them, it is incomprehensible that I should be permitted to speak on their campus.” And: “Freedom of speech is America’s most cherished right, and implicit in freedom of speech is the freedom to disagree. I’m not your typical conservative commentator.”

Milo discusses the tragedy of the last eight years and what he views as the core change in the Democrat party since the election of Obama: “As their electoral coalition changed, so too did the Left’s politics. They became less concerned with pay, more contemptuous of old industries, and venomous towards the cultural values of their old voters. Barack Obama’s infamous 2008 quip that former working-class communities “cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment,” epitomized the new attitude of the Left.”

He spends considerable time explaining Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School and how their sinister philosophical communism has infected American institutions, particularly colleges and universities. “Because of their intellectual pedigree in the angry, victim-centric doctrine of Cultural Marxism, the Left is committed to defending a worldview which arranges women, minorities, and gays in a league table of oppression, with straight white men as the eternal oppressors at the top of the list, followed by gay white men, followed by straight white women, all the way down to paraplegic black immigrant Muslim transsexuals at the very bottom. Straight white men are the new “bourgeoisie,” the group oppressing everyone else.”

“Donald Trump, and Margaret Thatcher before him, were both right when they said identity politics and name-calling is what people do when they don’t have any arguments left. The modern Left is an ouroboros, the ancient Egyptian serpent that eats its own tail, constantly consuming itself in a twisted, never-ending cycle of victimhood, hatred and name-calling. You’ve seen how liberals respond when their backs are against the wall: with hate, because they’ve forgotten how to argue, all the while trumpeting their own moral superiority. Well, here’s something I’ve learned during my time in America: aggressive public displays of virtue are where the morally deplorable hide.”

“politically correct, university-educated elites don’t like how the working classes speak. They’re horrified by the ribald humor, sharp language and raucous tone of blue-collar interactions. So they brand it all as ‘abuse’ and ‘harassment’ and close their comment sections because they are too delicate to engage with ordinary people.”

Well, that is 600 quick words from Milo. If that is not enough to intrigue you to read the rest then I doubt you would read it if I just quoted the entire work. Milo is outrageous, flamboyant, openly homosexual, an avid supporter of President Trump, and willing to take on the cultural icons of the left and the right. His disdain for the RINOs is only equaled by his parallel contempt for the Left in all its malformations. The book is solid with footnoted research and facts and often so damned funny you will read the same page six times. • (440 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Dangerous

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Some good ideas in a really bad package. Milo is part of the problem in that he’s just more noise in a culture that likes noise. Hey, I get that there is good money and facetime to be made in being a provocateur. But I would never count this guy as a reliable friend of reforming Big Government. He’s just another gadfly….Ann Coulter who takes it in the rear.

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      I think he is a least as trustworthy as the talking heads that claim to support President Trump but just can’t seem to get over the line, Dr. Krauthammer do you hear me?

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    I see only one thing to disagree with in the Milo quotes: This isn’t at all new. Welles in The Time Machine seemed to take the idea that the elites should run things, though in material respects it would be egalitarian. Very similar ideas are expressed by the left-wing activists (in flashback conversations in Miranda’s mind) in the novel The Collector. I also witnessed very similar views in 60s activists, who in essence control modern leftism and its institutions today.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Welles in The Time Machine seemed to take the idea that the elites should run things, though in material respects it would be egalitarian.

      In that sense, Well’s was pretty much following the Granddaddy of Western philosophers, Plato.

      By coincidence, I just read “The Time Machine” a couple of days back. The book was ok, but although already short, Well’s padded it with the bit where the Time Traveler’s tells his friends of going further into the future some 30 million years.

      If anyone wishes to read what the progressives of Well’s era thought about the human condition and governance, there are a few pages in “The Time Machine” which lays it all out.

      Interestingly, the Time Traveler is the one who expounds upon these thoughts and then admits that things didn’t develop they way progressives had projected. The state of “humanity” in the year 800,001 was very different from what he would have expected using his rationalist ideas of the late 19th century.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I followed Milo for a while at Breitbart. I first tired of him and then of Breitbart.

    He is perhaps a libertarian, but I do not see how he could be considered a conservative.

    A freak who accentuated his freakishness in order to gain attention, I found him extremely vulgar. This wears thin fairly quickly.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Mr. Kung, I’m all for throwing rhetorical bombs, selling books, getting paid to appear on TV, getting paid to give speeches, etc. I’m a free market guy.

      But I’m not a flippin’ idiot. The conservative shout-a-rama exists like a separate thin layer in the stratosphere. Lots of sparks and flashes but it’s too high, thin, and disconnected from the ground to change the climate — or the culture.

      I don’t resent Milo the sodomite making money from pent-up resentment (or just Daily Drama exhibitionism…after all, politics is entertainment for most these days) any more than Rush Limbaugh making his millions. But neither has done much more than sucked oxygen out of the conservative room. They’ve fed on resentment and made it an business proposition.

      That’s fine. But we shouldn’t mistake it for concrete action. It’s not. It’s just part of the Daily Drama. It doesn’t reform even one school district. It cuts funding from no welfare program. It is just an outlet, arguably (I would argue), dispersing energy that otherwise could go to reform efforts.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        It is just an outlet, arguably (I would argue), dispersing energy that otherwise could go to reform efforts.

        Something like a perpetual-motion machine consuming energy to function, but going nowhere.

  4. Steve Lancaster says:

    The workd that we grew up in is dead as the Clinton marriage. We are at war with the Democratic Party and progressives. The end result is unknown but if we are to prevail aa a nation it will be up to people like Milo and Ann to throw some of the bombshells to achieve victory. We can talk nuances and crudeness later but for now the focus has to be on once and forever defeating our enemies.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      They throw rhetorical bombshells. That’s it. They don’t change the culture. They don’t help to pass reformist laws. They don’t change the corrupt institutions.

      What they do is connect into people’s desire to have their grievances aired. But most want little beyond the airing of grievances, to have their inner IDs stroked and comforted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *