Book Review: Milo Yiannopoulos is Coming for Your Kids

MiloDangerous

“I’m no hypocrite,” states Milo Yiannopoulos near the beginning of his recently released first book, Dangerous. “I tell the truth, always. That’s my whole fucking problem.”

There’s no doubt that telling the truth, or at least his version of it, has been a problem for the self-proclaimed “dangerous faggot.” Earlier this year, publisher Simon & Schuster canceled the contract on this very book after remarks that appeared to condone pederasty made by Milo on a podcast last year were reported in mainstream media.

Milo was also disinvited from speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference and forced to resign as tech editor for Breitbart, the news website often credited for helping elect President Donald Trump. It was a brutal comedown for the fabulously gay conservative Trump supporter, but he vowed to return to the fray quickly. True to his word, here he is less than six months later with Dangerous, published on his own imprint, Dangerous Books.

For those unfamiliar with Milo, he’s a 32-year-old English journalist, political provocateur and occasional drag queen who first gained notoriety covering the #GamerGate controversy, which essentially concerned the issue of political correctness and video game content, a matter of great concern to millennials and the multi-billion dollar gaming industry.

In Milo’s words, “It was “a bitter war between gamers, anonymous internet trolls, hectoring feminist scolds, and left-wing journalists.”

Milo sided with the “dorky weirdos” in the battle, who just wanted their video games to be left alone, and his coverage brought in hordes of young readers to Breitbart. His star was rising and in March, 2016, Milo (and co-writer Allum Bakhari) broke into the limelight with “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right,” purported to be a taxonomy of the alternative right political movement supporting then candidate Trump.

The article rightly pointed out that in today’s politically correct environment, where white males have been cast as the villain, it’s become difficult for whites to express any sort of white identity or culture without being hectored by some so-called Social Justice Warrior.

This sentiment is nothing new, I’ve been tracking white identity groups online for more than 20 years. Mainly, that’s because I’m entirely opposed to identity politics. As a journalist who still believes in democracy and the ideal of objectivity, I try very hard not to play one group off of another. But I do not deny that identity politics has been a significant factor in American politics, particularly since the 1960s.

Thus, I was familiar with all the names listed in Breitbart’s Alt-Right guide, as well as the names not listed, and was keenly aware Milo was down-playing the movement’s hard-right elements.

He and his co-writer denied being a part of any movement, but with his shock of bleached blond hair and Adonis good looks, Milo’s face was soon plastered all over the mainstream media as the leader of the Alt-Right, operating out of the Alt-Right’s Berlin Bunker, Breitbart, then commanded by notorious alleged crypto-nazi Steve Bannon.

It was an epic troll, which is Milo’s specialty.

“On the one hand, these guys are declaring the alt-right to be a racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic hate group,” Milo writes in Dangerous. “On the other, they’re saying that a gay Jew with a black boyfriend is the head of it.”

LOL! Milo trolled the mainstream media and the alternative right! Never mind that the majority of the alternative right can be considered, by most normal people, racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic, and subscribes to a conspiracy theory known as “Cultural Marxism” that blames Jewish academic theorists for the alleged decline in Western culture, a line of thought Milo continues to promote front-and-center in Dangerous.

More on that later. Despite his reputation as a public intellectual, there’s very little standard political content in Dangerous. At various points Milo calls himself a conservative, a conservative libertarian, a cultural libertarian and once says he’s not a libertarian at all. In the end he says people hate him—each chapter is dedicated to the various groups that despise Milo—because, “I’m not one of them. I don’t fit into the box they demand of me. I don’t fit into any fucking box. I am large, I contain multitudes.”

That last bit of inspired megalomania may be the truest thing he says in the book. It’s also a symptom of nihilism.

Dangerous is presented by Milo as a guide to political activism in the internet age. That is, it’s a guide to trolling by an author who is arguably one of the internet’s most successful trolls. Milo claims when it comes to trolling, he’s second only to “Daddy,” his favored sobriquet for the president, and I’ll grant him that conceit.

“The ideal troll baits the target into a trap, from which there is no escape without public embarrassment,” Milo writes. “Even calling myself a faggot is trolling you. Calling myself a ‘fabulous faggot’ is trolling you fabulously. It’s an old trick I picked up from drag queens: always tell the joke the other guy is going to tell about you first, and make it funny.”

Now, I enjoy drag humor as much as anyone, and I’ll admit I thought it was pretty damned funny when, last year during the Twitter controversy over the new Ghostbusters reboot, featuring four women instead of four men as in the beloved original, Milo got in a flame war with African-American actress Leslie Jones that ended with him signing off, “Rejected by another black dude!”

That’s Milo, always referencing his black boyfriend(s). Twitter didn’t see the humor in the tweet, accused Milo of setting loose an angry mob of internet trolls on Jones, and booted him for life from the social media site.

But as he recounts in Dangerous, being de-platformed only made Milo stronger, particularly with the growing audience of Breitbart behind him. “Culture flows downstream from politics,” is one of the late Andrew Breitbart’s most frequently cited axioms and the key to both Milo and Breitbart’s success. It too derives from the theory that Cultural Marxists have seized control of Western culture. Breitbart’s unabashed mission since its inception has been to take back that control. Take back the culture.

Andrew Breitbart’s genius was to turn the tools of the Cultural Marxists—Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals is frequently mentioned by members of the broad alternative right as a guidebook—and turn them against the Cultural Marxists. More or less that means demonizing and destroying your opponent with facts, innuendo, pseudo-facts, name-calling, outrageous behavior and whatever else you have in your bag of tricks. As Milo notes, “Trolling is the perfect weapon of a political dissident intent on spreading forbidden or inconvenient truths.”

But one inconvenient truth Milo stealthily avoids is the way in which Cultural Marxism is understood by the vast majority of the alternative right, as a modern Protocol of the Elders of Zion, the late nineteenth century forgery alleging a Jewish plot to control the world.

Milo correctly notes that what is academically known as Cultural Marxism traces its roots back to the Frankfurt School, a group of German Marxist academics who immigrated to the United States in 1935. That year ring a bell? He fails to note that virtually all the scholars were Jewish.

That fact may not mean much to Milo, but I’ve been encountering this theory that Cultural Marxists control everything, the money supply, the movies we watch, the language we speak, the books we read, the music we listen to, who we can have sex with, what drugs we can take, etc., since the 1990s, and it’s frequently placed in what can only be called an anti-Semitic setting.

In its more benign presentation, as in Milo’s case, it is offered up without reference to Jewish academics, and “Hollywood,” or “mainstream media” or “leftist” or “progressive” or even “bankster” is inserted. In its more virulent and in my opinion more common form, there’s no question as to who the man behind the curtain is: the eternal scheming Jew.

I’m not saying that everyone who believes Cultural Marxism is the root of all evil is anti-Semitic. There are many Jews on the Trump Train who consider themselves alternative right. Perhaps they are unaware of the origins of this conspiracy theory. I can guarantee you that Jews who are aware of it, including the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, consider it anti-Semitic.

It came to me as no surprise whatsoever last week when the Anti-Defamation League named Milo on its list of leading opinion makers on the Alt-Right and Alt-Light. FYI, that’s a career-killer for most people, but not for Milo, so far.

I know what some of you are thinking. What is this Cultural Marxism that I never heard of before? Well, the reason you’ve never heard of it before is because in its most benign yet powerful form, it just sort of seeps in through osmosis. From watching TV and movies and listening to rock-and-roll music. You didn’t feel a thing, did you? Writes Milo:

“Cultural Marxism, nurtured by the Frankfurt School, struck a chord—even though, for the most part, these young Baby Boomers didn’t realize where their ideas were coming from. Rock musicians, the standard-bearers of young boomer culture, became fierce advocates of pacifism, feminism, gay rights and all the other causes of the New Left.”

Lest you think those were not great causes, Milo, who brags that he doesn’t do caveats, demonstrates he at least knows what caveats are.

“There is of course, another reason the New Left was so successful: a lot of their arguments made sense,” he writes. “There was racism to be fought, structural, institutionalized and legal racism.”

But that’s all over now, in case you didn’t know that.

“The counter-culture of the 1960s became the prevailing culture of the 1980s,” he writes. The goals of the Civil Rights era and Cultural Marxism had been obtained. “It was now difficult to argue that any social group in the West lacked equality under the law.” Unfortunately, those pesky Cultural Marxists kept going, until they “achieved complete control of media, academia and the arts, just at the point when they were no longer needed.”

Just in case you need to be reminded who runs institutions like the media, academia and the arts, Milo offers a helpful tip.

“It’s simply a fact that Jews are disproportionately well-represented in the media, entertainment industry and in banking,” he writes. “We perform well in those industries! And merely pointing out that statistical success should not be considered anti-Semitic.”

No, it shouldn’t be considered anti-Semitism on its face, but mentioning it in the context of a political philosophy that half his fan base believes is a Jewish plot to control the world might be considered … what’s the word I’m thinking of?

Oh, yeah. Dangerous.

I am by no means saying that Milo is anti-Semitic. Neither is he a creature of the Alt-Right. “America isn’t about where you’re from,” writes this would-be English deTocqueville near the beginning of Dangerous. “It’s about how grateful you are to be in the greatest country on earth.”

Anyone even remotely familiar with the alternative right knows that’s pretty much the exact opposite of their thinking. Even worse is being a gay Jew who prefers black men, as Milo constantly reminds us he is. “I’m a threat because I don’t belong to anyone. I’m unaffiliated,” he puffs himself up. Then this non-American citizen educates us about the constitution. “Freedom of speech is America’s most cherished right, and implicit in freedom of speech is the freedom to disagree.”

Especially if you get lots of hits on the internet, which is what this is all about for Milo. That, and having fun! Join me, intrepid college students (his target audience), Milo advises:

“In the following pages I’ll teach you how to cause the same sort of mayhem I do in defense of the most important right you have in America: the right to think, do, say and be whatever the hell you want.”

What could be more fun than causing mayhem? So says the internet’s “greatest super villain,” who hails from that country we defeated way back in 1783 that still doesn’t have free speech. In Milo’s mind, wrapping himself in the American flag gives him dramatic (he loves that adjective) license to pretend the significant racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic elements in the alternative right don’t actually exist.

It’s just kids blowing off steam, he continues to maintain. That’s the cover that allows him to claim, incredibly, that the trolls are winning because “we’re the only ones telling the truth any more.”

Beware of self-proclaimed attention whores claiming to carry the truth, in case you didn’t learn that in the college-level critical thinking class you’re required to take in the state of California.

In case you’re one of those white deplorables without a college education Milo claims to be a spokesman for, just ignore anyone claiming to be telling you the truth. They’re all over the internet these days. Truth is easily the most misused word in English and probably every other language.

If Milo isn’t carrying the truth, what is his burden? Why it’s a sackful of clickbait outrage delivered in drag and aimed at the easiest and most vulnerable targets of the progressive left, defined as the “latte-sipping metropolitan voters, fairy tale dwelling antiwar activists, ugly women (sigh), and minorities.”

I know an alleged intellectual such as Milo is in trouble as far as the truth is concerned when they completely mischaracterize and insult the opposition. It’s basic informal logic. Milo is apparently unaware that there hasn’t been a sizable antiwar movement in this country since at least the election of President Barack Obama, and realistically since 9/11.

I know. That’s my thing. I’m antiwar. Anti-interventionist. I’m an honorably discharged United States Navy veteran who’s earned that right. I’ve covered the topic frequently as a journalist. I’ll tell you right now the establishment — Republican and Democrat — from Washington D.C., right down to your local city council, no matter whether you live in the big city or podunk Shasta County, doesn’t like this kind of talk. You’ll not find a single antiwar sentiment in Dangerous. That’s by design. Again, it’s all about the hits. Selling books.

When Milo stumbled upon the #GamerGate controversy, he hit pay dirt, as far as internet hits were concerned. Here was the nexus of young white males, let’s say ages 20 to 40, rightfully upset, as I have written in many stories about the Alt-Right, at the total over-reach of political correctness. As a white person myself, I’ve found much of the anti-white PC rhetoric offensive, but I don’t attribute it entirely, or really much at all, to Cultural Marxism, as do Milo and the vast majority of the alternative right. But it’s a toxically persuasive theory for the uninitiated.

History and culture are more complex than that, both in the longterm and the short-term. “We should look to Nietzsche for wisdom, not hideous queer studies professors,” Milo advises. Well, I’ve studied me a little Nietzsche, the famously obtuse 19th century European philosopher, in college and on my own, and my favorite Nietzsche epigram is this: “Suppose truth was a woman? What then?’

What Nietzsche meant is slightly un-politically correct for our times, but we’re not so far down the conspiratorial Cultural Marxist road that we don’t understand his meaning. Philosophers, Nietzsche was saying, will chase anything in a skirt. That makes sense, because at the time, most philosophers were men, and just like most young heterosexual men today, they lusted after women. Now imagine instead of a woman, truth was Milo Yiannopoulos, dressed as Marilyn Monroe singling “God Bless America.”

Milo actually did that, on his tour of American colleges last year. Chase me, Milo was saying, I’m wearing a skirt, I’m the truth, and sure enough, his supporters and detractors chased him all over the United States.

I watched this unfold on the internet during and after the Trump campaign; the riots protesting Milo’s appearances at U.C. Davis and U.C. Berkeley earlier this year made major headlines. Despite the fact that the alternative right universally disavows Milo, because after all he’s a degenerate faggot that only exists because Cultural Marxist Jews recruit degenerates, they still endorsed his message, and continue to endorse it. I have yet to read a negative review of Dangerous on an Alt-Right website.

Why should they write negative reviews? Milo is promulgating the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory known as Cultural Marxism, he’s opening the Overton Window, the window of acceptable political discussion in mainstream culture, another common alternative right theme, and gosh darnit, we shall overcome!

This sort of nonsense is endemic of identity politics and the main reason I’ve followed its practitioners throughout my 30-year career in journalism; it both interests and frightens me. Social science research may say Asians are smarter than Jews who are smarter than whites who are smarter than Latinos who are smarter than blacks, a distinction Unz Review columnist and Alt-Right hero Steve Sailer has gone on and on about for years now. But don’t trust me on the subject, let Milo hang himself (figuratively) with his own words.

“I’d prefer a world with no identity politics,” Milo writes. “But if you’re going to divide everyone up, you have to accept that straight white men are going to want their own special party too. If we are to have identity politics, we must have identity politics for all.”

OK. I’m agreeable to that, with some reservations. Yet oddly enough, in his book exploiting identity politics, that actually advises young white males to follow his lead, Milo inadvertently puts his finger on why identity politics is problematic in a multicultural country that calls itself a democracy:

“Identity politics is universally attractive because it enables failures and weaknesses to be be spun as the products of oppression and historical injustice,” he writes. “Personal responsibility is removed from the equation.”

Strong feelings from a dude who continues to dabble in identity politics, which begs the question: Why dabble?

Here’s my simple answer. Milo the Jewish drag queen who only has sex with black men is playing rural white America, the so-called deplorables who helped elect Donald Trump, for rubes. Like most young people these days, and I can say that because I’m 57, he wants attention. He’s getting it. He’s oh so outrageous.

I enjoy Milo’s writing, but I’m not buying his act, even though I bought his book and read it twice before writing this review. I’m a rural American who’s spent a great deal of time in big cities, and I understand Milo clearly doesn’t have a clue when it comes to the culture, the politics, and the people who actually live in the United States. As my father, who was born in the Great Depression and is a retired U.S. Navy nuclear ballistic missile submarine electronics technician, is fond of saying, we’re a melting pot. That’s an easy and perhaps slightly inaccurate answer, but it’s better than Milo’s.

Milo, a gay Jewish man who dates black men, has embraced, some say hijacked, an ideology whose adherents would kill him on the spot if they got the chance to do it anonymously, a fact he dismisses with the wave of a limp wrist. Call it gay privilege. He’d never admit he’s taking advantage of it.

Nevertheless, that’s what he’s doing. Milo the truth-teller, the half-Jewish anti-Semite, the half-Catholic alter boy sucking Father Mike’s dick—an anonymous priest he claims he willingly had sex with at the age of 14—is only in it for the lols — the laugh-out-louds — as the kids he so creepily covets say these days.

Other than that, Milo has literally nothing to offer as far as solutions to our present dilemma are concerned in Dangerous. It’s news to this dangerous faggot, who has apparently never dated a woman, that birth control pills have side effects and that abortion is a hard decision for any woman to make. Fat and ugly people deserve to be ridiculed because, well, they’re not beautiful like him. The “left” is stupid because somehow they weren’t able to absorb the lessons from Milo’s ultimate touchstone, Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”

Good Lord. This man is Rush Limbaugh in drag. But that doesn’t stop him from pressing his case.

“Three things separate my brand of conservatism from the tired ‘suit and tie conservatives’ American college students are so familiar with: humor, mischief, and sex appeal,” he writes. “Over the next decade, social justice warriors and busybodies are going to be beaten into submission by the forces of freedom and fun.”

To which I reply with an old Navy saying, “loose lips sink ships.” Milo may think free speech is on the alternative right’s side, but he’s dead wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled decades ago that inciting violence is exempt from free speech. It’s even ruled against campus speech codes, designed to provide the safe spaces for bullied minorities that Milo so abhors. In short, we don’t need some vulgar Englishman to tell us how to conduct our business.

True, many public universities didn’t get the Supreme Court’s message, and have actually expanded speech codes to include protections for, say, transgender students, with all the tortured pronouns that entails. Some states and municipalities have even followed their lead by mandating gender-free public restrooms. Maybe these laws will stand, maybe they’ll fade away as a passing fad. There’s not a large number of transgender people in this country. We, as a country, are working it out.

How it all works out means less than nothing to Milo. He’s only interested in the hits, and he’s already working on his new routine.

The writer who claims American isn’t about where you’re from is hellbent on proving that’s not true if you’ve immigrated here from the war torn Middle East. It’s amazing how much power the people we’ve bombed into submission for the past 16 years wield. Simply by inviting refugees into our country, “liberals” have endangered the whole democratic project.

“They have watched the dream of multiculturalism die at the hands of Islam, despite all their attempts to downplay and cover up the atrocities,” Milo states matter-of-factly.

This is lunacy. Multiculturalism isn’t some sort of Jewish plot, it’s reality. The millions of men, women and children we’ve directly and indirectly killed in the Middle East since 9/11, mostly Sunni Muslims who had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on that fateful day, don’t even rate a mention in Milo’s book.

That’s because the truth is, he’s just a George W. Bush-loving neocon in a skirt. That’s why out of nowhere, Milo drops names in his book such as “the distinguished Jewish political philosopher Leo Strauss,” the intellectual father of neoconservatism.

You remember the neocons right? The guys who drew up plans for a New American Century, predicated on a military takeover of the Middle East? The guys who said it would might take a “new Pearl Harbor” to make that happen?

That’s exactly who and what Milo Yiannopoulos is. Don’t let the fact that he looks hot in a dress fool you. And for God’s sake, keep this imbecile away from your children. I’ll let him have the last word just to prove my point.

“Isn’t it deliciously ironic that the children of the 1960s, that era when the young rose up against the heroic, selfless World War II generation, are now stuck in the same old jam as their grandparents?” he writes near the end of Dangerous. “After working so hard to destroy conservative principles, they settled into a lazy complacency, foolishly believing they had won the culture war forever. Now they have to watch as their own children rise up against them in glorious rebellion, embracing the very principles they sought to destroy.”

He’s trolling, as usual. The only place this vision of America exists is in the author’s tortured mind. Do not buy his book. I don’t know what we’re going to do about him.

R.V. Scheide
R.V. Scheide has been a northern California journalist for more than 20 years. He appreciates your comments and story ideas.
Comment Policy: We welcome your comments, with some caveats: Please keep your comments positive and civilized. If your comment is critical, please make it constructive. If your comment is rude, we will delete it. If you are constantly negative or a general pest, troll, or hater, we will ban you from the site forever. The definition of terms is left solely up to us. Comments are disabled on articles older than 90 days. Thank you. Carry on.

67 Responses

  1. Beverly Stafford says:

    R. V., I made it all the way through your very thorough review of this book and its author, and I guess I should care about him and his ranting, but I don’t.  I suppose I’m an ostrich about this sort of stuff and a kind of NIMBY since it doesn’t affect me directly.  And I should probably apologize for those feelings, but he and his ideas and ideals are so remote to me that I’ll just let others get hot under the collar over this grandstander’s crap views.

  2. George says:

    R.V., Read your review.  You don’t care much for Milo.  I get that.  But don’t you think that people should read the book and judge for themselves?  I’m not saying children should read it; but adults should.  I think that if Barnes & Noble hadn’t made such a BIG DEAL about NOT having it in stock, the urge to read it might not have been strong.  Milo Yiannopoulos go FREE PUBLICITY on that one and it promoted his book.

    Maybe you should have not reviewed this book.  Even though you don’t recommend it, I think the fact that you probably have a large following gave the book some more free publicity.

    This is my first time reading anything by you and I find you to be very interesting and quite intriguing.

    Let me know what else you’ve written.  I’d like to read it.  I love to read.

    By the way, I’m 74 years old and have experience 6 decades of changes in the U.S.  So I’m going to read “Dangerous” because it may give me some interesting quotes to use in conversation.

    You’ve got another fan in me.

     

     

     

    • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

      I’ve been reading R.V.’s articles long enough to read that conclusion, “Do not buy his book,” either way.

      Some of my earliest readings as a kid were from the Uncle Remus stories, “Song of the South.”  In one story, Brer Rabbit is captured by his enemies, Brer Fox and Brer Bear.  (Brer Rabbit being their tormenter who usually got the best of them through cunning.) They tie Brer Rabbit to a stake and debate ways to put their enemy to a miserable, painful death.  Brer Rabbit begs them to do any one of the horrible options they dream up, “…but please, Lordy, don’ throw me in dat briar patch! I don’ wants to die tangled up in dem stickery vines! ”

      Brer Rabbit’s protestations eventually convince his captors to throw him into the briar patch, where he was born and raised and is perfectly at home.

      “Do not buy the book” may mean “Buy the book.”  I’m not saying it does, but it certainly wouldn’t shock me out of my shoes if it does.  And if it means “Buy the book,” it’s already sold at least one copy.

      • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

        I honestly felt that I couldn’t recommend buying this book to its target audience, young people. I felt that would be irresponsible, considering my review. I of course believe Milo has the right to publish the book. If he hadn’t made Cultural Marxism the centerpiece of it, or if he’d explained why it isn’t cloaked anti-Semitism, which would be difficult,  it would have been a better book.

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      George, you know, I’d like every story to be perfect, but sometimes on deadline, you say stuff maybe you would have put differently, but you think you’re being clever or hard-ass and you say something like, “Don’t buy his book.” And talk about a hypocrite, I said that after I said I was giving Milo the last word! Unfair! But … given his target audience, kids, by the time I got done analyzing his book, I was angry. I’m an adult, and I’ve bought into this Cultural Marxism line, ignoring its origins as a conspiracy theory, which I’ve know from the very beginning in the 1990s. As a Jew, Milo actually could criticize this theory, or, if he believes it, question the Jewish community in, say Hollywood, about why they made this movie this way or that. He doesn’t have the guts for that, but one Jew who does is talk radio host Michael Savage, who has an ongoing rant about degenerate Hollywood Jews on his program. It’s effective, because Savage is in the in-group, Jews, and it’s therefore more likely that Jewish film producers in Hollywood might take his advice. Savage is very very smart but perplexing. He criticizes our military actions in Syria at the same time he’s calling for a holy war against Islam in general. Unfortunately, his overall delivery no matter what the topic is so caustic, he limits the range of his ideas.

  3. Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

    What I have to say about Yiannopoulos is going to largely echo R.V.’s long and penetrating skewering of the guy.  :::cough:::  But here it is anyway:

    Yes, Yiannopoulos is an attention whore.  The problem with his brand of trolling is that he’s trying to touch two audiences—those he’s trying to offend, and those he’s trying to impress.  Particularly regarding the latter group, he has to continuously amp up the outrageousness in order to retain their interest.  When he crossed the line into the realm of advocating on behalf of NAMBLA, he entered territory that even his most ardent supporters with sizable social media pulpits couldn’t stomach.  They had to put him in a skiff and lower him into the middle of the ocean from their Ship of Fools.  (His book is self-published because his publisher pulled the plug just prior to publication shortly after Yiannopoulos advocated boy-molestation as a pleasant activity for all involved.)

    President Trump shares Yiannopoulos’s megalomania—a self-centered, self-aggrandizing, desperate desire for attention and affirmation that is ultimately nihilistic in its exclusion of any form of empathy, or even recognition of the needs and feelings of others unless it’s to express contempt for those needs and feelings.  If Daddy ends up on history’s trash heap atop Yiannopoulos, it’ll be hard to feel sorry for him. (Even though I will feel a bit sorry, just as I felt sorry for Nixon. See, I’m not like them—I possess the capacity for empathy.)

    A quick rebuttal of one of R.V.’s points:  There were no riots at UC Davis. One idiot got arrested at the loud but peaceful protest that led the College Republicans to cancel Yiannopoulos’s talk. One idiot does not a riot make.

    I think it’s a crying shame that the protesters got their way, and I’m embarrassed on behalf of my alma mater.  The way you learn to deal with bullshit artists like Yiannopoulos is to confront their rubbish.  If, in being allowed to speak, Yiannopoulos had managed to score some direct hits on political correctness, maybe political correctness has it coming.

    • Barbara Rice Barbara Rice says:

      I’ve removed what has become a pejorative slur from your comment.

      Jeez, people, can we have one day without name-calling?

      • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

        For those who wonder, the deletion was my concluding sentence regarding campus political correctness.  As best I can recall:

        To borrow a word from the alt-right: A world-class university is not supposed to be a safe space, (plural form of the offending pejorative slur).

        The pejorative slur is the one that suggests, mockingly, that each and every person is unique and special, and prone to melting like a tiny bit of crystallized ice with the slightest raise in ambient temperature, and therefore in need of protection.  I used it specifically because I think it applies to people who attend university under the assumption that they’re to be protected from ideas that offend them.

        What remains, Barbara, is the suggestion that the deleted bit was far worse than that, especially in light of what’s in in R.V.’s article from the first sentence on, and the more pointed slurs that remain in my own post (attention whore, fools, idiot), all of which suggest that the deleted sentence crashed through the gate of what’s permissible.  That’s hardly obvious to me, but if you think otherwise, feel free to delete my other comments, too (including the one that’s awaiting moderation, I assume because I’ve earned my way onto a watch list).

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      Yeah, at UC Davis a couple of benches got nocked over, so the event was canceled, definitely not the same as what happened in Berkeley. I had some friends on the ground there, and man, they hate Milo so much. I couldn’t figure it why. I mean Hillary Clinton got trolled by him by repeating his “birth control makes you ugly” line, and worked it into her infamous deplorable speech. Now, Milo excuses this stuff because he thinks he’s funny, Lenny Bruce he compares himself to, but Milo’s no Lenny Bruce, who did not prey upon the weak. He’s not funny most of the time, unless he’s making self-deprecating jokes, which he does too much and gets old. It’s not a good act–so why were of my friends trying to stop him from speaking? Let him speak, and you’ll see, there’s nothing there, I told them.

      • Alaina Toledo says:

        Can’t figure out why your Leftists Friends “hate Milo so much”?  Would you really like to know?  I can tell you.

        It’s because he’s exposing them for the crazed, Regressive control freaks they are.

        For DECADES Conservatives on American college campuses have been shouted down, shamed into silence with vile imprecations of “Racist!”, “Sexist!”, “Homophobe!” hurled at them if they DARED to voice even mainstream Conservative views.

        Milo has ENDED that.  He stands front and center and LAUGHS in the faces of the Social Justice Warriors who can’t win a debate on merit, and so resort to personally attacking their interlocutor, instead.

        Your Friends at places like UC Davis “hate Milo so much” because he has emboldened an entire generation of young Conservatives to STOP allowing the Regressive Left to silence them by trying to label them as the aforementioned racists/sexists/homophobes.  Their labels are all worn out.  They don’t STICK, anymore.  What’s more?  Take a look at Milo’s Social Media pages…

        Not only does he have the young generation of 20-25 year olds firmly on his side, but the NEXT generation of voters, currently aged 13-18, ADORE him.  Refer to him as “Daddy” and “Senpai”.  Polls show that they are the most Conservative Generation since WWII.  And when the time comes?  They’ll vote accordingly.

        The Left is LOSING.  And they’re losing BIG.

        Milo is a large part of the reason why.  That is why your Friends “hate Milo so much”.  Because he’s bringing attention to stories like this, and targeting them for the ridicule they so richly deserve:

        http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/24/art-professor-hounded-out-of-his-job-after-not-giving-trigger-warnings-to-students-6801299/

        Bury your head in the sand all you like.  This battle is not being fought, will not BE fought, by the likes of you, or me.

        This battle belongs to the young.  They’re SICK of being told what to do/say/think.  And they are flocking to Milo, and people like him, in DROVES.  With every interview, every tour date, every Instagram or Facebook post, every picture he throws up on Snapchat, his following GROWS.  It’s more than DOUBLED since the hit piece in February.

        Over the past 30 or so years, this Nation has swung too far to the Left.  A sea change is occurring.  A correction is in the works.

        As Barbara Kay of the National Post wrote, Milo Yiannopoulos is “Progressivism’s spawn, and history’s pendulum in action.”

        Hate him all you want, but you’re going to have to learn to deal with him in a manner other than attack mode.  Because the more you attack him, the stronger he becomes.

        ENGAGE him.  TALK to him.  Challenge him to a debate.  Slinging mud at him is going to be counter-productive, I guarantee it.

        Milo loves a dirty fight.  LOVES it.  And he’s worlds better at it than you will ever be.

        You’d be well advised to find a new tactic.

        • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

          You’re obviously a bright kid.  It’s sad to see you embracing delusions that are so easily disproved with a quick look at the data.  I’m not even going to bother providing you a link to a Trump vs. Clinton by demographics analysis.  You clearly don’t want to be a member of the reality-based community.

          The fact is, if only millennials had been allowed to vote, Clinton would have won the electoral college 538 to 0.  It’s also a fact that the trending demographics in this country don’t favor conservatives at all.  That’s why the GOP is so intent on using tactics such as voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering—those are their desperate last-gasp attempts to retain power.  The final step for America’s conservative whites will quite possibly be an attempt to do away with representational democracy altogether.

          There is an alternative to that: Convince minorities that it’s in their best interests to become conservatives. But the more that the alt-right embraces white identity politics, the less likely that becomes.  And this is where I break from progressives: The ruling plutocracy wants all of us to embrace identity politics, including white people. It divides us and makes it easier for them to consolidate even more power and wealth.

          In the self-selected Milo-worshiping internet snake pits where you hang out, I’m sure it seems like your age cohort is overwhelmingly just like you.  Sorry to burst your bubble, kid, but it isn’t.  The cohort that your beliefs most closely dovetail with—particularly with respect to support for Trump—is that motley crew of Christian, non-college-educated, older, fearful, resentful, angry white males.

          And they SHOULD be fucking resentful and angry.  The problem is, they’ve been hoodwinked by a plutocracy comprising both conservative Republicans who tell them sweet lies, and liberal Democrats who ignore or demonize them. They don’t know who their true foes are.

          Nor, apparently, do you.

          • Beverly Stafford says:

            Steve, thanks for the excellent retort.  When I worked my way through the various posts by Alaina Toledo, what ran through my mind was simply, balderdash.  I really don’t like putting down younger people because, of course, we codgers don’t know everything.  But those who believe the idiocy being put spewed by Milo will, I’d wager, think very differently a decade or two from now.  Reminds me of something I read:  18-year-old girls who have a rosebud tattooed on their breasts will, by age 60, have a long-stem rose instead.

          • cheyenne says:

            Steve, if only millennials had been allowed to vote Clinton wouldn’t have won the DNC nomination.  Bernie Sanders would have.  And the presidential election would have probably turned out with different results.

          • T.I.M. says:

            For what its worth, Alaina is not a young kid:

            As a parent who raised a young white man in this environment, let me assure you: there’s more truth to Milo’s words than you’re giving him credit for.”

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            T.I.M. — Now you’ve got me thinking that “Aliana” isn’t even female, but one of those angry white males I referred to.

            I wish Aliana was still a kid in my mind’s eye.  It’s excusable to think you know everything in your early 20s.  By the time you reach middle age, you’re supposed to have learned that you know far more than you did in your early 20s—but also understand that you know next to nothing.

            Understanding the vastness of your lack of knowledge engenders a sense of humility that Aliana lacks.

  4. Alaina Toledo says:

    With all due respect, your take on Milo, and your review of DANGEROUS, comes from the perspective a man nearing 60 and far removed from the epicenter of current  popular culture in our society.  As a parent who raised a young white man in this environment, let me assure you: there’s more truth to Milo’s words than you’re giving him credit for.

    You came into your own in a different time, an entirely different era, as a matter of fact. Your “take” on the matter is woefully outdated and your manner condescending.

    Your claims to have been “following” or “studying” the phenomenon of Identity Politics, while sitting comfortably on the sidelines, as a senior citizen who is largely unaffected by it, makes your take on the matter about as relevant as you imply Milo’s take on birth control and abortion,  their effects on women happens to be.  The difference?  Milo backs his take on birth control and abortion and their effects on women, with statistically and scientifically verifiable data, whereas you rely soley on anecdotal evidence.

    To sum up, Milo has become a cultural icon because what he says speaks to a group of people who have experienced what he rails against.  First-hand.  Just as there is at least a grain of truth behind every stereotype, there is truth to Milo’s message.  So long as that remains true, he will remain relevant, and his popularity will continue to grow.

    Yes, he is loud.  He is brash. He us obnoxious and offensive.

    He is also EFFECTIVE.  And for that, those of us who are actually affected by the oppressive identitarian dictators of the Regressive Left we owe him a debt of gratitude.

    Thank you for providing a space for dissenting voices to express their views.

    • K. Beck says:

      I had never heard of Yiannopoulos until the flap at the Berkeley campus.  At that point I could see banning him just gave him more power. People need to think about the ramifications of their actions!

      Back in a previous Dark Age, when Nixon’s book was published, there was a “Don’t Buy Books By Crooks” movement. You want to keep Yiannopoulos traveling on the roads of America? Buy his book! I am not saying don’t read it,  just don’t buy it. Get it from the library, at a yard sale, borrow R. V.’s copy, fish one out of the local garbage heap. What ever.

      One of the proud “dictators of the Regressive Left.”

       

      • Alaina Toledo says:

        Too late.  I’ve already purchased three copies.  Two of which Milo has graciously signed.  I plan to buy at least five more, as gifts, but I thought I’d wait, and give those who have been waiting ages and ages for a first copy a a chance to finally get one – sold out within hours, after all!!!

        I also purchased the Kindle version, and am anxiously awaiting the audio book, which should be available by end if the month.

        As a “proud” member if the dictatorial Regressive Left, I guess we owe YOU a debt of gratitude, as well.

        As Milo is fond if saying “Thanks to all the Haters!”, without whom he never could’ve done it.

        He’s s NYT Best Selling Author.  That’s quite a feat.

        For the record?  We didn’t create Milo.  YOU did.

         

        Thank you.  We needed him.

        • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

          I’m sure many of us encountered those people in college who believed “Atlas Shrugged” forms the pinnacle of the Western canon, and bought copies for friends and relatives. They were usually frat bros and business or econ majors*, and when they encountered John Galt (via other frat bros) they got religion, and got it bad.  

          Rep. Paul Ryan is the type-specimen.

          The cult of Ayn Rand—including the history of the NBI, the think tank established by a Rand follower and dedicated to Rand’s lightweight philosophy of “objectivism”—is weirdly parallel to the cult of Scientology……including the absolute intolerance of dissent.

          *Business and economics majors study fewer hours per week than students of any other majors at a typical university, according to studies.

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      Alaina, I’ve been covering this since I was Milo’s age. I don’t disagree with many of the points he makes. Being older now doesn’t make me out of touch. It makes me more experienced.

      • Alaina Toledo says:

        R.V. Thanks for the reply.

        Who says you can’t be both out of touch, and more experienced, at the same time?  In this case, you appear to be precisely that.  Again, you sit well outside the circle, looking in, commenting on happenings at it’s center, where you’ve little more access than a glimpse over the heads and shoulders of those living it. Every. Day.

        When you started “covering this”, (some 25 to 30 years ago, I take it?), it was a different world.  Things have evolved.  Your viewpoint and take on the matter, apparently, have not.

        Read the comment of Chris Riddell, below, for reference.  He has the right of it regarding the complete and utter suppression of not only Conservative words, but of Conservative THOUGHT on Social Media platforms, in Entertainment, most certainly in Academia, in both our primary education system and on American College campuses, and even, (in large part), in the Legacy Press and Media.

        The fact that Milo even exists as a cultural icon gives credence to the premise that the points he makes are utterly valid, and that the attention he draws to the problems young Conservatives and Libertarians in our Society face is not only welcome, but wholly necessary. He has grown a vast and loyal following of Conservatives.  Many of whom are young Conservative MEN, who have opened their hearts, and their minds, to a flamboyant GAY MAN, because he has not only identified the struggles they face, but he advocates and fights for them.

        If you haven’t already, please read or listen to Dr. Jordan Peterson, Clinical Psychologist and Professor of Psychology at University of Toronto, and his take on Milo.  You can find his comments on YouTube.  In his opinion, Milo is both brilliant AND necessary.

        When you’re done there, try a taste of the brilliant Dr. Rachel Fulton Brown, Professor of Medieval History at University of Chicago.  You can find her extensive writings on Milo, (for which she’s been widely excoriated) at her blog “Fencing Bear at Prayer”.

        And then consider that the estimable David Horowitz has not only supported Milo, but has offered unstinting praise for his hard work and dedication to the cause of furthering and fostering Conservatism amongst the young, even going so far as to present to him the Annie Taylor Award for Courage from the David Horowitz Freedom Center, in 2016.  As a matter of fact, Milo’s Los Angeles book launch for DANGEROUS was hosted by none other than the David Horowitz Freedom Center, where Mr. Horowitz himself personally introduced Milo, in effusive and glowing manner.

        To even imply that Milo is anti-Semitic, or that he so much as hints at anti-Semitism, is a horrible mischaracterization on your part.

        As is the ADL’s cringe-worthly ‘hit list.  And shame on them, for it.

        Again, thanks for the conversation.

        • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

          I’m not on the outside looking in. I know and have read every single person you mention in the above comment. Moreover, I’m very well-read across a wide variety of political beliefs. I’m not left or right. I agree with some of the things Milo says. I specifically stated that Milo is NOT an anti-Semite. But he–and you–are trafficking in an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. That is one reason why the ADL is putting Milo and the rest of the Alt-Right and Alt-Light on a list. Do I like the ADL’s tactics? Not particularly, but given the long history of persecution of Jews–often for being perceived as being too successful within their host populations–I understand them. In the past, I’ve written many critical articles about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, and I’ve been viciously attacked by the ADL and other Jewish identity groups. It didn’t stop me from writing articles, but it did teach me to be very careful with my words. I urge you to do the same.

    • Joanne Lobeski Snyder says:

      Being in the ” epicenter of current  popular culture in our society” is not a badge of honor that any person, except a teenager, would aspire to.

      You refer to R.V.’s age twice in your comment.  Experience does matter.  I’m older than R.V., but my experiences with family members who survived WWII concentration camps, and my study of history help me sort out the words and messages I get from any media.  A better review of this book would not include patronizing comments about the writer’s age.

      • Alaina Toledo says:

        Thank you for your comment, Joanne.

        Our youth do not have the luxury of NOT “being in the epicenter of current popular culture in our society.”  Badge of honor or not, that’s where they must LIVE, in order to get through High School, obtain a college education, or enter the job market at the lower levels in order to work their way up.   You seem a bit confused as to the difference between something that they’re “aspiring to” versus something they must endure, in order to get their foot in the door, as it were.  Your disdain is unkind, to say the least.  It’s also utterly misplaced and, I daresay, arrogant in the extreme.

        And my comments about R.V.’s age were not “patronizing”.  They were intended to illustrate to him precisely what I’ve just said to you.

        You can go on and on about how much experience you have, as can R.V.

        But the fact of the matter is that R.V. is reviewing a book which is largely a commentary on an environment with which he, and YOU, have ZERO familiarity.  Worse, it is an indictment of the very message the author sends to those who LIVE THERE, DAILY, and of the author himself, who has been on the front lines of the Culture Wars, in the very HEART of that environment, for two years.  Does it escape your notice that those to whom the message is addressed are embracing it in ever growing numbers?  Enthusiastically?

        Finally, regarding your comments about WWII and surviving family members, (my father fought under Patton in WWII, thank you very much!):

        I would submit to you that your experience in these matters gives you a unique perspective to comment on them, on the impact they had on the lives of those who were there, on the ground, as they happened, and that those who were, at best, on the OUTSIDE looking in and, at worst, nowhere near “ground zero”, not having been born for DECADES yet, would be wise to defer to your superior first hand knowledge of same.

        Similarly, I would respectfully suggest that both you, and R.V., do the same in THIS instance, with Milo, regarding HIS undeniably superior first hand knowledge in the matters he discusses in his New York Times Best Selling book.

        Just as the youth of today have no real, practical, first-hand knowledge of the matters that you reference, I’d say it’s safe to say that both you and R.V. have no real, practical, first-hand knowledge of the matters which Milo discusses in DANGEROUS.

        The youth of today would be best served in listening to what you and R.V. have to say regarding matters with which you have superior experience.

        You and R.V. would be best served in listening to Milo, and the young people who are TELLING YOU how bad it is, regarding matters with which THEY have superior experience.

        At the very least, if you’re not willing to listen, don’t pull out your pedestal and pontificate from your lofty perch of “experience does matter”, in matters where you have ZERO experience, at all.

        To whit?  The state of Modern Popular Culture, and it’s impact on our YOUTH.  Because that IS, after all, what the book is about.  That IS, after all, the book that R.V. reviewed.  And that IS, I presume, the book that YOU have not even bothered to read, as you defend R.V.’s review of it.

        Thank you for reading and commenting.

        • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

          Oh, you sweet summer child, having to endure being young.  What an awful burden it must be—but how could I possibly know?  I’m old, and was never young myself.

          You state repeatedly and with great assurance that us oldsters are absolutely detached from what’s happening at the epicenter of popular culture—that we have “ZERO familiarity” with modern pop culture and the culture wars occurring at the eye of the storm.  We are so clueless on these matters that we have no business commenting on them—to do so only reveals the absolute vacuum that is our lack of understanding.

          It follows from your assertions that the state of modern pop culture and its culture wars is 100% a creation of your youthful cohort—my age cohort has had nothing to do with the creation of that culture.  We harbor ZERO responsibility for how difficult it is to be you, living as you do at ground zero, because we have had nothing to do with its creation—not even the antecedents. After all, how could we have zero understanding of a phenomenon that we played a sizable role in creating?  Impossible.

          So, thanks for washing away our sins and the guilt we feel for having committed them.

          The trials and tribulations associated with being young—having to struggle to make your way in this tumultuous world—are uniquely yours.  No older generation has endured such struggles, so we can’t possibly empathize or offer valid opinions on the matter.  Our experience offers nothing as it applies to the current scene.

          You say:  “The fact that Milo even exists as a cultural icon gives credence to the premise that the points he makes are utterly valid…”

          Our current POTUS is a culture icon, and his unhinged rants are almost wholly focused on self-aggrandizement, perceived slights, and insulting others. To suggest that Trump’s existence as a cultural icon “gives credence to the premise that the points he makes are utterly valid” is laughable.

          Ditto for Milo.  Cultural iconism these days is a cheap commodity—not something that somehow magically transforms every idiocy issued by cultural icons into “utterly valid” statements of truth.  Milo has your attention, and that of many others.  That doesn’t make him right about one single thing, and certainly not everything.

          My advice? Above all else, resist becoming a sheep in some guru’s flock.

          You’ll no doubt dismiss this out of hand, because nothing I can possibly say about your struggles to forge a future for yourself can have any validity from my perspective of zero understanding of the world you live in, but part of me sympathizes with your political instincts.  I think you and your kind rightfully recognize that everything is screwed up and in need of some sort of reboot.  I don’t think you’re wrong about many of the shortcomings of today’s liberalism, or the threat of authoritarianism on the rise, or the allure of “just leave us the hell alone” Western libertarianism.

          But I’ve got news for you, child.  Thoughts of that sort have been rolling around in my brain pan for about 40 years now.  R.V.’s too, across the decades that I’ve been reading his stuff.

           

        • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

          I’ve been listening to Milo since he arrived on the scene. I read the book twice. This is my considered opinion. The only scene Milo was in the center of is his own drama. He watered down that Breitbart story on the Alt-Right to make Alt-Right views more palatable to the public. If he’d told the truth, Breitbart would have never run the story, and Steve Bannon would have never called Breitbart the headquarters of the Alt-Right.

        • Joanne Lobeski Snyder says:

          Thank you for your thoughtful response.  One of my tasks during my 30 years as a high school teacher was to help young people understand persuasive techniques used in advertising and in most media and help young people avoid making or accepting generalizations about another person or their work because of their religion, sex, national origin or age.  The latter is a formidable task because young people learn prejudice at an early age, and the Modern Popular Culture values youth and looks above experience and character.

          • Beverly Stafford says:

            Joanne, your comment “The latter is a formidable task because young people learn prejudice at an early age” reminds me of a T-shirt I saw.  The picture on it was of two very small boys arm in arm, one black, one white.  The caption was No One is Born a Bigot.

  5. Truthismessy says:

    With all due respect to Steve Sailer, Ashkenazi Jews actually test higher, on average, than Asians on IQ tests.  They test approximately 1 standard deviation higher than American whites, who in turn test approximately 1 standard deviation higher than American blacks (and yet 80% of Americans believe there is no correlation between race and IQ).

    I find it interesting that whites in the “alt-right” who cling to the anti-Semitic notion of Cultural Marxism tend to vehemently deny the somewhat comparable notion of white privilege.  Perhaps the only alt-right hero more misunderstood than Ayn Rand is Charles Murray?

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      I think many whites in the Alt-Right deny white privilege because they’re in dire economic straits. They don’t feel privileged cause their lives economically suck. Frankly, I don’t find the term or any other identity politics very useful. That’s why I think what Milo’s doing, trafficking in an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, when anonymous online anti-Semitism is on the rise, is dangerous, and it’s why I called him an imbecile, although I realize that’s ad hominem and probably doesn’t add much to my argument. With the economy on the verge of another collapse, his timing couldn’t be worse. In the ADL’s new list of Alt-Right and Alt-Light leaders, the drawing line between Right and Light is anti-semitism. Milo is listed as light–the ADL doesn’t mention that he’s Jewish!–because of his verbal attacks on women and minorities. “Naming the Jew” is what gets the individual or group classified as Alt-Right.

      • Truthismessy says:

        “White privilege” may ring hollow in McDowell, WV, but the idea of a Jewish ruling elite probably rings just as hollow in Kiryas Joel, NY.

        Still, you don’t have to be economically advantaged to see that 81% of congress is white (vs 62% of the country) and 6% is Jewish (vs 2% of the nation).  Or that blacks make up 35% of the prison population (vs 13% of the society).

        • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

          To Milo’s credit, even though he’s a fierce critic of BLM’s tactics (as am I) he thinks we should do “something” for black America, because they’ve suffered obvious historical harm. I believe that “something” should be some form reparations, perhaps rebuilding our inner cities, and the funding should be significant. We can use that $8 trillion and counting that’s gone missing from the Pentagon.

    • Matthew Meyer says:

      The larger question is, What (if anything) do IQ tests measure?

      • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

        Good question, Matthew!

      • Truthismessy says:

        It’s a good question, along with “what percentage of IQ is hereditary & what percentage is environmental?”  And will the Flynn effect continue to close these gaps?  But the gaps exist and are strongly correlated with societal success.

        Personally, I subscribe to the multiple intelligences model.  For instance, Ashkenazi Jews tend to score about average in spacial relations, while averaging ~125 in verbal & mathematical IQ.  Then there is the concept of EQ and it has its own sub groups.  And music.  And athleticism.

        Overall IQ scores were designed from a western-centric frame of reference and their early development was shaped by the military, which found such testing useful for assigning recruits to various training programs.  So it is certainly tempting to say that the correlation between economic success, or lack thereof, and IQ in the western world is less a measure of general intelligence and more a reflection of which traits thrive in our particular culture.  That is possible, but how would you reconcile the fact Asians are disproportionately successful economically, yet clearly face sustained racial prejudices in government & Hollywood even while other races make “progress?”

        Then again, maybe economic success is a poor proxy for societal success — maybe it merely reflects current supply & demand.  Maybe the reason Ashkenazi Jews tend to be so well rewarded (monetarily) is because the Holocaust created a relative scarcity of traits disproportionately found in Eastern European Jews?

        These are all interesting questions to me, but unfortunately ones that cannot be asked on campus (or without anonymity).

        • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

          Truthismessy, you have obviously followed Steve Sailer, as have I, and these issues are very interesting.

          One reason many of my favorite authors are Russian, namely Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, is that they were coming from the perspective of a nation that had adopted the theories of Auguste Comte, even though the Russians defeated Napoleon, replacing the previous Russian feudal system with French-style bureaucracy. It’s basically the same urban-rural, cosmopolitan-rube divide we’ve been dealing with forever.

          Now, my favorite American author is Herman Melville. Moby Dick is actually the first multicultural novel, and it was written in the first half of the 19th century.

  6. Chris Riddell says:

    I largely agree with Alaina in that I think you must not be aware of the myriad ways that far leftists have permeated our cultural institutions, and the extent to which they endeavor to put their fingers on the scales of public opinion. The left owns every significant megaphone in this country: the press, television, hollywood, the universities, and even social media (zuckerberg and dorsey are serious liberals, and their san fransisco staff is far worse), and again and again we see evidence that they are using their positions of power to institutionalize the kind of pro-minority identity politics that is at the heart of culture war. I agree very much with milo in that this trend is causing a resurgence in white identity politics, i.e. white supremacist groups, and I think all three of us agree that the answer is dispense with identity politics completely. The greatest gift America ever gave the world was its emphasize on the rights of the individual. We need to get back to that.

    Milo’s use, however, is to shine a big ugly light on what’s been going on at the places of cultural power in this country. And whats been going on is that conservative voices are silenced and shut down by almost any means necessary. We need him for as long the left continues to dominate our cultural institutions.

    I am intrigues, however, by your discussion of “cultural marxism,” and the idea that some people think all this is one big jewish conspiracy. I had never considered that, and being 1/4 jew myself, I am not predisposed to anti-semitism. Yet I might suggest that it historically most american jews have been extremely liberal (this is changing as the israel dynamics change), and so its maybe no wonder that the industries that the jews dominate are also the industries that promotes far leftist values. Do I think this a conspiracy? No of course not. But there’s probably some truth to the fact that the disproportionate jewish influence in communications industries has played a large part in how liberals got control of all the platforms. It needs to be ok to point these things out and have discussions about it. Otherwise the regressive anti-speech left really has won.

    • Larry Winter says:

      No mention of the Christian use of identity politics.  The ascendant power in the Republican Party are those that wear their Christianity on their sleeves and are attempting to consolidate their power through legislation.  Is it wrong or right?  Your opinion is that we should leave identity politics aside.  Good luck with that.  It’s ingrained in American culture from the get-go and is the reason so many people have gained equality, in the political sense, since then.

      • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

        Larry you are absolutely correct about Christians and identity politics, in particular evangelicals, who’ve been organizing politically for decades, as part of this whole “cultural war.” There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, people are entitled to lobby the government to get the things their interest group desires. What’s crucial here is the government’s role in a democracy. It’s up to the government to craft legislation that is fair to all groups. That obviously is not easy, especially considering the graft that permeates government at the local, state and federal levels. In fact, I would argue that it’s the corruption, the graft, that drives most government policies today, not identity politics. The danger, to me, is that identity politics is used to manipulate groups into searching for a bogey man to blame everything on, instead of fixing our corrupted political system. I would prefer that we all just consider ourselves Americans first, and whatever identity we have second, and have a little bit more faith in democracy.

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      Thanks for your comments Chris. You’re exactly who I wanted to reach with this article. Notice in the first half of your comment, you’ve got no problem with stating “leftists” are responsible for everything you don’t like in the culture. That is a conspiracy theory. Now replace the word “leftist” with “Jew.” That’s the difference between the Alt-Right and the Alt-Light. You’re correct that most American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal, and that liberal values are dominant in institutions such as the film and mainstream media. Certainly “liberal” values are promoted by university humanity departments as well. But to suggest that giant media corporations are “leftist” is absurd. To suggest that our entire university system has been hijacked by the left is ridiculous. STEM classes are apolitical, for example, and actually enjoy significant financial support from conservatives as well as libs. This is the danger of painting with such a broad brush. That’s exactly what he Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory does and it’s by design. All your problems will be solved if you could just stop those leftists (Jews).

    • Marc Carter says:

      “The left owns every significant megaphone in this country: the press, television” …               

      Wrong, that’s a myth!  You might want to check the facts and check out the political affiliations of the owners of  ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX  and of course around 90% of talk and Christian radio. All dominantly operated by the Right.

      BTW, you say “the disproportionate jewish influence“?  Really?

       

    • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

      Chris — What?  The left owns every significant megaphone in this country?  The cable TV news with by far the largest audience is Fox News.  Americans spend a lot of time in their cars, and conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves.  Alt-right websites are manifest, and millions of butt-hurt young white conservatives (mostly males) spend innumerable hours pissing, moaning, trolling, and feeding each other steady diets of affirmations and falsehoods.  In a religious country, America’s most politically active religious institutions are dominated by conservatives.  All three branches of the federal government are dominated by conservatives.  The majority of state governments in America are dominated by conservatives.  (About the only things that conservatives don’t dominate are the nation’s popular vote and the polls.)

      Conservatives don’t have a voice?  Child, please.

      The plutocracy that runs this country is dominated by wealthy conservatives who do the bidding of their class, to the detriment of others.  Do you REALLY think that the ruling plutocracy wants to do away with identity politics—America’s Grand Distraction?  What would happen if one morning America woke up and realized that it’s us agains them—and the “them” is the 2% of the population that have been progressively hoarding America’s vast wealth (still #1 in the world), but want to corner more and more of the nation’s wealth, even as the middle and working classes decline in size and share of our collective wealth?

      Whenever I encounter alt-right suggestions that identity politics are bullshit, BUT if we’re going to have identity politics, we also need white-male identity politics, I take it as this:  Please ramp up the identity politics, white working class and middle class chumps and losers.  Turning all of you subgroup groundlings against one another is a key part of the Grand Distraction. Pay no attention to the plutocracy behind the curtain.      

      Carl Rove long ago said that the Reagan Revolution—which is ongoing—would reach its ultimate goal once the GOP achieved one-party rule.  That’s a wholly authoritarian, anti-democratic sentiment, and the only reason it hasn’t been realized in all its glory is that Congress’s GOP delegation comprises a disorganized pack of political zealots, and the clown-car that used to be the White House is stuffed full of grasping me-first jerks, incompetent sycophants, and the useless and thin-skinned Tweeter-in-Chief.

    • Truthismessy says:

      “Controls” might be a better word than owns.  That television is extremely biased toward the left should be obvious:

      How many conservative sitcoms? (Last Man Standing canceled after Tim Allen publicly supported Trump)

      The over representation/celebration of diversity  (36% black actors vs 13% of the population; 6% of characters were openly LGBT and were in 26 of the top 30 shows, despite being just 4% of the population).

      The over representation of “gun violence” (26% of character deaths in 2015-2016 were from shootings vs 0.4% of real-world deaths)

      Other left-leaning distortions:  dirty police, sexually active teens, acceptance of drugs, rejection of/disdain for religion, etc

      • Alaina Toledo says:

        Well and truly stated, Truth, although I fear your facts will fall on deaf ears…

        • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

          My ears are just fine.  It’s not the facts that are problematic.  It’s the interpretation of the facts.  ABC canceled Last Man Standing—that’s a fact.  They did it because Tim Allen supports Trump—that’s an unsubstantiated opinion.  It’s also an opinion that the listed distortions on TV are blatant propaganda, rather than reflections of what sells as comedy and drama.

          To me, nothing is worse than the vast cesspool of stupid reality TV, but it’s become a huge proportion of TV programming because it sells—not because reality TV is a liberal conspiracy.

          The producers of Last Man Standing reportedly pitched the show to Fox, but Fox didn’t rise to the fly.  Tim Allen was due a fat new contract, and the multi-camera format of the show is expensive.  Fox is all about single-camera sitcoms, like The Mick and Brooklyn Nine-Nine (both really funny, by the way).

      • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

        Television is for-profit entertainment.  Half of America is conservative, and they’re a market.  If someone comes up with a funny conservative sitcom and people watch it, it’ll stay on the air.  A problem is that a significant proportion of conservatives think that being mean and being funny are the same thing—I’m including almost everyone who thinks Milo is funny.  Mean can be funny (celebrity roasts), but it’s not sufficient for being funny, except to a small-minded minority.  Milo mocking the relatively powerless and disenfranchised isn’t funny, except to gold-plated @$$holes.

        Conservatives have also complained that there are no “Daily Show” equivalents on cable TV, like it’s a conspiracy.  Fox tried to put a conservative version of that show on the air, but it failed miserably and was quickly canceled. Why? They did it wrong—it wasn’t smart or funny.  One reason there are so many African-Americans on TV is because there are so many shows featuring mostly African-American casts, and African-Americans are especially loyal to these shows even though there are hundreds of choices on cable/satellite TV, which dilutes ratings. It’s market-driven. The Big Media outfits are big business, out to make a buck.

        As for gun violence on TV—you think that’s propaganda?  I was a big fan of “Justified” and “Breaking Bad.” I never lost much sleep worrying that those shows portray an unrealistic percentage of character deaths via shootings. It’s make-believe.

        My Dish subscription has plenty of conservative and religious programming if you know where to find it.  If I so desire I can watch admitted pedophile, convicted poacher (here in California), and deranged right-wing lunatic Ted Nugent’s Spirit of the Wild show on the Outdoor Channel.  Not many people do, but enough to have kept it on the air for more than a decade.

      • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

        1. It’s ridiculous what happened to Tim Allen. 2. Do you think that over-representation is because of (((Hollywood))) values? Or is it perhaps the quest for new story lines? 3. I couldn’t believe how much gun violence was suppressed by Cultural Marxists in The Matrix. 4. I’ve been beat up by cops four times, and every single time, it was my fault.

        • T.I.M. says:

          Sure, part of the distortion comes for dramatic effect:  Having your beloved chief of surgery succumb after a long battle with coronary artery disease is much less dramatic than having a lunatic, who too easily acquired a gun, shoot up a hospital and kill the chief as he bravely tries to save a patient.

          And yes, I think “Hollywood values” play a large part in the depiction of bigotry vs diversity.  Frankly, despite their over representation, Hollywood still treats minorities pretty poorly.  Black & Lesbian characters are killed off inordinately.  For years, the joke was to have an Oscar-bait movie you needed a veneer of diversity, but not too threatening.  Magical negros like in the Green Mile & Bagger Vance.  Subservient negros like in Men of Honor, Driving Miss Daisy, The Butler, Cider House Rules, etc.  Liberal white woman saviors like in The Help, Dangerous Minds, The Blind Side, etc.  To make that look good, you needed to offset it with ignorant bumpkins — you know, real racists.

  7. Joanne Lobeski Snyder says:

    Thank you R.V. for a great review of this book.  I suspect I’ll be able to pick it up at the Dollar tree in a month or two.  But I won’t.  I love to read, but I read books about or by people who make major positive changes in the lives of Americans and people of the world.

    Many techniques are effective to promote a concept or idea, but if those techniques involve magic and lies, I am not interested.  Showmanship, speaking or writing skills and public appeal have led people astray before.  Sometimes I look around my own community and say….”What is real here?”  Does anything I hear or see or read have anything to do with real life?

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      Joanne, I have that problem all the time. “What is real here?” It makes me want to go out on the deck and stare into the forest.

  8. cheyenne says:

    RV, thank you for your review.  It was what a review is supposed to do inform me whether I want to read it or not.  The topic doesn’t interest me so I won’t read it, if this makes me out of touch so be it.

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      Cheyenne, I don’t think you’re out of touch. The stuff going on today isn’t so different than the stuff that was going on in the 1990s, with the exception of now, we’ve got this crazy internet thing.

  9. H. L. Mencken says:

    No one in this world… has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of plain people.

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      Mencken was saying that the majority of the population is easily manipulated. He’s correct. That’s why people have bought into this Cultural Marxism hogwash.

      • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

        I’m not sure how to parse that last sentence.  Do you mean the straw-man “Cultural Marxism” as described by the alt-right is hogwash?  Separate and distinct from the political science theory developed by the Frankfurt School, which is a legitimate academic field of inquiry?

        The use of the term “Cultural Marxism” seems to be used by the alt-right to paint anyone with progressive political ideas about such things as income inequality or socialized medicine as a closet commie.  I don’t care for it.  Calling people on the left and right Marxists and fascists, respectively, is hackneyed and tired.  You have to be pretty young and naïve to think there’s anything original or clever about it.

        An aside regarding the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels:  There was a serious evolutionary biology school of dialectical materialism, led by Richard Lewontin and the late Stephen Jay Gould, but its influence as a heuristic approach had pretty much peaked and was on the decline by the time I hit grad school.  It left its mark, though, particularly pertaining to views on the nature of historic constraints on change, or what evolutionary biologists call “phylogenetic constraints.”

         

        • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

          Steve Towers, yes I’m making a distinction between the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism, and the conspiracy theory Cultural Marxism. Wikipedia, surprisingly enough, makes the same distinction, without noting that the conspiracy theory is anti-Semitic or that the Frankfurt School was predominately Jewish. This is the bait and switch right-wingers from Fox News and the Alt-Right are doing. There are many many streams of academic discourse in social science, but Cultural Marxist conspiracy theorists claim only one holds sway. It may look like that from today’s SJWs, who really have gone overboard with the identity politics. I think Milo’s quotes on identity politics in my book review point to the inherent problems with playing that game.

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            Here’s how they snakily portray the distinction on RationalWiki.

            Cultural Marxism generally refers to one of two things:

            First — extremely rarely — “Cultural Marxism” refers to the general application of the Frankfurt School’s Marxist ideology to the social sciences.

            Second — about 99.9% of the time — “Cultural Marxism” is a snarl word used to paint anyone with progressive tendencies as a secret Communist. The term alludes to a conspiracy theory in which sinister left-wingers have infiltrated media, academia, and science and are engaged in a decades-long plot to undermine Western culture. Some variants of the conspiracy alleges that basically all of modern social liberalism is, in fact, a Communist front.

  10. Larry Winter says:

    Great write-up RV.  “Don’t feed the trolls” is good advice.

     

     

  11. Robert Scheide Sr. says:

    Out of the loop and way out on the fringe and glad of it.  RV is a pup, my pup, but I have 25 years on him , and very often on the other side of his arguments.  Everyone deserves an ear for a bit till you realize you are being fed a line that is contrary to everything you stand for, at which point you tune them out. That includes folks like Milo, Rush, Hannity, Savage and other of that ilk.

    That they have huge followings trouble me.  Their rise give us a Trump as president, who daily makes me cringe.  I suppose that his rise to power can be give to the fact that folks who live on the Twitter get sucked  up by one liners and actually believe what the 140 character sells as policy.

    Troubled at best.

     

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      You’re not so far out of the loop Dad. We’ve seen this all before, at least twice during my lifetime. I know it’s been difficult for you the past couple of years, me talking about this Alt-Right phenomenon and I admit it: Cultural Marxism is a very compelling theory, and I bought into it a little bit. It was pretty easy, given the anti-white tone of political correctness. For me, the best thing about critically reading Milo’s book and then writing about it is that I’ve finally been able to choose a side, and it isn’t Milo’s.

  12. The Old Pretender says:

    Milo and his pseudo-intellectual propagandists are the brownshirts before the Night of Long Knives, and their efforts to achieve similar goals decades later are easy to spot.  Waving the specters of Marxism and Jews is opiate for simpletons, and I’m surprised there are those around still moronic enough to listen and be shocked or comforted.  I may be old, but I can also relate to those truly in need, as opposed to the coddled apologists who feel slighted and decide that vindictive bullying is justified.

    Rand rests in the dirt with Father Coughlin, lets not give voice to those who seek attention as fools to entertain the bored and resentful.

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      It’s not the bored listeners who are getting cheated here. It’s the resentful. What happens when the economy goes south, and the resentful start looking for causes?

      • The Old Pretender says:

        That already happened in 2008.

        Read Joshua Green’s book on Bannon yet?  Could be a summertime beach page-turner.  Give us a review!

  13. K. Beck says:

    Do you mean “farther south?”

Leave a Reply

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