Milo's Dangerous
I had to read 'Dangerous', by provocateur Milo
Yiannopoulos (aka Milo Hanrahan, aka Milo Andreas Wagner as a previous pen
name) off my Kindle. The first print run (apparently 100,000(?) copies,
self-published under the trademark 'Dangerous Books') sold out before Amazon
could ship to me, so I forked out an additional $2.99 to get it now. I hope
others will buy my 'Do Ask, Do Tell' series on Kindle. In the meantime, I'll'
just wait for my hardcover copy when it gets printed in a second run.
OK, I'm getting ahead of myself already. There is a
lot of commonality between what Milo says and what I
say in three books, even if the organization and expressive style is very
different. But this is almost like a 'Do Ask, Do Tell V book
(the first three are mine, and then a sketched out a IV online in 2016 here).
Remember, Simon and Schuster had cancelled trade
publication of his book after the 'scandal' Feb. 20 over supposed advocacy of
'pedophilia.' In fact, the correct term is probably ephebophilia, or perhaps
hebephilia. There is a curious parallel to an incident in my life regarding
Google-finding materials on my own website when I was working as a substitute
teacher in late 2005, which I've discussed on these blogs before. The new
version of this book contains Milo's explanation of this matter in the
introduction. I am certainly convinced that Milo said or did nothing to suggest
approval of illegal sexual activities with minors, although the age of consent
varies among western countries and even among states in the U.S. (and in some
states, like California, it is still as high as 18).
I didn't find a table of contents on the Kindle, so
it's a little clumsy to verify, but there seem to be twelve chapters. The first
ten are based on 'Why (Identity Group n) Hates Me'. The last two are based on
who does like his message (like GamerGate).
This may seem like a self-indulgent way of presenting
one's argument. I am reminded of how Gustav Mahler titled each of the last five
movements if his massive Symphony #3 'What (X) Tells Me'. I'm also reminded of
Pastor Rick Warren's 'The Purpose-Driven Life' (2002), where the minister
argues 'It's not about you.' But for Milo it is. But given the history of
violent reactions of foreign-organized protestors at some of Milo's events (his
'Dangerous Faggot' tours), which he discusses toward the end of the book, it
seems appropriate.
I'd like to note the comparison of they
way Milo organizes his material to how I did I started the first DADT book with
an autobiographical narrative, in time sequence filled with ironies, motivated
by the debate on gays in the military and how it had intersected into my life.
Then I switched over to topical discussion as my issues fanned out. The second
book was a series of topical essays, focused mostly on two themes: a 'Bill of
Rights II' in the context of 9/11. Book 3 reiterated the autobiographical
narrative and added some topical fiction pieces. But, yes, a lot of this was
'about me'. But my scope was always expanding into more areas.
So, I've always been concerned with the central
question, of how someone who is 'different' aka 'special' should behave in the
face of collective social pressures (to conform to the norms of the peer group
and to 'carry one's weight' or share of the common risk). That concern can be
discerned from Milo's material. My driving and organizing principle was 'personal responsibility' but I had to constantly
enlarge upon what that means. It involves a lot more than facing the direct
consequences of one's choices. Dealing with stuff that happens 'to me' has to
start with 'me' (so, it matters if people 'hate' me). But I realize this can
become 'dangerous' (Milo's wordmark) if overdone, and invite political
authoritarianism, which is exactly what is testing America and western Europe right
now. So, in a broader sense, 'the people' matters too. My father always used to
say, 'The majority has rights, too.'
The end result is that Milo's book, if moderate in
length, seems monumental. In reviewing his list of 'enemies' (and, by the way,
I was told in my college years that 'you have a tendency to
make enemies') he covers a wide range of important incidents.
The list of people he encounters comes across like
Chaucer characters (indeed 'A Canterbury Tale' is one of my own favorite
classic films). He covers Shaun King, the civil rights activist claiming to be
'black'. He gives a reasonable defense of the police in Ferguson MO in
considering Michael Brown's behavior ('Why Black Lives Matter Hates Me'). He
goes into some detail over how he got banned from Twitter (Breitbart account)
over supposedly encouraging retribution against (the remade) 'Ghostbusters'
actress Leslie Jones, where he says he was set up, (Indeed, 'Why Twitter Hates
Me'. He gives a curious defense of Martin Shkreli in the HIV drug fiasco (and
Shkreli has since been prosecuted on other matters).
In explaining why mainstream gays hate him (he thinks,
I'm not sure they do) he takes up the case of writer Chadwick Moore. He delves
into the moral dualism of male homosexuality in a way that reminds me of George
Gilder ('Men and Marriage', 1986), considering it somehow unnatural as counter
to procreation yet, he says, gay men usually are thinner, smarter, richer and more successful than straight married men, partly
because they (the straights) are weighted down with a family to support or
wives to pamper and cook for them. He sees gay marriage as illogical ' needing
the idea of traditional marriage, with all its self-surrender ('the two become
one flesh', etc) in order to have something to stand
apart from. I know the feeling and covered the same
sentiments in my own books: equality cuts both ways, when you don't have
dependents.
Ironically, he worships himself and certain other gay
men as shamans or perhaps angels. (If you could be immortal, you wouldn't need
to reproduce - there is a jellyfish that actually does this by going through
regression, as in The Curious Life of Benjamin Button. Unfortunately, the
teenage Clark Kent in 'Smallville' is presented as straight (not sure what kind
of kids he could rather). Psychologists call his style of relating to people
personally as 'upward affiliation'. That was an issue when I was a patient at
NIH in the later part of 1962, where I was diagnosed as 'schizoid'. I just
didn't get much of intimacy with others (anticipation of the 'family bed')
unless the partner would be perfect enough. But I was seen as possibly
indicative of a dangerous trend accompanying the newly nerdy science and
bookishness of the Cold War era = a slipping back into a perception that a
personal level some people would no longer matter if they didn't stay perfect
enough. What had we just fought World War II about two decades before? Body
fascism?
But the early chapters do present a convincing read on
why Milo feels so repelled by the authoritarianism of the far Left, and it is
trying to pimp victimhood and draw everyone into identity politics, demanding
loyalty to political leadership to speak for them as marginalized minorities.
Milo particularly explains the idea of intersectionalism
or 'intersectionality', a concept that author Benita Roth took for granted in
her book on ACT UP which I reviewed here June 14.
Indeed, the Left often wants to suppress clear and
objective independent speech from its own constituent individuals, because the
Left fears that brining up complete arguments just gives fuel to its enemies
and rationalizes 'oppression' against less competitive individuals. I share
this concern myself (as I outlined particularly in Chapter 3 of my own DADT-3
book). In this regard, Milo minces no words in reaffirming 'fat shaming', that
obesity is unhealthful as aesthetically ugly (or is beauty if the eyes of the
beholder - like in that 1970 song 'everything's beautiful in its own way'
although the early Nixon-laden 1970s were also a time when machete jokes about
beer bellies were socially acceptable sometimes). I'll add that I had named
Chapter 2 of my DADT-3 book 'The Virtue of Maleness', a notion many would find
oppressive (like to 'trannies' or 'gender fluid' people). Milo almost comes to
making my point, that in the past many people saw open male homosexuality as a
distraction for other men from trying to father children at all - which is one
reason why Russia passed its anti-gay propaganda law in 2013.
In developing the duality of his own attitude toward
his own homosexuality, Milo mentions one of his favorite authors, books, and
films: The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde. I rather like the idea of seeing more in a fixed
image of one of my own 'idols'. I read
it myself in 12th Grade for a book report (as I also read H. G. Wells's Meanwhile and Nevil Shute's In the Wet).
One of the last chapters is 'Why Muslims Hate Me' and
this chapter is the darkest one. He indeed sees all Islam as radical Islam, and sees Islam as by definition political and seeking
to impose itself on non-Muslims. He gives particular attention to the assassination
of the staff of Charlie Hebdo (in January 2015, ten months before the 11/13
Paris attacks) and views the Jyllens-Posten Cartoon
Controversy the same way as free speech advocate Flemming
Rose ('The Tyranny of Silence'), as dealing with a consciously and deliberately
combative culture that sees enemies everywhere.
Milo points out that Charlie Hebdo (don't confuse with l'Hebdo, which has stopped) had been a relatively small
publication, so radical Islam was willing to put it in the limelight ('Je suis Charlie') by attacking
it, which sounds like an self-defeating irony to a western person. Think about North Korea ('The Interview') the same way.
Milo denies he is part of the 'alt-right', no less a
leader of it, and denies any belief in racial superiority of any group. (He
dates black men, he says.) He gets into the misuse of the 'Pepe the Frog'
meme. He denies that he is a
libertarian, but he seems like a 'moralistic libertarian' to me, somewhat like
Charles Murray (who has also been the target of attacks at speaking
engagements). He considers 'troll' a desirable label, and his advice to young
men is to become hot. We're seeing personal attitudes privately held in the gay
male community for decades going public online, and suddenly perceived as hurtful.
I can certainly imagine this book as a documentary
movie, although it might take a strident course like some of Steve Bannon's
Citizens United films. By comparison, my
own narrative seems even more personal and ironic, but indeed filled with instructive
twists. But I would be interested in
working on a documentary about gay conservatives if someone wanted to film
Milo's book (and not yet do mine). There is a 2004 documentary Gay
Republicans (legacy review).
Author: Milo Yiannopoulos (aka Milo Hanrahan, Milo Andreas
Wagner)
Title, Subtitle: Dangerous
publication date 2017
ISBN 978-0692893449
Publication: self; 288 pages, endnotes, 12 chapters
(Originally posted: Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM
EDT)
CategoriesB-Books,
biography, crimes against minors, Islam, LGBT, libertarian
TagsBreitbart,
identity politics, intersectionality, Milo Yiannopoulos