Tuesday, 22 November 2016

Who is Milo Yiannopolous?



Who is Milo Yiannopolous? And why does he matter?

If you don’t know who Milo Yiannopolous is, maybe because you don’t hang out in those fetid swamps, then don’t worry. You don’t need to.

Milo Yiannopolous is simply a highly able alt-right troll; Monica Beth has his whole guerrilla-marketing schtick nailed:

These Milo Yiannapoulos article titles are hilarious. (Sample: "Send women back to the kitchen and take away their education and birth control.")
     I haven’t read them, but the collective prog freakout over them is exactly what is intended. People can't help themselves. They can't avoid in-group virtue signalling about how terrified they are that someone published an article suggesting we go back to 1950s cultural trends. Even people on the right are sharing and commenting like, "Wait, no.... we didn't realise we were voting for this." LOL.
    Milo is a giant troll laughing himself to sleep every night. It works and will continue to work because the left has over-reached in a major, major way.
    This may be part of a more insidious agenda than just trolling
SJWs, but I actually kinda love all of this right now. So entertaining! (I refuse to link to or read these articles, though.)

Wise decision.

According to articles he has written, he is explicitly defending racism by saying, "Here's what the racist community wants." I think his agenda is actually to stoke civil unrest.
    He's a smart dude. He defends bad stuff intellectually in his writing, and he knows it will cause a rise in white nationalism. Then he goes out and tells people otherwise in the stadium, that it's not what it's about, it's about defending decent people from SJWs. Have you read the stuff he's written? Fairly insidious, actually. All of it will stoke conflict between SJWs, BLM types, and others. I think the goal is to get a Trump presidency to crack down and escalate stuff..

He’s a brilliant troll who may or may not have an agenda – but his trolling certainly does aid and abet folk who do.

Don’t you. (Don’t feed the trolls.)

He’s a


  1. Hi Peter,

    Milo is perhaps one of the most articulate apologists for historical western civilisation that is presently active in the public square. Watching him has been most enjoyable.

    1. Articulate: sure. But the defence of western civilisation does not rest on identity politics -- which is his only real schtick.

    2. I have never listened to him, nor even heard of him to now, but if the way he tries to defend western civilization is along the lines Peter indicates; he's actually an enemy rather than a friend of western civilization.

      For me there's small degree of satisfaction in seeing the Left, who have 'cried wolf' over racism and sexism in the past now have to contend with *real* racism and sexism, and part of me wants to gloat "serve you right". But anyone who's sane should see that as a secondary consideration. If the cultural trends have shifted and the 'alt-right' is now gaining ascending over the Left, those of us who do understand what we're defending need to switch focus somewhat, and acknowledge and engage a new enemy.

  2. His agenda is ending political correctness, which, as you know is censorship. He is quite serious about it. Writing about people you can't be bothered listening or learning about to is not a virtue.

    1. Actually no, that's not his agenda at all. His *method* is simply to be whatever the politically correct say you shouldn't be. Their fury gives him fuel, but in that he's simply being reactive he's as much a creature of PC as they are.

    2. Political correctness relies on unfounded accusations of racism and sexism. Anyone who thinks the way to oppose it is to say things that actually are racist or sexist suggests they've already been beaten by it.

  3. Milo can be quite intelligent when he tries, but mostly he sticks to trolling instead and as a result I can't be bothered with him. It is ironic that he promotes identity politics as fervently as any lefty SJW, and I found that entertaining for a while, but the novelty soon wore off.

  4. The SJW's created the Alt-Right, and the Alt-Right created the SJW's. Just add a chicken and an egg. Two sides of the same loathsome coinage of hate and intolerance.

  5. A Homosexual Jewish Catholic, i.e. confused.

    A highly entertaining specialist in purposefully causing severe offence through shock, rather than incidentially causing offence in the sensitive by articulately and genuinely expressing strongly held differing opinions.

    An individual who gains great satisfaction by having blog post written about him, and commented on.

    A schtick that gets old quickly.

    I think that sums up old Milo.

  6. I haven't read Milo, and the above does not enlighten at all. It's an opinion that Milo is somehow evil, and you say that those who are ignorant of Milo need know nothing more than that. Doesn't seem very intellectual to me, or justice oriented. How showing some of his ideas and why they are wrong?

    1. He's anti-intellectual, and offers no ideas other than those he opposes. So that's it; and empty shell and no more.

    2. So say you, which is hardly intellectual. By identity politics you mean his campaigning against Islamic immigration? Well, he is dead right to do that. Liberty is at stake.

  7. When I posted my previous comments I'd never heard of Milo before. Now that I've listened to his 80 minute long interview with Dave Rubin from about a year ago (available on youtube), my impression of him is more generous, and I disagree with some of what Peter has said. He came across to me as reasonably principled in his commitment to free speech, and describes himself as a "cultural libertarian". I don't think it's a fake persona, as it would be hard too sustain that over the duration of an 80 minute long interview and still appear genuine. He was articulate in describing PC and his method of fighting it - which is to double down on saying things that the PC crowd deem offensive. Yes, he's deliberately being over the top at times, but his goal in doing so is to skewer PC sacred cows. I didn't hear anything that was racist, and doubt he is trying to appeal to the racist crowd. I certainly wouldn't agree with him on everything, but I gained some new insights from this interview, particularly on why the election of Trump may be a good thing - not because he's a libertarian, but because it may lead to reorientation of the political spectrum; away from the old left-right divide, and more towards a libertarian-authoritarian distinction.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.