I want to warn you right now, what you are about to read is going to be literary schizophrenia. Don’t be fooled into thinking this is a political post; its message is indeed devoid of political fervor. This post will not end the same way it begins. Therefore, understandably it is long, however, to understand it’s context, it requires a reader to make it to the end.
On Saturday Milo Yiannopoulos was riding high on the wave of popularity he had created from being a self-described troll. His speech at Berkley University recently had been forced to be canceled as violent rioters caused havoc to the venue before his appearance.
Suddenly, the man who had made a career out of speaking out against Muslims, Immigrants, Feminist, Liberals, African-American Rights groups, and the LGBT community had found himself in the strange position of being a free speech activist.
Armed with a lucid cerebral ability to rapidly fire off statistical figures and antidotal evidence to support his positions, Milo's star was rapidly rising. Milo possesses a unique quality of being both flamboyant and endearing. In light of his subject matter, his outwardly charming demeanor makes him rather likable. This was no more evident than when he appeared on Bill Maher's HBO program last week. It was hard to deny that, Maher, the poster child of the smug left, seemed to have a sense of reverence for Milo during the program.
Milo's injection into American politics peaked on Saturday when it was announced he was the Keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). However, by Sunday evening that would all come crashing down.
On Sunday, February 20, 2017, an ironic series of events would cause Milo Yiannopoulos’ name to echo even louder throughout mainstream society. A virtually unknown Blog Site, “The Reagan Battalion” published several videos on their Twitter page. One video showed Milo on Joe Rogan’s radio show in October of 2015. In the clip, Milo is arguing the with Joe Rogan on the legitimacy of older men having sexual relationships with young boys. It is hard to misinterpret Milo’s comment’s with Rogan, as he plainly appears to be trying to defend his sexual relationship with what he describes as an “adult man” when he was 14-years old. Milo is shown clearly saying that he does not consider the sexual relationship between him and an “adult” to have been child molestation or pedophilia on the part of his partner. In a subsequent video, Milo argues with Rogan that the concept of men and young boys engaging in sexual relationships is only admonished as being wrong because of Judea-Christian cultural values. He claims that other cultures would not have this limited view of sex between men and children.
Now, the Joe Rogan interview videos were pretty damaging to Milo’s image. Maybe, just maybe a case could be made that Milo was merely trying to elaborate on socio-psychological attributes that are dependent on cultural views when it came to sex. However, The Reagan Battalion wasn’t done with their onslaught against America’s apparently beloved troll.
The most damaging video of Milo’s views on child molestation would come in a follow-up video of Milo on a podcast from January 2017. In the video, Milo elaborates on his views of what pedophilia means, and he suggests that he supports the view that he see’s nothing wrong with a child who is post-pubescent engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with an older man.
It is important to note that the term Post-pubescent does not denote a particular age, rather it describes the period in which an adolescent reaches sexual maturity and is biologically capable of reproducing. Biologically, speaking individuals go through puberty between 11 and 17 years of age. Now, in the interview, Milo narrows down his idea of consensual post-pubescent age, which he says is thirteen. As if this view wasn’t concerning enough, Milo further elaborates that a sexual relationship between an older male “mentor” and a younger child is a critical rite of passage for individuals, “particularly gay children.”
Just like that, the self-proclaimed Internet Troll found himself on the receiving end of the trolling. Within twenty-four hours after the videos hit social media, Milo’s speech at CPAC would be canceled, and his $250,000 book deal with Simon & Schuster would be withdrawn. Assuredly, even more, sobering for Milo was that reports began to leak out of Breitbart News, where he is employed as a Senior Editor, that suggested half a dozen Breitbart employees were threatening to quit if Milo was not fired.
It’s hard to feel sorry for Milo that he had suddenly gone from being a shock the conscious free speech advocate, to a spokesperson for NAMBLA, virtually overnight. Admittedly, Milo himself published an article for Breitbart News on September 9, 2015, entitled, “Here’s Why the Progressive Left Keeps Sticking Up for Pedophiles.” In the article, Milo shames the media website, Salon for publishing an interview with a self-proclaimed Pedophile. Milo calls it, a “long, self-pitying screed that ends with a call to be “understanding and supportive” of adults who crave sexual intimacy with children.” He goes on to say, "I am pretty sure that most people will find the existence of Salon’s website of this post both shocking and distasteful."
How do you mitigate that irony if not blatant hypocrisy of what Milo said in those videos and what he wrote in this article? Lest we forget that Milo has repeatedly condemned Transgenderism as a mental illness, yet he clearly supports the idea that a child thirteen years of age not only, should be allowed to engage in a sexual relationship with an adult, he presents it as an “important rite of passage.”
First, let me play devil’s advocate and say that Milo’s words were taken out of context and only a snapshot view had been seized upon and used against him. In essence, that would mean that Milo is being unfairly treated and targeted to paint him as a supporter of child molestation. However, isn’t that the same thing Milo has built his entire career on?
For example, this is something that Milo has said over and over to attack feminism. 25% of all women do not associate themselves as feminist. However, 82% of all people, men, and women believe that women deserve equal rights. See the problem with what he is saying is that the 82% figure he just used. Feminism is defined as advocacy for equal women's rights. So in reality, it isn’t 20% of women who do not associate themselves with being feminist. It is actually, 82% of men and women do!!!
All he is doing is gas lighting women's rights activist by lumping them in with isolated radicalized incidents and transitioning the word feminist to mean radical. Therefore, anyone who is an advocate for equal women’s rights becomes a feminist radical. This is fundamentally wrong, inaccurate and false. Additionally, this is facilitating a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience, which is indeed the exact literal definition of prejudice. This creates an environment, where any woman who should happen to speak out for equal rights, (remember 18% of people don’t believe they should) they are automatically labeled a radical by calling them what they are a “feminist.” In essence, he has blurred the lines between social attribution of the word, and reality of the word’s meaning.
Ultimately, every argument he presents follows these same lines of logic. He uses his ability to rapidly fire off words from memory, to conceal the underlying perceptions he is planting that facilitate destructive convictions of prejudicial views of entire groups of people. He just does it in a manner that seems to make sense and leaves the listener with little reason to critically examine what he is saying. He can say that words are meaningless and harm no one as much as he wants. However, it is undeniable that his words regarding child molestation had a devastating effect on his career. The videos providing his views on pedophilia are undeniable. Anyone can listen themselves, and even the most stringent of fans would have a hard time supporting what he is saying.
Now, up to this point, I have presented very little controversy in my opinion regarding Milo. Everything, I’ve said can be verified, and the only disagreement would have to come from if one interprets his words on sexual relationships between children and adults. However, I promised you at the beginning this post would be schizophrenic and it’s about to start.
At a time when it would be so easy to ridicule and hate the man who makes a living mocking others, I have chosen to take the road less traveled. I have decided to support him.
Now, in no way shape or form do I support what he said about pedophilia. Additionally, I adamantly reject the validity in any of the statements he has made in the past regarding others. Lastly, I think that willingly taking on the role as villain and trolling others for fun is one of the worst decisions an individual can make. In fact, I am not supporting that person in which Milo has displayed what-so-ever. Instead, I am actually supporting the inner-person that Milo really is.
I caveat all of this by saying, indeed I may be a beast of a different animal, than most. When I encounter someone like Milo, I dive into getting to know what makes them tick. I watch every video I can, I read about their past. Truthfully, all of this interest comes from my first love and academic background which is in cognitive psychology, specifically in human consciousness and perception. Primarily, I find people to be fascinating creatures.
So a large part of why I don't agree with what the majority of what Milo says, is because I know deep down he doesn't either. I know why he's doing what he does and I know what its ultimate causation is. Though most people only see my writings and don't hear me speak, it might surprise you to know that I think Milo and I have a lot in common. We both have the ability to be very rapidly and lucidly cerebral.
Truthfully, I don't hate nor dislike Milo. I feel sorry for him regarding how he is dealing with the ultimate source of his angst. What is of vital importance for people to know, whether they believe it or not, is why Milo chooses the targets of his speeches. It has nothing to do with the outside world and everything to do with him. Everything he demonizes ultimately is just representative of the demons of his past.
One of the biggest tattle-tales of his mindset was his old Twitter handle "Nero." In his mind, Milo is tormented just like the famous Roman Emperor Nero. And just Like Nero, he's getting back at the world that hurt him, and he's just taking others along for the ride. A ride they don't mind going on because, he's intelligent, witty and in a strange way endearing. So even though he's living out his fantasies with the public, make no mistake it is all merely a Band-Aid. He’s not a sociopath like he enjoys claiming. Rather, that is simply all just a well-crafted defense, one that he's spent years creating.
So I feel sorry for him because, in the end, there isn’t any happiness to be ultimately held in what he is doing. You cannot destroy your inner demons, by demonizing everyone else. So in the end, I choose to take his explanation of the very words used against him at face value. He was sexually abused as a child, and now even those seemingly vile comments he uses them as a means of defense.
Sometimes the most unlovable people, are the ones who need love the most. So when the entire collective world seems against you, Milo, I choose not to cast you out to sea. Rather, I say that you have the intelligence and charisma to be capable of doing great good in this world. Unquestionably, the dark-side gave you the popularity and acclaim that you’ve always craved. However, in the end, only the side of goodness and light can provide you with happiness that you actually seek.
“Do you think that I like to see wicked people die? says the the Lord God. Of course not! I want them to turn from their wicked ways and live.” Ezekiel 18.23