So, alt-right’s bottom line is to slander anyone on grounds of race, ethnicity, sexual preference and gender but look out those who advocate paedophilia. Jennifer Wilson marvels that such honour dwells amongst morality's dregs.
MILO YIANNOPOULUS, former Breitbart editor, intellectual featherweight and fascist star-turn adored by the alt-right who till Tuesday saw him as a warrior king in their battle against “political correctness” and perceived left-wing censorship, has finally come spectacularly undone.
To the point where his followers (amongst them, in this country, the likes of Rita Pahini, Chris Kenny and Andrew Bolt) who have, thus far, endorsed his foul outbursts against Muslims, Jews, women and transgender people as an exercise of the right to free speech, have found themselves in unlikely and uncomfortable moral confusion over Milo’s positive attitude towards paedophilia and overt sympathy for perpetrating catholic priests.
Yiannopoulos was to have given the keynote address at the Conservative Political Action Conference later this month and, on Tuesday (a bad day for Milo), organisers felt compelled to withdraw their invitation.
Prior to Yiannopoulus' shock resignation, Breitbart News, whose former editor-in-chief Steve Bannon is now President Donald Trump’s lead strategist, was reportedly considering dumping Milo. At least we now know the alt-right’s bottom line: slander anyone on grounds of race, ethnicity, sexual preference and gender but don’t publicly advocate paedophilia. There’s honour even amongst morality’s dregs, apparently.
Publishing house Simon and Schuster this week dropped Milo, terminating their contract to publish his forthcoming book. They stood by him while he slandered Jews, Muslims, women and transgender people for money and spectacle, but apparently a line was crossed with his sympathetic stance towards paedophilia.
It’s gratifying to witness the extreme right writhe in unaccustomed moral anguish when confronted with speech even they cannot accept. Who knew there was such a thing?
Yiannopoulos attempted to defend himself. 'They canceled my book,' he wailed on Facebook (Twitter having banned him some time ago) in baffled outrage, getting the spelling wrong in his time of extremity as anyone might.
Wikileaks’ Julian Assange then rushed to Milo’s defence from his lounge room in the Ecuadorean Embassy, tweeting that poor Milo is the victim of 'politics disguised as morality' and, god help us, has been censored!
Well, Assange is wrong: Milo hasn’t been censored. Any publisher can publish him, he can self-publish and any organisation is free to extend him an invitation to keynote. If they choose to ignore him, that is not censorship; you’d think Assange, of all people, would understand that.
What Milo is experiencing are the consequences of free speech. He remains free to say whatever he wants, in the United States, at least. Others have equal freedom to decline to listen and disseminate his speech. Refusing to listen and disseminate is not censorship, it’s exercising the agency and the right to decline to listen and disseminate.
Many among us have experienced the refusal to listen and to disseminate our points of view, not a few of us from the very groups Milo has singled out for discrimination and contempt. He’s had a good run. Now his masters are done with him. You can’t go round advocating the rape and molestation of young boys, even amongst the alt-right, it seems. Who knew they had standards?
Here's how some Tweeps responded to Milo's resignation:
And this, just for fun:
If you're into Schadenfreude, do scroll down and enjoy the following:
"I made a HUGE mistake" Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart following paedophilia scandal.
Stand with human rights. Subscribe to IA for just $5.