MILO DOWN UNDER


I have been following Milo Yiannopoulos for a while now. Milo has been growing out of his stint as enfant terrible of the international free-speech movement into a more suitable role as entertainer. His production of Milo Down Under is available on You Tube. This spliced and diced digest of Milo's recent Australian tour is indeed entertaining for a while, but the editing leaves a lot to be desired. 

I recently observed on Twitter that Milo is becoming Liberace without a piano. Milo referred to himself in this video as "the most famous (gay man) in the world", now that Liberace is dead. Perhaps this is true, but Stephen Fry and Ian McKellen might object. They have both been hosted by such esteemed venues as The Oxford Union. And, they each have more extensive resumes due to their ages. Milo, it seems, cannot get any venues at all in his native U.K.. It is hard to be the global master of homosexual prominence with an English accent while being exiled from the country which has refined the art of being a notorious homosexual since King Edward II.

I understand Milo's position against a rabid form of fascistic social engineering being sold as education in modern Western universities. He is not alone in his fight, nor are his enemies imagined. His role in that battle as an openly homosexual man in a marriage to another man is unusual. His closest American cousin in that respect is David Rubin, a much kinder and measured commentator and interviewer. 

Milo referred to Camille Paglia in his Australian tour. Dr. Paglia, respected professor and author, has been fighting the forces of social regression for over 40 years. She dared to rile the Pride parade marshals and Lesbian biker sisterhoods in the early days of Gay Liberation. In her younger years, she was a Milo figure, but she was indeed more polished in an academic sense. Therefore, she garnered the attention and mild support of some mainstream intellectuals and media captains. She got air time, and she was listened to 

Milo is perhaps the most forthcoming young homosexual man to frankly speak of his homosexual life in the midst of today's bipartisan politics and post-multiculturalist world. I admire him for that. I also admire his shameless expression of his opinions, no matter how off-the-wall those opinions may be. He does not incite to violence. He has been the object of violence. Yet he persists. Paradoxically, he resembles historic heroes of The Left more than heroes of The Right, who have usually been socially conservative men in suits or military uniforms. 

But Milo's opinions on certain things are indeed off-the-wall. In another recently posted video on You Tube, Milo addresses a self-described atheist from the audience who questioned Milo's loyalty to Catholicism while denouncing Islam as a homosexual man. Milo launched into a defense of the Catholic Church as a friend of homosexuals throughout history. He claimed that the Roman Church intentionally sheltered homosexuals in the priesthood. He described the priesthood as an open sanctuary for homosexual men. (Mind boggling.) 

At another venue in Australia, Milo launched into his interpretation of the causes of sexual preference in children. He states that having a homosexual child is a misfortune. He frankly assigns the cause of homosexuality to failed parenting. He claims that all previous sex research on the topic has been simply a political device, a media manipulation, foisted on the world by those who have fought for gay rights, legal rights from which he has obviously benefited. I guess Milo never read Kinsey's research.

It saddens me that in this particular segment Milo then goes on to conflate this absurd claim with a real sociological issue of today in The West. He asserted that the transgender craze among Liberal parents in The West, who gladly castrate their immature homosexual sons at any sign of gender confusion, represents a form of practical and sadistic homophobia. Liberal parents belie their homophobia by turning homosexual boys into girls readily, rather than allowing those boys to grow into their own natural sexual and gender identities over time. I applaud his pointing this out. 

When I see Milo, I am reminded of New Age (1990's) writings on the relationship between the human mind and reality. Of course, most of this was stolen from Buddhism, Hinduism and various Yoga practices. New Age philosophy was about mindfulness leading to actualization. That is, by mentally and behaviorally changing one's internal environment, one changes and creates a positive external environment. One actualizes one's ideals. 

Milo has externalized his own inner torment. He has connected through modern media to crowds of similarly tormented souls. Let me say I am a fan of inner torment...to a degree. And public sharing of  inner torment is OK too. Social evolution comes out of the public's inner torment, intensified by confrontation with injustice. When homosexual men externalized their inner torment over oppression, Gay Liberation was born. 

There is a difference in today's Milo-vs-Feminism display of competing inner torments. Neither Milo nor the middle-class New Left of universities have much cause to feel oppressed or unjustly served. Milo honestly admits this to his credit. The New Left is using race, religion and migration as proxies to gain attention and acceptance of dysfunctional bourgeois Angst. Perhaps this is the key to why the New Left hate Milo so much. He is preaching the gospel of self-satisfied bourgeois privilege, the very cause of the New Left's mental illness, congealed into political and social identity-superiority politics. 

Milo is indeed down under the skin of those who are much like him but feel so badly about it that they have projected their self-hatred on him. It is not for me to say whether that self-hatred is justified or not. But I will say that the virulent and violent expression of it is unjustified. While Milo may incense and inspire the demented to violence, he is not the cause of that violence. Their twisted bourgeois dementia is. 




Comments

Popular Posts