Milo Yiannopoulos was interviewed recently on a US liberal media site and the result broadcast on Youtube and Facebook. Firstly I need to remark from his Wiki site that he withdrew from both his university and a later site of learning. What I also found intriguing was his assumption of a Germanic pseudonym Wagner, admittedly he retains his Greek name in personal situations. Recently he was banned from Twitter for attacking people.
On TV his was as improbable an appearance as Oscar Wilde might have offered: a weight of faux pearls coiled heavily around his neck, more clustered over all his forearm. The interviewer (sorry, no names noted) described as Liberal, but admitted to Yian that some interviewees pissed him off; so both agreed that the US right to free speech came independantly of pleasing one’s audience. Yian describes himself as a Trump supporter and I notice how many disparate groups: Hispanics, women, gays were also supporters, even after Trump had trashed them; the only conclusion from that I can draw is that it is easier to be a mindless supporter. In a sense, Trump was actually the unifier he promised to be, while Obama was accompanied, surrounded by disunity because he was tackling real problems and striving for real changes. Soon enough, Trump’s hypnotised supporters will realise that he offers nothing real. Strawberry fields forever.
At this point, it has to be noted that the Yian wriggle will soon become famous: he constantly squirmed, bowing, as it were, to his interviewers. His style of humour also was questioned; Yianni thought it was a unifier, Others said it had the potential to hurt people, at which point one had to change tack. Yianni’s response was valid, I admit: a US president (Obama?) said, when Joan Rivers died that she had been a national treasure; in other words, her trademark was nasty but nobody resented it. (Houston is crawling with bugs, no wait, that’s Whitney Houston.)
An interviewer asked him whether he had actually listened to a single word the previous speaker had uttered; this is the fault of interviews conducted on TV at high speed; or was it more Trump speak? The Conway technique, where you take a single word from the speaker’s question and use it in a reply that goes in completely another direction.
Yianni is mostly known for his concern about the sanctity of the bathroom for women and girls, and exclusion of transgenders such as Caitlyn Jenner. I like the song: Walk in my shoes, for this situation; I would also offer the solution of a unisex toilet, but there is safety in numbers.
Yianni’s sneering about gays, all of which was equally applicable to himself, as the interviewer said, and not tolerated in Nazi Germany, covered some interesting ground. Yes, after an extraordinarily harsh upbringing we are in need of counselling, at the very least. Here, the interviewer agreed, to the point that his personal opinion was that ALL religions were hateful and damaging. But Yianni is a living examplar of internalised homophobia: powdered, bejeweled, wriggling and weirdly opinionated, hating his own kind, following the Trump.
At this point Yianni said that both extreme right and left were unpleasant, which is undisputed, but which begs the question of whether there is some right wing situation that is mildly accepting and appreciative of his ways. I could not see his surviving exposure to a bunch of London bovver boys, neo-Nazi thugs, ho-so tho they might be. As for the infestation of feminism, Shulamith Firestone’s book of the 1970’s speculated that young people and adults would negotiate their relationships. As she belonged to the far left, perhaps her opinions were expected to be extreme.
I can only conclude that Yiannopoulos is a media fiction, a literary construct of the polite London circuit and in a sense not really relevant to the world as the rest of us live it. Only London could tolerate such an intensified level of affectation.
Since I wrote the above, Milo has lost his book dead with Schuster NY and his connection with Breitbart. I watched an extensive analysis of the interviews Milo gave in 2016 (?) and the speaker made the assumption that Milo was only now being punished for his seeming pro-pedophiliac comments because he was also pro-Trump, whom he disgustingly called “daddy”. I wonder if this a use of gay porn idiom? But, when Milo said that he had actively pursued the Catholic priest, whom he remembered as being “hot”, he insisted the relationship was affirming. I have an older friend who made a similar claim, that he had nobody in his adolescence to whom he could turn for sexual education. The reviewer of Milo’s demise as a public figure said that pedophilia occurs with children belonging to disfunctional families, to children who cannot reach out to their local priest or teacher for protection. The use of the term “grooming” is useful here, because the victim brings a damaged sense of self to the abusive situation; what results is that the victim comes away with a triumphant feeling of having drawn the attention of an adult, a person of power, compared to the victim who is confused and powerless. Years later, perhaps the victim needs to continue to assert that the experience was minimal, that it actually had positive effects. This was certainly my case.