The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine

Dangerous, by Milo Yiannopoulos (detail of book cover)

Dangerous, by Milo Yiannopoulos (detail of book cover)

A Review of Milo Yiannopoulos’s new book Dangerous

In February of 2017 many people had written Milo Yiannopoulos off after it transpired that he had given an interview on a 2015 Joe Rogan podcast, which was construed by some listeners as a defense of pederasty. On the show, he seemingly spoke fondly of his experience as 13-year old minor when he had had sex with a priest. Once the interview gained notoriety, CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) quickly rescinded its invitation to Yiannopoulos to serve as the organization’s keynote speaker at its 2017 annual convention. To make matters worse, soon thereafter, Simon & Shuster cancelled the publication of his book for which it had given a $250,000 advance just a month before. And what seemed to have been a maneuver to spare a revolt at Breitbart News, Milo gracefully resigned from his position as tech editor with his employer. In his own words, Milo almost gave up on his mission, but decided not to back down after the support he received from his many fans. Instead, all his critics managed to accomplish was to “piss me off.” Marshaling together a number of investors, he managed to self-publish his book—Dangerous—which rocketed to number one on Amazon’s bestsellers list even before its release, and at the time of this writing it is near the top of both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal bestseller lists.

Inasmuch as Milo Yiannopoulos is a genuine gay celebrity, his memoir has been highly anticipated. To be sure, a number of celebrities who just happened to be gay preceded him. For example, in 1976, Elton John divulged in an interview that he was bi-sexual and his career suffered for a while as a consequence. In 1981, Billie Jean King became the first major female athlete to come out of the closet. Perhaps more than any other figure, Ellen DeGeneres has normalized gays in America. With a wholesome demeanor, she came off as the girl next door despite being a lesbian, and even received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Barack Obama in 2016. But for her and other public figures, their gayness was incidental to their celebrity. By contrast, Milo’s celebrity homosexuality is an integral part of his shtick. For example, he regales college audiences with his aspirations to one day be surrounded “by Nigerian bodyguards” and he recounts how he spent time during his youth in London losing his virginity in interracial five-somes with drag queens. Ironically, his main constituency—college-aged, straight white men—find these disclosures hilarious and entertaining.

As a First Amendment fundamentalist, Milo sees as his mission to push the boundaries of acceptable discourse. His outrageousness notwithstanding, Milo advances a compelling critique of the progressive movement, which has become dangerously ossified over the past few decades, losing sight of its commitment to economic security to a preoccupation with extremely divisive identity politics. As such, Milo deserves a fair hearing for no other reason that his growing popularity is indicative of a rising tide of populism that in large measure propelled Donald J. Trump into the White House.

Milo on Joe Rogan Experience # 702

His book critically analyzes a number of segments of both the progressive and conservative movements. As he points out, the political left in America that was once the champion of blue-collar workers, became disillusioned with this segment of the population by the 1960s for its lack of revolutionary fervor. This followed a similar pattern of the European Marxist theoreticians in the 1920s, who castigated the working class for its complacency and social conservatism. Seeking to reformulate their strategy, Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, advanced a new form of revolution that would be based more on culture, rather than class. As he noted, the proletariat failed to rise up because it was still anchored in old conservative ideas, such as family values, religion, and patriotism. To be successful, Marxists must first establish a “cultural hegemony” that would eventually pave the way for its victory in politics. This idea was later taken up by the Frankfurt School, composed of European expatriate academics that were active in 1950’s and 1960’s America. The New Left, which emerged during the rise of the counterculture of the 1960s, continued in this direction as it ultimately established the regime of political correctness and the identity politics that we know today.

As a First Amendment fundamentalist, Milo sees as his mission to push the boundaries of acceptable discourse.

Sometimes derided as “cultural Marxism,” this orientation has gained great currency in the media, entertainment, academia, and politics. More and more, the political and media elite disparage the cultural values of the traditional working class. A speech that Barack Obama made on the 2008 campaign stump in a small town in Pennsylvania comes to mind, when he opined that working class communities “cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment.”

As Milo notes, one of the reasons why the progressive movement was so successful was because it addressed a number of important issues that had been ignored for too long, including establishing equal rights and opportunities for African-Americans, the disabled, women, and gays. But by the 1960s, Milo avers, it was possible to dismantle the system of Jim Crow and bring about equality effectively within in the framework of classical liberalism. No sweeping Kulturkampf was necessary.

At least in the realm of culture, the New Left had become the new establishment by the 1980s. In the realm of politics, the Democratic Party increasingly reached out to minorities, and although this segment of the electorate was once small, new voters could be imported by way of mass immigration from the third world. To be expected, this development created a large pool of cheap labor as well as a deluge in new welfare recipients who were more inclined to vote for the Democratic Party insofar as it favored an expansion of government programs to help the poor. Thus a built-in constituency for the Democratic Party was artificially created.

In an ironic reversal, the political left now pushes social taboos, seeking to restrict expressions of heterosexuality for its alleged contribution to “rape culture.” In this framework, straight white males have become the new “bourgeoisie.” So-called third wave feminism has been in the forefront in promoting this narrative.

It is Milo’s strident critique of this form of feminism that has gained him the most opprobrium. Although Milo does not characterize himself as part of men’s rights activism, arguably, he has emerged as the movement’s most noted spokesman. His track record displays a clear affinity for the movement. For example, he played a leading role in the 2014 “gamergate” controversy when he supported the online harassment campaign against women who decried the violence and misogyny in video games. Reminiscent of Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power, Milo cites numerous indices—including disparities in life expectancy, sentencing, education, and health care—to illustrate that women have made substantial gains over the past several decades. In fact, according to these measures, women are arguably more privileged than men in America today. As Milo demonstrates, studies have found that the wage gap shrinks to nonexistence when relevant, non-sexist factors are taken into account, such as chosen career paths, chosen work hours, and chosen career discontinuity. As a group, women prefer to study people-oriented disciplines like psychology, sociology, and social work, which on average are less remuneratively rewarding than STEM fields. In medicine, females physicians are more likely to specialize in fields like pediatrics, which pay less than some other fields that male doctors gravitate toward, such as elective surgery.

How could women close the pay gap? Milo’s answer comes from Christina Hoff Sommers (the Factual Feminist): “Step one: Change your major from feminist dance therapy to electrical engineering.”

Despite all of their faults, men have made tremendous contributions to civilization, as Milo expounded on in a debate with feminist Rebecca Reid at Bristol University:

You’ve been told that straight white men are worse than the Nazis. You have been told nothing good about your sex, your race, or your orientation, but I’m going to tell you something good, and it is: If the patriarchy exists, women should be grateful for it. It is what took us to space, it is what builds roads, it is what built the internet, [and] it is what protects and provides for women. If it exists, thank God it does! With their strength and determination, men have tamed the wilderness. Men built cities and the walls around us. They built the buildings that we’re in. Men’s curiosity led us to explore the oceans; their ingenuity has allowed us to reach the moon. And whenever feminism rises up and tries to ridicule you, to demean you for what you are, don’t pay attention to it. Don’t listen to it. We’re not in an age of gender equality; straight white women in the West are the most privileged class in the history of our species.

Milo’s problem with feminists is not so much that they are “hateful and outrageous,” but rather that they are “hateful and outrageous while claiming to be just, moral, caring, and egalitarian.” Gender and ethnic studies departments in colleges and universities come under his scathing criticism because he believes that lesbian academics, who often have an agenda, are woefully unqualified to instruct impressionable young women on how to relate to members of the opposite sex. But his argument with feminism is not that it represents something inconsequential and can be ignored; rather, he argues that it serves little purpose other than “hating men, making absurd demands, lying about inequality and obsessing over trivial issues. It has poisoned relations between the sexes, nearly destroyed due process, and constantly saddles businesses with pointless gender diversity requirements based on bogus economics.”

The existence of a pervasive rape culture on American college campuses has long been accepted as an article of faith in academia. Some studies have arrived at figures as high as 20 to 25 percent of women will be sexually assaulted during their time in college. But Milo debunks this figure, noting that the more reliable crime statistics from the Bureau of Justice indicate substantially lower numbers of 6.1 per 1,000 students and 7.6 per 1,000 non-students. Instead of 20 to 25 percent, the real figure is barely more than half of one percent. Furthermore, rape in the United States has declined nearly 75% since the early 1990s. He does concede, however, that women do indeed face a serious threat on the horizon: Islam. Where there is a genuine rape culture in the West it comes from Islam. For example, in the face of a severe refugee crisis over the past two years, Sweden has become the rape capital of Europe. The growth of Islam around the world, Yiannopoulos counsels, should be of grave concern to both women and gays. Islam, he contends, is the most bigoted ideology in the world today.

For Milo, the June 2016 attack at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida, should have been a wakeup call to gays who see Islam as an ally. If America continues to opens its doors to Muslim migrants, he warns, the Pulse attack will be just the beginning. He cites a number of surveys of Muslims in the West who have expressed their contempt for gays and homosexuality. Expecting Muslims to assimilate in the West, he avers, is dubious: “When in Rome, rape and kill everyone and then claim welfare.” As an unabashed conservative homosexual, Milo has received his shared of vitriol from the gay community. In recent years, coming out as gay has become blasé. Coming out as a gay conservative, however, is not without peril. As Milo observes, the “gay establishment” has maligned conservatives for so long that when one of their own fails to do so, they often face ostracism and derision. Breaking ranks with many of his gay compatriots, Milo sees Donald Trump as a gay ally. With all his “pizazz and bluster,” Milo asks, how can gays not adore him? Illustrative of his affection, he refers to Trump as “Daddy.”

The art of trolling is to trap one’s target in a position from which there is no escape without public embarrassment. According to Milo, only one other person surpasses his skill in trolling: Donald J. Trump.

Ironically, Milo laments the mainstreaming of gay culture in recent years, complaining that the notion of normalizing gay life is at odds with what homosexuals have always represented. For him, it was exciting when gays were on “the very edge of culture, pushing the boundaries.” Their weirdness was their strength. Why, he asks, “would we want to give all that up?” He exhorts gays to abandon the social justice ethos and embrace their inherent edginess. Rather than obsessing over seemingly frivolous issues such as demanding that bakeries make cakes for gay weddings, he recommends that they address AIDS, which continues to disproportionately affect gay men. Perhaps indicative of changing sentiment in the gay community, at the end of 2016, readers of LGBTQ Nation news site name Milo the “Person of the Year.”

Troubling, Yiannopoulos’s discussion of gays almost entirely leaves out lesbians (except when conflating them with feminism). On numerous occasions, Milo has averred that female sexuality is more malleable than men’s. For that reason, he sees lesbianism more as a lifestyle choice than homosexuality is for men. He proclaims that it is “time to stop lesbians from running the gay mafia and get them back where they belong: in porn.” Milo is not called outrageous for nothing.

His position on the African-American community is also ambivalent. On the one hand, he cannot shut up about his penchant for black boyfriends. On the other hand, he categorically rejects the grievance-mongering in the African-American subculture exemplified by the Black Lives Matter movement. Then again, he parts with other American conservatives by acknowledging that blacks in America do have legitimate grievances stemming from historic discrimination in the form of Jim Crow and slavery. Because of deep-seated disadvantages, path dependency has militated against the numerous governmental and private efforts to improve the welfare of African-Americans.

Milo on The Rubin Report

A number of dysfunctionalities remain endemic in the Black community including poverty, inadequate housing, violence, and substandard education. Arguably, much of these maladies can be attributed to fatherlessness—an estimated 70 percent of Black children are born out of wedlock. Citing numerous studies in criminology, Milo debunks the notion that police in America are waging war against blacks. Instead, he sees the police as their greatest defenders insofar as they are working to control the serious crime epidemic in Black communities. He holds the media and academia responsible for inculcating an abiding sense of grievance in the hearts and minds of African-Americans, noting that they “are being fed a diet of anti-white, anti-police hatred, that inevitably, spills over into violence.”

A self-professed “provocateur,” Milo has been at the center of a number of free speech controversies. For instance, in July of 2016 he used Twitter to disparage what he saw as the radical feminist undertones of the new Ghostbusters film, and one of its stars in particular, Leslie Jones, who was subjected to racial harassment, or trolling, from some of Milo’s followers. He categorically rejected any culpability in this campaign of harassment insofar as Jones is a celebrity and should be expected to receive criticism. Be that as it may, Twitter revoked his account. Still, Milo believes that the episode was the best thing that ever happened to his career, insofar as it garnered him enormous free publicity. As he explains, the art of trolling is to trap one’s target in a position from which there is no escape without public embarrassment. According to Milo, only one other person surpasses his skill in trolling: Donald J. Trump.

As long as the political left dominates culture, entertainment, and the norms of everyday language, Milo contends, they can expect to win elections.

The conservative movement does not escape Milo’s acerbic censure. He derides mainstream conservatives as “cucks,” noting that for the past 30 years they have achieved virtually nothing on college campuses. By contrast, he boasts that he has “set the entire higher education system in America on fire.” Furthermore, beltway conservative elites have demonstrated little interest in the issues affecting ordinary Americans, as evidenced by Bill Kristol, who, as Milo commented, played into the white nationalists’ talking points when he suggested that America’s white working class should be replaced by immigrants.

Although he rejects the accusation that he is part of the alt-right, Milo nevertheless seems to relish the fact that the mainstream media seem determined to crown him the “queen of the movement.” Instead, he maintains that he only gave them a fair hearing. In the summer of 2016, he and Allum Bokhari wrote an article entitled “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right,” that was widely read in Breitbart News. Still, Milo is not without his critics in the alt-right. Writing in the Daily Stormer, Andrew Anglin called Milo “a subversive and a disease.” Anglin feared that Milo would hijack the alt-right and destroy it from within by making the movement tolerant of Jews and race-mixing. Consequently, he called for a “final solution to the Milo problem.” For his part, Milo blames the media and the extremist fringe of the alt-right for working together to drive out the more reasonable conservative and libertarian elements of the alt-right movement.

As long as the political left dominates culture, entertainment, and the norms of everyday language, Milo contends, they can expect to win elections. All of the conservative movement’s recent political victories will ultimately come to fail in the long run if they do not win the culture war. To that end, Andrew Breitbart founded Breitbart News in 2007 to serve as a conservative outlet that would seek to influence both politics and culture. For Breitbart, conservatives did not adequately prioritize winning the culture wars—conceding on issues like immigration, multiculturalism and political correctness—which ultimately enabled the political left to dominate the public discourse on these topics. As he noted, “politics really is downstream from culture.” Seeing hope in the increasing popularity of the alternative media, Milo noted that Breitbart maintained the top spot in political news on Facebook and Twitter for most of the 2016 election year. He was delighted that Trump chose Breitbart executive Steve Bannon to serve as his chief strategist in the White House.

How did the left succeed in dominating the cultural landscape? According to Milo, it is because they worked harder than conservatives. Consequently, conservatives will also have to work diligently to influence the culture in America and Europe. At the end of the day, politics is not won by commanding the facts, Milo argues, but by connecting with people’s experiences. To be sure, moderates and intellectuals have a role to play. But as Milo admonishes, conservatives need hell raisers like him if they are to win. He credits Trump with striking a savage blow in what will be a decades-long fight to reclaim creative freedom and freedom of speech from the political left. The reception Milo received from young conservatives on campuses across America during his “Dangerous Faggot” tour has given him hope. He exhorts dissident faculty members to use the army of young activists that he has created.

In Milo’s estimation, the main reason why the political left despises him so much is because he is supposed to be one of them. Proudly, he proclaims himself the left’s worst nightmare: “a living, breathing refutation of identity politics.” Moreover, he rejects the cult of victimization that has come to dominate so much of American public life. In a press conference following the revelations of his controversial interview, Milo conceded that he had used imprecise language and apologized for what came across as flippant remarks concerning his victimization, which he believed at that time allowed him to speak irreverently on the topic of the sexual abuse of minors. Despite this ordeal from his youth, Milo explains that he never saw himself as a victim; as he wants to make perfectly clear, the whole episode “takes up less space in [his] head than the time David Bowie called [him] out on a shitty Louis Vuitton knockoff.” Moreover, having sex with a priest at age 13 did not prevent him from having and enjoying sex for the rest of his life, as he abundantly makes clear. Although some might find his attitude on this topic insouciant, his message may be useful in the sense that it encourages people who have suffered abuse not to define themselves by their victimization. As Milo explains, getting over one’s abuse does not mean forgetting about the past; rather, it means not being stuck in place by it.

To help them in their battles ahead, Milo offers advice to conservative activists, counseling them to never apologize for their principles, work harder than everyone else, stay humble (!), be twice as funny as you are outrageous, seek attention, and be hot—“Be Tomi Lahren, not Lena Dunham”—and most important, have fun along the way. Adopting as his motto, “laughter and war,” Milo reminds us that no one wants to hang out with squares.

Likening himself to the Roman general, Cincinnatus, who dropped his plough to lead an army to victory and secure the safety of his homeland before returning to the farm, Milo proclaims that he wants nothing more than to declare victory and pass on the baton so that he could go back to the chaise lounge sofa and indulge himself in silk and champagne. Alas, he does not see that happening in his lifetime, so he is resigned to the fight.

Although many of his detractors hate him, it was the many absurdities of contemporary identity politics that gave rise to Milo, for it was only a matter of time before a counter-movement emerged to challenge the hegemony of the social justice left in the culture of the West. He embodies the irreverent ethos of the mischievous and sometimes mean-spirited online right. Highly entertaining, charismatic, and as he likes to put it, “transgressive,” Milo is one of the most influential figures to have emerged from the rise of the Trumpian right. Dangerous will inform, offend, entertain, and outrage its readers—at times—all at once. END

About the Author

Dr. George Michael received his Ph.D. from George Mason University’s School of Public Policy. He is an associate professor of criminal justice at Westfield State University in Massachusetts. Previously, he was an associate professor of nuclear counter-proliferation and deterrence theory at the Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama. He is the author of seven books: Confronting Right-Wing Extremism and Terrorism in the USA, The Enemy of my Enemy: The Alarming Convergence of Militant Islam and the Extreme Right, Willis Carto and the American Far Right, Theology of Hate: A History of the World Church of the Creator, Lone Wolf Terror and the Rise of Leaderless Resistance, Extremism in America (editor), and Preparing for Contact: When Humans and Extraterrestrials Finally Meet. In addition, his articles have been published in numerous academic journals.

This article was published on July 26, 2017.


102 responses to “Provocateur:
A Review of Milo Yiannopoulos’s new book Dangerous

  1. Fouad Boussetta says:

    LOVED Milo’s book, except that as a pro-choice atheist, I’m really puzzled by his pro-life Catholicism. Is that stance just for show or is it genuine? Apart from that, he makes a very compelling case for his arguments, which are linked to 247 notes!

  2. Robert D Hughes says:

    “one of its stars in particular, Leslie Jones, who was subjected to racial harassment, or trolling, from some of Milo’s followers”

    This is where the author completely lost me, and his very last shred of anything resembling credibility. If you look at what was done to Ms. Jones, and then dismissively refer to that as “racial harassment, or trolling”, you do not at all understand those events. Death threats, threats of rape, the worst possible racial slurs, and much, much more, this is what was hurled en masse at Ms. Jones, all at the urging of Yiannopoulos. This is a far, far cry from mere trolling.

    That aside, there is far too much of the author appearing to simply accept Yiannopoulos’s position as factual, when the vast majority are distortions at best, and, more commonly, outright objective lies. And at times, even appears to use Yiannopoulos’s positions as jumping off points for his own assertions, making it difficult to tell when he’s writing of what Yiannopoulos’s book says, and what the author thinks.

    All in all, this was incredibly disappointing, but hopefully Skeptic will use the feedback here as an object lesson to raise its editorial standards.

  3. Suze says:

    Enjoyed reading this interesting and nuanced review of Milo’s book, though the statement “For example, in the face of a severe refugee crisis over the past two years, Sweden has become the rape capital of Europe.” – which I don’t know if I should attribute to Milo or George Michael – is factually wrong (pertaining to a percieved link between increase in rape and influx of immigrants). Being a skeptic should mean thorougly investigating in particular those statements that support the opinion you already have.

  4. Giulio Prisco says:

    A good review, that many in the Ctrl-Left should read to understand how they have created and boosted the Alt-Right.

  5. Larry says:

    Wow! Wha?! It’s as if Skeptic promoted horoscopes, homeopathy, and anti-vaxxers. Tell me this is some kind of reverse Sokal hoax.Is there an editor that would like to take responsibility for publishing this? …Shermer? I hold Skeptic to a higher standard. I’m judging you. Skeptic prides itself on exposing weak arguments, but it just printed a bargeful of B*##S#!*. In a world with too much to read it’s a relief to know that I won’t have to bother with Skeptic anymore. By the way, the reviewer, (an associate professor of criminal justice!) must inhabit an alternate universe where the police didn’t shoot Walter Scott (on CAMERA April 4, 2015, in North Charleston, SC) and lie about it.

  6. Pacem says:

    This is a deeply flawed book review. I would expect Skeptic magazine to take seriously the task of questioning the facts and consequences of Yiannopolos’s deeds and words. The reviewer did neither, instead opting to recite the author without a hint of incredulity.

    Yiannopolos shouts his rantings into the ether with the authority and verisimilitude of an idiot savant. And cursory exploration of his facts fall apart rather quickly–much like any Brietbart fustian trying to masquerade as news.

    I expect better of Skeptic magazine. Next time, actually critique the book.

  7. Mark says:

    I have started to read his book, mostly because it appears that most of the mainstream media does not want me too. I am a well educated straight, white, 60 year old male who is pro capitalism and pro western culture. I am really enjoying his outrageous take on pretty much every thing. Having instructed college level business classes (at a state university) I can vouch for how accurate his assertions are in this regard… Yes, snowflakes abound there.

    If you feel the world has gotten a little crazy with identity politics, absurd PC overload, and fake news. You will really enjoy this read. Long live Milo!

  8. Anthony Hogg says:

    This was not a book review; this was a polemic against liberals (“George Michael received his Ph.D. from George Mason University’s School of Public Policy” may be a clue). Coupled with the recent “gotcha” article, “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies,” which was wide-off-the-mark, but yet another thinly-veiled polemic, I’m left wondering whether Skeptic is starting to veer to the right.

    However, if this review was intended to act in the same way as its title, it’s succeeded as we see from the commentary here, mine included.

    • Kit says:

      Exactly. One giant clue to the reviewer’s real agenda is in his acceptance of the claim that a ‘fair’ comparison of men’s and women’s salaries would show that there is never any sexism anywhere. The main reason jobs like teacher or nurse make less than steelworkers or truck drivers is that teachers and nurses were mostly women and anything women did HAD to be less valuable than anything men did. And yes, I DO look forward with glee at a world where all men’s brawn jobs are completely automated and men mostly disappear.

      (See, I’m just a ‘provocateur,’ trolling for your reactions. Now, defend my free speech and my right to a million dollar book contract.)

      • Sohan says:

        //Now, defend my free speech and my right to a million dollar book contract.//
        You have the right to free speech (to those who wish to listen) and to a million dollar book contract (assuming someone signs you on for one).

  9. postmodernismlives says:

    I wish I could enjoy the irony of “skeptics” reviving decades-old rhetoric invented by religious paleo-conservatives. When will Milo reveal his true “Daddy,” Pat Buchanan? All he had to do was dye it blonde and add the word “darling.” He’s selling you homeopathy, except instead of diluted wolf’s bane it’s conspiracy theories about ‘cultural Marxists’ – apparently even Obama is infected!

    Milo and the ‘alt-right’ deserve each other. I just wish they didn’t flaunt their mediocrity in our faces. Keep it in the bedroom, where it belongs.

  10. OccupyReaLity says:

    You’re defending a defender of pedophilia. GTFO with that shit.

    • Mark says:

      You might want to first get the definition of pedophilia correct before you make that assertion.

  11. Unbiased Commenter says:

    It’s a shame to see so much print allocated to someone like Milo who has achieved nothing and just wants attention. What a waste of a good magazine.

  12. Mark Landes says:

    When will “skeptic” community talk about CHRISTIAN identity politics? They are the ones that created and continue to use their identity to push their agenda since the 1980 election.

    81% of Christians voted for him, and 78% of Christians still support Trump, including self-hating narcissist like Milo. Why are the “skeptics” on the right not talking about this identity politics?

    They nothing but right wing conservatives.

    • Mark says:

      Milo a self hater? You are way out of touch with who Milo is, try reading his book.

  13. Kevin says:

    The fact that Milo is being taken seriously by the “skeptic” community shows how intellectually bankrupt this community is. Honestly, incidents like this paired with incidents like the “conceptual penis hoax”, are signs of where you guys are really falling to.

    Also the fact that this is an online “skeptic” magazine and you promote conspiracy theories of antisemitic origin like “cultural marxism”, is antithetical to what you purport to do.
    For the record, here is a brief comment by professor Martin Jay who is a historian and a leading scholar of the history of the Frankfurt School:

    He has also written a paper about this:

    Consider me extremely “skeptical” to the fact that anyone, including the author of this review, has actually any knowledge of the Frankfurt School. I would recommend starting by first hand material and getting to the dissertation/book by Martin Jay “The Dialectical Imagination” later.

    This review reads like a parody. I hope the goal is to be a parody, but I doubt it.

  14. fickbowt says:

    Once upon a time it was “politically incorrect” for women to wear pants and vote; does that mean they were trapped under a “politically correct regime of Cultural Marxism”? No, it just means society’s values change over time.

  15. fickbowt says:

    “regime of political correctness and the identity politics”

    Sorry? What Regime? You mean; not being an asshole?

    Skeptic magazine should be embarrassed publishing this tripe. The Frankfurt School critiqued The Culture Industry (a term they came up with). They desired to point out propaganda, misinformation and cultural indoctrination.

    “Cultural Marxism” was literally The Frankfurt School’s critique of The Culture Industry (

    This quote from Adorno illustrates what they were about:

    >”The Culture Industry not so much adapts to the reactions of its customers as it counterfeits them.” -Adorno

    That’s the crux of it. They critiqued mass produced culture. They were part of of a separate strand of cultural thought from Identity Politics; which at any rate came from South Carolina and specifically a black lesbian feminist named Barbara Smith of the Combahee River Collective – nothing to freakin do with The Frankfurt School:

    Hell – Adorno was actually protested by feminists. As can be seen in these pictures ([1](×524.jpg), [2](… and Adorno actually coined the term “calculating regressives” for student protestors, they didn’t like him because he called the cops on them if they got out of hand: [Source](

    I might also point out that The British Cultural Marxists of The Birmingham School (founded by Richard Hoggart, Raymond Williams, and Stuart Hall) – also critiqued mass produced culture ( and were also anti-censorship. Even giving testimony to that effect at The Lady Chatterly case (…

    Less than %5 of academics even identify as Marxist – going against the conspiracy theories claim of total domination ( (with the exception of the Sociology, in which he’s one of three major founders).

    The Frankfurt School were anti-fascists due to having seen and escaped the rise of Hitler’s fascism, and that informed their views. They didn’t want to see society destroyed in a “Cultural marxist” coup.

    Academic freedom and freedom of speech should allow for people of all ideologies (including Marxists, right or wrong).

    Women’s lib, black civil rights and gay rights, all predate The Frankfurt School (… and all those movements can be explained with simple self-interest… and that’s the nature of political change.

    There is even a video of Marcuse saying that The Frankfurt School aimed to call out liberalism and progressivism as having repressive and regressive elements. You can watch it here:

    I suggest if you don’t know what The Frankfurt School were on about; then you keep that to yourself rather than adopting reports of what other people claim about them.

    There is active deception about them perpetuated by the alt-right; and now by Skeptic Magazine (for shame). Take for instances this portion of a documentary on the dreaded “Cultural marxism”:

    In it, Marcuse is being fed a line directly from conservative Pat Buchanan, this can be verified here:

    So it really is one of those issues where there are facts; and then there’s a conspiracy theory… and I for one am shocked and disappointed to see Skeptic Magazine take the position of the conspiracy theorists.

  16. Alan Duval says:

    Three points, two absolutely factual, and one potentially so…

    The reason that Sweden seems to have an endemic rape problem has nothing to do with Muslim immigrants and everything to do with the way sex crimes are reported:
    “In Sweden, each case of sexual violence is recorded as a separate incident. So for example, if someone says they were raped by a partner every day for a fortnight, officers will record 14 potential crimes. In other countries the claim could be logged as a single incident.”

    Variations in annual reporting levels are still far short of the rampant growth in rape that Milo or Drumpf would have people believe:
    “There is simply no data to show that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe, or even that rape is on the rise in the country.”

    The other point was with regard to the fatuous, and trivially easy to dismiss:
    “As long as the political left dominates culture, entertainment, and the norms of everyday language, Milo contends, they can expect to win elections.”
    There is simply no support for this contention, the fact that we jut got off an eight year run by Obama doesn’t negate the fact that Republicans have held presidential power more often than Democrats since the mid-50’s, it ignores the balance of power in both houses for the last 20 years, and the strong Republican leaning all the way down the dominance hierarchy, from Washington and Wall Street to the various Boards of Education.

    The last point, one which may be factual, but is certainly my opinion until I find facts to the contrary, is in response to the bogus and oft-repeated line that…
    “As a group, women prefer to study people-oriented disciplines like psychology, sociology, and social work, which on average are less remuneratively rewarding than STEM fields. In medicine, females physicians are more likely to specialize in fields like pediatrics, which pay less than some other fields that male doctors gravitate toward, such as elective surgery.”

    What fact about the world makes jobs that relate to helping people less valuable than jobs that don’t? Oh, that’s right, the people that need help often can’t afford to pay for it. Whereas jobs in STEM fields lead to new technology, which open up new avenues of revenue.

    Could it be that the value assigned to these roles is also a product of patriarchal influence? And could it be that money is easier to quantify than happiness? And, could it be that, true to sexist stereotypes, women (in general) are more keyed-in to the importance of emotion, whereas men are less inclined to, or at least less inclined to admit it?

    Is this why most countries in the world rely on GDP as a measure of success, whilst one country, Bhutan, looks to GNH (Gross National Happiness) as a key indicator of success?

    Why is pediatrics inherently less valuable than elective surgery? Could it be because wealthy white men can pay for elective surgery in America’s “health system”, and the doctors are effectively getting commissions for raising funds for hospitals?

    Money is not actually a proxy for human value, unless you’re on the right, as Milo (and hoards of right-leaning libertarians) illustrate constantly. Money is an alternative to human value, as illustrated by the predominantly Protestant preference for equating money with merit and moral worth (when it clearly isn’t). This relates to the preference for what has been called “cheap grace” by Bob Altemeyer (2006), and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1937), where merely professing faith, without necessarily changing behaviour, is seen as a moral good (which explains why the love of money can be the root of all evil, and the prosperity gospel can still be seen as somehow Christian).

    Can we really be sure that the events in 13-year old Milo’s life have nothing to do with his adoption of overtly Protestant American politics?

  17. Tony says:

    >>In Milo’s estimation, the main reason why the political left despises him so much is because he is supposed to be one of them.<<

    Nope. He's despised bc he is a despicable human being. Between his transphobia, ableism, misogyny, Islamophobia, and racism, he is the pinnacle of what it means to be a horrible human being.

    And this so-called "review", which is little more than fawning over his words, as if the writer is in love with Milo. No, it's probably more a case of the writer agreeing with the crap Milo writes. Interestingly enough, the writer just seems to take at face value the numerous claims that are made in the book without any interest in evaluating the truth of those claims.

    That's doing skepticism proud.

  18. person person says:

    Let’s get real, “skeptics.” Milo is not a principled provocateur. He is an opportunistic, sociopathic grifter. And this supposed review is little more than a fawning retread of a sad, reactionary, hypocritical, and largely debunked ideology. How demeaning of the Skeptics Society to publish this.

  19. Brian says:

    I still value truth and clarity and that’s my problem with Milo. He is such a prototypical part of the current political landscape because he engages in the same sort of gamesmanship — everything is a “reaction” to some other group that is doing something outrageous. It’s knee-jerk swings to extremes, not a move towards the truth.

    And he’s a logical fallacy checkers dream. The way he quickly equivocates small fringe extremists, which he correctly identifies (if, obviously highly filtered), with broad groups such as “everyone who didn’t vote for Trump” is patently misleading. And his heavy reliance on straw men, especially his emphatic and consistent need to define why “the left” hates him in order to avoid dealing with actual objections.

    If he brought any truth and clarity to matters I would have more respect for him. But instead he muddies the waters. Especially in regards to shifting focus entirely to cultural subjects and avoiding (at any non-trivial degree) the far more fundamental economic policy issues involved with many or most of his pet peeves.

  20. Katharine says:

    I don’t understand why you would give press to this nut case. It’s bad enough to have to read about the antics of our current President, without the added craziness of another self-promoting alt-right type who just likes to hear the sound of his own name. He offers nothing of value and just likes to shock with his wild and crazy verbiage. A waste of time.

  21. Brian Lynchehaun says:

    “Skeptic” Magazine.


  22. =8)-DX says:

    >>>”For example, he played a leading role in the 2014 “gamergate” controversy when he supported the online harassment campaign against women who decried the violence and misogyny in video games.”

    This is the only accurate sentence in the entire article. For shame, and you call yourselfs “skeptics”.. sigh.


  23. Rad says:

    “For example, he played a leading role in the 2014 “gamergate” controversy when he supported the online harassment campaign against women who decried the violence and misogyny in video games.”

    It’s been 3 years can we please get beyond this false characterisation and maybe do some research before repeating it.
    It falsely labels people with legitimate concerns about fairness, ethics and bias in the (gaming) media.
    A media staffed by feminists that used the labels as a deflection from their own unethical behaviour.

    We all know now how biased and unethical the media is Gamergate was just the first group to really address it.

  24. 123elle says:

    Milo is an anomaly, an outsider of the right, and as such, he really doesn’t represent more than a tiny proportion of that movement.

    There’s a reason why the liberals and the left so dominate the culture — they are funnier, more imaginative, more innovative, and far more talented than the conservatives. They always have been, going back through the centuries. Conservatives have been the killjoys, hard-edged, humorless, and often murderous enforcers of the status quo. They have clung to outmoded ideas, defended the establishment, and punished rebels or freethinkers. They have enforced strict religiosity and identified with the oppressor.

    The Jews, blacks and other minorities, as true perennial outsiders, have a natural running start on humor. They also command the stage on self-mockery, which is thousands of times wittier and more incisive than anything a conservative can mock with, in their trollish and deadly way. The right wing owns the polar opposite of humor; they are as heavy as an anvil and about as funny.

    Imagining that the right wing is ever going to displace or even approach the left in a cultural sense is not just swimming upstream; it’s denying reality. All one has to do is go on Breitbart a few times and savor the deadly serious, repetitive, unclever, parroting and imagination-free rants and self-affirmations they do. A single voice in opposition gets pounced on; they are not about controversy or freedom at all. They are a hobnailed boot aimed at whoever Trump, Drudge, Alex Jones, Limbaugh etc etc. have in their sights at that moment.

    As for Milo, I sense a lot of pain deep within him. Of course he wants to salvage his teetering career, so he is using his molestation to cover himself for his gaffe. I think, though, that he has inadvertently exposed a very broken part of him that he will not deal with until the flush of youthful fame wears off. When he really starts confronting his past, and wondering who his true friends are, I sense he will face a very harrowing adjustment.

    For now, let him have his fun. I can take a joke and as a liberal, I don’t feel particularly threatened by him. His claws are blunt. As to Trump, though, I do indeed feel threatened by this monster that has burst from the chest of the grumpy, growling racist right wing that incubated him.

    • Ron says:

      “they are funnier, more imaginative, more innovative, and far more talented than the conservatives.”

      No, they’re not. “Bush” jokes are really funny to them the 25th time they hear them; I’m sure YOU are amused.

      • Rad says:

        Better settle in for another 7 and a half years of the same hair and orange skin jokes.
        As the talk show comedians try and prove just how innovative and funny they are.

      • 123elle says:

        No matter how you feel about the quality, liberals dominate TV and movies because compared to the conservatives they are brimming over with talent, imagination, and wit. It’s confirming to see the ponderous, grumpy, and witless responses from the right.

    • sya says:

      Illuminati Leftist Democrats created murderous ISIS, BLM, KKK, Feminism, Planned Parenthood, Mafia, and Socialist Communist ideology and are pro Abortion, pro Eugenics/Depopulation, pro Euthanasia and pro Pedophilia. They are anti gun, anti Capitalism, antiSemites, pro Nazism, pro Fascism, pro Globalism and pro NWO. Illuminati liberal Vatican also created Islam.

      • dj says:

        Aren’t liberals for illegal non professional jihadist Muslim migrants and violent gangster immigrants into US and Europe without extreme vetting? What’s so funny and innovative about that? It’s suicidal.

  25. stonecherub says:

    Jeff (20170726:1353) says: “The facts on Islam alone should be cause for concern within the gay and women’s community.” OK, a bunch of humans (red of tooth and claw) who had been raised as Muslims, decided to become mass murderers and chopped off half a dozen heads.

    If you want to talk about religiously motivated murder, ask an expert. Christians from mid- and eastern Europe, in the 20th century, exceeded that “half a dozen” (6 – not an exact number, order of magnitude) a million to one! “Nobody comes to the Father, except through me. DIE, the rest of you!

    • Ron says:

      “If you want to talk about religiously motivated murder, ask an expert. Christians from mid- and eastern Europe, in the 20th century, exceeded that “half a dozen” (6 – not an exact number, order of magnitude) a million to one! “Nobody comes to the Father, except through me. DIE, the rest of you!”

      And expert in what? BS?
      I’m guessing you’re going to lie about the mass murders by Lenin, Stalin and the socialist Hitler as “Christian”.
      And therefore I’m guessing you’re not real bright.
      BTW, I’m an atheist, but I also am not willing to let those slinging BS to get away with it.

    • sya says:

      The Illuminati Babylonian Talmudic Pharisees of the synagogue of Satan and Masonic Vatican Jesuits were responsible and were not true Jews or Christians.

  26. Jose Villalobos says:

    If Gamergate was an “online harassment campaign against women”, how did it fund so many charities? I think charities accept money, and not harassment, as donations.

    How did Gamergate get so many journalistic publications to publicly revise their ethics policies?

    Why did advertisers withdraw support from big companies, and why do you pretend that those big companies are helpless little women being victimized?

    Why do you repeat religious dogma with no rational reason to believe it might be true?

    • Pat says:

      The Left is synonymous with Lies as they dance with their Father of Lies.

    • Brian Lynchehaun says:

      “How did Gamergate get so many journalistic publications to publicly revise their ethics policies?”

      The link you provide is claiming responsibility for those changes, but a look at the references show that no such responsibility is attributed to them by the publications.

      Two references checked at random:

      Zoe Quinn’s allegations against WizardChan revealed to be — without any doubt — unfounded.[32]
      This reference has no bearing on Zoe Quinn’s allegations.

      Eurogamer updates their ethical policies regarding review, retailer links and specialty content. [67]
      The statement is true, the claim of this as a “Gamergate Achievement” has no basis in the reference.

      As the person/people who put that page together don’t seem to understand the purpose of references, I’d suggest maybe reviewing it yourself before throwing it around as if it’s a meaningful link.

      • Jose Villalobos says:

        Sorry, but there were 3 links about that particular Zoe Quinn item. One is linked as footnote [32], and the others are clickable words within the body of the article.

        So you dismiss over 100 references without reading them, you say I haven’t shown evidence when I have, but you swallow whole this Skeptic article’s blanket statement without a single reference.

        I challenged the idea that Gamergate was an online campaign of harassment against women. You are arguing, but you haven’t made the slightest attempt to provide any proof. And you didn’t even try to deny that Gamergate raised money for multiple charities.

        Gamergate is an abstract concept. This article made a false accusation of what that concept means to the people involved in it. I refuted this article’s claim by showing that the people involved see Gamergate as something else with different purposes unrelated to harassment of women. That’s what Gamergate means because that’s what people mean when they say Gamergate.

        If you want to argue the article’s side, give us some proof. If you want to dismiss my link, you’ll have to show that the people who wrote it do not really believe what they wrote. Good luck.

  27. gianfranco says:

    Pre ordered the book on Amazon. Got it on 7/5.
    It’s a breath of fresh air.
    I’m so tired of this left telling me what to say, what to think, what to do and ultimately killing me because I’m a white male.

    Milo did a great job. The review is perfect. And it is “Skeptic” because is counter culture.
    Conservatism is the new counter culture.
    Liberals are the establishment.


    • Marvin Doolin, Jr. says:

      I’m a white male who is quickly approaching the three-quarter century mark, and you’ve piqued my curiosity. Exactly what about your white maleness has led to discrimination against you?

    • Marvin Doolin, Jr. says:

      I hope you are correct.
      Too many conflate the term liberal or progressive with leftest. While a liberal may be disturbed by the language and claims of those who seek to discriminate against ethnic, religious, and racial groups, we believe their error must be corrected through discourse and reason. The past quarter century, possibly more, have been extremely discouraging to us. We’ve watched as major news organizations have given in to the complaints of liberal bias and have often published easily debunked foolishness without comment just to placate the reactionaries who wish to be considered conservatives. Extremists on both the right and the left can be violent. These people are neither liberals nor conservatives, but latent dictators who wish to control everyone. Leftists tend to believe it’s for the good of everyone, though extreme leftist movements are likely to be taken over by people less concerned about anyone’s good than about their narrow group’s profit, whatever the group may be. Extreme rightists begin at the final point of the extreme leftist, it seems to me.
      I think of myself as a liberal, and I’m strongly for free exchange of information. At the same time, I have no desire to quietly sit and listen to something I find completely objectionable if I am not able to inject reality into the discussion. Years ago I sat through a sermon that extolled the virtues and qualifications of George Wallace for President. Thankfully few Americans were well impressed despite a intransigent clergy and Mr. Wallace’s candidacy went nowhere. Sadly, and to my mind illogically, those voices are still with us, and Mr. Y. seems to be one.
      I continue to believe in the basic goodness of people, though I had expected the pendulum to stop its rightward swing long before now.

  28. awc says:

    Having listened and watched Milo a number of times on video. From the review I gather his book is a recap on every speech or interview he has ever given. He is obviously not going in-depth on analysis as he is ultimately a showman trying to get a rise out of his followers and detractors alike.

    Veneer of observation which recedes into berating and name calling. All the while flailing his arms saying look at me the conservative queer.

    I don’t expect him to convince anyone with the book. Much like his hero Tump he is preaching to the converted.

    • Pat says:

      He’s galvanising the youth to lean Right. Liberals are doubtless furious. Not to mention, leftist NWO is pressuring Trump to turn Left. Or else. It’s war, baby. WAR.

  29. Jeff says:

    Milo is a great speaker. He provides the right amount of facts and humor. I stand up for and agree with everything he says. The facts on Islam alone should be cause for concern within the gay and women’s community, but as the left has beaten us over the head repeatedly with the word “racist” and in Canada, we have “Islamophobia” laws, Milo is truly a god send to help recover the west from the regressive attitudes of the “progressive” left.

  30. DMV says:

    As a summary of Yiannopolous’ book, this is somewhat reasonable and calming, reminiscent of New York Times content. If Yiannopoulos communicated in the manner of the reviewer, it would be more possible to engage with his ideas on their merit, rather than be shocked and saddened by their effrontery.

    But… Wait a minute… This email came from SKEPTIC! Not the NYT! I don’t look to SKEPTIC for material such as this. This disappoints me as a reader looking for actual engagement on issues.

    This article repackages some of Yiannopoulos’ ideas in a much more palatable manner. In doing so, it has given Yiannopoulos’ ideas more gravity and more distribution. Yiannopoulos reminds us that the way an idea is communicated contributes to its merit – not just its content – as even a reasonable idea or worthy intent can be packaged hurtfully.

    This article utterly fails as a skeptical review of Milo’s ideas.

    By not being skeptical, SKEPTIC itself – not merely the article’s author – offers consent for the hurtful nature of Yiannopoulos’ actions and endorsements, including the manner in which Yiannopoulos’ pederasty is mentioned and insufficiently addressed. (For example, the author chose not to delve into Milo’s assertion that there is a “cult of victimization” among children who have been non-consensually sexually active with an adult – which is a crime, in no small part due to the lack of parity in what consent is possible between a 13-year-old and an adult authority figure. Or, the author could present data that supports or refutes the idea that one’s self-definition of non-consensual sexual events in one’s life history influences one’s mental health or resilience. But by failing to inquire, to inspect ideas critically, the author colludes with a defender of pederasty.)

    SKEPTIC has herein advertised Yiannopoulos’ book, and supported his most potentially harmful ideas.

    • Pat says:

      The Left are also the main practitioners of virtue signaling!

    • Michael Ortmann says:

      Very well said, DMV, and I agree 100%. I am VERY dissapointed to see something like this in Sceptic.
      Milo Yiannopoulos is NOT a champion of free speech but a mere Troll who seeks attention by going for pure shock value, flirting with inhumane and anti-rational thinking. He is fostering, together with many others of his ilk, a climate of inflammatory and accusatory war of dogmatic believes where there should be diverse and rational discourse. As such he is the very opposite of what a Sceptic should be.

      As a human being we should have empathy with a clearly troubled and wounded individual, but his toxic and dishonest form of discourse should not, MUST not be embraced, just because it might contain single thoughts that confirm to ones own world-view.

    • Kevin says:

      Don’t forget that Milo has his “pseudoscientific” past himself by denying anthropogenic global warming, promoting conservative/religious homophobic and sexist talking points such as that homosexuality is a choice, and that homosexuals engage into pedophilia.
      Those obviously reflect his very deep personal issues and his internal conflict of him being both deeply religious and a homosexual. I can’t even begin to understand how he actually feels internally, and what his issues are, but his overt bullying and promotion of pederasty, homophobia, sexism, and transphobia should not be tolerated. If you are going to be a troll or “provocateur” you deserve to be ignored and left out of any serious conversation.
      If anything, Milo reminds us that trolls who engage in this sort of hurtful behavior have some serious issues that need to be resolved.

      Instead of skeptic magazine doing an exposé of his inaccurate claims or even the creation of outrage culture, we get this. I would very much enjoy the latter. Exposing Milo’s opportunistic behavior and how he employs very specific marketing tricks to create attention over himself for personal profit would be what I expect to see in a “skeptic” magazine.

  31. Jackalope says:

    Milos’ popularity with straight male conservatives proves that opposition to homosexuality and pederasty is less important to these groups than the appeal of raw fascist aggression.

    • Pat says:

      Fascist aggression is the domain of the Liberal Democrats, not the action nor thought of the conservatives. It is very misleading for the Left to call the Right fascists when they themselves are.

  32. Swampdude says:

    This was a very good article! I appreciate that it was filled with facts not opinion. Right or Left, everyone should stand up for Free Speech!

  33. Jim Robins says:

    Milo reminds me of an episode of Penn and Teller’s Bullshit. They put tap water in fancy bottles and explained the uniqueness of each bottle of water. People thought the water was excellent, but it was just tap water. The same old tap water that they had been drinking all their lives. The only thing that isn’t mundane is Milo’s shtick is his defense of pederasty. Roll that around on your palate.

    • Pat says:

      Milo had already apologized for it. It must be said that the year old interview recording was purposely resurfaced for a nefarious agenda to silence conservative voices, and thus a particular witchhunt against him, although it is still not an excuse for what he said. Yet, however, Takei and Bill Maher had defended pederasty and pedophilia too in the past and had never been called out. Many Democrats and even Republicans are linked to pizzagate/pedogate and left leaning media like Salon had tried to advocate and normalize it.

      • Kit says:

        Anyone who believes in the fantasy known as “pizzagate” should be banned from a site called “Skeptic.” It was polite of you to mention this so that everyone knows to ignore anything you say.

  34. Robert Sheaffer says:

    I was surprised to find a fair and factual review of Milo’s book in any publication of the skeptical movement. Congratulations. Among Regressives, the only acceptable thing to say about him is, “Milo is evil!! He must be silenced!!”

    Milo has identified the contradictions and absurdities of the modern Left and shines a spotlight on them. No wonder they desperately want him silenced.

    • Matthias U says:

      Yeah, he exposes a couple of the ideological fallacies of current “left” discourse (it’s not, look at Europe if you want to know what that word really means) – but he does so while uncritically propagating a whole lot of stupidities the “right” stands for. Not the least the fact that the “gay establishment” has every damn reason to be antagonistic to the “right”, given their strong anti-gay bias. There’s a reason the suicide rate among LGBT*s is so high.
      The problem is not to win any war, much less one of culture. The problem is to resume talking to each other instead of regarding the other side as The Enemy. One has to admit that, while both sides are guilty, the “right” with their talk radio and “news” sites’ disdain for factual reporting is much more to blame for the current fiasco than a couple of feminazis in universities.

      • Pat says:

        The Left is not an advocate for factual reporting, but in the face of it and to silence facts and conservative discourse and deal with it, they have resorted to physical violence and riots, via the liberal Soros-funded Antifa terrorist group, etc.

        • Pat says:

          Generally, it’s a fallacy to think the Leftists prefer civil dialog and debate with the right conservatives, unless they receive payment and rewards to do so in a formal setting.

  35. Stuart Pace says:

    Mr. Yiannopoulos’s chief contribution to our public discourse is his schtick as a twitter/internet troll–a role he’s proud of. His serious articles that I’ve read, however, have been heavily cribbed from other writers, and his personal contibutions as a rule haven’t been nearly as interesting as his persona. Given that he has been fairly open about his extensive use of interns as researchers and ghostwriters, together with the fact that this is a self published work, I wouldn’t be surprised if we are treated with an attribution/plagiarism scandal.

    • Pat says:

      Milo was already waging a right conservative, classsically lberal culture war in UK in his twenties for 10 years or so when those young interns were still in their diapers.

  36. Bob Pilpel says:

    Just to practice the art of pedantry I note that Cincinnatus didn’t “drop his plough” or his trou for that matter. Because he didn’t want any part of the Greek-hard-right’s crusade to avenge the Trojan Paris’s seduction and abduction of King Menelaus’s wife Helen (known as Helen of Troy — with “the face that launched a thousand ships”) No matter how beautiful no babe is worth years of slaughter, so Cincinnatus pretended he was insane, hoping to avoid conscription. Alas his impersonation of a nut job was not persuasive and the Greek warmongers contrived to place his infant son in front his plough as he was ploughing. When he declined to perforate the little boy he blew his cover as a looney-tune and had to “volunteer” BTW Cincinnatus wasn’t any run-of-the-mill Roman aristocrat, he was a senator and twice served as dictator (which didn’t have its modern connotations but signified an officer of the state given plenary powers for one or two years to deal with emergency situations). His abstention from the war against Troy was accordingly unacceptable to Rome’s power structure. But he survived the ten-year war and returned home to to take up his plough once again.

    • Stuart Pace says:

      You’re conflating Cincinnatus and Odysseus.

    • aqk says:

      Kinda confused with some of your blending of history with proto-mythology.
      Wasn’t the Trojan War approximately 600-1000 years before the Cincinnatus escapades?

  37. Larry McElhiney says:

    I read this review with a somewhat skeptical set of eyes. The author did an exceptional job of presenting facts and statistics as opposed to smoke, mirrors and agenda.

    So many parts of the reviewer’s and the author’s messages correlated with my own experiences that I felt the review was written for me.

    I forwarded the information to several other males who might like to read this as well.

  38. armando simon says:

    Superb review of both the book and of Milo.

  39. ACW says:

    As — oh heck, if I must stick labels on myself, bisexual female European-American independent senior citizen will do as well as any – the frustrating thing about Milo Y. is that I don’t always disagree with him, but agreeing with him even slightly and within limited parameters, in our polarized culture, thrusts me into categories I don’t fit into either. American politics is now a dormitory of Procrustean beds. At any rate, thanks for this review, as I anticipate few or none of the book reviews – NYT Sunday section, TLS, London Review of Books, NYRB, Bookforum – will touch it. (The relatively new Claremont Review of Books, which was established specifically as a right-wing counterbalance to the others, might. The NYT review in particular has gone downhill in restyling itself as a section to promote books harmonious with its editorial page’s agenda, while insofar as possible ignoring those that lean the ‘wrong’ way.) I expect to read it – preferably via the public library, as, with a few exceptions, political polemics become outdated too quickly to be worth adding to my library. And when I have experienced the arguments in Milo Y’s book firsthand, then I’ll argue with them directly.

    • Thom Moore says:

      Yeah, I’m thinking I really could’ve lived without the eBook, but hey, he was abused as a kid, and has been fired, so ok, a reward for the chutzpah. I won’t be crowdsourcing his activities beyond that.

      • Ray Madison says:

        What are the chances that it was this kid who abused the priest?

        • Tricia says:

          Milo was a child and is bottom, how to abuse an adult priest? By holding a weaponized crucifix to his head? /sarcasm

  40. Craig says:

    As a longtime reader of Skeptic I’m pretty disappointed in this “review” which to me reads more like a cheerleading summary than anything approaching criticism. All of the “facts” and statistics used by Yiannopoulos are just accepted at face value? The quick dismissal of his repeated support for viscous online harassment of people? I’m fine with Skeptic taking on cherished ideas of the left, but not by using people like Yiannopoulos to do it.

    • Pat says:

      Milo’s twitter followers piled on the critique but it was due to their individual responsibility and it is false to say he “actively” supported them because he neither encouraged nor discouraged their responses, and it is fake to term it as “vicious online harassment”, being an opined phrase and adjective every ahole leftist would use against him.

  41. Eric says:

    An interesting article. It is tough to be balanced and non partisan when it comes to issues and people like Milo. Though I personally am not a fan of his, I will purchase his book to see if I can glean some new insights. Perhaps it will be a refreshing change from the usual rhetoric and soap box preaching both the Far Left and Far Right hammer us with…

    The article was well written. I’ll be posting a link to it on the Skeptics Channel on Blackberry Messenger. :)

    • Priscilla Benson says:

      Get it from the library instead. You get the info, he doesn’t get the money.

      • aqk says:

        But Priscilla- perhaps some of we men do wish to give him the money. ;-)

      • Maxine Kierney says:


        • Deirdre says:

          ‘Maxine Kierney says:
          July 26, 2017 at 11:22 am

          Of course we do. It’s on the bestseller list, and libraries buy books the public wants to read.

    • aqk says:

      @FOAD – “GOODBYE, SKEPTIC!” ???

      Please stick to your principles.

  42. FOAD Skeptic says:

    Why are you giving be this fascist piece of sh!t even more be attention? Good bye Skeptic.

    • Eric says:

      Isnt this the very thing Milo rails against? the social justice warriors of the left calling anything that may trigger them “fascist” and “Nazi’s?” …lmao.

    • armando simon says:

      Foad: You are precisely the totalitarian worshiper that we have to fight against in colleges which have become breeding ground of intolerance, hatred, falsification of facts, and persecution.

      Free speech is not hate speech and even if it was—so what?

      We put up with liberals’ hate speech regarding America, white people, Western Civilization, including those professors, both black and white, who make racist remarks and call for genocide against white people.

      Liberals like you obviously do not want your Berlin Wall breached. Well, guess what? We’re going to fight back!

    • Marvin Doolin, Jr. says:

      FOAD, I sincerely hope you rethink. As the old saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. While Mr. Y. gains most of his fame from his most outrageous pronouncements, he may serve as a cautionary example to many of us now and then. I doubt that we lose by admitting the rare validity of one of his screeds.

  43. SJA says:

    “For example, he played a leading role in the 2014 “gamergate” controversy when he supported the online harassment campaign against women who decried the violence and misogyny in video games.”

    Humm. Some significant, and questionable, assumptions wrapped up as if they were fact.

    But overall, good job I’d say.

    • Debra says:

      Agreed. Gamers up against the combined forces of intersectional feminism, a gaming media rife with corruption, and a lazy mainstream media that just repeated the propaganda fed to them rather than look into it themselves – is it any surprise that circular reporting holds sway for most people on the outside of it?

    • D smith says:

      an enjoyable article but the author got the gamergate part wrong, since the entire thing could take an entire book to fully explain I’ll just leave this here as an easily digestible explanation

  44. Andrew Clunn says:

    I’m so glad this article summarized Milo’s stances rather than just quoting him at length. At a meta-level I can appreciate what he does, but he rambles on and the narcissism… It’s so much that I can’t be bothered to listen to him (without considerable effort) for more than two minutes at a time. Some people are outraged by him and want him silenced. I think it’s underestimated how many of us just find him to be a bore or annoying at an aesthetic level.

    • pjmasks says:

      Why are you on here talking about Milo if he is indeed so “boring”? Even though I don’t agree with him most of the time, I find him the opposite of boring. He definitely has a ridiculous ego, but I find that to be strangely funny and even charming. I am sick of hearing falsely modest Hollywood actors carry on about their “craft.” It’s actually refreshing to see a flamboyant gay man like Milo admit that he thinks he’s fantastic!

  45. Deanne says:

    Admittedly, I have not read Milo’s book. Based solely on his public engagements I could not bring myself to give him money to fund his hate speech. This thought is based on his claims that transgender people are mentally ill.

    I also disagree that his free speech rights have been violated. He is still allowed to stand on the street corner and say whatever he wants. But his right to free speech does not extend to my living room. I am allowed to ask him to leave if I don’t want him there. Moreover, the person paying for him to speak at events has every right to not allow him to speak at their event. While I agree that colleges should allow differing views to speak, they do not have to allow ALL speech. If he wants to have his voice heard at college campuses, the quad is available. Just bring his own soapbox. What he wants is to paid for his free speech, that is not a right but a privilege.

    I would advise that if he really wants to be heard, do the work, get the Ph.D in a relevant field or fields, do the research and submit his conclusions for peer review.

    • armando simon says:

      You are precisely the totalitarian worshiper that we have to fight against in colleges which have become breeding ground of intolerance, hatred, falsification of facts, and persecution.

      Free speech is not hate speech and even if it was—so what?

      We put up with liberals’ hate speech regarding America, white people, Western Civilization, including those professors, both black and white, who make racist remarks and call for genocide against white people.

      Liberals like you obviously do not want your Berlin Wall breached. Well, guess what? We’re going to fight back!

    • bruce says:

      If he’s shouted down and out of “official” speeches by the intolerant how well do you think he’d fair on the quad?

    • Brian says:

      You are a perfect example of everything wrong with America and Academic thought in America and this is why your side is losing. Gender Dysphoria is a mental illness. Period.

    • pjmasks says:

      Even though I am a single mom and a feminist, I don’t see anything “hateful” about Milo. I don’t agree with most of the things he says, but I think that he is funny and often very insightful. In fact, lot of the people who accuse Milo of being “hateful” don’t even seem to know who he is. They are just going with what they read in the Washington Post or Buzzfeed or whatever. Never let Buzzfeed dictate for you what it true about the world!

    • Jesse says:

      Deanne, I’ll be polite because I hope to persuade and not offend you. I want liberalism to win the day, but if attitudes like yours prevail we don’t deserve to. Look at what you just said.

      “…I could not bring myself to give him money to fund his hate speech. This thought is based on his claims that transgender people are mentally ill.”

      Take a gander at the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Inside you will find an entry for gender dysphoria. This means that, according to mainstream professional opinion, transgender people do suffer from mental illness.

      So for the crime of believing the mainstream expert opinion on a matter, you’ve declared Milo guilty of hate speech and refused to read his book. If that’s where you want to start the discussion, how can you possibly be surprised when people decide you’re not engaging in good faith and no longer listen to what you have to say?

    • Debra says:

      You said “What he wants is to paid for his free speech…”. I appreciate you won’t read his book but I do hope you do read more widely than one perspective. A little reading on the subject would disclose that Milo does not charge a speaker’s fee for universities and colleges or at least he hasn’t up until now. Whether that changes or not now he’s not backed by Breitbart remains to be seen.

    • Ron says:

      “I could not bring myself to give him money to fund his hate speech.”

      I’m sure you can define “hate speech” in objective terms.
      Actually, I’m sure you have no idea what that means in ANY objective criteria.

    • Marvin Doolin, Jr. says:

      Deanne, I think you’ve summed it up pretty well.

  46. J. Gravelle says:

    “Milo advances a compelling critique of the progressive movement, which has become dangerously ossified over the past few decades, losing sight of its commitment to economic security to a preoccupation with extremely divisive identity politics. As such, Milo deserves a fair hearing…”

    Which I was delightfully surprised to find him receiving in this article. Well said.

    You may now wish to take cover… ;)

  47. Mrs Grimble says:

    “Sweden has become the rape capital of Europe”? While you’re looking for a citation for that claim, here’s some debunkings:
    TL:DR version – Apparent increase in sex crimes stats was produced by legislation changes and changes in crime reporting.

    With such shoddy research, the rest of this article simply isn’t worth reading. Not that I especially want to read about Lemon Yellopos anyway – he’s a childish jouster of flaming strawmen.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how Akismet processes your comment data. Comments are closed 45 days after an article is published.

Skeptic Magazine App on iPhone


Whether at home or on the go, the SKEPTIC App is the easiest way to read your favorite articles. Within the app, users can purchase the current issue and back issues. Download the app today and get a 30-day free trial subscription.

Download the Skeptic Magazine App for iOS, available on the App Store
Download the Skeptic Magazine App for Android, available on Google Play
Download the Skeptic Magazine App for iOS, available on the App Store
Download the Skeptic Magazine App for Android, available on Google Play
SKEPTIC • 3938 State St., Suite 101, Santa Barbara, CA, 93105-3114 • 1-805-576-9396 • Copyright © 1992–2024. All rights reserved • Privacy Policy