By Elliot Kaufman
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Why did so many otherwise respectable conservative groups
host Milo Yiannopoulos, an apologist for the alt-right, on college campuses
across America? After the violence in Charlottesville, it’s time we looked in
the mirror. Steve Bannon was far from the only man who gave the alt-right a
platform to spread its hate.
Remember the first of February, when Berkeley burned amid
left-wing riots after Yiannopoulos showed up to speak? Conservatives made it
into a national story, and rightfully so. “This is what tolerance looks like at
UC Berkeley,” said Mike Wright, a member of the Berkeley College Republicans,
at the time. Berkeley’s conservatives were showered with media attention, which
they skillfully used to skewer liberal intolerance and political violence.
Perhaps distracted by all the attention or correctly
disinclined to blame the victims instead of the perpetrators of violence,
nobody bothered to ask why the College Republicans had invited a guy like
Yiannopoulos to speak in the first place.
Later that year, Stanford’s conservative publication, the
Stanford Review, considered hosting
an appearance by Yiannopoulos. A lone graduate student had invited him, but
needed to find a student group to sponsor the event. I, an editor at the time,
was present in the meetings. “Someone should sponsor his lecture — it’s a
matter of free speech,” argued a confused fellow editor. But soon other editors
made different arguments: “This will create a huge stir,” said one. “It will
drive the social-justice warriors crazy,” offered another.
This was certainly true, and a point worth considering.
Campus leftists would definitely have protested the event, and might even have
tried to shut it down. As one influential editor put it: “Best-case scenario is
that the SJWs freak out and we get another Berkeley.” We all knew what he
meant: Inviting Yiannopoulos could bait the Left to do something silly and
destructive, drawing media coverage that would allow us to act as martyrs for
free speech on campus. That is, the left-wing riots were not the price or
downside of inviting Yiannopoulos — they were the attraction.
This makes a certain, perverse sense. Campus conservative
groups face three undying challenges: They are always broke, their leaders are
always about to graduate, and nobody on campus ever cares about what they have
to say. Consequently, conservatives from Louisiana State University, Boulder,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, and dozens of other campuses turned to
Yiannopoulos. He charges no speaking fees and, with minimal effort and planning
from the students, guarantees them attention and controversy. He gives
conservative student groups everything they could want.
But it comes at a cost: Every invitation extended to
Yiannopoulos validates the idea that his alternately childish and hateful views
are in some way “conservative.”
Yiannopoulos was once a legitimate, if failed, British
technology journalist. In fact, it was from his perch as a technology writer at
Breitbart that he gained prominence
for his early coverage of the “Gamergate” controversy, supporting the online
harassment of feminist video-game programmers and tech bloggers. From there, he
began to heap praise on Donald Trump, whom he calls “Daddy,” and to become an
aggressive online culture warrior.
He delights in offending or “triggering” leftists. He
labels them “snowflakes,” mocking their delicate sensibilities, while also
calling them “fascists” for opposing free speech. In this, he can also delight
the Right. Campus conservatives often defended him as “provocative” but
ultimately useful for his defense of free speech. But that hides the truth.
In March 2016, Yiannopoulos co-authored “An Establishment
Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right” at Breitbart.
In it, he denies that the alt-right is bigoted. Instead, he says, they just
seek to “fluster their grandparents” with “outrageous caricatures,” including
anti-Semitic ones. Yiannopoulos takes great pains to differentiate the
alt-right from skinheads. “The alternative right are a much smarter group of
people,” he writes, “which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much.
They’re dangerously bright.”
He then explains just whom he finds so intelligent. “The
media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard
Spencer,” writes Yiannopoulos. This is the same Richard Spencer who promoted
the rally in Charlottesville and marched next to neo-Nazis and Klansmen. In
fact, Spencer’s speech headlined the rally. (Tim Gionet, better known as “Baked
Alaska,” served as Yiannopoulos’s tour manager in 2016, scheduling his
appearances with campus Republican groups. He, too, showed up to speak in
Charlottesville, holding up a torch, chanting that Jews “will not replace us,”
and claiming, “I’m proud to
be white,” alongside a flurry of Nazi salutes.)
“The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that
culture is inseparable from race,” Yiannopoulos openly admitted in his article.
But he went on to defend them on these exact terms. “The bulk of their demands,
after all, are not so audacious: they want their own communities, populated by
their own people, and governed by their own values,” he writes. According to
Yiannopoulos, “they want what every people fighting for self-determination in
history have ever wanted.”
This was an outright apologia for racist white
separatism. And yet, time after time in 2016, campus Republicans held
Yiannopoulos up to the world as their champion against the Left. Even as he
made statements like “The Jews run everything” and “I don’t generally employ
gays, I don’t trust them,” he continued to be invited.
To defend himself from charges of anti-Semitism, Milo
occasionally calls himself Jewish. Actually, he is a Roman Catholic, and has
even posted photos of himself wearing the Iron Cross so beloved by Nazis
everywhere. To counter charges of homophobia and racism, he told the New York Times that he has sex only with
black men, in essence using identity politics to defend his own bigotry. Jamie
Kirchick has astutely characterized him as a “caricature of what resentful,
misanthropic, frat bros believe a gay man to be: morally depraved, sexually
licentious, and utterly self-aggrandizing.”
All of this is to say that even before videos surfaced
revealing his endorsement of pedophilia, Yiannopoulos’s derangement was
obvious. Anyone who did even a cursory Google search would have quickly
concluded that giving him a platform was a bad idea. But the Berkeley College
Republicans gave him a platform anyway, and they were not alone in that choice.
In short, campus groups helped make Yiannopoulos and his
alt-right sympathies more popular, and gave him the attention he craves in
spades. But their actions couldn’t be justified then and can’t be justified
now, no matter how much media attention they yielded.
No comments:
Post a Comment