Wednesday, February 22, 2017

The Sudden Fall of Milo Y.

You have probably heard about the rapid fall from "grace" that was Milo Yiannopoulos. If not, that dark thing over your head is a rock and this is a pretty good explanation as far as it goes. If you want to read exactly one other thing on Milo's operations, read this: On the Milo Bus With the Lost Boys of America's New Right. It makes the case that the people who have thrown in with Milo are not so much hard-core Nazis as lost young men who have little idea what they are doing--it also, thankfully, doesn't excuse them.

What If: It Wasn't Pedophilia?

The Omnivore has a suspicion about the Milo backlash, and it's this: It wasn't really about pedophilia. Why not? Wouldn't that be enough? Sure it would--of course--but is over the line for "almost everyone"? Nope--check out Milo's Facebook page--people--thousands and thousands--still love him. Voat's Pizzagate forum, the 'Buffy-the-Vampire-Slayers of peophilia' are also largely in defense of Milo. You'd think if anyone would be ready to lead the pitchforks and torches crowd against someone offering even a potential defense of pedophilia, it'd be them? Right?

If you said "no," you're smart!

So if not, then what got him?

Basically? His usefulness ran out and nobody liked him. Milo's main value-prop was in triggering liberals--creating campus riots that are politically useful to conservatives. He's not a deep conservative thinker. He is gay--so having him "on your side" is kinda useful rhetorically--but so were the Log Cabin Republicans and they didn't get CPAC-love. Now, having been smeared with pedophilia and ousted from CPAC, it gives every college a legitimate reason to refuse him and most platforms a significant down-side to including him--so he's useless.

What if a lot of people who seemed like "friends of Milo" really hated him and when he wasn't useful anymore, they ejected him? Consider this: numerous Breitbart staffers threatened to quit if he wasn't fired. The Omnivore suspects they knew him--and to know him (to have to work with him) is to hate him.

What If The Same Thing Applies To Trump?

Keep in mind here that there are thousands and thousands of Milo supporters still hanging on. There are people who loved what he was doing as a bomb-thrower and don't care what the hell else he said or did. The same applies to Trump, for certain: there are plenty of people who will never acknowledge a problem with him no matter what he does. If he turns out to be a Russian puppet, they'll decide they're okay with Russia.

Putin is dreamy.

But the people with reputational value to protect (CPAC, Simon and Schuster) are not going to want to burn themselves on the pyre of identity politics. The same may go for Congressional Republicans--especially Senators.

Right now Trump is useful--but how many people in power actually like him? It's hard to say, since no one will admit to not-liking-him--but The Omnivore thinks it's pretty obvious that the Milo rule applies here too--if Trump becomes less useful . . . the about-face could be rapid and severe.

What Would That Mean?

This guy thinks it would mean Civil War. The Omnivore isn't so sure--and if it did, well, bring it. If Trump  goes down for collaborating with the Russians The Omnivore would expect America to win that war, actually. The problem here isn't that we're on the edge of a Second American Civil War, it's that we've got someone in power that is only really loved by a faction of people who are very, very divergent from the rest of the country. Note that while Republicans generally like him a LOT more than Democrats, he's not doing great with Independents. Also, while Republicans have, for example, warmed to Russia / Putin, most Americans have not.

The Omnivore suspects that if Trump starts to be seen as toxic to re-election or to have difficulty passing conservative legislation, the end may come quickly and with little warning. The same as with Milo.


  1. Some parallels to the story of David Brock, no?

    To be fair, Brock was never one-fiftieth the toxic douchebag that Yiannopoulos is.

    -- Ω

  2. I don't think they're comparable.

    Trump is a puppet, easily manipulated with praise and adulation.
    Milo was never a puppet; he likes having his hand up other people's asses.


  3. Milo was fine for conservatives as long as he was just pissing liberals off and advancing their "free speech" narrative. Once he threatened to become *representative* of conservatism, his deliberately transgressive G. G. Allin-meets-Dinesh D'Souza shtick got real old for them, real fast.

    It helped that he was still a C-lister, and most conservatives hadn't had time to get used to him being on their side and part of the tribe.

    Trump, on the other hand, is way more one of their tribe than the Congressional GOP or the organizers of CPAC. I don't know if they can escape from him, no matter how much they might want to.