Milo/UC Berkley protestors stop 'hate speech' by using violence and hate...

[datalol-jack]

Is Milo a fascist, or at the very least deploying public presentation methods lifted, without much attribution, from that root for lucrative infamy? I'll leave the reader to decide:

Goebells' Principles of Propaganda:
http://bths.enschool.org/ourpages/auto/2014/2/4/34651180/Goebbel_s Principles of Propaganda.pdf

Propaganda and Persuasion (Skim chapters 2,6,7 and 8 if short on time):
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Propaganda-Persuasion-Garth-S-Jowett-ebook/dp/B00JXZ2YB6/

Now, print out all of Milo's output verbatim -- 'serious' and 'ironic' (he can never decide between the two) -- and go to town with the highlighter! For GD's benefit, however, here's the TLDR version of fascist PR 101 to reference:

• Repeat simple, reduced ideas, shaped by common stereotypes and phrases
• Appeal to base emotions, avoid complexity and abstraction
• Do not persuade -- invoke!
• Destroy your opponents -- if white propaganda exists against them, good; if not, deploy black propaganda (as in, make **** up, also refer back to the first point); criticise viciously
• Present only your preferred side of the argument; supress or destroy alternatives
• Point out a single, easily indentifiable enemy and villify mercilessly

From the above and what has traspired recently, it's easy to explain what went wrong: Milo broke the three golden tenets of radical authoritarian demagoguery tinged with nationalism for effect; namely:

1. If you have to explain your joke, it's lost
2. Don't assault your platform
3. Conservatism: faith, family and flag; offend one if it helps (you probably shouldn't because of (2)), but pick two or more and you're in trouble

Can he backpedal from this? Who knows, nor do I particularly care, but what remains is the fact that he pedalled to this juncture all on his own steam; whether it's as a 'character' (rarely a good defence if you do public speaking that is meant to be taken seriously) or genuine demagogue, makes little difference.

 

[mmj_uk]

All of those principles can also be applied to the leftist media dominating the television today.

 

[datalol-jack]

All of those principles can also be applied to the leftist media dominating the television today.

Big evil MSM, innit bruv?

 

[iamtheoneneo]

I like Milo. I think a lot of what he has to say appeals to me, however on many occasions he goes off on one and its jarring.
I totally get why the media picked up on this , and absolutely believe they set out to destroy him as yes he was gaining a lot of traction in ALL circles not just the alt-right, and even today were seeing hit pieces giving a run down of his career with very evocative wording and completely bias views on particular events (gamergate for example)

On more recent events, I believe him when he says his wording was poor choice, listening too a longer version of the clip his points do seem clearer on the issue. However yes, it is evident that he did several times come across like he was supporting illegal behaviour.

I am sure he will be fine, The book appears to have a new publisher already and he will get work. I think him getting back into the touring circuit/news etc will allow much of this too blow over for him.

Big evil MSM, innit bruv?

So you can't see it?

 

[dowie]

Please read the thread.

I have read the thread thanks, please provide some evidence for your previous post.

 

[dowie]

Is Milo a fascist, or at the very least deploying public presentation methods lifted, without much attribution, from that root for lucrative infamy? I'll leave the reader to decide:

Goebells' Principles of Propaganda:
http://bths.enschool.org/ourpages/auto/2014/2/4/34651180/Goebbel_s Principles of Propaganda.pdf

Propaganda and Persuasion (Skim chapters 2,6,7 and 8 if short on time):
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Propaganda-Persuasion-Garth-S-Jowett-ebook/dp/B00JXZ2YB6/

Now, print out all of Milo's output verbatim -- 'serious' and 'ironic' (he can never decide between the two) -- and go to town with the highlighter! For GD's benefit, however, here's the TLDR version of fascist PR 101 to reference:

• Repeat simple, reduced ideas, shaped by common stereotypes and phrases
• Appeal to base emotions, avoid complexity and abstraction
• Do not persuade -- invoke!
• Destroy your opponents -- if white propaganda exists against them, good; if not, deploy black propaganda (as in, make **** up, also refer back to the first point); criticise viciously
• Present only your preferred side of the argument; supress or destroy alternatives
• Point out a single, easily indentifiable enemy and villify mercilessly

Thing is those principles apply even more so to his critics.

Plenty in the main stream media have labelled him a white supremacist, Nazi etc... without any further argument as to why he's those things. Now this latest story seems to rely on out of context quotes and ignoring various other statements made by him that would clearly contradict the narrative they're trying to push.

 

[hurfdurf]

Taking partial sentences from different parts of an interview and patching them together to create a false impression of what was said is bad enough (and that's what the text you quoted did), but you unsurprisingly take it much further.

Back at yourself on the whole read the thread thing, its not ignorance. I know Joe Rogan, I have been on his podcast myself, I watched the youtube live stream of the episode Milo was on, you can take it as a 5, 15, or 60 minute long segment, make no cuts or edits, and present it from start to finish, and he said what he said. He also went on to a second podcast later on to defend what he said. He is only apologising now because he has lost out on all his deals.

https://www.facebook.com/francismaxwellhost/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf

 

[Angilion]

Back at yourself on the whole read the thread thing, its not ignorance.

As I said, I didn't think it was. If you'd read my post before replying, you'd have known that. I think you're knowingly malicious, not ignorantly malicious.

I know Joe Rogan, I have been on his podcast myself, I watched the youtube live stream of the episode Milo was on, you can take it as a 5, 15, or 60 minute long segment, make no cuts or edits, and present it from start to finish, and he said what he said.

Either you're not telling the truth or Milo is not telling the truth, since your two accounts are mutually exclusive. Based on your posts, I consider you saying something as adequate evidence that it's untrue. Your primary concern is rationalising your own lust for violence and destructive power over other people. Given a choice of sources between you, the Daily Mail and something that can't possibly happen in this universe without magic, I would look for Gandalf.

 

[hurfdurf]

Either you're not telling the truth or Milo is not telling the truth, since your two accounts are mutually exclusive. Based on your posts, I consider you saying something as adequate evidence that it's untrue. Your primary concern is rationalising your own lust for violence and destructive power over other people. Given a choice of sources between you, the Daily Mail and something that can't possibly happen in this universe without magic, I would look for Gandalf.

.... You can go and watch the video for your self. The podcast is still up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnH67G7vAu4

Simply take what he says, no editing, no cutting.

But no, you go on believing him when he says he didn't say it, or that he did but didn't mean it like that. It truly is me who is living in the Harry Potter universe.

Edit: Joe is talking about it right now as we speak.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm9lfWTGmDY

 

[Sankari]

Breitbart is in total meltdown over this. They're doing their best to kill the story, but their readers are keeping it alive.

The readers themselves have divided into two basic groups: those who condemn Milo, and those who support him. The carnage in the comment section is simply glorious.

 

[Amp34]

You have far too much faith in the criminal justice system.

For instance several under age kids have been prosecuted for producing child pornography for sending nude selfies to thier partners...who where then charged with possesing child pornography.


Lives utterly destroyed forever because prosecutors and judges are not "in thier right mind".

Oh to add to the absolute hilarity of the situation.

They charged the kids as adults...

Well there is always the odd one unfortunately. I'll rephrase it to "generally" people are sensible and realise it ridiculous.

 

[Amp34]

Again, my comments were at him saying consent should be considered on a case-by-case basis, EVEN if the child is under the legal age. That's something I vehemently disagree with. I'm also not saying he is an advocate for child rape as a lot of people are doing, but he needs to be called out for inappropriate comments.

The thing is though the judiciary and prosecution don't (generally) agree with you, because it pretty much is considered on a case by case basis which is why half the population of the UK aren't on the sex offenders list.

The law is the law, and the police and crown/prosecution will then decide whether a case deserves prosecuting.

Just to clarify, the comment about child rape wasn't aimed at you. I presume you know that but...

 

[dowie]

But no, you go on believing him when he says he didn't say it, or that he did but didn't mean it like that. It truly is me who is living in the Harry Potter universe.

Given that he's actively exposed 3 paedophiles within his journalist career and has said that age of consent laws are about right it is pretty reasonable to state that he doesn't support paedophilia and the reference to 'boys' is, as he said, young men. You want to believe or push the idea that he is because you don't like him and it fits your narrative. Previously you called him a Nazi but that doesn't really fit very well with a gay person with jewish heritage who likes black **** and who actual nazis/far right think is a degenerate. So now we've moved onto the old homosexuality/paedophile link which requires taking quotes out of context and selectively ignoring his various other statements on the issue which directly contradict any idea that he supports paedophilia.

It is deliberately dishonest and you've really got no credibility if you carry on making the claim. Sure it was a PR disaster for him and he should have chosen his words much more wisely. He's a troll, an ******* a provocateur etc.. there are plenty of things to criticise him for without having to jump on the fake news bandwagon and try to slander him. In doing so you're acting within the supposed criteria for being a 'Nazi' as outlined in a previous post and you're supposed to be anti Nazi.

 

[datalol-jack]

Thing is those principles apply even more so to his critics.

Plenty in the main stream media have labelled him a white supremacist, Nazi etc... without any further argument as to why he's those things. Now this latest story seems to rely on out of context quotes and ignoring various other statements made by him that would clearly contradict the narrative they're trying to push.

Big, oft repeated claim; often bigly without big league proof.

Tbh, Dowie, I think you're intelligent enough to see that -- even if we were indeed talking about two fascist camps slagging off each other -- would not in itself absolve Milo or justify his means.

"I sense great evil in the world, therefore I must become what I think is evil to confront it" -- is a comic book plot, not a philosophy; nor is it a very authentic conservative attitude, or very consistent. It fits Milo's 'supervillain' persona, yes, but honestly this was laughed at on the left and is now being attacked on the right, as it was bound to be.

As for conspiracies and 'the other kid did it first', shall we check the staples of the Liberal Lefty Reich?

MSNBC? Nothing.
ABC:
Milo Yiannopoulos apologizes for remarks, quits Breitbart (Way down the scroll.)
Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos has resigned after coming under fire from other conservatives over comments on sexual relationships between...
CNN? Nope.

Back home?

FT -- nope
Economist -- nope

Indy:
How Milo Yiannopoulos could relaunch his seemingly ruined career
Publishers who never wanted to publish Milo Yiannopoulos’ 'Dangerous' book are having a field day right now
Roxane Gay slams publisher Simon & Schuster after dropping Milo Yiannopoulos

Guardian:
The rise and fall of Milo Yiannopoulos – how a shallow actor played the bad guy for money
I put Milo Yiannopoulos through the Christopher Hitchens test. He failed

New Statesman:
Nope.
Searching for Helen Lewis directly yields:
The fall of Milo Yiannopoulos: Only the mainstream right has the power to stop the populist right
Milo Yiannopoulos: the chameleon who enthralled the alt right

Mirror Online, perhaps? Nope.

BBC News? Nope. Poking around what's trending 'How Milo's downfall split the alt-right'
ITV News? Nope.
Channel 4 News? Milo Yiannopoulos questioned on Donald Trump and Stephen Bannon (from 16/11/2016)

On Goebells' scale this doesn't even register; on Milo's scale of offence tis barely lukewarm, and even then only if you're are an online troll lurking on 4chan defending his idol; the language was fairly PC too throughout. Yet Milo felt on this occassion that an apology was in order (fairly rare for him, and, yes, I found it linked by the evil MSM sources where appropriate), followed by his resignation from Breitbart; nor, if you'll note, did he sue anyone for libel.

I'm relaxing the definition of what would be considered 'lefty MSM', with sufficient reach to cause damage, quite a bit here. Nonetheless, we are barely two days in and the story is dead. Excellent character assassination! Much spotlight! Great, scathing tirades! When will this lefty domination end! Justice, free speech and human rights! Erm, no. I found more 'dirt' on Corbyn doing this exercise. 'Top stories' and front pages lie barren, Dowie.

Where is the great conspiracy out to get their chosen victim? Where is the mighty, fascist left of forlorn conservative lore?

Do I feel the deep urge to print out everything the MSM corpus has ever put out on Milo and what Milo has put out about everything that came into his head to date, and compare the lot line by line, side by side as some kind of fascist-hunter general? No. But you and hurfdurf are welcome to continue pummelling each other to death with what I've offered thus far, if you're so inclined and have the time. Although I'd be cruel to leave out that the world outside has moved on.

 

[dowie]

CNN had him on the front page when the story broke and have started a previous story last week by calling him a 'white supremacist'

I'm not quite sure what point you think I've made that you're attacking - I don't believe I've stated he is the number one news story or that a couple of days later he would still be front of any web sites, I've simply commented that a lot of his critics fit the Nazi criteria you posted more than he does. Whether their employers consider it the headline of the day two days later doesn't affect that.

 

[datalol-jack]

CNN had him on the front page when the story broke and have started a previous story last week by calling him a 'white supremacist'

I'm not quite sure what point you think I've made that you're attacking - I don't believe I've stated he is the number one news story or that a couple of days later he would still be front of any web sites, I've simply commented that his critics fit the Nazi criteria you posted more than he does.

And I respectfully disagreed, especially given what I've browsed on the story thus far, the definition of fascist methods and the justifications offered. The 'storm' to me appears mostly on the right, mostly online and largely irrelevant to anyone outside those bubbles.

If he feels that false statements of fact were made against him to the detriment of his reputation, name and income, he's free to fight his case in the courts against any critics, even in the US, for hefty compensation, publicity and actually doing some damage to the opposition.

Why lodge a limp apology, resign and do a runner, if one's cause is right and just? This to me seemed the oddest part of the whole affair, but the alt-right is convinced this was just a clever stunt to sell his book and start another blog; so I suppose there's that.

 

[dowie]

You're talking about different things now -why apologise? Well it caused a **** storm and hurt him financially, maybe he thought it was good PR as his choice of words weren't good.

But I don't quite understand your point re: his ardent critics not fitting your Nazi criteria. There have been plenty of stories that check off most of your boxes on that list posted.

 

[Judgeneo]

Hes a provocateur, but hes not an agent provocateur, and certainly not a fascist.

Its obvious that being sexually assaulted as a kid has scarred him for life and affects his behaviour in some way today, I don't know how people could consider him genuinely in support for pedophillia. I disagree with him on a great many issues, but I think his style of commentary has a place in the world, and I look forward to seeing where he ends up next.

 

[hurfdurf]

Given that he's actively exposed 3 paedophiles within his journalist career and has said that age of consent laws are about right it is pretty reasonable to state that he doesn't support paedophilia and the reference to 'boys' is, as he said, young men. You want to believe or push the idea that he is because you don't like him and it fits your narrative. Previously you called him a Nazi but that doesn't really fit very well with a gay person with jewish heritage who likes black **** and who actual nazis/far right think is a degenerate. So now we've moved onto the old homosexuality/paedophile link which requires taking quotes out of context and selectively ignoring his various other statements on the issue which directly contradict any idea that he supports paedophilia.

It is deliberately dishonest and you've really got no credibility if you carry on making the claim. Sure it was a PR disaster for him and he should have chosen his words much more wisely. He's a troll, an ******* a provocateur etc.. there are plenty of things to criticise him for without having to jump on the fake news bandwagon and try to slander him. In doing so you're acting within the supposed criteria for being a 'Nazi' as outlined in a previous post and you're supposed to be anti Nazi.

lol ok mate defend the guy who tried to justify and normalise pedophilia

 

[dowie]

lol ok mate defend the guy who tried to justify and normalise pedophilia

Except he hasn't. Just repeating that he's a Nazi or a Paedophile supporter doesn't make it true. It requires you to selectively ignore all the evidence to the contrary and simply rely on your own personal dislike of him + out of context quotes.