|
Reading the Milo Manuscript
FTFA:[WeeklyStandard] Yiannopoulos generates controversy and outrage the way a blowtorch throws sparks. His persona relies heavily on his sexual identity, which in a more innocent age we would have called “flamboyant” and left it at that. We are to suppose that his energetic gayness clashes with his right-wing politics, making for an exciting and unexpected combination, although it’s not clear, prima facie, why right-wingery and homosexuality should be irreconcilable. With his trademark mix of High Camp and Falangism, Yiannopoulos is a kind of alt-right Liberace, lacking only the candelabra and musical talent. Controversy is his daily meat. Even as his manuscript was being edited, many observers knew it was only a matter of time before Yiannopoulos gave Ivers and Threshold a reason to abandon the book, and him, thus getting the literary community off their backs. And sure enough, in February of last year, with the book’s publication date just a month away, some industrious Milophobe discovered an old podcast that had somehow escaped everyone’s attention. In it Yiannopoulos made light of pedophilia and endorsed its salubrious, life-affirming effects on his own upbringing. (He says he had his first sexual encounter with an older man when he was 13.) The podcast lit up the Internet, and Yiannopoulos acknowledged that he had misspoken. He condemned pedophilia in the strongest possible terms. What he had been endorsing, he explained, was not pedophilia—the abuse of pre-pubescent children and a horror to every decent person. No, what he’d been endorsing was hebephilia, which he defined as sex between adolescents and adults. From now on, he promised to be more careful with his words. Read it all at the link Posted by: badanov 2018-01-14 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=505630 |