Life at № 42
“They were fine with his bigotry, his in-your-face, two-fingers-up transphobia, Islamophobia and misogyny. It took his defence of relationships between “older men” and “younger boys” for their queasiness to set in. The case of Milo Yiannopoulos is indeed a parable of our time. But who do I mean by “they”? In this case, both his associates and his enablers. His associates are the ascendant racist and neo-fascist movements of our time. He was a means to repackage their hatred for a certain demographic: as edgy, trendy, cool. Performative fascism, if you like. That’s why they call themselves the “alt-right”, after all: allowing them to cloak themselves not as a renaissance of fascist movements that have produced only human carnage in their previous incarnations, but as a sexy in-group and subculture that all the new cool kids are part of.”
Excellent article by Owen. Am I surprised? No. The problem with the polemicist, especially the Yiannopoulos variety, is that the polemics are artificial constructs. He’s not an intellectual or idealist pushing the boundaries and making people look at things from new angles. He’s being crass in the hopes of shocking people enough to create outrage. Said outrage being his only currency. Inevitably the system fails because to remain relevant the polemicist always has to go further- and one day he goes so far he falls into the abyss.