Sunday, February 19, 2017


Is Milo Yiannopoulos a “White Nationalist?” Many had been convinced that he is – hence, the Berkeley riots were launched to prevent him from speaking.

However, it wasn’t just the rioters who had judged Milo to be a “White Nationalist.” Many alt-Left publications have also reported this. However, in a piece entitled “RETRACTION: Milo Yiannopoulos Is Not a White Nationalist,” in “The Stranger” (Feb 3, 2017), Rich Smith has written:

·       In a post published to Slog on December 29, 2016, we identified Milo Yiannopoulos as a white nationalist in the headline: "White Nationalist Lands $250,000 Book Deal." That headline was incorrect and it has been changed. Milo Yiannopoulos is not a white nationalist. He is a prominent figure in the alt-right movement.

However, the “The Stranger” is not backing away from its claim that Milo is somewhat a racist:

·       So Yiannopoulos endorses "a degree of separation" of people of different races, but presumably not a whites-only nation. In that same piece, however, Yiannopoulos appears to sympathize with those who are concerned about the United States becoming a majority minority nation.

Where is their quotation and link to back up this claim? It’s not there. In defense of this inflammatory claim, Smith quotes Milo:

·       In response to concerns from white voters that they’re going to go extinct, the response of the Establishment—the conservative Establishment—has been to openly welcome that extinction.

However, what Milo said fails to support Smith’s charge of racism. Instead, he is charging the “conservative Establishment” with racism – a big difference.

Nevertheless, Smith inappropriately continues to make a “guilt by association” case:

·       The extinction of the white race is a popular theme among white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and crazy white people. And while Yiannopoulos objects to being identified as a white nationalist (because he isn't one), he doesn't reject white nationalists or white supremacists.

Nevertheless, it does seem to be true that Milo hasn’t entirely separated himself from racists. If this is blameworthy, then the alt-Left should also condemn Obama for his association with known terrorists and agitators – Bill Ayers and the Muslim Brotherhood, among many others. The alt-Left should have also condemned Hillary because her foundation had received millions from a number of Muslim nations who support Islamic terrorism. Although I don’t know all the details, but I can assure you that they haven’t given this money because they like her face. Instead, they clearly had been expecting “returns” on their “investment.”

Advancing our political agendas, even at the cost of “fake news” has always been a temptation. Nevertheless, it can exact a tremendous price. It can polarize and provoke violence, as we have seen in Berkeley. It can also be used to incite racism for political gain.

One activist friend, dismayed by the planned closure of a community library, sent me a copy of her letter-to-the-editor in which she charged that racism was the root cause. She claimed that the mostly white community didn’t want Blacks coming into their community to use the library. Therefore, they were secretly conspiring to have it shut.

I asked her if she had any evidence of this. She admitted that she didn’t, but she suspected that it was true. Had she considered what impact such charges have on Black/White relations?

Such charges have often been touted by the Left? In "The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech," liberal democrat, Kirsten Powers, writes:

·       Mary Frances Berry, an African American and former chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights under President Bill Clinton, wrote in a Politico online discussion: “Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats.”

This should remind us of many similar charges, like the Republican party's "war on women." This is not just laughable, but also highly inflammatory! Although it is this kind of rhetoric that has caused racial division and even violence, it also promotes political aspirations. Powers writes:

·       Berry, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, added, “There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”

Although African Americans might welcome such propaganda and even take it as evidence that the Left is on their side, it has proved to be highly divisive and has served to further alienate black and white.

Fake news has created such a divide that we can no longer talk. Both sides are convinced about the verity of their chosen news sources. Therefore, we cannot even begin to agree about the facts. Where we do not share this common vocabulary, we cannot even begin to decide about matters of justice and fairness. Instead, we are convinced that the Milos, Trumps, and the Hillarys are irredeemably evil. Families and friendships have not been to bridge this ever-widening chasm.

While we cannot force anyone to turn to an hour of FOX after they watch an hour of MSNBC, we can ask people to be reflective and self-critical in the face of the seeming proliferation of fake news.

No comments:

Post a Comment