Milo Yiannopoulos, 32 years old, identifies himself as Jewish (on his mother's side), Greek, British, Catholic and gay. He has described himself as a "provocateur", a "troll", and a "conservative". He is a journalist, public speaker and entertainer.
Milo is a very vocal supporter of Donald Trump, and during the presidential campaign, went on a speaking tour of college campuses around the country, which he called "The Dangerous Faggot" tour.
I first read about him a few months before the 2016 election, in a magazine article, and later found his TV and radio interviews on the Internet.
Before I begin my analysis of the events involving Milo Yiannopoulos, and the ensuing firestorm of controversy, a media scandal extraordinaire, I should say a few things up front.
One: I am not a supporter of Donald Trump. No need to elaborate on that, it is not the issue I am addressing.
Two: The pop culture of the Internet, social media, the aggressive, intrusive free-for-all among the participants, the generally crude, sloppy language, the lack of grace, refinement and discretion, the stupidity of it all, is anathema to me. I don't use Facebook, Twitter, nor do I read the entries.
(When you hear on mainstream news radio that the President of the United States "tweeted" a policy statement, or that the police department "tweeted" that a perp was arrested, how can it be taken seriously?)
Anyway, crying shame though it is, at least by my standards, I'm aware that this is the venue in which most people (including high-profile public figures) now operate.
To this day, I have never read any of Milo's Twitter or Facebook comments; I only heard him talk about being banned from Twitter for making some "insulting" comments about an actor named Leslie Jones, whom I had never heard of.
Three: Having watched quite a number of Milo's TV/video interviews, I find him to be a very interesting character. His crude language, his frequent comments about his sex life, I must say, are not my cup of tea, but this aspect of his personality notwithstanding, I think he is honest about who he is, and sincere about what he believes.
I also find him to be extremely intelligent, articulate, entertaining, even charming, and I stand in agreement with some (not all) of the views he promotes, especially his criticism of the left-wing agitators for globalism; his concern about immigration (illegal aliens); maintaining secure borders; Islamist jihad and sharia law, a serious threat to all women and homosexuals, everywhere, as well as to anyone who defends unalienable individual rights; and most importantly, the stand he has taken for free speech.
The primary issue is, that whether anyone agrees with Milo, or not, he has the right to express his beliefs, his opinions, his political ideology, in any way he chooses, when he chooses, where he chooses. That is the very essence of free speech.
Anyone who disagrees with him has the same right to air their views, without interference, as long as they are not violating the rights of others. Milo has not violated the rights of others, nor has he attempted to stop them from speaking.
So, what is the problem?
The problem is, his adversaries on the far left, the "progressives", the "social justice warriors", have decided that they have the "right" to stop him from speaking, simply because they do not like what he has to say. They also think they have the "right" to stop others from hearing what he has to say.
And they are willing to use any means at their disposal, no matter how unlawful, no matter how violent, to stop him. "The ends justify the means", a typical left-wing ideology of control-freak thugs and tyrants.
In Berkeley, California, mobs of marauding leftists destroyed property, broke windows, set fires, engaged in assaults, crimes against persons. Milo Yiannopoulos had to be escorted out by security personnel, wearing body armor.
There is a hard line between words and actions. With the exception of criminal menacing, such as making threats of bodily harm or death, or shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater, words in and of themselves are not a criminal action.
But the thought police of the left would have you believe just that, and are on a crusade to criminalize any words which do not appear in their politically correct lexicon.
These mobs are not mere "protestors". They are engaging in violent criminal behavior, and they should be dealt with as criminals, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Yet, according to the news coverage I saw, on several occasions where these savage mobs rioted, the police did nothing.
"Bad" words are to be disallowed. How dare he speak these terrible words! He is hurting our feelings! But violence, assaults, destruction of property, actual crimes against persons? No problem at all, if that's what it takes to silence the "offender".
But of course, it's A-okay for them to label Milo in any way they choose: Nazi! Bigot! Racist! Misogynist!
In fact, though I have never seen any indication from Milo that these are truthful or accurate labels, there are real, bonafide Nazis, bigots, racists and misogynists who hate him with a passion.
Some of these despicable characters have even declared "Holy War" on Milo Yiannopoulos.
One Andrew Anglin, a neo Nazi from "The Daily Stormer" had these comments (among others):
"Milo Yiannopoulos, a Jewish homosexual, has a history of engaging in sneaky Jewish tricks."
Here, his bullet points:
"-White countries will be for White people
-Traditional gender roles will be restored
-The Jews are the prime force behind the collapse of Western civilization"
And let's not forget this gem:
"What kind of sick pervert doesn’t love Hitler?"
Oh, by the way, these are the same people ('The Daily Stormer' and 'Stormfront') who have plastered the name of Barbara Hartwell, along with tampered photos of me, wearing a yarmulke, and calling me a "Jew troll" on their websites. They also posted images of green reptilian creatures, naming them "Barbara Hartwell, heinous Jew troll".
All because I denounced them as Jew-haters. Which in this case is a truthful, factual statement, to which they readily admit. And I am not Jewish, a fact that seems to have somehow escaped their notice.
And although it seems most of Milo's detractors are rabidly leftist (aside from the Nazis), there are those on the other end of the spectrum who have surfaced to denounce him, including some of his colleagues at Breitbart, where he was a senior editor, a position from which he recently resigned, clearly under pressure.
He also lost his book contract, and was, at the last minute, dis-invited from a speaking engagement at a conservative conference, where Donald Trump made an appearance.
Why all this? What could Milo Yiannopoulos have done to cause him to become an object of scorn, moral outrage and to be summarily abandoned by his former supporters? Why the lynch mob, all of a sudden?
He spoke some words. He made some statements in interviews. Not even anything new, the interviews were more than a year old and had been online ever since. But someone evidently decided that Milo had to be taken down, as in an orchestrated hit.
And suddenly, now he has been accused of the worst crimes imaginable, including supporting and promoting pedophilia. Some have even accused him of the felony crime itself. With no evidence whatsoever to support these extremely damaging allegations.
I listened to the interviews in question, at least two, one of which was on the Joe Rogan show, and the other on one of the most idiotic programs I have ever seen, called "The Drunken Peasants". (Don't ask...you'd have to see these characters in action for yourself...)
The comments made by Milo were mostly of a personal nature, describing his own experiences. He spoke about the Catholic priest, who molested him at age 13. No, he did not use the words "molest" or "rape". He claimed it was consensual, and seemed to be making light of it, joking about it.
Then, there was Milo's description of parties he had attended, where there were "very young boys" having "unprotected sex" with men, and using drugs. In his words, what went on "beggared belief".
At no time did Milo say anything which suggested that he condoned these activities. My impression was that he was disturbed by such appalling behavior on the part of these predators. He said he would decline to name them, though some were well-known public figures.
Some of those making the accusations against Milo said, Well, why did he not report the perpetrators? Why did he not call the police?
It's a fair question, but for those asking it, they would first need to understand the criminally degenerate culture in which these predators operate. They run protection rackets, involving blackmail and extortion. And they don't hesitate to kill people, to silence them, to cover up their crimes. So, dropping a dime on these perps, without first considering the consequences, would do nothing to stop them, but only get the expositor killed.
I would hope that anyone (including Milo) who becomes a witness to such horrific crimes would do all in their power to raise public awareness as to the reality of their existence. And once aware of the identities of such criminals (some of whom are politicians and celebrities), remove themselves once and for all from their circuits.
The tragic fact is, children who are victims of sex predators sustain tremendous psychological damage, from which it is unlikely they can ever completely recover. In some cases, they become promiscuous and fall prey to Stockholm syndrome, identifying with their abusers, and/or blaming themselves for crimes which they were helpless to stop.
Some will deal with the trauma by trying to minimize the harm done to them, or even making light of it, which it seems that perhaps may be the case with Milo. But that is not for me to say. I don't know him and I would not presume to make such a definitive judgment.
In Milo's press conference, in which he announced his resignation from Breitbart, he explained that he himself had been a child victim of sex predators. He apologized for anything he had said which would be interpreted to mean that he is an enabler or an apologist for child abuse. He made it very clear about his stand against such crimes.
I, for one, believe him. More importantly, Milo himself has not committed any crimes. He is not a pedophile, not an abuser, not a criminal.
That he would be considered such a threat to the powers-that-be, that violent mobs would attack him at his speaking engagements, that he would be blacklisted, that he would lose his job, his book contract, so much of what he has worked for --ask yourself: WHY?
Because he speaks freely, honestly and bluntly about what he believes. Because he offers others the opportunity to break through the indoctrination which has a stranglehold on their minds and hearts.
The primary issue is free speech, an inextricable component of Liberty. Anyone who tries to silence Milo does a disservice to all of us, no matter what we may believe, or how we may choose to express our views.
For this reason, I stand up in defense of Milo Yiannopoulos.
Barbara Hartwell Percival
March 5, 2017
Legal Defense & Research Trust
PO Box 22
Rhinebeck, NY 12572
Barbara Hartwell Vs. CIA