What do you think?
Rate this book
Dangerous
Milo has become the most dangerous man in America by voicing truths too politically incorrect for the establishment and defending those whose free speech has been trampled not only across the country, but around the world.
Like his heroes Skeletor, Darth Vader and Joan Rivers, Milo will say anything about anyone, and he doesn't care who gets triggered by the truth.
Milo is an award-winning journalist, the hottest ticket in any town his tour stops in, and the ultimate voice for people of all ages that are proud to be a part of out glorious western civilization.
Dangerous is the first book written by Milo Yiannopoulos, and is the first of many bestsellers he will release on the Dangerous Books imprint.
Like his heroes Skeletor, Darth Vader and Joan Rivers, Milo will say anything about anyone, and he doesn't care who gets triggered by the truth.
Milo is an award-winning journalist, the hottest ticket in any town his tour stops in, and the ultimate voice for people of all ages that are proud to be a part of out glorious western civilization.
Dangerous is the first book written by Milo Yiannopoulos, and is the first of many bestsellers he will release on the Dangerous Books imprint.
236 pages, Hardcover
First published June 5, 2017
About the author
Milo Yiannopoulos
22 books312 followersMilo Yiannopoulos (born on 18 October 1984)is a British journalist, author, entrepreneur, public speaker, and former senior editor for Breitbart News. He wrote previously using the pseudonym Milo Andreas Wagner.
Yiannopoulos founded The Kernel, an online tabloid magazine about technology, which he sold to Daily Dot Media in 2014. He wrote about the Gamergate controversy. As a self-proclaimed "cultural libertarian" and "free speech fundamentalist", he is a vocal critic of fourth-wave feminism, Islam, social justice, political correctness, and other movements and ideologies he deems authoritarian or belonging to the "regressive left". Yiannopoulos considers himself a reporter of and "occasional fellow traveller" with the alt-right movement. He was permanently banned from Twitter in July 2016 for what the company cited as "inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others". He resigned from Breitbart after a video of him allegedly defending sexual relationships between boys as young as 13 and gay men in their 20s resurfaced
Yiannopoulos founded The Kernel, an online tabloid magazine about technology, which he sold to Daily Dot Media in 2014. He wrote about the Gamergate controversy. As a self-proclaimed "cultural libertarian" and "free speech fundamentalist", he is a vocal critic of fourth-wave feminism, Islam, social justice, political correctness, and other movements and ideologies he deems authoritarian or belonging to the "regressive left". Yiannopoulos considers himself a reporter of and "occasional fellow traveller" with the alt-right movement. He was permanently banned from Twitter in July 2016 for what the company cited as "inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others". He resigned from Breitbart after a video of him allegedly defending sexual relationships between boys as young as 13 and gay men in their 20s resurfaced
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 470 reviews
July 22, 2017
First off, I am a librarian who never cared about Milo until I began seeing blurbs about Dangerous in Publisher's Weekly (bimonthly book review magazine for libraries/booksellers). They all raised the issue of the morality of purchasing Dangerous. Is it professionally responsible? Is it censorship not to? (Yes.) As an information professional I have always been very interested in intellectual freedom issues and am a card carrying member of the Freedom to Read Foundation so as soon as my industry colleagues began to tell me how dangerous Dangerous would be, I knew I had to read it as soon as possible. And so I started following Yiannopoulos for literally no other ideological reason.
Then the book deal was cancelled by S&S, my immediate reaction was that he would self-publish it anyways. This ended up being true. Despite still having a platform and fan base, the cancellation put a chilling effect on the publicity of the book. Many libraries simply do not purchase self-published material on principle because it has not been professionally reviewed. That decreases access for anyone who is either financially unable to purchase the book on their own, anyone who may not have access to Amazon.com, or anyone who is interested but not committed to buying it. The interested but not committed are the most relevant group here, because hearing someone in their own words is more valuable to learning about them than what other people say about them. Which is exactly why I watched that entire infamous "pedophilia" podcast myself and came to my own conclusion (being: what he said was indeed strange but I followed his logic easily). Both Non-Pedophiles AND Pedophiles still have 1st Amendment rights anyways. I emailed my old Intellectual Freedom & Censorship professor from grad school about the cancellation and her response was that Milo already had a platform so it's not the same type of insidious censorship. I respect this professor but I disagreed with her opinion.
I have faced book challenges at my job. People have called for me to be fired whilst rampaging through the library, screaming and beating themselves over a book they allowed their child to read. Censorship sucks and defending the 1st Amendment is hard but ultimately always worth it. It is important to be mindful that censorship can come from both the political right and the political left. It seemed a bit ironic to me that all these alleged advocates of free speech were refusing to get a book called Dangerous because it would be too dangerous for people to read. I ordered the book on July 5, 2017 and read it within 48 hours.
Like I said, I have little to no experience with Milo so I fact checked a lot of his statements and citations. I soon found that they were all legitimate and ended up putting 2-3 sociopolitical books on my to-read list. I read rather widely...for example I have read Donald Trump and I plan on reading Hillary Clinton's upcoming book. I'll read anyone's book to gain insight into their mind. Trump was pretty unbearable to read - no matter my view on his politics - the writing was bad. Milo was more invigorating to read than Trump, probably because he is by trade a professional word slinging journalist. I would also recommend reading this entire book in Milo's super-gay voice; it makes the experience all the more enjoyable.
My final point is this person that the entire world tells me is an untrustworthy dangerous lunatic is in reality...not that. It is important to note that I would not have known this at all if not for having the opportunity to read his own words in concentrated book format. Shock value Breitbart articles are a different reading experience entirely. I'm not saying I agree with literally all the things Milo Yiannopoulos says or stands for but that doesn't matter. I disagree with many things many writers have to say but it does not mean I will refuse to read them. Dangerous is a decent book and censorship is dangerous.
Then the book deal was cancelled by S&S, my immediate reaction was that he would self-publish it anyways. This ended up being true. Despite still having a platform and fan base, the cancellation put a chilling effect on the publicity of the book. Many libraries simply do not purchase self-published material on principle because it has not been professionally reviewed. That decreases access for anyone who is either financially unable to purchase the book on their own, anyone who may not have access to Amazon.com, or anyone who is interested but not committed to buying it. The interested but not committed are the most relevant group here, because hearing someone in their own words is more valuable to learning about them than what other people say about them. Which is exactly why I watched that entire infamous "pedophilia" podcast myself and came to my own conclusion (being: what he said was indeed strange but I followed his logic easily). Both Non-Pedophiles AND Pedophiles still have 1st Amendment rights anyways. I emailed my old Intellectual Freedom & Censorship professor from grad school about the cancellation and her response was that Milo already had a platform so it's not the same type of insidious censorship. I respect this professor but I disagreed with her opinion.
I have faced book challenges at my job. People have called for me to be fired whilst rampaging through the library, screaming and beating themselves over a book they allowed their child to read. Censorship sucks and defending the 1st Amendment is hard but ultimately always worth it. It is important to be mindful that censorship can come from both the political right and the political left. It seemed a bit ironic to me that all these alleged advocates of free speech were refusing to get a book called Dangerous because it would be too dangerous for people to read. I ordered the book on July 5, 2017 and read it within 48 hours.
Like I said, I have little to no experience with Milo so I fact checked a lot of his statements and citations. I soon found that they were all legitimate and ended up putting 2-3 sociopolitical books on my to-read list. I read rather widely...for example I have read Donald Trump and I plan on reading Hillary Clinton's upcoming book. I'll read anyone's book to gain insight into their mind. Trump was pretty unbearable to read - no matter my view on his politics - the writing was bad. Milo was more invigorating to read than Trump, probably because he is by trade a professional word slinging journalist. I would also recommend reading this entire book in Milo's super-gay voice; it makes the experience all the more enjoyable.
My final point is this person that the entire world tells me is an untrustworthy dangerous lunatic is in reality...not that. It is important to note that I would not have known this at all if not for having the opportunity to read his own words in concentrated book format. Shock value Breitbart articles are a different reading experience entirely. I'm not saying I agree with literally all the things Milo Yiannopoulos says or stands for but that doesn't matter. I disagree with many things many writers have to say but it does not mean I will refuse to read them. Dangerous is a decent book and censorship is dangerous.
July 7, 2024
5 Things I Learned From Reading Dangerous:
1. Establishment Conservatives are as bad as Liberals, if not worse.
2. Milo's first taste of conservativism was from reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. (Not surprised.)
3. Beware, every major media outlet. Milo's watching. Any mistake will be written about to death, no matter how small or irrelevant to current politics. Every fuck up matters in Milo's world.
4. If Milo grew up in the 60's and 70's, he would be a Liberal hippie.
5. Ben Shapiro is boring and out of touch. This surprised me. Shapiro was the former editor of Breitbart, before Milo. It would've been nice if he explained how he made Breitbart better, after he took over the position. Milo writes about Breitbart as if it's the next best thing since luxury hair care. If both of them did pretty much the same thing for the site that helped Trump get elected, why is Ben so bad? Also, the two have nearly identical views on L.G.B.T.Q. issues. They are mildly accepting of gay men just being gay men and despise transgender people. I really thought they'd be friends.
5 Things I Didn't Learn From Reading Dangerous
1. Why should we be conservatives. There's no mention of why the conservative party is so great, only how it's getting abused by the left. This is a little disappointing, considering, in the beginning, Milo states this book is a red pill. Doesn't that mean, after reading, I'm supposed to be appealed by what the party stands for? Reading about everything the left does wrong isn't going to convert me, if there's nothing about how the right does it better. Milo's answer to minorities in distress...they deserve, get over it, and there's no need to help anyone.
2. Why I should care that conservative speakers are being banned. The right wing's answer to gays suing Christian bakers to make them a cake is go to another bakery that is accepting. I could say the same about campus speakers. If you don't like that the school is banning your favorite speakers, go to another one. I know the counterargument is my pay tuition supports the school, so I should be entitled to the same privileges as other students. You can have your conservative speakers, when my tax dollars stop going to a war I don't agree with or policies that hurt innocent people. The school is shared. If the administration sees the liberal's desire to not be insulted by a stranger outweigh's conservative's desire to be told they're the best, deal with it. Go watch to them on Youtube.
3. Why transgenderism is wrong. A huge chunk of his fame came from bashing transgender people, claiming it's wrong. This book was his chance to say why. No mention other than lumping trans people with SJW's. He mentioned identity politics a lot, which I think has something to do with transgenderism, but he doesn't say so. A little bit of info on his views of gender would've been nice. Perhaps Blair White changed his mind.
4. Why Trump is better than Clinton. He loves Trump because the man is the ultimate troll, which is the gold standard. Nothing is said on why Trump's policies are better than what Clinton's would've been. A comparison on their campaign speeches would've done the content some good.
5. How to be an effective conservative. Doing nothing but advocating for free speech does not make a good, Republican activist. Free speech is important, I get that. But what's equally important is what's in the speech. Milo barely touched on what conservtives have to say that's so important to be heard. Anyone saying anything they want doesn't make for a better society. Social media proves that. Is no one aware that Isis recruits radical Islamists through social media? They're as good at it as Milo is. Debate is healthy, but only if the right ideas are fighting against each other. Ann Coulter screaming Mexicans are disgusting in a region with a huge Mexican population does nothing. That is why these speakers, including Milo, get banned. Administrations recognize they're not coming to win over anyone or help society. They only come to boost their fame and get a few laughs at the people they hurt. What do conservatives have to say that is so mega important that I drop everything and pay attention? According to Dangerous, Milo is the only conservative worth listening to, which is odd because he claims his mission is to fight for them. The only other right wing thinkers he promotes are Youtube stars and other Breitbart writers, and, still, does nothing to say what makes them so credible.
Full disclosure: I, a Bernie Sanders supporter, read more Republican books than Democratic ones. I already know why I believe what I believe. So I look for literature that explains to be why I should believe what the other party holds strongly to. Few books have done that. This is another book that is supposed to get Milo fans' fist pumping and cheering for him. While that does ensure this will be a blockbuster bestseller, it's still a bit of a waist, because it won't gain him any new fans. A book about politics should be a hand guiding me through my own, personal revelation. It's supposed to be an awakening encapsulated on the page. Writing everything we already know about Milo doesn't make us want more of him. Hell, he makes sure his haters know everything about him on a daily basis, so what's the point of putting it in a book? Dangerous should be titled The Dangerous Thoughts I Wrote in My Super-Cool Diary That Gives Me Inspiration for My Speeches.
This book gets two stars because, for what is clearly a rush job, it's not badly written. I do appreciate his ability to condense a lot of thoughts in a few paragraphs, and have them still read loud and clear. He clearly took notes from the better Fox News writers. That counts for something. It would've been three, if he explained the foundations of his ideology better, rather than just saying its superior to anyone else's.
1. Establishment Conservatives are as bad as Liberals, if not worse.
2. Milo's first taste of conservativism was from reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. (Not surprised.)
3. Beware, every major media outlet. Milo's watching. Any mistake will be written about to death, no matter how small or irrelevant to current politics. Every fuck up matters in Milo's world.
4. If Milo grew up in the 60's and 70's, he would be a Liberal hippie.
5. Ben Shapiro is boring and out of touch. This surprised me. Shapiro was the former editor of Breitbart, before Milo. It would've been nice if he explained how he made Breitbart better, after he took over the position. Milo writes about Breitbart as if it's the next best thing since luxury hair care. If both of them did pretty much the same thing for the site that helped Trump get elected, why is Ben so bad? Also, the two have nearly identical views on L.G.B.T.Q. issues. They are mildly accepting of gay men just being gay men and despise transgender people. I really thought they'd be friends.
5 Things I Didn't Learn From Reading Dangerous
1. Why should we be conservatives. There's no mention of why the conservative party is so great, only how it's getting abused by the left. This is a little disappointing, considering, in the beginning, Milo states this book is a red pill. Doesn't that mean, after reading, I'm supposed to be appealed by what the party stands for? Reading about everything the left does wrong isn't going to convert me, if there's nothing about how the right does it better. Milo's answer to minorities in distress...they deserve, get over it, and there's no need to help anyone.
2. Why I should care that conservative speakers are being banned. The right wing's answer to gays suing Christian bakers to make them a cake is go to another bakery that is accepting. I could say the same about campus speakers. If you don't like that the school is banning your favorite speakers, go to another one. I know the counterargument is my pay tuition supports the school, so I should be entitled to the same privileges as other students. You can have your conservative speakers, when my tax dollars stop going to a war I don't agree with or policies that hurt innocent people. The school is shared. If the administration sees the liberal's desire to not be insulted by a stranger outweigh's conservative's desire to be told they're the best, deal with it. Go watch to them on Youtube.
3. Why transgenderism is wrong. A huge chunk of his fame came from bashing transgender people, claiming it's wrong. This book was his chance to say why. No mention other than lumping trans people with SJW's. He mentioned identity politics a lot, which I think has something to do with transgenderism, but he doesn't say so. A little bit of info on his views of gender would've been nice. Perhaps Blair White changed his mind.
4. Why Trump is better than Clinton. He loves Trump because the man is the ultimate troll, which is the gold standard. Nothing is said on why Trump's policies are better than what Clinton's would've been. A comparison on their campaign speeches would've done the content some good.
5. How to be an effective conservative. Doing nothing but advocating for free speech does not make a good, Republican activist. Free speech is important, I get that. But what's equally important is what's in the speech. Milo barely touched on what conservtives have to say that's so important to be heard. Anyone saying anything they want doesn't make for a better society. Social media proves that. Is no one aware that Isis recruits radical Islamists through social media? They're as good at it as Milo is. Debate is healthy, but only if the right ideas are fighting against each other. Ann Coulter screaming Mexicans are disgusting in a region with a huge Mexican population does nothing. That is why these speakers, including Milo, get banned. Administrations recognize they're not coming to win over anyone or help society. They only come to boost their fame and get a few laughs at the people they hurt. What do conservatives have to say that is so mega important that I drop everything and pay attention? According to Dangerous, Milo is the only conservative worth listening to, which is odd because he claims his mission is to fight for them. The only other right wing thinkers he promotes are Youtube stars and other Breitbart writers, and, still, does nothing to say what makes them so credible.
Full disclosure: I, a Bernie Sanders supporter, read more Republican books than Democratic ones. I already know why I believe what I believe. So I look for literature that explains to be why I should believe what the other party holds strongly to. Few books have done that. This is another book that is supposed to get Milo fans' fist pumping and cheering for him. While that does ensure this will be a blockbuster bestseller, it's still a bit of a waist, because it won't gain him any new fans. A book about politics should be a hand guiding me through my own, personal revelation. It's supposed to be an awakening encapsulated on the page. Writing everything we already know about Milo doesn't make us want more of him. Hell, he makes sure his haters know everything about him on a daily basis, so what's the point of putting it in a book? Dangerous should be titled The Dangerous Thoughts I Wrote in My Super-Cool Diary That Gives Me Inspiration for My Speeches.
This book gets two stars because, for what is clearly a rush job, it's not badly written. I do appreciate his ability to condense a lot of thoughts in a few paragraphs, and have them still read loud and clear. He clearly took notes from the better Fox News writers. That counts for something. It would've been three, if he explained the foundations of his ideology better, rather than just saying its superior to anyone else's.
May 27, 2017
1996, Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club:
You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same organic and decaying matter as everyone else.
You are not special, Milo Yiannopoulos. You are not the Internet supervillain anymore than the regular Internet troll. You are not the only self-hating homosexual, you are not the first person banned from Twitter for being a douche. You don't even mean anything to the alt-right: people like Curtis Yarvin shape the ideology, people like Steve Bannon try to turn it into action, but people like you are just the "edgy" annoying clowns in the periphery that use it as an excuse to seek the world's attention. And guess what: you are not fooling us, Mr. Yiannopoulos. Enjoy the meager platitudes while they last, because history will treat you as what you really are: the same organic and decaying matter as everyone else.
You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same organic and decaying matter as everyone else.
You are not special, Milo Yiannopoulos. You are not the Internet supervillain anymore than the regular Internet troll. You are not the only self-hating homosexual, you are not the first person banned from Twitter for being a douche. You don't even mean anything to the alt-right: people like Curtis Yarvin shape the ideology, people like Steve Bannon try to turn it into action, but people like you are just the "edgy" annoying clowns in the periphery that use it as an excuse to seek the world's attention. And guess what: you are not fooling us, Mr. Yiannopoulos. Enjoy the meager platitudes while they last, because history will treat you as what you really are: the same organic and decaying matter as everyone else.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 14, 2017
Clearly an amazing book an entertaining read I personally believe with every politician would read this book the world would be 100 times better if every person would read this book the world would be 1000 times better. Milo is a beautiful person who is very intelligent he cares about telling the truth he doesn't care about being politically correct. This is the best political science book I've ever read. -Rio aiello.
July 29, 2017
A long and boring exercise in narcissism and cheap writing. Like a 4chan post reviewed by a copywriter. "The lefties hate me because I'm so great and I speak my mind". "I speak in CAPS because it's my right and the lefties hate it." "I call myself a faggot because it bothers lefties!!!" BORING!
You're not cool and rebellious, you're just a guy with a hundred-dollar haircut and a big mouth. People don't like you because, deliberately or not, you misrepresent basic things like how society and law function and because you just hate things and, ultimately, promote pedophilia. Calling pedophilia by another name doesn't make it better, it's just cheap propaganda. (Pedophilia was just the last straw and what made him a pariah in the media, he's been saying other hateful things before those statements).
Loud and hateful idiots are a dime a dozen. You know what's truly rebellious? Having empathy, thinking critically and independently and doing productive things that better society. There's none of that here.
What Milo doesn't understand is that free speech only means the government can't punish you for what you say, that doesn't mean you must be provided a platform for spewing bullshit or that people have to listen.
It looks like the far-right hasn't changed much in a century - nice clothes, good haircut, lots of euphemisms to hide their hateful messages... but the same rotten, destructive core. Kindly fuck off please.
Even if I could I wouldn't give this book zero stars, only because through its existence, it shows that free speech is not a thing of the past. But otherwise it's full of nonsensical hate, narcissism and edgy "trolling". Waste of time, skip it and read some Solzhenitsyn, Orwell or Hitchens instead.
You're not cool and rebellious, you're just a guy with a hundred-dollar haircut and a big mouth. People don't like you because, deliberately or not, you misrepresent basic things like how society and law function and because you just hate things and, ultimately, promote pedophilia. Calling pedophilia by another name doesn't make it better, it's just cheap propaganda. (Pedophilia was just the last straw and what made him a pariah in the media, he's been saying other hateful things before those statements).
Loud and hateful idiots are a dime a dozen. You know what's truly rebellious? Having empathy, thinking critically and independently and doing productive things that better society. There's none of that here.
What Milo doesn't understand is that free speech only means the government can't punish you for what you say, that doesn't mean you must be provided a platform for spewing bullshit or that people have to listen.
It looks like the far-right hasn't changed much in a century - nice clothes, good haircut, lots of euphemisms to hide their hateful messages... but the same rotten, destructive core. Kindly fuck off please.
Even if I could I wouldn't give this book zero stars, only because through its existence, it shows that free speech is not a thing of the past. But otherwise it's full of nonsensical hate, narcissism and edgy "trolling". Waste of time, skip it and read some Solzhenitsyn, Orwell or Hitchens instead.
July 5, 2017
Red pill for liberals, talking points for conservatives.
I mostly bought this book as a protest against all that fake news represents but Milo surprised me with the depth and breadth of his knowledge delivered in an interesting and funny tone. I don't usually devour a book in 24 hours, but this book was really hard to put down. I highly recommend it for both sides of the political spectrum as it gives many counterpoints to progressive ideology and will explain the rise of Trump to the Kool-aid drinkers.
I mostly bought this book as a protest against all that fake news represents but Milo surprised me with the depth and breadth of his knowledge delivered in an interesting and funny tone. I don't usually devour a book in 24 hours, but this book was really hard to put down. I highly recommend it for both sides of the political spectrum as it gives many counterpoints to progressive ideology and will explain the rise of Trump to the Kool-aid drinkers.
July 5, 2017
A very important book
This book merits five stars based on the importance of getting out in spite of fascist so called antifascist pressure to quiet this colorful voice. That being said, while not agreeing with everything, large parts of this book had to be said publicly and loudly.
This book merits five stars based on the importance of getting out in spite of fascist so called antifascist pressure to quiet this colorful voice. That being said, while not agreeing with everything, large parts of this book had to be said publicly and loudly.
July 5, 2017
THIS is how you have a voice. It's how you have a voice instead of looking the other way when you see something happen that shouldn't. Or when people try to shame you and make you feel small. This is how you believe in something, and look the world straight in the face, and then tell it to go get lost
July 21, 2017
Let's get one thing straight: I disagree with Milo on quite a few issues (Donald Trump, libertarianism, etc). That being said, I quite enjoy him and his book. The importance of free speech and the diversity of ideas has never been more apparent than it is now. I appreciate Milo for exposing nonsense on both the right and the left, ridiculing the ridiculous safe-space mindset, and making politics fun again. The book is a quick read, and though it does not go into much depth, it provides fun insight into one of the most unique political movements of my lifetime.
It gets five stars because I can relate to Milo's counter-cultural attitudes and rebellious spirit. Its controversial content made it even more enjoyable to read and absorb.
It gets five stars because I can relate to Milo's counter-cultural attitudes and rebellious spirit. Its controversial content made it even more enjoyable to read and absorb.
April 14, 2019
13 Apr. ‘19
People, prepare yourselves for the absolute best read of your life.
And by that, I of course mean M. Yiannopoulos' original Dangerous manuscript for Simon & Schuster, complete with Mitchell Ivers' editor notes. As you may know, the book deal has since been scrapped, but this gem still exists out there; and if I can read it, I can certainly share it.
For those of you in the publishing process, just pray that your work never needs to be trashed this badly by your own editor. Also, in the words of Mr Ivers, please make sure you
Some images may be too small and you cannot read the text. You can click on the images for full view, or click on the links for the full paragraph, uncut. These beauties will make your day.
But anyway. I'm tempted to just splatter this review with my favourite quotes from this book; but true to any book, perhaps it's best to simply go at it in chronological order and start at the beginning. I really must commend the opening -- from the first page of the first chapter, the tone is immediately set for the rest of the book:
full paragraph
And like any other linear structure, we can sense the rising action. What was calm and constructive grows into a testy sort of patience ...
... until soon enough we can hear the exasperation just dripping through the margins.
full paragraph
My only critique would be just how quickly we go from setting the scene to climax. But, given the content of the source material, I can't say it's entirely unwarranted.
The best part? When the storm hits, it hits hard. From hard-hitting facts
full paragraph
... to the moment it dawns upon our mentor just how dumb and utterly hopeless his pupil is:
We are taken on an emotional roller coaster as we watch Mr Ivers meet his challenge using several different approaches. But this is one tough dragon to slay. At first he tries to school his mentee;
but even Dumbledore can only take so much. It's only a matter of time before he responds to things the only way they deserve to be responded: with snark ...
and by far not enough of pot-shots.
full paragraph
There are times Mr Ivers attempts to hold a mirror against his pupil's face
and even serves the occasional mic-drop,
but at the end of the day, our hero comes out tired and defeated, and we can absolutely sense that in every short, curt response.
Evil, alas, has triumphed.
Honourable mentions:
Yiannopoulos really can't stop talking about his book deal:
Mr Ivers really hates Milo's jokes:
When your own editor realises you don't know how to make proper arguments:
That moment Mr Ivers realises he'd been assigned to a flaming narcissist:
The times Mr Ivers lets slip what he really feels about the entire book:
In conclusion: I will end this review with the best possible response anyone can give to trolls such as Yiannopoulos.
People, prepare yourselves for the absolute best read of your life.
And by that, I of course mean M. Yiannopoulos' original Dangerous manuscript for Simon & Schuster, complete with Mitchell Ivers' editor notes. As you may know, the book deal has since been scrapped, but this gem still exists out there; and if I can read it, I can certainly share it.
For those of you in the publishing process, just pray that your work never needs to be trashed this badly by your own editor. Also, in the words of Mr Ivers, please make sure you
Some images may be too small and you cannot read the text. You can click on the images for full view, or click on the links for the full paragraph, uncut. These beauties will make your day.
But anyway. I'm tempted to just splatter this review with my favourite quotes from this book; but true to any book, perhaps it's best to simply go at it in chronological order and start at the beginning. I really must commend the opening -- from the first page of the first chapter, the tone is immediately set for the rest of the book:
full paragraph
And like any other linear structure, we can sense the rising action. What was calm and constructive grows into a testy sort of patience ...
... until soon enough we can hear the exasperation just dripping through the margins.
full paragraph
My only critique would be just how quickly we go from setting the scene to climax. But, given the content of the source material, I can't say it's entirely unwarranted.
The best part? When the storm hits, it hits hard. From hard-hitting facts
full paragraph
... to the moment it dawns upon our mentor just how dumb and utterly hopeless his pupil is:
We are taken on an emotional roller coaster as we watch Mr Ivers meet his challenge using several different approaches. But this is one tough dragon to slay. At first he tries to school his mentee;
but even Dumbledore can only take so much. It's only a matter of time before he responds to things the only way they deserve to be responded: with snark ...
and by far not enough of pot-shots.
full paragraph
There are times Mr Ivers attempts to hold a mirror against his pupil's face
and even serves the occasional mic-drop,
but at the end of the day, our hero comes out tired and defeated, and we can absolutely sense that in every short, curt response.
Evil, alas, has triumphed.
Honourable mentions:
Yiannopoulos really can't stop talking about his book deal:
Mr Ivers really hates Milo's jokes:
When your own editor realises you don't know how to make proper arguments:
That moment Mr Ivers realises he'd been assigned to a flaming narcissist:
The times Mr Ivers lets slip what he really feels about the entire book:
In conclusion: I will end this review with the best possible response anyone can give to trolls such as Yiannopoulos.
September 21, 2017
Milo is a right-wing provocateur. After he stated it was okay for men to have sex with thirteen-year-old girls, his publisher for this book dumped him and no other publisher would accept this book. So, he self-published. I had noted that he was not allowed to speak at a number of Universities. I do not like censorship of any type. I am a middle- of- the- road independent voter. I attempt to read books and essays from both the left and right wing of the political spectrum. I must admit that as the conservatives lean farther and farther to the right it is causing me to lean toward the left. I have gathered from the news that Yiannopoulos is controversial and has a massive ego.
I obtained this book to learn what his basic philosophy and political platform is and the facts on which he bases his philosophy. I was very disappointed in the book. I discovered he disagrees with both the liberals and conservatives. Most of the book is just a recital of conservative sound bites and rhetoric. Also, the book is just about him. It was easy to tell by his chapter headings, for example, “Why the left hates me, Why the gays hate me, Why the feminists hate me, Why the conservatives hate me” and so on and on. I was looking for a scholarly discussion that would seriously debate various issues the left and right disagree or agree on. Unfortunately, this book does not provide what I was looking for. He used more modern language and he continually repeated some words such as “faggot”. Oh, where is Wm. Buckley and his massive vocabulary?
I read this as an audio book downloaded from Audible. The book is almost six and a half hours long. Milo Yiannopoulos narrated the book. He has a rapid-fire delivery style.
I obtained this book to learn what his basic philosophy and political platform is and the facts on which he bases his philosophy. I was very disappointed in the book. I discovered he disagrees with both the liberals and conservatives. Most of the book is just a recital of conservative sound bites and rhetoric. Also, the book is just about him. It was easy to tell by his chapter headings, for example, “Why the left hates me, Why the gays hate me, Why the feminists hate me, Why the conservatives hate me” and so on and on. I was looking for a scholarly discussion that would seriously debate various issues the left and right disagree or agree on. Unfortunately, this book does not provide what I was looking for. He used more modern language and he continually repeated some words such as “faggot”. Oh, where is Wm. Buckley and his massive vocabulary?
I read this as an audio book downloaded from Audible. The book is almost six and a half hours long. Milo Yiannopoulos narrated the book. He has a rapid-fire delivery style.
May 11, 2021
Necessary disclaimers here: I don't hate Milo; I feel fairly ambivalently towards him, much the way I feel about particular species of slugs, or about tapioca pudding. I have mixed feelings about issues such as no-platforming; I think it can be both a tool for good and for censorship, depending entirely on the context and the reason. My main problem with Milo's book is not simply that he's right-wing; it's that he doesn't seem to genuinely believe anything he says. I would look upon Milo differently if I thought he were slightly more authentic than the homepage of Fashion Nova. I generally believe it's important to expose yourself to different ideas, even if the end result is just to reiterate why you disagree with them, so the existence of a book which I fundamentally disagree with isn't the issue here. I try to read books that I disagree with fairly regularly in order to better understand, challenge and affirm my own views. The issue is that I think he's hoodwinked people, and I find it very hard to respect that.
There's two things I agree with Milo on. The first is that we should listen to those with whom we disagree; I don't think we can argue against people who have opposing viewpoints to our own if we don't listen to them, because it's rather hard to take down someone's argument if you don't know what that argument actually is, which is why I put myself through reading Milo's entire book, first to blessèd last page. I would rather know what he has to say than not; how else can I be sure that it's all tripe? (Spoiler: it is.)
The second thing that we agree on is that respiration is necessary for life. At least, I assume that we agree on that. I have no idea. Maybe we don't. Maybe Milo would say that's fake news, or Leftist propaganda, or doesn't apply to Muslims.
Anyway, this book is not a manifesto. It is a twatifesto. It is page after page of nonsense claims, either unverified and lacking any kind of citation, or backed up with citations to his own website or other right wing thinkpieces. It can be summed up fairly succinctly as follows: 'I'm really hot', 'here is an unverified statement that I'm going to present as an objective, unbiased fact', 'here is a citation from my own website', 'feminists are ugly and never do the sex thing', 'I'm gay and do the sex thing all the time', and 'I say things just to be controversial, because meaning things is for feminists'. Yes, in one chapter Milo admits that he doesn't actually believe most of what he says, but says it anyway because he enjoys being 'taboo'. Great. Good. Tip top, Milo. No-one's ever been taboo before. Truly transgressive.
And when I say that our Milo is taboo and transgressive, hoo boy! You don't even know the half of it. Did you know that, according to this book, he only calls himself a 'f****t' because it upsets the 'Lefties'? It's like he's never even heard of Queer theory! Now that's transgressive; doing something to piss off an entire group of people and accidentally ending up affirming their entire way of doing things. (Hint to Milo: there's a hell of a lot of queer people who call themselves 'f****ts' in order to reclaim the term of abuse and make it their own, just as with the term 'queer' itself. You having the right to call yourself a term of your own choosing even if others find it derogatory is, in fact, exactly what those dang Lefties want. You want to really get those 'Lefties' all het up? Call yourself a Centrist. That'll do it.)
Perhaps that's being a little mean. After all, Milo really does dive deep into some pretty hefty topics in this weighty work of political nous. Some of the great philosophical questions tackled and, I think you'll agree, answered in this magnum opus include:
- are feminists lying about rape statistics and inflating them to demonise men, or are rape statistics actually incredibly high because of Muslim migration? Well, both, according to Milo. Feminists lie about rape statistics and rape culture doesn't exist, because feminists are all ugly lesbians with cats and they hate men and want them to suffer, and no-one would want to rape them anyway. But also, mass migration of Muslims to the West is causing enormous levels of rape, sometimes organised and planned in advance by groups of Muslim men as a sort of war tactic in order to take over the West through degrading their women. It's Schrodinger's rape, at once a lie when Milo wants to demonise feminists, and an objective fact when he wants to demonise Muslims. And yet Milo says that feminists are the ones who politicise rape! Eesh.
- is online harassment acceptable under the umbrella of 'trolling', i.e. free speech (Milo feels very strongly that trolling people on Twitter is the archetypal example of free speech, rather than, say, political protest) or is the prevalence of online harassment merely an attempt to silence others by crushing dissidents under the weight of Twitter campaigns and hate mobs? Well, both, according to Milo. When people on the Left bombard figures who they believe to be racist / sexist etc with angry tweets or post their personal information online, it's a case of the Left trying to shut down that person's freedom of speech. When Milo's followers send pictures of gorillas to black actresses and post the addresses of prominent feminists online, it's fine, because they have the right to do it, and it's not like it's serious! God, just get over it, guys. Unless you're doing it to a Nazi, in which case you're a disgusting SJW who needs to get off the Internet and have some sex, or something.
- is fake news a tool of the Left or the Right? Well, both, according to Milo. It's the Left who accuse the Right of fake news, because they can't stand the truth that the media outlets of the Right convey, like how Trump didn't mean he actually grabbed women by the pussy, even though he said he grabbed women by the pussy, and so the Left dub it 'fake news' to try and discredit it, and therefore to attempt to discredit the moral, honest Right in general. But also, when the Right call the Left's output 'fake news', that's accurate because the Left writes about Trump in a bad way, which makes it fake. But when the Left say 'fake news', it's wrong, and they made up the term. But the Right can use it. It's all very confusing when you try and parse out the hypocrisy of it all, but essentially, 'fake news' just means 'things that Milo doesn't agree with', which is, of course, the viewpoint of a reasoned intellectual.
- is the alt-right a hate movement full of Nazis, or is it a movement of misunderstood people who are tired of being lectured to by the morality policing Left? Well, both, according to Milo (have you noticed the pattern here yet?) When the alt-right send Nazi rhetoric or photos of swastikas to Jewish people, they're just trolling, and it's an expression of their anger at the status quo, which makes them feel ignored and downtrodden. But also, says Milo, the alt-right movement has been ambushed by Nazis. But they're not all Nazis, Milo says, except for the ones who are. Who are the Nazis, you ask? Who knows. They're there, somewhere, except for when they're not, except for when they are, which they're not. Unless they are, of course. Says Milo.
Milo has marketed this book as being too dangerous for commercial publication. It's just too degenerate for the masses, he says. He tells truths that people don't want to hear, he says. The dull truth is that this book is dangerous on only two levels, and it's not for the reasons Milo claims. Firstly, the entire reason it was dropped and ultimately self published cannot be limited to 'Milo said things about young boys which was too controversial', even if that's the main line that the press coverage of the book has taken. There are clearly other factors at play here, even beyond the genuinely abysmal writing style (which, by-the-by, reads very much like the secret Reddit history of a 15 year old boy who still thinks that the word 'butt' is the pinnacle of comedy), and these more serious issues of publication become clear when you read the text. Which I did. All of it. Every single awful page. Publishing this book would have opened Simon & Schuster up to multiple lawsuits from the people who Milo explicitly slanders, by the very basic legal definition of the term. Many claims he makes here about specific individuals, several of whom are named, are either patently inaccurate or open to dispute, and unverified, and the few claims which are cited use websites like Breitbart or, hilariously, Milo's own tweets. That insubstantial level of verification and subsequent legal threat is, quite simply, not going to fly in a book with the weight of Simon & Schuster's reputation behind it.
The other primary issue with this book is quite simply that the worldwide supply of anti-nausea drugs could never meet the demand, should this book have been allowed to obtain any semblance of a real audience. There's really only so many times one can read a variation on 'I'm hot and like to fuck... transgressively' before needing some industrial grade anti-emetics. Imagine the world health crisis. What if we all cut ourselves on all the edge? What then, Milo? Have you thought about the edge?!
And listen, in all seriousness, I don't think that Milo is evil. I really, genuinely don't. I think he's a narcissistic showoff who craves attention and validation, and I don't think he'd disagree with me on that; I think he'd probably take it as a compliment (which is part of the problem; people who wallow gloriously in the filth of their own worst qualities like they're bathing in champagne are, alas, the people who seem to shape discourse these days, and are at least 60% of the reason so many of us prefer not to engage with people online, and end up building echo chambers.) The validation that Milo seeks, however, is not validation that he is right, or even that he makes sense - he seeks assurance that yes, he is controversial, and yes, he's super duper edgy and taboo, and yes, he makes people angry. He takes people's rage at his poorly researched, inflammatory statements, and he turns it into his armour. It protects him, because if people attack what he says, which by his own admission is not a reflection of his own thought, then they are not attacking him. His ostentatiousness, his courting of controversy, his pseudo-polemicist rants - these protect him. He craves attention because it is diverting. Look at Milo the persona, the public figure, and not at the person, the man behind it all. There is probably a truly hideous self-portrait in his attic which is feeding off his soul as we speak. Milo makes a carapace of this artifice and hides himself within it, because it's the only way he knows to evade real criticism. Milo is not brave; he's afraid, and this book is not the work of a bold, silenced voice who only wants to speak the truth; it is the work of a man terrified to be authentically perceived, a man who shouts loudly about being silenced because he's afraid that no-one will listen to what he actually wants to say, which is 'please, dear God, won't someone just like me.'
This book is disingenuous to the extreme. It reads more as a man trying to convince himself of the arguments that he's making than anything else. I support freedom of speech. I'm glad that we live in a world where we're able to speak openly about what we believe. That said, I support freedom of speech primarily when people have something to say, and honestly, Milo doesn't, and he doesn't even say it - or hide it - well.
There's two things I agree with Milo on. The first is that we should listen to those with whom we disagree; I don't think we can argue against people who have opposing viewpoints to our own if we don't listen to them, because it's rather hard to take down someone's argument if you don't know what that argument actually is, which is why I put myself through reading Milo's entire book, first to blessèd last page. I would rather know what he has to say than not; how else can I be sure that it's all tripe? (Spoiler: it is.)
The second thing that we agree on is that respiration is necessary for life. At least, I assume that we agree on that. I have no idea. Maybe we don't. Maybe Milo would say that's fake news, or Leftist propaganda, or doesn't apply to Muslims.
Anyway, this book is not a manifesto. It is a twatifesto. It is page after page of nonsense claims, either unverified and lacking any kind of citation, or backed up with citations to his own website or other right wing thinkpieces. It can be summed up fairly succinctly as follows: 'I'm really hot', 'here is an unverified statement that I'm going to present as an objective, unbiased fact', 'here is a citation from my own website', 'feminists are ugly and never do the sex thing', 'I'm gay and do the sex thing all the time', and 'I say things just to be controversial, because meaning things is for feminists'. Yes, in one chapter Milo admits that he doesn't actually believe most of what he says, but says it anyway because he enjoys being 'taboo'. Great. Good. Tip top, Milo. No-one's ever been taboo before. Truly transgressive.
And when I say that our Milo is taboo and transgressive, hoo boy! You don't even know the half of it. Did you know that, according to this book, he only calls himself a 'f****t' because it upsets the 'Lefties'? It's like he's never even heard of Queer theory! Now that's transgressive; doing something to piss off an entire group of people and accidentally ending up affirming their entire way of doing things. (Hint to Milo: there's a hell of a lot of queer people who call themselves 'f****ts' in order to reclaim the term of abuse and make it their own, just as with the term 'queer' itself. You having the right to call yourself a term of your own choosing even if others find it derogatory is, in fact, exactly what those dang Lefties want. You want to really get those 'Lefties' all het up? Call yourself a Centrist. That'll do it.)
Perhaps that's being a little mean. After all, Milo really does dive deep into some pretty hefty topics in this weighty work of political nous. Some of the great philosophical questions tackled and, I think you'll agree, answered in this magnum opus include:
- are feminists lying about rape statistics and inflating them to demonise men, or are rape statistics actually incredibly high because of Muslim migration? Well, both, according to Milo. Feminists lie about rape statistics and rape culture doesn't exist, because feminists are all ugly lesbians with cats and they hate men and want them to suffer, and no-one would want to rape them anyway. But also, mass migration of Muslims to the West is causing enormous levels of rape, sometimes organised and planned in advance by groups of Muslim men as a sort of war tactic in order to take over the West through degrading their women. It's Schrodinger's rape, at once a lie when Milo wants to demonise feminists, and an objective fact when he wants to demonise Muslims. And yet Milo says that feminists are the ones who politicise rape! Eesh.
- is online harassment acceptable under the umbrella of 'trolling', i.e. free speech (Milo feels very strongly that trolling people on Twitter is the archetypal example of free speech, rather than, say, political protest) or is the prevalence of online harassment merely an attempt to silence others by crushing dissidents under the weight of Twitter campaigns and hate mobs? Well, both, according to Milo. When people on the Left bombard figures who they believe to be racist / sexist etc with angry tweets or post their personal information online, it's a case of the Left trying to shut down that person's freedom of speech. When Milo's followers send pictures of gorillas to black actresses and post the addresses of prominent feminists online, it's fine, because they have the right to do it, and it's not like it's serious! God, just get over it, guys. Unless you're doing it to a Nazi, in which case you're a disgusting SJW who needs to get off the Internet and have some sex, or something.
- is fake news a tool of the Left or the Right? Well, both, according to Milo. It's the Left who accuse the Right of fake news, because they can't stand the truth that the media outlets of the Right convey, like how Trump didn't mean he actually grabbed women by the pussy, even though he said he grabbed women by the pussy, and so the Left dub it 'fake news' to try and discredit it, and therefore to attempt to discredit the moral, honest Right in general. But also, when the Right call the Left's output 'fake news', that's accurate because the Left writes about Trump in a bad way, which makes it fake. But when the Left say 'fake news', it's wrong, and they made up the term. But the Right can use it. It's all very confusing when you try and parse out the hypocrisy of it all, but essentially, 'fake news' just means 'things that Milo doesn't agree with', which is, of course, the viewpoint of a reasoned intellectual.
- is the alt-right a hate movement full of Nazis, or is it a movement of misunderstood people who are tired of being lectured to by the morality policing Left? Well, both, according to Milo (have you noticed the pattern here yet?) When the alt-right send Nazi rhetoric or photos of swastikas to Jewish people, they're just trolling, and it's an expression of their anger at the status quo, which makes them feel ignored and downtrodden. But also, says Milo, the alt-right movement has been ambushed by Nazis. But they're not all Nazis, Milo says, except for the ones who are. Who are the Nazis, you ask? Who knows. They're there, somewhere, except for when they're not, except for when they are, which they're not. Unless they are, of course. Says Milo.
Milo has marketed this book as being too dangerous for commercial publication. It's just too degenerate for the masses, he says. He tells truths that people don't want to hear, he says. The dull truth is that this book is dangerous on only two levels, and it's not for the reasons Milo claims. Firstly, the entire reason it was dropped and ultimately self published cannot be limited to 'Milo said things about young boys which was too controversial', even if that's the main line that the press coverage of the book has taken. There are clearly other factors at play here, even beyond the genuinely abysmal writing style (which, by-the-by, reads very much like the secret Reddit history of a 15 year old boy who still thinks that the word 'butt' is the pinnacle of comedy), and these more serious issues of publication become clear when you read the text. Which I did. All of it. Every single awful page. Publishing this book would have opened Simon & Schuster up to multiple lawsuits from the people who Milo explicitly slanders, by the very basic legal definition of the term. Many claims he makes here about specific individuals, several of whom are named, are either patently inaccurate or open to dispute, and unverified, and the few claims which are cited use websites like Breitbart or, hilariously, Milo's own tweets. That insubstantial level of verification and subsequent legal threat is, quite simply, not going to fly in a book with the weight of Simon & Schuster's reputation behind it.
The other primary issue with this book is quite simply that the worldwide supply of anti-nausea drugs could never meet the demand, should this book have been allowed to obtain any semblance of a real audience. There's really only so many times one can read a variation on 'I'm hot and like to fuck... transgressively' before needing some industrial grade anti-emetics. Imagine the world health crisis. What if we all cut ourselves on all the edge? What then, Milo? Have you thought about the edge?!
And listen, in all seriousness, I don't think that Milo is evil. I really, genuinely don't. I think he's a narcissistic showoff who craves attention and validation, and I don't think he'd disagree with me on that; I think he'd probably take it as a compliment (which is part of the problem; people who wallow gloriously in the filth of their own worst qualities like they're bathing in champagne are, alas, the people who seem to shape discourse these days, and are at least 60% of the reason so many of us prefer not to engage with people online, and end up building echo chambers.) The validation that Milo seeks, however, is not validation that he is right, or even that he makes sense - he seeks assurance that yes, he is controversial, and yes, he's super duper edgy and taboo, and yes, he makes people angry. He takes people's rage at his poorly researched, inflammatory statements, and he turns it into his armour. It protects him, because if people attack what he says, which by his own admission is not a reflection of his own thought, then they are not attacking him. His ostentatiousness, his courting of controversy, his pseudo-polemicist rants - these protect him. He craves attention because it is diverting. Look at Milo the persona, the public figure, and not at the person, the man behind it all. There is probably a truly hideous self-portrait in his attic which is feeding off his soul as we speak. Milo makes a carapace of this artifice and hides himself within it, because it's the only way he knows to evade real criticism. Milo is not brave; he's afraid, and this book is not the work of a bold, silenced voice who only wants to speak the truth; it is the work of a man terrified to be authentically perceived, a man who shouts loudly about being silenced because he's afraid that no-one will listen to what he actually wants to say, which is 'please, dear God, won't someone just like me.'
This book is disingenuous to the extreme. It reads more as a man trying to convince himself of the arguments that he's making than anything else. I support freedom of speech. I'm glad that we live in a world where we're able to speak openly about what we believe. That said, I support freedom of speech primarily when people have something to say, and honestly, Milo doesn't, and he doesn't even say it - or hide it - well.
August 6, 2018
Contents:
Foreword
Preamble:
On Freedom of Speech and Political Correctness
Prologue:
The Art of the Troll
1. Why the Progressive Left Hates Me.
2. Why the Alt-Right Hates Me.
3. Why Twitter Hates Me.
4. Why Feminists Hate Me.
5. Why Black Lives Matter Hates Me.
6. Why the Media Hates Me
7. Why Establishment Gays Hate Me.
8. Why Establishment Republicans Hate Me.
9. Why Muslims Hate Me.
10. Why Gamers Don’t Hate Me
11. Why My College Tours Are So Awesome
Epilogue:
How to Be a Dangerous Faggot (Even if You’re Not Gay).
Acknowledgements
Endnotes
As you might gather from the above, Milo is never lost for words, whereas Yours Truly is grappling to find the right ones to respond to this. Anyway, here goes….
It’s hugely entertaining, witty, clever and outrageous. Milo is a self publicist so it is his intention to shock but it’s for a purpose, apart from naked publicity. He uses these tactics to get his serious points across and he succeeds.
If we take him at his word he is right wing, gay, with a black boyfriend/husband, half jewish. (He ought then to be virtually untouchable, surely? He can’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, a neo nazi...you’d be surprised! That’s what the opposition is saying.
Sexually abused by a priest when he was 13 (he says he wanted what the priest was offering him and has no intention of whining and making a living from it). He’s not sticking up for paedophiles and he’s not one himself.
He puts Donald Trump’s election (Milo refers to him throughout as “Daddy”!) readily into perspective, presenting it as almost inevitable.
I don’t agree with all he has to say but I can’t help admiring the way he says it, fucking political correctness with every sentence he uses.
Foreword
Preamble:
On Freedom of Speech and Political Correctness
Prologue:
The Art of the Troll
1. Why the Progressive Left Hates Me.
2. Why the Alt-Right Hates Me.
3. Why Twitter Hates Me.
4. Why Feminists Hate Me.
5. Why Black Lives Matter Hates Me.
6. Why the Media Hates Me
7. Why Establishment Gays Hate Me.
8. Why Establishment Republicans Hate Me.
9. Why Muslims Hate Me.
10. Why Gamers Don’t Hate Me
11. Why My College Tours Are So Awesome
Epilogue:
How to Be a Dangerous Faggot (Even if You’re Not Gay).
Acknowledgements
Endnotes
As you might gather from the above, Milo is never lost for words, whereas Yours Truly is grappling to find the right ones to respond to this. Anyway, here goes….
It’s hugely entertaining, witty, clever and outrageous. Milo is a self publicist so it is his intention to shock but it’s for a purpose, apart from naked publicity. He uses these tactics to get his serious points across and he succeeds.
If we take him at his word he is right wing, gay, with a black boyfriend/husband, half jewish. (He ought then to be virtually untouchable, surely? He can’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, a neo nazi...you’d be surprised! That’s what the opposition is saying.
Sexually abused by a priest when he was 13 (he says he wanted what the priest was offering him and has no intention of whining and making a living from it). He’s not sticking up for paedophiles and he’s not one himself.
He puts Donald Trump’s election (Milo refers to him throughout as “Daddy”!) readily into perspective, presenting it as almost inevitable.
I don’t agree with all he has to say but I can’t help admiring the way he says it, fucking political correctness with every sentence he uses.
September 21, 2017
I'm taking Milo to bed every night now. I suspect, from following him for a while, that I wouldn't be his prefered bed partner. I've always been pale (true Anglo-Saxon here) but after recent summers at the butt-end of the world where icebergs float past in this ocean laughingly and deceptively called the Pacific (I still maintain the bit I look out on is actually the Southern Ocean, which, therefore, more accurately conjures up images of Shakleton and other hideous feats of chilly derring-do), I am now, as Billy Connelly once put it, almost blue. But other than that, we're pretty good bed companions. He has a neat line in pillow talk. Yes, I've heard it all before in his many, many YouTube appearances. But you can't have too much of Milo Yiannopoulos, I've decided. He's not to everyone's taste, sure. Leslie Jones definitely wasn't too keen at one point, so I hear. But if you value irreverence, understand satire, like to laugh at other people but mostly at yourself, then this is a great book. That it's also intellectual, thought-provoking, and pretty much essential reading for those of us regretting the seemingly inevitable end of our current civilization, is surprising. I'm not a huge non-fiction fan (way too much intellectual effort), but this is nuanced, well researched and referenced. Fortunately it's also witty, wicked, irreverent, rude, offensive, vulgar... basically just Milo.
It's a Manifesto of Milo. What more could you want?
It's a Manifesto of Milo. What more could you want?
August 20, 2017
Малко неща са ме изненадвали толкова много в скорошно време колкото решението на Сиела да издаде тази книга на български и поради това смятам, че едно ревю на роден език е подобаващо, въпреки че се надявах да успея да си спестя този прочит.
"Опасен" на Майло Йанополис не е книга, която смятам, че има място на българския пазар. Каквото и да е писал Йанополис то е американско от петите до цъфналите върхове на косата (самият факт, че към края има черен и бял списък с американски колежи трябва да ви показва точно това). Не виждам книги на Ан Коултър или Бен Шапиро да се публикуват на български, затова защо Майло получава това внимание? Очевиден е фактът, че Коултър и Шапиро са шухи, Йоанополис е малко по-интересен, но в книгата му няма нищо ново, което един негов фен не би знаел вече и нищо стойностно, което един човек непознат с материала би научил. Йанополис е публичен говорител, не писател и със сигурност не си личи, че е добър журналист. Но дори книгата да беше добре структурирана и гениално написана в България тя все още няма място. Сериозно, в нашата страна е по-популярен дебатът айрян vs. айран отколкото GamerGate, Шон Кинг, Ричард Спенсър и мажоритетът от другите SJW глупости. В България тези културни феномени не са се зародили, пък и не смятам, че ще се зародят някога. Все пак, имаме си Динко, а това показва, че прогресивността в България няма да е в сила още поне няколко десетилетия.
Лично съм псевдо-фен на Майло, харесвам му изказванията, фен съм на екстравагантността му и на начина, по който ядосва така наречените регресивни, но това съм си аз. Не виждам защо американската политическа сцена би интересувала някой в България освен като хоби, а ако имате професионален залог в това, то Йанополис отново не помага. 100% от нещата в "Опасен" са ирелевантни за нас, но нямам против да бъде издадена книгата, просто не виждам как ще успее комерсиално ако трябва да стъпи на собствените си два крака.
Та тук стигаме до истинския въпрос. Защо Сиела искат да публикуват това? Кратко и ясно казано: защото могат да създадат контроверсия около книгата и да продадат прилично количество копия. "Опасен" не е книга за българския пазар, но няма нещо по-сладко за българина от "забранените" книги, както тази бе маркетирана. Да наречем "Опасен" забранена или цензурирана си е лъжа, нека бъдем честни. Книгата е бестселър в САЩ, и това, че най-голямата книжарница Barns & Noble не я продава не означава нищо в XXI век, особено в САЩ, където Amazon отдавна са де факто най-голямата книжарница. Да се парадира, че Майло е контроверсиален и цензуриран е като да се твърди, че Хари Потър също е контроверсиален, все пак едно време hardcore християните твърдяха, че разпространява и популяризира вещерство... "Опасен" от Майло Йанополис на български е чист cash grab, една лъжа, която може да се продаде лесно на незапознатия българин. Е, да се насладят на зле обяснените препратки към американската социалнополитическа сцена през 2016 г., разказани от човек, който е образец на meme wannabe (също като Ричард Спенсър, който Майло критикува точно за това). Аз лично знам достатъчно, за да не науча нищо ново от тази книга и не бих дал пари за нея.
"Опасен" на Майло Йанополис не е книга, която смятам, че има място на българския пазар. Каквото и да е писал Йанополис то е американско от петите до цъфналите върхове на косата (самият факт, че към края има черен и бял списък с американски колежи трябва да ви показва точно това). Не виждам книги на Ан Коултър или Бен Шапиро да се публикуват на български, затова защо Майло получава това внимание? Очевиден е фактът, че Коултър и Шапиро са шухи, Йоанополис е малко по-интересен, но в книгата му няма нищо ново, което един негов фен не би знаел вече и нищо стойностно, което един човек непознат с материала би научил. Йанополис е публичен говорител, не писател и със сигурност не си личи, че е добър журналист. Но дори книгата да беше добре структурирана и гениално написана в България тя все още няма място. Сериозно, в нашата страна е по-популярен дебатът айрян vs. айран отколкото GamerGate, Шон Кинг, Ричард Спенсър и мажоритетът от другите SJW глупости. В България тези културни феномени не са се зародили, пък и не смятам, че ще се зародят някога. Все пак, имаме си Динко, а това показва, че прогресивността в България няма да е в сила още поне няколко десетилетия.
Лично съм псевдо-фен на Майло, харесвам му изказванията, фен съм на екстравагантността му и на начина, по който ядосва така наречените регресивни, но това съм си аз. Не виждам защо американската политическа сцена би интересувала някой в България освен като хоби, а ако имате професионален залог в това, то Йанополис отново не помага. 100% от нещата в "Опасен" са ирелевантни за нас, но нямам против да бъде издадена книгата, просто не виждам как ще успее комерсиално ако трябва да стъпи на собствените си два крака.
Та тук стигаме до истинския въпрос. Защо Сиела искат да публикуват това? Кратко и ясно казано: защото могат да създадат контроверсия около книгата и да продадат прилично количество копия. "Опасен" не е книга за българския пазар, но няма нещо по-сладко за българина от "забранените" книги, както тази бе маркетирана. Да наречем "Опасен" забранена или цензурирана си е лъжа, нека бъдем честни. Книгата е бестселър в САЩ, и това, че най-голямата книжарница Barns & Noble не я продава не означава нищо в XXI век, особено в САЩ, където Amazon отдавна са де факто най-голямата книжарница. Да се парадира, че Майло е контроверсиален и цензуриран е като да се твърди, че Хари Потър също е контроверсиален, все пак едно време hardcore християните твърдяха, че разпространява и популяризира вещерство... "Опасен" от Майло Йанополис на български е чист cash grab, една лъжа, която може да се продаде лесно на незапознатия българин. Е, да се насладят на зле обяснените препратки към американската социалнополитическа сцена през 2016 г., разказани от човек, който е образец на meme wannabe (също като Ричард Спенсър, който Майло критикува точно за това). Аз лично знам достатъчно, за да не науча нищо ново от тази книга и не бих дал пари за нея.
July 6, 2017
Educates and entertains
The British are coming! The British are coming! No, it's just one Brit, and that Brit is the self-proclaimed Dangerous faggot and provocateur, Milo Yiannopoulos. Needless to say, I loved this book! Milo educates and entertains at the same. No one does it better. At a crucial time in our nation's history when the first amendment is under attack, this is the man who will lead the charge to defend this precious right. Get out of your comfort zones America, stop your whining and sniveling. The time has come to open your minds and lose your identity politics. Milo is going to meet you at the threshold of your safe spaces. Love him or hate him. Ready or not. Here he comes!
The British are coming! The British are coming! No, it's just one Brit, and that Brit is the self-proclaimed Dangerous faggot and provocateur, Milo Yiannopoulos. Needless to say, I loved this book! Milo educates and entertains at the same. No one does it better. At a crucial time in our nation's history when the first amendment is under attack, this is the man who will lead the charge to defend this precious right. Get out of your comfort zones America, stop your whining and sniveling. The time has come to open your minds and lose your identity politics. Milo is going to meet you at the threshold of your safe spaces. Love him or hate him. Ready or not. Here he comes!
January 15, 2018
I was just curious. But yeah, no.
What's sad here is that I don't disagree with Milo entirely all the time. The core of his stance in this book is, I think, a solid one. I too am dismayed at the level of discourse among the Left in recent years, particularly on the topics of gender, sexuality, and religious extremism. So there are portions of this book where it is easy to say "Yeah, I get you" but when you stop to really examine his stance, it becomes clear that he doesn't get it at all.
Milo takes pride in being a self-proclaimed provocateur, which is problematic in itself. In order to be one, you basically have to relinquish all subtlety. You may be starting a conversation, but you're not primed to participate in it. That paired with his complete inability to self-examine completely compromises his entire message, whether right or not. Instead of being the mouthpiece of a movement, he's just an open mouth. I don't predict that the future will remember the Thing Milo Did in any appreciable way.
What he does here is come after low-hanging fruit. It's easy to say that feminism has lost its message or the mainstream media is full of shit and even provide reasons why you think this is true, but he offers nothing at all in return.
And the biggest weakness here is that -- on a general level -- though he comes for the Left, he never says why the Right is any better. Milo is clearly unable to apply his level of scrutiny to his own ideas and those of the people he supports. While calling out the blindness and hypocrisy of whole groups of people, he turns around and supports groups guilty of the same fallacious logical and dialectical bullshit he claims to be so against. Though he name drops enough people to suggest that he is considered and rational, his words reek of the same obnoxious factionalism he hates. If he'd shut his mouth and really take the stronger logical threads here to their conclusions, I think he'd make an excellent skeptic. It's sort of a shame.
So let's be real here: There are no original ideas in this book. Everything he says has and is being engaged with at a much more meaningful level elsewhere. I'd much rather turn to the cultural theorists, political thinkers, and skeptical community for these topics rather than some masturbatory exercise in self-aggrandizement by a man who is intelligent, but not spectacularly so.
So while I don't think Milo is a white supremacist or a Nazi or a self-hating gay, and I do even have some respect for his mobilization of youth on his college tour, I don't think his ideas or this book is any good. While I honestly think we'd get along if stuck in a room together, owing in large part to our mutual appreciation of Sam Harris, Slavoj Žižek, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and dick, I could never be friends with someone who so grossly overestimates his own value.
Nor could I be friends with someone who is so unaware that he's not funny. Man, is he not funny. You don't have to be! Not being funny is as unjudged a quality as attached earlobes, nobody cares. But unfunny people who think they're funny are the fucking worst.
NOR could I be friends with someone who nauseatingly refers to Donald Trump as "Daddy".
So we're not going to be friends. I'm sure he's devastated.
Lastly, if I may go shallow for a minute: Bitch, you'd better watch yourself calling out fat and ugly people while prattling on about how pretty you are. You're getting doughy in the face yourself. And from one doughy gay boy to another, I need to remind you to look at some photos of yourself that haven't been beaten to death by Photoshop. That jawline is fake news, and at best, you're a Nightclub 8, Daylight 7. A solid B. And that's great!
(Disclaimer: I am a Nightclub 7, Daylight 6.)
What's sad here is that I don't disagree with Milo entirely all the time. The core of his stance in this book is, I think, a solid one. I too am dismayed at the level of discourse among the Left in recent years, particularly on the topics of gender, sexuality, and religious extremism. So there are portions of this book where it is easy to say "Yeah, I get you" but when you stop to really examine his stance, it becomes clear that he doesn't get it at all.
Milo takes pride in being a self-proclaimed provocateur, which is problematic in itself. In order to be one, you basically have to relinquish all subtlety. You may be starting a conversation, but you're not primed to participate in it. That paired with his complete inability to self-examine completely compromises his entire message, whether right or not. Instead of being the mouthpiece of a movement, he's just an open mouth. I don't predict that the future will remember the Thing Milo Did in any appreciable way.
What he does here is come after low-hanging fruit. It's easy to say that feminism has lost its message or the mainstream media is full of shit and even provide reasons why you think this is true, but he offers nothing at all in return.
And the biggest weakness here is that -- on a general level -- though he comes for the Left, he never says why the Right is any better. Milo is clearly unable to apply his level of scrutiny to his own ideas and those of the people he supports. While calling out the blindness and hypocrisy of whole groups of people, he turns around and supports groups guilty of the same fallacious logical and dialectical bullshit he claims to be so against. Though he name drops enough people to suggest that he is considered and rational, his words reek of the same obnoxious factionalism he hates. If he'd shut his mouth and really take the stronger logical threads here to their conclusions, I think he'd make an excellent skeptic. It's sort of a shame.
So let's be real here: There are no original ideas in this book. Everything he says has and is being engaged with at a much more meaningful level elsewhere. I'd much rather turn to the cultural theorists, political thinkers, and skeptical community for these topics rather than some masturbatory exercise in self-aggrandizement by a man who is intelligent, but not spectacularly so.
So while I don't think Milo is a white supremacist or a Nazi or a self-hating gay, and I do even have some respect for his mobilization of youth on his college tour, I don't think his ideas or this book is any good. While I honestly think we'd get along if stuck in a room together, owing in large part to our mutual appreciation of Sam Harris, Slavoj Žižek, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and dick, I could never be friends with someone who so grossly overestimates his own value.
Nor could I be friends with someone who is so unaware that he's not funny. Man, is he not funny. You don't have to be! Not being funny is as unjudged a quality as attached earlobes, nobody cares. But unfunny people who think they're funny are the fucking worst.
NOR could I be friends with someone who nauseatingly refers to Donald Trump as "Daddy".
So we're not going to be friends. I'm sure he's devastated.
Lastly, if I may go shallow for a minute: Bitch, you'd better watch yourself calling out fat and ugly people while prattling on about how pretty you are. You're getting doughy in the face yourself. And from one doughy gay boy to another, I need to remind you to look at some photos of yourself that haven't been beaten to death by Photoshop. That jawline is fake news, and at best, you're a Nightclub 8, Daylight 7. A solid B. And that's great!
(Disclaimer: I am a Nightclub 7, Daylight 6.)
July 12, 2017
I've been in a reading slump and this of all things is what I managed to read to the end of, ahaha. I don't think anyone that follows my reviews will really be bothered that I read this. If you are, I read over 100 books a year plus as many short stories and articles online—it's not that big a deal. And there will be, I'm pretty sure, more articles written about this book on large media sites than people who have actually read this book, so I thought you might want some info on it.
I would've loved to dismiss him on the basis that he creates controversy for controversy's sake—the THREE introductions to this book didn't do much help ahaha—but he has thought about stuff and reached conclusions (or collected and collated stuff other people have thought)—whether or not you agree with what those conclusions are is another thing. He goes through his stances on the various issues on which he's spoken about in colleges and such: GamerGate, feminism, Islam, gay marriage, fatness. No climate change though: guess it wasn't fabulous enough.
I don't agree with most of it, but that's not the point of reading, uh, anything. Even Yiannopoulos in his YouTube videos advises people to listen to him and to those on the left and make their own decisions. Plus you can strengthen your own opinions if you do in fact disagree. For example, just because gay people were once part of a counterculture, doesn't mean those of them that want to get married shouldn't. I didn't know people were using that argument against gay marriage. Now I do, and I gained an "others think... however..." to add onto my "I think..."
Also, his love of Azealia Banks is preventing him from conceding that she might need professional help—not because of the Trump thing. Because of the dead chickens in the cupboard thing? Don't Google it.
There is inevitably an offensive remark here and there, but it's so obviously designed to offend that it fails to do so—Simon & Schuster would've ironed those out, one hopes.
This book is probably a gateway to Ben Shapiro's Bullies, which I'm also interested in reading, though it didn't seem as accessibly written. Because I appreciate Shapiro's views for the most part. It isn't fair that there's a prevailing liberal bias in American media. You need both wings to fly. Can't if they're lopsided and not in communication. Even although, again, I don't agree with most of his views, and also the guy doesn't believe in climate change. Though if he's willing to overlook my sin of homosexuality, I guess I can hear him out on other stances.
Yiannopoulos himself knows that his book's title only succeeds if you freak the eff out. I read it though, it's okay, and all of this is as much as I can be bothered talking/ thinking about this book, so, onwards :)
I would've loved to dismiss him on the basis that he creates controversy for controversy's sake—the THREE introductions to this book didn't do much help ahaha—but he has thought about stuff and reached conclusions (or collected and collated stuff other people have thought)—whether or not you agree with what those conclusions are is another thing. He goes through his stances on the various issues on which he's spoken about in colleges and such: GamerGate, feminism, Islam, gay marriage, fatness. No climate change though: guess it wasn't fabulous enough.
I don't agree with most of it, but that's not the point of reading, uh, anything. Even Yiannopoulos in his YouTube videos advises people to listen to him and to those on the left and make their own decisions. Plus you can strengthen your own opinions if you do in fact disagree. For example, just because gay people were once part of a counterculture, doesn't mean those of them that want to get married shouldn't. I didn't know people were using that argument against gay marriage. Now I do, and I gained an "others think... however..." to add onto my "I think..."
Also, his love of Azealia Banks is preventing him from conceding that she might need professional help—not because of the Trump thing. Because of the dead chickens in the cupboard thing? Don't Google it.
There is inevitably an offensive remark here and there, but it's so obviously designed to offend that it fails to do so—Simon & Schuster would've ironed those out, one hopes.
This book is probably a gateway to Ben Shapiro's Bullies, which I'm also interested in reading, though it didn't seem as accessibly written. Because I appreciate Shapiro's views for the most part. It isn't fair that there's a prevailing liberal bias in American media. You need both wings to fly. Can't if they're lopsided and not in communication. Even although, again, I don't agree with most of his views, and also the guy doesn't believe in climate change. Though if he's willing to overlook my sin of homosexuality, I guess I can hear him out on other stances.
Yiannopoulos himself knows that his book's title only succeeds if you freak the eff out. I read it though, it's okay, and all of this is as much as I can be bothered talking/ thinking about this book, so, onwards :)
July 10, 2017
Love him or hate him, Milo entertains with a sharp wit. His book mirrors his bullet-stream approach to political messaging. It's a biting commentary, but it does deliver key talking points that are quite on target. Behind his usual bombastic imaging there is clear analytical and intelligent reasoning. His focus includes how culture, entertainment, politics, and information are constantly intertwined and evolving. The book had me thinking, which makes it a success.
July 12, 2021
/working on mini review/
September 3, 2017
Wow, this book was EVERYTHING I expected!!
Hilarious, politically incorrect, truthful, dangerous and really hilarious.
I would recommend to all ;)
Hilarious, politically incorrect, truthful, dangerous and really hilarious.
I would recommend to all ;)
July 4, 2017
So after waiting long enough it has finally been released. Dangerous is very much what should be expected from Milo with his usual blend of humour and information. Milo's usual writing style is equally effective in a longer format as it is in a shorter format. Dangerous is divided into topic specific chapters making the book easy to read and understand. If you don't like Milo read the book because you may come to understand why he has been successful and why Trump succeeded. If you like Milo you're probably going to read it anyway so I don't need to give you a reason to read it. Either way you will learn something new.
July 7, 2017
This book's voice fluctuates frequently between Milo's troll persona and a straightforward, earnest, serious description of lamentable cultural trends and the need to push back against them. It's fairly repetitive and could probably have been a bit shorter with tighter editing. The very impressive wit Milo displays in interviews and appearances is somewhat less noticeable here. I hope the book has some wider impact than preaching to (preening for, parading before) the choir.
Shelved as 'noway-josé'
July 8, 2017April 3, 2021
"The media's "war on trolls" is just another kind of class warfare: politically correct, university-educated elites don't like how the working classes speak. They're horrified by the ribald humor, sharp language and raucous tone of blue-collar interactions. So they brand it all as "abuse" and "harassment" and close their comment sections because they are too delicate to engage with ordinary people.
July 11, 2017
A uppercut to liberals
This book is a manifesto on how to troll rabid leftists trying to destroy Western civilization from their parent's basements.
This book is a manifesto on how to troll rabid leftists trying to destroy Western civilization from their parent's basements.
Read
February 16, 2019It was better than I thought it was going to be
September 1, 2017
Milo Yiannopoulos is a gay Jewish journalist who dates mainly black guys is also an anti-semitic Nazi homophobe. I had to open with that since I crack-up whenever his detractors call him any one of the obvious oxymorons. DANGEROUS is a sarcastic title in that it states anyone who wishes to exercise their individual freedom and who responds to society's issues with sound reason is "Dangerous." The book is mostly summed-up by telling social justice warriors, identity politics advocates, fake victims, cultural appropriation standard bearers and people who place feelings over reason and good sense to go f*ck themselves!
Milo to the masses: " We must challenge the forces of oppression in society, and we can't do so from a therapy session."
Milo to the Mass Media: " They have no problem telling the public that black is white, up is down, two plus two equals five. Trying to paint a bitter opponent of pedophila as an advocate for the crime is just another day at the office for them. Malcolm X said, 'If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.'" "Their primary goal is no longer to convey the latest information about current events to the American public, but to demonstrate their own commitment to the politically correct worldview of their peers in the metropolitan bubble." I'm reminded of when I saw Wolf Blitzer drinking champagne at Hillary Clinton's nomination.
Milo - "But you needn't worry-no one is listening to them, except for a small group of their fellow blind, deaf and dumb journalists. If I could tell my colleagues in the media four things, they would be: 1. Everyone hates you. 2. No one is afraid of you. 3. No one believes what you say. 4. Nobody owes you anything."
Milo to Liberals: "...to realize something no liberal in America has understood for a long time: emotions do not trump facts."
Milo to political correctness: "The new brand of political correctness, popular on college campuses and social media, is the idea that no speech should exist that directly challenges politically correct ideas." "Political correctness interrupts everyday human experiences, threatening to turn every single personal matter into a public one. You can no longer slip up in conversation without worrying if the person you're talking to is going to tell the whole world what you said, potentially ruining your life forever."
Milo to blind ignorance: "People like me are supposed to be a good little metropolitan fags and vote Democrat. We're supposed to pretend it's totally believable Rey could pilot the Millennium Falcon with greater skill than Han Solo. Never mind the fact that she learns the Force in like, half a day."
Milo to Leftists: "Leftists have always been well practiced at turning social classes against one another."
Milo explaining the New Left's method: "In the 1920s, the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci had an idea for a new form of revolution-one based on culture, not class. According to Gramsci, the reason the proletariat failed to rise up was because old, conservative ideas like loyalty to one' country, family values, and religion, held too much sway in working-class communities. Gramsci argued that "proletarian" intellectuals should seek to challenge the dominance of traditionalism in education and the media, and create a new revolutionary culture. For the New Left, white men are the cultural counterpart to economic bourgeoisie class in classical Marxist theory-a class of oppressors that must be overthrown by the oppressed. The influence of the New Left is seen most clearly in universities, where efforts to "deconstruct" the pillars of western civilization, from classical liberal humanism to the mythical "patriarchy," proceed just as Gramsci would have wanted."
Milo explaining identity politics: "Each group fights to be more oppressed than the others. Identity politics is universally attractive because it enables failures and weaknesses to be spun as the products of oppression and historical injustice. Personal responsibility is removed from the equation. "If you happen to fit into every conceivable minority group, heaven help you if your opinions do not precisely follow political orthodoxy."
Milo on reason: "It's profoundly anti-intellectual to substitute moral outrage for genuine understanding." "When you attack people from telling the truth you lose credibility." ..."if you call something neo-Nazi long enough, it will invariably attract actual Neo-Nazis and-this may surprise you-scare off normal people."
Milo to the Left's double standard: "We don't blame Justin Bieber when he tweets or posts on Instagram about Selena Gomez, prompting death and rape threats toward her. We don't blame Beyonce for what the Beyhive does to Taylor Swift. They are never held accountable for their actions of their fans by the media. if Beiber or Bey came out as Trump supporters, I guarantee you this would change."
Milo on online searching: "Robert Epstein's earlier experiments found that manipulation of search results can convince undecided voters to back a candidate with frightening efficiency. In some demographics, Epstein found the conversion rate was up to 80%."
Milo to feminists: "Feminism describes itself merely as a movement for female equality. But it behaves like something quite different: a vindictive, spiteful, mean-spirited festival of man-hating. "When you tell a feminist you don't believe in feminism, she'll often respond with the inane line, 'So you don't believe in equality for women!'"
Milo on the wage gap: " Study after study show the wage gap shrinks to nonexistence when relevant, non-sexist factors like chosen career paths, chosen work hours and chosen career discontinuity are taken into account." "As Christina Hoff Sommers says, 'Want to close the wage gap? Step one: Change your major from feminist dance therapy to electrical engineering.'"
Milo to BLM: "Black Lives Matter are only a small, vocal section of the black community, bankrolled by malicious progressive white billionaires and elevated by a disingenuous press." "In 2015, after Black Lives Matter rioted in Baltimore, the city suffered its deadliest year in history, with 344 homicide deaths in 2015. Progressives at Raw Story were wringing their hands over 238 black deaths caused by police officers across the entire country the year before. Baltimore's black deaths passed the number by 106-in just one American city." "According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks were charged with 62% of all robberies, 57% of murders and 45%of assaults in 75 largest U.S. counties in 2009, though they made up roughly 15% of the population there." "Moreover, it is not always white police officers who are doing the shooting,..." "A march 2015 Justice Department report on the Philadelphia Police Department found that black and Hispanic officers were much more likely than white officers to shoot blacks based on "threat misperception"..." "A 2015 study by University of Pennsylvania criminologist Greg Ridgeway, formerly acting director of the National Institute of Justice, found that, at a crime scene where gunfire is involved, black officers in the New York City Police Department were 3.3 times more likely to discharge their weapons than other officers at the scene." "Whenever black critics of the police have dared submit themselves to "use of force" simulations, which put participants in police scenarios where the use of force against a suspect is an available option, they end up pulling the trigger just as often as white policemen." [Troy Haden 'activist critical of police undergoes use of force scenarios," FOX 10 Phoenix, Jan. 8, 2015 http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/1382...]
"Schools in America are still largely segregated-black pupils overwhelmingly go to schools in lower-income neighborhoods, where class sizes are large, the standard of teaching is poor, and gangs prey upon adolescent boys, especially if they distinguish themselves academically. In 83 out of 97 large American cities, the majority of black students attended school where most of their classmates were low-income. In 54 of those cities, the majority number was over 80%. Fixing America's schools would go a long way to solving the deep-seated issues that cause black people to remain stuck in a cycle of crime and poverty." "...70% of black children are born to single women. Black fatherlessness is widespread and socially and educationally devastating for black children." "Then there's the war on drugs, which needlessly puts hundreds of thousands of black people in jail."
Milo to Gays: "Gays have been battling intolerance for decades, and only recently won the full support of society. And how we have we responded? By becoming equally intolerant-not against people who have sex differently from us, but against people who think differently from us." "Just because someone doesn't believe two guys should be married doesn't mean they hate gay people." "People are sick of the gay establishment telling them what they're allowed to say. Conservatives don't hate gay people, they hate being told what to think."
Milo to Establishment Conservatives: "Conservatives lost culture, and until we win it back our political victories will only be temporary setbacks against the steady advance of leftist principles. Actually, they didn't simply lose the culture war. It's worse than that. The truth is, they never even bothered to fight." "...beltway conservatives, who wonder what the fuss is about, and why more people aren't interested in the latest appropriations bill or Russian naval maneuvers in the North Sea. Young conservatives, who are on the front lines of leftist intolerance every day, fell asleep during that last sentence." "the kids and teens who idolize left-wing pop stars, watch movies made by left-wing film directors, and laugh at the jokes of left-wing comedians, grow-up to be-surprise!-left-wing voters. This cannot continue.""The conservative sense of fair play is disastrous when it comes to fighting Democrats. Elections are not college debates, no matter how much Ted Cruz might wish it so." "Politics isn't won by commanding the facts, but by connecting with people's experiences."
Milo on censorship: "Eisenhower: 'Don't join the book burners. Don't think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing the fact that they ever existed. Even if they think ides that are contrary to ours, their right to say them, their right to record them, and their right to have them at places where they are accessible to others is unquestioned, or it isn't American.'"
Milo on Islam: Islam is not like other religions. It's more inherently prescriptive and it's much more political." "Everywhere Islam exists you find political tyranny. Islam is as much a political ideology as a religion." "...unsettling poll numbers specific to British Muslims, from left-wing broadcaster Channel 4: 52% believe homosexuality should be illegal, 23% would like to see Sharia law in England, 39% believe a woman should always obey her husband, and 31% consider it acceptable for a man to have multiple wives." "Here is a religion that sanctions forcing women into submission, a religion that sanctions the execution of gays, a religion that sanctions the killing of non-believers." "the gap between what Muslims believe Islam to be, and how it is actually practiced in many Islamic nations, is so wide that it's hard to imagine any Islamic reformation taking place in the future."
Milo to Culture Warriors: "To a leftest, where everything is political and nothing is fun, gamers are a nightmare. Gamers feels the same about their critics."
Milo on Public Shaming: "Public shaming relies on isolating its victims, who are made to believe that they are alone against an overwhelming tide of majority opinion. It's a feeling that was shared by Donald Trump supporters -until they started winning. In reality, the shamers are usually part of the a vocal minority, allowed to dominate the conversation by terrifying others into silence."
Milo on Apologizing: "Never apologize!"
Milo to the masses: " We must challenge the forces of oppression in society, and we can't do so from a therapy session."
Milo to the Mass Media: " They have no problem telling the public that black is white, up is down, two plus two equals five. Trying to paint a bitter opponent of pedophila as an advocate for the crime is just another day at the office for them. Malcolm X said, 'If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.'" "Their primary goal is no longer to convey the latest information about current events to the American public, but to demonstrate their own commitment to the politically correct worldview of their peers in the metropolitan bubble." I'm reminded of when I saw Wolf Blitzer drinking champagne at Hillary Clinton's nomination.
Milo - "But you needn't worry-no one is listening to them, except for a small group of their fellow blind, deaf and dumb journalists. If I could tell my colleagues in the media four things, they would be: 1. Everyone hates you. 2. No one is afraid of you. 3. No one believes what you say. 4. Nobody owes you anything."
Milo to Liberals: "...to realize something no liberal in America has understood for a long time: emotions do not trump facts."
Milo to political correctness: "The new brand of political correctness, popular on college campuses and social media, is the idea that no speech should exist that directly challenges politically correct ideas." "Political correctness interrupts everyday human experiences, threatening to turn every single personal matter into a public one. You can no longer slip up in conversation without worrying if the person you're talking to is going to tell the whole world what you said, potentially ruining your life forever."
Milo to blind ignorance: "People like me are supposed to be a good little metropolitan fags and vote Democrat. We're supposed to pretend it's totally believable Rey could pilot the Millennium Falcon with greater skill than Han Solo. Never mind the fact that she learns the Force in like, half a day."
Milo to Leftists: "Leftists have always been well practiced at turning social classes against one another."
Milo explaining the New Left's method: "In the 1920s, the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci had an idea for a new form of revolution-one based on culture, not class. According to Gramsci, the reason the proletariat failed to rise up was because old, conservative ideas like loyalty to one' country, family values, and religion, held too much sway in working-class communities. Gramsci argued that "proletarian" intellectuals should seek to challenge the dominance of traditionalism in education and the media, and create a new revolutionary culture. For the New Left, white men are the cultural counterpart to economic bourgeoisie class in classical Marxist theory-a class of oppressors that must be overthrown by the oppressed. The influence of the New Left is seen most clearly in universities, where efforts to "deconstruct" the pillars of western civilization, from classical liberal humanism to the mythical "patriarchy," proceed just as Gramsci would have wanted."
Milo explaining identity politics: "Each group fights to be more oppressed than the others. Identity politics is universally attractive because it enables failures and weaknesses to be spun as the products of oppression and historical injustice. Personal responsibility is removed from the equation. "If you happen to fit into every conceivable minority group, heaven help you if your opinions do not precisely follow political orthodoxy."
Milo on reason: "It's profoundly anti-intellectual to substitute moral outrage for genuine understanding." "When you attack people from telling the truth you lose credibility." ..."if you call something neo-Nazi long enough, it will invariably attract actual Neo-Nazis and-this may surprise you-scare off normal people."
Milo to the Left's double standard: "We don't blame Justin Bieber when he tweets or posts on Instagram about Selena Gomez, prompting death and rape threats toward her. We don't blame Beyonce for what the Beyhive does to Taylor Swift. They are never held accountable for their actions of their fans by the media. if Beiber or Bey came out as Trump supporters, I guarantee you this would change."
Milo on online searching: "Robert Epstein's earlier experiments found that manipulation of search results can convince undecided voters to back a candidate with frightening efficiency. In some demographics, Epstein found the conversion rate was up to 80%."
Milo to feminists: "Feminism describes itself merely as a movement for female equality. But it behaves like something quite different: a vindictive, spiteful, mean-spirited festival of man-hating. "When you tell a feminist you don't believe in feminism, she'll often respond with the inane line, 'So you don't believe in equality for women!'"
Milo on the wage gap: " Study after study show the wage gap shrinks to nonexistence when relevant, non-sexist factors like chosen career paths, chosen work hours and chosen career discontinuity are taken into account." "As Christina Hoff Sommers says, 'Want to close the wage gap? Step one: Change your major from feminist dance therapy to electrical engineering.'"
Milo to BLM: "Black Lives Matter are only a small, vocal section of the black community, bankrolled by malicious progressive white billionaires and elevated by a disingenuous press." "In 2015, after Black Lives Matter rioted in Baltimore, the city suffered its deadliest year in history, with 344 homicide deaths in 2015. Progressives at Raw Story were wringing their hands over 238 black deaths caused by police officers across the entire country the year before. Baltimore's black deaths passed the number by 106-in just one American city." "According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks were charged with 62% of all robberies, 57% of murders and 45%of assaults in 75 largest U.S. counties in 2009, though they made up roughly 15% of the population there." "Moreover, it is not always white police officers who are doing the shooting,..." "A march 2015 Justice Department report on the Philadelphia Police Department found that black and Hispanic officers were much more likely than white officers to shoot blacks based on "threat misperception"..." "A 2015 study by University of Pennsylvania criminologist Greg Ridgeway, formerly acting director of the National Institute of Justice, found that, at a crime scene where gunfire is involved, black officers in the New York City Police Department were 3.3 times more likely to discharge their weapons than other officers at the scene." "Whenever black critics of the police have dared submit themselves to "use of force" simulations, which put participants in police scenarios where the use of force against a suspect is an available option, they end up pulling the trigger just as often as white policemen." [Troy Haden 'activist critical of police undergoes use of force scenarios," FOX 10 Phoenix, Jan. 8, 2015 http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/1382...]
"Schools in America are still largely segregated-black pupils overwhelmingly go to schools in lower-income neighborhoods, where class sizes are large, the standard of teaching is poor, and gangs prey upon adolescent boys, especially if they distinguish themselves academically. In 83 out of 97 large American cities, the majority of black students attended school where most of their classmates were low-income. In 54 of those cities, the majority number was over 80%. Fixing America's schools would go a long way to solving the deep-seated issues that cause black people to remain stuck in a cycle of crime and poverty." "...70% of black children are born to single women. Black fatherlessness is widespread and socially and educationally devastating for black children." "Then there's the war on drugs, which needlessly puts hundreds of thousands of black people in jail."
Milo to Gays: "Gays have been battling intolerance for decades, and only recently won the full support of society. And how we have we responded? By becoming equally intolerant-not against people who have sex differently from us, but against people who think differently from us." "Just because someone doesn't believe two guys should be married doesn't mean they hate gay people." "People are sick of the gay establishment telling them what they're allowed to say. Conservatives don't hate gay people, they hate being told what to think."
Milo to Establishment Conservatives: "Conservatives lost culture, and until we win it back our political victories will only be temporary setbacks against the steady advance of leftist principles. Actually, they didn't simply lose the culture war. It's worse than that. The truth is, they never even bothered to fight." "...beltway conservatives, who wonder what the fuss is about, and why more people aren't interested in the latest appropriations bill or Russian naval maneuvers in the North Sea. Young conservatives, who are on the front lines of leftist intolerance every day, fell asleep during that last sentence." "the kids and teens who idolize left-wing pop stars, watch movies made by left-wing film directors, and laugh at the jokes of left-wing comedians, grow-up to be-surprise!-left-wing voters. This cannot continue.""The conservative sense of fair play is disastrous when it comes to fighting Democrats. Elections are not college debates, no matter how much Ted Cruz might wish it so." "Politics isn't won by commanding the facts, but by connecting with people's experiences."
Milo on censorship: "Eisenhower: 'Don't join the book burners. Don't think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing the fact that they ever existed. Even if they think ides that are contrary to ours, their right to say them, their right to record them, and their right to have them at places where they are accessible to others is unquestioned, or it isn't American.'"
Milo on Islam: Islam is not like other religions. It's more inherently prescriptive and it's much more political." "Everywhere Islam exists you find political tyranny. Islam is as much a political ideology as a religion." "...unsettling poll numbers specific to British Muslims, from left-wing broadcaster Channel 4: 52% believe homosexuality should be illegal, 23% would like to see Sharia law in England, 39% believe a woman should always obey her husband, and 31% consider it acceptable for a man to have multiple wives." "Here is a religion that sanctions forcing women into submission, a religion that sanctions the execution of gays, a religion that sanctions the killing of non-believers." "the gap between what Muslims believe Islam to be, and how it is actually practiced in many Islamic nations, is so wide that it's hard to imagine any Islamic reformation taking place in the future."
Milo to Culture Warriors: "To a leftest, where everything is political and nothing is fun, gamers are a nightmare. Gamers feels the same about their critics."
Milo on Public Shaming: "Public shaming relies on isolating its victims, who are made to believe that they are alone against an overwhelming tide of majority opinion. It's a feeling that was shared by Donald Trump supporters -until they started winning. In reality, the shamers are usually part of the a vocal minority, allowed to dominate the conversation by terrifying others into silence."
Milo on Apologizing: "Never apologize!"
Read
June 7, 2022FOUR YEARS AND A PANDEMIC LATER: I am not as impressed with this book nor the material it delivers as I previously had been . . . which goes to show how much I've grown & learned lol. Some decent points were made, I guess??, but ultimately those are lost in the maelstrom of narcissism and selfishness. And so, I am taking my stars away and leaving my old review here for archive/memoir purposes, I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
September 14, 2017
Disclosure: I have met Milo before, so my review might be a bit biased.
For his first major book, Milo's Dangerous is pretty good. Those familiar with Milo and who seen any of his speeches or debates/interviews on television will be familiar with most of the content of the book. Having followed Milo since October of 2014, I'm well versed on Milo and his world views. For those unfamiliar with our beloved drama queen, this book is a good summary of what makes Milo, well, Milo. Yes, it's braggadocios and full of hyperbole, but that's the appeal of Milo: his delivery of facts is entertaining, to say the least.
Each chapter focuses on a different group that "hates" Milo (with one exception). From feminists, to BLM, to "debate club conservatives", Milo explains why his opponents hate him, and why they are wrong. I found the section on "debate club conservatives" most interesting, as it really digs into why Milo behaves the way he does.
The chapter on why gamers like Milo is essentially one of the best summaries of GamerGate. For myself and many others, Milo's reveal of the GameJournoPro mailing list is what brought Milo to my attention. The reveal, and subsequent Breitbart coverage, helped provided a counterbalance to the popular narrative of GamerGate being a hate group. My only complaint about the chapter is that Milo left out two important events in GamerGate's history, both of which he was a part of. The first, GGinDC, was the first GamerGate meet, put together by Milo and Christina Hoff Sommers and hosted in a bar in DC. (This is also where I had the pleasure of meeting Milo and some of his friends). The second is SPJ AirPlay, a debate between pro- and anti- GamerGater speakers. Both events were ended via bomb threat.
Overall, Dangerous is pretty good and worth checking out. If you know nothing about Milo, take the five star rating at face value; if you are familiar with Milo, maybe deduct half a star, since you won't be learning too much new.
For his first major book, Milo's Dangerous is pretty good. Those familiar with Milo and who seen any of his speeches or debates/interviews on television will be familiar with most of the content of the book. Having followed Milo since October of 2014, I'm well versed on Milo and his world views. For those unfamiliar with our beloved drama queen, this book is a good summary of what makes Milo, well, Milo. Yes, it's braggadocios and full of hyperbole, but that's the appeal of Milo: his delivery of facts is entertaining, to say the least.
Each chapter focuses on a different group that "hates" Milo (with one exception). From feminists, to BLM, to "debate club conservatives", Milo explains why his opponents hate him, and why they are wrong. I found the section on "debate club conservatives" most interesting, as it really digs into why Milo behaves the way he does.
The chapter on why gamers like Milo is essentially one of the best summaries of GamerGate. For myself and many others, Milo's reveal of the GameJournoPro mailing list is what brought Milo to my attention. The reveal, and subsequent Breitbart coverage, helped provided a counterbalance to the popular narrative of GamerGate being a hate group. My only complaint about the chapter is that Milo left out two important events in GamerGate's history, both of which he was a part of. The first, GGinDC, was the first GamerGate meet, put together by Milo and Christina Hoff Sommers and hosted in a bar in DC. (This is also where I had the pleasure of meeting Milo and some of his friends). The second is SPJ AirPlay, a debate between pro- and anti- GamerGater speakers. Both events were ended via bomb threat.
Overall, Dangerous is pretty good and worth checking out. If you know nothing about Milo, take the five star rating at face value; if you are familiar with Milo, maybe deduct half a star, since you won't be learning too much new.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 470 reviews