Tag Archives: Milo Yiannopoulos

A Tale of Two Talks: Free Speech in the U.S., by Douglas Murray

Milo Yiannopolous has never argued that either slavery or rape are good things, but a violent mob of thugs  prevented him from speaking at UC Berkeley. Jonathan A.C. Brown, during a talk at Georgetown University, praised Muslim slavery and slave rape. There were no protests and nary a peep from students or the academic establishment. From Douglas Murray at gatestoneinstitute.org:

• During his talk at Georgetown University, Jonathan A.C. Brown condemned slavery when it took place historically in America and other Western countries, but praised the practise of slavery as it happened in Muslim societies, explained that Muslim slaves lived “a pretty good life”, and claimed that it is “not immoral for one human to own another human.” Regarding the vexed matter of whether it is right or wrong to have sex with one of your slaves, Brown, who is director of the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, said that “consent isn’t necessary for lawful sex”.

• No mob of anti-sharia people has gone to Georgetown, torn up telephone poles, set fire to things or smashed up the campus, as mobs did at Berkeley.

Milo Yiannopoulos has never argued that the Western system of slavery was benevolent and worthwhile, and that slaves in America had “a pretty good life”. He has never argued against consent being an important principle in sexual relations. If he had, then the riots at Berkeley would doubtless have been far worse than they were and even more media companies and professors would have tried to argue that Yiannopoulos had “brought the violence upon himself” or even organized it himself.

To continue reading: A Tale of Two Talks: Free Speech in the U.S.

Berkeley Commies, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

If the thugs who prevented Milo Yannopoulos from speaking at UC Berkeley think they hurt him or his cause, they have another think coming. From Thomas E. Woods Jr. at lewrockwell.com:

Everyone is no doubt grimly aware of the events that transpired at the University of California at Berkeley days ago when writer and speaker Milo Yiannopoulos attempted to deliver a speech. He was met with violent protesters who smashed windows and ATMs, set things on fire, destroyed property of various kinds, and beat people senseless.

Milo has since confirmed his intention to return to Berkeley at some point in the future.

Leftist protesters, surveying the situation and its aftermath, have persuaded themselves that the whole thing went really quite smoothly.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, organizers of the riot (it wasn’t really a “demonstration”) are calling it “stunningly successful.”

“Everyone played a part,” said Berkeley Law School alum Roland Cruz, of the group By Any Means Necessary. “Some engaged in breaking windows – others held signs and made sure that the fascists and the police did not attack anyone.”

Yes, really smooth.

The “fascists,” of course, were the regular people who wished to attend the event. Unlike leftists, these folks are not known for committing acts of violence, so as usual the snowflakes didn’t have much to worry about.

Meanwhile, the whole country sees a pleasant and articulate young guy – who made many media appearances as a result of the incident – having to flee for his life from a raging mob. The mob thought breaking windows and destroying property, not to mention beating people up, was an appropriate way to indicate their disagreement with Milo’s views.

Yeah, that’s super smooth. Americans really go for that.

To continue reading: Berkeley Commies

He Said That? 2/2/17

Here is a video of Milo Yiannopoulos’s speech Wednesday at the University of California at Berkeley, home of the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s:




Oh, wait, there was no speech. Rioters assaulted attendees, started fires, smashed shops, and attacked people’s cars, forcing the speech to be canceled. We’ll see how many of the rioters who committed these crimes go to jail. They should all be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but they won’t be. The rioters will undoubtedly claim they were, among other things, protesting on behalf of various minorities’ rights, but in so doing they abridged the free speech right of the smallest minority—an individual—and the rights of all those who wanted to hear him. The rioters are the enemies of rights, not their protectors.