February 23, 2018 (Miami, FL): Dangerous Books, the publishing house founded by Milo Yiannopoulos in 2017, today announced its publishing line-up for 2018. The independent book publisher will release five titles in 2018, including one graphic novel and two books by New York Times bestselling authors.
“Earlier this week, I ended my lawsuit against Simon & Schuster and pledged instead that I would be focusing in bringing conservative authors to consumers,” said MILO. “Today I am honoring that pledge by revealing our 2018 slate of authors.”
The 2018 line-up includes:
CATHOLIC REPUBLIC: Why America Will Perish Without Rome, by Timothy Gordon (March)
REAGAN: The American President, by #1 New York Times bestselling author Larry Schweikart (July)
AYN RAND’s ANTHEM: The Graphic Novel, Adapted by Jennifer Grossman and Dan Parsons (August)
DESPICABLE, by New York Times bestselling author Milo Yiannopoulos (September)
WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS, by Laura Loomer (October)
REAGAN: The American President will be released July 4th and will be on every patriot’s summer reading list. REAGAN draws on never-before-seen evidence from the Reagan Library and other documentary sources and reveals Reagan as the statesman of genius and conviction who won the Cold War and forged the modern era. “Ronald Reagan was an intellectual and a visionary who saw that America’s exceptional founding was the key to its success, and its confidence in the future more powerful than military might or silos full of missiles,” said Larry Schweikart, the #1 New York Timesbestselling author of The Patriot’s History of the United States. “”I am excited to form a new partnership with Dangerous Books to bring you this new look at the greatest president of the 20th century.”
AYN RAND’S ANTHEM is scheduled to release at the start of the 2018 school year. The graphic novel was created in cooperation with The Atlas Society, the not-for-profit foundation that promotes open Objectivism, the philosophy of reason, individualism, achievement, and freedom originated by Ayn Rand. “The dramatic sequencing and artistic rendering of this production will appeal to all ages, but we crafted the graphics specifically for a YA (Young Adult) audience who already consume comics and have historically enjoyed this novella,” said Jennifer Grossman, author of the adaptation and president of the Atlas Society.
ABOUT DANGEROUS BOOKS
Dangerous Books was founded with a single mission: to publish the bold titles that the existing publishers were too squeamish to touch. In July 2017 Dangerous Books released its first book, DANGEROUS by Milo Yiannopoulos. DANGEROUS shipped over 100,000 copies and was a #1 Amazon bestseller, #1 Publishers Weekly bestseller, and #2 New York Times bestseller and was named one of the ten most important conservative books of the year by Conservative Book Club. DANGEROUS was followed by FATWA: Hunted in America, the memoir of free speech advocate and anti-Sharia crusader Pamela Geller. Today, Dangerous Books is the premier home for courageous stories by divisive, daring, and dangerous authors. For more information, visit www.dangerous-books.com or email us.
ABOUT CATHOLIC REPUBLIC
The symptoms of America’s decline are all around us. Few, if any, have sought to explain the origin of all of these problems at once. In Catholic Republic, Timothy Gordon argues that America’s premature withering could have been avoided if only the founders had fully incorporated into the new republic the Catholic natural law. CATHOLIC REPUBLIC is available for pre-order now with softcover and e-book release March 2018
ABOUT REAGAN: THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT
Drawing on never-before-seen evidence from the Reagan Library and other documentary sources, #1 New York Times best-selling author Larry Schweikart reveals Reagan as the statesman of genius and conviction who won the Cold War and forged the modern era. REAGAN is available for pre-order nowwith hardcover, e-book, and audiobook release on July 4 2018.
ABOUT AYN RAND’S ANTHEM
Imagine a world where man has neither independence nor individuality, existing merely as part of a great collective “WE” that lives and dies for the State. In this world, any man who speaks the forbidden word “I” is marked for death. This is the world of ANTHEM, Ayn Rand’s dystopian science-fiction masterpiece, available now as a graphic novel created by the Atlas Society and published by Dangerous Books. AYN RAND’S ANTHEM will become available for pre-order in May 2018 with softcover release August 2018.
ABOUT DESPICABLE
MILO follows up his New York Times bestselling book DANGEROUS with DESPICABLE, an investigation into the ugly sexual abuse culture in Hollywood that has enabled monsters to ruin lives for decades — and into the journalists and politicians that made it possible. Despicable is available for pre-order now at www.dangerous.com and will be released in hardcover, e-book, and audiobook in September 2018.
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS
Citizen journalist and investigative reporter Laura Loomer explores the events surrounding the Mandalay Bay Massacre. She reveals an intricate web of cover-ups, conspiracies, and collusion between law enforcement, local politicians, and casino operators designed to ensure that what happens in Vegas stays unknown. WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS will be available for pre-order in July 2018 with release in hardcover, e-book, and audiobook in October 2018.
My nearly sold out Phoenix event has been moved to Friday, March 2nd.
Here’s why:
The company hired to run production has pulled out due to threats of violence, and the new company simply wants the time to properly ensure everyone’s safety.
There are absolutely no venue issues and this event WILL NOT be cancelled. All purchased tickets and upgrades will be honored. If you haven’t purchased your tickets yet – GET ON IT, because like all my other live events, this will sell out in advance!
To all our Left Side peeps in the Valley of the Heat Stroke and beyond, you all did it!!! MILO HAS BEEN FUCKING CANCELLED!!! THAT’S STRIKE THREE MILO, YOU FUCKING BIGOT!!! STAY THE FUCK OUT OF PHOENIX!!! #DirectActionGetsTheGoodspic.twitter.com/i8XmVB07PV
First off, do you know who Lawrence Krauss is? I’ve seen many comments with folks commenting that they’ve never even heard of him. His professional biography, published on Arizona State University’s website, may be found here:
Secondly, on February 22, 2018, Buzzfeed published an article by By Peter Aldhous (BuzzFeed News Reporter) Azeen Ghorayshi (BuzzFeed News Reporter) Virginia Hughes (BuzzFeed News Science Editor). The article is titled, “The Unbeliever” and subheaded with the following:
“He Became A Celebrity For Putting Science Before God. Now Lawrence Krauss Faces Allegations Of Sexual Misconduct.
Lawrence Krauss is a famous atheist and liberal crusader — and, in certain whisper networks, a well-known problem. With women coming forward alleging sexual harassment, will his “skeptic” fanbase believe the evidence?”
Third, is Buzzfeed a reliable source? I like to use Media Bias Fact Check when I look at a publication. The website says Buzzfeed is classified as having a left-center bias with a Mixed rating on factual reporting but is “generally trustworthy.”
From the Media Bias website:
LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: Buzzfeed is an internet media company that focuses on entertainment, but does have content for breaking news and politics. Buzzfeed occasionally uses loaded words with a left bias in headlines/articles and has failed a fact check. Buzzfeed has also been known to rush stories that are not verified and then have to retract them. For the most part, Buzzfeed is factual and very well sourced. If not for a few minor blemishes Buzzfeed would be listed as High for factual reporting. Overall, Buzzfeed is a left leaning source that is almost always accurate in reporting, however our criteria dictates that a source that fails a fact check must be rated factually mixed. Buzzfeed is generally trustworthy, but it is recommended to check other sources to verify their stories. (6/30/2016) Updated (12/22/17)
Fourth, I found it odd that Buzzfeed put “skeptic” in quotation marks.
Let’s clarify the terms skeptic and skepticism:
Merriam Webster:
Definition of skeptic
1 : an adherent or advocate of skepticism
2 : a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion or religious principles
Definition of skepticism
1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)
Skepticism also has more than one branch.
Examples of major types:
Philosophical Skepticism—final truths are unknowable. I include Moral Skepticism under this heading, although others might view it as a separate area of study.
Religious Skepticism—questioning faith-based claims. A religious skeptic is not always an atheist. The two terms are commonly misused as interchangeable.
Scientific Skepticism-applying scientific inquiry and scientific method to prove knowledge. This would include debunkers such as Martin Gardner, the Amazing Randi, Penn & Teller or the popular “Mythbusters.” It also questions pseudoscience claims such as homeopathy.
So… that said, it appears that Buzzfeed uses the terms skeptic and atheist as the same thing, and that is simply incorrect.
So, back to dissecting the article:
Skeptics want evidence. Skeptics ask, “Is it true?”
Buzzfeed’s subhead quotes “whisper networks”: “Lawrence Krauss is a famous atheist and liberal crusader — and, in certain whisper networks, a well-known problem.”
Are “whisper networks” reliable evidence? Nope.
The next line in the subhead reads, “With women coming forward alleging sexual harassment, will his ‘skeptic’ fanbase believe the evidence?”
Huh? Why wouldn’t skeptics believe reliable evidence, whether part of Krauss’s fanbase or not? But it’s got to be more than the whisper network. There is no secret oath among skeptics to deny truth or cover it up if someone is accused of sexual misconduct.
Fortunately, the Buzzfeed authors go on to present the evidence beyond just whispers and innuendo.
First up is the account of Melody Hensley. The details are in the full story so I won’t rehash them here.
Hensley: “’It was definitely predatory,’ she said. ‘I didn’t want that to happen. It wasn’t consensual.’”
Krauss: “Krauss told BuzzFeed News that what happened with Hensley in the hotel room was consensual. In that room, ‘we mutually decided, in a polite discussion in fact, that taking it any further would not be appropriate,’ he told BuzzFeed News by email.”
Now what? In the classic sense of a “he said/she said” situation, the skeptic is going to look at this situation and say truth is unknowable. Dig deeper, please. (Hence, some skeptics, male and female, have been criticized for not fully embracing the #MeToo movement that asserts we must believe everyone, regardless of the evidence. The victim is always correct and truthful. No need to look under the hood.)
Ok, so that being said, things look a little more convincing when Buzzfeed claims the following: “In response to complaints, two institutions — Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario — have quietly restricted him from their campuses. Our reporting is based on official university documents, emails, and interviews with more than 50 people.”
That sounds like pretty damning evidence. The only documentation lacking would be independent verification by these institutions, which may happen, or a look at these documents and emails. But, clearly, this is moving in the direction of reliable evidence, which is all the skeptic wants to see. Buzzfeed fairly notes, “In lengthy emails to BuzzFeed News, Krauss denied all of the accusations against him, calling them ‘false and misleading defamatory allegations.’”
But then the article seems to take a weird turn, and it feels like an attack on the skeptic community in general:
First, it defines skeptics as rejecting all forms of faith:
“Although not a household name, Lawrence Krauss is a big shot among skeptics, a community that rejects all forms of faith — from religion and the supernatural, to unproven alternative medicines, to testimonials based on memory and anecdote — in favor of hard evidence, reason, and science.”
As illustrated above, this is not true. Case in point: Martin Gardner, considered by many to be the founder of the modern scientific skeptic movement, was a believer who wrote the essay, “Why I Am Not An Atheist.” Similarly, Carl Sagan disavowed atheism.
Next, Buzzfeed claims: “The skeptics draw heavily from traditionally male groups: scientists, philosophers, and libertarians, as well as geeky subcultures like gamers and sci-fi enthusiasts.” Traditionally male groups? Skepticism, questioning, inquiry, doubt—these are not the domains of males only. The suggestion that women can’t think critically with the best of them is insulting. Gamers and sci-fi enthusiasts? I don’t even know where that idea comes from. Skepticism has nothing to do with hobbies.
Then the article proceeds to pronounce the skeptic movement to be fracturing:
“But today the movement is fracturing, with some of its most prominent members now attacking identity politics and ‘social justice warriors’ in the name of free speech.”
Doesn’t fracturing mean falling apart? As a good skeptic, I return to Merriam-Webster:
Definition of fracture
1 : the result of fracturing : break
2 a : the act or process of breaking or the state of being broken; especially : the breaking of hard tissue (such as bone)
b : the rupture (as by tearing) of soft tissue kidney fracture
3 : the general appearance of a freshly broken surface of a mineral
Huh? So the skeptic movement is being broken apart by valuing and protecting free speech? The skeptic movement is broken for believing in discourse, debate and open-mindedness?
I’ll just leave you with this 20 minute talk on the value of free speech and free exchange of ideas by Christopher Hitchens. If you have time, it is wonderful.
Next, Buzzfeed goes with the anti-Muslim allegations so often leveled against religious skeptics. Oh brother. How many times does it have to be said. I’ll just quote Richard Dawkins here: “I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticise Christianity but not Islam?”
Next, we get to a paragraph that levels so many accusations, I don’t know if I can handle them all in one sitting:
“Famous freethinkers have been criticized for anti-Muslim sentiment (addressed that with Dawkins), for cheering the alt-right media personality Milo Yiannopoulos (Milo does not identify as alt-right and yeah, free speech), and for lampooning feminism and gender theory (that’s the area of the evolutionary biologists and not all skeptics speak on this topic. It is extremely complex and academic in nature).”
Next: “Several women, after sharing personal accounts of misogyny and harassment by men in the skeptic community, have been subjected to Gamergate-style online attacks, including rape and death threats.” If that is true, it is not coming from decent human beings. Prominent faces in the skeptic community, male and female, black, brown and white, do not participate in name calling and certainly don’t threaten rape or death. Ridiculous. Look at Jordan Peterson’s Twitter. A British journalist recently claimed she was harassed after interviewing Peterson, and he absolutely denounced it.
And for the kicker: “As a result, some commentators have accused parts of the movement of sliding into the alt-right.” Bleh. This was recently addressed by Sam Harris, when folks who openly identified as alt-right co-opted Steven Pinker by clipping out some YouTube comment and making it seem like he was a Nazi or some other nonsense. The New York Times even ran an opinion piece called “Social Media is Making Us Dumber” about this silliness.
Clearly, sexual misconduct is everywhere, and coming from many sides. Smearing an entire community, though, is just plain—what’s the scientific word—goofy.
——
UPDATE: ASU has received no complaints from ASU students, faculty or staff related to Lawrence Krauss. The university has initiated a review in an attempt to discern the facts. We encourage anyone who has concerns about faculty, staff or students to report those concerns.
11:18 AM – 23 Feb 2018
Official statement from Lawrence Krauss published 3.7.18
Arizona State University has investigated a complaint regarding allegations that Krauss touched the breast of a woman attending a conference in Australia in 2016. ASU ruled the incident is a violation of the university’s sexual harrassment policy. On page 2 of the review, there is a note that the woman involved in the incident had not wanted to make a report and did not feel the incident merited losing one’s job. However, witnesses felt the incident was reportable. The full letter and review is here:
An update on my situation at ASU. I have chosen to retire from ASU in May, 2019, when I turn 65. Onward and hopefully upward to new and different challenges. Details below. Thanks for the support and encouragement from so many of you. pic.twitter.com/7PSh0i4NnU
In a Facebook post dated 2.20.18, Milo Yiannopoulos announced he is terminating his lawsuit against Simon & Schuster. He wrote:
“A tough decision, but I think it was the right one. Let me explain my thinking.
After finally being able to personally review the documents that Simon & Schuster disclosed, it was clear to me that they wrongfully terminated my contract in bad faith. Based on the documents, I think they signed my book knowing they’d never publish it and then tried to make me walk away with excessive editing (you’ve all seen the manuscript!) and demands. In the end, they just nuked it and took their chances.
Having earned well over a million dollars from publishing my New York Times best-selling book Dangerous myself, it was always going to be hard to prove damages, as anyone who has ever hired a “damages expert” will know. I don’t want to spend all the money I made from my book, and the next two years of my life, on a lawsuit. I would rather use it to help other authors reach the conservative audience that Simon & Schuster hates so much (but is happy to profit from, naturally).
Simon & Schuster will tell you they paid nothing in this lawsuit. That’s a lie. Not only did I keep the advance they retroactively claimed I owed back, but they have spent enormous funds on lawyers because they refused to admit they had done wrong. The damage to their reputation among conservatives has been incalculable. Simon & Schuster will be forever remembered as the publisher most implacably hostile to popular conservative authors — even New York Times bestselling ones.
Worse, Simon & Schuster is the publisher who proved we don’t need them. Independently publishing my book was the most profitable thing I’ve ever done — and now I have my own imprint, Dangerous Books, which will publish all my future titles and the titles of many other conservative authors too. Conservative and libertarian authors no longer need a liberal publishing house to succeed. That’s great news for everybody.”
As many of you are aware, The Bruin Republicans at UCLA had announced earlier on Tuesday, February 13 that we would be hosting Milo Yiannopoulos on Monday, February 26. The decision to host Milo has polarized the leadership of the organization between those wishing to move forward with the event and those who wish to cancel it. In order for an organization to be able to function properly, it must do so with the unequivocal support of all its members. This does not mean that we all must agree 100% on all issues but we must have at least a clear majority. Consequently, we have decided not to move forward with the event.
For those of you who have already purchased tickets, refund information will be posted on our website within the upcoming days. We would like to make it clear that any public backlash to this event has nothing to do with our cancellation and that we have been more than willing to stand up to both protesters and administrative figures as evidenced by our Ben Shapiro event last quarter. We would like to thank Milo and his team for their hard work and effort in supporting this event, and we wish them nothing but the best.
Sincerely,
Bruin Republicans at UCLA
Milo had already announced the event on Facebook and through his website, dangerous.com:
On Tuesday, MILO announced his highly-anticipated return to the American college campus with a Feb. 26 debut at UCLA.
The topic of the speech will be “10 Things I Hate About Mexico.”
UCLA is the first stop of MILO’s new college tour after activists rioted and destroyed the campus at UC Berkeley last February as MILO prepared to speak.
MILO’S response to the cancellation via Facebook:
I despair at the trajectory of Californian universities. Even the students who describe themselves as Republicans seem hopelessly lost and weak.
Californian professors are engaged in the systematic extermination of free speech on campus. They have made the mere discussion of populist, nationalist conservative ideas impossible.
I will never stop arranging talks in California. I don’t care how much money or how much time it takes. Unlike previous generations of conservative and libertarian activists I refuse to simply hand over the keys to the wacko left. In the meantime I urge parents to reconsider sending your kids to these schools. They’re not getting educated — they’re getting indoctrinated.
In a second, longer Facebook post, Milo elaborated:
Against the wishes of its own members, the board of the Bruin Republicans has caved to intense pressure from the UCLA faculty and one of its advisors and voted to cancel the event, less than 24 hours after putting tickets on sale. This follows UCLA faculty members placing op eds in multiple news outlets over the past 24 hours.
Student members were not in agreement but multiple votes were taken at the insistence of a small group of Milo sceptics on the board until finally the group voted to cancel. (Repeating referenda until you get the result you want while intimidating your opponents? Robert Mugabe would be proud.)
Students informed Milo Inc of the decision Wednesday night. They told us they had been threatened by other members of the Bruin Republicans with expulsion from the board if they did not cancel the event.
In two years, and dozens of colleges, I have never seen students crumble this quickly before. And all because I wanted to tell a few jokes about MS-13. It’s shameful. 60 million people in America voted for Donald Trump and their point of view is being exterminated from public life — with the help of so-called Republicans on campus. This is why the Left wins and will continue to win the big cultural victories: conservatives in this country have no stomach for the fight.
Milo Inc had spent tens of thousands of dollars in staff time and planning for the event, which has been on the books for three months. Milo Inc asked repeatedly if the Bruin Republicans were getting cold feet and were told that the event would proceed. The multiple rounds of voting were taken after the event had been confirmed and tickets had gone on sale, violating the agreement the Bruin Republicans had with Milo Inc.
It’s shameful that UCLA’s faculty would apply such enormous pressure to students. Professors know students are easily intimidated and will fold quickly. A faculty advisor to the Bruin Republicans, Gabriel Rossman, in an op ed for the Weekly Standard, threatened to cut all ties with the Bruin Republicans unless they cancelled my show. It’s intimidation, plain and simple. This is a new front in the Left’s war on campus conservatism: applying pressure in the media while pretending to respect free speech to bully students into canceling the most popular — and therefore the most dangerous — conservative speakers.
I’m not even far-right, or all that controversial. I’m a gay Jewish immigrant married to an African-American who talks about free speech. But because I’m effective, and popular, and because unlike other conservative speakers I persuade moderates, the censors go crazy any time my name is mentioned. And so do the snobs of the Republican establishment who can’t understand how someone as gauche and attention seeking as me could possibly be popular.
A MILO talk makes money for college students, because we share the profits of ticket sales with our host organization. Most speakers leave their hosts $20,000 poorer when they leave. But I leave them richer.
I was planning to show up dressed as my genderqueer social justice alter ego Styrm (that’s Storm with a y) to explain how importing Mexican patriarchy would hurt marginalized communities in America. But I guess another university will get to enjoy the show — and the profits — instead.
—-
Tickets for my February 23 speech in Phoenix, AZ are available atdangerous.com/phoenix. Tickets for my speech in Washington DC during CPAC, “A Night for Freedom,” are available at dangerous.com/dc.
————-
Dr. Rossman originally published his open letter in the Weekly Standard:
I was very glad to meet everyone at a recent lunch. You seem to be a great group of students with serious aspirations and a strong interest in conservatism. As you will recall, in my remarks I expressed the hope that you would follow the traditional debating society model of the Harvard Republicans rather than the epater les SJWsperformance art model of the University of Colorado Republicans as described in Binder and Wood’s Becoming Right. You will also recall a very specific corollary I mentioned: Do not invite Milo Yiannopoulos. It was for this reason that I was surprised when I learned Tuesday that you were doing exactly that, and for a talk entitled “10 Things I Hate About Mexico.”
One thing I left out of my remarks about the impact of the ideological skew of academia is that the dearth of conservative faculty means a lack of mentorship for conservative students. Which is part of the reason you see students at places such as University of Colorado engaging in ill-conceived political theater that can be amusing and provocative—but is ultimately counter-productive.
As one of the few conservative faculty at UCLA, and one of a very few who knows the campus club, I feel obligated to provide some mentorship here: I strongly urge you to rescind your invitation to Yiannopoulos. Allow me to explain why.
The most important reason not to host such a talk is that it is evil on the merits. Your conscience should tell you that you never want anything to do with someone whose entire career is not reasoned argument, but shock jock performance art. In the 1980s conservatives made fun of “artists” who defecated on stage for the purpose of upsetting conservatives. Now apparently, conservatives are willing to embrace a man who says despicable things for the purpose of “triggering snowflakes.” The change in performance art from the fecal era to the present is yet another sign that no matter how low civilization goes, there is still room for further decline.
I want to be clear that my point here is not that some people will be offended, but that the speaker is purely malicious.
Many speakers and many speeches will offend people, especially given the sense among many on the campus left that they are entitled to complete isolation from ideas with which they disagree.
This is different.
Looking at the fall quarter calendar, I see Richard Sander, Rafael Dagnesses, Keith Fink, and Ben Shapiro recently gave talks sponsored by your group. Lots of people disagree with these speakers, and I disagree with some of them about certain points, but none of them are malicious.
I can understand why some people were offended by Heather Mac Donald’s ideas when she spoke on campus last year. But reasonable people can disagree about whether all Americans, and especially African Americans, on net benefit from aggressive policing. More to the point, Mac Donald expresses her pro-police position without animus, so sponsoring her talk was an entirely legitimate and honorable thing to do.
If the Bruin Republicans were considering a talk with a journalist or scholar giving a temperate and reasoned lecture on “ten reasons why Mexico’s social development lags,” then it could be a very reasonable event to host, even if people were offended by it.
I would also caution you to expect that speakers who take ideas seriously are often repelled by association with deliberately offensive speakers. For instance, when the organizers of “Free Speech Week” at Berkeley circulated a list of (proposed) speakers, Charles Murray told the Chronicle of Higher Education that he “would never under any circumstances appear at an event that included Milo Yiannopoulos.” Obviously, Murray is someone whose ideas many people find offensive, but he expresses them without hatred and so declines to appear with someone he (correctly) considers a “despicable asshole.” Likewise, I know many conservative writers, but I imagine an invitation would be much less attractive to them (nor would I extend it) if they had to bring Lysol to clean the podium from the prior occupant.
There are other reasons not to associate yourselves with Yiannopoulos. Whether or not anyone notices, you want to be on the side of the person getting attacked for being a Jew (such as Ben Shapiro, who you have hosted before), not the person who mocks that Jew by dressing midgets in kippahs (and on a separate occasion debases “America the Beautiful” by singing it to an audience of giggling Nazis as they throw sieg heils).
The merits are more important than appearances, of course, but the fact is that people will notice if the Bruin Republicans host someone offering nothing more than alt-right camp and this is a secondary reason not to do so.
You need to ask yourselves, what is your goal as an organization? If you’re in it for the lulz and just want to see the world burn, then I guess go ahead and bring in a vapid provocateur.
But if your mission is to spread conservative ideas, you should recognize that hosting Yiannopoulos will only render your organization and our ideas toxic. The left often suspects that principled conservative positions are actually born of racism. Conservatives have traditionally pushed back against this criticism. Here at UCLA, that will be a much less tenable argument for Bruin Republicans to make if they host a talk by someone whose sole recommendation is that his offensiveness to others ishis big idea.
My understanding of the proposed Yiannopoulos event is that it is intended in part to be a fundraiser. Remember the question Jesus asks in the synoptic gospels, “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?” In the case of the Bruin Republicans, the question is not poignant but pathetic: What does it profit a club to cover the costs of an event—and maybe get enough to cover an end-of-year party—if they lose their integrity and reputation.
I am a strong believer in freedom of political speech. However, there is a distinction between tolerating speech and sponsoring speech. Neither I, nor you, nor Chancellor Block have the right to say that Milo Yiannopoulos cannot give a speech on campus.
But neither does that mean that I, or you, or Chancellor Block needs to actively invite him and actively promote his childish provocations. If he wants to stand on Bruin Walk ranting with the other creeps and lunatics, he can do so. I believe people have the right to do all sorts of things in the privacy of their own homes, but that doesn’t mean that I would invite them to do them in my living room for an audience of me and my dinner guests.
If you go through with hosting Yiannopoulos, I will vociferously support your rightto do so—and the duty of the UCPD to use force if necessary to maintain order and prevent a heckler’s veto. However, I must just as vehemently and publicly disagree with your decision to host him.
Specifically, should the event go forward, I will decline to have any association with the Bruin Republicans until it has experienced a complete turnover in membership. I hope that will not be the case and that I can continue to support you.
Sincerely,
Gabriel Rossman
Gabriel Rossman is an associate professor of sociology at UCLA.
Award-winning journalist and New York Times bestselling author MILO is joining longtime Donald Trump advisor and Republican strategist Roger Stone in an anti-trust lawsuit against social media giant Twitter.
In July 2016 MILO made headlines when Twitter permanently suspended his account following a negative review he wrote of the newly released, all-female Ghostbusters movie.
Stone had his account permanently suspended in late 2017 after posting several tweets with expletives. Both contend they did not violate Twitter’s terms of service and were targeted instead for arbitrary reasons.
In a statement about MILO joining the lawsuit, Roger Stone said:
We continue to explore a broad lawsuit challenging Twitter’s censorship and the hypocrisy of their rules for online conduct which seem to be disproportionately levied against conservative voices in an obvious attempt to silence us. Verified tweeters call for my murder online every day, but Twitter doesn’t ban them.
We believe it is time to expose their manipulation of algorithms, ‘shadowbanning’ and other online techniques used to limit our reach. It’s time for Twitter to be regulated like a public utility or perish. I am heartened that my friend Milo is prepared to join our legal action along with other conservatives who have been gagged by the Twitter censors.
In a January 11 statement about the anti-trust case, MILO said:
I am Patient Zero of the Twitter war against conservatives and libertarians. The company declared war on free speech when it banned me in July 2016. At the time, I appreciated the free press. But I have come to realize that Twitter’s recklessness and bias toward conservatives and free thinkers represents a threat to free speech and democracy, such is Twitter’s monopolistic grip on journalistic discourse.
Footage released this week by investigative journalists at Project Veritas reveal a defiantly biased company whose hateful and divisive political attitudes are robbing libertarians and conservative journalists and media personalities of the right to freely express their opinions in the press.
The biggest tech debate of the next decade is whether technology companies, in particular social networks, should be regulated as public utilities. It is becoming increasingly clear, given their rampant abuses, that they should. And Twitter is the worst offender of them all.
DANGEROUS was a New York Times bestseller for weeks and across all platforms is approaching 200,000 copies sold. And no amount of jealous bitching from Verified Liberals is going to change that. My next book, DESPICABLE, is about Hollywood and how the same journalists sniping at me today turned a blind eye to child rape and sexual assault for decades. Out May 5. 😘
Post #2:
“You done good … will sell 500,000 copies” — What Simon & Schuster Was Telling Milo in Private
—
‘Don’t quote me but you done good’ is what Simon & Schuster told me about my manuscript just days days before dumping my book in February in breach of contract.
S&S executives also quoted Hollywood agents who said I’d shift half a million copies and agreed with me about the ‘virtue-signaling’ Left.
Mitchell Ivers, the liberal gay editor Simon & Schuster put in charge of neutering its edgier conservative authors, hates Republicans and thinks they are all virulent homophobes. He told me so himself.
Ivers said one thing in manuscript edits, but quite another when he was giggling and flirting with me via text. I can’t explain to readers why his texts and manuscript edits are so different. But the public will read between the lines.
