enemies love story

Enemies, A Love Story


There’s stiff competition, but the most noxious personality to emerge from under the metaphorical rock of the Donald Trump phenomenon has to be the British Internet troll Milo Yiannopoulos. Much like his idol, whom he calls “Daddy,” this flamboyantly homosexual, attention-starved chancer has made a career out of antagonizing oversensitive college students, feminists, Black Lives Matter activists, and other disciples of left-wing identity politics. One of Yiannopoulos’s prime targets is the gay media and political establishment, which he accuses of being a censorious, humorless, easily offended herd of independent minds. And so when OUT Magazine recently profiled Yiannopoulos and included the requisite photo spread of him donning a variety of clown costumes, how did said gay media and political establishment react?

Like a censorious, humorless, easily offended herd of independent minds.

“The profile negligently perpetuates harm against the LGBT community,” thundered an open letter signed by dozens of leading LGBT journalists and activists. By equating a piece of writing with the infliction of physical violence, their assertion exemplified the hysterical censoriousness of much of the left. Accusing the magazine of publishing a “puff piece” about a “white supremacist,” the letter was written in impenetrable, jargon-heavy prose, featuring such gems as the following: “The excess of this narrow branding of the queer community results in erasure of all those who are not highlighted, an erasure that allows stereotypes, discrimination, and abuse to continue unabated against those invisible intersections.” A free steak dinner if you can tell me what the fuck that means.

Seriously, though, Yiannopoulos isn’t worth the outrage. A failed tech-journalism entrepreneur who left behind a trail of unpaid employees in London before finding a fan base in gullible Americans who thrill to a British accent, Yiannopoulos has extended his fifteen minutes of fame by hitching himself to the “alt-right.” That’s the euphemism adopted by Trump-supporting white supremacists who cleverly understood that getting people to call them “alt-right” was better for their cause than more accurate labels like “neo-Nazi” or “racist.” Banned from Twitter for inciting a campaign of abuse against African-American Saturday Night Live star Leslie Jones, Yiannopoulos habitually boasts of his love for “black dick” whenever asked about his affinities for what is essentially white identity politics, as if that were dispositive of his racism and not a confirmation of it. In similar fashion, he and his defenders mention his purportedly Jewish maternal grandmother, citing this (alleged) ancestral irrelevancy whenever the anti-Semitism of his fans is broached. “I’m a provocateur,” Yiannopoulos once declared to CNN, the sort of thing that actual provocateurs—like CIA agents or royalty—don’t feel the need to say if it’s actually true.

Getting in high dudgeon over a magazine profile that was hardly the hagiography they shrilly claimed it to be, Yiannopoulos’s critics gave him precisely the sort of pearl-clutching reaction he wanted, and they delivered it to him on a silver platter. Indeed, by responding to the trite and trivial Yiannopoulos with self-righteous sanctimony, signatories to the open letter made the same elementary mistake that the broader left does whenever his idol, Ann Coulter, opens her mouth: they took him seriously. Over a decade ago, long before a Trump presidency was even a gleam in Coulter’s eye, Andrew Sullivan provided the best description of her yet when he remarked that she is “a form of camp,” a piece of “postmodern performance art,” and “a drag queen impersonating a fascist.” Milo, you might say, is a fascist impersonating a drag queen.

Yet as much as they might despise him, Yiannopoulos is a creature of the very progressive forces who wish to see him blacklisted. A poseur whose sole purpose seems to be offending the easily offended, he is the obnoxious, inevitable backlash to the suffocating cultural hegemony of the identitarian left.

So, in a way, was Trump the political manifestation of this same phenomenon. To be sure, Trump’s election is a moral and political catastrophe, and no amount of liberal condescension toward middle America—what many now allege to have been a major cause for his victory—can ever justify voting for such a corrupt, authoritarian ignoramus. Before the election, the alt-right and the radical left were engaged in a more or less equal struggle for power and relevance. Since Trump’s shocking victory, however, the former has emerged as a political force, while the latter seems anachronistic and hapless.

The refusal to rationalize support for Trump, however, should not distract us from a major element of his electoral appeal: resentment. Trump’s blustering campaign, for which the phrase “politically incorrect” does not even come close to doing justice, was ultimately a giant middle finger to the effete elites, establishment officialdom, kale eaters, and anyone else who still believes that basic decency and respect for those with differing opinions have a part to play in our politics. Trumpism isn’t so much a coherent ideology (how can it be, when it’s namesake doesn’t have one?) as it is an attitude—and an unremittingly boorish and adversarial one at that.

A primary target of this newfangled populist conservatism is the “social justice warrior,” or “SJW.” Epigones of the feminist, gay, and racial minority activists who emerged in the 1960s, SJWs are waging an uncompromising war of attrition on American culture, higher education, and traditions of free inquiry. Through the creation of physical “safe spaces” on university campuses, where students need not encounter a single idea or argument that troubles them, to the insertion of “trigger warnings” at the outset of classic texts dealing with potentially traumatic subject matter, SJWs try to shut down intellectual inquiry and shame those who do not adhere to their rigid dictates. But you don’t have to be a loyal viewer of Fox News or a reader of Breitbart.com to conclude that the SJWs are getting out of hand. When their high priests excoriate brilliant actors like Eddie Redmayne and Jeffrey Tambor for playing transgender roles, deem the practice of yoga and eating sushi as offensive forms of “cultural appropriation,” or insist that Bernie Sanders is a “white supremacist” because he once suggested to an aspiring Latina politician that being a Latina is not a sufficient campaign platform, even the most well-intentioned progressives throw up their hands in frustration.

The rise of a majoritarian (i.e., white male) identity politics is the lamentable yet entirely predictable reaction to decades of minority identity politics. The alt-right is literally a reactionary movement, reacting to the perceived denigration of mainstream American culture by grievance-mongering radicals for whom the very word “white” is a slur. Absent the intellectual totalitarianism and bullying hypocrisy of the ascendant social-justice-warrior left, the Trump phenomenon would have lacked potency. The two sides exist in a sick, codependent symbiosis.

Of course, racism, sexism, and nativism existed long before Trump, and nothing can excuse the demagogy and divisiveness engaged in by the president-elect and his surrogates. But we should be able to critique the excesses of identity politics without being called racists.

That’s what Columbia professor Mark Lilla tried to do in a postmortem essay for the New York Times titled “The End of Identity Liberalism.” A liberal in good standing, Lilla reassessed the prominence afforded to identity politics as the engine of the left’s value system and appealed for a return to a more universalistic politics that focuses more on broad economic concerns than narrow racial, sexual, and gendered ones. “American liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender, and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing,” he wrote. For this, a Columbia colleague angrily likened Lilla to David Duke, both men being accused of “contributing to the same ideological project, the former cloaked in a KKK hood, the latter in an academic gown.”

To grasp just how far the proverbial goal posts have moved with regard to what constitutes racial “wokeness” ( i.e., enlightenment), witness the controversy surrounding National Football League player Colin Kaepernick’s refusal, in protest of police brutality, to stand for the national anthem, a move applauded and encouraged by Black Lives Matter activists. To most Americans, many black Americans included, Kaepernick’s weekly kneels look less like a patriotic protest than a rude rebuke to the country that has rewarded him with a $126 million professional-sports contract. Surely, there are more pointed—not to mention effective—ways of drawing attention to the racism in the criminal-justice system than behaving in a way so easily interpreted as a slight against the country itself and the men and women serving under arms to protect it.

But woe betide anyone who dare criticize the immoderations of Black Lives Matter. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg learned this lesson the hard way when she compared Kaepernick’s protest to flag burning. Refusing to stand for the national anthem, she stated in an interview, was behavior that, however “dumb and disrespectful,” deserves constitutional protection. Ginsburg’s liberal fans, who had bestowed her with the hip-hop moniker “The Notorious RBG,” suddenly faced a crisis of conscience: given her temerity in questioning the left’s cause du jour, could they still venerate the octogenarian hipster icon whose visage emblazoned everything from coffee mugs to tote bags? For several days, it appeared that the liberal jurist had been relegated to the status of thought criminal. But all was forgiven once she apologized for her “ill advised” remarks and groveled for absolution.

The PC left is no more forgiving when it comes to gender. “Lawrence of Arabia is a prime example of old-Hollywood sexism,” declared a recent video produced by New York magazine. How so? Well, it turns out that this classic, Academy Award–winning epic about early twentieth-century British imperialism in the Middle East did not feature any female characters. To which one might add, neither did The Boys in the Band or Glengarry Glen Ross. Of course, the absence of women in these films is not prima facie evidence of misogyny but attributable to nothing more sinister than the fact that they’re about, respectively, a gathering of gay male friends in late 1960s Manhattan and a group of time-share salesmen. Yet when identity politics is all consuming, everything is a potential slight.

Writing in the New York Times several weeks before the election, novelist Lionel Shriver observed how many Americans, decent and well-intentioned people, are becoming increasingly turned off by ceaseless talk of “cultural appropriation,” “micro aggressions,” “trigger warnings,” and other manifestations of political correctness retailed by self-appointed spokesmen for allegedly oppressed minority groups. Shriver had herself recently become a victim of this sort of intellectual totalitarianism, condemned for having the gall to argue at a literary festival that fiction writers ought to feel free to create characters of various ethnic backgrounds that are different from their own—in other words, that they be permitted to write fiction. “The shrill tyranny of the left helps to push them toward Donald Trump,” she presciently lamented.

The Trumpian right and the social-justice-warrior left are two sides of the same, identity-politics-obsessed coin. Trump and his media acolytes don’t operate in a vacuum. Their existence is at least partly explained by Newton’s third law of physics: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Those wanting to deflate the allure of the Trumpian right must also tackle the excesses of the social-justice-warrior left.

This article originally appeared in FourTwoNine’s 9th issue. Read the full issue here.



About The Author

  • Bug

    Calling that smart jerk “a fascist impersonating a drag queen” is too clever by half, and explaining the rise of the psychopathic alt-right as the ying-yang reaction to the dogmatic far-left is both neat and useless. Newton’s third law does not support the article’s conclusion amounting to a shrug. The universe does not exist in some unified theory of balance where the truth between two extremes is always in the middle. Extreme political correctness annoys me, but a phrase like “allegedly oppressed minority groups” in an LGBT publication is an indication of self-loathing. We won’t win against the alt-right by fighting the left.

    • Rob McGee

      but a phrase like “allegedly oppressed minority groups” in an LGBT publication is an indication of self-loathing.

      I don’t entirely agree. Oppression of minority groups is real, but much less frequent a problem than it was in the past — at least in countries like the US or UK. Sometimes, activists use the term “oppressed” when they really should say “inconvenienced” or “mocked by snot-nosed highschoolers who can’t even vote” or “disparaged by members of their own church, but only within the walls of the church.”

  • BradyMoss

    This is the sort of crap one writes if one wishes to at once remain a “Never Trump” Conservative and keep getting invited to the National Review’s cocktail parties.

    The excesses of lefty “identity politics” were clearly on the Presidential ballot in 2008, when President Obama had to explain his relationship with a divisive minister who-as the inspiration for one of his books-surely holds more power than some “campus activist,” yet American voters elected Obama. Four years later, when given the chance to correct the mistake “anti identity politics” pundits would argue they made, they reelected Obama. I’ll point out, by the way, that I voted for President Obama twice.

    Also, where’s Kirchick’s evidence that Justice Ginsburg was “bullied” into backing down? The suggestion a learned person like her would never argue with dissenting voices and carve out a different path from there is laughable.

    We get it, Kirch: you don’t like Black Lives Matter, and you don’t like it when Transgender people demand basic rights.

    • Rob McGee

      I wanted to upvote you for the point that “lefty identity politics” have been around for a long time.

      But I wanted to downvote you for “Transgender people demand basic rights,” because honestly, I’m skeptical about the therapeutic value of “trans identity” and suspect that “cis but different” might be a better solution for people with Gender Dysphoria. Which is not to say that I oppose trans-rights, but only that I am critical of people who never challenge the trans-narrative.

      So I neither upvoted nor downvoted.

      • BradyMoss

        “Gender Dysphoria,” huh?

        If you’re go-to take on Trans people is “they’re mentally ill,” I’m out.

        I believe some small number of people wrestles with gender identity in a way that creates more personal challenges than it solves, but I don’t think it’s a big enough number to justify any kind of sweeping comment. As it is, and as you surely know, Transgender people represent a small part of the population. It’s a matter of science to me, but I see real harm in suggesting such people should be “treated.”

        • Rob McGee


          First, I agree with your point that the small size of the trans/GID community should caution us against making generalizations.

          Second, you’re right that “transgender” and “Gender Dysphoric” should not be seen as synonymous — for example, many adolescents diagnosed with GID eventually go on to develop a “cis” identity as adults. However, as far as I know, there is a lot of overlap between these two categories, and it’s difficult to discuss one without mentioning the other.

          Also, for the record, I don’t assume that “mental illness” or “dysphoria” are necessarily synonymous with “crazy.” F’rinstance, gay Mormon teens who are extremely depressed about their sexual orientation do have a “mental illness,” of sorts, but this doesn’t mean that their attraction to persons of the same sex is a delusion. Their “dysphoria” is a result of other people constantly telling them “You can’t be a devout LDS Christian and be a well-adjusted gay person at the same time.”

          Third, you wrote: I see real harm in suggesting such people should be “treated.”

          Hello, McFly? Maybe you haven’t noticed, but a great many trans advocates are absolutely clamoring to be “treated” (i.e., treated with cross-gender hormones and surgery) — this has been a rallying cry for years.

          In fact, you can occasionally find really crazy ones who want already overburdened government healthcare plans to pay for purely cosmetic facial reconstruction. (“My ugly masculine jawbones were poisoned by testosterone and if I can’t totally pass as a convincing woman I’m more likely to be bashed so therefore it is my alienable human right to get free plastic surgery and f**k you taxpayers.”)

          I recognize that these people may be anomalous and not representative of the transgender community in general, but still — I see real harm in encouraging them EVEN SLIGHTLY.

          If someone has wildly unrealistic expectations — and I suspect that some trans-identified people do — it’s not a kindness to refrain from challenging them in a polite and gentle way.

          Hope this clarifies.

          • BradyMoss

            I think yours was a good post. I’ll just say I’m against the notion of “treated” in the sense of “gender ID questions=mental illness, so let’s treat these folks!” I understand that there are emotional struggles that can occur naturally because of questions about one’s own gender identity, but some of that comes from the broader society, as well. In other words, it’s one thing for a person to have their own questions, and another when we in the larger society force the questions on them.

            For the most part, hormones are just part of the gender transition process, but the cosmetic plastic surgery part strikes me as much trickier, as I am cis, & have not had surgery of that kind. So maybe a case-by-case basis is best for the sort of cosmetic surgery you mention, but I’d be okay with listening to alot of views.

          • Rob McGee

            Thanks, Brady. The main point I wanted to make is that compassion for and solidarity with trans people doesn’t mean you can’t challenge a particular therapy model. It’s also important to be aware that what works well for late-transitioning MtFs might not work so well for early-transitioning FtMs, and so forth. As you say, “case-by-case”.

      • IT IS AMAZING SIGHT database sql books IT A LOVELU DESIGN

  • Jorge L. Sierra

    “A free steak dinner if you can tell me what the fuck that means.”

    The piece was a whitewash that excluded black people. The secondary meaning is that it excluded women, transgender people, and Muslims. Here is the explanation:

    The key ideas are at the beginning and end of the sentence: a narrow branding of what LGBT is harms invisible intersections. Intersections refers to intersectionality, the view that it is important to look at the intersection between two or more diversity categories (race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.). Intersectionality theory tends to posit that because white, male, straight, and protestant perspectives are privileged in the US, there is a tendency in portrayals of women or any single minority group to examine them from the perspective of the white, male, straight protestant minus x (with x being the group that is being studied).

    Intersectionality is most commonly studied with reference to race and sex. Thus, in the LGBT community, there is a division between whites and blacks, as well as between homosexuals and transgendereds. Given Milo’s particular history, however, a criticism that the article didn’t attend to intersectionality is also likely a criticism that the article didn’t seek the perspectives of women and Muslim people who are often subject to his criticism.

    I’ll pass on the steak. As a nonwhite American, steak (by which I presume you mean broiled without battering or spices) is a rare exoticism for me, and I just had it this week.

    For the record, a conclusion that the rise of the PC thought police is an existential threat to this country is more than just cause to have voted for Donald Trump.

    • Rob McGee

      As a nonwhite American, steak (by which I presume you mean broiled without battering or spices) is a rare exoticism for me, and I just had it this week.

      Personally, I like to buy a London broil and divide it into thirds: One part to be grilled as a “steak” with a baked potato and greens on the side; one part to be sliced paper-thin for adding to a sandwich or stir-fried noodles; and one part to be diced as added interest for lentil soup, or something.

      Thrift is important in these times, says Heloise!

  • Rob McGee

    Attention, copy-editors! Ahoy, I say, wake up! Is this machine on?

    Anyway, has Milo actually accused the “gay media and political establishment” of being “a herd of independent minds”?

    Possibly those WITHIN that “establishment” might insist that holding a coalition together is an exercise similar to herding cats, because a lot of establishment-members really do have “independent minds.”

    But presumably Milo is more likely to see the gay media and political establishment as a “censorious, humorless, easily offended herd of Borg drone-units.”

    Or maybe Kirchick simply meant to write “a herd suspicious of independent minds”?

  • hi

Copyright © FourTwoNine. 2019. All rights reserved. Maya Blog by Karuna Themes