Zu Fuckopoulos Downfall ist es recht nützlich zu wissen, dass es vor den Veröffentlichungen der Videos Ankündigungen auf Mailinglisten gab (http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/113460155, Archive) und es sich anscheinend um eine konzertierte Aktion handelte.
Milos Ausflüchte (das übliche „aus dem Kontext gerissen“) wirken halbherzig auf mich, die Aussagen im Video stehen für sich und die Kontexte machen sie nicht besser und noch bemerkenswerter ist es tatsächlich, dass weder eine konzertierte Aktion noch Milos Erklärungsversuche irgendeine Rolle spielen. Der Milo-Drops ist gelutscht.
Die Aussagen Fuckopoulos sind, gemessen an dem, was er sonst so absondert, nur so mittelkrass, aber sie reichen vollkommen aus, um ihn als öffentliche Figur im konservativen Mainstream zu vernichten. Mein Mitleid hält sich, wie man sich denken kann, sehr in Grenzen und der schönste Burn zum Downfall Fuckopoulos kam wohl von Zoe Quinn: „Anyway my book is out this year.“ Ice cold.
Wer noch ein paar Hintergrund-Infos zu Fuckopoulos und seiner Zeit als Blogger und Macher des Tech-Mags Kernel braucht: Guardian: The rise and fall of Milo Yiannopoulos – how a shallow actor played the bad guy for money und Reaction.life: The rise of Milo Yiannopoulos, the Telegraph years, and why I am partly to blame: „there was a subsequent controversy involving Milo supervising a groovy tech competition called Start-up 100 or something, that was run through one of his companies, it is alleged. There was a row about paying for hotel bookings and deposits for an awards ceremony. The paper eventually paid up to avoid embarrassment, I am told. Milo left and founded something called Kernel, a tech website which is still the subject of debate.“
Must-Read zum Milo-Fuckup kommt von Laurie Penny, die in den Tagen vor der Fuckopoulos-Implosion mit ihm und seiner Bande unterwegs war, im Pacific Standard: On the Milo Bus With the Lost Boys of America’s New Right.
The hypocrisy is clarion-clear: This was never, in fact, about free speech at all. It was about making it OK to say racist, sexist, transphobic, and xenophobic things, about tolerating the public expression of those views right up to the point where it becomes financially unwise to do so. Those suddenly dropping Yiannopoulos are making a business decision, not a moral one — and yes, even in Donald Trump’s America, there’s still a difference. If that difference devours Yiannopoulos and his minions, they will find few mourners.
Yiannopoulos followed the path of least resistance until, suddenly, it resisted. Now he knows just what it is to have the Internet turn on you and take away your control of the narrative. Now the entire alt-right is realizing, in full view of a few million popcorn-munching online leftists, that they were never the new punk. They were never the suave and seductive blackshirts of the new American authoritarianism. They are, at best, the brownshirts, and they are becoming less useful to their benefactors by the day. Where they were once “underground,” they are now are an ankle-biting embarrassment to the movement they made mainstream — and they have no clue what to do next.
Auch die Stellen in Pennies Text über Fuckopoulos' Kids-Crew sind sehr erhellend:
It is vital that we talk about who gets to be treated like a child, and what that means. All of the people on Yiannopoulos’ tour are over 18 and legally responsible for their actions. They are also young, terribly young, young in a way that only privileged young men really get to be young in America, where your race, sex, and class determine whether and if you ever get to be a stupid kid, or a kid at all. Mike Brown was also 18, the same age as the Yiannopoulos posse, when he was killed by police in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014; newspaper reports described him as an adult, and insisted that the teenager was “no angel,” as if that justified what was done to him. Tamir Rice was just 12 years old when he was shot and killed in Cleveland for playing with a toy gun. The boys following Yiannopoulos are playing with a toy dictator, and they have faced no consequences as yet, even though it turns out that their plastic play-fascism is, in fact, fully loaded and ready for murder.
As the evacuation gets going, the young men in Yiannopoulos’ gang seem scared. They’re right to be — these protesters aren’t playing, and there has already been real violence at these events. One week earlier, in Seattle, a Yiannopoulos fan shot an anti-fascist protester in the stomach. The victim is expected to survive. The impression that this is all an exciting adventure in pranking the left, a giddy game of harmless offense where nobody actually gets hurt, is not holding up so well. Over the next few hours, I get to watch Yiannopoulos’ teenage entourage wrestle with the fact that this game is, in fact, deadly earnest, and the win conditions are changing, and they are not players, but pieces on the board. […]
Yiannopoulos’ brand is all about “fuck your feelings.” But the kids following him around are nothing but feelings. I have empathy for fragility. What frightens me most is the feeling that the only way to deal with the new right is to treat them as monsters, when it is precisely their idiot humanity — precisely the fact that they are fundamentally decent kids who have done fundamentally despicable things — that makes them dangerous. […]
I don’t believe that Yiannopoulos endorses pedophilia. I do believe that he exploits vulnerable young men. Not in a sexual way. Not in an illegal way. Yiannopoulos exploits vulnerable young men in the same way that every wing-nut right-wing shock-jock from the president down has been exploiting them for years: by whipping up the fear and frustration of angry young men and boys who would rather burn down the world than learn to live in it like adults, by directing that affectless rage in service to their own fame and power. This is the sort of exploitation the entire conservative sphere is entirely comfortable with. What happens to these kids now that the game has changed?
Does anyone, really, think that Milo Yiannopoulos has deep and rigorously researched convictions? That his statements on feminism, on transgender people, or his criticisms of Ghostbusters actor Leslie Jones, spring from some deep well of evidence and sincerity? Do me a favour. Yiannopoulos was invited to CPAC to do what he does: be outrageous. […] yesterday marked the moment when Milo Yiannopoulos ceased being an asset to the mainstream right, and became a liability. […]
What's in all this for the mainstream right? Two things. The first is that the populist right are useful generators of heat. They say outrageous things - black people are lazy! Muslims are terrorists! - putting their opponents in a bind. Do you let such assertions go, on the basis that those voicing them are a tiny fringe? Or do you wearily condemn every single instance of bigotry, making yourself look like a dull Pez dispenser of condemnation? Either way is debilitating, either for public discourse broadly, or for the left's appeal to disengaged people.
Secondly, the populist right are useful outriders. Sheltered by the mainstream right - would anyone read Katie Hopkins if she had a blog, or Piers Morgan? nope - these "provocateurs" can push extreme versions of narratives that many on the mainstream right feel to be true, or at least to contain a kernel of truth worth discussing. If Breitbart says "black crime" is a distinct phenomenon, then it's much more acceptable for Trump to threaten to "send in the Feds" to Chicago, or to describe inner cities as wastelands in need of a strong hand. If Katie Hopkins writes about migrants drowning in the Mediterranean as "cockroaches", she dehumanises them - turning them from fathers, mothers, children into a faceless mass, not like us, and therefore not deserving of our pity. That makes it much easier for the government to stop taking child refugees. […]