University Of Manchester Bans Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos From Debate On Censorship

Real-world news is becoming so absurd that The Onion is practically superfluous. Case in point: a prominent journalist being invited by a university to debate censorship and free speech, only to be banned at the last minute for “inciting hatred.”

That’s precisely what happened to Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos recently. According to Breitbart, both Yiannopoulos and his debate opponent, feminist Julie Bindel, were banned from participating in an upcoming campus debate on free speech at the University of Manchester because of their views on transsexuals:

As such, this undermines the principles of liberation enshrined in the Students’ Union, as outlined in the Safe Space policy. We believe these views could incite hatred against both trans* people and women who have experienced sexual violence. As we believe it is probable these views would be aired in this discussion should he be allowed to speak on campus, we have no choice but to ban him.

Additionally, the Students’ Union also referred to Yiannopoulos as a “rape apologist” who has made comments “lambasting rape survivors.”

Beyond the already sick irony of banning someone from a free speech debate with such Orwellian reasoning, the University of Manchester’s student union has shown horrendous judgment when it comes to who they allow to speak. The union was unable to come to a decision on whether to sanction or condemn the terrorist group ISIS and also invited a radical Muslim preacher who calls for gays to be executed to speak, yet they barred both Yiannopoulos and Bindel—themselves homosexuals—from having a debate on free speech.

Safe Spaces Make For Dull Minds


This decision on the part of the Students’ Union is part of a general trend towards censorship on college campuses across the West. By definition, colleges and universities are supposed to be places of free inquiry, where young minds are equipped with the tools they need to think critically about the world at large. However, colleges have increasingly moved in the opposite direction, coddling students and stifling non-leftist points of view, oftentimes to the point of absurdity.

For example, two years ago, a number of universities in the U.K. banned Robin Thicke’s song “Blurred Lines” for its “rapey” lyrics. Additionally, “trigger warnings” (notices informing readers that a work could potentially be traumatizing), once limited to feminist blogs, are actually being incorporated into class syllabi now, as a salve to students who might have a panic attack from reading racial slurs in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

College students’ prissiness and intolerance of non-PC viewpoints and language is so bad that personalities across the political spectrum are taking notice. Comedians such as Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock—themselves left-wing—have announced that they no longer perform on college campuses because students will become angry the minute they wander off the politically correct plantation.

According to Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), college speech controls have become so stringent that merely saying something like “America is a melting pot” is viewed as a minor transgression by many students. Indeed, even using the word “crazy” is viewed as “ableist,” a sign that political correctness has gone out of control in colleges.

The Extinguishing Of Free Speech


Modern academia is breeding a class of college graduates who are not only dismissive of the hard-won right to free speech that many Westerners have enjoyed, they are actively hostile to any viewpoints they disagree with. No better evidence of this can be found in the response to Roosh’s “State of Man” tour dates in Canada this past summer. Feminists colluded with the Canadian media and local government in Montreal and Toronto to shut down Roosh’s lawful speeches based entirely on lies about his political beliefs.

College leftists have become so extreme that they are increasingly willing to break the law in order to prevent others from exercising their right to free speech. Recently, feminist protesters attempted to disrupt a lecture by Reason’s Cathy Young at St. Paul University in Ottawa, pulling a fire alarm and arguing with a policeman who told them to move their protest or risk arrest. It’s only a matter of time before these SJWs explode into outright violence.

Ultimately, what happened to Milo Yiannopoulos and Julie Bindel is just a symptom of a greater sickness in Western academia. By mollycoddling young minds and shielding them from “problematic” viewpoints, academia is aiding the creation of a generation of monsters.

It remains to be seen whether the defenders of free speech will be able to mount a defense against these easily-triggered Brownshirts.

Read Next: Student Accused Of Rape By Emma Sulkowicz To Sue Columbia University

146 thoughts on “University Of Manchester Bans Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos From Debate On Censorship”

  1. I’m opposed to violence, especially when issues such as this can and should be resolved through debate, but I’m becoming increasingly convinced there’s no other way to beat these fanatics. They openly defy logic and reason, shut down any opposing viewpoints no matter how tame they might be, and when all else fails, employ illegal means to beat their opposition into the ground (doxxing, Swatting, manhunts, etc). How does this end? No amount of words will persuade them to change. The legal system is ineffective (and that’s putting it nicely). Will there be an eventual clash between red-pillers and these psychopaths on the streets? What does the future hold?

    1. Collapse, chaos, then renewal.
      As long as the current system exists, nothing will ever change. We have to break the system first.

      1. And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
        ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    2. “I’m opposed to violence, especially when issues such as this can and should be resolved through debate”
      Debate is for the weak.

      1. Disagree. True, sincere debate is for the strong. Hence why these namby-pamby college students can’t handle a little debate. Violence should be a last resort. A fear to initiate violence, even when justified, is when avoidance becomes weak. To clarify my original statement, I’m opposed to violence, and think debating an issue is preferable, but if push comes to shove I will not hesitate to punch out some teeth.

        1. When have debates ever solved anything? Not saying we should always jump to violence as a default, but it’s always the combination of strong leadership and unity that produces the most results.

        2. I wholly agree with your 2nd sentence, but to say that having open, honest debates on subjects has no results isn’t quite accurate either. I will admit it is more subtle, but right now we’re witnessing what happens when opposing ideas are violently silenced. It won’t get better until these kids realize that someone else might have a different opinion, and guess what, that’s ok! Live and let live is quickly dying.

        3. Yeah, violence shouldn’t be the first arrow in the quiver of the rational and civilized man.
          An interesting thing about conflict is it is usually at least two-sided (maybe more). Debate or fast-talking may get you out of a jam especially with opposition who have no enthusiasm or true connection to their cause. But for the radicals and the psychotic, talking means you’re just gonna get hit until you fight back or they beat you to death. Win or be a victim.

        4. Good points. I’m honestly surprised there isn’t much more violence from these raving SJW’s. They all seem mentally unstable and unable to process any viewpoint other than their own. I would encourage every red-pill guy out there to train in at least a few martial arts; one submission art and one striking art at the very least.

        5. Definitely, all men should train themselves physically ,mentally, spiritually, and emotionally, it won’t only improve their life, it might save it.
          And I question whether they aren’t every bit as violent as we expect and simply left out of major media coverage, minus various professional looters and such that get occasional mention. Amateur footage (and some personal experience) would suggest that is likely.

        6. Debates resolve issues in the real world on a daily basis. It prevents us all from to easily regressing back into bone bouncer mode. Strong leadership, like playing a good hand of poker is about being icy,strategical, and detached from the emotions swirling around you. This is how common agreements are established in practice between different parties with often opposing agendas on a daily basis. When agreement doesn’t happen it is nearly always because people privy to the debate/discussion have let their emotions and feeling towards the other parties get the better of them, and, this to me is a sign of weak leadership.

        7. If you at least 6″, strong and know how to fight, you don’t need to waste time in debate.
          All animals, including human beings, are programmed to follow the leader.

        8. I’m not debating since I’m not trying to convince you of anything.
          I’m just expressing myself.

      2. You’re conflating debate with the need to win ‘the argument’. You can’t win in a literal debate with SJWs (welll that’s not actually true because Milo Yianapolous actually does win against them) but whatever your methods (and violence rarely ever does anything but harm the perpetrator + one other person) it is absolutely essential to ‘win the argument’. The left one that argument, now they are in the process of losing it – right now you could pretty much nothing, and I they will fall down the stairs in their collective stampede to reach the bottom

      3. I disagree. What Western kids lack today is aggression. You can destroy someone verbally and physically.
        Someone with a good argument and backed by facts will still lose if they have no aggression and a weak frame.

      1. Well no duh. See my comment below to Mike1981’s reply. I might be opposed to violence, but that doesn’t mean I’m not well-versed in handling it (16+ years in various martial arts). I simply do not go out looking for it and use it as my default response.

    3. This is the typical move of any SJW (or feminist) who doesn’t want to hear all sides. They bitch and complain when they are not heard but when others want to join in on their debate it’s time to ban people because of “hate speech”.
      Anyone with an opposing opinion is considered to be using hate speech, today, by this bunch. An example: I like my red shirt, I like blue better….that’s hate speech – ridiculous huh?

    4. I do understand your ‘despair’ on this matter, but you are mistaken: I don’t mean morally (that’s not the issue) but purely tactically. The current ascendancy of leftist feminism has given SJWs the rope to hang themselves with, and guess what: they are doing exactly that, hanging themselves.
      If you aren’t already familiar with his work, head on over to Breitbart or Youtube and have a look at a literal master tearing these stupid fucks to shreds. This guy (milo yianopolous) is turning the tables on them, pulling the righteousnous from under their feet. Violence is the only thing that can give them back that moral highground which they are rapidly losing – look how the Dylan Roof massacre was used to try and derail the ‘conservative movement against SJW left (even though he had nothing to do with it)
      You don’t have to like or agree with M. Y. on all counts to look at the methods he’s using, primarily a) wit and b) ridicule (using aforementioned wit).
      Be smarter than them, and you’ll prevail. That’s the only way

        1. Thanks, then we’re agreed. The guy’s a winner, and that’s something we can model for ourselves. I don’t think there’s anyone on the planet who can wind up SJWs as much as Milo – and here’s the wierd thing quite a lot of the time they both hate him and end up eating out of his hand

        2. lol I think it something like anti-venom. Ever seen a Mongoose dance around a black mamba without a care in the world?

        3. I should add one doesn’t have to model all aspects of gay yuppie M.Y. If you’re inclined I suggest going down the “I’m a trans-black (M.Y.’s current identity) or Cartman’s Transginger. That way you get to use the girls’ toilets

        4. That’s something I’m surprised hasn’t been totally abused yet. Again, this is something that would drive the SJW’s into a tizzy: On one hand, guys are flooding into the girls bathrooms (rape culture! rape culture!), but on the other hand, they’d have to admit they’re to blame for the problem.

        5. There’s the overt ridicule side – which is what M.Y. is doing, but then for anything more subversive I imagine one would have to engage with some deep, deep trolling (i.e. warning, don’t actually go through with the op!). Lots of fun to be had potentially – but got to be risky

        6. I like the theory, but I’ll leave the execution to a braver trans-woman than me

        7. Your wish, good sir …
          of course this kid looks to be in serious need of deep psychiatric counseling … but hey … when I was in high school I wanted to hang out in the girls locker room, too.. maybe crazy like a fox, eh ? hmmm …
          so, fellow red-pillers … in solidarity, I rise in support of and stand with our good errrr … uhhh “brother?” ummm … Lila I think is what he’s calling himself now (nice touch, btw – they’re buying it …I think) … and rightly say, yes, all men should be allowed to hang out in the girls locker room. To deny us this basic and vital human right makes you a racist. Oh, and you are a rape apologist. Oh, and you’re an “ableist,” too. I hate you.

          PS – can somebody please explain to me what the sam silly f**k an “ableist” is ? or does … ?

      1. never heard of this guy till today. i youtubed him; goddamn he is eloquent. smug and pretentious af, but supremely eloquent nonetheless.
        i love the fact that hes a gay conservative too. thats what ive been all about since taking the red pill. to clarify, im not gay, but i preach every fuckin day to transcend your born identity. just bc youre gay doesnt mean you have to act like a faggot. just bc youre black doesnt mean you have to act like a nigger. just bc youre white doesnt mean you have to act like stale-ass crackers. thats the engine that propels the left forward: identity politics. thats why they hate this milo guy, b/c he’s successfully transcended his born identity.
        FYI- i’m asian and dont go out of my way to rep for other asians. not out of self-hate, but bc my being born asian is no achievement. it was random luck, and so why should i feel pride one way or the other about it? (bc of this mindset i’ve adopted, a few people have called me an uncle tom, the asian version. they dont want me to drift like this. they’d rather i join them in their misery of there not having been cast a masculine asian as a hollywood lead yet. give me a fuckin break.)

        1. agree with pretty much all of that. Milo has a huge straight male following, because he’s bucking every trend, championing people – straight males in peril – who’ve never had to be championed before but now find themselves deprived of the right to express an opinion under the SJW NWO. Milo is simply happening right now, and that’s because he’s struck oil so to speak – there’s a reservoir of untapped and almost limitless repressed fury which he is getting to represent pretty much all by himself. The guy bucks every gay trend but one perhaps – and that is his cultivated and very funny narcissism. What you find i think is that a lot of very able and slightly narcissistic people simply don’t want to represents a bunch of whining victims – which is what the SJW crowd are to a T, so they end up turning all their energy against them. Camille Paglia was one such (also gay) and perhaps Christina Hoff Sommers (who Milo works with quite closely by the sounds of it). It’s kind of the flip side of the identity politics angle as well – as you suggest. Identity politics is all about submission of the individual to the group and naturally when you get a talented individual who is perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, identity politics becomes the great evil it truly is.
          I’m asian / white, but I look more asian. What you said pretty much covers me too. I don’t really care to go with one or other side of my identity, so I don’t make too much of it.

  2. So? Complaining about lack of free anything on a college is like complaining that WWE is scripted. Does it deserve commentary?
    This Manosphere is rapidly becoming a mirror image of SJW. Same butthurts, opposite direction.

    1. I can see where you’re coming from and partially agree. The college is free to allow/ban anyone they want from debating on campus. That being said, I would argue they’re doing their students a disservice by creating an echo chamber and stifling critical thinking. Banning opposing views is the very reason why all these children need trigger warnings for everything; they’ve never been exposed to a viewpoint other than their own for their entire lives. Is the article butthurt and whiny? IMO, no. It was rather factual and straight to the point, but to each their own. Perhaps we should employ more direct mockery to the poor little college students who are deathly afraid their fragile ego might be shattered by some mere words.

    2. It really shouldn’t deserve notice, mostly I could give fuck-all about it, excepting one minor detail:
      The folks on campus are being backed nearly universally by authorities.
      Worse still, they are not leaving the dreck behind at graduation but taking it out into the world where at one time they would have been corrected by their co-workers, now they can use the methods learned to silence dissent and be protected in their fascism by the law.
      Then these lessons are passed onward to new generations making each cycle more successful at implementing them and open to initiating further stages.

      1. I am reminded of a lesson most people missed about the Soviets. Despite all the fanfare that Reagan killed the Soviet Union he, at best, only hastened it. Why do I believe such sacrelige? Because the Soviets began faking Western style elections before he took office. The implication is that they realized their system was bullshit so they pretended to be something else, eventually becoming something else.
        The future generations will unwind themselves if given a viable alternative. Do we have any hard data showing our viewpoint isn’t bullshit as well? Can we provide an alternative?
        A figurative finger wagging and a “shame on you” isn’t an alternative.

        1. I thought I’d just re-post parts of two older posts I made on other topics that I think are relevant:
          “Agree or disagree with his actions though, why is he a great president, why should any
          president be denoted as such, have statues and monuments and special days to celebrate them?” (This was about Lincoln, but I apply it uniformly to all Presidents).
          “The Soviet Union was a deliberate, calculated sacrifice to further the ideal of “global communism.” And it isn’t really even about communism, socialism, fascism, or whatever, they are the means to an end: the establishment of a world-wide totalitarian reich of the wealthy chosen. The question might better be asked, who won World War I?” (There are many lessons the Soviets taught the entire world, and many we all still ignore.
          As for the last part, I agree admonishment and griping don’t go very far. Easy to say something is wrong (any old chimp can do that) much harder to provide workable solutions. That said, we do not exist in vacuum and there are many people completely oblivious as to what “our viewpoint” even is, mostly due a very deliberate effort to marginalize it, and so new and/or young interested parties still need to be awakened by articles similar to this one.
          It could be argued that there is no hard data, as how much of what we have learned in history classes has been real/propaganda? I would say the US has never really ever embodied the potential ideal it could be, but not because the framework wasn’t provided. As a workable solution I would propose trimming away the things not currently specified in the Constitution and then instead of immediately
          finding another method to “fundamentally transform the country” even further away from that by passing new laws/regulations start eliminating some. It would be nice, for instance, just to go a year or two without Congress writing or passing any new legislation and modernizing some old things regarding telegraph and telephone communications to include internet and mobile phones. Or to re-evaluate which services provided by the federal government even should be.

        2. “The Soviet Union was a deliberate, calculated sacrifice to further the ideal of “global communism.” And it isn’t really even about communism, socialism, fascism, or whatever, they are the means to an end: the establishment of a world-wide totalitarian
          reich of the wealthy chosen”
          I am not aware of evidence for such a thing. There’s a guy on spiked online who advances the idea that it was all fake and designed to overcome western defences and seed global revolution or something like that. I find it hard to believe that Gorbachev wasn’t sincere, or that the above is true, however its perfectly reasonable to point out that the defeat of the soviet union etc coincide with the inexorable advance of the kind of ‘soft’ communism (for now at least) that we’re experiencing. What people have realised yet, is that communism has evolved: it now prefers the softly softly approach, and governing people through ideologies which like this new generation of students are more rather than less efficacious because they involve self-government before they involve coercion. The new gulags are primarily social / psychological (e.g. social ostracism / exile from the community of the respectable) – obviously with a prison system that in the US numbers in the millions there may well be the more literal variety as well though

        3. I will say that first part was more of a theory I’ve had for a while now (and seem to remember that as being the context of the complete post?).
          And Gorbachev could have been and very likely was sincere, that’s what is great about ideology driven by the over-zealous, it births many of its own useful idiots (i.e.: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”).
          And agree with you.

        4. on the off chance it really was intentional i.e. a conspiracy, I think I would actually be kind of impressed, however evil it might be

        5. Our viewpoint isn’t marginalized. It’s sterile. That’s the problem.
          Bully Chubbs had a one liner when he called this all ‘misogyny-lite’. It stuck me because he’s right. This is all 90% complaining how the world should be and what-if scenarios. 9% just coping with the world. 1% viable solutions. Kind of exhausting to see rehashes of the same stupid thing we’re supposed to be outraged at.
          When it comes to the hard data, I mean just basic things: are we wealthier? Live longer? Better physical condition? Bigger dicks? Anything to validate our righteousness beyond feelings and faith?
          The SJW is also built on the feels, but they do have accomplishments like bringing “choice”, whatever sexuality, and a plethora of other things into acceptable mainstream.
          We’re not even putting points on the board.
          So here is all I am saying: let’s quit with this group therapy phony outrage bullshit and look at ways of moving an agenda forward. But first we need an agenda beyond calling out things that make us cry.


          A solution of “neomasculinity” has been put forth. It’s a good read if you have time. Implementation was discussed (albeit only on the surface, probably) in the second link above.
          I do agree that rehashing these topics over and over again is getting old, and we need solutions. The solution of neomasculinity has been put forth, and these articles by Roosh SHOULD HAVE thousands of comments (if people really wanted a solution), but instead the ROK article over “The Phenomenon of White Women Who Only Date Black Men” gets waaaaayyyy more attention and trolling, a comment count of 1,298 as of today. Same with “24 Signs She’s a Slut” article on ROK (4,381 comments). I liked both articles (and got some useful info), but it just goes to show that even the ROK community is sometimes guilty of an almost Hollywood tabloid mentality.
          Personally, my solution would be to use Sun Tzu’s Art of War tactics and apply them nonviolently to SJW’s, feminists, and enemies of liberty.
          Perhaps men who feel like us should submit some articles? Nothing is stopping either one of us from doing so.

    3. I wouldn’t say this is butthurt so much as it is valuable information for men considering attending college or sending their children there. Better to hace eyes wide open.

      1. Agree. Men need to have a network setup with the intel to better be informed of what’s going on. Too many men have blindly gone along with everything and we’ve ended up with this bullshit. Once you know what a bubble looks like, then you can actually point out the crazy out there in society.

    4. The problem has been that nothing has been said at all….over decades. Yep, don’t say anything and just move along…nothing to see here. Until that one day when it actually does affect you and then you’ll be wondering why nothing was said or done at the time.
      The first thing you have to do is address it, talk about it, make it known that it will no longer be tolerated.
      Sticking your head in the sand or ignoring it is the actual problem. It’s been done all of these years and look where we’ve ended up. It’s time to actually talk and address the issue….this is the first step.

      1. Great! After you finish talking about your feels you can have a sit-in at the Student Union. Demand an end to this ‘discrimination’. Sing “we shall overcome”. Organize a boycott.
        Because you can out SJW the SJWs!
        Where do you think this all ends up? I’ll give you a hint: it doesn’t revert back to traditional roles short of Nuclear War or the Caliphate.

        1. We’ll have to disagree on tactics. I believe the problem, from the start, has been the lack of discussion (or any discussion at all) on the issue. It has more to do with info (or intel) sharing than anything else. In today’s age, info is top dog. Men gathering together to share info (intel) and spread the word is vital.

      1. Not focus on the bullshit minutia for starters.
        Focusing on basic sales and persuasion tactics.
        Moving on to targeted infiltration campaigns to redirect SJW groups.
        How much time do you have?

  3. Is any of this even new any more? The readers at ROK are all familar with the degeneracy of our progressive society. The real question is what we are going to do to counter it.

    1. What we are doing is exposing the their stupidity so we don’t become as stupid as they are.

  4. All the SWJ crap is part of a never ending downwardspiral of subversion. Yesterday’s progressive become today’s conservative and yesterday’s conservative become today’s fascist that must be censored, beaten, killed off in the name of progress.
    We must not debate with them. For when they don’t see anyone to demonize they always end up turning against each other.

  5. I rarely see the world in black and white but when it comes to free speech there truly is no wiggle room. Either it’s all ok or none of it’s ok.
    The second you start censoring some speech, you immediately open the gates and break the hinges off. What these mental midgets seem to forget is that words can not physically harm someone.
    Unless your ideology crumbles under the slightest criticism (cough* feminism, cough*SJW dogma), you shouldn’t fear other people’s ideas.
    But also I feel articles like this are redundant for long term subscribers of this website. We’ve already diagnosed the disease… it’s time to administer the cure.

  6. Hate to be nitpicky but does this go against the Constitutional notion of free speech, or are we just seeing people becoming incredibly insulated from outside opinion?
    As far as I understand the latter, is sad in terms of cultural decline, but does not contradict the Constitutional idea of freedom of speech.

    1. You are correct, sir. It’s even funnier because a college or university used to be a place (at least back when) where you could debate or openly talk about an idea.
      Today, it seems more like the movie 1984…echo chamber.

      1. Apparently jails are where the real debate is happening.
        Did you hear the recent story about a jail debate team defeating the Harvard debate team? Fuckin’awesome.

        1. WOW… High fives and early releases to them all.
          I especially liked how they were arguing an issue they were strongly opposed to, but, demonstrating that they had strong intellect, were still able to come up with strong arguments and dominated the college kids. I don’t think most SJWs are even capable of this–considering, much less arguing, the opposing point of view.

        2. Heh you’re right.
          I guess not everyone in your local jail is an idiot. I wonder how many functional and intellectual people consciously just say fuck it to the system and go against the law.
          Will the real Walter White please stand up?

    2. At one time, I would have jumped to say that this definitely violated his right to free speech, but then again I would have thought bakers could decline to sell me or anyone else a cake too, their profit loss is their business, literally. (Interesting though how one private institution that deals with the public can deny a freedom while another can have its freedom stripped). Of course, it isn’t as if they are denying him any platform at all to be heard, merely denying their flock the terror of hearing anything other than their own bleating so long as they remain in the pen.
      Today, I don’t know the answer. Tomorrow, I will likely weep as fewer people will even ask the question.

    3. Yes, it does, but Manchester is in the UK and thus does not have “constitutionally protected free speech”.
      Also, campuses are not public spaces. Hence free speech is technically not protected. Same argument goes for Facebook, Twitter, and so forth, although it is increasingly easy to argue that these, along with campuses, are de facto public spaces.

      1. If the university accepts government funding, then that university is public domain as far as I’m concerned.

        1. I’d agree with you, but unfortunately others do not. Students have minimal rights, due to the possibility of their losing enrollment status.
          I don’t know whether state and federally funded schools are obliged to allow free transit. Can anyone who wants to walk onto a campus at any time? I suspect not.
          I think essentially all schools in the U.S. are government funded, by the way.

        1. Sure. I think it’s possible that campuses are, at least in the U.S., considered public spaces, but enrollment is considered a privilege, not a right, so non students can say pretty much whatever they want, but students risk having their enrollment revoked – which is a punishment far larger than any criminal penalty for abusing free speech rights. Therefore, students have almost no free speech rights, like they have almost no due process rights for rape cases.
          To be honest, I find the situation sickening.

      2. Public universities are not public space? So the space that is paid for by the public and attended by the public, staffed with government employees, is not a public space. I had no idea.

        1. I’m trying to figure out whether the campus speech codes apply to non students. Certainly students do not have full free speech rights; at least, they may have the right to speak, but they may lose enrollment by doing so.
          Some campuses have implemented “free speech zones”, but these are small and out of the way and have usage restrictions.
          The rationale for making them non public spaces is the public purpose of providing education. It’s a lot like airports: There is free public movement therein, but you cannot behave in a manner that might be allowed on a sidewalk. Free speech is allowed, but not to the extent that it interferes with the public purpose. So you can’t stand around with a protest sign in an airport, but you could on a sidewalk.

  7. How many microaggressions does it take to make these fragile little fairies kill themselves? However many it is, we should work to rack it up quickly.
    I’ll start:
    Dear precious progtard fuckwipe pussies, roll your speech codes into a ball and demonstrate rape culture by fucking yourselves with them, you fucking worthless deadweight faggots.

    1. That’s right all fucking imbecile sjw horse cocksuckers should kill themselves. Every sjw sperg tard is a genetic malignancy and inferior specimen overall. These dolts should understand that killing themselves is the best option for mother gaia.
      May you fuck yourselves with a double headed HIV tipped saguaro you fuckin faggots.

  8. Milo has written about the “sexodus,” so his willingness to draw attention to Red Pill reality makes him a target for the SJW crowd, despite his gay sexual orientation.

    1. I gotta hand it to Milo.
      He knows exactly the kind of people that he is dealing with.

  9. University of Manchester alumnus here. The Student Union is competely dominated by the Socialist Workers Party members, who are insane communists. The vote turnout is always less than 10% of students. The sensible candidates split the vote, which allows the SWP members to vote for each other and get into power with a tiny number of votes. They spent their time and our resources on crazy causes such as:
    – Banning “transphobic” male and female toilets and relabelling them as “toilets” and “toilets with urinals”
    – Twinning our university with a Palestinian uni that had held a “Martyrs Day” with a reenactment of a suicide bombing in Israel
    – Banning the Sun and any other “sexist” newspapers (which just so happened to be on the right)
    – Banning Coke and Nestlé
    – Banning “Men Soc” where men talk about and do male activities. Despite women being allowed and there only being about 10 members.

      1. Doesn’t work like that mate, the people who are offended are inside looking at pictures of cats and watching baking programs.
        Also UoM banned Sombreros not long ago, most people don’t know why this has to be the case either.

        1. It’s pretty simple. They aggressively marketed baby formula in the third world, especially Africa. They toted it as “just as good” as breast milk. The problem was these women, who could not read the instructions on the packaging, did not have access to clean water and did not know it should be sterilized. Kinda takes the convenience out of formula if you have to boil water. They also give formula away for free in Hospitals, which if used lowers the supply of breast milk and interrupts the baby’s ability to feed from a breast, rather than a bottle. So very poor women, who could not afford formula, fed the “samples” to their babies and then could not afford it after they left the hospital and ran out of “samples.”
          Any mother who has tried it, and I’m one of them, will tell you that once you give a newborn a bottle it is very difficult to get them to feed at the breast. They don’t know how to latch on, they have been conditioned to sucking with the front of their mouth, rather than with the entire jaw (a breast nipple completely fills the infant’s mouth), and they are not keen to suck hard enough to get the milk, because milk flow from a bottle is so much easier.
          I do not know how widespread this was, but I can tell you as a mother of four, when you leave the hospital with your baby in the US, a TON of formula samples from pretty much every manufacturer leaves with you. So while it seems like common sense to us that you have to pick one or the other and go with it, that was not communicated to the women they were targeting.

      1. Coca Cola was boycotted for ‘human rights and environmental abuses’.
        Nestle was boycotted because there was a big campaign against them a few years back, ostensibly over their aggressive marketing of infant formula in the developing world.

        1. 1. Nestle and coke are buying up all the worlds water, literally sucking whole rivers dry in wilderness areas leaving locals with no water., same with the aquifers
          2. their products are gmo cancer causing garbage
          3. CEO of Nestle said this year” NO water for you, it’s not a human right.
          4. 3 & 1/2 clean litres of water to make 1 litre of coke.
          5. coca cola has hits squads in countries that kill people who are asking for a better days pay.
          6. they buy millions of cubic litres of water for a few bucks.
          7. and THEN there’s the baby milk formula eugenics that’s people have been boycotting since the 70’s
          That’s just off the top off my head.

        2. You haven’t heard of the huge turf wars between the mighty Coke Army and the infamous Pepsi Brigades? And who can forget about the Mountain Dew Navy, who run Code Red all the time.
          RC is maintaining neutrality in the dispute, but has its legions poised at the gates, just in case.

        3. If they’re not careful they’ll go the way of the failed Tab nation.

        4. Messed up how Jolt is supplying both sides. But, eh, profits, ya know.

        5. #6 – What is a “cubic litre”? Can you post the dimensions for that metric? Is it length^(9)?
          Pure genius.
          Edited to add:
          It is ok for them to buy this much water since any H2O past length^(3) is from different dimensions so they aren’t robbing this universe of anything.

        6. Liberals can believe this drivel… but when I point out the massive Jewish control of the media and how SJWs are their creation and their weapon I’m the “lunatic conspiracy theorist…”

    1. “The Student Union is competely dominated by the Socialist Workers Party members, who are insane communists.”
      Didn’t know that, but I can absolutely attest to the fact that SWP cunts are insane communists who will stoop to absolutely anything

    2. Matt Forney has always been accepting of my posts, even where I have been critical of something that he wrote, but I was banned without warning by an ex-author of this site for criticizing the Russian involvement in Ukraine, which the author had voiced his support for.
      The post for which I was banned in no way violated the ban terms for this site. I was banned simply because the author disagreed with me.
      So remember folks, the assault against free speech is always taking place in EVERY arena in which strongly opinionated people are given arbitrary power to silence those that they disagree with. Universities simply take it to the next level.

    3. The left is only about free speech when they need society to allow them a way to gain a foothold. Once they gain their footing, they promptly throw free speech and such out the window.

    4. They did the same kind of crap at my college, unfortunately, so I feel your pain. There was a party planned in one of the frats that was supposed to have a piñata as entertainment, and a bunch of students filed a complaint with the student board, saying that a group of mostly white students bashing a piñata was “cultural appropriation” and had it removed. College campuses everywhere are becoming more PC and totalitarian by the day.

      1. Why not just say “No!” and go through it anyways.
        Then let the administration know that you will be contacting alumni and encouraging them to stop donating to the student union and to the university itself. Further that they are laying havoc to the educational mission and that it will mess with US news rankings (5% of their ranking is alumni giving).
        The university might not listen to non-pc stuff, but they will light up when they hear about $$$

    5. They are a weird bunch of communists.. Communists of old wouldn’t carry out such nonsense? transexuality? Nope! Many older commies hated faggotry.
      By this new leftist definition of right wing extremist, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Guevarra,Minh would be considered rightw ing extremist. All of them love guns, militarism, they had harem of women, all were masculine men. Che guevarra for example dislike blacks, indigenous americans and faggots.
      More degenerate this world becomes, more and more right i go…

    6. These crazed protests are reminiscent of kids having tantrums and throwing their toys out of the pram.

    7. really though, there should be radical right wing organizations on campuses too

      1. Wow… long time, no see. Loved many of your previous posts. Brief, to the point, and hardcore. Glad you’re back.

    8. That sounds tacky as hell..
      I’m an ex student a Manchester Uni and Manchester Metropolitan University. I’m also Mancunian. I remember when the union building was named after Steve Biko but apart from that it was one of the best times in my life. I never joined the union, I didn’t need to. I didn’t give two shits about what was going on politically at the university. However being a film student the whole bent was towards Marxist criticism, and film projects that had to come under the title ‘soiidarity’, or ‘gender roles’, which i ignored completely and did my own thing. I seemed to get away with it as well. I don’t think it was so militant back then (mid 90s).

  10. Its no surprise, even when was at uni 20 years ago the people who ran the student unions were power mad virgins.

  11. You know, there is a “rape culture” and its in prison. We all know that stats too, add that into the mix and men are raped more than woman. Cry for the injustice?

    1. Doesn’t matter, they’ll just say that men are still doing the raping.
      What goes on in female prisons?

  12. This really isn’t surprising. University doesn’t prepare students for the real world, merely extends the bubble of ignorance and faux security that their parents reinforced all their lives growing up. Without the possibility of debate, university really is completely useless.

      1. University is at best a government wealth creation through debt scam, and at worst is a isolated indoctrination center. More often than not they are becoming both. Still, constitutional rights to free speech shouldn’t stop just because students are on a university campus, especially since this university almost certainly receives federal funding.

      1. What are the stats on male to female tranny suicide versus female to male tranny suicide?
        Is it mainly the ones who chop their balls off?
        (you seem like you know the stats which can save us from googling and getting flashed chick with dick pics)

  13. The guy making that poster about Roosh more than likely has a fear of pussy and a lust for dicks.

  14. This is why we all need our own platforms. We can’t rely on, or trust, the SJW-dominated culture to dictate the terms of the interactions. Because they will always rig the game in their favor.
    I hope he still holds his debate. Maybe he can do it via video link, or some other venue he controls.

    1. “This is why we all need our own platforms.”
      Outside of obscure blogs and radio hosts, there isn’t much out there and even if a MSM organization got off the ground it would be bought off. In the foreseeable future, there is going to be a legal tightening of content on the internet to keep exactly what you are suggesting from happening. The old gate keepers of information (media) may have lost footing for now, but they are going after what is permitted.

  15. A year ago, I would hAVE been indignant at all this crap. Now, hearing about the latest insanity of the loony left is as natural as breathing.
    It least now that I am numb to it, this article did not get my blood pressure up.

  16. I almost wish they would just go right for the throat and be violent already. It would show how far they would go to literally go South Park bigger Longer and uncut territory.
    “Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don’t say any naughty words.” – Kyle’s Mom

  17. Milo should pull the gay card and accuse them of homophobia, just like when Canada was being very “Islamophobic” towards Roosh.

    1. I don’t think he should use the gay card. That only feeds the SJW cause.
      He’s doing right by using logic and pointing out the ridiculousness of the left.

  18. Our most powerful tool possible is to ignore them, I’ve been convinced of that after many years now. They seek both the attention of youth and desire for validation, ignoring them takes away these important tools from them. Take away all attention and validation, I guarantee you they would not support the causes they support. And they certainly would not support them to the same degree.
    Sure, let them continue to piss in the wind and blow their own candle out. When we ignore them the people will move more to the right, socially, which is what we’ve wanted all along. Responding to them in their minds only validates their opinions as worthwhile and meaningful enough to respond to, while ignoring them tells them everything sane people already know, that progressives are an insane bunch of lunatics that should be thrown into an insane asylum.
    If you must go against them then do it in the form of subversion and dividing them. it’s not hard historically speaking. Take the Soviet Union, the Trotskyites, Stalinists, and anarchists all hated each other but had similar views on a lot of things. It’s important to play up the differences of these groups, whether it is real or imagined is wholly irrelevant.
    Care about your people, your family, and yourself and for the love of God stop paying attention to charade of American politics. As Dmitri Orlov once put it, “Many people expend a lot of energy protesting against their irresponsible, unresponsive government. It seems like a terrible waste of time, considering how ineffectual their protests are. Is it enough of a consolation for them to be able to read about their efforts in the foreign press? I think that they would feel better if they tuned out the politicians, the way the politicians tune them out. It’s as easy as turning off the television set. If they try it, they will probably observe that nothing about their lives has changed, nothing at all, except maybe their mood has improved. They might also find that they have more time and energy to devote to more important things.”

  19. This ban is really another laurel for Milo. His credibility increases every time they try to prevent him from making sense publicly.

  20. Freedom of speech and the ability to spread ideas is only a threat to those who wish to oppress society. Free speech means that people can disagree with a tyrants ideas. No matter how many roofs with lights on them you put over a tree it will never grow as healthy or tall as it could in natural sunlight. Sure some ideas are cancerous, but some can cure that cancer. Without the freedom to discuss said cancer a cure can not be found. If you wish to have a society were stuff like this doesn’t happen then you have to make the consequences out weight the rewards. If you don’t like it you have to change it. The world is full of people who talk and only a handful do.

  21. Never heard of Milo Yiannopoulos before, but just knowing that SJW’s hate him, I can judge that he’s a pretty cool guy. He looks like a young Gary Busey, IMO.

  22. All of this just makes red pill men shine more. Keep your beliefs, Ill just help myself to the hot woman, thanks, bye!

  23. It’s a problem in political system. A group gets into power and gradually starts banning everything and everyone who disagrees with them. The only people left with imput are other ideological fanatics and soon the whole thing is being controlled by a tiny minority of lunatics who all agree with each other.

  24. The more of this absurdity that I see, I more I wish for strong benevolent but take-no-bullshit facists leaders like Putin, Tito or heck, even Castro to take control and drive all these degenerate wastes of oxygen assholes into a jail cell.

  25. The lengths that the radical left will go to silence differing opinions never ceases to amaze me. It is again made clear that the radical left cannot be reasoned with or be debated, for their defense is nothing more than a hasty retreat behind a thin veneer of word salad accusations, petty name calling, and cheap violence.
    Then again, the radical, religious right isn’t that much better. Throw the word “atheist” at them and watch them devolve into an animal not entirely unlike the rabid SJW…

  26. Banning someone from a debate on free speech because you don’t like what they have to say is as close to insanity as it gets.
    Fuck those people.

  27. We believe these views could incite hatred against both trans* people and women who have experienced sexual violence.

    Only against people who have already experienced sexual violence? As soon I became aware of their views I found myself helpless beating a transexual to death once he or uh… she confided that he… uh she had previously experienced sexual violence.
    These people must be stopped before more people hear their views and beat helpless sexual violence victims to death.

  28. I’ve been on the look-out for the most marginalised, ridiculed and socially ostracised slice of the population. And I think I’ve nailed it: it’s time for me to become a straight white male.
    No other subset of the populace is as relentlessly maligned and demonised as those with the misfortune of being born white, straight, and a man. They are constantly bashed in the media, on the internet, and even at schools and universities, where there are very real structural disadvantages these days to being a boy.
    Milo Yiannopoulos
    He’s sharper than six razor blades taped together, the man is Gold.

    1. I’ve never felt demonized as a white man. This is unworthy hysteria and hyperbole for any level headed man to start purveying around the place. The manosphere will be reduced to a self help, self inflicted victim’s club with members lacking any self respect for themselves if that happens. I’ll go my own way at that juncture, as I’ve no intention of playing the SJW “victim” role.

    1. According to Leftists, there was some giant magical day in the late 1960’s when members of both parties crossed over to the other party. What day, they don’t seem to be able to pinpoint of course. And that most of their leadership are all open racists when they think that the microphone is off, or when they die and are found to be card carrying Wizards in the KKK is simply ignored.

      1. It didn’t happen overnight. I’d say it began with the Civil Rights Act passed in the wake of JFK’s assassination and perhaps ended with the election of Obama. I consider(ed?) myself a left leaning libertarian and struggled with the decision to finally vote for Obama during his first run (mostly the lesser of two evils choice). I can count on my middle finger the number of white friends I have who still support him today. Whites are abandoning the Democratic party in droves due to this failed presidency. I think the only difference is in the past there were likeable guys on the other team, whereas now mostly these people are just dropping out of politics completely instead of voting for the other side (although Trump!)
        During the last 40 years, we have seen affirmative action, forced integration, expansion of welfare payments and section 8 housing, an increase in the drug war, and perhaps most importantly, a complete failure in positive outcomes resulting from these policies. Then in the past decade or so there is the demonization of the straight white male as the source of all ills, combined with increased feminism and the latest nuttery of trannies.
        These issues have slowly turned many away from what they once viewed as the “progressive” party. Of course, while mostly supporting the left for environmental, fiscal, and foreign relations reasons, I was still reading stuff like William F Buckley and critiques of the civil rights act legislation since high school. The thing is, if the right would just stand up for family and culture and stop being the party of endless warfare and sex prudes, they could really resonate with the disaffected non-voter.

        1. I contend that there really hasn’t been much of a crossover. Outside of Spectre, who switched party affiliations based on whatever flavor of the day Baskin Robbins was featuring.
          My grandparents were GOP in the 40’s, the 50’s, the 60’s, the 70’s, the ’80’s until they died. Same with every “old” GOP person I’ve ever known.

        2. Could be, but in the south, the Democrats dominated politics since reconstruction until the past decades. Most of the major Republicans here followed the model of George Wallace–originally a populist or progressive, switch parties to appeal to the white working man, succeed. Consider Mississippi, which had 3 Republican governors in its entire history until 1996. Louisiana elected its first post-reconstruction Republican in 1980. Alabama in 1987. And Georgia 2003.
          When you consider that the south is now solidly Republican, and indeed the only area where the Republican party does not even need to campaign in order to win elections, and you look at the stats of total Democratic vs Republican governors (43-4 in GA, 52-6 in AL, 39-7 in TX) clearly something drastic has changed in recent history. I have traveled most of the country and I will say the parties are incredibly different outside of the south, so YMMV. For example, Montana, one of the most pro-freedom, live and let live states I’ve been to, seems to typically have a Democratic government, but it’s completely unlike the Democrats, and even the Republicans, from the south.
          EDIT: I thought you were referring to the new James Bond film Spectre heh. There are loads and loads of white D-to-R crossover candidates, literally dozens. Some of the more famous are Strom Thurmond, Zell Miller, Jesse Helms, Bob Barr, Trent Lott, Elizabeth Dole, Bill Bennett, Roy Moore, David Duke, Rick Perry, Buddy Roemer, Fob James, Nathan Deal (of the 4 Republican govs GA has had, 2 were former Democrats) , Sonny Perdue, and of course Ronald Reagan 🙂 When you see this happening, almost exclusively in the south, you get the feeling that people are switching parties.

        3. I believe what’s happening is that the Dems have swung so far to the left that it’s repelling most of their once “normal” base, who may well be joining the GOP. I do not however see any of the normal GOP base switching to the Dems. So in effect the GOP can still rightfully claim the mantel of supporting civil rights, etc. while the Dems have morphed into the Hate Everything Normal Party.

        4. Agreed. At least the Republican party has a libertarian wing (albeit small and weak) who will speak out against the bad policies of its party, and Ron Paul got huge grassroots support that somehow never translated into good polling data (hmmm), but the Democrats have no one who speaks out against insane feminism and the other crazy ideas coming from that side.

    2. The democrats just figured out a better way to hurt their enemy…. keep them ignorant and dependent on the government and laying blame on everyone but themselves so that they wouldn’t realize they could better themselves, but it had to be them that did it. By doing so, they’ve kept African Americans subjugated and arranged it so that the African American voter kept them in power. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. Any time an African American (or white person) come out and tell the truth about entitlements and government dependency, the Dems just scream racism to drown out the truth of their message. I guess the Dems are a smart group in accomplishing their long term goal if nothing else.

  29. Once the SJW’s do turn to outright violence (outside of one off nutter events), then as far as I’m concerned it will be fair game to deal with them…appropriately.

  30. We believe these views could incite hatred against both trans* people and women who have experienced sexual violence. As we believe it is probable these views would be aired in this discussion should he be allowed to speak on campus, we have no choice but to ban him.
    Ha! They only *wish* the topic of trannies would be mentioned. Trannies are so rare they are not on anyone’s radar, and I can’t imagine their relevance to a discussion of censorship. These SJWs want to push their agenda so fucking hard, inserting sexuality and other shit into all sorts of places where it doesn’t belong. How about a “safe place” for people like me, who want to hear a discussion about censorship without being “triggered” by chicks with dicks, she-men and granny trannies (yes I saw that on a porn pop-up a decade ago and it is forever etched in my brain)? Now that’s some really disturbing and troubling stuff!

  31. This will be the new way of things. Silence the opposition and give them no forum to debate in so that they can be villainized without being able to defend themselves in the court of public opinion. This is why we had freedom of speech and the press so revered, yet somehow the left has been allowed to massage its meaning until it no longer grants the protections it was mean to give.

  32. These college kids get upset over anything. The SJW and all that other crap is just one big shit test. When you get upset, you fail. I wish some blue hair chick would come tell me that my shirt with a hot chick on it “triggers” her. I would just say “good for you” and carry on about my day.

  33. being in a canadian university myself, all i can say is let the leftists reap what they sow. I will be laughing at them at that point.

  34. So what happens if you just invite the guy anyways and have a discussion outside on the grass?

  35. lol “principles of liberation”
    brave college kids fighting against a society that already caters largely to their worldview
    you wanna be a real revolutionary, you’re gonna have to start by rejecting equality

    1. oh yeah? lol.
      did you read the article, professor? i guess you’re just another SJW.
      Harvey Silvergate, FIRE Co-founder and Chairman is a Jew.
      Cathy Young is a Jew.
      Ezra Levant is a Jew:

  36. I think we are starting to get a generation of kids who have undergone helicopter parenting. And who are therefore afraid of freedom.
    3rd wave feminists are the product of helicopter parenting. By kids who have spent their lives appealing to authorities.

  37. Well, at least they banned both Milo and his Feminist counterpart. That’s something. I guess.

  38. It’s natural extension of what’s happening in our whole freakin’ society. And why neomasculity and the Red Pill are needed right now. If a gay, woman, black person, jew or any other “protected” person runs a sign and wrecks your car, and you say that so-and-so ran into my car, suddenly you’re shut down and your side isn’t even considered because you’re told you’re homophobic, misogynistic, racist, or anti-semitic. And then they’re allowed to lie freely and without consequences. Society’s gone to the shit pile.

  39. This is why I refuse to go back to college, because the freedom of thought, speech, and expression is being scrapped for mollycoddling “safe spaces” and feminist dogma.
    As a result the majority of college students are now female, why? Because colleges and universities are now tailoring to the interests of women.

  40. How things change in a year.
    My views about Milo have changed a lot recently. He doesn’t have much credibility for me, but I appreciate he is turning people towards a more honest way of thinking.

Comments are closed.