News Antifa attack conservative blogger Andy Ngo amid violence at Portland Proud Boys protest

[User Anon 1848]

As Adri pointed out earlier, Ngo is a fascist mouthpiece who tried to incite racial violence against muslims by writing a fictional story about England to rile up the right. If you spend your life playing with fire like that you have to expect to be burned at some point. The small section of black bloc boys who did it should have been smarter and known he was there to rile them up, but if I could avoid jail over it and had the chance I'd kick the living shit out of the little fash too. Hell, it's what my Grandad spent the 40s doing.

I wouldn't compare someone who risked their life fighting actual fascists and Nazis in a war to a group of larpers ganging up and sucker punching a journalist on the street, especially since by your own admission, you'd be reluctant to even do that much because of the legal consequences.

 

[Hands]

I wouldn't compare someone who risked their life fighting actual fascists and Nazis in a war to a group of larpers ganging up and sucker punching a journalist on the street, especially since by your own admission, you'd be reluctant to even do that much because of the legal consequences.

Why are you deliberately ignoring everything else shared here showing the right instigating the violence? These people are actual fascists, from Ngo's modern take on "The Eternal Jew" to Patriot Prayer members routinely getting caught with SS tattoos and the like. If my grandad was alive today, God rest his soul, he'd be devastated seeing how the right has been allowed to go on and on and on.

 

[User Anon 1848]

Why are you deliberately ignoring everything else shared here showing the right instigating the violence? These people are actual fascists, from Ngo's modern take on "The Eternal Jew" to Patriot Prayer members routinely getting caught with SS tattoos and the like. If my grandad was alive today, God rest his soul, he'd be devastated seeing how the right has been allowed to go on and on and on.

Because that part stood out to me and I think EnglishALT has done a good job of addressing your other points. My great grandfather fought in the same war and he probably wouldn't appreciate being compared to antifa or having the enemies that killed his comrades compared to journalists who are a little too far right for some people's taste. I'm not interested in defending Ngo beyond pointing out what a poor comparison that was on both accounts.

Edit: Also your back and forth was with him.

If it makes you feel better. I consider the proud boys to be glorified larpers as well. I'm not going to pretend to know my great grandfather's politics to strengthen my point (not saying you were pretending) but I was close with him and I know how badly the war affected him and how much he hated the Nazis. He had to sleep with a gun for the rest of his life to feel safe even after moving countries. Do you honestly feel a comparable fear due to some journalists' articles? It was just an egregious comparison is all. That's why it stood out to me and why I cherry-picked it out of everything.

 

[Hands]

Because that part stood out to me and I think EnglishALT has done a good job of addressing your other points. My great grandfather fought in the same war and he probably wouldn't appreciate being compared to antifa or having the enemies that killed his comrades compared to journalists who are a little too far right for some people's taste. I'm not interested in defending Ngo beyond pointing out what a poor comparison that was on both accounts.

How do you think they started the holocaust? They didn't just one day say "Yeah lets kill the blacks, gays, jews and handicaps lol". They spent years spreading stories about Jewish folk covertly taking over the country (like Ngo does about Muslims) and made people afraid. They defended antisemites (like Ngo does) and published stories backing them up as being "just patriotic" (like Ngo does) and they turned up to Communist and Jewish areas and instigated fights that they then used to claim that the Jews and Communists were violent and anti German.


This is how it started before. WW2 didn't just start because the Nazis took over out of nowhere. They spent years doing it. Ngo is a modern day Goebbels in the making.

As for why AntiFa fight like they do, that's explainable with one simple post war paragraph from Niemoller.

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."



It's not that he's a little "too right" for me. Eisenhower was a little "too right for me", Ngo is "wouldn't be out of place at a third reich newspaper" for me. He lied, about Muslims, to try and terrify mentally vulnerable people into rising up against a non existent threat from an oppressed minority. If he wasn't such a well known hack he could have done far more damage.

Edit: Also your back and forth was with him.

Until you replied to me. If you want to focus solely on a personal comparison to my brave grandfather's views on fascism then do it via PM, there is a far wider discussion here than your attempts to police a man you don't know's legacy.

 

[User Anon 1848]

How do you think they started the holocaust? They didn't just one day say "Yeah lets kill the blacks, gays, jews and handicaps lol". They spent years spreading stories about Jewish folk covertly taking over the country (like Ngo does about Muslims) and made people afraid. They defended antisemites (like Ngo does) and published stories backing them up as being "just patriotic" (like Ngo does) and they turned up to Communist and Jewish areas and instigated fights that they then used to claim that the Jews and Communists were violent and anti German.


This is how it started before. WW2 didn't just start because the Nazis took over out of nowhere. They spent years doing it. Ngo is a modern day Goebbels in the making.

As for why AntiFa fight like they do, that's explainable with one simple post war paragraph from Niemoller.

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."



It's not that he's a little "too right" for me. Eisenhower was a little "too right for me", Ngo is "wouldn't be out of place at a third reich newspaper" for me. He lied, about Muslims, to try and terrify mentally vulnerable people into rising up against a non existent threat from an oppressed minority. If he wasn't such a well known hack he could have done far more damage.





Until you replied to me. If you want to focus solely on a personal comparison to my brave grandfather's views on fascism then do it via PM, there is a far wider discussion here than your attempts to police a man you don't know's legacy.

Why can't you counter subversive and dishonest articles by directly picking them apart? Even if you're a random Joe platforms like twitter give you the potential to reach thousands of people with a simple tweet. You have sites like youtube full of political discussions too. All far more productive, moral and civil than fighting like gangs in the street.


Well it's hard to speak out when you have a fists first attitude lol.

Even if I conceded that he was a shitty fear mongering journalist you have other means of refuting him. You say it's a well known hack so that's even less reason to resort to violence. Morals aside it's not even a smart tactic. This kind of violence pushes people to the other side. Look at all the shit antifa got for their actions on social media and by extension the democrats who haven't spoken out against it. It's a bad PR move at the very least.

With all due respect my critique of your comparison isn't affected by your grandfather's views on fascism. Even "if" Ngo was a fascist Nazi the risks of attacking him are objectively not comparable to war at all. Nor was your resolution to doing so compared to someone who enrolled in the army or even someone who didn't find a way to opt out by breaking their legs like some men did. I was attacking your comparison, not your grandfather. I respect his service so sorry if it came off that way.

 

[Hands]

Why can't you counter subversive and dishonest articles by directly picking them apart? Even if you're a random Joe platforms like twitter give you the potential to reach thousands of people with a simple tweet. You have sites like youtube full of political discussions too. All far more productive, moral and civil than fighting like gangs in the street.


Well it's hard to speak out when you have a fists first attitude lol.

Even if I conceded that he was a shitty fear mongering journalist you have other means of refuting him. You say it's a well known hack so that's even less reason to resort to violence. Morals aside it's not even a smart tactic. This kind of violence pushes people to the other side. Look at all the shit antifa got for their actions on social media and by extension the democrats who haven't spoken out against it. It's a bad PR move at the very least.

With all due respect my critique of your comparison isn't affected by your grandfather's views on fascism. Even "if" Ngo was a fascist Nazi the risks of attacking him are objectively not comparable to war at all. Nor was your resolution to doing so compared to someone who enrolled in the army or even someone who didn't find a way to opt out by breaking their legs like some men did. I was attacking your comparison, not your grandfather. I respect his service so sorry if it came off that way.

Because people have been trying to stop these right wing shitleddlars for years with words and it just falls into bad faith sealioning or the classic Shapiro move of talking fast, walking off when it gets difficult and saying the same things again to a different audience.


Let's stop pretending that Ngo was subjected to anything comparable to war himself. He was punched twice and kicked once. He hardly had a 45 fly through his skull. He went there to antagonise like he always does and one idiot lost his cool and hit him. That's all. Everyone is pretending a mob of hundreds killed the man and dragged his corpse through the street. It was AntiFa activists who stopped the assault, but why worry about the reality of the situation?

My Grandfather fought in a war, against foreign fascists, after Germany had already had its years of Goebbels and the few brave socialists, communists and Jews who had tried to fight off the fascists were either in camps or long dead. Why in the hell would we want to let it happen again?

 

[CiCi]

tl;dr for this whole thread, but I just wanted to say that I hate AntiFa and I hate Proud Boys. Though I have to hate AntiFa more because of their much wider presence. Duck AntiFa :D

 

[gimmepie]

Speaking as someone who is extremely left, here's my take: I do not agree with political violence. There's no reasonable denying that Ngo is a shit stain and that he probably deserved what he got, but vigilantism is a crime for a reason. It violates a right to due process and a fair trial, which the US has - which most first world countries have. You have very little ground to stand on protesting human rights violations whilst also violating people's rights.

I'm not going to defend any of the right wing lunatics that were there spoiling for a fight and inciting violence. I think that if you incite violence you shouldn't be surprised when you receive violence. Ultimately, I'm sympathetic with the AntiFa protesters' cause and I hold little sympathy for what happened to Ngo or any of the alt-right/fascist-lite present, but I do not agree with the methods sometimes used by AntiFa protesters and I do not support the notion that political violence is the answer.

You see, Black is very much right. When you fight these people with violence, you prove their narrative. You make them "victims", you strengthen their twisted positions and ultimately you make it a lot harder for those pushing against fascism, populism and the like to do so effectively because you hurt their positions. You can make comparisons to pre-WW2 political violence and propaganda and the war itself, but that is incredibly disingenuous. There are certainly similarities, but we are not the same society as back then. The populace is more informed, information is more readily available and we have the examples set by Hitler's precedent to learn from that we didn't have back then. All this ignoring that fringe alt-right fascist lobby groups with no real power are not even remotely comparable to how dangerous a government-run propaganda machine is. I don't feel much need to comment on LDS because Hands and Tyler have already made the counterarguments I would have anyway, but this is something I really did feel the need to weight in on.

So, did the alt-right groups/Ngo deserve what they got? Pretty much.
Did AntiFa protesters have the right to give it to them? Well, this is a tad more complicated. I consider myself a pacifist. I believe it's wrong to go looking for violence, but I also have a policy that if a fights finds you instead, that you should win. Ordinary protesters who were unfortunately caught up in violence had every right to defend themselves where it was necessary. Nobody there had the right to intentionally seek out to harm anyone and I don't have any doubt that there were people on both sides who were just spoiling for a fight.

Overall, this was a needlessly messy situation. The right-wingers that incited and instigated the violence were probably more at fault than the AntiFa protesters. However, I think that there was wrong done here on both sides and honestly if any of those people were acting like adults instead of school children this violence wouldn't have occurred. Nothing was gained from this, i anything ground was potentially lost. Political violence is stupid and a lot of the people there needed to grow the hell up.

 

[Fleurdelis]

Coming from someone who is more right-leaning, just gonna echo the obvious in that violence is never the right decision, whether it be incited or not. Especially if it's incited. Since if they incite for violence and you give them said violence, they just win since you fell for the bait. In the end all violence is good for is to breed even more violence until shit hits the fan so to speak.

Whether who is right or not I don't really care, I dislike both parties involved in this matter.

gimmepie sums it up pretty well imo.

 

[Nah]

To pose a question or two for all of you:

What do you do when all the peaceful methods fail? What do you do when, no matter how much you try and well make your arguments, no good comes from it?

 

[EnglishALT]

I will update this later with my reply to Hands

What do you do when all the peaceful methods fail? What do you do when, no matter how much you try and well make your arguments, no good comes from it?

Well first we need to establish that we are no where near a situation in which peaceful methods have failed. Just because the left has lost a single Presidential election does not mean it is time to engage in political violence. That being said I would say if you are dealing with an utterly corrupt regime that has clearly seized power and refuses to relinquish it ( Turkey, Venezuela, North Korea, Russia for example ). Then political violence can be the last resort, however the violence should never target the fellow citizen, as you want them to eventually side with you.

The violence must target the political structure and not the military as typically in these regimes the military is the only one with guns, and you tend to want them to side with you in the end, and not engage in a one sided civil war. You want to minimize civilian casualties, focusing mainly on destruction of property or targeted assassinations, you do not want the regime to be able to parade the children of a dead mother around who died from a bomb, while working a second job to support her family.

The opposition also must be able to provide a legitimate political structure that is willing to include both sides, not a far right or far left alternative to the current regime. Taking out a far right or far left regime just to replace it with a polar opposite only cycles the players out and does not help get the populous on your side, or help you internationally.

Anyway that is what I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[gimmepie]

To pose a question or two for all of you:

What do you do when all the peaceful methods fail? What do you do when, no matter how much you try and well make your arguments, no good comes from it?

I think a part of this "no difference" perspective is that people seem to have this weird idea in their head that there is a point where you win and all the bad shit stops. The reality is that the world is a crappy place, and there is always going to be crappy people in it. The continued existence of shit like racism and homophobia and other alt-right trademarks doesn't mean civil discourse isn't achieving anything. There will always be people like that and you can't let that discourage you from doing the right thing.

The time for violence comes when there is a legitimate threat to your safety or the safety of those around you. Defence is basically the only time. When you start talking governments, when they start stripping you of human rights, don't give you due process and actively seek to harm you. When you can't protest without getting a life in prison or killed on the spot. That's when you can start looking at violence as a legitimate option.

 

[User Anon 1848]

Because people have been trying to stop these right wing ****leddlars for years with words and it just falls into bad faith sealioning or the classic Shapiro move of talking fast, walking off when it gets difficult and saying the same things again to a different audience.


Let's stop pretending that Ngo was subjected to anything comparable to war himself. He was punched twice and kicked once. He hardly had a 45 fly through his skull. He went there to antagonise like he always does and one idiot lost his cool and hit him. That's all. Everyone is pretending a mob of hundreds killed the man and dragged his corpse through the street. It was AntiFa activists who stopped the assault, but why worry about the reality of the situation?

My Grandfather fought in a war, against foreign fascists, after Germany had already had its years of Goebbels and the few brave socialists, communists and Jews who had tried to fight off the fascists were either in camps or long dead. Why in the hell would we want to let it happen again?

You're rarely going to change anyone's mind by debating them but you can win over an audience especially if they're more centrist to begin with. I'll definitely say that the likes of Shapiro and Crowder go after easy targets and act like babies when actually challenged but again it's no reason to resort to violence. There's not as many right-wing personalities in mainstream media and far right people are often deplatformed online so you have the advantage even without trying to physically suppress the other side.

I never compared the beating he took to war. You were the one comparing antifa attacking Ngo to soldiers risking their lives for their country and fighting Nazis. He ended up with a brain hemorrhage as EnglishALT pointed out so can we not act like it was just a slap on the wrist or a "milk-shakey" attack like the other poster here said? Some of you are trivializing a serious crime.

It's on a similar level of fear-mongering as those articles you mentioned to call for violence in the streets to prevent a fascist Nazi uprising. The alt-right have been gradually losing steam since Charlottesville. The proud boys lost Gavin after the police and media cracked down on them. Hacky youtubers have made a living by going after low hanging fruit and taking apart articles or tumblr blogs by "SJW's" for lack of a better word. There's no reason that anyone couldn't do the same by tackling right-wing propaganda. I've seen a couple of relatively successful channels do this. There would probably be more if you guys put more of your time and energy into civil discourse.

 

[LDSman]

First, simply ignoring that the Antifa attack people exercising their 1st amendment rights because "antifa isn't the government" is a extremely bad idea. What is stopping other people from simply using violence to silence people? Constitutional Rights as determined by violent mobs? It's not the government so its okay? What's stopping the gov't from simply looking the other way while mobs destroy their political opponents?

2nd, victim blaming? Really?

Second that WW2 quote can easily be used to show how dangerous the antifa are.

"First they came for those they called racist, and I did not speak out—because I was not a racist.

Then they came for those that they called supremacists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a supremacist.

Then they changed the definitions and called all conservatives racist supremacists and went after them next.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Interesting editorial talking about antifa overseas.

https://www.humanistperspectives.org/issue204/editorial.html

https://fee.org/articles/saying-you..._lhCFHnzyYUQbxkSh-F77_X_eYXJoIqiEs4npfvU2JN7A

 

[Hands]

You're rarely going to change anyone's mind by debating them but you can win over an audience especially if they're more centrist to begin with. I'll definitely say that the likes of Shapiro and Crowder go after easy targets and act like babies when actually challenged but again it's no reason to resort to violence. There's not as many right-wing personalities in mainstream media and far right people are often deplatformed online so you have the advantage even without trying to physically suppress the other side.

Shapiro never gets hit because he doesn't go into crowds to push people into reacting to him. Ngo is an agent provocative who routinely does this.

I never compared the beating he took to war.

Then why bring up fighting foreign fascists when I made a relatively innocuous post about my Grandfather's political views regarding fascists?

You were the one comparing antifa attacking Ngo to soldiers risking their lives for their country and fighting Nazis.

No I didn't?

He ended up with a brain hemorrhage as EnglishALT pointed out so can we not act like it was just a slap on the wrist or a "milk-shakey" attack like the other poster here said? Some of you are trivializing a serious crime.

So he claims, despite the fact he was apparently well enough to constantly attend interviews the day after. Ngo's people also claimed a mob attacked him (potentially with weapons, since Alt thought it was worth noting that he was unarmed, despite his assailant being unarmed) so I'd be very cautious about believing that without having access to a hospital report.

Did you watch the video? One individual briefly attacks Ngo before other protesters split them up. The person who essentially saves him from more of a beating was antifa.

It's on a similar level of fear-mongering as those articles you mentioned to call for violence in the streets to prevent a fascist Nazi uprising. The alt-right have been gradually losing steam since Charlottesville. The proud boys lost Gavin after the police and media cracked down on them. Hacky youtubers have made a living by going after low hanging fruit and taking apart articles or tumblr blogs by "SJW's" for lack of a better word. There's no reason that anyone couldn't do the same by tackling right-wing propaganda. I've seen a couple of relatively successful channels do this. There would probably be more if you guys put more of your time and energy into civil discourse.

They're in decline because they're afraid, not because they were talked down. Spencer, Milo etc, they all backed down out of fear.

"First they came for those they called racist, and I did not speak out—because I was not a racist.

Then they came for those that they called supremacists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a supremacist.

Then they changed the definitions and called all conservatives racist supremacists and went after them next.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

To avoid upsetting the community any further I won't tear apart the bulk of this again, but I think it's beyond insulting that you've used a piece written to highlight the horrors of the holocaust and how people stood by whilst people were taken away based on their ethnic background to provide a disingenuous argument likening it to people punching racists. It's indefensible and I honestly have no idea how that comment alone didn't end this thread. You ignore photographic and video evidence because it doesn't suit your narrative and whilst I probably should not have made a snarky comment to end my post, nothing I had said in it prior was untrue.

Right Wing opinion pieces from no name media outlets do not somehow provide more evidence than actual physical video and evidence.

 

[Her]

We don't think this thread is going anywhere but in a cyclical and unhealthy direction the OT team do not care to foster. This thread might be reopened once erik destler and I have had time to regroup properly, but for now, I'm just going to close and let this be before it can develop any further.