What do you think of Andy Ngo?

Yes I'm more than familiar with both the policies they are fighting for now and their ultimate aspirations.
You seem to be fuelled by the idea that you are rooting out the devil. Unfortunately the devil resides in everyone. As soon as you say your cause is so just it excuses anything you no longer have any moral justification.

They promote mass workfare policies, want to limit or prevent legal abortion, scrap gay marriage and any LGBT equality laws, cut medicare funding, prevent no fault divorces, introduce immigration laws such as a ban on people from certain countries and make it near impossible for parents of children to get divorced. And that's just what they say out loud

This is a complete exaggeration of their views. Yes, they are not supportive of abortion and they were not supportive of gay marriage in the past (they’ve since moved on like everyone else).

No, they don’t want expansion of welfare, that’s not their thing. I feel the same, actually, in that creating jobs is better than creating dependency.

But I disagree with the Heritage Foundation on immigration, they are actually pretty pro-immigration in that it helps business; I see that it suppresses working class wages.

And is no-fault divorce even a thing in the UK? Are you American?

Yes I'm more than familiar with both the policies they are fighting for now and their ultimate aspirations

They are mostly pro-business. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I’ve personally never liked them due to their advocacy of the Iraq war debacle, but it’s a completely mainstream organisation.

I wonder what you think is the ‘ultimate aspiration’ ... it’s such an odd think tank to focus on

mobile.twitter.com/christophelston/status/1370550679606018050

Is this kind of violent protest ok?

Are you saying it's not okay to attack unarmed civillians (and that's hardly a mainstream BLM or antifa tactic) but it's fine to throw bricks at the police as happened at Stonewall? Or that this was provoked by police violence and so okay but BLM protesters provoked by the repeated murder of black people by the police should be codemned?

It's the difference between having a conditional allegiance and a tribal allegiance.

Yes, exactly. If a gender critical feminist attacked a trans person for wearing a TWAW t shirt, I would condemn it.

Same question to you. Would you have condemned the Suffragettes? Do you condemn the Stonewall riots as well for that matter?

Did they beat up unarmed civilians? I believe the cause was just and the women were brave. I condemn unprovoked acts of violence. On all sides.

It's the difference between having a conditional allegiance and a tribal allegiance.

Recognising tipping points in any political movement is essential.

YY.

Perhaps if you're straight, a non migrant, reasonably financially secure and not likely to want an abortion or get divorced in the near future then you might not see anything wrong with the Heritage Foundation. However those whose lives would be devastated by the kind of society they wish to see are likely to have somewhat stronger feelings

Do you know anything about the Heritage Foundation? It doesn’t sound like you do.

What I see going on here is basically a bunch of testosterone-fuelled gangs, street-fighting and claiming territory. Same as it ever was.

That's what I used to think when in the days of Anti-nazi League protests and others in the 70s/80s.
Well I've take the opposite journey. Used to support Anti nazi League, Hope not Hate but they are not what they were. Just as I supported Robert Mugabe until he went bad.Recognising tipping points in any political movement is essential.

I realise my position makes me violent-mob-phobic. However, I can live with the disapproval that brings.

Our violent mob = good
Your violent mob = bad

A more nuanced approach might be to view violent mobs as bad whichever identity banner they march under.

Indeed.

What I see going on here is basically a bunch of testosterone-fuelled gangs, street-fighting and claiming territory. Same as it ever was.

That's what I used to think when in the days of Anti-nazi League protests and others in the 70s/80s. That was before I learned that the key stategy of the British fascist movement since Cable Street was to establish a violent street movement that was strong enough to march into minority areas to cause intimidation and fear in those communities. And that everytime they got close to achieving that aim they escalated to violent attacks on minority owned businesses and individuals, which in fact is how fascism became established in Germany. The anti-fascist movement did not appear out of nowhere but out of a need to prevent this, not least because the police wouldn't and at the time many police were supportive of the far right - and I suspect many still are. As I said upthread it wasn't always perfect and it wasn't pretty but if it takes a bunch of testosterone fuelled blokes to prevent something like the Blackshirts emerging then I'll take it. Violence is inherent to Fascism, and it is a luxury those who are the victims of that violence don't have to pretend that it's growth will be prevented either by state forces, or reasonable debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Our violent mob = good
Your violent mob = bad

A more nuanced approach might be to view violent mobs as bad whichever identity banner they march under.

In fact by your logic, why shouldn't people "physically confront" BLM when they turn up in a menacing way? That's what you are supporting yes?

Do BLM have the same aims of fascists and organised racists? Do BLM have a history of lynching white people? There is a very different dynamic at play, and BLM's anger has largely been targetted at the police and the state institutions which support them. It's completely different to a rabble of klansmen, alt right provocateurs, organised neo-nazis and misogynist fratboys turning up heavily armed and looking for a fight in towns known for being liberal like Portland.

In this case, I don't think he went anywhere near a trans event (?). But even if he went to a trans event with some provocative signs, it's still not a justification for violence.

Quite. And I remember the excuses and justifications and outright lies when male transactivists assaulted 60 year old Maria McLachlan at Speakers Corner.

Next you'll be joining the heritage foundation because they look like good old fashioned politic

And what’s wrong with the Heritage Foundation? I’m not into them, but it’s a legit organization that normal people join.

Or it’s a conservative group so that automatically means you hate them?

Why are you so full of hate?

Elston is a serial instigator looking for attention.

Even if correct, it wouldn't justify an attack on him right?

He's the type of idiot who holds a "make me a sandwich" sign at a women's march.

In this case, I don't think he went anywhere near a trans event (?). But even if he went to a trans event with some provocative signs, it's still not a justification for violence.