What do you think of Andy Ngo?

[ThroughTheBarsOfARhyme]

This is a bit of a tenuous link to feminism, it’s probably more about free speech, but I saw that a member of Mumford & Sons was criticised for praising his book (about antifa) and that his book had previously been banned from Amazon. It seems a bit like TRA tactics and a similar response to Abigail Shrier’s book. I’ve just bought his book to read but I was interested in other’s opinions of him and/or the book. Is he speaking the truth and people are trying to suppress it (similar with feminists) or is he exaggerating and not someone to praise?
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/mumford-sons-winston-marshall-taking-time-to-examine-blindspots-after-praising-andy-ngos-unmasked-book-12241592

I appreciate this really isn’t feminism so I will ask for it to be moved if people think it should be.

I think he's shining a spotlight where few others are willing to look and doing an invaluable service in this, but having read around his activities for some time I have a feeling he's not above creating convenient truths and is much less impartial than he'd like people to believe.

In my view it's worth reading his stuff but be skeptical and beware of becoming a fan.

He's a right wing grifter.

I listened to a Blocked and Reported podcast where they talked about him. Their take was approximately: very brave dude, the mainstream dismissal of Antifa violence against him is disgusting, probably not a reliable journalistic source. They specifically mentioned an article he wrote portraying London as an Islamist hellhole where alcohol is banned.

I have to say the Antifa crowd seem so utterly contemptible and repulsive to me that I instinctively warm to a man who has taken them on. But that’s a very ill-informed opinion (about Ngo, not Antifa.) I know they accuse him of white nationalist ties. I also know how little those accusations mean from that crowd - and also unlike basically all of Antifa he isn’t white - but if it’s true that would obviously change my perspective.

My take's basically the same as allmywhat's - I've not really followed him that closely.

Yes, "right wing", and maybe not a totally reliable journalistic source. But other voices I know better and trust seem to support him and repost his stuff (eg Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan Heather Heying) suggesting there's nothing particularly problematic.

But we've got to take what we can get. No-one else is there doing what he's doing. There are some very dangerous groups doing nasty stuff, and it's not being properly covered - cos media get attacked.

My feeling these days is "there's no smoke without fire" - if the Woke are making that much smoke about someone - they're probably on fire and saying something that you should be hearing.

And you always always have to be on the non-violent, non-hate, non-book-banning side, and in this match-up, that's Ngo.

He is writing a book exposing violent extremist left-wingers.

A sane response might include something like, "I'm not a fan of Andy Ngo, but he is at least correct in theory to be trying to expose them".

But no, it's "fascism" if you try to expose the ideological-driven violence on the political far-left.

I have seen a few interviews with him. The recentish one on Triggernometry was sobering. Being an Asian gay man did not protect him from antifa death threats following the attack. His life has been turned upside down.

The harassment of Ngo appears to be in the same vein as what is happening to radfems and others with inconvenient opinions. In his case it led to a beating and brain injury. I don't know how serious of a journalist he is and am not politically conservative myself. I don't want to live in a world where people lose so much for asking questions.

@Triggerpod has met him and might have more.

Thanks for your opinions, it’s hard to get an objective view from the media so it’s very helpful.

This Andy Ngo?

Last week, the local newspaper the Portland Mercury reported that a left-wing activist going undercover as a member of Patriot Prayer, a far-right group known for promoting and engaging in violent clashes with leftist activists, had given the publication an 18-minute video that included footage of Ngo with a group of Patriot Prayer members as the members discuss an upcoming brawl, including weaponry to be used in altercations with antifa. Ngo, who describes himself as a journalist, did not record the conversation, and does not appear to have his camera or notebook out. For part of the footage, he is seen on his phone.

www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andy-ngo-right-wing-troll-antifa-877914/

It's worrying that some people so uncritically accept the narrative about anti-fascism from a man who pals around with violent white supremicist groups.

And yet he was the one left with an antifa-inflicted brain injury, jj1968.

The whole point of journalists is that they talk to all kinds of people. It doesn't mean that they agree with everyone that they talk to or report on everything that they hear. It is not known whether he recorded the conversation, as your quote makes clear.

Even if he's not a serious journalist, I still don't care what his views are or who he associates with. AFAIK he has never assaulted anyone with whom he disagrees. He should not be assaulted and have death threats made against him for stating his opinions.

It's the line jj1968 always comes out with. Information, however beneficial it might be to society, must be discarded if it comes from someone not on "our side". The purity of the source is paramount.

The problems this causes will be evident to anyone thinking about this for a minute.

I like Andy Ngo’s work, he was writing about antifa long before anyone else was. If we’d have taken it seriously then, perhaps the US wouldn’t have had the troubles it had in the last summer.

Information, however beneficial it might be to society, must be discarded if it comes from someone not on "our side".

I think that "damning quote" is pretty hilarious - "journalist who investigates violent protestors seen with violent protestors".

jj1968's going to be in trouble if it ever gets out back home that he's been "palling around" with Mumsnet

I've seen jj1968 actually joking with users on here, rather than carrying out his mission.

If I was jj1968's handlers I'd be beginning to get a bit worried that he's going native.

@UsedUpUsername

I like Andy Ngo’s work, he was writing about antifa long before anyone else was. If we’d have taken it seriously then, perhaps the US wouldn’t have had the troubles it had in the last summer.

You think the troubles have come from anti-fascists and not far right terrorism and police killing black people seemingly with impunity?

The troubles come from many different threads all coming together. It's likely that different people investigating different, but not all, threads, might provide useful information.

@nauticant

It's the line jj1968 always comes out with. Information, however beneficial it might be to society, must be discarded if it comes from someone not on "our side". The purity of the source is paramount.

The problems this causes will be evident to anyone thinking about this for a minute.

It's not about purity it's about integrity. He clearly has a relationship with the far right that is beyond journalistic. He is a propagandist, not a journalist, and a worryingly effective one given some of the nonsense people come out with about anti-fascists being as bad or worse than actual fascists.

You think the troubles have come from anti-fascists and not far right terrorism and police killing black people seemingly with impunity?

Yes, antifa made everything worse. I saw more scrawny white kids destroying property than black BLM protestors.

@UsedUpUsername

You think the troubles have come from anti-fascists and not far right terrorism and police killing black people seemingly with impunity?

Yes, antifa made everything worse. I saw more scrawny white kids destroying property than black BLM protestors.

And you've never questioned why you saw that? Why things were presented in the right wing media a certain way?

And you've never questioned why you saw that? Why things were presented in the right wing media a certain way?

Are you saying the BLM protesters are responsible for property damage?

Thanks for your opinions, it’s hard to get an objective view from the media so it’s very helpful.

Overall OP, you're going to best informed by reading critically from a plurality of sources, even Andy Ngo (shock horror).

The grovelling apology from Winston Marshall is by far the most chilling and troubling aspect of this.

Back to that brain injury, jj1968. Where did it come from?

It is OK to blanket condemn violence. We should be even more concerned about violence perpetrated by our 'own side' in my opinion.

jj1968 sneering at someone else for being a propagandist could well end up as my MN highlght of the day.

Give me the names of 3 journalists that meet your crtiteria of not being propagandists. Who should I trust according to you?

@UsedUpUsername

And you've never questioned why you saw that? Why things were presented in the right wing media a certain way?

Are you saying the BLM protesters are responsible for property damage?

Yes of course some were, although I doubt they were in any way formally affiliated. When people are mistreated daily due to their race, murdered by those paid to protect them , under threat of political violence from the far right and live in a highly racialised society where a black man is more likely to go to prison then college people will get angry, riots will happen and property will be damaged.

But in terms of violence towards actual people then the threat in the US is from the far/alt right and the violent ideology they pursue. And those brave enough to take to the streets and challenge them have historically been vital in preventing far right movements taking hold, even if not always successful.

But in terms of violence towards actual people then the threat in the US is from the far/alt right and the violent ideology they pursue

It’s not. Not even close.

And those brave enough to take to the streets and challenge them have historically been vital in preventing far right movements taking hold, even if not always successful

BLM was not protesting against the far-right bogeyman. They were protesting against police brutality.