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.

@JohnRokesmith

What specifically about critical race theory is laughable and stupid?

A very basic issue (and I'm not even going so far here as to call it stupid) is that it conflates between group difference and within group difference, which is a fairly straightforward flaw in statistical analysis. It also conflates class analysis with individual experience. The end result is that you get superficially meaningful conclusions based on a foundation of sand.

It doesn't claim to be a statistical analysis. It's a political analysis of how white privilege shapes institutions and the law and perpetuates racism and racist policies.

What specifically about critical race theory is laughable and stupid?

How can I possibly answer that in a way that you can understand? There is no truth, objectivity, or rationality. The only reality is my 'lived experience' which tells me that CRT is laughable.

It doesn't claim to be a statistical analysis. It's a political analysis of how white privilege shapes institutions and the law and perpetuates racism and racist policies.

Clearly. Because it makes claims based upon pseudo-statistical analysis, which form the foundation of the theory, without an understanding of how and why statistics might matter.

@jj1968

Any comment on your mate Mr Gupta?

I don't think the fact a journalist comes across as a bit of a dick on twitter invalidates their published work. I think most journalists come across as a bit of a dick on twitter.

Repeatedly calling the son of a holocaust survivor 'kapo-boy' is a bit bad though isn't it? That goes far beyond 'coming across as a bit of a dick on twitter.' Not to mention the rest of his disgusting tweets, many of which suggest racism towards east and southeast asians.

I can never quite work out the logic of raging antisemites accusing everyone they disagree with of being a nazi but it's not uncommon IME.

There is far more evidence that Arun Gupta is a raging racist antisemite than there is evidence that Andy Ngo is a nazi.

I have no doubt that Andy Ngo is right wing and is not a friend to women. I have no doubt that Arun Gupta is a racist antisemite and is also no friend to women.

Why is one of these men 'well worth reading' and the other not?

Do you think women are so stupid that we are unable to read the full range of political opinion without becoming brainwashed by what some bloke reckons?

@JohnRokesmith

The goal is anti-fascism surely. There may be other groups, some of whom may share supporters with antifa whose goals are anti-capitalism, or anti-police and engage in physical confrontation on that basis but that doesn't mean they are antifa.

Unless they have travelled in time back to the 1930s, they are not actually fighting any fascists. So, it is reasonable to ask as to whom they are actually targeting and why.

Are you joking? I'm a bit of a stickler myself for pointing out the difference between highly authoritarian states such as Franco's Spain, or racist states such as the apartheid era in South Africa and Fascist states such as Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany. But fascism didn't end there, it has developed and there are many adherents of fascism both in Europe and in the US - who work together with ultra authoritarians, organised racists, extremist libertarians, men's rights activists, the Klan, internet edgelords and others in a movement that is usually described as the far right.

Are you joking? I'm a bit of a stickler myself for pointing out the difference between highly authoritarian states such as Franco's Spain, or racist states such as the apartheid era in South Africa and Fascist states such as Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany. But fascism didn't end there, it has developed and there are many adherents of fascism both in Europe and in the US - who work together with ultra authoritarians, organised racists, extremist libertarians, men's rights activists, the Klan, internet edgelords and others in a movement that is usually described as the far right.

When MRAs plan an invasion of Russia, to secure territory for the expansion of the master race, then you can call them fascists. Which is not to say that MRA culture is not toxic or dangerous, just that they aren't fascists in any meaningful sense.

I think most journalists come across as a bit of a dick on twitter.

I follow loads of journalists on twitter. None of their timelines look remotely like Arun Gupta's.

@JohnRokesmith

Are you joking? I'm a bit of a stickler myself for pointing out the difference between highly authoritarian states such as Franco's Spain, or racist states such as the apartheid era in South Africa and Fascist states such as Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany. But fascism didn't end there, it has developed and there are many adherents of fascism both in Europe and in the US - who work together with ultra authoritarians, organised racists, extremist libertarians, men's rights activists, the Klan, internet edgelords and others in a movement that is usually described as the far right.

When MRAs plan an invasion of Russia, to secure territory for the expansion of the master race, then you can call them fascists. Which is not to say that MRA culture is not toxic or dangerous, just that they aren't fascists in any meaningful sense.

Did you actually read my post? I specifically said that fascists work wth MRAs to form the far right movement, not that MRAs are fascists, although somevery likely are.

Fascism is a highly authoritarian and anti-democratic political ideology which supports a rigid segmentation of society into roles serving a nationalist agenda and whose power depends on extreme violence both within and outside of the borders of the state. There are many amongst the far right who quite openly support this ideology.

Did you actually read my post? I specifically said that fascists work wth MRAs to form the far right movement, not that MRAs are fascists, although somevery likely are.

Yes, I did, but it was blah, blah, blah, fascists hiding behind the door, so was treated with the contempt it deserved.

I can never quite work out the logic of raging antisemites accusing everyone they disagree with of being a nazi but it's not uncommon IME.

There is far more evidence that Arun Gupta is a raging racist antisemite than there is evidence that Andy Ngo is a nazi.

I have no doubt that Andy Ngo is right wing and is not a friend to women. I have no doubt that Arun Gupta is a racist antisemite and is also no friend to women.

^ This

@JohnRokesmith

Did you actually read my post? I specifically said that fascists work wth MRAs to form the far right movement, not that MRAs are fascists, although somevery likely are.

Yes, I did, but it was blah, blah, blah, fascists hiding behind the door, so was treated with the contempt it deserved.

They aren't hiding behind the door they are marching in the street, sieg heiling in some cases in Europe. Fascism didn't disappear in 1945, Oswald Moseley's Union Movement was active in the UK until the late 70s, when groups like the National Front became more prominent eventually developing into the BNP, who eventually splintered into groups like Britain First, the fringes of UKIP, the EDL etc. There are similar stories across Europe and there are groups in the US inspired by these movements and worse with several active neo-nazi groups currently operating. To pretend they don't exist, and have played no role in far right mobilisations here and abroad is either deliberate dishonesty or willful ignorance.

You just can't tell some people. even with real world, actual first person examples.

They aren't hiding behind the door they are marching in the street, sieg heiling in some cases in Europe. Fascism didn't disappear in 1945, Oswald Moseley's Union Movement was active in the UK until the late 70s, when groups like the National Front became more prominent eventually developing into the BNP, who eventually splintered into groups like Britain First, the fringes of UKIP, the EDL etc. There are similar stories across Europe and there are groups in the US inspired by these movements and worse with several active neo-nazi groups currently operating. To pretend they don't exist, and have played no role in far right mobilisations here and abroad is either deliberate dishonesty or willful ignorance.

Or just realism. There are a lot of people who clothe themselves in the imagery of fascism, knowing that it is powerful and offensive. There are some people who actually identify as fascism in a meaningful way, but they are a tiny, tiny number of people, and have no significant role in modern society. The fact that Oswald Mosely was still alive in the 1970s, trying to push his fascist dreams does not mean that fascism had any real hold in Britain at the time. And there is certainly no fascist conspiracy, trying to infiltrate modern society.

Meanwhile, there are, of course, plenty of people openly espousing the following principles:

• Opposition to democracy
• Racial essentialism
• Antisemitism
• Promotion of censorship
• Approval of violence as a political tool

They generally go by names such as "Momentum" or "antifa" or the like, and they love the notion of an ever present fascist threat, as it justifies many of their antisocial activities.

The goal is anti-fascism surely. There may be other groups, some of whom may share supporters with antifa whose goals are anti-capitalism, or anti-police and engage in physical confrontation on that basis but that doesn't mean they are antifa.

Oh yes, it couldn't possibly be the sainted freedom fighters who identify as Antifa who are doing bad things! Acceptance without exception, jj!

And it is typically thus with violent protest. Some people who identify as being on the left love this, as it allows them to cast themselves and their movements as being freedom fighters, heroically sticking it to the man, and forcibly taking their freedoms from their oppressors. In reality, it's generally it's mostly just idiots taking an opportunity to punch others, and feel good about themselves afterwards.

This.

Meanwhile, there are, of course, plenty of people openly espousing the following principles:

• Opposition to democracy
• Racial essentialism
• Antisemitism
• Promotion of censorship
• Approval of violence as a political tool

They generally go by names such as "Momentum" or "antifa" or the like, and they love the notion of an ever present fascist threat, as it justifies many of their antisocial activities.

Brilliant

And it is typically thus with violent protest. Some people who identify as being on the left love this, as it allows them to cast themselves and their movements as being freedom fighters, heroically sticking it to the man, and forcibly taking their freedoms from their oppressors. In reality, it's generally it's mostly just idiots taking an opportunity to punch others, and feel good about themselves afterwards.

This is exactly what I have seen.

On the women's suffrage movement -

My impression is that there were an absolute fuckton of different groups and individuals, all working towards a common aim and using a huge variety of methods and there was lots of disagreement between groups.

None of the women's methods can properly be described as democratic because they didn't have the vote - they had no access to democracy.

The first national organisation for women's suffrage began in 1867 and women fought for over 50 years to get some women the vote and over 60 years to get all women the vote on the same terms as men. After the first forty years, some women got more than a bit shirty.

Methods ranged from politely asking male allies to make their case for them in parliament, right through to the terrorist tactics of the WSPU in its later years. I do believe it was only a few fringe activists who deliberately endangered lives but it was absolutely terrorism.

Women in the early 20th century were the same as women today - adult humans with fully functioning brains. Just like now, the vast majority of women with an interest in securing women's rights would have made the effort to hear what a lot of the different groups and prominent individuals had to say and would have made up their own minds and decided what they personally were comfortable with. And there would have been lots of fallings out and schisms and realignments etc because women are human.

It's difficult to say what I would have done personally because I wasn't born or brought up in that era. My ancestors at that time were coal miners, bargees, travelling fairground people and tenant farmers. They all left school at a very young age (if they went at all) and had limited literacy and even more limited time to pay attention to anything beyond their immediate hand-to-mouth existence. Maybe some of them were 'literal nazis' but we'll never know because they didn't have the privilege of leaving written records.

If I had been alive back then and had the astonishing good luck to be exposed to ideas about women's suffrage then my best guess is that I'd have been as militant as necessary up to the destruction of property but would have drawn the line at anything that harmed people.

Who knows though. It's a nonsensical question. None of us were alive.

Whatever things were like back then, I bet there were lots of men trying to shame women into denouncing each other. That has been the basic tactic since Matthew Hopkins.

We're not stupid.

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.

Well going off the riots they have a history of destroying people's businesses and whatever else.

Do they have the same agenda as the far-right? No they don't.

However, if citizens are allowed to make their own decisions as to when to use political violence, then surely any group can be a target including BLM?

Some people could argue that far-left groups are actually very dangerous to society if they ever gained enough traction.

The far-left may claim to want to build a better kind of society, free from racism and "injustice".

But some would look at the history of far-left movements, and think that they would actually bring misery to millions and tend towards an authoritarian state.

And again, if people can just make up their own minds on the use of violence, then why not target socialists or any other group that can be perceived as a dangerous threat?

www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

White moderates continue to white moderate.

Also, I've no idea who Arun Gupta is but he sounds disappointing.

We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?"

Seems antifa still has a lot to learn from Dr King.

@UsedUpUsername

We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?"

Seems antifa still has a lot to learn from Dr King.

They did. They learned that no matter how non-violent, how respectable you are in your attempts to escape your shackles, fascists will still murder you.

They did. They learned that no matter how non-violent, how respectable you are in your attempts to escape your shackles, fascists will still murder you

Dr King’s legacy is being trampled by antifa and critical race theorists, sadly. And it seems you don’t give a fuck about that even though you link to his letter.

If I had been alive back then and had the astonishing good luck to be exposed to ideas about women's suffrage then my best guess is that I'd have been as militant as necessary up to the destruction of property but would have drawn the line at anything that harmed people.

Who knows though. It's a nonsensical question. None of us were alive.

Whatever things were like back then, I bet there were lots of men trying to shame women into denouncing each other. That has been the basic tactic since Matthew Hopkins.

Yes, I imagine there were. Great post LangClegsInSpace