Andy Ngo Unmasks the Real Threat to American Freedom

Whether Donald Trump’s January 6 address to his supporters rose to the degree of criminal incitement beneath the Supreme Court’s possibly excessively liberal Brandenburg conventional, it was undeniably a thoroughly reprehensible act, or, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell set it following the impeachment trial,”a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of responsibility .” Nothing can excuse it.
However, while news media have every right and reason to condemn Trump’s behavior in provoking a mob (despite his admonition that they should act”peaceably”) to participate in a violent assault that resulted in five fatalities (and may have more, had it not been for the courageous acts of the understaffed Capitol Police), it’s unfortunate that few have put Trump’s act in a wider context that could admit the threats to our Constitutional sequence arising from everywhere on the ideology. Starting with the election of 2000, prominent Democrats have questioned the validity of each election where a Republican won the Presidency–really, devoting a majority of Trump’s term to attempting him to remove him, on grounds a lot more spurious than those on which his post-Presidential impeachment rested.
More recently, a thoroughly anti-constitutional precedent was established by then-minority leader Chuck Schumer just last March, after he directed a posse of about 75 members up the measures of the Supreme Court to frighten recently appointed justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh they had”published the whirlwind,” could”pay a price,” and could”not know what hit” them when they voted that the”wrong” way in an abortion case. (Schumer’s act obtained a rare rebuke from the generally booked Chief Justice Roberts, who uttered Schumer’s remarks as”inappropriate” and”reckless,” stressing,” that”members of the court will probably continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from all quarter.” In a proto-Trumpian answer, Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman clarified his boss’s voice did not mean exactly what they sounded like, also refused that.
A decade before, a much more threatening and direct, though ultimately (mostly) nonviolent, challenge to constitutional government was offered by Wisconsin public employee unions who invaded that state’s Capitol to protest and attempt to obstruct Governor Scott Walker’s program of reforming public-employee contracts in order to balance the state budget without increasing taxes, and liberate public college administrations from rigid breeding rules (closely paralleled in college districts throughout the nation ) that prevented them from hiring instructors based on merit and also adjusting their pay based on performance. Walker’s reforms went so far as to require public employees to contribute to their own health-insurance and retirement costs–although still paying less for those gains compared to average Wisconsin citizen. (See Walker’s retrospective perspective of the”Capitol Siege,” with over 100,000 inhabiting the building and its neighboring square). Though nobody died in the Wisconsin protests, many legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, reported receiving death threats at the time. Nevertheless it would be difficult to find criticism of either Schumer’s warnings or even the Wisconsin marriages’ effort to intimidate their state’s public institutions in the majority of the”mainstream” media.
The threat to the rule of law, and even to the constitutionally protected freedom of speech, in the modern America goes well beyond the attack about the U.S. Capitol, let alone another attempts to intimidate lawgivers and judges just mentioned. The wave of riots, violent offense, and looting apparently triggered by George Floyd’s passing while authorities attempted to control him is of course well known. However, as independent journalist Andy Ngo documents in his just-published publication Unmasked, widespread rioting led by the broadly arranged anarchist group Antifa began in his home city of Portland many years ahead of the Floyd occasion. With substantial courage, Ngo both reported on and off the weeks of rioting in Portland and Seattle, devoting direct assaults on police departments and judges in both cities, attacks on authorities resulting in hundreds of accidents, and many deaths. Yet in every case local governments let the majority of the violence go bankrupt, with Seattle’s mayor Jenny Durkan even observing the institution last June of the”Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” (CHAZ), where authorities and other government personnel had been excluded, as exemplifying a”Summer of Love”–until mounting deaths and other casualties, to say nothing of expensive damage to neighborhood shops, eventually compelled her to close it down after three weeks.
The simple fact of the riots in Portland and Seattle, as well as in many other cities, has of course been widely reported. Its actual origin, however, is another matter. Repeatedly, news commentators and columnists have denied that the existence of Antifa within an entity, or at least its responsibility for any criminal acts. And everyone from public officials to professional sports stars to Hollywood actors to the owners of sport teams has embraced the banner of Dark Lives Matter, mistaking a slogan (in lower-case letters) with that no sane person has the ability to disagree, using an explicitly Communist-directed organization (as its website supports ), as if linking its leaders in wishing to cause the violent behaviour of Western democracy. The level to which the actors’ acceptance of the BLM motion is that the consequence of utter ignorance, anxiety, or the pursuit of profit is a ruling which would have to be rendered on a single basis.
It’s a indication of our changing political times which Andy Ngo, who describes himself as gay, an unbeliever, and (at least in the past), a Democrat, must locate his chief defenders among those who identify as conservatives.But the most upsetting part of the Ngo story is not the simple fact he endured severe beatings at the hands of dinosaurs whose activities he was attempting to film and record (unsuccessfully attempting to conceal himself), that landed him in the hospital. It’s quite that bookstores, starting using Powell’s (the most bizarre individual bookseller not just in Portland but likely at the total U.S.) have been intimidated by Antifa not stocking the book.
Though Unmasked reached no. 1 position on Amazon in advance of its launch, when Antifa members whined Powell’s strategy to market the publication, the shop’s managers immediately apologized, explaining that although lots of the shop’s inventory was hand-picked, which wasn’t true of Ngo’s publication. They consequently vowed the publication”will not be placed on our shelves. We will not market it.” They did add that Unmasked would”remain in our online catalogue,” since”we take a good deal of publications we find abhorrent, as well as those that we treasure.” One might think they had been speaking of Mein Kampf! But despite the assurance that Powell’s wouldn’t stock the book, a bunch of protestors assembled outside the shop’s flagship, downtown location (as reported by ABC News) about the day of the announcement, plastering the windows with hints and prompting the store to close early as a safety precaution.
A dialog with a friend and former student of mine who owns another of America’s leading independent bookstores, located in a trendy downtown community much removed from Portland, assures me that Powell’s had no choice in the matter. Actually, my friend, who is of a reasonably conservative tendency, told me he wouldn’t dare stock the book , since the outcome may be the burning down of his institution. If he will not, I doubt that lots of organizers, out of the most conservative areas of the country, will dare to.
It’s a indication of our changing political times which Andy Ngo, who describes himself as gay, an unbeliever, and (at least in the past), a Democrat, must locate his chief defenders among those who identify as conservatives. But since the son of Vietnamese boat people who risked death to escape Communist prison camps,” he evidently enjoys the value of law-based liberty more deeply than several native-born Americans who consider it for granted. And most American conservatives, one expects, have begun to recognize that what they share with fighters for liberty like Ngo matters a lot more than any discussions about sexual orientation, religion, or party affiliation. However, what could John Milton or John Peter Zenger, Thomas Jefferson or John Stuart Mill state of a scenario where a nation that historically prides itself in an excellent freedom of speech and of the media enables anarchist groups to stop books that express views against their being marketed? And just why are the mainstream media, both electronic and print, making so little of it?
Obviously, it’s now well-known that major social media utilized their capacity to steer public opinion into what Time magazine recently called a”conspiracy” to make sure that Joe Biden could win the election–for instance, by curbing the New York Post’s story on the damning details on corruption, possibly between his father, found on Hunter Biden’s notebook. But should they not at least have the sense, if not of principle, subsequently of educated self-interest, to appreciate, publicize, and have a firm stand contrary to the job of violent gangs to stamp out the honest reporting of events which seriously undermine America’s well-being?
Donald Trump’s contested followersthough their attack on our country’s seat of government had been , never posed a threat to our Constitutional order. The story leaves no reference about the violence and intolerance of Antifa or Black Lives Matter (neither of which have some connection with the Christian, or some other, religion), let alone relate to such past, non-white inciters of murder and violence as Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan, or (once again a darling of leading Democratic politicians) that the Rev. Al Sharpton. The story blames American churches (without the evidence being provided ) for ostensible participation in the January 6 attack.
Meanwhile, Times contributor Sarah Jeong, who made headlines in 2018 for the history of sometimes disgusting tweets denouncing white folks as a course, has branded Ngo as”harmful” and recently known for his censorship onto Twitter. And in a meeting with the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center, Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley denounced Ngo for promoting a”false equivalence” between left- and right- wing political violence in the U.S.. Nevertheless, it was Ngo, not Jeong, that received a lot of death threats from Antifa he decamped to London.
Whatever sounds he might create, and however outrageous his behavior out of workplace, Donald Trump will pose no threat to the preservation of our inherent liberties and the rule of law. If these principles are threatened today, it’s because of the spinelessness of civic governments who fear to defend them, and believe the appropriate reaction to riots is to”defund the police.” However, in this example, Andy Ngo’s side should be recognized as the cause of decent Americans. Whether conservative or liberal, we need to stand by him, and the principles he represents.