Ngo Area

Over the weekend the journalist Andy Ngo got attacked by Antifa at a rally in Portland, Oregon:


He ended up in hospital with his face bashed up and bleeding on the brain. There were also reports that milkshakes laced with corrosive liquid concrete were being prepared in advance and handed out to people to throw.

This was allowed to happen because the Mayor of Portland long ago decided Antifa could own the streets, assault people on a whim, and he would order the police to stand by and let it happen. However, if Antifa met with any sort of opposition, the police would be sent in to break things up and the mainstream media ordered to run the narrative that Antifa weren’t to blame. This has been the way of things for Antifa in Portland for at least two years now. The difference this time is they battered someone who enjoys a lot of support from the wider world, whereas up to now they mainly targeted nobodies.

Of course, half the blue checkmark journalists who scream that Trump is waging a war on the free press were quick to defend Antifa’s actions, lay the blame on Ngo for being a provocateur, and declare that he’s not really a journalist. Unfortunately, the right have responded to this in the way they always do, by pointing out the hypocrisy in their one millionth attempt this year to shame the utterly shameless.

As I’ve said before, the right needs to understand what it’s up against. The Portland Mayor and Portland Police are the problem, so there’s no point appealing to them for help, and the same goes in other cities where the administration and police provide protection for lawless mobs who further the interests of the ruling classes. The right needs to work out who its true enemies are and fight them using their brains, not going toe-to-toe in unwinnable street battles or sending some poor sod like Andy Ngo in on his own to get his head kicked in.

Antifa are vulnerable, in part because they are made up of absolute whimps who only attack in groups, but also because they are reactionary as hell. If the right try putting on a march somewhere, Antifa show up in numbers and get it shut down. Well, what’s stopping the right arranging several dozen marches only one of which is a real one, or perhaps none at all, and letting Antifa play whack-a-mole? Charlottesville is generally considered to be a disaster for the alt-right because they provided the bogeyman the left has always warned about, i.e. gangs of neo-Nazis leaping from the shadows, and also because what passed for the alt-right leadership decided to turn this into the battle of Gettysburg. What they should have done is launch the tika-torch defence of the statue and then just melted away, and popped up somewhere else a month later or the next night. You don’t need to agree with the politics of the torch-bearers to acknowledge that it was spontaneous, surprised everyone, was visually effective, and sent liberals into utter meltdown.

That’s what the right needs to get good at, guerrilla tactics which take minimum effort but force their opponents to burn energy and resources in response, only when they arrive everyone’s gone. The North Vietnamese were spectacularly good at this, getting whole American divisions to hack their way through thick jungle chasing ghosts, and popping up somewhere else to hit the stragglers at their most vulnerable. But this will need a change of mindset, to stop appealing to mainstream institutions for help and inclusion and to understand the fight hasn’t just got dirty, it’s been dirty for a very long time.

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!
Share

118 thoughts on “Ngo Area

  1. @Jonathan

    No problem we have the UK covered, I got your back, just bear with us on this one. Mud Island plc is in secular decline as your Chinese ambassador reminded you of today.

    Unlike anything done before this US transition will be all for the will of the people, I am merely the messenger. We are anticipating that a new amendment to the constitution, reflecting the will of the people will be adopted, its already been through the Supreme Court and Congress, not sure if Trump will handover to a transitional President or not at this stage.

    Amendment 28 – Give me liberty or bring me death

    We the People, will authorize and requests, Congress to adopt the above Amendment 28 to the Constitution as follows:

    1: The immediate formation of the Peoples Militia
    2: Rules of Engagement for Peoples Militia
    3: A new non-partisan President has been appointed, until elections can be held.

    PS: On the story line and the glorification of past tyrant thing, lets not beat around the bush, the Nazi experiment went haywire in the end and they were run by a bunch of murderous cunts. No doubt about it.

    But other than that, the Hugo Boss 1933 military range was pretty neat, one of their best years actually.

    https://m.warhistoryonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/hugo-boss-1934-collection-741×392.jpg

  2. @TimN

    I also think the USA has lost a lot by the increasing homogenisation of laws and institutions across the 50 States – partly a democratic thing, different people in different state cultures can legitimately want different things. But also the idea of the US a giant experimental incubator of different models of doing things so you can pick the ones that work, and the fact heterogeneity breeds systemic resilience.

    But I can’t see this has much bearing on the baker or racial tension issues since the baker and activists, and people from different races, live will continue to live within the same state. There will always be rural urban divides, divides between cheap and trendy parts of towns, and so on. States are never going to be self-segregated and homogeneous with all the Christian bakers in one state and all the gay activists in another.

  3. States are never going to be self-segregated and homogeneous with all the Christian bakers in one state and all the gay activists in another.

    You’ve missed the point. Peaceful separation does not necessarily mean a separate country, state, or territory (but it can and it might). It might also mean we live on this side of town, you live over there, and we don’t interfere too much in each other’s lives. This is how human societies have existed for centuries, and still do, because that’s the only way it can work. Which means the Christian baker gets to bake cakes and grumble about the gays while on the other side of town the gays are having a Pride parade. But that doesn’t happen any more because the right to disassociate with people has been removed, and the whole purpose of identify politics is to force people to “tolerate” that which they’d rather disassociate themselves from. Hell, men’s clubs aren’t allowed to exist any more because women demanded access. No society which forces people to associate with those who they don’t want around them will last long.

    Getting back to race in the US, black politics is not about blacks having their own communities and making a go of it, it’s about shaking down whitey for as much money as possible while blaming him for all their problems. If blacks are going to get anywhere, they need to start running their own show. There’s a reason why a lot of Africans do better than black Americans these days: they’re running their own show (mostly).

  4. “If blacks are going to get anywhere, they need to start running their own show. There’s a reason why a lot of Africans do better than black Americans these days: they’re running their own show (mostly).”

    The worst thing that ever happened to African Americans was the arrival of the state introduced Welfare State. They have never recovered from this imposition.

  5. The worst thing that ever happened to African Americans was the arrival of the state introduced Welfare State.

    Exactly. White folk trying to “help” them – either genuinely or out of sheer political opportunism – has made things infinitely worse, and it not only continues to this day, but is increasing.

  6. Yes, it is. Under Colorado law, the baker had no choice but to associate with the gay couple who despised him.

    If you say, ‘A and B are forced to associate’ then you imply that some outside force, whether legal or practical (eg them both not having much money so being forced to live together in the cheap part of town) is forcing them together.

    In this case they are not being forced to associate by some external force, but one of them is choosing to impose themselves on the other.

    It’s a different thing.

    He had no right to say “listen, I don’t want to do business with you because I don’t like who you are and what represent”.

    This is just you suggesting exactly hat I said you shouldn’t, that there should be a law allowing shopkeepers to refuse to serve anyone they don’t like on any grounds.

    But this doesn’t work because one of the very points at issue is whether such a law should exist. Try to bring it in — at any level, federal, state or county — and the left will object, violently. And the right will equally violently fight for the law. So the very same fights that exist now will still exist.

    Unless you segregate communities into totally separate nations with their own laws, then you haven’t solved the problem.

    It might also mean we live on this side of town, you live over there, and we don’t interfere too much in each other’s lives.

    But the people on that side of town and the people on this side of town have to agree on, for example, under what circumstances abortion is allowed. It doesn’t work to just say, ‘well we’ll have abortion-on-demand clinics on this side of town but none on that side’ — everyone will hate that, the anti-abortionists because anyone on their side who wants an abortion for any reason can just hop on a bus, the pro-abortionists because people on that side of town have to hop on a bus and can’t just get an abortion in the local corner shop as is their human right.

    So the same problems, the same fights as now, will still go on over control of the town council and whether the by-laws should prohibit boarding the buses with the intent of procuring an abortion, or should force the building of an abortion clinic in every ward.

    If you think separatism is the solution then you have to go all the way to separate nations with separate governments.

    Multiculturalism has failed and there is no learning to live together

    The first is true. The second — well how will we know until we abandon attempts to force multiculturalism, and try to integrate people instead?

  7. If you say, ‘A and B are forced to associate’ then you imply that some outside force, whether legal

    Yes, legal force. That’s it.

    that there should be a law allowing shopkeepers to refuse to serve anyone they don’t like on any grounds.

    I don’t argue for this any more than I think there should be a law allowing people to look at the moon.

    If you think separatism is the solution then you have to go all the way to separate nations with separate governments.

    This is demonstrable nonsense. Switzerland runs things at the national, canton, and commune level. Each commune isn’t a separate nation.

  8. Yes, legal force. That’s it.

    Right, but no legal force is forcing A and B to associate even though neither of them wants to. Nobody forced the gay activists into that bakery, which is what ‘forced to associate’ implies (and would be the case if, say, there was only one bakery in town soeveryone had to go there if they wanted bread). What you have is instances (both ways) of one side choosing — not being forced, choosing — to go out of their way to impose themselves on the other.

    This is demonstrable nonsense. Switzerland runs things at the national, canton, and commune level. Each commune isn’t a separate nation

    Switzerland doesn’t have two factions with totally incompatible views figthing it out in a culture war.

    I’ve explained why your ‘just live side by side and don’t associate’ idea doesn’t work at the town level. So could they live in separate towns? No, because then instead of the town councl the fight is over the country council and what abortion laws it imposes on the towns. If they’r ein separate countie, then it’s the state government. If separate states, the fight just moves up to the federal government. As long as the two sides share any level of government at all, there will be this bitter fighting over who gets to decide the shared laws that are imposed on all.

  9. Right, but no legal force is forcing A and B to associate even though neither of them wants to.

    Yes, there is. You don’t understand the terminology being used.

  10. Yes, there is.

    So A and B are both just sitting there in the USA, both minding their own business, neither with any desire to ever meet the other for any reason, and some legal force is forcing them to interact?

    What is it?

  11. Okay, I have written about the concept of freedom of association, which is a term commonly understood by most people interested in the subject. You have decided you’re going to argue with me by first rewriting your own definition of what freedom of association means in a manner which would give Tolstoy a run for his rubles, and then deploy this unique definition to the discussion.

    It’s rather like trying to discuss football with someone who thinks the match should be discussed using a Haynes manual.

  12. So A and B are both just sitting there in the USA, both minding their own business, neither with any desire to ever meet the other for any reason, and some legal force is forcing them to interact

    One word: quotas.

  13. One word: quotas

    Okay, accepted, I hadn’t thought of that given it’s not really a legal thing in the UK.

  14. No, they’re called “targets” in the UK

    And they’re not legally imposed on private businesses in the UK, is the point. So they don’t actually affect most people.

  15. And they’re not legally imposed on private businesses in the UK, is the point.

    Were those goalposts heavy?

  16. Were those goalposts heavy?

    The question was what legal force there was forcing people to interact. Targets in the UK don’t have legal force (there’s no UK law requiring all companies, or all companies over a certain size, to meet any targets re: demographics), except perhaps in bits of the public sector, but despite New Labour’s best efforts, they weren’t able to make over half the UK work in the public sector.

    So no, it’s not a thing that most people in the UK who work in the private sector will ever have encountered.

  17. So no, it’s not a thing that most people in the UK who work in the private sector will ever have encountered.

    lol

Comments are closed.