Andy Ngo Unmasks the Real Threat to American Freedom

Whether or not 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 normal, it was a totally reprehensible act, or even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell put it following the impeachment trial,”a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of responsibility.” Nothing can excuse it.
However, while news websites have every right and reason to condemn Trump’s behaviour in provoking a mob (regardless of his admonition that they need to act”peaceably”) to take part in a violent assault that resulted in five deaths (and may have more, had it not been for the brave acts of their understaffed Capitol Police), it is unfortunate that few have put Trump’s act in a wider context that could acknowledge the dangers to our Constitutional sequence originating from elsewhere in the ideology. Beginning with the election of 2000, notable Democrats have questioned the validity of each election where a Republican won the Presidency–really, devoting a vast majority of Trump’s sentence to attempting him to eliminate him, on grounds a lot more spurious than those on which his post-Presidential impeachment rested.
More recently, a totally anti-constitutional precedent was set by then-minority leader Chuck Schumer only last March, when he led a posse of about 75 members up the measures of the Supreme Court to warn recently appointed justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh that they had”published the whirlwind,” could”pay a price tag,” and could”not know what hit” them when they voted the”wrong” way in an abortion case. (Schumer’s act acquired a rare rebuke from the generally reserved Chief Justice Roberts, that uttered Schumer’s remarks as”inappropriate” and”dangerous,” stressing,” who”all members of this court will continue to perform their task, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter” In a proto-Trumpian answer, Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman clarified that his boss’s voice did not mean what they seemed like, also refused that. Schumer was threatening or encouraging violence)
A decade ago, an even more threatening and direct, though ultimately (mostly) nonviolent, struggle to constitutional authorities was provided by Wisconsin public worker unions that invaded that nation’s Capitol to protest and try to prevent Governor Scott Walker’s schedule of reforming public-employee contracts so as to balance the state budget without increasing taxes, and liberate public college administrations from rigid tenure rules (closely paralleled in college districts across the nation ) that prevented them from hiring teachers according to merit and also adjusting their pay based upon functionality. Walker’s reforms even went so far as to demand public employees to add to their own health-insurance and retirement costs–although still paying for those benefits compared to normal Wisconsin citizen. Although nobody perished in the Wisconsin protests, several legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, reported receiving death threats at the moment. Nevertheless it would be difficult to find criticism of Schumer’s warnings or the Wisconsin marriages’ effort to intimidate their nation’s public institutions in the majority of those”mainstream” media.
The threat to this rule of law, and even to the constitutionally protected freedom of speech, in the modern America goes well beyond the assault about the U.S. Capitol, let alone another attempts to intimidate lawgivers and judges just mentioned. The tide of riots, violent offense, and looting ostensibly triggered by George Floyd’s departure while authorities attempted to control him is obviously well known. However, as independent journalist Andy Ngo records within his just-published publication Unmasked, widespread rioting headed by the loosely arranged anarchist group Antifa started in his home city of Portland several years before the Floyd occasion. With appreciable courage, Ngo both reported on and off the weeks of rioting from Portland and Seattle, entailing direct assaults on police departments and judges in both towns, attacks on authorities leading to countless accidents, and several deaths. Yet in every case local governments let the majority of the violence go bankrupt, using Seattle’s mayor Jenny Durkan even observing the establishment last June of this”Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” (CHAZ), where authorities and other government personnel had been excluded, as exemplifying a”Summer of Love”–before mounting deaths and other casualties, to say nothing of expensive damage to neighborhood shops, eventually caused her to shut it down after three weeks.
The simple fact of the riots from Portland and Seattle, in addition to in many other towns, has obviously been widely reported. Its actual cause, however, is another issue. Repeatedly, news commentators and columnists have denied the very existence of Antifa as a thing, or its responsibility for any criminal acts. (See recent essays by Tarisai Ngangura or Mark Bray, for example.) And everyone from public officials to specialist sports celebrities to Hollywood actors to the owners of sport teams has adopted the banner of Black Lives Issue, mistaking a slogan (from lower-case letters) with which no sane person can disagree, with an explicitly Communist-directed company (as its website affirms), like joining its leaders in wishing to cause the violent overthrow of American democracy. The degree to which the celebrities’ acceptance of this BLM movement is the consequence of utter ignorance, anxiety, or the pursuit of profit is a judgment that would have to be rendered on a single basis.
It’s a indication of our changing political times that Andy Ngo, who describes himself as homosexual, an unbeliever, and (at least in the past), a Democrat, should find his main defenders among those who identify as conservatives.But the very troubling component of this Ngo story isn’t the simple fact that he endured severe beatings at the hands of dinosaurs whose activities he was attempting to film and record (unsuccessfully trying to disguise himself), which landed him in the hospital. It’s quite that bookstores, beginning with Powell’s (the best-known independent bookseller not only in Portland but probably in the whole U.S.) happen to be intimidated by Antifa not even stocking the novel.
Although Unmasked reached no. 1 status on Amazon in advance of its launch, when Antifa members whined Powell’s plan to sell the publication, the store’s supervisors instantly apologized, explaining that although a lot of the store’s stock was hand-picked, that wasn’t true of Ngo’s publication. They consequently vowed that the publication”won’t be set on our shelves. We won’t market it.” They did add that Unmasked will”stay in our online catalog,” because”we take a great deal of publications we find abhorrent, in addition to those that we treasure” An individual might feel that they had been talking of Mein Kampf! But despite the pledge that Powell’s would not stock the novel, a crowd of protestors gathered outside the store’s flagship, downtown place (according to ABC News) about the day of this announcement, plastering the windows with hints and prompting the shop to close early as a security precaution.
A dialogue with a friend and former student of mine that owns another of America’s top independent bookstores, situated in a fashionable downtown neighborhood far removed from Portland, guarantees me that Powell’s really had no choice in the matter. In reality, my friend, that is of a moderately conservative inclination, told me that he would not dare stock the book himself, as the result may be the burning down of his establishment. If he will not, I doubt that lots of organizers, out of the very conservative areas of the country, could dare to.
It’s a indication of our changing political times that Andy Ngo, who describes himself as homosexual, an unbeliever, and (at least from the past), a Democrat, should find his main defenders among those that identify as conservatives. But as the son of Vietnamese boat people who risked death to escape Communist prison camps, he reluctantly appreciates the worth of law-based freedom more deeply than many native-born Americans who require it for granted. And most American conservatives, one hopes, have begun to realize that what they share with fighters for freedom like Ngo matters a lot more than any discussions concerning sexual orientation, faith, or party affiliation. However, what could John Milton or even John Peter Zenger, Thomas Jefferson or John Stuart Mill say of a situation where a country that prides itself in an excellent freedom of speech and of the media allows anarchist groups to stop books that express views against their being marketed? And just why are the mainstream media, both electronic and print, which makes so little of it?
Naturally, it is now well known that leading social websites used their capacity to steer public opinion into what Time magazine recently described as a”conspiracy” to ensure the Joe Biden could win the election–for example, by suppressing the New York Post’s story on the damning info on corruption, potentially between his father, found on Hunter Biden’s laptop. But if they not have the sense, if not of principle, subsequently of enlightened self-interest, to value, promote, and take a firm stand contrary to the job of violent gangs to stamp the honest reporting of events that severely undermine America’s well-being?
Donald Trump’s crazed followers, reprehensible though their assault on the nation’s seat of government was, never posed a danger to our Constitutional order. The story makes no mention to this violence and intolerance of Antifa or even Black Lives Matter (neither of which have some connection with this Christian, or some other, religion), let alone alluding to yesteryear, non-white inciters of rape and violence as Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan, or even (once more a darling of Democratic politicians) the Rev. Al Sharpton. The story even blames American churches (without the evidence being provided ) for ostensible participation in the January 6 attack.
Meanwhile, the Times contributor Sarah Jeong, that made headlines 2018 because of her history of sometimes disgusting tweets denouncing white individuals as a class, has branded Ngo as”dangerous” and recently known for his censorship onto Twitter. And in an interview with the Southern Poverty Law Center, Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley denounced Ngo for encouraging a”false equivalence” between left- and right- wing political violence in the U.S.. Nevertheless, it was Ngo, not Jeong, that received so many death threats from Antifa that he decamped to London.
Whatever sounds he might create, and yet outrageous his behavior out of office, Donald Trump will pose no danger to the preservation of the inherent liberties and the rule of law. If those principles are threatened now, it’s due to the spinelessness of civic governments who fear to shield them, and think that the appropriate reaction to riots is to”defund law enforcement ” However, in this case, Andy Ngo’s side should be recognized as the cause of all decent Americans. Whether conservative or liberal, we need to stand by him, and the principles he reflects.