Editor's note: as I mentioned in yesterday's post, a recent throttling of my Facebook account has forced me to re-post some informal media analysis op-eds I published on that site; just to ensure that someone actually gets to read them. For those of you looking for something fresh off the grill, head on over to my main website and check out my latest op-ed "Why I Support Impeachment but Fear Incompetent Democrat Hubris."
Today's piece originally appeared online during the evening of September 23, 2019. All analysis by Nina Illingworth unless otherwise indicated.
Getting Andy Ngo and His Fascist Friends Off Our Streets
Continuing with the theme of sharing and analyzing articles I actually *like* for once, today I'd like to examine and offer some well deserved praise for this longer piece about fighting fascism by Arun Gupta over at Jacobin magazine.
First and foremost I'd like to note that with a few minor exceptions I'll talk about a little later, this essay is a picture perfect model of how to proactively write about opposing modern Americanized fascism without ending up on an FBI watch-list.
In his analysis, Gupta wastes precisely zero ounces of energy on an objectively false "both sides" narrative and you won't find any homages to "dapper white nationalists" in this essay. The author refuses to either normalize or glamorize far right thugs disguised as free speech activists and while that's pretty easy when you're blogging from your living room, it's actually quite the accomplishment when you're directly quoting the violent fascists themselves.
Despite including plenty of direct and unaltered quotations from various violent fascist agitators in Portland, Gupta never once allows the neo-nazis to claim hold of a "false balance" by presenting the reactionary right's arguments without context as is so terrifyingly common in mainstream corporate media.
This is accomplished by counterbalancing each claim and accusation made by the fascists, with numerous mainstream media accounts of the violence they've undertaken during thinly-disguised exercises of reactionary right-wing terrorism and intimidation. In particular, Gupta's use of this "accusation" then "revelation" technique is absurdly effective when employed against fascist provocateur and fake journalist Andy Ngo's selectively edited videos of "antifa terrorist violence" - by posting the larger contextual counter-evidence that reveals the violence was actually initiated by far right reactionary "protestors", Gupta essentially exposes and de-fangs Ngo's entire narrative as highly-lucrative fascist agitprop; which it is!
Furthermore, this finely-sourced piece represents a literal wealth of knowledge about not only the neo-fascist "free speech" rallies in Portland, but the contours of the battle against rising, street-level fascism in America as a whole. In one single essay Gupta exposes the modern "MAGA free speech" movement as a ruthless roving neo-nazi street gang looking to cow political opposition with violence, puts flame to the lie that Andy Ngo is a journalist, excoriates corporate media for lending credibility to fascist provocateurs, exposes the direct connection between right wing street gangs and the Trump administration, and shatters the argument that anti-fascist activists are "the *real* terrorists" - all thoroughly supported by a variety of links referencing the full spectrum of primarily mainstream media websites.
It is however in the final third of the article under the heading "Stemming the Tide" in which Gupta both rises to his highest moment and yet tragically still stumbles in that unfortunate way most liberal or liberal-adjacent media figures are so incentivized to do.
First the author rises to the challenge by taking a sledgehammer to the infantile argument that "if no opposition were to show up when the far right marches, then there would be no violence, hence no story for the media, which would in turn deprive the far right of the visuals they need to recruit. They would thus flounder and dissipate."
As Gupta rightfully notes however these "far-right rallies are neither discrete nor static events. Like Trumpism, they are part of a dynamic of extremism, benefiting both from polarization and the disruption of norms." Naturally the purpose of these rallies is to draw attention to, fortify and recruit for a white nationalist, anti-migrant, anti-left wing neo-fascist movement that is already killing people all over the country - simply allowing that to happen unmolested represents a crime of negligence against society as a whole, no matter what the law books say.
In what is undoubtedly the author's finest moment in the essay, Gupta once and for all shatters the idea that simply ignoring the violent nazis and hoping they'll go away is an effective strategy by pointing out that the fascist street-gangs have already gone on the offensive against even milquetoast liberal organizing:
"Patriot Prayer, Proud Boys, and their allies shifted strategy in 2018, says O’Banion. “They began showing up in small, well-armed groups at places like the IWW [Wobblies] Hall. They threatened the Occupy ICE encampment last summer. They went to Planned Parenthood in Olympia and harassed people. They harassed people at an immigrant solidarity event shortly before August 17.” Patriot Prayer has also tried to disrupt a general meeting of the Portland DSA, the Women’s March in 2018, and LGBT Pride, and they threatened a climate change event at a local college, which was canceled by the administration. And they attacked the Cider Riot bar on May Day.
In effect, the far right is using the big rallies to recruit, stoke more violence, and disrupt peaceful left, labor, and liberal organizing."
The above quoted paragraph is in and itself quite amazing because while I know every single person reading this analysis has heard about the "horrifying attacks on Andy Ngo" there's a pretty good chance you've heard nothing at all from the national media about any of the above *right* wing attacks on regular people organizing for political purposes the far right deems unacceptable. Why do you think that is?
All of which brings us to unfortunate ebb where I think Gupta's work falls short as he ends the article by talking about harnessing the anti-fascist energy of a soccer game "in the streets." This continues an unfortunately sour note of ivory tower liberalism that runs throughout the entire piece. While noting that direct and sometimes violent action has been the only method even the fascists acknowledge has hampered their efforts to organize, Gupta riddles this piece with observations like:
"There was no justification for the attack, if no other reason than that Ngo was cast as the victim in a story that became national news and was exploited by Trump in trying to label Antifa terrorists."
"Some antifascists were eager to rumble, as well. But others jumped in to defuse the violence every time. No doubt dumb acts are committed in the name of antifascism. But that’s true of any movement, and dumb is not deadly."
"The mainstream media are failing as well, by starving reporters of the time and resources needed to expose the unsavory characters and ideas lurking on the far right."
Most of this is ultimately the same type of liberal "both sides" nonsense that Gupta himself decries in the early portion of his own article.
For starters the widely-publicized justification for the assault on Andy Ngo is that he publicly broadcast the names and addresses of anti-fascist protestors arrested at a previous rally, apparently with the help of a sympathetic police officer. This action put lives in danger and whether or not you agree that this justification is sufficient to give Andy Ngo a decidedly non-lethal shiner for his trouble, it is not non-existent. If Gupta was unaware of these facts, he's failed his readers and he's helped Andy Ngo hide the fascist violence behind his actions - actions that then lead to the assault; please keep in mind that nobody punched Andy in the face during the numerous *previous* rallies he attended and filmed, after all.
Additionally, it's pretty ridiculous for Gupta to blather on about soccer games attended primarily by affluent white liberals and scold, however mildly, "some antifacists" for being "eager to rumble" in an article where he points out that the key to stopping fascist organization is anti-fascist counter protesting. Why exactly does Gupta think the right is trying to target smaller groups and avoid massive hordes of antifascists? It's because they'll get their butt whupped by those hordes, in a very physical sense, obviously.
Of course as Gutpa reveals in the third quote above, all of this is further colored by his largely liberal (and disastrously incorrect) opinion that the answer is "more journalism" - uttered with an apparently straight face, as if the mainstream corporate media wasn't actively prepared to side with fascists over left wing protestors for both economic and class warfare reasons.
At this point I might be inclined to say something snarky about entrusting a labor class left wing revolution to self-aggrandizing trust fund babies who own a magazine but I'll save it for another day. Despite its few (and deeply annoying) flaws, this is an excellent article and if the mainstream media put half as much effort into covering these stories properly as Gupta and Jacobin have done here, the fascist menace that looms over the 2020 election might already be receding.
Alas as many reading this already know - most liberals in the media, deep in their heart of hearts would prefer fascism to sharing with poor people and the marginalized."
- Nina Illingworth
Independent writer, critic and analyst with a left focus.
You can find my work at ninaillingworth.com, Can’t You Read, Media Madness and my Patreon Blog.
Updates available on Twitter, Mastodon and Facebook.
No comments:
Post a Comment