Article Analysis: Law and (the Fascist) Order

Editor's note: this article represents completely new content and has never before appeared elsewhere on the internet. Please also note that I didn't cram just under a hundred hyperlinks in this article to argue about whether or not I know what fascism is with alt-right trolls; click on the links and stop wasting my time.

At this point dear readers, I must confess to having become utterly exasperated with the cowardly and mendacious members of mainstream American society who utterly refuse to acknowledge even the existence, let alone the terrifying progress of the Trump-led fascist creep in America. I certainly don't think it takes a fortune teller to realize that when the President is signalling his open support for a deranged reactionary conspiracy theory that argues all of his political opponents are satanist pedophiles working with George Soros, Black Lives Matter and "Antifa" to conduct a coup against the rightful Furher, Donald Trump - we've gone a little bit past "dog-whistle" politics in America.

In particular however I have grown exceptionally weary of hearing about how Trump and his Pork Reich administration cannot represent an all-American form of fascism because "you can still say he's a fascist" - while the president actively conflates First Amendment protected protest with terrorism, unaccountable cracker murderpigs are taking head shots at journalists during riots started by the police and the administration is threatening to pull broadcast licences from media outlets that don't treat the President "fairly."

This argument is to say the least unsupported by an increasingly growing pile of evidence and perhaps more accurately represents a mendacious call for civility designed to attack the left, in the middle of a fascist takeover by the right. In recent days however, the objectively fascist Trump administration added two more pieces of damning evidence to the pile and disturbingly, the mass media at large hasn't really taken much notice yet. Let's start with this short piece from Vanity Fair's Caleb Ecarma on September 1st, 2020:

DHS Says It's "Working On" a Black Lives Matter Crackdown

First of all, I'd like to point out how completely dysfunctional the American corporate media has become if I'm seriously offering backhanded praise to Vanity Fair for having the balls to publish this story in any sort of context; other outlets that bothered to at least mention the fascist or authoritarian nature of Wolf's comments include the Daily Beast and Esquire, but all in all I think it's fair to say the American media basically sh*t its pants on this incredibly important story.

Why is it important? Well let's see, here we have the fascist head of the Department of Homeland Security (a man appropriately named Chad Wolf) telling noted fascist commentator Tucker Carlson, on national television, about another potential mass arrest plan to round up "the leaders" of "Antifa" and Black Lives Matter the Department of Justice (under noted fundie fascist William Barr, more on him in a minute) is "working on." Just so you don't think I'm f*cking with you, let's grab a screenshot:

Again, please keep in mind that this is the guy currently running the Department of Homeland Security and conducting an objectively fascist paramilitary "policing" war against protesters in Portland and other (primarily Democrat-led) American cities. In other words, when Chad Wolf threatens to do fascism against protesters, there's a fairly recent precedent that suggests you should take him seriously. As you'll see below however, I'm definitely not sure this author, Vanity Fair or the larger American media grasps that concept as of yet. 

After our quoted passage, the article then goes on to offer up some halfhearted, milquetoast push-back on some, but not all, of Wolf's outrageous statements and the conspiracy theories it implicitly supports:

"It’s unclear exactly who the DOJ views as the leaders of nebulous political movements like antifa and Black Lives Matter, as the past few months of nationwide protests sparked by police shootings of Black Americans are largely grassroots, often spontaneous demonstrations organized at local levels."

These are of course fairly logical counter-points to Wolf's argument but to say they leave a lot of important information out would be a bit of a mild understatement. 

What about the fact that Americans have a legal right to protest? What about the fact that a protest movement isn't the f*cking Mafia and trying to use RICO charges to silence antifascists and African Americans exercising their First Amendment rights is in fact, fascist? Should I applaud Ecarma for vaguely hinting at the idea Trump is wrong for suggesting simply protesting his Junta is "terrorism" at the top of the article, or would now maybe be a good time to expect our media to be a little more explicit about why that's textbook fascism? 

The article then goes on to tie-in Tucker Carlson's sympathetic coverage of far right vigilante murderer Kyle Rittenhouse, the growing (and open) GOP conspiracy that protesters are being flown around the country to conduct riots and finally Rand Paul's bizarre claim that protesters who targeted him near the White House after the Republican National Convention are “interstate criminal traffic being paid.” 

What it doesn't do at any point in time however is offer up any sort of righteous indignation, urgency or alarm at the fact that the f*cking head of Homeland Security is openly talking about "working with" the Attorney General on a plan to "round up" protesters like mobsters or terrorists based on the unhinged and objectively false conspiracy theories of the American far-right and their swine emperor, Donald Trump; conspiracy theories happily supported by fascists in US corporate media, might I add. 

This then brings us to our second and perhaps even more terrifying article of evidence that we are indeed roiling in the throes of an all-American fascist creep; let's start with this September 4th, 2020 article from Christina Carrega at CNN:

Barr says streets are 'safer' after killing of an alleged Antifa member

So for starters, just let me say here "holy f*ck" are you folks at CNN kidding me? The fundie fascist Attorney General cuts an objectively unhinged statement justifying the extrajudicial murder of a supposed member of a completely fictional organization, on the Friday before a holiday weekend no less - and the best you mendacious minions can come up with is a 281 word blurb treating Barr's assertions at face value, that somehow doesn't contain a printed copy of the (now repeatedly altered) statement? Let's take a look at that full statement below:

Okay so did the US Attorney General, the de-facto head of the U.S. Department of Justice just describe an extrajudicial execution (without evidence, a trial or any judicial process whatsoever) of someone suspected of a crime as a triumph for justice, while effectively signalling to law enforcement that the government will have their back if they kill anarchists or members of "Antifa?" You betcha; that is exactly what just happened - but don't tell CNN or the rest of mainstream "liberal" media in America, they clearly don't consider it very important that the President just put a hit out on a man (who might have acted in self defense) for political purposes, or that his fixer Attorney General then justified that revenge killing as necessary to maintain public safety. 

Naturally, CNN wasn't the only outlet to accept Barr's blatantly politically motivated arguments in favor of Michael Reinoehl's execution as gospel truth, they're just the ones that did so with the least amount of effort to do anything resembling journalism. There is of course just one problem, well aside from the fact that this isn't how the rule of law works at all; namely that it's increasingly looking like Barr straight up lied about Reinoehl pulling a gun on the fugitive task force that was trying to "apprehend" him by... shooting at him before they even uttered any commands. 

Now look, I might not have a fancy journalism degree from Columbia but I think it's safe to say that when protesting against the government is terrorism, it's worse in the eyes of the state to be antifascist than a violent nazi terrorist, and murderpigs are coordinating with far right extremists to exterminate the left, it's pretty f*cking obtuse to be quibbling about definitions of the word fascism. We're here, even if our media establishment is still too terrified to say it out loud.

So what pray tell has the stalwart opposition in the Democratic Party been up to while all of this is going on? Actually, it's probably for the best that you don't ask.

- nina illingworth

Independent writer, critic and analyst with a left focus. Please help me fight corporate censorship by sharing my articles with your friends online!

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. Podcast at “No Fugazi” on Soundcloud.

Inquiries and requests to speak to the manager @ASNinaWrites

Chat with fellow readers online at Anarcho Nina Writes on Discord!

“It’s ok Willie; swing heil, swing heil…”

Article Analysis: the Bernie Blackout is Very Real

Editor's note: this article originally appeared November 19th, 2019 on my Facebook page - if you're looking for source materials, check out the comments section of the original article. For my latest book review "Why You Should Read Thomas Frank", please click here.

MSNBC Is the Most Influential Network Among Liberals: And It’s Ignoring Bernie Sanders

In today's edition of our ongoing article analysis feature, we're going to take a look at what I personally feel may be the most important piece of political media analysis released so far in the 2020 Democratic Party nomination cycle.

Throughout this nomination contest and the last Democratic Party primary season in 2016, supporters of the Democratic Socialist Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders have argued that mainstream corporate media in America has not only purposely avoided covering the Sanders campaign but what coverage they have offered has been dishonest, disingenuous and highly slanted towards negative (and often erroneous) conclusions about Bernie, his supporters and his campaign.

Well, if this November 13th, 2019 article about MSNBC's Democratic Party primary coverage by Branko Marcetic over at In These Times is indicative of the larger industry, it's now empirically possible to say Sanders supporters are *right* about the #BernieBlackout and it is instead the establishment media minions who called their complaints a "conspiracy theory" who now have some explaining to do.

Drawing on the tradition of extremely granular media analysis popularized by books like Manufacturing Consent and to a lesser degree, data science websites like FiveThirtyEight, Marcetic conducts a detailed examination of extremely blatant biases in MSNBC's coverage of the three leading Democratic Party nomination candidates in August and September across the network's top six prime time political shows; those three candidates of course being Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

As will likely come as no surprise to astute political media observers in America, it turns out that not only do MSNBC's top political analysts talk about Bernie Sanders less than Elizabeth Warren and far less than Joe Biden, but also that coverage of Bernie Sanders on MSNBC's flagship shows is far more likely to be negative than that of the other two candidates - which is pretty remarkable when you realize that one of the two months In These Times looked at featured a very real Joe and Hunter Biden corruption scandal that ties into the ongoing Trump impeachment and has itself driven an infinite number of whackjob Republican-endorsed conspiracy theories in what passes for the "mainstream" right wing media these days.

What really separates Marcetic's analysis in this article from the work of "data guys" like Nate Silver however, is his deep drilling into the specifics of MSNBC's coverage above and beyond the raw numbers to examine precisely *what* the network is saying about each of the three candidates, and the picture is not pretty. Far from a mere bias against Sanders, these clip by clip and argument by argument examples demonstrate that as a whole MSNBC's flagship political shows, their hosts and the vast majority of their guest pundits are actively campaigning against Bernie Sanders. Of course while that conclusion may not come as much of a shock to American leftists, it bears noting here that just a few months ago virtually every corporate media outlet in America accused the Sanders campaign of propagating Trumpian conspiracy theories when the Senator from Vermont had the audacity to suggest he and his supporters weren't getting a fair shake in the mainstream "liberal" media.

With meticulous attention to detail, Marcetic has logged numerous smears, misrepresentations and at times, even outright falsehoods disseminated in the network's war against Bernie, all the while pointing out key gaps in the coverage of any news events that could be perceived as somehow positive for the Sanders campaign. Perhaps even more alarmingly, this In These Times investigation clearly demonstrates that in MSNBC's quest to shut out Sanders and draw Liz Warren to the center, the network has largely abandoned coverage of policy proposals, agenda statements or action plans presented by literally *any* of the candidates whatsoever - as far as the network is concerned, this election is about an endless wave of breaking primary polls and while they're happy to inform you that Liz Warren "has a plan for that" they apparently have no intention of telling you what that plan might be.

The simple truth is that this is the "16 negative articles about Bernie Sanders in 16 hours on the Washington Post webpage" of the 2020 nomination cycle and unfortunately it appears to have slipped under the radar because mainstream media has no interest in sharing coverage from a nominally left wing media organization like In These Times.

Naturally there will be those who complain about the narrow scope of the study, and point to what they feel is "equally slanted" coverage in left wing publications like Jacobin, or Current Affairs but as Marcetic's data demonstrates, these people are being largely disingenuous. The numbers don't lie and MSNBC not only has a dominant hold on the liberal cable news market, but the network is particularly influential with age sixty-five and older viewers who are far more likely to vote in primaries than any other age demographic.

Due to its size and ubiquity in the public discourse, MSNBC is driving national opinions about the 2020 Democratic Party nomination contest on a scale that dwarfs every outlet the American left has to access that same discourse - and the network is openly and demonstrably driving those opinions against Bernie Sanders. Try to keep that in mind the next time Chris Mathews wants to lecture you on the need to respect your elders in the party or Larry O'Donnell has opinions to share on the importance of a "free and *fair* press."

As even famous American author Ernest Hemingway eventually learned while trying to avoid relentless CIA harassment during his retirement in Cuba - it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

- 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.

Chat with fellow readers online at Anarcho Nina Writes on Discord!

 
  

Article Analysis: On Greta, Right Wing Propaganda and "Conspiracies"

Editor's note: this article originally appeared September 26 on Facebook; for my latest piece "On "Left Wing" American Media and Class Tensions in the 2020 Democratic Party Nomination Contest" please click here. All analysis by Nina Illingworth unless otherwise indicated.

-----

Attacks on Greta Thunberg Are About More Than Anti-Environmentalism

In today's article analysis piece I'd like to take a look at a very important expose that was recently picked up in America by Teen Vogue - I'm sharing the original here out of solidarity for indie and activist media and because DesmogUK has a great graphic that shows all the companies and think tanks they're talking about in the article.

I happened to run across this important piece by Mat Hope while I was writing about the U.S. media's obscenely moronic coverage of Greta Thunberg's visit to the UN myself and I'm including it today so we can discuss it in a much broader perspective than just "stories about Greta."

In regards to Thunberg, I really don't see much point in debating the effectiveness of her activism and I frankly don't care whether or not you "trust her" because I can't really see why it matters.

You can tell me that she's just giving all those corrupt planet-murdering politicians a free photo-op and I'll agree with you readily enough. I will however also counter by asking you precisely what she was supposed to do - stay home? You can say that screaming at politicians on TV isn't going to solve the problem and that's absolutely correct, but I'll say at least she got to scream at them. I'd like to scream at them, wouldn't you? I think at the point that you were expecting a sixteen year old climate activist from Sweden to start the green socialist energy revolution we're going to need to actually save our species; you kind of already jumped the shark.

What I'd like to talk about instead is the network of oil-soaked think tanks, reactionary media organizations and talking head right wing pundits this piece exposes and what you can extrapolate about the larger western media environment from its re-posting on Teen Vogue.

At this point I don't really think it's "breaking news" to most observers on the left that there is a massive, billionaire and corporate funded climate catastrophe disinformation network operating on the right (and even in the center) of the American political class - including donors, politicians and the various corporate media factions. This is now an established fact even in milquetoast mainstream liberal circles - although not necessarily among the "liberal" elite who have a vested interest in climate science denial no matter how much they pretend otherwise.

Okay so why is that? After all, when independent media first exposed the Koch Industries connection to the anti-climate science wing of the larger American "Tea Party" (also a Koch funded astroturf operation, with lots of help from Wall Street oddly enough) it was immediately derided as a "conspiracy theory" by all the usual suspects.

So what's different about this "conspiracy theory" and say the Bernie Sanders media blackout; what makes this now widely-accepted story a proven "conspiracy" while the American left's direct quotation of Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" to explain the Washington Post's bias against grassroots organizing and the larger (and diverse) labor class is merely a "conspiracy theory?" It certainly can't be a question of sources or proof - roughly seventy-five percent of Manufacturing Consent is raw data that demonstrates corporate media really does have an implicit and inescapable bias towards establishment power.

The simple answer is that due to factionalism and divergent interests in the upper classes of American establishment power, this issue was reported on fairly and extensively in the mainstream corporate media; albeit primarily by "liberal" outlets. I could write a whole essay about precisely why the "liberal" media corporations (who are still very much tied into oil, or at least the economy built entirely around it) chose to run with this story instead of all the other stories but the long and short of it is that the Koch network attacks on bog standard center-right Democrats were more painful than losing some fossil fuel executive donors and thus the "liberal" establishment fought back - by letting their in-pocket media lapdogs actually do some journalism for once.

So while the idea that a bunch of right wing nutjob billionaires have brought together political parties, think tanks, media organizations and puppet scientists to lie about murdering the planet for profit is on its face shocking and scandalous - the fact is you can buy books about the subject in mainstream book stores and you'll read about it in mainstream "left-leaning liberal" publications on a fairly regular basis. That in a nutshell is why everyone knows about this "conspiracy" and nobody except disingenuous right wing propagandists calls you "crazy" for talking about it.

If you take a step back and look at the larger political and class warfare picture however, the exposure of this right wing pro-fossil fuel industry propaganda network lying in plain sight does bring up a number of interesting, if not disturbing questions.

If a network of right wing elites can literally up and buy a revolution to protect Wall Street, promote climate science denial and smear left wing activists at will in the public sphere, what else might rich people with ulterior motives be capable of? If the reason the vast majority of people have ever even heard of the Koch Network behind this propaganda machine is pretty much entirely because they broke class solidarity and attacked their "liberal" peers in the media, what happens when the mass murdering billionaire liars *don't* break class solidarity and both "sides" of the mainstream media agree that the proles don't need to know?

If this group of right wing billionaires can deploy a whole disinformation campaign to drown Greta's words out in waves of angry bullsh*t in a matter of days, what might *other* groups of wealthy, powerful and influential people be doing with their time and money that you never, or rarely ever hear about?

Could the Democratic Party, elite donors and dozens of friendly in-pocket media puppets come together to smear the burgeoning American labor class left and rig a nomination contest for a crooked rich white lady? Could the editorial staff at the Washington Post meet and agree they were only going to print stories that portrayed left wing American politicians and activists working against Jeff Bezo's class interests in a negative light? Could an influential "liberal" think tank bring together a coalition of elite party officials, media figures, wealthy donors and even 2020 Dem Primary candidates to plot how to stop a seemingly imminent Bernie Sanders presidency? Could a secret liberal media Slack channel be used to quickly disseminate a fake Iowa poll and create a narrative of inevitability for Liz Warren? Could that same media Slack channel and preexisting relationships with a variety of liberal "activist" organizations be used to recycle a 2008 smear campaign against Obama supporters and widely promote the idea that working class leftists who won't vote for neoliberals are secretly racist, sexist Bernie Bro scum who're really a lot like the fascist right except in some ways worse?

The answer to all of these questions is of course yes and if you've been reading independent media or writers who openly support Sanders, you've heard about every single one of these real stories - even if the vast majority of liberals and labor class folks who aren't plugged into politics have not. This is of course a huge part of the problem but the honest truth here is that it's only the tip of the iceberg because you *can* still read about these demonstrably true, real life plots against left wing, labor class voters *someplace* on the internet.

What should really keep you up at night frankly, is the realization that there are almost certainly thousands if not an infinite number of horrifying and impossible to comprehend plots against the labor class that you have never even heard of - no matter how plugged in you are. After all the only real requirements involved here are money, access to a public megaphone of some type and a seething animus for people who ask you to share some of your ill-gotten wealth with the poorest members of society; and almost every rich person in the western world is all stocked up on those three key ingredients.

In a society where the difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy fact pretty much comes down to whether or not the truth damages the ruling class in some manner, it's the rich man's open conspiracies that you *don't* know about or are never reminded about, that represent the greatest threats to us all.


- 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.

Article Analysis: Portland, Aurn Gupta and How to Write About Fascism

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.