EXPOSED: The Media K*lled a Trump Supporter | Guest: Andy Ngo | Ep 94
The media keeps telling us that ANTIFA was not responsible for the death of a Trump supporter in Denver, but what's the truth? Andy Ngo joins the show to debunk the latest Antifa media coverup, to expose the ANTIFA candidate currently leading in the polls for Mayor in Portland, and to discuss the dangerous spread of extremism throughout the US. ________________________________________________________________ ⇩ TODAY'S SPONSOR ⇩ SIMPLISAFE has everything you need to protect your home, with none of the drawbacks of traditional home security. It’s got an arsenal of sensors and cameras to blanket every room, window, and door, tailored specifically for your home. All this starts at $15 a month. Head to https://SimpliSafe.com/OFFENSIVE and get a FREE HD CAMERA. ________________________________________________________________ ⇩ FOLLOW ANDY NGO ⇩ TWITTER: https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo PRE-ORDER BOOK: https://www.amazon.com/Unmasked-Antifas-Radical-Destroy-Democracy/dp/154605958X ________________________________________________________________ Become a subscriber at BlazeTV https://get.blazetv.com/slightly-offensive/ use my code "ELIJAH" to get $10 off a full year ________________________________________________________________ Slightly Offens*ve Merch: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/elijah-schaffer ________________________________________________________________ DOWNLOAD AUDIO PODCAST & GIVE A 5 STAR RATING!: APPLE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/slightly-offens-ve-uncut/id1450057169 SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/7jbVobnHs7q8pSRCtPmC41?si=qnIgUqbySSGdJEngV-P5Bg (also available Google Podcasts & wherever else podcasts are streamed) ______________________________________________________________ ➤BOOKINGS/INQUIRIES: ELIJAH@SLIGHTLYOFFENSIVE.COM _________________________________________________________________ ⇩ SOCIAL MEDIA ⇩ ➤ INSTAGRAM https://www.instagram.com/elijahschaffer/ https://www.instagram.com/officialslightlyoffensive/ ➤ TWITTER: https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer ➤ FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/officialslightlyoffensive #Riots #BlackLivesMatterProtest #Portland
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjPFkd6XWfs
Uploader: Slightly Offens*ve
Yeah, but you're here and you're actually in studio, aka my guest bedroom.
Guys, we have a lot in store for you.
We're going to be talking and clarifying things on the Denver shooting of the Trump supporter, as well as talking about some of the lies and the slander that have come out after that to try to discredit the independent media who's trying to expose what's going on.
We're also going to be talking about why the riots have somehow stopped suddenly.
Maybe there's a reason to that, as well as a little bit about Andy's past and the new Portland Antifa mayor, all that coming up on another episode of Slightly Offensive, the Best Worst Show on Blaze TV.
So let's jump right into this.
So, you know, you and I were, it was nighttime.
I remember I was on Twitter and the reports came out and it said that a left-wing activist that was a part of a rally called the BLM Antifa Soup Drive shot and killed a Trump supporter, according to the Denver Post.
And this is a publication, a local publication, and we immediately reported based off of those journalists' reports.
And it spread across the internet like wildfire that Antifa or an Antifa adjacent person had shot and killed a Trump supporter.
But a lot more has come out about that.
So let's talk about that.
So initially, what did you read and what did you hear about this report?
Let's start with how this whole story happened and then let's expose the truth and the lies and all of this.
Well, since I wasn't there on the ground in Denver, I relied on the report that came out and one of the first came out from the Denver Post, which is one of the paper records in Denver, Colorado.
And their on-the-ground reporter who was also a witness to the homicide described Matthew Dolov.
At the time, we didn't know his name, but as somebody who was affiliated with the left-wing protest.
So that was obviously a very important part of the story.
And I repeated that on my social media.
When within hours, that information then was removed from subsequent updates to the report and based on what the police had said about how this person had no political affiliation to Antifa.
And so I updated, I made a thread and all that.
But of course, you know, for my detractors, your detractors, it's not about they don't care about accuracy.
It's about trying to damage those who report on things that they don't want to be seen reported.
So they screenshotted my tweets, the tweet that I deleted and said that I was speculating recklessly and just assuming that this was an Antifa person.
And I never did that.
I cited a source from that went into print and linked to the story.
Yes, it wasn't like Gateway Pundit or something was the only person who reported on this.
I mean, these are people who were on the ground, who are the local news stations who said something, and we reported on it accordingly.
But I want to bring this up.
Let's talk about this.
And so, reports came out.
And I don't know if you noticed, there were a couple fishy things that immediately seemed to be weird.
Number one, let's talk with the congresswoman from Colorado who she was a black lady, and she came out and immediately started petitioning the publication to take down their reports that it was a left-wing activist saying we don't know.
My question is: how did a congresswoman who wasn't there at the event somehow have more information about what really happened at the event than the journalists and the news station that was actually involved?
So, this is speculation on my part, but it does seem like there was some political decision in how quickly and swiftly the police came out with the statement on Twitter that this shooting suspect had no affiliation to Antifa.
Normally, political affiliations is not something that they would reveal within hours after a homicide.
That takes interviews and investigations.
That's something you may see in a criminal affidavit or during court hearings, not really within minutes after somebody was just killed.
I speculate that that was probably a political decision to do so.
I think it was very inappropriate for that politician in Colorado to publicly pressure the Denver Post to change their reporting.
You don't want politicians pressuring media to make changes to their reporting.
You know, they newspapers need to have their own editorial control.
The newspaper ended up making changes to that, and that's the information that I believe is most up to date now.
But as you know, and many of your listeners probably know, this shooting suspect, Matthew Doloff, has a pretty extensive social media history, and it's come to light all these issues about how he wasn't licensed security, and that the Pinkerton, which was a security agency that Nine News had contracted for him that day,
are saying that he's not one of the employees and they're not revealing how, what was their business relationship with him.
And then Doloff himself has this history of pretty far-left views that, in my opinion, make him inappropriate for somebody to have been providing security for that day because he has on his own record made statements of hatred against the political views of somebody that he allegedly ended up killing.
Yeah, and this is why let's break down a couple of those weird mischaracterizations of this entire story.
So, number one, we realize that there was a Trump supporter that was killed.
That is a fact.
A Trump supporter was killed at a political rally, and Black Lives Matter and Antifa were also present to oppose the Patriot rally.
This is not something that we're defining.
This is not, oh, yeah, we just, everybody's BLM and Antifa.
This is an event that is titled BLM and Antifa Soup Drive.
This is something they gave themselves a title.
We didn't jump to conclusions.
Number two, immediately following this, the Denver Post, what is supposed to be a nonpartisan, but of course, most local publications are always center-left or left across the United States because they're all kind of run by the same companies.
They published that this was a left-wing protester who was a part of this organization.
It would have been factually correct to say that this protester then that killed the Trump supporter was BLM or Antifa, since they didn't differentiate in their event.
They can just journalistic ethics, you could attribute them to either place.
Number two, we saw that pro, I mean, number three, we saw the protesters celebrating the death of the Trump supporter, very happy about this, saying that he had got shot in the effing dome.
This was like basically F yeah, this is amazing.
So it all seemed very coordinated, very fishy, very confusing.
But when it comes down to it, this is where we talked about the first part.
Number one, when does a congresswoman pressure a publication before a report is released to change their initial reports?
That is extremely fishy.
Number two, you brought up on the weird parts that the police brought up immediately said this man has no affiliation with Antifa without having the proper time at all to do an investigation.
But this is where I know our listeners, which are our blind viewers and our viewers know this.
A lot of these police departments are very politicized.
Like they're very politicized to make certain claims to drop charges.
You know a lot about that because of your work in Portland.
So I mean, police departments all across the country are politicized in that.
They have to remain in good favor with the mayor and the populace, right?
And Denver is a left-wing city.
So I, you know, I'll take what the police said as accurate for now for what is known.
But I do think it is unusual for them to come out with such a definitive statement like that, particularly when you investigate somebody's ties to extreme Antifa as a movement, as an ideology, that takes actually quite a bit of investigation.
That's not really something where you can sit down and just ask somebody and make definitively yes or no.
It requires you looking up what they've said over the years, the events that they are affiliated with people that they're connected to.
I mean, where they actually made a statement on Twitter too.
It wasn't even an official release.
They just kind of tweeted out that we know immediately, which is kind of weird to me because even like the journalists on the field didn't seem to know exactly what was going on.
But then the third part that you brought up, you know, this guy, Matthew Dolloff, though, when you bring this out, he did have extreme ties to pretty radical ideas.
He had anti-Trump rhetoric.
He had anti-Trumper rhetoric.
He followed pretty extreme accounts like the Young Turks.
He has a history of making threats and harassing Glenn Beck, Tim Poole, Dave Rubin.
I mean, these are just, you know, I mean, I don't know, Dave Rubin and Tim Pooh aren't really right-wing people.
But I know, individually speaking, this man seems very unhinged.
But like you mentioned, this is the most controversial part.
The news hired an individual who hated Trump supporters to guard reporters against, I don't know, I guess Trump supporters, I mean, to protect them.
And he wasn't even licensed.
So this is not even a real security guard.
And the media, the main corporate media is pretty much silent about this.
You know, if you think I'm just thinking of some of the political affiliations were reversed, if let's say somebody with Fox News hired an unlicensed security and that security person ended up having, let's say, very anti-BLM, anti-Antifa views, and they ended up shooting one of the far left protesters and killing them.
That would be not just a local scandal.
It would be a national scandal, a big story.
Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of people are aware of what happened in Denver, and particularly all these other things that have come out since then.
And regarding some of Dolov's posts, he's used terms to describe police.
In reference to them, he'll say FTP, which is F of police.
That's the strong hatred of police.
He saw us vitro-like hatred for the president.
So, you know, overall, it's not a professional person.
It seems to have radical beliefs.
Inappropriate for a news station to have had this person as security.
And even, you know, he's had his concealed carry license suspended now.
So apparently, during the investigation, they don't view this person as somebody who should be having a gun.
That maybe they don't do that self-defense claim that's come up from his attorney as legitimate so far.
We'll see.
But I think that, you know, I'll just focus on, oh, who shared the initial report by Denver Post?
That's it's a this is classic like distraction and diversion from the real issues that you and I have just been speaking about.
Yeah, and I'm going to compare a little bit this situation and the hypocrisy between the way that this situation has been handled and the way that when a left-wing person kills a right-wing person, how the media portrays it versus in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, how when a right-wing person kills a left-wing person, there's a big difference.
But before we jump into that, I just want to remind you guys specifically that, you know, people obviously are not very safe at protests.
Things can be very volatile, but a very important place for you to protect yourself that you do have control over is your house.
You can actually keep your home, your office, wherever you live protected by monitoring who goes in and out, who's around that property.
And that's why it's more important than ever that you get the best home security system.
You know, most home security systems have lengthy contracts.
They don't offer a lot of features and they're heavily expensive.
But if you go to simplysafe.com/slash offensive, I'm telling you right now, you can get the best home security system that is in this country because, number one, there's no contracts.
Number two, it's only $15 a month.
Number three, it's one of the easiest things to set up and it has sensors for every door of yours, every window of yours.
And you can make sure that your house is protected.
Go to simplysafe.com/slash offensive.
Find out how to get a free HD camera with your order.
You can set it up today in just a few minutes.
I hope that you go there.
Go to simply safe.com/slash offensive, get your free HD camera.
So let's talk about this then.
Let's jump into this.
So, one of the issues that I noticed here is that the intercept, right?
This is a very dishonest publication that constantly writes mischaracterizations.
Them, the Daily Dot, these kind of places, media matters, right-wing watch, extremely dishonest individuals who are always looking to make it seem like the right-wing is a bunch of liars and trolls.
They released an article talking about right-wing trolls pushing this as a left-winger without any evidence.
Now, the truth is, number like that we spoke about, there was evidence this was a left-winger because the journalists who were there posted that this was a left-wing activist.
Now, as further evidence came out, there's more evidence that says this man may have acted in the way he did, not because he was a genuine security officer that felt threatened, but because he had biases towards these people that it looks like he's a very unhinged person.
Now, when we look at the Kyle Rittenhouse case, which I'm sure you're familiar with in Kenosha, you know, even Kyle Rittenhouse has been labeled for the rest of his life, his reputation has been destroyed publicly as a white supremacist.
I mean, I mean, even Joe Biden, in his campaign ad, put up an image of Kyle Rittenhouse from Kenosha, who shot and killed two of the three people that he injured during the riots in Kenosha in what I believe to be very much self-defense.
There's no evidence online that he's a white supremacist.
He doesn't have any rhetoric online that shows white supremacy.
He does have pro-police rhetoric.
He has pro-law and order.
There's even interviews that night of him helping Black Lives Matter protesters.
He came there to offer aid, and yet he's still labeled forever as a white supremacist.
We've seen the same rhetoric with Proud Boys, etc.
So, what's interesting to me is the Kyle Rittenhouse.
I mean, Keith Oberman mentioned it.
Even in Portland, they mentioned it at their big rally, Antifa.
It is okay to mischaracterize and judge a right-winger in a situation without any evidence.
And it becomes the mainstream narrative, like with Kyle Rittenhouse.
Even the president, the person running for the Democrat Party uses that information.
But if even just a journalist like yourself or myself uses a report and says, hey, it looks like this person has ties, not necessarily to Antifa per se, but according to initial reports and after the fact, this guy looks like he could be a bit radicalized towards the left.
And it doesn't appear to be, he's illegally operating as a security guard.
This is very problematic.
We're the ones who get articles written that we're the dishonest people, that we're the liars.
And I mean, how do we operate in a world as journalists where there's that hypocrisy in the fact that the left operates by a different set of rules?
They're allowed to publish whatever they want, even if there's no evidence.
And if we publish based off of pretty substantial evidence, we're still called liars and completely dismissed.
Yeah, well, with the cultural dominance that the left has in media and popular lies, they're able to get away with basisly smearing people as white supremacists.
And like, that's such, that's one of the worst things that you could call somebody.
I think that's, you know, on par with calling somebody a wife beater or a pedophile or something like that.
And, but the left sets the rules.
So and they rig it in their favor.
Um, it's terrible.
It's unfortunate.
I think.
Yeah, you know, you could the sort of the blatant disregard that they have for the truth in describing either Kyle or, you know, the Covington team just so basisly in defaming them and facing no consequences, usually.
And I, you know, that's the thing about the First Amendment, right?
You have to deal about with the freedom of speech that also allows people to quite a lot of leeway in defaming people, in my opinion, defaming people.
And there's really no legal recourse for it.
But I hope, you know, the Covington, as that legal case continues for that it goes well for them.
And in the future, I hope that Kyle is able to sue for defamation for people who, and powerful people, by the way, not just like random trolls, but the person running to be president, their campaign putting out such a damaging ad like that, that's inaccurate and false.
Yeah, no, and I want to bring this up because let's talk about like even the defamation.
So one of the things that I want to call specifically, I really want to call the intercept out for this negative feedback loop of false information where the media often mischaracterizes or completely slanders anybody who's not left-wing in a way that's not only inaccurate, but in many ways, just a flat out lie and could be considered slanderous to try to discredit people, myself included.
You have more experience with this than I do.
That being said, you know, the intercept says, oh, well, everyone saying that the situation was a bunch of right-wing trolls trying to link him to Antifa, you know, even took my own report and they misrepresented it.
So what I notice about them is that they claim that we're liars, but here's where they lied.
Number one, they say, oh, this is Elijah Schaefer, a freelance producer for Glenn Beck's Blaze TV.
So two things wrong.
Number one, what the hell is a freelance producer for Glenn Beck's Blaze TV?
Don't have that in the, we don't have freelance producers from what I'm aware of in Blaze TV.
Secondly, Glenn Becks, Glenn Beck's not the, doesn't run Blaze TV, he's not the owner of Blaze TV.
Blaze TV is a sister company of some of the branding, the Blaze and things.
It's under a bigger umbrella.
He's involved with it, but it's not even his company.
So these articles that hold themselves to be fact-checkers don't even get the title right of the person that they're fact-checking, which is a total disservice to the truth.
But then they go on to say, like, oh, you know, this guy said that an Antifa protester cheered that, you know, the Trump supporter was killed.
And that's not accurate.
It's not, there's no way to say he was Antifa.
And I go, like I mentioned earlier, dude, he was literally counter-rallying against a Patriot rally at a thing called with the name Antifa in it.
So theoretically speaking, because I wasn't there, if I called him BLM or Antifa, sometimes I say BLM and/or Antifa, this man was a part of the anti-fascist movement.
Also, I thought anti-fascism was an idea.
I thought that these people, it wasn't a group.
I thought you don't have membership officially.
So it's just an idea.
And I'm sure the guy, you think that guy who's happy about the Trump supporter getting killed when he's saying that a white supremacist got killed, you think that guy's not anti-fascist?
Of course he's anti-fascist.
And so it's like, then they write a discredit, you know, this is the same guy who said this and that, other lies.
They use their own lies that they've written about me as evidence for why I'm a liar.
But they're not, they're misrepresenting the whole situation.
Like they can't even get their facts straight to fact check someone who was factually correct.
And this is the kind of BS that they continually put out.
And this is where I've seen with you and with James O'Keefe.
And unfortunately, I've told people that's why I don't try to brand myself as a journalist.
I'm a reporter, sure, but I'm a commentator mostly.
Because if you were anything but center left or far left, you do not live by the same standards that the left and the establishment media live by.
They will not accept you as a real journalist.
They will discredit you.
They'll call you a grifter.
They'll call you dishonest, deceptive, selective editor, miscontextualizing, mischaracterizing.
I mean, these are all words they use to try to say, look, don't listen to this guy, don't listen to that.
And I've seen them do that to you, even though theoretically speaking, on a merit basis, you have been more accurate than a lot of these publications who try to describe you as being, I guess, in their terms, just a grifter who spreads propaganda.
Yeah, there's a it was actually Michelle Malkin who coined this concept and term that I love repeating.
She says that journalists on the left have the privilege of failing upwards.
So they can make very egregious mistakes.
You can think of somebody like Hannah Nicole Jones or can you elaborate on that?
Well, I mean, the Hannah Nicole Jones, the 1619 project, has had many subtle revisions to its online release of the essay because of many factual errors.
And yet she's elevated through and through to the media and within the New York Times.
You can look at somebody like Talia Levin, who falsely labeled an Ampuke veteran of having a neo-Nazi tattoo.
And she ended up having the opportunity to teach journalism at NYU, I believe it was.
So it's, and over and over, these left-wing journalists, you can make really egregious mistakes, and people, you know, you don't get the barrage of the smear pieces.
So then, you know, your Wikipedia page isn't like, doesn't have all these citations of these huge errors, right?
Whereas anytime somebody prominent on the right who does reporting or journalism, you know, mistakes happen.
That's the experience of every journalist.
And what defines a good one from an unethical abhorred journalist is if they don't correct the mistakes.
And I've certainly made my mistakes and I grow from it.
But those things continue to always follow me because of you, like you said, this feedback loop.
They write the hits pieces, the hit pieces get then cited in other hit pieces.
And then now you have multiple essentially opinion pieces that they can cite in your Wikipedia page.
So now, now on, anytime somebody Googles your name, the first thing that usually comes up is your Wikipedia page.
And then you see, you know, all these things that make it look like you're not a legitimate journalist.
And that's how they have gained the system.
And then, you know, you can try to make edits or request corrections to the Wikipedia page.
It's very difficult.
Their moderators are extremely biased as well.
So that's the upward battle that conservative journalists are even, you don't even have to be conservative journalists.
You can just be somebody who opposes the radicalism of the far left or seeks to expose that.
You know, you get, you know, an upward battle or struggle is an understatement, I would say.
Yeah, so we had over 100 days of pretty much daily violent protests and riots.
Then in late September, all of October, it's become several times a week instead of every day.
But here's the thing: you know, you start letting down your guard as law enforcement did, and boom, two nights ago, they ravaged downtown, toppled the statues of Roosevelt, of Lincoln.
And how they did it was, and they had pre-planned it.
There were flyers out.
They called it the day of rage.
There were 300 people there.
They had rules down that nobody was to be allowed to photograph or take videos.
So of the 300 people there and dozens and dozens of so-called journalists, they follow these rules.
So they have, there's no photographic evidence of the crimes happening in real time, unfortunately.
And what they were doing is they were using chains to pull down the statues.
And when the mob wasn't able to do it, they actually attached it to a car.
A car toppled.
I believe it was the Roosevelt statue that they used a car to get that one down.
And then they ravaged businesses, smashed up a police office, shot into a cafe called American Heroes.
And that cafe had been put on their hit list for businesses that are unfriendly to Black Lives Matter.
Yet somebody has shot two bullets inside, shattered the windows.
So there's a, you know, these acts, as I, there's been so many shocking scenes across this country.
You yourself have documented some of them that have become deadly.
And you see, like, this, this is building up.
I mean, all these actions are part of an ideology that radicalizes people to terrorism.
And I say that not as political hyperbole, but really it's calling for attacks against the state, state institutions, against other citizens for the purposes of political intimidation.
So it's classic terrorism and the failure of the media to, for the most part, to accurately report on this.
It's like, oh, you got published in the New York Times.
It's like, oh, you're probably not credible.
But that being said, you know, he was there and he abided by these rules from Antifa.
And Antifa successfully prevented the press, which I say the press, from filming the events.
Now, of course, you might say, well, how do we know this happened?
Well, we see the evidence, the aftermath, right?
We have the images, we have the videos.
A lot of them you've probably already been seeing on the screen right now.
The history museum, the statues.
But what does this mean for journalism in 2020 in the fact that somebody who's, you know, like I'm going to put this a little bit of addendum here.
Like anyone with a camera is technically press.
So I'm not talking about fake Antifa press working with Antifa.
But when somebody who works for a real publication has been published in a national publication like the New York Times and is prominent on Twitter and used for many as an active source is succumbing to the pressure of the Antifa black block of Portland.
Yeah, I mean, a journalist cannot let the subject that they're covering have editorial control over the story.
Then you're no longer being a journalist.
You're being a propagandist for their cause, right?
So a lot of my detractors, for example, have falsely accused me of working with various right-wing groups when I cover their events.
I reject all that's all that is false.
Okay.
But even for them, they recognize that, hey, if Andy is covering Crowdboys rallies or Patriot Prayer rallies, you know, and they're smearing me falsely by saying he lets them control what I release.
That's absolutely not true.
They recognize that as wrong, but they don't see any issue with, oh, ANSIFA saying we're not going to allow anybody to record.
Okay, we'll just follow along so that we remain in good favor with them.
Like, that's not journalism then.
And then on top of that, Antifa over and over talk about the importance of creating propaganda.
So you have to be really conscious of making sure that you don't play into that.
I, you know, I can be sympathetic to understanding not recording something out of safety reasons, but then come out and say that.
But if you, if that's not the reason, be honest.
Are you not recording when you're a videographer as Sergio Olmos is?
Are you not recording it because of these rules that ANSIFA has set out?
Like, be honest with your editor at OPB.
Be honest with your 100,000 followers on Twitter.
They should know.
You know, if I was covering, and you know, I've covered in Cognito some of the right-wing rallies, or for example, you know, if they were to say you're not allowed to record, that's something that the public should know, right?
You would say something like, hey, by the way, like, there's pieces of this missing or something because at some point it became too dangerous to get the footage or some sort of letting the reader know, not just like, hey, I'm a weak person that just that is easily discredited because of my lack of ethical standards, and I am so in line with these individuals that I won't show their crimes.
I mean, that's probably the most important footage of the night would have been to show the crimes taking place.
And he, and he, and he, and I, and that's why, look, I'm not, I'm not, this is not a smear of Sergio almost.
This is just, this is actually, in fact, Sergio's probably has better ethical standards than a lot of journalists for larger publications.
I mean, this is what I'm just saying overall: is that this is an idea that Sergio is just probably even learning and watching from what other people around him do.
He seems to be more new to this than other people who might be more veteran in this.
He had a really high rise to fame that came quite quickly over 100 days by, and I'll bet I will give him this.
He faithfully covered these protests, and it's very good of him to be continuous.
I know it's a lot of work.
It's tiring.
I'm sure he's exhausted mentally.
I know it's emotionally exhausting, as well as physically draining with the tear gas, constantly rubber bullets and the risks he's taken.
In that way, he's a very brave person.
But also, realizing that these black block individuals have editorial control over their own message would mean that the work coming out of these people has to be taken as propaganda because you don't, you are not getting, if we didn't know that Antifa made that rule, then we would just maybe even not know that this happened.
Like, you know what I'm saying?
Like, we wouldn't know who's even responsible, even to a certain extent.
And that's their job.
And I think the press forgets they're not fighting for a partisan cause, they're fighting to tell a story.
And I know you're always trying to tell the story about Antifa, but because you tell the truth, you get labeled as a propagandist for the police, even.
I think I am the work I do naturally makes, you know, people are either strong supporters of me or they hate me a lot.
And it's that's a difficult position to be as a journalist, right?
I'm not a news commentator where I say things, you know, where I give my following space because of my opinion.
It's like they do reporting, I write.
So it's unfortunate that there's such polarization in the audience and their responses to me, but and the viciousness that comes from those who are on the left, who am I to track this has been the goal has not just been to delegitimize me and destroy my professional career, but to make me like, as a person, appear amoral, unethical, cruel.
And they do that so that it really justifies, I think, the violence and death threats and visits to my family homes.
Because the people who are threatening to kill me or coming to my parents' home, they really think that I'm like this horrible human being that is deserving of this.
So it's not just a hatred of the reporting I do.
They hate me as a person based on these lies.
And it makes the reporting so much harder.
I really wish I could go back to the days of where people didn't know who I was.
They left me alone when I was covering a protest.
I could show my face just like many, many other people with cameras.
Be there and do the work.
It's unfortunate that I can't do that now.
You know, and I'm going, I'm somebody that they view as smash on site.
Um, that's actually one thing I lament a lot.
I thought I've had to grow and deal with those challenges and do reporting in spite of that.
And I'm very, very fortunate that I have the following that I do.
And I'm really thankful to, and I know how hard you have worked to build up your following.
So you understand that, you know, neither one of us have had, you know, sort of just an overnight celebrity thing that landed us into the public space.
We've had to work really hard and we continue to face a lot of adversities.
But I respect the work you do.
That's why I go on here.
You know, I think what your viewers and listeners may not be aware is like riot coverage is insanely hard and dangerous.
Like the exposure to the air mace, pepper spray, the loud bangs, the flash bangs, getting pushed around by rioters and police.
And then, of course, the tear gas, like unless you've been in one of those settings, it's really different watching the videos and then being in the middle of it.
Like being in a setting where you can't breathe, it's most people haven't been in that type of setting.
And that's what tear gas does to you.
That sometimes, you know, requires you to be there right up front in the middle of the tear gas and trying to get on your gas mask.
A lot of people don't even have the gas mask.
Like for many months, I did coverage without that.
And it's so hard.
So just wanted to say thank you for the work you do.
And I mean, your videos, they go viral because it's like nobody else is doing the type of stuff that you're doing on the ground.
I appreciate it, but I think it's a little easier for me because I'm white and a lot of these guys are white people.
And so I can blend in a little bit.
Actually, last time I was out on the field, I went undetected because I was, I brought a beer with me.
I don't even smoke cigarettes, actually.
I'm asthmatic.
So I don't know what I was doing smoking a cigarette, but I was with a young activist named Taylor Hansen, who actually got jumped.
And I was like, dude, well, they know who you are and they know who I am.
So what if we just go out there and we like drink beers?
And I was with Richie McGinnis too from Daily Caller.
And what if we just like smoke a cigarette and like drink beers and like film and like they'll think we're like a part of them because clearly we're unprofessional behavior, which is the clue, the clear demarcation of what defines the fake Antifa press.
And it wasn't even blackblocked.
And they just didn't even know.
They didn't even know.
And apparently just making bad decisions for your life in public is all I really needed.
Not even a costume to sort of blend in the last riot I went to.
Was it wise?
I remember one of the police officers, I was like, no, I'm actually a credentialed press, like congressionally credentialed press.
And he was like, you have a beer in your hand.
And I was like, look, I know.
I know.
I was like, I know.
I know what it looks like.
Like, it's kind of like that thing.
Like, hey, it's like you're in the bed with another woman or something.
He's like, no, I swear.
We were just looking for something.
Like, I just look like this terrible guy.
But when I was actually there in Portland, they grabbed me twice.
I actually have a lot of bruises all over my legs because they hit me so much with sticks and stuff.
And it really hurt.
But they pulled me in to arrest me while we were there that night.
But then one of the guys recognized who I was, which is very interesting.
And they let me go.
And another time, I just said who I was when they grabbed me.
And then the guy was like, oh, cool.
And he let me go.
So that being said, I kind of want to talk about this with the riots.
I'm really grateful for what you do too.
And I know that it sucks.
Mike Cernovich, who made a very interesting tweet, and essentially said that, isn't it interesting that as these riots and the very organic riots that we've seen, these consistent law and order across the country, which, like you said, you and myself, I mean, dude, I am exhausted.
I have become a changed man, right?
I've circumcised my heart in more ways than one through this situation.
I passed from a baby to a child to whatever I am today, right?
The madness that I've seen around the country.
And it seemed like it was never going to stop.
People, I mean, there was a point when I went to three riots in two different states in one week.
And then I was in six states in one week.
I mean, I can't handle it.
And then all of a sudden, polls came out that people were actually mad.
It changed from an associated press poll changed from 39% of the country was against BLM to 53% over the course of like three and a half months.
So it changed.
More than half the country is no longer backing BLM from the majority of the country backs them.
And suddenly, this was bad for the Democrat Party, which I'm not even a Republican.
Like I'm not even that partisan.
Like I don't really like the Republican Party very much myself.
But then the riots have ceased in a lot of ways.
We saw Wawatosa.
I mean, there's a little bit going on in Portland, but they're not happening.
I mean, does this make you wonder if this was really all coordinated?
I mean, I believe it was coordinated, but I mean, the fact that these things just suddenly stop, and this is within like seven days after the polls came out.
Like, I would say that rioting has decreased.
This is my own number, but maybe 85% rioting has decreased in the country since we found out the poll numbers that it was looking bad for Biden's presidency.
The people who are radical enough to organize these riots, they're not going to care about polls.
They do care about image a lot, which is why when they do riot, they all focus their cameras on police, for example, to continually put out the message that police are brutal and that they need to be abolished.
I think the rioting slowed down because for them to continue going, either one, you have to have the base that comes out and does it.
Two, a lot of the charges were in at least in different cities were starting to add up for some of those people.
Some of them were actually being prosecuted, federal charges.
Three, there needs to, they always have to latch on to some type of event that happens to sort of bring them out again for a day or two, a few days.
Portland is different, though, from the others in that.
So I'm working on a, I have a book coming out on Antifa called On Matts.
It's starting in February.
It's available for pre-loader now.
But it's coming, February is an odd time to release a book about Antifa because you would think, why didn't it come out this past summer during the height of all the riots?
Why doesn't it come out in November, right, at the elections, right?
Or right after it, you know, and include the reaction to whoever wins.
The thing that people have to recognize about Antifa BLM in the far left is that they have mainstreamed and expanded their goals enough that it's no longer with Antifa.
It started off as opposition, militant violent opposition to Trump's election win and then his administration.
This moves beyond that.
It's cross-pollinated with BLM in that now what gets them out on the streets to be violent is not in response to Trump.
It's in response to police-involved shootings of black suspects.
So the thing, you know, with that, that change is super important because, you know, in a country of 360 million people, you're going to have shootings involving police.
And a number of them are going to be involving black suspects.
And as, you know, with some of their martyrs that they picked, you can see they have no standards, right?
You can pick somebody who's an accused rapist, a serial violent, known violent criminal.
It doesn't matter if they're innocent or not.
It's just anytime there's a shooting, they're going to go out.
So that's the shift we're going to see forward going forward.
So it doesn't, it's really to anti-fun BLM.
It doesn't really matter if it's Trump or Biden winning, in my view.
So I don't think it's, I think it's a mischaracterization to say that they are in favor of Biden just because they're anti-Trump.
I think they're anti-authoritarian.
And I think they would end up still rioting against Biden.
I do.
I firmly believe Antifa would still resist Biden because Biden is a centrist Democrat.
Even though they say he's radically progressive, I'm not afraid of Biden himself.
I'm more afraid of what may come after him if the 25th Amendment is put into place or if he succumbs to old age or something similar.
That being said, it's like, you know, we've seen these DAs with Open Society Foundation and we've seen these, you know, this strong bias and politicization of justice in these large cities.
I mean, don't do you not, I mean, you totally have your own opinion, but you don't think that could have anything to do with the change of the way that these riots have been handled and the crackdown like we saw, you know, during the Brianna Taylor case, how they were so prepared, so ready, and there wasn't the kind of mayhem we saw, let's say, in Minneapolis back earlier this year?
I wouldn't be surprised if mayors are giving a bit more support discreetly to their law enforcements to actually use crowd control because of a political decision.
That seems entirely likely.
I just, I don't think that it's more like, you know, the narrative that or the hypothesis that because the polling was showing that Democrats weren't benefiting from these mass violent unrest, that they're now going to reverse track.
I think the riots have taken on a life on their own that's independent from the Democrat Party.
And it's linked to the Democrat Party in that the ability for it to be sustained and to maintain itself has a lot to do with how law enforcement and prosecutors respond locally.
But most importantly, as we look at this, we see this problem isn't really going away because even if the riots and things seem to be settling down, there's a mayoral candidate.
It's like Sarah Innarone cook it lightly with olive oil and a little bit of salt and butter and serve it with some, I don't know, parmesan cheese.
But this noodle boss, she's 11 points ahead from the last poll I read of Mayor Ted Wheeler.
She's running to be the mayor.
I didn't think anyone could be more hated than you are, Ted Wheeler, in Portland by America, but there's a new star that's competing.
And for a different reason than people would hate either of you guys.
This woman is famous for saying, I am Antifa.
And while she's backtracked in a recent debate saying that, oh, because anti-fascism is an idea and I'm anti-fascist and it's not the organization or group, she was also seen wearing a skirt with genocidal and homicidal maniac dictators of communist history.
I believe Mao Zedong was even on there, correct?
Is that who he was?
Yeah, the Chinese genocidal revolutionary.
She was wearing a custom skirt with extremely violent and deadly people.
And I'm going, oh my gosh, the future for Portland is not bright because even as the riots decrease, even as, you know, Unmasked, the book of Andy No comes out, which everyone should pre-order.
So in Portland for the mayoral election in November, Portlanders have two choices.
The incumbent, which is Ted Wheeler, and his record from the past four years is what it is.
You know, his response to the riots has been abysmal, to say the least.
And then you have Sarah Inaroni, who also ran in 2016 against him and lost on a very radical platform then, but now she's pulling way ahead of him, double digits.
And she is a true radical.
And I do not believe that when she says that when I wrote I am Antifa, that just means I am anti-fascist.
We should all meet.
No.
Because if you look at her post, just go, she tweets a lot and she has thousands and thousands of tweets.
If you just do a specific search on Antifa and her username, you'll see her references to Antifa and their symbols and all that go beyond just meaning anti-fascist, but more so, you know, the I in front symbol she's tweeted out.
She's referred to Antifa as members going to a certain neighborhood to make it safe.
Like this, she is very familiar with the ideology.
I know she's being dishonest to voters right now.
And, you know, her statement, I am Antifa, is something I, when I hear that, it sends chills down my back because those words were used in the manifesto of Willem van Spransen, which was the immigrant Antifa militant who launched an attack on the ICE facility in Tacoma, Washington last year, who came to arms and firebombed it and got himself killed in the process.
Michael Rhino in the Portland Antifa shooter, he left a sort of manifesto on his Instagram and he said, described himself as I am 100% Antifa.
So, you know, those words, it's disturbingly similar to all these violent extremists in the Pacific Northwest.
So she hasn't disvowed that she's actually stood by it and re-emphasized it.
That's her record.
And the thing about her outfit with the wearing these, the faces of the totalitarian communist dictators who have killed tens and tens of millions in the last century, like that's really quite sick.
And I don't describe it.
It's just me focusing on what her script was.
It's her wearing the faces of these people in a way that's meant to honor them.
It would be as if a candidate, a conservative candidate was wearing images of Hitler or something on their outfit.
But again, like we said earlier, the left makes the rules culturally.
This wasn't even that picture was several years old.
Like no one even focused on it all these years.
And I just happen to bring attention to it now.
Now stories are being written about it.
But it's like, that's the lack of curiosity of the local journalists in Portland.
They are biased and neopic.
So they don't even see these other things that are newsworthy.
They don't even, it doesn't even cross their minds.
But Sarah, I do think she's a true radical.
There's lots of Democrats who virtue signal the radicalism to try to get votes.
With her, I believe she's a true believer.
She has a long record of activism that is extreme, in my opinion.
And she may be Portland's next mayor.
And I don't think it's because people have widespread support for her beliefs.
It's because she's not as well recognized by name as Ted Wheeler.
And Ted Wheeler's response in the summer has been so terrible that people are sick of him.
And they're just voting for the alternate.
They're not realizing they're jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
Anyway, guys, I want to let you know if you liked what Andy No said, maybe you're unfamiliar with him.
You should follow him, number one, on Twitter.
His links in the description.
But number two, please pre-order his book, Unmasked, which showcases a lot of what's been going on, including some things we didn't get to touch on today, like his family history.
He comes from a country that has seen totalitarian extremism, far-left extremism.
It's cost his family a lot, and he doesn't want to see it obviously happen here on the soil.
But we are unfortunately seeing that.
And so check it out, Amazon.com.
Pre-order it.
Please really, truly send it to someone.
Get it to someone as a gift for, or is it out by Christmas?
And I want to remind the audience here, you guys, if you make it this far on the podcast, you do like the show.
And it's going to be getting better.
We do have a new producer on the show now, full-time, who is, you know, her name's Sav, and it's going to be incredible seeing what comes ahead.
You'll get to see her eventually on camera.
She's getting up to speed and she's going to be taking the show to the next level.
But if you want a couple free ways to support us, please subscribe right now or follow wherever you're at.
If this is YouTube, please subscribe and smash that button with the notifications so you can receive our reports.
Or if you are online at Apple iTunes, please go ahead and leave us a five-star review.
It helps us out so much.
It's free and it's a way to continue to show the radical left that we are growing.
The truth cannot be stopped by the darkness.
But most importantly, guys, if you want to get these reports every single day, and especially in the future, we're going to be having more exclusive content, go to blazetv.com/slash Elijah and sign up today.
The links in the description.
Again, go to blazetv.com/slash Elijah.
You can get everything that we have, censorship-free.
Even videos that have been taken down off YouTube by YouTube are still there on Blazetv.com.
