In early 2021 I reported the details of an Antifa riot in Pacific Beach on January 9, 2021. Masked militants attacked at least 16 innocent victims. You’d think such an incident would receive universal condemnation from the media, politicians of both parties and even liberal political activists.
But the media gave a watered-down characterization of Antifa’s violence and fabricated a fictional adversary they were confronting. The San Diego Union Tribune led this effort, portraying an unprovoked attack by a vicious Antifa mob with weapons against a helpless woman as if it was a mutual battle between equal parties.
In my reporting of the PB Antifa riot I pointed out how U-T reporters Kristina Davis and Andrew Dyer promoted Antifa militants in their report about holding Trump supporters accountable for being “regulars at pro-Trump rallies,” including attendance at the pro-Trump rally in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021. While their language did not make a clear difference between people exercising their First Amendment Right to support Donald Trump in public and the small minority of them who committed violence at the Capitol, they presented Antifa militants who routinely call for violence and engage in violence as if they are public servants.
In their 1/17/21 story they quoted the operator of the Twitter account @SDAgainstFash talking about their work exposing “violent attitudes and actions” of right-wing groups. I pointed out how a quick review of @SDAgainstFash shows a post calling for violence against Republicans at the beach, a post with a photoshopped image of Brad Pitt holding a knife to a man wearing a Trump hat, and a tweet on 1/6/21 calling for the Capitol to be burned.
A recent San Diego Reader article by long-time Reader crime reporter Eva Knott and journalist Andy Ngo, an expert on Antifa, revealed the operator of @SDAgainstFash to be Jesse Cannon, who allegedly was the Antifa militant who threw a chair at the back of an woman in Pacific Beach. The San Diego District Attorney charged Cannon with conspiracy to riot, assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon.
Looking at the comments under my article, nearly half were personal attacks against me for breaking from the false mainstream media narrative and daring to report the truth.
I reported every major act of violence that was video-recorded and published on social media. Most of those recordings came from left-wing reporters. My report also included any major act of violence perpetrated by participants in the pro-Trump rally. Regardless of group association or political ideology, if there was video documentation of someone perpetrating violence, I reported it.
It’s telling that the majority response from Democrats and their mainstream media allies to that incident was silence, cover up or anger at me for reporting the facts about what Antifa did. One left-wing activist I emailed before the story asking for comment, replied after my story published and wished death upon me.
But I didn’t receive a single angry comment from any right-wing activist for reporting the violence that was perpetrated from their side. Why is that? A common response I get from conservatives to my reporting is a pleasant shock to see an objective media report. That today’s Democratic Party and their allies in the media (with a few exceptions) could have such disdain for the truth, for obvious facts; and encourage, enable or tolerate such extreme violence, is a sign something is very wrong with them. And it’s far from the only sign.
Today’s Democratic Party and their media allies seem on their way to fulfilling George Orwell’s prophecy of an English Socialist regime (INGSOC) led by an all-powerful Big Brother, controlling the population with the propaganda techniques of “Newspeak” and “Doublespeak.”
That is, if their leftward plunge continues and they stay in power.
But it seems that plunge is pushing so many moderates to the right (relative to them) that in the years to come they are destined to lose power in a big way – apart from any major interference in our democratic processes.
One of the best examples is the recent announcement from Elon Musk that he voted Democrat in the past but will now vote Republican. Former Democratic candidate for president Andrew Yang has also expressed his relief to no longer be a Democrat. He seems to be supporting the Forward Party and stated, “political independence seems to help one’s state of mind.”
In the past, radio became the medium for the conservative backlash against liberal media control. In the present, podcasting and online platforms like Substack have become the medium for the moderate backlash against the mainstream media’s left-wing extremism. This is best signified by the popularity of Joe Rogan’s podcast and his promotion of independent journalists who use Substack.
Rogan’s favorite journalist seems to be Substack writer Matt Taibbi, who recently wrote, “The mainstream Democratic Party project has merged in every meaningful way with the militaristic, authoritarian, surveillance-heavy vision of the Bush presidency, with woke fundamentalism replacing Bush’s ‘faith-based’ evangelism.”
Rogan recently retweeted criticism of the Biden administration’s attempt at instituting a so-called “Ministry of Truth,” another Orwellian term. And he retweeted a video of Alibaba Group president J. Michael Evans boasting at the World Economic Forum about the development of an “individual carbon footprint tracker” to monitor “what you buy, what you eat, and where/how you travel.”
Rogan refused to give Donald Trump an interview on his podcast. While he wanted Democrat Tulsi Gabbard to win the last presidential election, and said he couldn’t vote for Biden or Trump, he has stated he is rooting for Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to be our next president.
Perhaps the clearest example of the left-wing extremism overtaking the Democratic Party and their media allies is their attempt to destroy humanity’s acceptance of our biological gender reality, whether that be the transgender invasion of women’s sports or their new vocabulary that seeks to erase any indication of gender distinction.
The U-T, which endorsed five Democrats for the five Congressional offices in San Diego, retracted their endorsement from the Republican-endorsed candidate for Sheriff because he used the word “men” to refer to biological men who identify as transgender women.
Well-known psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson got in trouble for speaking out against the use of law to force people to use transgender terminology. The media labeled him a “right-wing professor,” which was news to him.
The most striking example of the Democratic Party’s Newspeak is their effort to destroy the beauty of the Spanish language by crossing out the o’s and a’s and replacing them with an x. The gendered nature of Spanish is part of what makes it such a beautiful language. If you listen to NPR reporting or speeches from Democratic politicians, you may not realize that only a small number of Hispanics actually use the term “Latinx.”
A 2021 Gallup poll shows four percent of Hispanics use the term. While the majority of respondents did not care whether they were referred to as Hispanics or Latinos, when told they had to choose one option, the percentages for “Hispanic” and “Latino” more than doubled. Those who chose “Latinx” only went up from four percent to five percent. A Bendixen & Amandi International poll in 2021 put that number at two percent. A 2020 Pew Research Poll put the number of Hispanics who use “Latinx” at three percent.
In January Gallup News reported: “Axios noted the announcement by U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, first vice chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, stating that his office ‘is not allowed to use “Latinx” in official communications.’ Gallego noted, ‘When Latino politicos use the term, it is largely to appease White rich progressives who think that is the term we use. It is a vicious circle of confirmation bias.’ League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) President Domingo Garcia announced in December that his organization will cease using ‘Latinx,’ saying, ‘The reality is there is very little to no support for its use and it’s sort of seen as something used inside the Beltway or in Ivy League tower settings.’ And, exemplifying the controversy, Hispanic columnist Angel Eduardo called the use of the term ‘lexical imperialism,’ adding that it is ‘almost exclusively a way to indicate a particular ideological leaning.’”