Andy Ngo, notorious racial agitator, caught in Portland protest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You only get one bite at the apple in undercover journalism and Ngo's bite at the Antifa apple already burned to a crisp long ago. He's been antagonizing them for the last 2-3 years already and they know who he is.

Only a moron would think you can keep going to the same swamp to kick the same alligators over and over and not eventually get bitten.

Andy Ngo showed us he is that moron.

See, when you use the word “antagonizing” to describe the actions of one person who is merely taking and posting pictures of criminal activity, you lose all credibility. Especially when you compare that to the ACTUAL antagonizing done by antifa thugs.

He’s not “MERELY” doing anything. You are missing the point of this entire thread. And are also lacking credibility. Just like Ngo. Quillette fired him, FFS.

And yet... from your own link:

Quillette's editor-in-chief Claire Lehmann pushed back on the claim that Ngo's termination was a result of the video being published, saying he had been "off work" since July "after sustaining a traumatic brain injury."

Who you gonna believe? The right wing nut that fired him or a random Internet poster who is smarter and better than you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is it possible that everyone who doesn’t buy NGo’s glass narrative is an antifa sympathizer?

The same way that everyone who thinks it's okay for Ngo to take pictures at a public event is a right wing lunatic.

+100

He’s not just taking pictures. He’s selling a narrative.

The videos and pictures speak for themselves.
Do you deny that there are a number of anarchists/antifa causing destruction in Portland nearly every night for the past year?

I’m not denying that there are anarchists causing trouble, and breaking the law. I’m denying that antifa is trying to take over the country. I am denying Andy Ngo’s victim narrative. Plenty of real journalists were injured by the police last year. Did Ngo cover any of that? Seems counter to his mission of uncovering antifa.

Not to mention why only focus on Antifa? Why not Patriot Prayer or Proud Boys or other extremist groups who've engaged in street violence, vandalism and destruction?

He focuses on BLM, too.

Meh, not really. He "focuses" (if you want to call it that) on anyone on the left to protest for any reason whatsoever and then indiscriminately just lumps them all together into some generic "BLAMTIFA" bucket. For someone who's theoretically been "investigating" them for the last several years you'd think he'd at least have a more nuanced take on it, but no - to him everyone is "Antifa" including any Tom Dick and Harriet homeless person or meth head to get arrested in Multnomah County because he'll then post their mugshots and claim they are "Antifa."

Meh. If he focused on exposing PBs (but not antifa), you’d be giddy with glee. Sorry, can’t take your “criticisms” seriously.
DP

He does much worse than "not focusing on" PB's. He hangs out with PB's, feeds them information, and is a Proud Boy sympathizer. When Proud Boys are committing criminal violent and destructive acts in front of him he turns the camera off. NO honest journalist does that.

Unlike all those other reporters, who roll their cameras 24/7, and show you all of it, on live feed. They are so honest to make sure they catch all of it.

Yes, as a matter of fact there are plenty of other journalists covering street protests. In fact Andy Ngo gets many of the photos and videos that he publishes from others. The fact that you don't know this just makes you look naive.

But many of the other on-the-ground journos covering street violence think Andy Ngo is an idiot. Take Tim Pool for example - he got his start years before Ngo, covering the Occupy movement but then also did things like look into "no go" areas in Europe, went to Venezuela to cover what was going on there as well. Pool and many others don't try to play games with the folks they are covering like wearing Antifa cosplay and skulk around as Ngo did, and they bring security. But not Ngo. Tim Pool's reaction was "WTF is Ngo thinking" - Ngo can't get within 50 feet of those folks in Portland because they know who he is. He CANNOT "go undercover" because of that. Sheer stupidity of Ngo to think he could dress up in black bloc and "infiltrate" a group that knows exactly who he is and can spot him from a distance.

So I'm naive because I didn't know that there were other reporters in the world doing the same thing and it's alright to beat up some reporters not others. I wonder if there is more to this than that. What's different about a guy named Ngo that makes it okay to beat him up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You only get one bite at the apple in undercover journalism and Ngo's bite at the Antifa apple already burned to a crisp long ago. He's been antagonizing them for the last 2-3 years already and they know who he is.

Only a moron would think you can keep going to the same swamp to kick the same alligators over and over and not eventually get bitten.

Andy Ngo showed us he is that moron.

See, when you use the word “antagonizing” to describe the actions of one person who is merely taking and posting pictures of criminal activity, you lose all credibility. Especially when you compare that to the ACTUAL antagonizing done by antifa thugs.

He’s not “MERELY” doing anything. You are missing the point of this entire thread. And are also lacking credibility. Just like Ngo. Quillette fired him, FFS.

And yet... from your own link:

Quillette's editor-in-chief Claire Lehmann pushed back on the claim that Ngo's termination was a result of the video being published, saying he had been "off work" since July "after sustaining a traumatic brain injury."

Who you gonna believe? The right wing nut that fired him or a random Internet poster who is smarter and better than you.

What’s funny is this “Donovan Farley” is a leftist version of everything Ngo has been criticized for. Where are Farley’s exposes on antifa? Why does he limit his reporting only to Proud Boys and right-wing extremists? Obviously, he’s not a partisan hack and not a “real” journalist if he’s not covering both sides.

Right?

[Anonymous]

*he IS a partisan hack

[Anonymous]

Oh hey, Boogaloo Boys who were posing as Antifa

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/06/militia-plotted-war-against-ca-cops-impersonating-antifa-taking-up-arms-if-trump-invoked-insurrection-act-feds-say/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh hey, Boogaloo Boys who were posing as Antifa

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/06/militia-plotted-war-against-ca-cops-impersonating-antifa-taking-up-arms-if-trump-invoked-insurrection-act-feds-say/

Obviously this means that the anarchists who attacked Ngo were really Boogalo boys, who were beating Ngo as a false flag operation, which Ngo was totally in on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh hey, Boogaloo Boys who were posing as Antifa

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/06/militia-plotted-war-against-ca-cops-impersonating-antifa-taking-up-arms-if-trump-invoked-insurrection-act-feds-say/

Obviously this means that the anarchists who attacked Ngo were really Boogalo boys, who were beating Ngo as a false flag operation, which Ngo was totally in on.

You can remove the ey-roll. There is significant proof of this, actually. That is what was learned in portland, which is why the counter protests for the Trumpsters didn't materials as expected on 1/6. There was no "antifa" to blame the events of 1/6 on, so Trump couldn't call for martial law under the insurrection act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh hey, Boogaloo Boys who were posing as Antifa

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/06/militia-plotted-war-against-ca-cops-impersonating-antifa-taking-up-arms-if-trump-invoked-insurrection-act-feds-say/

Obviously this means that the anarchists who attacked Ngo were really Boogalo boys, who were beating Ngo as a false flag operation, which Ngo was totally in on.

You can remove the ey-roll. There is significant proof of this, actually. That is what was learned in portland, which is why the counter protests for the Trumpsters didn't materials as expected on 1/6. There was no "antifa" to blame the events of 1/6 on, so Trump couldn't call for martial law under the insurrection act.

This does not mean that anarchists did not assault Ngo.

[Anonymous]

It means we don't know who assaulted Ngo, anarchists or someone else. But now at least you admit that the anarchists are not antifa- they are their own beast that are neither left nor right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It means we don't know who assaulted Ngo, anarchists or someone else. But now at least you admit that the anarchists are not antifa- they are their own beast that are neither left nor right.

I admitted no such thing, liar. Antifa may be used interchangeably with anarchists as far as I can see. It's not like these people issue membership cards. Ideologically, anarchists seem to be on the left, and I don't see why any would be a problem for you, unless you are an anarchist apologist, and you wouldn't be that, would you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It means we don't know who assaulted Ngo, anarchists or someone else. But now at least you admit that the anarchists are not antifa- they are their own beast that are neither left nor right.

I admitted no such thing, liar. Antifa may be used interchangeably with anarchists as far as I can see. It's not like these people issue membership cards. Ideologically, anarchists seem to be on the left, and I don't see why any would be a problem for you, unless you are an anarchist apologist, and you wouldn't be that, would you?

Whoever is doing that would be wildly inaccurate. Anarchists are anarchists. They are different people and ideology than ANTIFA. How about we start using language with accuracy?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It means we don't know who assaulted Ngo, anarchists or someone else. But now at least you admit that the anarchists are not antifa- they are their own beast that are neither left nor right.

I admitted no such thing, liar. Antifa may be used interchangeably with anarchists as far as I can see. It's not like these people issue membership cards. Ideologically, anarchists seem to be on the left, and I don't see why any would be a problem for you, unless you are an anarchist apologist, and you wouldn't be that, would you?

Whoever is doing that would be wildly inaccurate. Anarchists are anarchists. They are different people and ideology than ANTIFA. How about we start using language with accuracy?

Language with accuracy? That's a joke, when Ngo gets called every name in the book, except "journalist" because, you know, reasons. So I will call them what I damn well please, and you will just have to sputter and fume about how "wrong" I am. If those people don't like what I call them, they can hire a PR rep to announce their preferred appelation and trademark their symbol. Sounds like you are angling for tbe job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It means we don't know who assaulted Ngo, anarchists or someone else. But now at least you admit that the anarchists are not antifa- they are their own beast that are neither left nor right.

I admitted no such thing, liar. Antifa may be used interchangeably with anarchists as far as I can see. It's not like these people issue membership cards. Ideologically, anarchists seem to be on the left, and I don't see why any would be a problem for you, unless you are an anarchist apologist, and you wouldn't be that, would you?

Whoever is doing that would be wildly inaccurate. Anarchists are anarchists. They are different people and ideology than ANTIFA. How about we start using language with accuracy?

Language with accuracy? That's a joke, when Ngo gets called every name in the book, except "journalist" because, you know, reasons. So I will call them what I damn well please, and you will just have to sputter and fume about how "wrong" I am. If those people don't like what I call them, they can hire a PR rep to announce their preferred appelation and trademark their symbol. Sounds like you are angling for tbe job.

You are conflaging different groups with different ideologies only making you look like a fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Researched this. He did in fact contribute to general education, abd it't not clear what his direct involvement was with the Indian schools, other than they used the same ideas everyone else in Canada used. In event, as with everyonr else in history, if them mob thinks you are a racist, your statue comes down and that's that. There is no time for keeping a cool head when you have tear down something that has been there for 100 years.