Jordan Hall's Situational Analyses* tease out what is happening: far larger than politics, it's partly a battle between how sense-making will happen into the future. It's between a "blue church" which represents the sense-making of institutions, and a "red faith" which represents the sense-making of "decentralized collective intelligence".

The institutions usually get things right, but are subject to failure. One example of how institutions failed was in the Covington Catholic kids incident, where the actual video proved out that the institutional narrative was mostly wrong. The institutional narrative was boxed in and accepted the first, edited video at its face.

In the case of Andy Ngo, I have followed a bit of both - the Portland Mercury, which presented the institutional narrative; and two sense-making videos out of the decentralized intelligence, which analyze the Ngo controversy. One from each side: the progressive David Pakman video dragging Ngo, and the Sargon of Akkad video "Andy Ngo Did Nothing Wrong" which addresses the Pakman video directly. I realize it's fruitless to suggest anyone else take this on; I'm just saying, I did; and there's my due diligence, if it counts for anything... not trying to prove anything

~ And as always, I could easily be wrong... I often am ~


*somehow i am too busy to link but not busy enough not to write all this shit

"blue church" = institutional ?
"red faith" = decentralized ?

I think the colors are reversed. If red means what red means, red has lost the culture war and is pissed about it. There isn't an "institution" of "Hollywood elites" and "activist judges" it's literally the decentralized opinions of the majority of individual Americans. For example, we collectively, de-centrally oppose racism despite the institution of racism still existing.

I wish he'd just taken the "colors" out of this.

I am not prepared to take Sargon of Akkad seriously.

I'm a Larry Elder fan; I'm not prepared to take "institutional racism" seriously.

The Left, in its perennial battle to divide and then rule, thinks too much about, and assigns too much weight to, ah... complexion. This thinking is superstition in action.

The Left, and the properly-called illiberals, will never be liberated from race-based thinking and its attendant foibles until they cease to think about ... complexion... at all.

If you hold your breath waiting for that, you'll have an interesting bluish color-problem. "Are you bluish? You look bluish..."

It's not just institutions, it's "sense-making institutions", the sources that tell us what is happening and what the narrative is.

Let's do this, then. Here's a fair question.

IMO, the losers are the ones who inflict the violence in this scenario. That's my position and it's also the position of rule of law.

So under what conditions, in America, is it acceptable to strike an unarmed diminutive Asian guy standing on the side of the street filming you?

Please tell us how. He wasn't being provocative... unarmed, non-threatening, not saying a word, not doing anything, just filming them. Do you figure they are allowed to strike him because they didn't like what he showed on his videos, or what he said about them? Be honest.

The people using weapons, striking him, causing him to bleed, be taken to the hospital, held overnight, these are all facts. Most of them are on videos that I've personally watched in order to verify what's going on.

That's actually enough for me. I don't need him to have a brain hemorrhage to identify the losers in this scenario, but please, if you know he lied about having a hemorrhage, let us know how you know.

If that man is actively conspiring with the people who are out to hurt people, then he is just as guilty and I have no moral issue with it.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...video-surfaces


I am not disputing the order of events.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture...antifa-877914/

Link to debunking is provided in the text of the RS article.

And it's blue. Because red doesn't have a narrative. It's just honest, hard-workin' truck drivers using their goddang common sense.

The conspiratorial allegations stem from a single unnamed source via the Portland Mercury story; and his video showing Ngo, walking up on the opposing element, and kind of listening in on a conversation where the side discussed where they expected a fight.

This is supposed to prove he was not reporting on the other side. But it was well understood that both sides expected a fight. It's in their mission statements as they approach the event. Ngo went to film actual violence. Any good reporter would listen in to where the shit would go down and then position himself to film that.

But, even then - all this new narrative came out three months after the attack. During the attack, Ngo was just a guy hated by Antifa for filming them and writing about them. And during the attack on video, he wasn't with Patriot Prayer; nobody defended him; he was hit from all sides, and nobody actually helped him much after the attack.

Not debunked here is the information that he had a brain hemorrhage. Debunked is the information that quick dry cement was used. The source was the Portland Police Department. At the time Ngo spoke about that, the police were still looking for information about it. The next day it was generally not found to be the case.

Does Ngo have a bias. Probably - his parents met at a Communist prison camp, so he may notice a mob of Communists becoming violent, and decide that's in his interest to report on. I won't fault him for it.

At least, he should not get beaten up for it.

In this instance, the "sense-making institutions" are the Portland Mercury, the Washington Examiner, and Rolling Stone. The "distributed sense-making non-institutions" are everyone on social media examining the raw video in detail and teasing out additional details and discussing the story.

Distributed sense-making non-institution is what is happening right here right now. You may find that the institutions are not blue and the non-institutions are not red. That's fine, and it's easy to find red institutions as well. But there is a disparity going on and it's interesting to see.

so we're the "red" part, and the newspapers are the "blue" part?

edited

Isn't this just the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" debate?

Do a majority of individual Americans support some kind of common-sense gun regulation reform because a "blue" media institution is beaming that message into the hive-mind, or because they individually don't want their kids to die in a pool of blood in their algebra classroom?

Trick question-- "red" and "blue" individuals BOTH want gun reform. Red INSTITUTIONS do not. Red INSTITUTIONS don't believe in climate change. Red INSTITUTIONS want tax cuts for the obscenely rich. These are just the low-hanging fruit. If you can name a couple of "blue" ones, does it constitute a disparity?

This is an excellent point. I am neither a dem (except in self-defense, at this particular point in time) nor a republican by nature. I am one of those mixed-market semi-socialist types.

I just have an innate hatred of fascists, probably as a result of being knee high to my great uncles when they talked about the war.

As such, I am perfectly content with the disconnect inherent in believing in the rule of law AND believing in hitting low-rent Nazis with bricks until all the badness leaks out of them.

And I didn't need prompting from the media to be that way. It is my natural, knee-jerk reaction to bastards holding Tiki torches and chanting "The Jews will not replace us."

"Red" cheerleaders want us to believe that "blue" ideas are part of an institution, exactly because this is the opposite of the truth. "Red" has lost the culture war with INDIVIDUAL Americans. The "free-thinking maverick" narrative is just intellectual cosplay. Up there with the "I'm not allowed to say this" clowns.