Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "Sadiq Khan's Anti-White Agenda. Should UK Restore Death Penalty / Capital Punishment?" video.

  1. I don't think class is a "distinction" within representation ie a binary distinction of concepts. Say hair colour we have black and not black, we have blond and not blond, but not black does not imply blond. (Ramsey's criticism of Wittgenstein Tractatus) rather there is a kind of 3D colour space of concepts. (see also Gother v Newton on the colour spectrum.)Colour then as referring to a person, might be thought of as predicate but its in a countable metric space. The person is apprehended though a concept, apprehension is the power or faculty of sensibility and the concept is in the power or faculty of the Understanding. The understanding is a higher power than sensibility in its connecting of many apprehended people though concepts. Only with sensibility and Understanding working together do we get experience. I view this to mean the sensibility v understanding distinction is not one of subject and predicate simply. From a note by Robert Hanna on Kant's discussion of Hobbes i developed the view that class is a vertical distinction akin to a three part syllogism that deal with subject and predicate in inference and judgement. The difference between two people in the street is not the same as between a person in the street and a person. I view the syllogism then as also not dealing with three separate subject predicate judgements. Of course we can say the person in the office is one colour and the person in the street is another, but we cannot say of two people in the street one is middle class one is lower class as this is a distinction between higher functions (spontaneity) and lower capacities of single intuition. People can and are distinguished by faculty and functional power in a syllogism, which is not a subject predicate distinction in a proposition or judgement. I think this is my own idea about this and somewhat speculative. to get into it's details is complex but at least i think Kant (and Sellars agrees with this I think), Connections between objects in relations of cause and effect (if..then..) have to involve claims about nature both as habitually built up sedimented and non reversible (see Kant on non reversible time in Analogies) but also as a distinction between subjective and objective aspects within experience in terms of relations as according to a rule or law. The error in the master model then is that the understanding thinks it can do all the connecting itself independently of the contribution of sensibility. Its like imagining you can have a workable rule of law from an office that can do its function without the street being in any way ordered. Totalitarian regimes think like this often because the street has already become, as they say, "ungovernable" prior to take power. Only by thinking colour is isomorphic with class can we think a) that an institutional like function power relation exists on the street and b) that colour differences as power differences can be solved by equity and opportunity to get to the understanding. So who makes these errors of isomorphism and who does they serve. The middle class of course in their offices to disguise class difference and their collective networked power. to be fair i think the gender and race and ethnicity was also a praxis move for wide scope policy to deal with differences but quickly taken over and made into the central issue and used as the problem in itself. I know this sounds a bit old school Marx and ideology and super structure but there it is. People in the street have Kant's judgements of perception. You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.(Woodstock deleted scene but sound survived)
    1
  2. When people talk about power relations in the street, they really think these by analogy with one being behind the desk in a mythical office the other sitting before them. They impose the social institutional vertical rules analysis on two people in the street. That is why its so hard to argue with them its because they think you are in their office as their subordinate. that is why they seem to defer to an higher office only they can see. the mobile phone has allowed them to act as if this is the case since they can call up data and rules on it as positive now they are in power. This is trained in them from the year dot.
    1
  3. it might be worth comparing the news on BBC TV with the News on radio 4.
    1
  4. Yea well why would the middle class think it wise now to start talking about anti white racism. Its so obvious one is they can play this game for ever oscillation and of friend and enemy a pseudo feeling of corrective justice to the previous injustice, the loss of morale, and who might they need to fight the possible wars as boots on the ground . Clearly there will be wars and unlike the story those wars will still need huge numbers of boots on the ground. They crashed the economy though globalisation and then got the "myth" of the social State to bail them out, then austerity, then covid and now race and gender. maybe they think a mercenary armies without states will do it, but i don't think that can be more than a small measure of an army. Pure coercion is inefficient so they need to get the white man into a frame of mind for sacrifice. Good luck. you'll need a lot of war movies for white men or with non white doing all the hero stuff to shame white men. Aversion of Philippa Foot's analogy: a middle class person is standing at a railway signal box for a fork in the tracks. A train is coming, standing next to one track is a girl who's school book on the rails, on the other track is 100,000 men. which way would the middle class person you throw the signal. Remember the Geneva Convention forbids as a War crime derailing the train since it might hit the signal box.
    1
  5. When the "youth in Canada" are voting conservative on the reaction to all the anti white men stuff do they know what's in the small print. or do they get the kings shilling at the ballot box. the middle class left of course will do all the anti war protest stuff, then get a chest of kings shillings after and go on about some new distinction that really serves themselves. Maybe i should have read Stephen Pinker this summer.
    1
  6. Capital punishment? I'm against. Thank you Peter Whittle, Rafe Heydel-Mankoo, Amy Gallagher and the NCF.
    1