Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "Britain is No Place for Children. Plus: Net Zero is a Utopian Fantasy." video.

  1. Comment Part 2.(Please read part 1 first). Now, up to this point i have framed it all as an active left against a passive liberal tolerance. But i have tactically tricked you up to this point i have a tendentious strategy! has the liberal middle class really being so stupid really in their bousware leisure wealth and good taste, lost sight of there own interests in this or at least felt by Being-With "The "in" Crowd" they are edging their bets. I don't think so. The "rabbit out of the hat" is, they knew their massive over leveraged mortgages were unsustainable: i.e. the middle class of the liberal left and right together, as "one" informed raising self-conscious group networking at cocktail parties and so on, knew they were a subprime market holders. sand the whole thing would collapse. in early 1980s liberal conservatives (sorry folks) told me to buy big houses then left and far left in the early 1990s told me to do the same in north London specifically in Cambden. I thought the labour party, when they got in, would end all that. But no, they all had houses in London by 1997 and made a shed load of money from their Ponzi housing policies. Around 2003-4 while i was working on my bathroom, i heard a "consciousness raising" lecture at Harvard, basically telling the middle class to "collectively" prepare for a middle class metropolitan housing market collapse that would wipe then out as a class like the redundant English Aristocratic (middle) class had been in early 20the century. The German Aristocracy realised this in early 19the century and created "for themselves, ,and "in themselves" the German intellectual middleclass, who's institutions were the envy and go to places for all intellectuals culture, scientists and medicine by 1900. So they knew 2008 was coming and prepared. First it was the poor people getting mortgaged, the that was discredited, then it was hedge fund managers and bankers, but hey had followed the middleclass laws. but drawing on the fear from 911 and the continuous description of the banks as under a existential risk by anomaly (black sawn myths and so on) and the bankers as "if not illegal", "at least immoral" discourse, they diverted peoples hate and anger, from the formal structure of banks bailout via necessary sovereign debt bail out (the universal socialisation of all potential losses of the middle class to massive marginal losses to the poor by the already a priori mechanism of Bank of international settlements BASIL 2 and 3).the sub prime collapse conveniently manifested as a bank crisis state of emergency, an example of Marx's reality/symptom ideology myth and and Habermas's structure and system/symptom legitimacy myth. Job done? not quiet! Now the middle class have to deal with the manifestation of the legitimacy paradox or crises as a political CRISIS. now they bring in the ready to hand crazy Marxist no one can understand, then they go "all in" on feminism and ethnic minority rights, along with vocabulary, present to hand, of risk! risk! risk!. and morality of taste and spectacular criminal or merely gossipy public shame for a very few, very powerful people to look like like they are punching up when they are really punching down to divide the poor against each other and claim a vocabulary of fear and control legitimately. woke ahs divided people against each other turned the personal into a site and theatre of manufactured conflict. but its reason and cause is not a return to the long march and revolution or even a uprising through the institutions by the neo-Marxist left, its just a tool by all the middleclass to control the potential political fall out from the injustice and illegitimacy of their pre ordained property boom, and inevitable collapse prevention scheme of transfer the losses to the people as sovereignty bailout. Funny how all the talk of ending sovereignty and state, for globalisation as inevitable and so poor in wage collapse, suddenly stopped when they need our future to keep their house prices up, all mediated by sovereignty re-imagined as a necessary middleclass bailout fund. Metro-middle class house prices were on the slide just prior to 2008, after the bailout they flat lined then after QE 1 and 2 they begin to rise. And to cover the massive wage and living conditions effects on the demand for houses there is mass immigration and no house building policy a supply/demand paradox that didn't happen as i recall in the 1970s. Now they continue to draw on resources of tolerance and lives of belongings, with middle class moral taste and rationalised risk and more and more immigration. i recommend reading the debates between Derrida and Habermas and others on 911, and Derrida and others on the cities of the future and Rogue states and Cities. He was accused of "Being-a" American Type of neo-conservative i believe after this. I’m still only part the way through but Many thanks to John O'Sullivan Peter Whittle and NCF.
    1
  2. Comment Part 1: Happy New Year. Its been a while sicne I have been able to watch a New Culture Forum Discussion. I’ve been hard at work for 3 weeks on a recent debate between Peter Boghossain and Carl Benjamin and following up on Habermas from there. But this is an interesting discussion between John O'Sullivan and Peter Whittle. And I’ve just got to comment. Woke is described here as a version of the old revolutionary process of forced change, which at the time emerged within the political struggles of the Russian revolution. the context there is War and Lenin's use of the exception and the emergency, it was civil war "with us or against us" political realism really. In China it was used to reinvigorate revolutionary enthusiasm within the young also perceived as less bound to traditions of thinking and repetition in action (Jesuit really probably from Christian missionary of 19the and early 20th century. I knew a Jesuit who had done this in Africa during and in those civil wars of 60s and 70s). At this point the framework is still how to achieve "Class Consciousness" in the face of the superstructure and ideology in Marx, but really it begins with Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirt the second part on action in the social world, specifically on Self and other as a conflict dialectic or master/slave or lordship/bondage. the salve must realise the master is dependent on him and so is not absolute, the salve has latent or esoteric power even within the terms of the slave as a property owned by the lord as mediated not by being natural slaves under natural masters in "Gods Categories", but by the superstructure: legal economic moral ethical model of legitimacy in post theological justification and reason in the late enlightenment rationalisations. Marxists have always know that facilitating "Class consciousness" is a task for an enlightened elite. it only appears to be absent in the military version of revolutionary struggle in Russia and China, there it takes only the accidental contextual "form" of of military necessity. So rather than thinking of Woke as a version of military revolutionary struggle , military struggle just faces it own situation of facilitating class consciousness. Don't confuse Lenis awareness of the potential and necessity of, and in, a situation as marking a change to the general form of the class struggle as a semantic struggle now. they are continuous. labelling the contemporary as a continuation of a "revolutionary war" might be useful in some contexts viz., as a Pragmatic theory of truth, but it is a poor hermeneutic interpretation of Truth. Under my interpretation, "Woke" now, will have a trace back 150 years, but is really the result of a sensitivity from the 1950s 1960s of new possibilities of in apprehension and understanding. we have the link being made between unions and young people, its revolutionary failure but still an "event" and a new group of French intellectuals Lyotard (who seems to have been erased now) Foucault Derrida Deleuze and the Frankfurt School's hair Habermas. The Three Frenchmen and the German, present themselves as in competition in many debates they had along with some against liberal thinkers like Rawls, who's liberalism they can simultaneously see as both a problem of preserving the capitalist "system of ideological legitimacy" but also as an affordance (F. Scot Fitzgerald's geniuses'?). While "appearing" to create intellectual conflicts through and in arguments, this kind of discourse is I think manufactured or constructed to generate interest and as a more effective rhetorical tool for transmitting understanding and praxis in their Western liberal Academic contexts than polemics and 4 hour long leader speech's by then Marxist leaders around the world. Academia is the cite for raising ("cl+ss" ) consciousness and praxis give there abilities and the Western liberal tradition. all the apparent contradictions a paradoxes and antinomies and aporias, liberal thinkers are trying to work out are merely the successive grounds laying, buildings up, and ladders thrown away as removing's and changing potential affordances as they move up the liberal institutions. Yu can call it a march through for polemical purposes, but is it risky, as this means we fail to see, and understand what is happening here. So as they ascend from the post 60's youth subcultures (Britain) and the civil rights movements in America, in Europe they are the friendly face of the left for the middle class intellectuals and liberals as opposed to leftist t*rr*r*sm of the 70's. as they do a Deleuzian habit changing and bottom up materialism in institutions, Foucault teaches them to triangulate action in the middle of power/knowledge/self. Then by 1990s Derrida has seen law right and justice, not as the ruling ideology, and a reflection of the superstructure, but as a site of action and movement within its own its own terms. All the while Habermas (who i have only just started to work on can you believe) has set himself as optimist for reason, against the pessimism towards reason by Adorno and Horkheimer. Now we have that intellectual dissonance, for liberal observers and critics, that one group are postmodernists suspicious of hegemonic universal and speculative reason and utopias and another the discourse linguistics of reason are for it. I mean what do you do maybe this is the moment to avail ourselves of military vocabulary (as long as there hasn't been too much crying wolf by now) and call it being "trapped in a pincer movement". (is "being" here an adverb?) Gosh! I mean, how can you deal rationally with contradictory opponents. The postmodernists here drew on liberal critiques of being anti science ant universal to make the turn, they had obviously planned in advance, at the right moment to take the notion of right as negative freedom and switch it to the old positive freedom model of capacity and capability w.rt the already genesis of women's and minority rights in the U.S. now they can appeal to rights and science in the liberal framework to do the work in institutional settings though mostly the jurisprudential turn and discourse ethics and pragmatics. it is not a event of unnameable anomie as some critics have it, nor a noun of woke, or verb Cultural Marxism. They are the adverbal-ists of "Why" "How" "Where" and "When". (Please read part 2.)
    1