Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "BLM Activist tells White People to "Get Out of Our Way" as Report Criticizes RAF's Anti-White Policy" video.

  1. Interesting: Iman Ayton Frames this as a general issue about "race equality". So the fact the program is about the RAF appears as just an example of a general policy of positive discrimination to achieve equity of numbers and later equity of pay across and within the general employment sector. this is to be actioned by a policy ordinance of equity of numbers in each company. Now i could go here about meritocracy as equity of ability as capability determining capacity numbers for outcomes and differences of ratio's between race structured functional sets. This would explain and legitimise the difference as due capabilities and dispositions and attitudes. That the population of possible employees E is a network graph and there are clusters of propensities for particular sorts of jobs and so developed Human Capital (may be choice) that are roughly inclusive and exclusive, conjunctive and disjunctive networks. E then is not as a whole simple reducible single function set or even a collection of single function sets. The reason this is missed might be because of a confusion between the axioms of Category Theory that to some extent could appropriate to partially track transitive possible pathways for any employee m ,from the base E to networks of possible companies c's in all as a non functional uniform collection C of all. This is more appropriate to view the issue as diachronic and context laden and m employee capacity capability and intention dynamic. The original framing of the issue by Iman Ayton as race equity of outcomes reduces or eliminates this context laden complexity of the base. it does this no so much intentionally on her part but because metricised race differences in accord with binary sets as numbered members is synchronic and then the difference here is projected to being a functionally equivalent structure within the companies. thus then the implicit set theoretical method in operation here allows the exportation of the reason and intention from the base networks and then its importation into the company structure. So we get an apparent use of "structural racism" as the vice of the causal and intentional structure of the companies. of course this is not legitimate export and import but smuggling. iIs certainly not a simple old nature nurture difference between base and structure but neither then is it simply an intentional or habitual or reproductive repetitional difference either. the problem is the attribution of the uniformity of function imposed on the sets in manifest the set membership differences, to a diachronic Category Theory functionality. ie making it look like the uniformity is structural ad intentional even if described difficultly as passive or implicit intention? in addition the aim of complete equity is an impossible and infinite task even in its own terms since the base population E can only be expressed synchronically in terms of outcomes as the set of all sets in E. that is the power set of E: P(E) this is transfinite and uncountable i think I'm still learning this stuff. Both Iman Ayton and Peter Whittle agree there are Habermasian System problems here in that both the inequality of outcomes metric, and that the institutional skewing of basic rights by the attempt to correct it over meritocracy in this way can result in legitimacy crisis and political and social crisis. People do seem to expect uniformity to be justice in some way . But i think the framing of both positions wrong with respect to the actual case of the RAF specifically. Perhaps Ima Ayton's generalised framing of the case of the RAF has the praxis the wrong way round. That is maybe the public discourse around general race equity is the praxis for the specific aim of equity in the armed forces. I'm sure it is true that the armed forces in general are not race equal sets. There is no formal legal obstacle here to entry as there was say to the entry of black soldiers into the US army before the civil rights movement gained a massive increase in southern black rights holders and so formally and institutionally, apprehendible by the conscriptions and recurrent mechanism that used voting rights registers to reference in preparation in the early '60s for the projection's of the the number of soldiers the coming Vietnam War would require. i mean Russell's acquaintance could be used by the Navy press gangs even up to the 18th and 19th centuries but it is limited in numbers quality control and attitude requirements. So maybe the continuity we ae looking for here is not best thought of as equity and the progress of employment rights in general employment but the specific continuity of creation of apparatus that will deliver people into uniforms form traditional minority and poor groups. Clearly I don't know who's side i am on here! I mean, also an expansive war in liberal economic Europe with its thin base of self interest and right holding members, might find it difficult to recruit vast numbers of troupes even with subscription. It would create a legitimacy and political crisis from Hell. Self interest and right would underdetermine any call up, as homo-econimious they would leave for other countries jut like for better jobs. the traditional solution has been to exploit foreign zones of poverty to generate motivation and rational choice for mercenaries. That was the real engine that in 17th century turned a local networked defenestration problem in Europe into the self sustaining devastation of its political, social, economic structures and populations. Not something i think modern liberal European populations could tolerate but also the difference now is, there is a perhaps a cohort of potential poor mercenaries, not yet trained by generations of liberal anti war attitudes.
    1