Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "Election Special: Why Did Farage Rule Out Becoming Leader of Reform?" video.
-
1
-
I don't think the election announcement was "bizarre". Why?
1. It stuck with tradition rain or fine.
2. I personally took the negation of the umbrella as a jab at the so called Left Union Politicised NHS: LUPNHS then. its a poetic twist on the Mary Poppins bit of the 2012 Olympics introductory ceremony. Anyways there's an interesting and encouraging new reworking of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang on stage, now or soon.
3. On the so called "unfortunate" media look of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak at the "Titanic" ship yard, there were many ocean liners built at Harland and Wolf in Belfast. The RMS Titanic was the second of three the other two being the RMS Olympic and HMHS Britannic.
4. "Things can only get better" as the "Peopels Protest Unofficial Backing Singers" de facto announcement meaning a continuity with Blair? Well, its unclear whether the New Labour project intended to move politics back towards International Socialism via legal ordinances. For one thing, I don't believe they could have known about 911 in advance, and that changed everything, policy wise, according to Blunket. What is true about continuity though is the Social Justice project of Absolute International Rights particularly over Gender Race minorities Positive Rights and positive freedoms clearly began as an over all Political schema, then. While the Academic theoretical base for this pre dates even Blair, it was the effects of the Labour 2008 financial Crisis that allowed or afforded the middle class London lefties, to turn what was becoming interpreted as a "class issue" into an International Identity Issue. Eg even the left said initially that it was the Privatisation of profit to middleclass metropolitan London, and the Socialisation of loss to everybody else, with the Bank mediated mortgage bail outs and inflation rising Quantitative Easing measures. All that was not really an "emergency" because the Bank of International Settlements had already contracted Sovereign States as "zero risk", "infinite debt raising powers. It was a following of a rule of International Banking not an exception.
Consequently the only problem for the middleclass London left was to set about dividing the lower classes in each Sovereign State against each other. They did by taking the concepts of Risk and Emergency from use in describing the 2008 Crisis, then substituting Gender and Race as the Identities to be Protected. And of course the same middleclass claim to be the Lord and Lady Protectors in this. As things moved forward though it turned out that all was not good with these protected International groups, although by then the concepts and polices and language were fixed in the brains of the Elites and the schema and ideology of good and bad, protected and deplorable by Rights just carries on against all contrary evidence and intuition and common sense. Maybe that means the New Labour architects did intend this and just carried on their project in the face of contradictory reality anyway. All this is pretty much evidence transcendent as a conspiracy theory short of a smoking gun.
5. I think Rishi Sunak looked proper Staunch out there on his own in the rain, while the rest, having no faith in the British public's Common Sense Intuition, do a runner. I've got to say I'm not convinced the polls are a correct representation of the British peoples minds and intentions. In short do the Left really think ordinary people are unaware of the arrows of misfortune during the Conservative Parties time in Office. I mean its so obvious it seems patronising to point them all out. Going well back in time there was the inheritance of the near destruction of the Economy, then a series of International Crises beginning i think with Syria. The rest is a blank of unlived experience for me personally, until about the time of Brexit. After that then its was clear the Left represented anti Brexit and those middleclass had no problem using all the legal and labour Capabilities and Capacities of power at their disposal, to gradually reverse the democratic decision. There is a clear intention to continue this anti democratic project i think in the future for them. Then of course COVID MeToo and BLM. But both of these seem to me near bankrupt in terms of justification considering all the: contradictory to their Social Justice schema, events after. I mean even with the Lefts intuitively obvious control of main stream media reality just speaks No! Wrong! to them.
6. I Confess I'm sticking with the Conservatives even while trying to view and describe the events and processes impartially. I've got to admit to myself I'm no serious tactician anyway. I just think it maybe the Pollsters that loose the 2024 General Election. That would be great for me in terms of its theoretical/practical significance as a challenge to the Scientific Image Man as simple controllable and technically manageable. I means if the human sciences and their application are true then really all the norms and categories of our lives including democracy and consent fall away, to be replaced, sublated by the techniques of the scientific management of mass populations.
7. If the left can get rid of a Prime Minister during a de facto State of Medical Emergency with a piece of Cake, the imagine what is possible for them as a collective: in terms after the 2024 election, not just of Capacities of substantive material Union power, and instituional Middle class Capabilities. They have exercised great tactical multiple attack praxis to try and destroy the Conservative's ability to govern, both from below and above. If that's what they can do "legally" by their use of Rights while not in democratically elected power, i can't imagine what hey would be capable of if in full democratically legitimate power. There will be no easy opposition to them in terms of Capacity and Capability. they will have Totalised near ubiquitous Political power at virtually all levels. Some will see this as just evidence of tactical competence, while i see it as signifying a disregard for substantive legitimacy and so an existential risk.
1
-
Rafe's tactical point at 26:00 mins on P.R. that the left vote is split among several parties now but conservative and right vote is still mostly for Conservative Party seems well taken, but I'm no tactician. That left voters can enjoy a choice among several parties, while knowing in advance that they would form a coalition and make policy deals seems tactically clever for the left generally. As long that is that we stick to thinking of their people and population management plans in terms of numbers and a pick and mix of policy rules only. However if we think of this in terms of responsibility of both those party elite and the voters it presents a problem. That is most of the people involved in policy production, policy engineering , and policy pick and mix, will also enjoy the opportunity and the Right of course to disown disavowal any particular policy or aggregate of policy rules. There is a long tradition on the left for this. They enjoy and own the New Labour policies they like and would feel comfortable owning up to in polite company, while also enjoying saying "not in my name" when other policies, they don't feel like owning, manifest. The Iraq War for example. Whatever you think about it, those on the left enjoy claiming to be a part of that Social Justice Revolution, and owning all its rewards, but as for the polices they don't want to feel authorship of, they can get in their electric car, drive from their high mortgaged house, to the "not in my name" street protest, and then have some company mutual virtue therapy with their collages followed by a good nights sleep.
Maybe that's what the far left mean by "ending property rights and private property". But who knows what anything they say means.
1
-
1
-
1