Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "Muslim Rape Gangs: The Real Hate Crime Against White Girls: What Do We Do Now?" video.

  1. There has been a lot of coverage of this issue in this last week, along with the usual preferred subjects of coverage of some media. It is clearly a complex issue in many ways but not so complex as to be easily "disappear-abe" by those wishing to avoid a "difficult conversation". Thus discerning the central issue here is difficult, and probably a judgement, but a judgement not free from the political since action and who acts and why will be unavoidably a political contest of authority legitimacy representation ideology and interest. Even if truth could be thought about a-politically , action emanating from institutions cannot. And so what follows below as "Part A" is my first framing attempt for this. Even this framing is now in its third or fourth version. I have tried to follow the coverage on this so far, to from the frame but this first Part A is written before watching the program here. I hope that is acceptable.
    1
  2. PartA1: On this subject, I made a comment on YouTube, this last week, that constructed together Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze with Mira Hindley and Ian Brady through and Brady’s book “The Gates of Janus”. This construction contains at least three relevant issues: Firstly should such a book have ever been published and who gets the royalties. That involves many moral ethical and market and regulatory issues about freedom of speech, responsibility, and victim hood not least profiting from crime if not financially then fame or the enjoyment of notoriety. Secondly, there is an objective link that could be found from links in Wikipedia. Though it is harder to find the links now than a few years ago. So to be explicit: Wikipedia: “French petitions against age of consent laws". Thirdly is a subjective link, that cannot be found anywhere on the internet I imagine, but while I have the freedom of speech to show this here I do not have the right or authority or permission to disclose it. That link then was private and has only one recognisable address, if indeed they would see this. I cannot say more. They can't force this out of me yet, can they?
    1
  3. Part A2: The first issue involves a wide area of debate about publishing rights responsibility and permission, but now we have the internet and social media, this publication issue is bound up with the issues here of “grooming/rape gangs”. Who has the right to speak on a subject? We take it as a given now that victims have that right, and that the accused have that right but do the people accused or guilty have that right too. Do they have a story we need to here? I guess most people would not want to listen, they would think it is from an untrustworthy source, an interested source, and maybe obscene. Obscene in a way not expressible in terms of publication rights and freedom of speech and profiting from crime financially and in terms of status. People might say the publication is a continuation of crime against the victims that uses the publication laws as a tool for self aggrandisement and against the authorities. In this way we can see that cynical people can use the law not as a limit to action but as an additional affordance that was not previous possible prior to the law. We seem to have becomes not so much as relaxed about this expansive “limit” use of rights, but that such use is a new norm. This problem features in the foreground of Kant’s work and Wittgenstein’s too.(Kant Groundwork of metaphysic of morals” (acting in accord with the alw and acting out of reverence for the law) Wittgenstein “Philosophical Investigations” (acting out of a rule and in accord with a rule) but even here the issue is only in terms of following a limit out of respect verse following it out of self interest. It does not capture that such rules can be used cynically not just as playing to the rule as limit, but to expand self-interest by the tactical use of the rule. It is cynical because, it takes the rights that are “meant” in good faith, to limit damage and harm to people, and abstracts them out from this intention and cynical people can use them as formulae for expansive action even again the people the right were meant to protect. Behind all the legal complexity it is a case of using another good will against them (See Robert Pippin on "Portrait of a lady"(I think on YouTube). Indeed such has been the inflation in treating laws as formulae for pragmatic affordances, all we have left now is the tactical and strategic use of laws. Laws then that becomes a kind of husk of their former meaning. This is not just true of subjects of and represented under the law, but also its instituional practitioners or represents. Indeed we see this as common now even a virtue of cunning and clever, on behalf of both the left and the liberal right. The law then can actual expand the sphere of malfeasance as opposed to limiting it. Private businesses enterprise might ask what will this new law help us to do that was not previously possible, and the left in institutions ask what will these laws allow us to do politically within our institutions, that was not previously possible? It may not be a simple coincidence that the fart left can sometimes view all prisoners of a politically opposed government as an enemy’s enemy, and so a friend. E.g. the Storming of the Basteil. This I think connects to the second issue of the political allies and assemblages of the left in particular. For the Maxim of seeking to increase numbers to expand a solidarity, can make them share some strange bedfellows. The example is: (......) The third point I cannot say more about.
    1
  4. Part A3:The revelations of the grooming /rape gangs issue in the north of England: are immediately the wrong doing of the offenders, and it seems the wrong doing of those running the institution designed to protect them, and support victims and survivors. Indeed, there are arguments from the right that two are “connected”. That is that their institutional failure or neglect or even deliberate intention to ignore and silence victims, and the miss use of the laws and institutional privilege for political affordances to avoid he unhelpful realities behind the simple logic of the act of aggregating solidarities of tactical and strategic inter-sectionalities. I mean perhaps we now understand the lefts discussion about necessary sacrifice, but not realise that there are those that are sacrificed and those performing the sacrificial ritual. This is not new to intersectioanlity indeed the phrase evolved out of black women politically separating them self from the pure all black people are victims model, by raising the issue of black male violence on black women. It was a famous court case in the US around 1992, I think that bell hooks drew on in this regard. So this grooming gang /rape gang issue nor only reveals what is possible in institutions to contract the system to make the unhelpful representatively invisible or subliminal. But that knowledge of this in the hands of the guilty may well have afforded them an expansive use of the law or the institutional use and its practice of the law. That is it is not a case of lust alone, misogyny alone or “medieval attitudes and religion” rather it is the tactical realisation that the human rights laws as applied by institutional actors expand the power of action without responsibility of subject so orientated. With respect to crime the law is not simply a limit but also an affordance. In this sense this is not mealy an issue of psychological or culturally ideological eg medieval attitudes and world views, rather it is a modern phenomenon, although this obviously went on before the enlightenment its just that the enlightenment has not just limited it but further expanded its possibilities politically and subjectively. This was well, know in 1970’s Sociology as analysed though symbolic internationalism methodology. I guess they’ve forgotten this or have seen it as now an affordance for the left solidarities.
    1
  5. Part A4: On the one hand we can say that it seems the feminist left have given a lexigraphical priority to maintaining racial solidarities over protecting girls. Or protecting white girls or protecting working class white girls they used to call “Chavs” I think, or the right called them chavs as a disparaging term. Indeed the use of this term has generating more complaints from the left than it seems the lefts institutional treatment of girls in this group. We can imagine a Orwellian addition or qualification to the Maxim “Believe all women and girls or believe survivors” eg the covert unwritten schema of application and use in institutions is an “…except… “ operator. It seems that the left are now still arguing for a kind of silence on the bias the consequences of risk a sacrificial silence. But is it just such a sacrifice by virtue of them being girls white girls or poor white chavs. Have the left sacrificed girls, white girls, or poor white girls. Are those performing the sacrifices here women, white women, or poor white women. Because it is not only the left that place tactical affordance and solidarity and friend enemy at the centre of political argument. Indeed who we say the victums are as well as the perpritators will decide on who represents them going forward. So if we say they are girls and so to be represented and spoken for by feminist, we might add on further limiting determinants like: white and poor. Indeed, it maybe that one group of feminists will want to just say “girls”, while others will want to say “white girls” and other “poor white girls” I guess non will say just “poor subjects of institutions of rights. ”. Now to be grown up about this various flavours of feminists will just see this and use it as an event for tactical affordance. They can say under the qualification “left feminist” is the problem, and contrast themselves as non-left, or pro-right or conservative feminists. It would be useful to know the gender ethnicity class, and if possible the political affiliations of those in the institutions that it seems performed the sacrifices. One thing must be the case though, that it I think it is mostly women that have the apparent authority and institutional duty to care for women girls. Indeed following the MeToo movement we have been very relaxed about accepting as s a given that women and feminist women are the legitimate primary care givers in public institutions and women’s groups. Feminists in general will, want to try and set determinates on identity, then to separate themselves from guilt and identity. Eg “Not all feminists”.
    1
  6. Part A5: We might well accept that this is a problem that the solution going forward must be women catered and so feminist centred. Maybe the qualification liberal feminist, with an emphasis on the negative freedom of speech, liberal rights and the integrity of the rule of law. It seems unlikely that this will shift the Overton window on the feminist claim to have the authority and legitimacy to be the first carer responders of women and girls. In this sense any facts to come out from another enquiry will only ever support the already existing arrangement and norm and bias that women and feminists and care are united here as like a trinity. Thus unfortunately this event will only further the political aims of feminists in asserting more public control over peoples lives, even though they themselves might well be guilty of using this norm of care as tool for political sacrifice. I mean the liberal middle class feminist 100 years ago had no problem helping to sacrifice millions of white men, especially since they themselves were outside the determinant of “sacrificed”. I spoke to a “proper” feminist about this and I was surprised that they just accepted the above reading of women's history and also said: if you can't do ends justify means then ought to stay out of politics and go back to your books.
    1
  7. Part A5: On the BBC Laura k show this morning they have been discussing the expansive use of AI in education and health. they talk about efficiency and cost benifit. But ideologically and from the above context here, what might be implied is that if we cant trust people in institutions to follow the spirit of the law and not utilise their station for private reasons, ie not be corrupt, then maybe AI machine "reasoning" is the answer: I guess the logic is if humans cannot be trusted then maybe machine can. much work on the use of AI in the application and judgement in law was done from 1990's. Of course this is a non sequitur tactic implication, I'm not sure if AI would agree with me about its self and humans. So they talk about precise rules and "trust" in technology. But machine's don't judge and have no responsibility and so we just cant talk about "trust" here: its an equivocation and false analogy. in a way misfeasors follow the letter of the law anyways and maybe AI would be better at utilising tactics and strategy through "limiting rules". Although the claim is Bayesian AI can correct for bias, just want that is is unclear. and might its elf be of affording use for political tech types who under stand and can construct the architecture to manipulate the soft ware and the determinants. AI in this is fools gold. it hides responsibility as opposed to getting rid of human biases.
    1
  8. Part B1: upto 6 mins. On the distinction between a local enquiry and national enquiry. i think that this is not jsut a parts whole difference, but that maybe its also a distinction between: local data that does not use racial identity determinants, and national data that does. if that is true then we can see a possible or potential tactical and strategic path to maintaining the lefts political solidarity of will, in preferencing and privileging a local over a national enquiry. We just then have male person and female person. In this it seems the left might have been better served if the local data also didn't use gender determinants. Especially in regard to the agents of the institutions. but of course they do data on patients and subjects and not those who manage them. This may have been at the heart of Russell's issue with Hegelian institutional logic as it manifested in Frege functional version. Its a representor/represented problem, on the one hand Hegel held the view that people can be bound by pubic duty in a station, while Marx though Derrida and Foucault and Deleuze could, see that a agent in a station can use the public duty for private and political interest. The stuff to read is Kant's "What is Enlightenment?" Foucault's essay on this and Butler's essay on both. Contrast with Rousseau who held such use for partial interests as counter legitimate. in many ways this is the difference between the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution as praxis.
    1
  9. Part B2: Harrison Pitt's suggestion of a Nuremberg trial model might be interesting especial if it emphasised the Doctors the professionals the PhD's and all the left leaning Philosophers who sat at the feet of Derrida and Foucault and Deleuze and who's work is inseparably intertwined and has genesis in their work. I cant count the number of references and discussions about Heidegger and the N**I's. No reference or ever a mention about the letter of May 1977. Read the John Searle/Derrida debate with new eyes: ltd Incorporated. Also Derrida's Signature, Event, Context (1972) with McDowell's "Singular thought and the Extent of Inner Space" (1986). (in Subject thought and Context" Ed Pittit and McDowell) i think may be the point is that Derrida there has deconstructed the author out of writing and for him speach to with reference to J. L. Austin. McDowell i think beginning from Russell's notion of reference is trying to make the detachment of an author and speaker from agency and consequence is a loss of responsibility. Agent authorship and responsibility are linked in a language game. There is view that Derrida has reversed the order of privilege in SEC. That is he really puts context or praxis as first. An evocation to Marx? Another model might be the Russell/Sartre Tribunal 1969. Not all French men?
    1
  10. Part B2 note: When i set about to discuss the Russell/Sartre Tribunal on the Vietnam War, at a conference, on "May 1968" in 2008 i found myself in agreement with Chomsky who gave evidence to the tribunal. That was very unhelpful to my philosophical project at the time, but maybe helpful now.
    1
  11. Part B3: Let's be serious here. i remember well the 1980's and 1990's. The right and the Conservatives did not exactly alley themselves with the plight of the working class in the North of England as they set about destroying the traditional economic infrastructure of those communities on the basis of international competition and subsides. Only Michael Heseltine seemed to see a problem with that. Yes the lazy work shy working class who need the threat of pain to force them to work hard. The working class drug takers and thieves fuelled by alcohol and football violence. And of course the teenage unplanned pregnancies, and the single parents with absent fathers. Into this vacuum of degradation came the left and the feminists. "Chav's"? who would have though it? if the left are in a legitimacy vacuum now, what will the right and conservatives say about the Chav's if they get in power. eg Recent speech by Nigel Farage. will it be the Stoicism and Mindfulness approach of hard work is good for you and necessary to have a direction in life. If not everybody is as clever as Elon Musk or as motivated to dedicate their life to work then what will you do to them?
    1
  12. Part B3: at 19 mins I am inclined to agree with Amy Gallagher's judgement that the evidence suggests a kind of torture and also its distribution through various means. That's part for the reason for my linking it to Hindley and Brady. Zizek describes this after Lacan as an excess. i think he means an excess to pure economic reason and rationality. Two points on that: first it assumes the architecture of economic pure materialism is a neutral or foundational base, and anything motivationally above is its excess. Thus any motivational difference from self conscious economic reason is kind of accidental or a mere add on. If though we don't hold to this abstracted material base as such a real description and standard then the extra material excess are not as such simply accidental, but are part of a whole context. This maybe the heart of the problem for the left they think the economic base and difference is privileged and can be best analysed in terms of race and gender difference as a rough schema to reduce everything to the base and praxis. its just a post modern schematic version of the old economic materialist reduction. and like that before it suffers from reality not be in conformity to the materialism or the left's intersectional schematic matrix's.
    1
  13. Part B4: Harrison Pitt at 26:00 mins on the dialectic between the rule of law and the maintenance of order, its well worth reading the "The Guardian" (11 01 25) cover story "Grooming Gang rhetoric risks inciting massacre-Streeting."(Exclusive: Pippa Crerar Political Editor). Indeed as i recall from memory that this was part of the Goring Defence at Nurenberg. That they faced the threat to the state and the rule of law from Revolutionary Socialism. This was part of Carl Schmitt's "reason" for the exception and the dictatorship. and also motivated his aim to conflate all European Colonialisms and by extension the N**I project of the necessity of an Empire. its odd that the left seem to have drifted into following Schmitt's analysis of Colonialism. No categorical distinctions, only degrees towards totalitarian genocide programs. The left drawing on Heidegger and Schmitt what could possibly go wrong?
    1
  14. On Peter Whittle's point at 30 mins. On the general public's view of this, i imagine those who have no recollection or knowledge of the 1979- Conservative Parties record on the working class in general and the north in particular, they might well think: the woke left social justice project has betrayed them at best or made them a particular racial enemy at worst. They might then make the error of think those opposed to the left on this are for the working class and the Red Wall and so on. Enemies enemy is my friend. I also know about the right of the conservative party in the 1970's that Thatcher essentially put out of the picture in the early 1980's. As i recall they were all about putting the working class into the army bringing back national service, flogging, and the death penalty. Obsessions with returns to Victorian morality, and the traditional vices of drink and drugs and sex. Some referred to Mick Jagger as the architype of this, until punk came along. The general public? Well the left will do damage limitation throw some under the bus if useful and talk about the global weather. They will carry on in their offices thinking they are the good and the just and people will still, obey them as if they are. On the right its probably seen as a wedge issue to be sued to get power, wherein they too will assume the fallacy of legitimacy of "not being of the left". and argue for tax cuts on the basis of maintaining economic order. and so strip away welfare and so on along with all the woke stuff. Baby and bathwater. I wander if the working class will, still go for the reverse Pygmalionism training of Right Instituional Representatives: "the water in Majorca don't taste quite what it oughta" My considered view it is will inaugurate a Feminist totalitarianism of care. You see from their point of view of political praxis this is all good regardless of feminist political orientation. They in their offices will enjoy the benefits of this. via its men in general as they gradually follow this sexual assault issue with a lot more anti men in general white men examples from anywhere and any time. in this though as a means of controlling and training the working class. The left and the right feminists will agree on this in a cross party solidarity and argue over details in Parliament of who and how to control them. We still think an office and station and a bit of pseudo middle class taste and grammar is a sign of virtue. For they all will say we are hear to protect women and girls, even if the distinctions between women they make will be unclear and the type of girls unclear. It will be used to control the working class, that's what the middle do with everything, for it is their nature.
    1
  15. Part B5: Now onto consequences cost benefit and number and policy possibility with this shift in the Overton Window. Program for the day: Morning session; Part 1 Panel conversation A. 9;00am: Get a survivor of the grooming/rape scandal to tell their story to the audience. B. 9;15am: Get a feminist psychologist to discuss it. C. 9;45am: Get a Social worker type to talk about institutional failure and the woke intersectional left. Part 2.10;15am Lecture on the evils of international post modern socialism in politics. and link to labour policy now. Part 3. Coffee a. 11:15am lecture on the economic consequences of the scandal. link this to Social media drink drugs mobile phones and laziness and medieval religion on enlightenment stilts. b. 12:15 So claim we need a war on drink drugs and laziness, and the removal of the human rights stilts that afforded this scandal. Part 4 1:30pm Lunch a. 2:30 pm Panel Discussion: Absolute intolerance for drugs drink and lazyness along with tax cuts to get rid of the woke social workers and benefits. b. 3:30pm. Minimum State taxation theory and removal of regulations for furthering growth. Part 5: Coffee a. 4:30 pm: How feminist women can help to criminalise or medicalise drugs drink and laziness and prevent girls from risk by institutionalising the social world and civic society. b. 5:00pm Show that this feminist institutional totalism will protect women and girls and will be an over all economic benefit for the tax cost. Part 5:30 Show how the above anti drink and drugs and laziness and hermetical sealing off of girls within feminist care institutions is consistent with traditional beliefs of all Abrahamic Religions and so will generate votes. Part 6 6:00pm: Hint that social media will be regulated only after we get into power. This because it can utilise votes via social media, but after that its just taking up peopels time when they could be economically active working hard and spending hard. Part 7 7:00 pm. Conclusions and sign ups to draft manifesto. Just so you know this is irony.
    1
  16. Part C1: Ok so the previous comment is still up. Good. I'm only up to 37 mins so far, and there is more to be said of course. Firstly the critique of Derrida and deconstruction, i gestured towards, needs work. I worked on this many years ago and need to re read the stuff to try and make a convincing argument. There is no doubt he was a great philosopher, and his work demands much work to discredit it. Ad hominin is not enough, even though many of his followers just saw tactics political possibilities here without pausing to Critique it. Except if a fringe and minor Critique afforded them further political possibilities for projects they are already interested in or committed to. So that said my Critique needs more than a gesture, if i am even capable of it. A famous British University got caught up in a controversy over whether to grant or award him honours of some kind. I cant remember. Look it up. "I can't pick up every stich". Now, I've jsut finished watching the rest of the Laura k show this Monday afternoon. I've got to say certain ,usually highly clevered and imperceptible political discourse techniques, seemed explicitly in view. No! "Explicit" is not right. I mean the opposite of clandestine. I mean its like a lesson where the tactics might be performed overtly in order to teach the next generation the same repetitious tactics. What was in view was as if the sentences are clearly the product of just joining together of separate phrases. I watched a Bob Dylan documentary from BBC last night after posting the above and it seems to me that the politicians use a kind of "cut up" technique. They have stock of abstract phrases "in their minds" and just bolt together some of them to give the semblance of an answer to the question. It gives me the feeling they don't really know much behind the phrases, and the phrases are just separable and interchangeable phrases, that can be joined grammatically in many ways. the problem is then not jsut whether policy change is possible but whether there is a phrase for it that is in the politicians stock repitware (sp?). They cant say things that are not policy possible but also cant say things they don't already have in their a priori lexicon, or is it "they don't already have a priori in their lexicon. My Latin is not good. i do "bolt on" "cut ups" and joins in my use of Latin. Some of Donald Davidson's work in logic and language treats language like this. There's a PhD: "Donald Davidson and Dylan, Bowie "cuts ups".". So in the Laura k show the "cut up" technique was used in discussion of AI and "bots" "pretending" to be rational human speakers. Of course the AI bots do not pretend, but the people using them are deceiving others. the irony is the political technique of cut ups looks similar on the surface at least to how bots work. Then of course they move on to talk about risk to children and facts, and a threat to the basis of non politically agreed facts. It all tendentious of course towards shutting down social media. That they they resemble bots in this discourse is just , well, ironic. But the bots have made it easier to discern what users of these political discourse technique are "doing". if indeed such as use is not "a doing" at all, more like an AI machine. For the left, now in power then, they probably want to deny, opponents the same freedom of speech on social media they used in part to achieve that power. I mean "Why wouldn't they?" "Of course they will, say that". Lets talk about the weather, and AI and Latin instead and the economy. It seems to me the grooming gang/rape gang thing is in a very different category to other types of child abuse and sexual abuse of women. it seems beyond even Hindley and Brady in the drawing in of family members of victims into the horror. Hindley and Brady i think errored when they thought they had a potential co-conspirator they could draw into their "whatever". The thing I mentioned i had acquaintance with but did not detail was i think about 30 years ago in the mid 1990's. But i don't know all the details and don't have permission to say more, if indeed it was as bad as i think it might have been now.
    1
  17. Part C1 note: it seems to me that the tactic for controlling social media and AI going forward "cross party consensus" is to use copywrite law. i mean they have found it difficult to close it down, or suppress via public State law, using the excuse of the: threat to children and truth and t*rr*ism. so now in private law it seems they can find a way to prohibit the "unhelfull" use of ideas and language though suing i guess as a kind of private property theft. This tactic is been in a long time coming. In academia you are very well trained to avoid plagiarism but even then there is always the possibility of someone interpreting anything as plagiarism. Indeed if the left deny human creativity then all talk is "cut up" and guilty of plagiarism. So if they cant get you truth and fact they can get on just sentence composition. They seem to want to push this via the creative industry and AI. Call me cynical but i think the aim here is to close down "unhelpful" creativity as just assemblies of already copywrite work. this would inaugurate millions of private court cases at huge legal cost and catastrophic financial destruction if found guilty after a 2 year £1,000,000 trial. the left have no problem using private law and economics as a tool. They are the left "its the private persons economy stupid".
    1