Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "Trump: Saviour of the USA? Southport: Media are COLLUDING with Labour in a Massive Cover Up" video.

2:49: The guilty plea was probably convenient for many attendants. Was there a deal? Is that a thing here. So if indeed this was the case, what was the offender offered, and what did the the other people get out of it? It certainly was nothing to do with the victims, i shouldn't wander. So what was the "quid pro quo" (sp ?) May be, it wasn't about a deal of two gains but a deal of preventing two losses. A non negative sum game? I doubt any enquiry will go into this. There are people who are beyond traditional moral ethical critique, and who wield great political influence, and enjoy both authority and independence but at the same time sit in wide networks of public and private relations. These events tend to give them an excuse for more power authority more money more personal and further insulate them from critique. They can be as if private actors with public instruments. Here the deep problem is instituional apparatus and architecture, rather than limiting and constraining private wills, can quicken those private wills, and provides not a diffusion of light but its laser focus. And to this re-engineering of private will you can include both political group interest and the acceleration of actors vice. 25 years ago I worked on an phenomenological interpretation of Kant that i called "reverse engineering" (though my mate claims he thought of that term for what i was trying to do. From this I realised that Kant's discovery of the "transcendental conditions for the possibility of self conscious reflective experience of objects" could be used for a positive re-engineering program, that would afford the application of these concepts to subjects to disassemble their self. From the outside it would mimic psychosis so the objective result of psychologically dis-assembling a subject would be an excuse for more therapy more money and more personal. I tested my theory out many times in the 2000's and it seemed to me correct, though i told no one. If you think people can talk freely about this now, you are just wrong. The picture they used of his face is very disturbing to me. 50 years ago people would have said his hair cut was the problem. We've progressed? The problem is not the hairdresser.
1
If anyone on the Right thinks what is the economic consequence and advantage i suggest you need to go back and re-read Hayek. If there's a question about the nature and existence of a God then there is a question about the possibility of a distinction between angels and demons. Plotinus i think, you know "emanations".
1
The only Greek/Roman/Hellenistic thought that survived complete from the Classical world were the works of Plato and Plotinus. Now the post World War Two liberal Critique of totalitarianism against fascism and communism, tended to focus on Plato, but who not the massively influential Plotinus too? I guess they may have been unaware of the importance of middle terms in the political psychological syllogism, or that they had to insulate their own architecture from the totalitarian critique. This as a geopolitical internal necessity during the early years of the Cold War. What they did though was create a myth of a sanctified organ of the State. This was helped by the over emphasis on the Militarism and racism of N**I Germany. The Military and S S and so on were only one part of the organs of the State. The Horrors of the Holocaust and its instituional apparatus was mythically constructed so as to make many of its central institutions, attendants and actors forgotten. You need to look into post war Argentina i think for a street example. That's what a psychologist told me. I had discovered something going on i had no word for and told them about it. From searching the internet using my descriptions i after a long long time i eventually found the same descriptions on an obscure social media web site. They called it "Gaslighting" because of an old movie. This was many years ago, long before the word entered common usage. Are we as children who still need to believe in Santa Clause.
1
Rafe's points up to 12 mins. Needs much discussion but i cant go there. There's a question whether expressing descriptions without a concept could prejudice a possible trial especially if the concept they use is engineered specifically to capture not so much the case but the descriptions and so void the trial a priori. Anyway there wont be any such trial because it would have to operate in a significantly voided of "expert evidence" context. Like an instituional version of a Right to silence, but except in this possible case the agents are not just individual patent, rights holders as possessions, but the the agents in the institutions who form part of the architecture and the delivery of rights. They effectively own the rights in practice. Maybe they call it being a custodian or like its "Trust". The famous infinite regress then of who judges the judges. Harrison Pitt talked last week about a Nuremberg Trial model, but there was a problem with that that was covered over, though its on Wikipedia now. The problem I am talking about is similar but in terms of the institutions. If that cant be solved then neither can the agents be gotten. Some can think and act at much higher level than most people could even imagine or understand. But most its just blind second nature vice, they are the foot soldiers to use a concept. All you will find with them is bias and other vices, a job for an expert psychologist then to sublate and transfer it to elsewhere? no chance any left institutional Critique will be used by the left or the right here. it would begin and end with the person, and be done by a fellow "professional". in some weird version of the meaning of "professional". Create a 2 year YouTube vid of a loop of the statements: "Do you intend to harem yourself or anybody else? and "Do you have ideations of harming yourself or others?" Then see what happens to you. Hay luckily i have no existent or intended political or any other instituional career to destroy.
1
Rafge at 14:44, read G.E Moore "Principia Ethica" or something like that. Its on the "naturalistic fallacy" and the intuition of the Good. Then read Pritchard On prima facie duties and intuitionism. Then realise they have both presupposed the structure or architecture in its Critique. There are presuppositions that some is doing their job as pubic duty without malice. We can only understand institutional failure or error, never the use of such office for private vice and group aims. Its akin holding to a view of evil as negative or a lack or as matter not form. We cannot accept a positive or ontological account of evil in itself. Its not in itself self though it is/uses institutional roles as opposed to being degraded to matter. why do i know this? Well I'll tell you a story: I went to a party and club once with some friends, and i was introduced, as a teacher, to a Banker who went on to detail all the alarm systems and employer procedures for attempted robberies. the real stories though i cannot say.
1
Rafe 15:32: Another story. During covid my mate, who was devoid of much knowledge or interest in film or music, announced to me how great the early 1970's TV detective Columbo was, you know "dissolving suter". He also kindly advised me to listen to this old band from the 1960's. "Have a listen to this old band. They are called "The Doors"." I said "I'll be sure to check them out mate".
1
On your SKY clip 16 mins; the problem might not be what they are not doing with their apparatus (eg lack) but what they are doing with that apparatus. The distinction is very difficult to express. This is not due to mere creative complexity for purposes of anonymity, though probably that too. It is the logic and semantics for here the foundational emanations are off, but we live in this "off". That's where "On Certainty" might come in. Of course in the predictable political game here, with its e srrored logic, I must be on the side of the criminal, or at least not with the angles. There is an obvious version of Kantian transcendent logic to totality. As each player tries to out do their competitors in absolute support for victims and absolute punishment for the criminal. For Kant this "seeking" an unconditioned object and imperative is both an aspect of the process of normal human reasoning but also an error in thinking there must be a stopping point an absolute unconditioned object of "the good" and even "the evil". This though is due to an error of excess not deficiency. The logic in paragraph one above is related to this error too. But its difficult. The very logical architecture cannot deal with a slanted or tilted form. As that is not a form at all, but an office presented as a universal or general form but acting particularly as opposed to a particular office acting particularly or universally. Our critiques and criticisms only cover the last two types. Example: "Is it a crime or error. Is it an internal or external matter, for a person in an office with duties to try and persuade an employee to put in a false claim for expenses. Something like "We have new payment scheme the hourly rate is cut but you can claim many miles of traveling expenses petrol car wear, even though you only walk 10 mins to the job. This is not at all a lone case or alone institution, doing this sort of thing else i wouldn't bother to mention it. I think when put with other things the clever aim was to get me to sine up to all the Human Rights stuff, the more visceral dividend was the pleasure of shaming i think.
1
24:50 mins good question Peter Whittle. "What do ordinary people think about this?" As opposed to whom? Politicians, expert criminologists, psychologists and so on. I guess some will avail themselves of positions from the media and their experts, some will see it straight away in terms of political and or self group interests. Some in office will use it for political purposes of course that's their job: to use stuff for pre established aims. an extreme version would be to create or facilitate, the event not wait for it to happen at random. One give away is if you can fairly well predict what the descriptions and diagnosises are, and who will say what, then you have your answer. Some of course will be obliged to follow a party line on this. they wont be told to formally and most wont see that's what they are doing rather they will be led to it with images and talk. So the bulk strength of assent will feel voluntary. Really it about which dots to join and that is about what other dots you know about. For most of the above it is the laying out of connecting dots that forms in the mind of the viewer the appearance of reason and judgement and immediacy. its a trick of manufacturing the feeling of assent. Extreme criminals of course see this as good and evil as now as difference, not ontology. It makes them not look so bad, and even as Luciferin heroes if they hurt or kill him in prison. (St Augustine). Perhaps that's the parallel. But of course i don't really know what people think but the repetition of the same logic and inference and actions in discussion of many diverse vents lead me to be suspicious of the dots they wish to show, and the way they connect them. though for most people with a life it has to be a passive processes and simple choice. there are few active dot connectors, and even less people who reveal which are relevant dots. But they few do this for purposes too just at a high level and it takes a long time and lot of TV News, documentaries and movies and so on, not to mention academic constructions.
1
On the last segment i guess Europeans are still singing macaroni. Though with full orchestra or a Rock band. Its well worth looking at Ronald Regan's history at GEC and so on. His interviews and discussions from the 1970's. Regan's definition "A hippy is someone who talks like Tarzan, walks like Jane and smells like Chaeta". It's not a definition of a hippy in itself though.
1
One last thing: i have talked about how most people have to just adopt the vison and description of events from other peoples talk. This has been a long left Critique of conservativism and the right on first person authority justification and so legitimacy. Though the lefts "correction" of this error is to initiate a severe indoctrination program that attacks media and film and music for covert intentional or subconscious "ideology". It does this under he guise of education and heath care. The modern left is just directed at social media critique and their own social media indoctrinating. They think we can only think in terms of habit structured by repetition force and tone and colour, though words and images. So they just overload data and images to cause compliance. They act as if words have special magical powers and images contain the souls of the people photographed. This is not just a media and ideology critique, it is a critique of epistemology and first person authority. It is effective recently because of the epistemic turn of liberalism, it mis really their response to individual authority and legitimacy. What they offer instead is the sciences: economics social and psychological sciences. But hat means the link between left (and right) politics and the sciences is very strong and not accidental Socialism is science. It would be no accident then and maybe necessarily the case hat many sciences are expressions of parts of socialism already in action. Nominal democratic elected political power is useful but not essential here. the key thing to keep in mind is modern science is not determined by truth or fact, but by the anticipated (inferential) comparison of alternative projects with Rights as schema and content as utility measure. Implicit in this science is the left materialism that humans are causal objects. The scientists must be like that too. is there then an internal connection made by the left between their ideology and the ontology and metaphysics. ie might it be that the consistency there is presented as a necessary condition of possibility. And so for them a scientist who is not a socialist is a contradiction in terms. So they will see any non socialist scientist and not a real scientist. As a necessary risk in being able to do their duty. They are very good at sliding from science fact to socialism that makes it seem as and necessary unless we know they acting on us in a mere causal fashion. Now Florence Nightingale was a nurse in the Crimean War, kind of created nursing along with a black woman i recall too. Whereas the Cristobel Pankhurst and her friends and organisation set about using manufacturing technologies and shaming techniques to coerce men to the trenches of the first world war. I was told to my shock by a feminist who knew a lot about this, that they understood better than the men how modern warfare with new technologies were going to both transform warfare beyond all recognition and would involve death of men on an unprecedented scale of millions. She went on to tell me that they saw this in entirely terms of the use for their political purposes. They had full knowledge of consequences and the skills of industrial production to create a factory system of shame and death. They knew they would get the vote out of this because the actions were directed specifically at the arguments against them getting the vote. Now they have become the nurses if you will in both performance (post 1990 Feminism) and in reality. Now is medical profession then more like Florence Nightingale or Cristobel Pankhurst. Who would you want at your bed side if in pain?
1
In the discussion then of people having to adopt some ready made or hastily constructed public institutional vocabulary in their discussion of events, i think the reverse might also be true. That people in instituional public office, do not leave there private affairs behind but rather use the office as best they can to condense a cloud of their private vices biases and conceit into to an instrument described as useful. This means a kind of link between their office and private vices, that is shaped as a second nature though the socialist project that public political action is about feelings and groups and friends and enemy and tactics depending on where you are. You already a have a critique of one part of this kind of utilisation of medical science. that disguises a political ideology project as science feelings and care structured by rights schema and utility content. We have system created by men now operated by women, wherein vice and excess are the first person content of the job. To paraphrase Heraclitus: might there be evil here too?
1
Some has been removed but I'll continue as it still might make some sense with the middle chunk missing. I'm too tired now to rewrite it all. Here is one way to express how the problem of control works. We begin with reason as given though science. Or really the sciences or the manifold ways of thinking and acting through the different sciences, their technologies and their instruments and institutions. Now if we begin with the idea of a totality here we say things like "Everything happens for a reason" Leibnitz or we can say everything happens can be connected or is associated by mental habit but there is no over all unity or single cause" That's sort of Hume. But now that would mean in second half of the 20th century that science as technological pragmatic instrument offer possible choices of action supported by architecture and targets set out wrt to possible utility outcomes. If you put the early modern views of Leibnitz and Hume, with the post world war two pragmatic view of science we have now then what we have is a manifesto and architecture and reason for the complete control via risk analysis of the world and all life. For if every error or ill-legal act is seen as having a reason or at least is in some preventable associative order. Now the various attempts to unify the sciences over the last 300 400 years have failed. But now in the pragmatic turn they talk about the unity of different disciplines at the level of action or techne not theory. Each is under determined by probability, and necessity and possibility are open in each domain and so in each policy and institution. In this model the problem 9say of truth) is not solved at the level of the synthesis or simultaneous application of technology in the public sphere, rather its ignored and replaced with multiple simultaneous streams of changing probabilities. there is no real way to confirm or refute this. All there is is the probabilities of competing different technological architectures, and any choice of one technique annihilates the counterfactual so there is no real comparison we can avail our selves of in political science and the sciences of man. It is thus a reason for totalitarian control without the possibility of refutation and comparison.
1
Oddly it contains and implicit sort of natural law: who could agree with a principle to make the world less safe? Would that not be contrary to human nature as self interested. And so makes statements like "We need to remove all risk from the world" into kind of performative necessities. Ancient and medieval natural law meets enlightenment totality and early 21st century technologies to do it. What could possibly go wrong. Well the people who live in and operate the these sciences and technologies always seem to make an exception of themselves from their ubiquitous observations of men. Are they not human then? We heart studies of people data of people but it always leaves out the agents of this as agents. They never can study themselves or see themselves as part of the risk, they see themselves as above it in some abstract way, out side of the risk domain. This two teer cosmology, has had millions of excuses both sophisticated in logic and law and economics and just mythical like women can be trusted as carers and Lords can and MP's members of the church and scientists and human rights actors and so on. Next will be AI of course. But now we have really lost this view of trust and are now told things would be worse without them the tyrant 's last recourse. anyway so long as they can find film coverage of war torn countries we accept our lot we keep quiet. or maybe try and become the anonymous exceptions ourselves. This is our problem, this combination of ancient divides, who's logic has been rejected is now returned through modern logic and probability. Its about how authorities always back up other authorities against the people under those authorities. Also the upper tear can use geography and time and network connectivity or lack of to place their own private world outside of the effects of these crimes or the instruments they use to control us all. the great middle class fear is they fall into the lower tear and become both possible victims and possible subjects of anti crime prevent schemes. Indeed most of the last 15 years since the financial crisis is really the emanations of different parts of the middleclass attempting to prevent themselves falling into the tear of the rest of us. and to an extent to prevent us from getting into there tear. that's the real causes of everything we see, that is accompanied by middle class manifold reasons. Do you get it.
1
Test
1