Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "Farage: Banks are Checking YOUR Social Media + Gove's Housing Solution? + Khan's Campaign Backfires" video.

  1. Up to 20:00 mins. Part 1: This is really very good. To show what appears to be a single private policy of a banks towards a client, actually contains, in its space of policy meaning much much more. Its a kind of policy interpretation that can show, or reveal how a whole world is moving in process. This kind of practice making a "seeing" in the detail, into an understanding of the whole is actually a very old tradition of interpretation. An historical account that outlines the many different versions of this, and brings together many of these kinds of approach is outlined in Wikipedia "Microcosm-macrocosm Analogy". Indeed it has, I think, being expressed well, along with certain problematic consequences of it, by Bob Dylan in a famous song from the 60's. Showing the problems, perhaps in its modern variant versions, of absolute Utilitarianism, or absolute Justice. The issue is that in this kind of modern microcosm/macrocosm interpretation should not proceed though rules principle logics and forms and notions of organic growth and perfection, in a way that places the whole as privileged and the micro as sublated. This problem with m-m cosm can go under terms like the tyranny of the majority, the tyranny of absolute justice of course for most people in politics achieving this capacity and capability for tyranny is the point of democracy. Problems "manifest" not in words so much as certain institutions will be opposed to it, and so the microcosm macrocosmo dialectic becomes a conflict between institutions within and outside the state: internecine and "externecine". The pleasure in quickening ones judgment begins then by locating the space of policy (mind and even panpsychism) in relation to institution's and their affiliates users and dependents. Long before the 2008 financial Crisis, around 2003 Harvard Economics Lecture (called something like the coming collapse of the Western Middle Class) the metropolitan cosmopolitan middleclass were being told that their wealth mostly in the form of property owned by them in major world Cities, was on the point of collapse, due to being a massive bubble, that was unsustainable. They all got on the housing market boom of passive income or unearned wealth from expensive and rising house prices. For each player it seems rational no matter what the cost of a house is, or the massive high percent mortgage, or the losses if the future wages does not match up with the mortgage payments. It would not seems rational when looked at as a whole however since too many people will not get the job they want. I'm sure the endless day time TV programs on buying houses was a female in the family mediated motivation for some. So it doesn't appear rational and the problem then of "private debt" not public debt, was made central in 2007 Yale Lecture course by Robert Schiller who later got the Nobel Prize in Economics. So it seemed the middle class rich subprime morgage greed was going to undo them as excess and hubris in the face of the whole, is a brutal teacher. Indeed the risk possibility and the possible then of catastrophic losses was the argument for unearned income in general, the reward for risk in investments. Indeed they though they could distribute the risk by complex insurance systems, to deny the whole its revenge, but these didn't work. What they all knew was that together their particular losses would "manifest" as a banking crisis an apparent "symptomatic" not of the housing bubble collapse but of bad banking practices and poor regulation. A system of banking created in the 1980's and put on steroids by liberal Labour and Democrats in 1990's and 2000's. Indeed we were only privileged to the Bad Bankers exculpation following pseudo explanations of animal spirits gambling approaches and poor, not middle, class sub prime mortgages in the US. We were told of an anomaly a black swan event unpredictability in the application of science, chaos theory as science (?) and so on, and so the need for emergency measures for what they referenced as the banks because if they go we all go “too big too fail” emergency measures. All the time though of deregulation in international banking, they were diverting formally and legally, the possible, or even, necessary cost, the vice stick, to middleclass unearned income, into the audit that makes those losses the peoples debt. It’s called by the left, the “the privatisation of profit and the socialisation of losses”. They normally make the division as one between super rich and corporations verses everybody else, but here it’s the large City over exposed middleclass verses the poor. In this case international banking agreements (BASIL 2) meant that the bounded variable in a Banking audit or balance sheet of a Sovereign State meant zero risk, meaning the infinite capacity to pay in, due to legal authority a government has to bail out the banks no matter what the cost.
    1
  2. Part 2: The problem for the middle class was always the political cost of this as illegitimate. Would people believe its was poor mortgages in America or bad banking practices, or the problem of inequality w.r.t. billionaires only, and that the middleclass were on the side of the poor in this. Either way a large and after this expanding middle class already had the answer of diversion and digression: First was the actually unreachable super rich so its ok to moan because they can’t or won’t do anything against them. Then the reachable Bankers but they were acting within the law so we were asked to entertain the notion of “legal but immoral” clever stuff eh? This open up a debate on morals. This, from within a pluralistic multicultural society, this was always going to be an endless game, with no possible resolution and lots of headlines in chastising various claims. The middleclass next move was to look at inequality among the poor in the UK in terms of macro international global metrics. Now the poor are reached as doing quite well compared to the poor in Africa say. But this itself becomes and perhaps this was the intention from the start, a process of division triangulated in terms of race and gender. The middleclass now cease again the “moral high ground” just like when they turned to “Christian Morality and virtue” to attack he poor in Victorian Britain England after the Silver Crisis of late 19 th century. Now we fight on the new middle class chosen game of pseudo macro morality as social justice, which pitches the rich middleclass as the saviours of women girls in the UK as micro members of macro “Global protection of Women and Girls against global men” and European Minorities as macro members of “Global ethnic and race Sets in mass migration into Europe now seesn by the middleclass as anti Colonialism and restorative justice on the model of extension from Nuremberg Trials. Now this allowed the middle class to divide the working class along race and gender lines, to demonise traditional white working class males, and for the middleclass to associate themselves with these working class poor no not jsut as pictorial representing but as the “helping of all hard working people” line. Contrary to tactics of totality that seeks to close down debate and exclude diverse opinions this has deliberately open up to endless and structurally insoluble arguments and positions. The new Middle class, rather than creating an hegemonic monolith as in the past chose to “create an endless unwinnable Game” full of contradictions paradox and aporia for us to play on. The real problem the middleclass left face now is how to carry on supporting Labour’s attachment to social justice, when it is in conflict with their London Private Mortgage Capital housing investments. Normally the media would not foreground this and talk with Labour of “the need to protect home owners from high costs of morgages”. That is we are shown a poor single mom with two jobs Kids living in a small house with a big unpayable mortgage, and from this we are meant to not notice the extrapolation the macroisation of the micro case, such that we pay off or cut interest rates and mortgage rates for £1,000,000 houses. Now the Tories have a possible policy to end inheritance tax. The left of the last ten years of talk, have to be against this if they are forced to bring it up at all, but this of course would help them greatly in their real private interest role. So the question was for them how can the middleclass in London both go on about international super rich tax exiles, and injustice and race and gender, while making profit without risk of loss, and then support in London the Tories plan to cut inheritance tax, with betraying their true not expressed principles of self interest and their own class interests. Well the anti pollution policy by the Labour Mayer for Net Zero allows the London Middel Class to vote Tory because of the claim of “disproportionate impact on the poor of the policy effect will be”. But of course it is a double effect what they really want is the Tory inheritance bail out, while claiming Labour here have let the poor down. Remember policy around micro inheritance tax is related directly to and internally to macro policy on redistribution and restorative justice for Colonialism. The Middle Class publically want donate their house to the minorities for restorative justice, and privately keep that house for their kids. Moves of localism and policy splitting between location and the UK as a whole, can help square this circle. The question is how do the middle class mind and act together when it isn’t simply that overt social justice policy equals middle class self interest against hard working, working class people. Its used to be at all those Conference and Cocktail Party Networks, but probably on Social Media now and the old rule of move with the table. So on the one hand you are right to see this issue with the banks as a dangerous moving front with much wider semantics of mind implications, than just the particular case, but on the other hand it is still to be only fighting a battle over terrain they themselves as set up that they e middleclass dot go down with it any ways since for them it’s a smoke screen, a phantom of mirrors and glass pretending to be generate a camera obscura image. Challenge the ghostly image but remember it’s just an illusion and not a real player on the stage.
    1
  3. Part 3: 30:00 mins The “maaaate” thing is to steel what little linguistic devices the working class have left to draw on in, in any non-middleclass run grouping or organisation. Its just Cognitive Behavioural Linguistics. A former collage of mine was doing just this sort of thing years ago, in following the research of their supervisor who had basically invented the subject of this kind of discourse analysis from studies of Office discourse in late 1970’s at the beginning of what became Socio Linguistics in 1980’s and its applications to politics and law in 1990’s and 2000’s. Its complex stuff and this office paradigm was to be used in interpretation of children’s talk! More mundane was the approach of people on the far left influenced by this. They had rewritten and reinterpreted all the movies and TV heroes of our childhood in order to steel them. So one strangely was to move from “guys together doing a job” movies, to being called “buddy” movies, to “being called homo erotica” movies. I recall as a story about Star Trek had been written like this, and any guys as “mates together” were called closet Gays. Even homosexuals would use this which I though was weird. Back then I was a kind of problem because I was straight white working class/middle class guy anti Left but pro-gay, not the term I would have used then for this attitude, and they couldn’t force on me a choice to join the left. The aim is to destroy the vocabulary of non-middleclass non-office non-legal organised belonging, ie groups can only discourse through and under rules of mediated by office laws. They want to break up non middle class controlled group formations. I never thought I would offer up a move from the 1930’s Logical Positivists but you can always say as a response move you can use “What do you mean?” (A.J. Ayer “Language Truth and Logic”) Also used by Billy Bob Thornton in his interview by Jian Ghomeshi on Canadian TV "Q" (Cited by Honey Badger Radio on YouTube)
    1