Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "ITV Meltdown over Schofield + Government's Net Migration Scam + Illegal Migrants Breaking Bail" video.

  1. Part 1: Confession. I don't think I've ever watched that ITV morning show except perhaps a snippet. They can go through my cable TV records to see if I'm lying, or better if i am applying for a job on the BBC or ITV in the interview they can put me on a lie detector machine and ask me then. With AI they will probably be able to interface the two soon. I looked into the Scofield thing yesterday on YouTube GB News. I knew little about the "case" but the piece was pretty bad. What shocked me though was the huge amount of comments that basically associated it with Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter. People seemed to react as if they were the same or in the same category. I think there is at least three things going on: one is a complete lack of judgement in the face of the event, with a weak "passive" reflex against the attractive force of inappropriate similarities; and second and related is the "active" use of this to attack the "Woke" by pretending it is the same in a kind of Schadenfreude, that a Woke can be captured by their own principles; and third that one Media channel can profit by the passive and lame application of the principle of the application of their rivals principles to themselves; a pure pragmatic tactic for self interested ends disguised as ethics. The woke lot are as bad but their lack of judgment is slightly different in nature: they I think are more immediate and directly about the public dimension they think they have to be seen to be applying the brutal rules of social justice tot heir own. That is an identity schema over all events, to give the woke identity politics the appearance of justice and legitimacy, not self interest by applying it blindly to their own, and maybe this can can be used institutionally to get his audience and personally to by people internally just to get his job. The right have lamely substituted judgement for association, the left have subsumed judgement for blind casuistry of rules. Both can also have passive and active aspects in this. On lying, or the right to lie. If you deny this, and make absolute truth a principle, then if people have the right to ask a question without any limit to personal enquiry, then the idea of a subjective private realm will collapse. Everything has to be public regardless of meaning understanding and translation. The idea of a private imaginative free subjective sphere collapses into an area where everything is deemed of public interest and comprehension and understanding. A "contingently" private language I know that p has to have the same semantics as a public language "I say that p". See McDowell on Sellars in Sellars Thomism". That's about the 13 th century Catholic philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas, that centuries later in part laid the foundation for the Spanish Inquisition (which in part led to the Reformation and the Thirty Years War that pretty much destroyed Europe in the 17 th Century). A kind of Medieval Woke followed by individual terror and anarchy, where all were turned against all, one example of which are the Which Hunts. We don't need to go back that far though: just think of Stalin's purges, and in "1984" what happens to the possibility of love, and the McCarthy anti communist proceedings in the 1950's.
    1
  2. Part 2: Freedom love trust and privacy are necessarily together. If one goes they all go. Coming form the side of the right as well as the left it plays out as a tool of fear and indignity where everyone has the right and tactical tools to look in everyone's draws and make it public. I have a personal story of this: So like 15 or so years ago, long before all the child abuse stuff came out, I'm down the pub or round someone house, with a bunch of friends, and as the conversation appeared to "flow" it seemed to me we were just talking about our previous lives and loves. I said roughly "oh my first real girl friend saved my life.. like we were walking along a main road and having and argument about something and I walked into the road, and my girl friend pulled me out just in time as a car went past at like 50 miles an hour". The response from one was "oh how old were you?" I said "about 17" they said "and how old was the girl!" It seemed an odd response at the time, and then on reflection...Creepy. Think about this: You get a job and meet a girl/guy it turns out you work for the same interrelated companies and they have one of those "no inter company relations" things going on. this is already too much of a public intrusion in, and control of, peoples private lives. but they get the both of you in separate rooms and start asking questions. Its their right and duty because of the philosophy of their companies and their wide diversified and disseminated inter relations with all other companies world wide: "They are protecting employee sustainable maximum efficiency and the protection of their human resources from the possibility of work place sexual harassment and being sued for health and safety at work reasons. . What does love demand of both of you here? Are soldiers in a job that just happens to have extreme health and safety risk probabilities. Like as if the risk in a office is similar to the risk in a war zone except that you would have to work there for a hundred thousand years to have the same risk probability as one day in a war zone.
    1