How to March BACK Through the Institutions & Regain Control: Reversing Cultural Socialism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ต.ค. 2024
- The New Culture Forum's spring conference 2022 took place on St. George's Day. Many of our viewers & supporters have said that they are tired of always hearing what's wrong with Britain & The West without anyone actually proposing real solutions to our problems. Offering solutions is a key mission of the New Culture Forum, and many of our conference speakers provided exactly that.
Prof. Eric Kaufmann is Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, the author of "Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities" and the editor of "Rethinking Ethnicity: Majority Groups and Dominant Minorities". A well-known voice and thinker on the "long march through the institutions", Prof. Kaufmann delivered a superb speech outlining the steps we would need to take to resist the advance of cultural socialism and take back control of our institutions.
Speech: Resisting Cultural Socialism: How to March Back Through the Institutions
----------------
SUBSCRIBE:
If you are enjoying the show, please subscribe to our channel on TH-cam (click the Subscribe Button underneath the video and then Click on the Bell icon next to it to make sure you Receive All Notifications)
AUDIO:
If you prefer Audio you can subscribe on itunes or Soundcloud.
Soundcloud: / user-923838732
SUPPORT/DONATE / JOIN OUR MEMBERSHIP SCHEME
The NCF Channel is still very new and to continue to produce quality programming we need your support. Your donations will help ensure the channel not only continues but can grow into a major online platform challenging the cultural orthodoxies dominant in our institutions, public life and media.
You can join our membership scheme or donate in a variety of ways via our website: www.newculturef... It is set up to accept one time and monthly donations.
JOIN US ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Web: www.newculturef...
F: / ncultureforum
Y: / newcultureforum
T: / newcultureforum
(@NewCultureForum)
Please click here to join our membership scheme from £3 per month & with a range of exciting perks & benefits: www.patreon.com/NewCultureForum - alternatively, for one-off donations via credit / debit card, PayPal or bank transfer, please go to our website: www.newcultureforum.org.uk/donate
The very fact that the 'Conservative' party has to be repeatedly dragged, kicking and screaming into doing the right thing, should be addressed.
The Conservatives are completely captured by international finance. International finance has been the bulwark for hypa Liberalism.
Nemessis. I agree with you entirely. Many of us should be concerened about this issue.
Too true. Just convincing average conservatives that it's an issue is insanely difficult.
Like the labour party does?
the problem with the Conservatives is they are now run by social lefties, they have been penetrated by cultural lefties and they are the ones who get into the front benches
Parents! Fight back. If you don't take control of your kids, others will.
!(: Yep, same thing with one's self. If you don't someone else will ;)!
Well done for adressing the big question of how to reverse this catastrophic decline in enlightened rationalism.
What is the point of being a conservative with a conservative Government if they are fearful to step up.
They are an establishment safety valve to stop people moving to genuine conservative positions.
Not only is this Conservative government not willing to step up, worse they are going to carry on with their harms bill. How is that meant to encourage and promote open free speech.
Because they are 'conservatives' in name only. They are fakes. Boris Johnson seems to believe in mass immigration just as much as Tony Blair did.
They're terrified of the media who are the ones perpetrating this ghastly nonsense.
Bojo is many things, but one thing he is definitely not is conservative. Infact he is a WEF puppet i.e. build back better nonsense, that's him admitting it.
Starmer is the same.
So called vaccine passports, digital ID and digital currency is all part of their agenda for control.
Not to mention this WHO treaty, another WEF policy, a one world government department for 'health', in effect, control.
Museum curators, university chancellors, company bosses and most of all politicians have to stand up and say NO!
Murrays new book lays out the land clearly and depressingly for what has happened in our institutions culturally and educationally. It is sober reading.
Too late. They are all converted, right under your nose while you, like everybody else, me included was looking the other way.
Yes too late. An outside trainer came to my 6th form college and openly criticised Mrs Thatcher assuming everyone agreed with him. I had to speak out in front of 120 staff to be excluded from the attitude. No one else spoke up.
@@valeriegrimshaw1365 In the 70s roughly 50% of teachers and lecturers were Tory and 50% on the left, Labour or Liberal. Today in a world where we are constantly told diversity is our strength, 90% are on the left and only 10% are Tory and the vast majority of them are frightened to speak up. Calvin Robinson tells of his experience when he was a teacher, when he casually said he was voting Tory in a staff room and suffered as a result.
The people you mention are the problem, they have to be purged from public life.
We left the EU our biggest trading block because of the free movement of people , to regain control of our borders, only to w see mass immigration from India and the commonwealth, am I missing something or has the world gone mad
The group muslims for Brexit knew the score sadly
I voted to leave the EU but I was under no illusion that immigration would decline to sensible numbers. However, I would never have guessed that we would see the kind of numbers we're seeing now, or the numbers we're not seeing. I voted because, as a conservative I believe in sovereign states and despise these faceless, unelected supranational bodies like the EU and UN who never stop encroaching on our laws, culture and civil liberties.
They have also come in their thousands from north Africa - get on a bus each morning from Fulham to Hammersmith and one could be in Cairo or Mogadishu. Not a white English face to be seen. London will soon become a third world city.
Thank-you for this channel! 🦋Thank-you to this speaker! 🦋
Would love to attend these conferences, but they are always in London (it seems). Is there a chance one may be held in the North some time? Other than that, well done Peter and team - keep on keeping on!
I think Peter said on the day that he's had similar feedback before - and will try to do future events outside of London
@@eddampier That's good - thanks for the information.
Leeds!
Yes, he said he wants to go to other cities starting next year!
Durham 😀😀😀
I pose a simple question - to what extent is this woke phenomenon a product of an affluent class with too much time and money on its hands?
I wonder what the effect of economic hardship will have on woke. Similarly, given the geo-political struggles between East and West would the reintroduction of manufacturing industry back to the West concentrate minds and get us to focus on proper education and training in order to generate economic growth and prosperity?
We seem to be living in a hollowed out society, culturally and economically. Getting people back into worthwhile employment might be the best way to drain society of the poisonous woke hysteria which seems to be infecting public life in the West.
You sound communist.
A list of woke institutions. Marvellous idea.
its almost all institutions at this point.
Part B4. Thanks for the great talk by Prof. Eric Kaufmann, and great questions. Thanks to Peter Whittle and NCF. I've posted a lot of comments in order of my watching from Part A1 through to Part B4, that is this one, if any one is interested.
I am constantly amazed at these discussions suggesting reforms or replacements to our woke institutions. The answer is far simpler. If their management fail to uphold and deliver on their fundamental raison deter, sack them and get someone who will.
if Ofsted are not doing it's job then government has to step in. there are far too many of these quangos, The Police Federation, Ofcom etc who quite frankly are self regulating and do not do their job and follow the current fashion without any scrutiny or opportunity to vote on changes to practices or culture.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's the government which is the enemy.
Hope to see Calvin's talk also on here, he is a very sensible fellow.
We really need an intelligent movement like this in Australia.
The word "Auditing" is the way to go. as a first step, great lecture.👍
I agree with the gentleman who had been a psychiatrist and his analysis. The point about our authority to say wokeness is wrong is the Judaeo-Christian God. Common sense is in our hearts, but a religious revival is necessary to cement a right authority in society as it had been in centuries past.
Brilliant stuff here
we as white christians, are quite concerned for our future here in the uk.
Christians....you really mean heretical protest ants in the disunited false non Christian wannabee kingdom.
In Australia two Christians have been arrested, and one jailed for over a month, for the crime of reading the Bible. Apparently the mere sight of the book is hate speech to LGBTI+ people now they have gay marriage.
In addition this Dr Kauffman has previously stated whites will be extinct in a couple of generations. By 2050 when we are minorities in our own countries, he predicts people will only have mixed race children, rather than submit our children to living as minorities.
Being a white Christian has never been a problem for me, and I’m 78, and was born here.
This is not something concerning the UK alone, or Christians alone. This is a Crisis across the West.
@@jenniferbate9682 wait till we become a minority. It happened to me in East London. Everyone I knew White has fled to Essex.
The Cockney has gone the same way as the Dodo.
I remember feeling that something was wrong decades ago. But back then it was more about being politically correct and people just went along with it. Now we are in a state of madness. We all have a duty to fight this , confront all who promote this nonsense, parents question your school policy etc. Perhaps we should get back to town square discussions open to the public since we all know these discussions will be censored online.
Start with your family, I would suggest. When I noticed the school was adopting ideas on gender, as part of sex education, I asked to have my fam members excluded from this indoctrination. We need truths. Others can live lies, if it pleases them.
Agreed. I first realized something was wrong back in the 1980s when western europeans would stage violent protests against the US but make barely a peep against the Soviets. That should've been the first clue.
I would agree with that too. there were constant accusations of racism and yet no one ever challenged it or was taken to court. I remember saying to someone - well if you think I am racist - sue me and they just laughed.
Great presentation, and superb questions! The microphones could do with improving though.
Pity about the audio. It was very harsh.
Start by taking our taxes out of university's.
As someone who has paid all my own fees for third level education at various periods in my life including an M.Phil recently at the age of 70, I could not agree more. Tax payers money including my own, which was like other peoples hard earned, is being used to indoctrinate and not educate. Too many academics are too cowardly to stand up against it and should be ashamed of themselves.Some donors are begining to withdraw funding and well done to them.
Counter the Counter Culture.
This guy is brilliant. Great critique coupled with workable, though awesomely difficult, remedies. I especially liked how race and gender based DEI quotas must be matched by political viewpoint quotas.
No this guy isn`t brilliant. He deliberately misuses the words cultural and socialism, putting them together and associating them with the Woke fad. This is "spin" not analysis. Historical socialism has often been "Cultural Socialism" but that of William Morris, The Fabians and Michael Foot, not that of the Woke. This fellow doesn`t want to touch on this factor.
Finally a RALLY !!
How do we insist that Stonewall & it’s influence is removed from e.g. education, the Police, the N.H.S. the BBC programming
The BBC have already got rid of Stonewall, however, the police & other public services are still being controlled by them.
@@AWalkontheWildSideBlackpool thank you for your reply. I think the influence of Stonewall including the ‘fear’ it has produced over years is still there. We need a strong directive to produce results and it’s not ‘there’ or anywhere..
Fantastic conversation. Thank you
Well done Peter.
About resisting buzzwords. Ask people to use 'plain language' or 'plain English'. Plain language is easier to understand and more accessible to people who are not good readers, or have poor English skills.
By woke logic, jargon and buzzwords are ableist and marginalise minorities and immigrants.
Agreed, though I'd suggest 'ableist' is a prime example of the nonsense nomenclature :).
Being a socialist is something to be proud off
Excellent, many thanks😊👍❤️❤️
Glad to see my membership fee is being put to good use. Hope to attend one of these events in person in the future. 🙏🙏
God bless you man
Preach on fellow Kaufmann.
Without hierarchy how do you select for the best?
Food for thought.
As much as I think he is correct part of me thinks it would take too long and should have been done years ago. That's not to say all is lost, just that this approach needs to go hand in hand with other measures.
Totally agree. Probably naive to assume a head-on approach. There must be subversive measures in tandem.
I disagree, I think a sizable majority in this country are disenfranchised and angry. Any popular revolt could potentially move quite fast! Our biggest problem is that the average voter treats his/her party like a football team and just supports them for the sake of it. That does not mean there can't be pushback in the culture wars though and through the culture wars changes could occur in politics.
@@thehound9638 the problem is the institutions have been captured. Retaking them via normal methods (pressure groups etc) would take too long, not least because any attempt would attracted the usual smear campaign (backed up by an already organised activist community on the left).
There is a sizeable group which is angry and disenfranchised ... but what are their demographics? I hope it’s a sizeable majority of young men, but I see little evidence of that.
Dr Kauffman has previously stated that whites should not fear becoming minorities in 2050, as we'll just produce mixed race children to avoid minority status, whilst missing the point that that road leads to extinction. I fear he is a gatekeeper offering little in the way of solutions.
I agree all this talk is fine, but that's all it is unless the people watching this are in a position to implement these views, the woke left are twenty years ahead of the right, the left has been very sneaky playing the long game, just like the muslims if it takes 50 years to take over OUR country they will wait.
Thanks
I'm only sorry that I wasn't there in person. I really hope I can make one of them. Thank you for your hard work.
Same here, wish I had time to get involved and see these talks in real time.
Excellent video. Thank you.
Top man is Eric
You do know in other videos he preaches the extinction of the white race.
WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO WANT NO ETHNIC CHANGE, SLOW OR OTHERWISE?!
Peter and Elves can we stop using the word Tory and reinstate the word Conservative those that may question change or innovation and holding traditional value favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.
We need to understand the Torys are not conservative. They are completely captured by international finance.
"View reply"
[Click] ...."Hide reply"
Can I view first?
Agreed. “Tory” divests the party of its sole mission: actually being conservative.
Part B3 the question of a map of the institutions is an interesting and challenging one. I will have to think about it a great deal. People map things in presentations all the time, but the outlook i have tried to connect to this talk in some way transcends the axioms of of a flat space not least because the map maker and the relations to the map cannot be just a fact on the map but neither can it be outside the map. the inner and outer relations of institutions and between them in a similar paradoxical way: transcending the possibility of picturing. One example i recall was a "map" of institutions in terms of size in proportion to money spent. but then you are under the myth that these are separate and analytically separable structural quantities. e.g the money for education and health care is constitutive of the rest of the economy not contingent, but also the money for education and health care is dependent on the rest of the economy and so oil is not contingent. these strange necessary relation are not auditable because that would mean they were first ontologically separable and not already so related by dependence and power. Great question. Sorry for my weak answer i will work on this.
At last somebody is doing something. Elon Musk is hopefully freeing twitter. Hurrah!
Part C3 in terms of supply and demand curves of micro economics, we have an “equilibrium” situation (often ground in Pareto optimal exchange between parties) between two contractors A and B that sets price. But the supply demand point is always backed in with people above this price are in a state of increasing material freedom, while those bellow this aggregate price are in a state of increasing necessity. They are epistemic values of a sort still, but the ontology is “better” than straight positivism. The people being bellow the aggregate price are in a weird kind of coerced necessity, while those above in an open freedom to choose other stuff too other supply demand curves. The drive to necessity is not seems as it is, as a sub-freedom to choose, that is it is a limit to consent there for limit legitimacy of the institutions as a whole. While the people in the state above the aggregate price move from being mere points on the diagram to their actions effecting the whole diagram by material quantity and policy influence. George Soros called it the state of reflexivity. Its above consent as it changes the state of consent and so is super-consenting consent with a surplus, super-legitimacy. But the whole is to nominal sovereignty but such a sovereignty “needs” the instituional, necessarily and universally (with exceptions) therefore just to say institutions and government together is a state of a corrupt relation is wrong, if no institutions no active government. If no government then no legitimacy no de jure, just facts and the de facto.
An example consider the goods in a shopping basket for a person or between a group of people, the relations here in a household or community, are primary ontologically to the audit relation of a supermarket under international goods of supply and demand. So the oil and gas crisis is not really exogenous shock just as the financial crisis was neither exogenous r a result of simple individual culpability (gambler psychology, animal spirits etc.) in the state as it is. In a real sense then all players are only reasoning within the mythical rational economic and instituional possibility as it is. That is external reasons, There is a sense here of exculpation for all but not exogenous. A sense the system and its internal and external reason vocabulary, and its lack of expressive power: the power of capturing the ordinary intuitions of voters in consent as necessary for legitimacy, but with a demythologising map that is the problem. Just local intuition is not enough for the modern world, but also just super audit macro-economic expressivity even as institutional and The “Firm” cannot express the concrete intuition in a state of necessity. That is cannot express real human beings in their relations. That is politically the left emphasises the big picture to unmask the hidden (the super structural cultural mask), while the right emphasises the individual agent alone and conservative emphasises a moral vocabulary not really equipped to deal as it is with the modern world in ordinary moral vocabulary. And this last equivocation, between the moral vocabulary and the rational scientific policy is where the intuitive problem is for all players.
Woke…evil hiding behind virtue signalling.
I prefer the one that goes: "fascism masquerading as good manners".
Part C1 I want to highlight a few puzzeling features of institutions (with their form and substance as hylomorpth(?) in Aristotelian vocabulary, and problems of expressing their relations of mutuality) to begin to address problems in the capacity to make a “map” of institutions, to bring them “together” demythologise their absolute independence, to the sketch out the possibility of a pictorial representation that would show their “real” mutuality demythologised: “A IR B” says that “A is related to B”, not the mythical: there is an “A” and then a “B” that are then related by an IR AFTER THE FACT of their existence but rather they exist as minimally as “A IR B”. the standard approach might look like we need to express this in the vocabulary of formal and material causation (implication?). I recall a conference paper in the law department “of”, “in”, “at”, Chicago university some 15 or so years ago. It was introduced by Martha Nussbaum discussing Milton Friedman and the paper tried to express similar institutional relations as a “double causation” or “a”, “mutual “A causes B” and “B causes A” as a way of expressing mutual dependency of A to B, B to A.
The problem is that institutional activity is expressed as audit quantity propositions, this lead to facts of a sort but not independent facts from each other. The propositional form “hides” “covers up” “masks “the necessary and universally mutuality and make them look like givens referring to things in themselves. In economics generally they use a set of partial differential equations to try and “represent this” wherein they imagine a small change in any one proposition an assume all the others are constant (there by a differential notion of causation). In this we can represent ZERO as a real numerical possibility, a grammatical puzzle since no one can do anything with any one if they have an original zero endowment (except in banking and debt movement of positrons in a tunnel diode). Working on something similar to this mapping problem, some years ago w.r.t. banking regulations I tried to do this in terms of cartography and topology. We do not “exist” and then enter into contracts for food for example, which seems to be the “puzzling” ontology of the separable propositions of the audit in exchange. This audit can imagine someone existing in an individual state who “then” makes an exchange of goods services etc. A colleague put it nicely as “as if two dead people can make a contract to come alive”.
Part A1 On the chart Prof. Eric Kaufmann introduces at 7.00 mins in: the chart makes it look like there are only empirical and contingent associations between adherence to particular political parties, a particular ideology, and views about a particular policy. Here his example is "teaching that Britain is a ra...t country" which he places as a policy from and subsumed under a general "cultural socialism" as both an attitude and program project of institutional change for then reproducing the same cultural attitude and adherence to the policy and ideology in the young. It begs the question as to whether there are "essential" policies for a party and ideology or like the Sellars/Neureth/Quine boat that all policy could be otherwise all policies are available for revision removal or inclusion depending perhaps on the numbers. That is a kind of Hegelian question in the "Logic" on the notions of or Categories for Quantity and Quailty. in a Critique aimed at Kant then: that is, if enough numbers of voters in a party or ideology can "cause" the principles of that party to change, and, is there a limit. Its a countable notion of the meaning and capacity for a principle or policy to be agree upon in numbers. So you might think that there are strict definitions for parties and ideologies that is strict policy for consent, e.g. "if you don't agree with this then you are not one of us you are out or can't come in". Firstly there is the fact that as well as the numbers a parties policies have to be institutionally possible in the real world , like the numbers, no institution then the policy is an idle wheel spinning in the void of the nominal sovereignty. we can only imagine such a policy when we abstract the nominal sovereignty from the voters and its capacity to act, the anarchic sovereign is alone, deaf and mute. So institutional capacity is a limit to policy change, but given this is there still the possibility say the left could hold right policies and ideology and vice versa. This is often called entreeism i think, a tactic to change the policies of a party from within deemed a "fifth column" by the "resistance". I guess the journey of UKIP from the LSE to Brexit is an example.
Good conference. Shame about the audio, it was cutting into my ears.
Build some Hillsdale Colleges in the UK.
Conservatives need to learn how to be on offense instead of playing defense all the time.
Part B3 At 33:00 mins in the point he makes about entry of policy in large prestigious institutions being difficult was also made by Zizek in a conference I recall from 15 years ago. like when the left thought there was no hope of advance.
Breaking News: *"Netflix in Conjunction with Sky buy the UK's Entire Year of News"*
Season 1 starts tonight at 8pm.
I think the "3rd force" moment could have solidified after the collapse of the Lib Dems in parliament, it didnt happen for either the right or the left to fill that vacuum. It's strange that neither wing made a proper play for that space, arguably the left did to some degree but not the right to my memory.
The SDP of William Clouston is in the right space, they just need more coverage.
Part A4 Note: historically Marx and Socialism grew up in theory and practice in response to the free market idea of Adam Smith. Then the free market arguments of the marginalists and praxiologists grew up to deal with the idea sand practice of the socialists and Marxists. Then the free market idea of 1980s were to deal with the counter cultural Marxism and socialism. Then the left and so son. The point is these cannot be seen historically as radically different as really semantically individuated they are a conversation in exchangers and manoeuvres and its still in process as a loss of independent ontological sue generic origin and foundation. Its no accident that the polices and parties are in opposition but its not a logical opposition really. This is the narrative for both sides and goes on regardless of conditions of justification legitimacy and consent.
Thank you for the talk so far (7.00 mins in but had to comment so far). as a note i was led to his kind of thinking watching the two 1974 UK General elections 12 or so hours on each on you tube. There was a moment in the studio when the numbers guy said something like "well the labour could get a working majority by making as coalition with the Unionists" or something like that. is this an example of Pierce's bean counters or the limits of Bayesian possibility or both. thanks for reading if you got this far. Now I'm back to the Professor's talk.
Part B1. At 11.00 mins he introduces , the notion of the audit. it is key and is for me a deeply complex philosophical notion. c.f. The statistical probably Bayesian foundations for the Auditing of Banks through The Bank of International Settlements. the notion of existence is lost between pure formalism of an idea of an functioning institution with no money, and the institution as wholly a matter of empirical supply and demand or income and exposure. an anthropology note : can't find the reference now, but an anthropologist was trying to get a native of a cut off from the modern world tribe to divide his day into work hours on the one hand and leisure hours on the other. he couldn't do it. now we might think primitive needs an economics lesson . But maybe its the other ways round. An anthropologist from UCL coming out of the object orientated ontology approach, i think, said that maybe our others can allow us to sees can reveal our own ontological errors in the modern world. existence is not a predicate or a thing in itself. If or when a state collapses or is disseminated into relations of the whole world the independent and material capacity of an audit dissolves away. the last GDP measurement will not be zero it will be bellow an audit event horizon, a singularity if you will. just like the beginning of a state are not in consent and is not yet even named or bounded as that state.
Part C5 An example of this was the Government committee on the Banking Crisis, wherein the Bankers were ask about their morally since everything they did was in accord with the legal functions. it was a ruse because it exculpated the middle class over leveraged housing mortgages (left and right) who were behinds the bank failure and regulatory failure. From there it got worse now all talked of institutional corruption, blame the rich and powerful, who are unreachable any way, and then demand of us at the bottom a moral obligation before the law but defined by being in the illegal/legal ambiguous space. blame a lack of morals of the poor and attach the insulated super rich. was the tactic but not the real problem. Someone should have been called to account, but there is no someone there anyways its more complex and was used as a system of blame the transcendent rich and blame the poor for low but legal morals and the onion of hidden forces of corruption for the conspiracy theory types. Then the enquiries that take so long the world ahs moved beyond them if they even have an end at all. Kafka's "The Trial III: "After the Enquiry"
Part C4 i suppose one way to express the problem of the map i have been discussing from a question to the lecture, is to reverse or have a revolution in the standard philosophical framing of this problem. ie standard philosophy asks: how is it possible to find a place for morally loaded ordinary notions of intentionality, will, action responsibility, promise, contract, consent, legitimacy, as grounded in agent reasons to another, in discourse, when the world is taken as it is in various forms of nomological subsumption. That is, our tradition has privileged a law governed picture of the universe objects relations subsumed under nomologcal relations under law has become the ontic meaning of ontological nature as it is in itself. the problem is one of accommodating the human within the given notion of nature as casual law. how is it possible for meaning to exist in a concept of the nature as law of nature. this idea of a nature as law in itself without the human and the human architecture of symmetries framing it. its asks where is he scientist as a person here? this is John McDowell's question in Mind and World. His answer is that this concept of nature has no "real" meaning from or even for the point of view of first persons reasons in justification and legitimacy. his answer is to abandon the mythical picture of such as nature as errored and replaced with Aristotelian notions of nature as second nature, without a first nature, actuality and potentiality and virtue. (his notion of potentiality means the other to nature as say natural law and justice is also a error a mythical figure of equality without difference which eh also rejects. my view is rather to "place" both this first nature as law and the idea of transcendent justice as limit moments of the human beings reasons. That is first nature is now the human moment when action is mere reaction in a architecture the object as disappeared into laws, the architecture of behavioural science and risk. the limit point of consent and responsibility a contract without a objects of substantial difference.. likewise but from the opposite end a idea of equality without difference is a moment of absolute transcendent of the world and the human there can only be relations of difference, it is a priori an impossible infinite moral legal demand and not a aim or purpose a destiny or project of perfection and utopia, it is an error but is also a limit possibility but not a project aim in first person reasons, it is a fantasy of institutions. oddly both these are really political together good and right utile and right, but in use its a Frankenstein monster of two systems without the human. the human in law as between what nature determines by necessity and justice determined absolute beyond our capacities. it is both a project of absolute demand and obligation to the humanly impossible, by way of behavioural architecture that would completely determine us in its closing frame. we confuse then vice and virtue with good and bad and pleasure and pain. the confusion is not that these are exogenous spaces of reason, but that the vice and virtue is falsely via institutionality, equated with good and bad, pleasure and pain. is a sematic error but pure pleasure pain good and bad are limit s on virtue and vice as above. Virtue and vice are adverbials but similar but different to institutional functions, as inner and outer public private ect. we mistake the space of law as a space of legal and illegal with the space of virtue and vice. there is the problem adverbs are modifiers of propositions which is lost if we think only of universality particular (quantification) necessity possibility as modal. The result is the false use of moral terms to justify rational political projects subsuming the electorate, on the one hand, and the false attempt to reduce moral terms to those rational projects.
👍
UK politicians tend to want to avoid hysterical opposition and mud slinging, but in the US the hysteria is constant and so conservatives simply ignore it and give as good as they'r given. That needs to happen all round the world.
I remember this guy, he says white people will become extinct in a few decades.
Nah, he doesn't.
@@RichardEnglander Nevertheless, the statement that "white people will become extinct" is almost certainly true I fear, in the UK anyway.
I disagree with the Cultural Socialism label. Social Marxism is far more apt, mainly because Socialism has good effects in societies, look at all of the Scandinavian countries for example. Marxism though, is devastating.
What about us capitalist socialists and social capitalists.
@@abazely2743 I guess it's a case of pessimistic optimists and optimistic pessimists.
The Woke agenda is funded by international finance. The Bank of America and PayPal funded Black Lives Matter. It is more like cultural capitalism.
Not taking on International finance is why conservatives never ever conserve ANYTHING.
@Maid Subrena Rioting in Sweden not getting much coverage here.
👍😁
"Cultural Socialism" is a good term to use to describe wokeness, however feels very academic and clunky (much like my preferred term identity communism). May I suggest "Cult Social" or some variation of it to make it more accessible to the uninitiated
Yes. It IS a cult. It really is.
But the Woke agenda is funded by international finance. It's more Cultural Capitalism. Bank of America and PayPal funded Black Lives Matter. The failure of the Right to take on International finance is why conservatives never ever actually conserve ANYTHING.
@@valeriegrimshaw1365 but it's actually funded by international Woke finance and the oligarchs. Bank of America and PayPal funded BLM.
A huge mistake of people on the right is their adherence to the Conservative Party. There are other parties emerging that wish to combat Wokeness. People should join, become active and, instead of wishing that someone would "stand in elections to represent them", need to stand in elections and put the message out there.
The Conservatives are completely captured by international Woke finance.
What's the "message" then, Frank? "Eine Volk, Eine Reich, Eine Fuhrer" or "Betty, the cat's done a whoopsie in my Beret"!!
@Maid Subrena What vacuous answer. Try something with a little more flair and originality next time.
We can win the culture war by celebrating our culture and history, especially in music, art drama and dance. Even crazy British communists are drawn towards folk music and dance of the British Isles.
The conservative party is not conservative, the only way to change this is to vote REFORM UK, this will perj ALL the liberals out. 😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠
I don’t agree with his reply on immigration. He’s very wrong on this one.
Immigration is colonis@tion.
@@evolassunglasses4673 If of dissimilar cultures ( ie: non European), then yes. It is.
@@evolassunglasses4673 Immigration is people moving to another land.
If the natives are surrendering their culture, it is because they're already convinced of its evil or inadequacy. It sure the heck isn't the immigrants who are dismantling the traditional culture.
The ideologically woke are mostly white.
@Jack Anderson Yes, he doesn't understand the cultural pressures in Europe and I might add, in the U.S too.
Someone should have interjected with a correcting view.
Protect whiteness
Part A3 My point though is about the very pollical science at work here mediating the frame parts. can a party running up to a campaign think of the voters as say economically determined and so using behavioural science mixed with advertising protocols set about "causing" the voter to vote for them: policy agreement from behavioural science and advertising technologies. that is the voter votes to have their attitudes subjected to the new policy of "institutional scientific rights based behavioural control" this was envisaged by Schumpeter in 1940s i think. but now the voter votes to have their own judgement shaped by the fifth wall of technology. the voter is removing their capacity for independent consent. thus the application of behavioural science and policy science praxis, is in contradiction to the principle of internal rational consent due to its being subsumed under external scientific causes. That is the notion of freedom as "freedom from" here is thought institutional as a agent subject to behavioural analysis "placement in the space of natural scientific causation and unity management. For the left who tend to be materialist there is no real conflict between the science of "cognitive" behaviourism and politics. Causation is what they are about deeply. but the liberal rights notion of freedom form is also behaviourist model of the human being and the voters as a consumer of policy determined by narrow and thin behavioural laws of supply and demand. in a sense the disenchantment of modern science in politics has the destiny on both sides to treat the voter as a thing, as a object as without essence in itself. in so doing both are aiming at getting rid of troublesome and chaotic irrational voters in the sovereign project of voter management. is this not a contradiction by degree, bit by bit, but to get rid of any notions of consent in exchange for causal carrot and stick are both then anti democratic in anything but a simple and mythical definition of democracy.
Part B2/1. Up to 32.mins: i think he sees the modes or forces of "woke" production in institutions by numbers, can be combatted by another form of numbers. Two cheers for two function audits of people subsumed under these two audits then? i'm not sure though that the problem of one myopic and expanding audit of numbers is really off set or balanced by another myopic audit. I mean i am quarter Chinese, but also feel and think Britain and its reflective traditions is my home. so where am i in this audit duality? Would two people with the same Audit data really be the same person? Leibnitz Kant Russell on identity of indecearnables. There are manifold theoretical questions here as well as the practicality issues for the two audit offices (like auditing each other in some strange Jung Froyd psychoanalysis sessions). also the teachers and constructing a narrative between these two audits. Perhaps the British narrative is seen as new Derridean margin moving to the centre of the previous margin. Strange metaphors for a strange proposal. but now notions of indigenous and traditions becomes just an empirical audit number with no internal constitutive existence criteria. Its kind of like how (i think) Amartya Sen's work on capacities and subalterns in the third world marginal people, based in "freedom to" notion of right i think, is now applied back home to to its own marginal population. and the Proff.s proposal is to do this now for the people not been dealt with via mediation from an international rights standpoint. and so the traditional population and its culture that is its "cultural rights" and "indigenous rights" as the Prof. might put it or "mention" it, are now the primary re-representation of the very culture out of which universal right emerged and went global that is became with science Hegel's speculative universal reason. Culture is not "cultural studies" and tradition is not first a subject in anthropology. Its very Hegelian to mediate people via rights primarily, and even stranger to mediate between people through the primary vocabulary of institutions and of rights. I'm not sure The metaphysics of sex is the tool we need to combat the right to sex to combat the sexual consent laws to combat sexual freedom of choice and disposal to combat Victorian morality. I am still here i don't need a passports to tell me that only when i am in trouble it is not constitutive of me and my friends. i don't need to do a course on my own culture to begin to be shaped by it. (Continues on Part B2/2)
No Emma Webb. Epic fail.
Fear not! Emma's speech will be uploaded later this month!
Redeemed! I will hang on every word.
@@elterrifico9522 Has somebody got a crush?
@@thehound9638 she is magnificent.
She’s my only reason to live
Liberalism is a doctrine of pure passivity...and does willingly bend to moralilizing pressure because it contains no moral locus greater than pleasantness ...
The former me is much smarter than the present me...
We gave up after WW2.. that’s why they are freaking out.
Part A2 Another limit is that the policies unlike Quines corporate whole, have to cohere with each other, both a catching enough votes as a whole and being institutional compatible between the institutions of policy action, and whether for each voter the policy nexus is a coherent shopping basket for a meal or some items are off the list like nuts (Anscombe Intention sec 30ish). So could left wing voters, who reason that they are for universal rights equality because fascism was, by their definition, the neglect of rights, can become, for a totalitarian system of protection and care so long as it ground its totalitarianism in the strict and brutal implementation of equality rights. Which they claim fascism is in essence about inequality also. now to disagree with them is to be against universal rights and so like J-F Lyotard you are in a bind, you are either for us as rights or for the fascist anti universal rights. Could a party have as its policy to remove democracy once in power?
Another tactical limit is, policies of differant parties have to be (or at least look) different. this can take the propositional form of binary logic "low tax" verses "high tax", or they have not propositional differance but institutional employment differance. Also, with institutional mediation, they can be the same or differant propositional but look identical in terms of strict narrow data sets under symmetry and group theory a priori restrictions. a parry cannot have as a policy to use no institutions so this is a priori and necessary for all propositional policy sets.
Usually the left and the right try to point out a kind of self contradiction in their opponents policies. So the left claim that the right free market individualism (freedom from) will lead to monopolies and economic collapse, while the right argue that state control leads to inefficient elites without the possibly of removal and in the end economic collapse.
would it make sense to have a chart of rich and poor on one scale and amount of money on another: are these not tautologies, logical relations by definition? Whereas now poor people vote tory and rich people vote labour.
Part C2 These myths of ontological or ontic independence, allow numerically for the propositional possibility in reason of condemning people to death and abject poverty, not as a direct act but as a “rational” and mediated neglect. It is absurd since a dead person cannot consent to the state of affairs that mean their death, even if they cannot understand the numbers meaning for them, they do “enjoy” a status of not understanding the system, and as such, “enjoy” a state of dependence to it and its engineers that amounts to trust. Trust not in facts and truth, but in the banker’s ontology, which I think is a mythological trust in nature. The problem is not so much the bankers as the “positive propositions” and their expression of an ontological independence. Even Robert Brandon’s “Score Keeping” notions that involve promise and duty “regulations” internal to expressive power, remains within this mythical ontological independence. Regulations began practical life in this sense in the Bank of England regulatory metaphor of a governor of a steam engine in late 19 th century (according to a lecture by. But laws are prohibitions seen as external limits to action not also determining the possibility of action between institutions. Kant’s Third antinomy and the fourth parallelism are where I am with this, it’s very complicated. Topology, unlike cartography of mapping can allow for multiple relations in multiple spaces but it is no longer a “picture” a map. But can be expressed as a matrix array version of a ledger. Perhaps with Tensors? That then is something usable but deeper ontologically than the current audit.
What’s all this got to do with the price of bread? Well the Bank of England has just increased interest rates, but what does this mean? Beyond and before the numbers and graphs, for real people and their relations. We need, at least in the topology of representation, to remove, even the apparent reasonable possibility, of zero. Not by fiat, a de facto arbitrary limit, but an internal limit of possibility. I spent 10 years trying to do this in terms of a double or relation “transcendental argument” without the two transcendent objects but not easy.
The current ontology of external institution relations (institutions a things in themselves to use Kant) makes what is non-consensual sacrifice by the eliet of the poor, looks like rationality and consent by that poor. Watch Ch Four News from 05 May (last night) on the Interest rat4es to get a grip on the puzzle and what needs to be made explicit that is implicit. What seems the most obscure and arm chair thinking activity is of the first importance. And then it must be communicable in some sort of map that makes sense to the voters that might be sacrificed by this disenchanted reason.
Unreadable baloney.
Brexit was always going to increase non European migration.
That was understood by anyone who was paying attention.
Post Brexit Britain was always going to need new trade deals.
And these were always going to be negotiated from a weaker, more asymmetric position than when the UK was in the EU. That's just a fact.
The new routes for Indian folk to get into the UK jobs market for example, is a requirement for attempting to get a trade deal with India.
Such things are likely to happen for other regions as well.
And given the wedding of the UK economy to the mantra of an ever increasing house prices. You cant continue to build houses and make money unless you have demand lead supply. And you to engineer a housing crisis that means rents and house prices are artificially high yiu need an ever increasing population.
That's the real driver. As the dude himself says Wokism isn't really a strong influencer of immigration beyond conveniently closing down reasoned debate.
Part B2/2 (following part B2/1) And so the space of the non political he claims to be creating by his second level of regulatory audit is not a blank slate, but the formalisation of a space of ambiguity possible logical and ontological contradiction..unworkable space of political conflict. "cultural studies" is reflective and w.r..t this context data based and so a priori determined by axioms of possibility for data. it is an Hegelian error to think our place is just one among many in a structure of equal binary differences. its clear to me that Hemple's paradox is solved by recognition that science cannot be determined by logical opposites on equal footing of true and false. the proposal just places two Hegelian quantity quality differences. the past has a thereness, a being, is a brut fact, that to some extent not determined by binary concepts and numbers has a sense that it cannot be otherwise, and Hegelianism now would make that appear so in its reflection of reflection, and here its double structural difference model. its like adding "white man" to the list of protected categories, kind of seems workable, but it will be implemented again as if the left behind from the original audit (as the enemy) were to join in the audit as the new immigrants with there past in a bag and a book a mere property like the free market economic model sees our bodies and our place as contingent property to be as if freely chosen along with everything else. of course for business its all good, cos everything is up for sale exchange and everybody just a commodity. More cheap labour now as if everyone were an infinitely movable soul or self, with a body that happens to be attached and somewhere, viewed from space. If we are all now part of the LGBT+ thing then I must be in their plus plus category, but can claim one institution against the other. what fun. Who's the enemy now with all these friends in mere conflict over rights. Because the double system the prof. proposes has a friend enemy and conflict over resources back into it tat a level before the audit. Kafka "The Trial II: Before the Audit". Made in accordance to all metrics of equality.
Making up your own terms like "Cultural Socialism" and then attacking its influence in society is the very definition of a straw man argument.
Such a pity this fellow associates the Woke fad with cultural Socialism. The traditional Socialism of Great Britain was always cultured. The socialism of the Fabian Society, the Socialism of William Morris and of Annie Besant was cultured. LIkewise recent socialists such as Michael Foot and were cultured people. I have always associated the historical left of my country with culture. Those of woke fad are in many respects more similar to the lightweights in the American right wing think tanks than to historical Socialist figures.