Is it so bad you can't mention the move towards a one world government? All those involved know this. There is no stopping it unless we have a global vote on it. 'They've got the guns, but we've got the numbers. Gonna win, yeah!! We'te takin' over, COME ON!!! Jim Morrison, rip.

It's the same historian...

What’s that ? piss the empire up the wall, bankrupt the nation permanently relegating it to a second tier power. All to ensure the freedom of Poland, which ended up ruled by the Soviets. Brilliant

He was a war monger that bankrupted Britain to the Global American Empire, international finance and the Globalisation project destroying us today.

Britain 🇬🇧

Great English name you have too.

Don't forget the shameful parts too

@@miraladak2314 every culture has its shadow side. People now are not personally responsible for the actions of their ancestors.

​@miraladak2314 Oh, don't worry, plenty like you eager to point out our past mistakes, glorious grifting much in evidence. Plus, despite a reputation for arrogance, Brits have shown a penchant for self hatred and cultural cringe. Hence we allow millions of those, who pretty much loathe us and our history to not only live amongst us at our expense, but also to openly voice their hatred.

@@pheart2381 I do appreciate that, but even actions from the past have consequences. Much, if not most of the immigration into the UK has been from former British colonies and, more recently, most of the refugees have been coming from the countries bombed by US/UK

Yes you remember them so you don't do them again, but also don't only dwell on them.@@miraladak2314

That is your opinion! Most of deal with facts and values daily!

Great historian that was ridiculed for his ahistorical work.

He's a huge admirer of Napoleon. It's good to acknowledge great leaders from opposing forces without bootlicking our past.

Left-wing journalists, politicians and teachers.

@@AdmiralBonetoPick whyyyy ?

Empire building hollowed us out. Just like it's destroying America.

Ahh yes turning violence on the citizenry. Worked at Peterloo, what could go wrong 😂. Philosopher. Is it bright and airy between your ears or what? 😂

@@AntonSmyth-od6rc Speak for yourself dear dullard. This police force was highly trained. Indeed, a surviving force of that ilk is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Now, if research is not beyond you, I invite you to do some.

They helped destroy Britain and bankrupt it to The Global American Empire, international finance and the Globalisation project. We should of kept out. Ruthless Stalin and Communism were not our friends.

😂

Maybe being olive skinned etc etc they look the same?

M osley

Aristocratic ones who viewed common people as animals. 😂

Bellow i have posted here my comments to a Novara Media program that was live on 09 02 2024. I post them here because I've have drawn slightly on the vocabulary of J-F Lyotard there as well as here. I realise my work for the last few years here and elsewhere drawing on Sellars and discursivity and linguistics has some affinity to Lyotard particularly in how i have developed some vacant aspects of Sellers uptake of Kant and Hegel, the role of ideas the logic of sets and sets of sets and modal logic I developed from Kant. I wander if i have re-invented the wheel, we can sort that out in litigations and ownership of phrases in dispute and transcendental dialectics. A long and expensive trial. Now i want to state that I started to work on Lyotard ("The Differened" and "Just Gaming") some 20 years ago with a post graduate colleague, but we both only lasted a couple of week on it. At least they did do a very interesting conference paper on this and Wittgenstein. Also I met a philosopher a number of times at conferences who i talked to at length about my reading of McDowell and Sellars, and they told me to read and focus on Sellars papers. I did do this using Robert Brandoms great seminar course on Sellars that was on his Web site many years ago now. The philosopher I talked to passed away some years ago, but going back to Lyotard i see that they were also working on Lyotard. so the link is not jsut accidental i guess. I follow with my Novara posts then as a kind of example of method here.

Part 2: Clearly it didn’t make sense but the consequence was not all these people going into negative equity and or loosing their houses. Rather the Labour government in the UK and the US government followed and took the line the world economic system is very complicated, new financial technologies and laws created unforeseen risks particularly with Banks moving into finance and more investment technologies of mortgage loans leading to regulation lag and anomalous black swan event and so the Banks needed a State funded emergency bailout because if they went bankrupt and closed the whole economy would collapse. So the Bank bailout and several Quantitative Easing moves, printing money, were made. But this was to point and refer only to the symptom, the back hole in the Bank audit. Rather the black hole was all the unpayable middleclass metropolitan mortgages, all those passive incomes that might never be, all appearing not as individual private audit black holes, but rather as if one big black hole in the bank. This was a universal banking crisis so was all the banks i.e. all the private metropolitan mortgages in the Western world. So the individual private subprime mortgages were bailed out collectively and mediatly though State policy of bailing out the banks, in a effectively declared state of emergency. The State that is tax payers the ordinary public effectively bailed out the private over reached mortgages of the London metropolitan middleclass. In a way this has a kind of synergy with State subsidies of failing industries in the 1970’s, except in the latter case the bailouts are from the more wealthy tax payers to the else well of workers, in the former case it the other way round. Also striking is the fact that the international organisation of the BASIL The Bank of international settlements which effectively was an audit of all the banks audits had made several moves from 1988 I think such that States classed as Sovereign depositors with the banks were categorised as loaners in terms of risk, but they were classed formally as of zero risk which means they are treated by the BIS audit of audits, as having the power to raise and pay an infinite debt hole. This means that while governments described the Sovereign bank bail outs as emergency but necessary measures of unforeseen action due to chance anomalies, really its was a matter of international banking law, a State place in a formal international banking audit, of infinite source of tax and cuts based money supply. My view is everything that followed politically has been middleclass London driven in order to first hide what the real problem was and what he bail out bailed out was the private middleclass subprime mortgages. There was then, a priori, no real risk in getting high unpayable mortgagers for the middleclass. Rather so long as you act with the table, move privately but as part of a middleclass collective you are guaranteed zero risk because the Bank of international settlements had decided to make it so by placing States in the audit position of infinite grandeur for over leveraged private mortgages. It’s a bit like a privatised version of an IMF bail out mediated by the banking system. It says so long as enough of the middle class and upper middleclass are in a massive enough debt risk of default you will have it be paid off by the Sovereign State though cuts and taxes. The risk was the possible political fallout for the middleclass if people, figured this out in time. So first the 2010 coalition tory dominated government went into austery which allowed and afforded the poorest people being set against each other over the crumbs eg its set up dilemmas of low paid workers verse unemployed, old verse young and so on. This was effectively followed from the left by generating a new set of dilemmas between white and other races and men and other genders largely from an international point of view. This enabled certain arguments over not national but international justice arguments for mass immigration, and this in turn drove demand and allowed the prices of housing to carry on rising after flat lining from 2010 for few years. We have been led by all parties and all institutions of all kinds into a series of false created dilemmas and internecine population conflicts, because all these dilemmas are incongruent and incommensurable, they do not make an image. Normally such irrational un-structures, would be subject to media Critique but they being the middleclass have just continued these projects and false dilemmas. What is called poplarism as a response is still locked into these false created dichotomies and not seeing the essence of what really happed and the origins: the who did it, of these artificial dilemmas? No one is held responsible for this and now we are asked about justice for people loosely descendant of people subjected to violence and poverty up to the middle of the industrial revolution. While this appears to be about race and ethnicity and retroactive justice it is really about hiding any talk of the middle class being made to pay it back. Like the analogy they must be trying to make is don’t think about the injustice of the 1990s 2000s, 2010’s against the non middle class, think about the injustice of slavery. Don’t think about having no house or the London middle class left and right think about domestic violence in the home. Recommended reading J-F Lyotard “The Differend”.

Part 3: Here’s a bit of a left filed example of the kind of thing I’m talking about. There was a piece at the end of the show on President Biden having a poor a memory due to old age. We are led to think sure if the guy is cognitively impaired, then he must be barred from office. But what might cognitively impaired mean here when in the hands and judgement, or tactics, of Cognitive linguistic psychologist and social justice lawyers. Well they class as impairments cognitive bias due to race and gender gestalt seeing as for example subjected to de facto origins educational learning and experience origins. Do they means psychology tests for such bias for those in office? Only the metropolitan middle class will learn how to pass those tests since they devise them themselves in their jobs and within their inter-professional networks.

I suppose there is a certain convention that i ought to respond more directly to the actual program here, at least listen to more than the first two minutes before commenting at length. This i will do as soon as possible. First though I recall now that i watched Andrew Roberts (Lord Roberts) do a number of talks and conference papers on warfare strategy and leaders which must be many years ago now. At the time i was watching a lot of You Tube stuff on 20th century conflicts and warfare. One i remember was an American seminar series from a Military Collage on theory. Before the one on Clausewitz they said they had to do one on Kant, and a book or course by a Military theorist who was a student of Kant on his interpretation of Kant and only then turn to Claserwitz who draw on all this for his book "On War". it must have been many years ago because I got some of my philosophy colleagues round to watch this totally military type guy in full uniform dance with ease and grace down his own pathway through the complexity of Kant and Kant's student's interpretation, before then moving on to Clausewitz. the other theorist he referenced was Jomini from the previous seminar. This lead me to think that i could work on Kant's judgement applied to politics, my project, by learning to exercise my judgement (Critique of Judgement) though the complexity's of military battles, since there is a big picture, but with many levels of lateral and depth complexity that interrelate, and of course much contingency and outright chance as well as in the 18th and 19th centuries a large gap between what leaders know and the reality of the dynamic battle field.

B1: I've listened to most of the discussion now. There isn't an academic discipline or politics or ideology, that can be neutral or agnostic over the moments of this discussion. But here's the paradox: that of course means we must reflect on the primary area here of the discipline of history, or better multitude disciplines of history: Not just the multitudes gathered around the history of particular events on the past, but the multitudes of historians of all the other particular academic disciplines. That these multitude or manifold of productions/constructions/deconstructions can do this repeatedly without apparent end over a particular event, must contest not just to the ability to re- contextualise past events and their explanations and understandings, but to the fact that any event can be conceptualised in many ways: not just a true way verses a false or distorted or ideologically laden way; but that for any event of the past there is no end to the small details (facts) that previous historians have missed or some say, implying that historians have either done so out of a bad habits of interpretation and methodology and education but also with an agenda of their own, and so have missed big details that have silenced some voices, some histories/narratives. The important point to start with here is that this endless interpretation and re-interpretations of the past is possible at all. That is unless we have an historicist view of some kind, an ideology a priori if you will, this multitude and manifold activity will be endless. The historicist view was, and perhaps is, the idea that history, all the seemingly multitude of re-interpretations, are really to be understood as so many tokens or parts of a grand narrative say from Marx material view of history as determined ultimately by economics to a kind of historical naturalism that history is determined by race. These two views of the extreme left and extreme right, do recognise their view is in conflict with others, but that the others are just wrong or themselves ideologically determined even without the authors self knowledge through reflection and Critique. This is not just the recognition of bias, rather the historicist sees themselves as correct on the iron laws of real history, and so they serve as the Criteria and standard of truth and interpreting, that can name others as biased by its standard. Of course then we have a classic conflict between the extreme left and the extreme right, which as Lyotard points out is really two claims and standards of totalities in a life and death Homeric Struggle. In this facts usually embedded within quite different disciplines to history, are marshalled in favour of one or the others ideology narrative, they are produced often then interdisciplinary now by armies of PhD students and academics, to the point where the use of a non historical discipline for history, can result in products that go to undermine the original integrity and method of that discipline. You help historians use radiological technologies to uncover some aspect of the past and then later they apply this and historical method to the history of radiological technologies. That kind of move has the effect of trying to use radiological data as facts in the first moment and then reflectively showing that that data is really subordinated to prior economic conditions or racism in its history of selecting human subjects for experiments to develop the frame for those radiological facts. This is not to confuse say "Someone was exposed to high levels of radiation" with "Someone was exposed to a narrative of high level radiation". At least in the last sentence "exposed" must have a different meaning here or used analogically or just taken out of its original meaning context. "Exposed" in the first sentence seems to imply a purely material causal relation, while in the second "exposed" means something like to be brought under an ideological view point via a narrative that fails to recognise its own historical conditions of genesis. Of course anyone familiar with radiation measurement knows the simple causal story is wrong, there are facts but schematised by the technical activity of detection and a lot of axiomatic mathematical structure to project anything like an apparent real detection of a causal event here. The second view would ask why and for who was radiation began as an area of study in physics and chemistry. This doesn't have to deny the causal fact as such, rather it invites a methodological and subject shift. That is if radiation work began from curiosity then applied in medicine and then moved to nuclear weapons and then nuclear power, then the existence of facts here without these contexts come into question. we might say if there was no political economic advantage or necessity then radiation would be a little understood area of nature now. So this means not so much a rejection of facts as an invitation to realise there are infinite areas in the realms of nature, some of which for political or economic reasons have not being explored: unknown unknowns, as opposed to some known unknown such as the quantum changes in energised Cobalt in the realm of current radiation studies.

Yip but my thumbs up is so I know I watched it and hate giving a thumbs down.

You need to get out more.😆

​@@douglastobor7718 You took the words right out of my keyboard. 😂

I think you're watching the wrong channel. Better get back to your BBC and read your Guardian.

I don't think suggesting people watch the BBC or read trashy newspapers is a sign of good sense. Why don't you try putting on your thinking cap for a change? @@jimpickard3850