May one ask, have you read “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill? It seems that the struggle for freedom is as perennial as procreation - if not carried out, society falls.
Overall many very good points and observations made over the 6 parts, but I find that even where the ideas are sound, their implementation over the last few decades has left a lot to be desired. Given the context of the time this lecture was made, the sentiments are very understandable, but we must not forget the biases that influence those sentiments also exist. I will also note that Russell makes a few false statements, possibly for the sake of brevity, but false never-the-less. For example, when he says that animals do not make provision for winter as humans do, he is ignoring animals like squirrels and bears who either make provision for winter in stores of food or stores of fat. Russell asserts only humans do this, a falsity. I also think that Russell's assertion that only government can provide security, justice, and conservation, is very much in need of critical scrutiny in that he makes an absolute assertion which is vulnerable to refutation by anecdote. I think his assertion here is, in fact, not a true assertion and that it can be quite readily refuted if a person wished to do so. I'm quite disturbed by the surety with which Russell believes in the role of government in society. I recognize he does provide caveats, critique and warnings to his positive advancement of the role of government, but I still find his affirmations concerning. Perhaps Russell lived in a time when government was more competent and less corrupt and malign? I think Russell is definitely worth studying and I find his articulation of ideas quite pleasing to listen to. I find he seems to have an apparently good character and is obviously a well-read and very intelligent man. I think it is wise not to place him, or any person, on a figurative pedestal and I question if his ideas are truly possible to implement and if so, if the cost is too high. The most questionable aspect of this lecture is Russell's advocacy for a world state. Even as qualified by him in this lecture as "only" being responsible for a global monopoly on weaponry and a force for the prevention of inter-state warfare, I still find the proposition to present significant dangers and to be, quite honestly, verging on the naïve. As Russell is clearly a man of significant learning, high intelligence and long years at the time of this lecture, I find his advocacy for a world state cannot be dismissed as a product of naivety. I therefore find that Russell, as a product of his time, is likely trying in his advocacy for a world state to perpetuate empire through a formulation he characterizes as benevolent. In my view, the only way a world state could seem to be desirable to a person or group is if it were assumed that the control of that world state would be in the possession of that person or group. Would Russell be as keen on the idea if the world state were to be in the control of the Russians, Germans, French or Chinese? I think this betrays his true motives.
Why own, home, feed, educate and have medical responsibility of a person when the people want their freedom and require work to replace their slave owners responsibility of basic human rights? I was arrested for speaking, imprisoned for resistance (at HMP Durham), BECAME a criminal for obstruction. All for the act of remaining silent three weeks before my arrest. Is everything I do a crime if silence is a crime? "We all have thoughts but not all can think. If you don't know how to think you will be told what to think" & "If nobody knows anything there is no reason in changing our thoughts. All our thoughts are never new, just at different times different minds listen to the few, confused with all times being new. All knowing not needing to remember that humour in satire is older than all the current ideologies". - Paul J Horton. "Look at the orators in our republics; as long as they are poor, both state and people can only praise their uprightness; but once they are fattened on the public funds, they conceive a hatred for justice, plan intrigues against the people and attack democracy" - Aristophanes. We're all orators now. Many are fueled by their comprehension frustrated with confusion becoming angered being repetitive. So, intellectuals don't get involved. Those remaining pre-complaining should prove where they're preaching from. Some just love sharing poison. "You will find that 'Honesty is the best policy' comes from a 1779 letter from Benjamin Franklin to Edward Bridgen but that 'Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75'" I'll be honest, I don't get it. Do you? I feel like a cat distracted by a laser pen. I know so much my silence MADE me criminal and I'm dense. Fighting to protect unpopular speech is real free speech. Helping propagating the reach of hateful divisive deceitful speech is not only immoral but unpatriotic to post-1945 Western ideals. Filling pages earning wages. ua-cam.com/video/UYbtUztVctI/v-deo.html Learn a lot, use a little. I've been watching for over a decade confirming my own bias(when you're right are you biased towards deception?). They even tried their own humour thinking it would help slow the speed of our progressive discourse. Discourse has been hijacked unrestricted for over a decade point and case "sophistry" at 8 minutes (ua-cam.com/video/dwgsbZ1MsAE/v-deo.html). It's a backlash effort to reverse the racial reckoning, unlike any we've seen in our lifetime! They can't say they're for racism - so they've looked around and found a strange sounding theory that they can put all of their grievances/resentments in and mobilize people around this boogeyman" kimberley Crenshaw the creator of the term "critical race theory ". (ua-cam.com/video/n4TAQF6ocLU/v-deo.html) Then enjoy the shock you should get at 7 minutes for 2 minutes here - (ua-cam.com/video/ymaWq5yZIYM/v-deo.html ). CNN was created during the fcc media fairness doctrine 1949-1987 that was motivated to restrict the reach of dishonest divisive speech after veterans were shot at on a beach. Fox was created after the anti-propaganda legislation was scrapped. Some platforms wouldn't stand up to anti-propaganda legislation, them being founded on old ideals, after previous legislation inhibited their existence. Others base themselves in patriotic ideals but sell their soul more and more chasing ratings with lazy sensationalistic journalism. ua-cam.com/video/jESlqp9Iubc/v-deo.html If you're not very SMART it's better to be Conservative - "said the Conservatives intellectual knowing that well before bragging, he'd monetizing Progressive censors(SJW) but really welcoming his new supportive congregational donations" - Jordan Peterson. Progression with Anticlericalism is their fear and rightly so, best for a few rather than Good for all is human history. (“Of all religions, the Christian should of course inspire the most tolerance, but until now Christians have been the most intolerant of all men.” “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous. ' And God granted it.” "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." - Voltaire.) TRUMPISM f YEAH! 2 + 2 = ? Conservativemeans - "adverse to change or innovation and holding traditional values" as their life seems good as it is, if they're voting motivated to stop others requests to progress their better living standards, that is a protest vote and its sale shouldn't be offered every 4 years like fixing the same issues are. (We all should feel privileged being born to this Western ideal, the lower downs only have "proud" as their word of zeal. Without even knowing we're born from thee ever adapted, only knowing what we're told whilst blatantly being shafted) (2) Also knowing; (+) President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." Brought up in a social experiment built after WWII veterans demanded better for us than they inherited to defend. Comparing it to what they just witnessed which was unwelcome mind widening travel, with more Enlightened folk returning than some hoped to come. The resistance to equality was shamed into the shadows, now we have the internet and it's mankinds business as usual. Also, - "In the absence of skin colour being suspicious, a tracksuit on a Caucasian in Thorntree will do. Class system first, whites complain less if they witness others under duress. To continuously be better, you'll always need a lesser." (2) = (Some working out needed) 2 + 2 = (want the answer in one sentence if possible.) Fancy having a wild guess? Is structured correctly and or does it make sense? Little rant for perspective not sympathy; I was arrested for speaking, imprisoned for resistance (at HMP Durham), BECAME a criminal for obstruction. All for the act of remaining silent three weeks before my arrest. Is everything I do a crime if silence is a crime? Unlike Kyle Rittenhouse in America killing with an assault rifle(nuts), if I took a deadly weapon out in public and killed good faith members of the public with it due to them wanting to remove it from my possession, motivated purely because I had a deadly weapon in public, I'd be a murderer and even if I got off with it due to a technicality, my five minutes of fame would last a few days after my verdict. After witnessing my father's beating to death by a gang with deadly weapons(10yr) i wouldn't appreciate his killers being made famous for doing it. It was bad enough playing out on the same streets as them all after I was 13. When I was 13 the law of the land was changed due to two ten year olds killing a toddler (Jamie bulger), so when I was thirteen the law changed making ten year olds liable for crimes, down from thirteen......purely because of public (right-wing orchestrated media) outrage. It meant I could have freely took revenge from ten to thirteen and got away with it legally and knowing the public, morally too. Point - grown-ups are morons and I know because I am one. Took covid home and killed my mother with it, remember when we we're told to wash our hands for twenty seconds to stop an airborne pathogen from spreading?, then. Englands highest covid death rate and brexit voters, Englands third most deprived estate before austerity(coincidence is not their link). All that above apart from prison was done within three miles of Captain James Cooks birthplace(and mine). Who do you know unwittingly having ideals from pre 1945? Making them unpatriotic to lest we forget. I know folk confidently confused that they're still seeing non-European looking people in our town centre after brexit.
Do we know what "Patriotism" means yet or are we still stuck on "woman" ? Just loving your country wont cause its success,wife beaters claim that whilst wearing a Vest. Knowing 44 states still allowed child marriage before the recent new bill removing any minimum age and the anti-abortion resurfacing, I'm left wondering if it's the failing Caucasian birth rate motivated the white folk in authority. Milk it like bidens speech impediment, fictional free crack pipe and hunters laptop. Has the woke/cancel culture been hijacked? It seems like a throwback to religious rule. Blasphemy laws were just offence having authority and it had all the authority before. It all seems welcomed and profitable to be honest(you know, now all the old ideologies have the internet). Am I right in thinking the fcc media fairness doctrine 1949-1987 was basically anti-propaganda legislation?(avoiding history repeating discourse legislation). Could fox coexist as it is now with anti-propaganda legislation? Is having fair and balanced reporting patriotic? Is a politically correct national narrative still patriotic? Is fox anti-patriotic? Hypocrisy is tool criminals use until they want a reduced sentence. Is knowing you're able to repent on your death bed, a permission slip for atrocities? It will be for some. Rats all over.
Truth is timeless. I wish I possessed such clarity of thought and mind. Thank you for these uploads.
How lucky are we to have so much audio of Bertrand? And there's even some passable video footage of various interviews, too. So fortunate.
Thanks *
Eerily relevant to the present. Thankyou for the upload!
Whats most interesting here is his command and use of language ....very articulate and intelligent
We need more people like this. With great I intellect and thoughts that proceed times
This gentleman was far ahead of his time.
The great men, in life, will allways be. Try Alan Watts and Aldus Huxley. If you have not done so far. You won't regret it. Gifted like Bertrand *
70 YEARS AGO
it was yesterday.
May one ask, have you read “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill? It seems that the struggle for freedom is as perennial as procreation - if not carried out, society falls.
To pursue my role to enslave is often met with slaves happier than me.
Overall many very good points and observations made over the 6 parts, but I find that even where the ideas are sound, their implementation over the last few decades has left a lot to be desired. Given the context of the time this lecture was made, the sentiments are very understandable, but we must not forget the biases that influence those sentiments also exist.
I will also note that Russell makes a few false statements, possibly for the sake of brevity, but false never-the-less. For example, when he says that animals do not make provision for winter as humans do, he is ignoring animals like squirrels and bears who either make provision for winter in stores of food or stores of fat. Russell asserts only humans do this, a falsity.
I also think that Russell's assertion that only government can provide security, justice, and conservation, is very much in need of critical scrutiny in that he makes an absolute assertion which is vulnerable to refutation by anecdote. I think his assertion here is, in fact, not a true assertion and that it can be quite readily refuted if a person wished to do so.
I'm quite disturbed by the surety with which Russell believes in the role of government in society. I recognize he does provide caveats, critique and warnings to his positive advancement of the role of government, but I still find his affirmations concerning. Perhaps Russell lived in a time when government was more competent and less corrupt and malign?
I think Russell is definitely worth studying and I find his articulation of ideas quite pleasing to listen to. I find he seems to have an apparently good character and is obviously a well-read and very intelligent man. I think it is wise not to place him, or any person, on a figurative pedestal and I question if his ideas are truly possible to implement and if so, if the cost is too high.
The most questionable aspect of this lecture is Russell's advocacy for a world state. Even as qualified by him in this lecture as "only" being responsible for a global monopoly on weaponry and a force for the prevention of inter-state warfare, I still find the proposition to present significant dangers and to be, quite honestly, verging on the naïve.
As Russell is clearly a man of significant learning, high intelligence and long years at the time of this lecture, I find his advocacy for a world state cannot be dismissed as a product of naivety. I therefore find that Russell, as a product of his time, is likely trying in his advocacy for a world state to perpetuate empire through a formulation he characterizes as benevolent.
In my view, the only way a world state could seem to be desirable to a person or group is if it were assumed that the control of that world state would be in the possession of that person or group. Would Russell be as keen on the idea if the world state were to be in the control of the Russians, Germans, French or Chinese? I think this betrays his true motives.
Why own, home, feed, educate and have medical responsibility of a person when the people want their freedom and require work to replace their slave owners responsibility of
basic human rights?
I was arrested for speaking, imprisoned for resistance (at HMP Durham), BECAME a criminal for obstruction. All for the act of remaining silent three weeks before my arrest.
Is everything I do a crime if silence is a crime?
"We all have thoughts but not all can think. If you don't know how to think you will be told what to think" & "If nobody knows anything there is no reason in changing our thoughts. All our thoughts are never new, just at different times different minds listen to the few, confused with all times being new. All knowing not needing to remember that humour in satire is older than all the current ideologies". - Paul J Horton.
"Look at the orators in our republics; as long as they are poor, both state and people can only praise their uprightness; but once they are fattened on the public funds, they conceive a hatred for justice, plan intrigues against the people and attack democracy" - Aristophanes.
We're all orators now. Many are fueled by their comprehension frustrated with confusion becoming angered being repetitive. So, intellectuals don't get involved. Those remaining pre-complaining should prove where they're preaching from. Some just love sharing poison.
"You will find that 'Honesty is the best policy' comes from a 1779 letter from Benjamin Franklin to Edward Bridgen but that 'Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75'"
I'll be honest, I don't get it.
Do you? I feel like a cat distracted by a laser pen.
I know so much my silence MADE me criminal and I'm dense. Fighting to protect unpopular speech is real free speech. Helping propagating the reach of hateful divisive deceitful speech is not only immoral but unpatriotic to post-1945 Western ideals.
Filling pages earning wages. ua-cam.com/video/UYbtUztVctI/v-deo.html Learn a lot, use a little. I've been watching for over a decade confirming my own bias(when you're right are you biased towards deception?). They even tried their own humour thinking it would help slow the speed of our progressive discourse.
Discourse has been hijacked unrestricted for over a decade point and case "sophistry" at 8 minutes (ua-cam.com/video/dwgsbZ1MsAE/v-deo.html). It's a backlash effort to reverse the racial reckoning, unlike any we've seen in our lifetime! They can't say they're for racism - so they've looked around and found a strange sounding theory that they can put all of their grievances/resentments in and mobilize people around this boogeyman" kimberley Crenshaw the creator of the term "critical race theory ".
(ua-cam.com/video/n4TAQF6ocLU/v-deo.html)
Then enjoy the shock you should get at 7 minutes for 2 minutes here - (ua-cam.com/video/ymaWq5yZIYM/v-deo.html ).
CNN was created during the fcc media fairness doctrine 1949-1987 that was motivated to restrict the reach of dishonest divisive speech after veterans were shot at on a beach. Fox was created after the anti-propaganda legislation was scrapped. Some platforms wouldn't stand up to anti-propaganda legislation, them being founded on old ideals, after previous legislation inhibited their existence. Others base themselves in patriotic ideals but sell their soul more and more chasing ratings with lazy sensationalistic journalism.
ua-cam.com/video/jESlqp9Iubc/v-deo.html
If you're not very SMART it's better to be Conservative - "said the Conservatives intellectual knowing that well before bragging, he'd monetizing Progressive censors(SJW) but really welcoming his new supportive congregational donations" - Jordan Peterson.
Progression with Anticlericalism is their fear and rightly so, best for a few rather than Good for all is human history.
(“Of all religions, the Christian should of course inspire the most tolerance, but until now Christians have been the most intolerant of all men.”
“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous. ' And God granted it.”
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." - Voltaire.)
TRUMPISM f YEAH!
2 + 2 = ?
Conservativemeans - "adverse to change or innovation and holding traditional values" as their life seems good as it is, if they're voting motivated to stop others requests to progress their better living standards, that is a protest vote and its sale shouldn't be offered every 4 years like fixing the same issues are. (We all should feel privileged being born to this Western ideal, the lower downs only have "proud" as their word of zeal. Without even knowing we're born from thee ever adapted, only knowing what we're told whilst blatantly being shafted) (2)
Also knowing; (+)
President Lyndon B. Johnson once said,
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
Brought up in a social experiment built after WWII veterans demanded better for us than they inherited to defend. Comparing it to what they just witnessed which was unwelcome mind widening travel, with more Enlightened folk returning than some hoped to come. The resistance to equality was shamed into the shadows, now we have the internet and it's mankinds business as usual.
Also, - "In the absence of skin colour being suspicious, a tracksuit on a Caucasian in Thorntree will do. Class system first, whites complain less if they witness others under duress. To continuously be better, you'll always need a lesser." (2)
= (Some working out needed)
2 + 2 = (want the answer in one sentence if possible.)
Fancy having a wild guess? Is structured correctly and or does it make sense?
Little rant for perspective not sympathy;
I was arrested for speaking, imprisoned for resistance (at HMP Durham), BECAME a criminal for obstruction. All for the act of remaining silent three weeks before my arrest. Is everything I do a crime if silence is a crime? Unlike Kyle Rittenhouse in America killing with an assault rifle(nuts), if I took a deadly weapon out in public and killed good faith members of the public with it due to them wanting to remove it from my possession, motivated purely because I had a deadly weapon in public, I'd be a murderer and even if I got off with it due to a technicality, my five minutes of fame would last a few days after my verdict. After witnessing my father's beating to death by a gang with deadly weapons(10yr) i wouldn't appreciate his killers being made famous for doing it. It was bad enough playing out on the same streets as them all after I was 13. When I was 13 the law of the land was changed due to two ten year olds killing a toddler (Jamie bulger), so when I was thirteen the law changed making ten year olds liable for crimes, down from thirteen......purely because of public (right-wing orchestrated media) outrage. It meant I could have freely took revenge from ten to thirteen and got away with it legally and knowing the public, morally too. Point - grown-ups are morons and I know because I am one. Took covid home and killed my mother with it, remember when we we're told to wash our hands for twenty seconds to stop an airborne pathogen from spreading?, then. Englands highest covid death rate and brexit voters, Englands third most deprived estate before austerity(coincidence is not their link). All that above apart from prison was done within three miles of Captain James Cooks birthplace(and mine). Who do you know unwittingly having ideals from pre 1945? Making them unpatriotic to lest we forget. I know folk confidently confused that they're still seeing non-European looking people in our town centre after brexit.
Do we know what "Patriotism" means yet or are we still stuck on "woman" ?
Just loving your country wont cause its success,wife beaters claim that whilst wearing a Vest.
Knowing 44 states still allowed child marriage before the recent new bill removing any minimum age and the anti-abortion resurfacing, I'm left wondering if it's the failing Caucasian birth rate motivated the white folk in authority.
Milk it like bidens speech impediment, fictional free crack pipe and hunters laptop.
Has the woke/cancel culture been hijacked?
It seems like a throwback to religious rule. Blasphemy laws were just offence having authority and it had all the authority before.
It all seems welcomed and profitable to be honest(you know, now all the old ideologies have the internet).
Am I right in thinking the fcc media fairness doctrine 1949-1987 was basically anti-propaganda legislation?(avoiding history repeating discourse legislation).
Could fox coexist as it is now with anti-propaganda legislation?
Is having fair and balanced reporting patriotic?
Is a politically correct national narrative still patriotic?
Is fox anti-patriotic?
Hypocrisy is tool criminals use until they want a reduced sentence.
Is knowing you're able to repent on your death bed, a permission slip for atrocities? It will be for some.
Rats all over.