@@pedrohenriqueprata Bias and circular argument. You are attempting to use Russel's own writing to prove he was a "great judge of character" Try again.
@@ardakolimsky7107 And how do you think one can objectively and impartially "demonstrate" that one is a good judge of character? What Russell wrote and said about Lenin and Stalin shortly after these people came to power is in line with the historical judgment of these characters, although for ideological reasons it contradicts what even many of his friends thought about them. If someone says that Joseph Conrad is a great writer, another person objects that this cannot be proved, the first one will naturally refer him to reading what Conrad wrote so that he can draw his own conclusions.
@@pedrohenriqueprata Bernard Shaw mate. That was the argument. Hunpo claimed that Russell was a great judge of character by the way he described Shaw. Your response? He _is_ a great judge of character because Russel said he was. Circular argument.
Eugenics were widely accepted as a part of science back in the day. I'd call him a man (victim) of his times, rather than an outright hateful man. Plus, the shape and ridges on his skull proves his true worth as moral man.
@@mcsuibhne005 I think that bright people should be financially encouraged to procreate,that would benefit the whole of humanity. Mass Reproducing morons isn’t terribly wise.
‘’Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy… It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. Diet, injections(vaccines) and injunctions will combine, from very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible...’’ - Bertrand Russell, 1953 He wants to Bring about the New World Order and make the world into 1984. Wake Up! He's a satanist which is why he doesn't want you to believe in God or the spiritual. Please Share this!!
@@sstuddert His attack is personal and biased. Your lack of knowledge relating to UK Irish affairs is normal if you are foreign, but surely you know he considered Shaw cruel for not writing a letter for a lady.
I find the ending a bit confusing, I am wondering if I heard it properly? This poetess committed suicide and Russell respects Mrs Shaw even more. I don't quite follow.
simple enuff...listen to the passage again...Shaw was unable to discern that the poetess was a blomin' looney who might cause harm, but Mrs Shaw sized up the situation & got rid of her
That puzzled me too. I read somewhere that Mr and Mrs Shaw had a "mariage blanc", that is, it was never consummated. I don't know if Russell, or any of their friends, were aware of that at the time. I wonder if the poetess found out.
What Russell is describing about Shaw's conduct instantly brings to mind a video I watched recently called "The Alt Right Playbook: The Card Says Moops", by Innuendo Studios. The gist of that video is that one of the defining features of right wing provocateurs is their habitual refusal to state plainly the things they actually believe and to defend those beliefs, rather than ducking discussion of those issues whilst ridiculing others for their own beliefs.
Really? They don't "state plainly the things they actually believe" by advocating race realism and the ethnic nationalism? What you just said is a bad joke.
@@Lazarus1095 He is a American Supremacist who Resembles Exactly the sort you exposed, his guilty heart demended he to attack you the bearer of truth, if he could he would burn you at the stake as a heretic Replughicoons still worship Cotton Mather and the Puritan Ideology, Nu?
No, you're just another lefty projecting again--that's what you do. All your filth is full of the most nauseating innuendo and insinuation--suggesting things you can't outright say because you know how ludicrous and/or monstrous they are. If we have to speak euphemistically, it's only because you've succesfully lobbied and forced every online platform to censor our beliefs when stated plainly because you're so shit-scared of any open, honest debate because you've proven time and time again you're incapable of having, let alone winning, one.
@@atheosmachina you are right, Russell was born into wealth. He comes from an aristocratic family in Britain. However unlike some wealthy people who just lay around and are useless Russell was always very ambitious and had an amazing intellect and authored about 70 books during his life, and awarded the Nobel prize in literature in 1950. I've read about half of them and he is truly a master of the English language. Because of his wealth, he had the opportunity to pursue intellectual interests, which he certainly could not have done no matter what his IQ had he come from a working class family and worked a blue collar job.
@@atheosmachina yes that's true. It's a curious mix of natural ability, opportunity, desire, and a solid educational foundation. Russell had all of those, as well as many of history's famous men like Darwin, Newton, Mozart, etc.
@@atheosmachina I agree. There is something almost contemptible about someone whose main motivation is acquiring wealth. The intellectuals who are driven by curiosity and understanding are much more respectable than those who just chase dollars, in my opinion. I would put Elon musk and Jeff bezos FAR down the totem pole compared to Darwin and Newton and Einstein.
![[UNCUT] "เสรีพิศุทธ์" แฉยับ! งัดหลักฐานใหม่ชั้น 14 ได้นอนคุกสมใจแน่!! I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 2 ก.ย.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/O1SSg4p9Izs/mqdefault.jpg)
BR displays a very sharp mind here - my 94 year old Irish grandmother spoke down on Russell and expressed concern that I had one of his books
I note that Russell says both the good and bad points of Shaw, what was admirable and what was detestable.
Russell was such a great judge of character that it's fascinating to listen to him talk about anybody.
How do you know?
@@ardakolimsky7107 "Portraits from Memory" demonstrates.
@@pedrohenriqueprata Bias and circular argument. You are attempting to use Russel's own writing to prove he was a "great judge of character"
Try again.
@@ardakolimsky7107 And how do you think one can objectively and impartially "demonstrate" that one is a good judge of character? What Russell wrote and said about Lenin and Stalin shortly after these people came to power is in line with the historical judgment of these characters, although for ideological reasons it contradicts what even many of his friends thought about them. If someone says that Joseph Conrad is a great writer, another person objects that this cannot be proved, the first one will naturally refer him to reading what Conrad wrote so that he can draw his own conclusions.
@@pedrohenriqueprata Bernard Shaw mate.
That was the argument.
Hunpo claimed that Russell was a great judge of character by the way he described Shaw.
Your response?
He _is_ a great judge of character because Russel said he was.
Circular argument.
“He couldn’t believe in the importance of what he didn’t know”
Story took a *wild* turn at the end
so she cut her own throat. I see.....
Always a delight to hear these posts. Thanks for posting..
I can listen to this man talk about anything
I can't say the same, but this is fascinating.
Shaw was a eugenic monster.
An absolute psychopath.
Eugenics were widely accepted as a part of science back in the day. I'd call him a man (victim) of his times, rather than an outright hateful man. Plus, the shape and ridges on his skull proves his true worth as moral man.
@@mcsuibhne005
I think that bright people should be financially encouraged to procreate,that would benefit the whole of humanity. Mass Reproducing morons isn’t terribly wise.
@@mcsuibhne005 LMFAO
‘’Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy… It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. Diet, injections(vaccines) and injunctions will combine, from very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible...’’ - Bertrand Russell, 1953
He wants to Bring about the New World Order and make the world into 1984. Wake Up!
He's a satanist which is why he doesn't want you to believe in God or the spiritual.
Please Share this!!
Russell was from a family who were against Irish Home Rule. Shaw represented Ireland in Britain.
Yes, that must be it.
@@sstuddert His Grandmother wanted Gladstone to change his position on Home Rule.
@@businessconsultant7877 I'm being sarcastic. Your comment is just a silly ad hominem attack.
@@sstuddert His attack is personal and biased. Your lack of knowledge relating to UK Irish affairs is normal if you are foreign, but surely you know he considered Shaw cruel for not writing a letter for a lady.
I just read his letter to Arthur Lynch a fascinating character propagating the Irish boys to go to war in WW1 after the US entered it.
When I first heard this I thought it was Roly Birkin holding forth but then I am very very drunk
The best thing about Shaw was his vegetarianism, and that is a huge plus, given human insensitivity to animals. The worst was his kowtowing to Stalin.
I find the ending a bit confusing, I am wondering if I heard it properly? This poetess committed suicide and Russell respects Mrs Shaw even more. I don't quite follow.
simple enuff...listen to the passage again...Shaw was unable to discern that the poetess was a blomin' looney who might cause harm, but Mrs Shaw sized up the situation & got rid of her
@@elbabysnail4135 Or: Mrs. Shaw eliminated a dangerous rival.
That puzzled me too. I read somewhere that Mr and Mrs Shaw had a "mariage blanc", that is, it was never consummated. I don't know if Russell, or any of their friends, were aware of that at the time. I wonder if the poetess found out.
Shaw was a Sophist.
Another term for "sophist" is an "infantile self-obsessed imbecile".
Very interesting
Possibly Shaw negged the 'poetess' so hard that she lost her mind.
What Russell is describing about Shaw's conduct instantly brings to mind a video I watched recently called "The Alt Right Playbook: The Card Says Moops", by Innuendo Studios.
The gist of that video is that one of the defining features of right wing provocateurs is their habitual refusal to state plainly the things they actually believe and to defend those beliefs, rather than ducking discussion of those issues whilst ridiculing others for their own beliefs.
Really? They don't "state plainly the things they actually believe" by advocating race realism and the ethnic nationalism? What you just said is a bad joke.
@@thejdogcool Have you watched the video?
@@Lazarus1095 He is a American Supremacist who Resembles Exactly the sort you exposed, his guilty heart demended he to attack you the bearer of truth, if he could he would burn you at the stake as a heretic Replughicoons still worship Cotton Mather and the Puritan Ideology, Nu?
@@greedyfirstalgorithmlast26 u bot, bro?
No, you're just another lefty projecting again--that's what you do. All your filth is full of the most nauseating innuendo and insinuation--suggesting things you can't outright say because you know how ludicrous and/or monstrous they are. If we have to speak euphemistically, it's only because you've succesfully lobbied and forced every online platform to censor our beliefs when stated plainly because you're so shit-scared of any open, honest debate because you've proven time and time again you're incapable of having, let alone winning, one.
Russell was always a tory at heart not his fault
Not really. There's nothing leftwing about Stalinism.
Yes Bertrand - you are the smartest - but, and though you too worked for it -
It was still - handed to you and that was a great, great advantage.
He never professed to be the smartest though. He was just living his life and putting his energy into his interests.
what was actually "handed" to russell?
@@atheosmachina you are right, Russell was born into wealth. He comes from an aristocratic family in Britain. However unlike some wealthy people who just lay around and are useless Russell was always very ambitious and had an amazing intellect and authored about 70 books during his life, and awarded the Nobel prize in literature in 1950. I've read about half of them and he is truly a master of the English language. Because of his wealth, he had the opportunity to pursue intellectual interests, which he certainly could not have done no matter what his IQ had he come from a working class family and worked a blue collar job.
@@atheosmachina yes that's true. It's a curious mix of natural ability, opportunity, desire, and a solid educational foundation. Russell had all of those, as well as many of history's famous men like Darwin, Newton, Mozart, etc.
@@atheosmachina I agree. There is something almost contemptible about someone whose main motivation is acquiring wealth. The intellectuals who are driven by curiosity and understanding are much more respectable than those who just chase dollars, in my opinion. I would put Elon musk and Jeff bezos FAR down the totem pole compared to Darwin and Newton and Einstein.
He was a paid propagandist for the controllers.
sounds like Jon steward.