Brendan ONeill - Why Censorship is Abhorrent Anthony Kellett 2017-08-30 | This is a compilation of clips, outlining Brendan O'Neill's stance on free speech, in order to illustrate my own position.Too much emphasis is being placed on the individual's right to voice their ideas and beliefs and not enough on the right of countless others to hear those opinions. Both are important, but the latter is far more intrusive, if for no other reason than the sheer numbers involved.Good or bad, I wish to hear opinions so that I may assess them; and, if necessary, adopt or rail against them. They can make me wiser or strengthen my current opinions. Either way, they are the means through which I educate myself. I refuse to placidly accept that government - or anyone else, for that matter - has the right to dictate what I must learn and think; or, what I must not learn or not think.If you're willing to abdicate that responsibility, to a third party, shame on you.Full Debate: youtube.com/watch?v=kLFehCMUQqk
Citron Research on Edgio - Benzinga LIVE - 16 05 24 Anthony Kellett 2024-05-17 | Andrew Left, Citron Research, commenting on Edgio (EGIO) and its potential in the 'Edge' computing investment space. A random post, which I know will interest very few; but is important to those few. Sorry, to the rest of you.Full Video: youtube.com/live/5kP1BScLXN4?si=L1L-JYvfmE_5fPd0
Fauci telling the truth... For those wishing to Follow the Science Anthony Kellett 2022-04-13 | Dr. Fauci explaining what most virologists seemed to believe, until very recently. I'm unaware of what changed the opinion of many of them.
Douglas Murray - Time to Stop Caring Anthony Kellett 2021-09-24 | I've got nothing to add, to this.Filmed in September 2020, the full interview, which is well worth viewing, can be found here: youtu.be/Q3JKX-fTMcg
Neil Oliver - Mob Mentality and Ignorance of History Anthony Kellett 2021-03-25 | "The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either – but right through every human heart – and through all human hearts."Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (1973 - Written 1958-68).Neil Oliver expresses the reality of human existence, throughout history, in terms that require no embellishment, by me. Any more details are superfluous and would only dilute the general message, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Daniel Schmachtenberger Gets a Wake Up Call on Human Nature Anthony Kellett 2020-08-10 | Daniel Schmachtenberger is an interesting and thought-provoking man. Whether one agrees with his views or not, I’ve always found his opinions worth spending time considering. It seems to me that, if one doesn’t, you haven’t explored your own worldview sufficiently.There are many interesting points, in the full interview; but, here, I’m interested in one small aspect, which is something I’ve been trying to communicate, for many years. In this short clip, Daniel describes a moment he was awakened to an aspect of humanity to which he was previously oblivious. Chris Williamson also makes a good point as to why such people, as Daniel describes, reach the positions they do.I’m of the opinion that this is the aspect to which many Marxists/Communists are utterly oblivious. The ‘many’, to whom I refer, are predominantly those who believe they’re trying to improve society, by promoting this dogma, rather than those who’d ultimately take control. It seems lost on those, who view themselves as kind, caring, and righteous, that they’d play no part in the final manifestation of their panacea. Those, who care only for their personal well-being, would contrive (and connive) to assume control, in very short order. Fascists are more likely aware of this aspect of human nature (to some insufficient extent), as it seems to me to be a core belief of their particular worldview. Unfortunately, they're deluded by believing they'll be one of the few; which they won't be.If we’re ever going to improve the west’s current system, it will not be through establishing authoritarian governments. No one, outside those who ultimately control them, will enjoy that experience. This is not unfounded speculation. It is the outcome from every previous attempt to implement these abominable doctrines. Thus, in my opinion, it will continue.Of course, as always, these are only my opinions. Dissent, if you feel moved to do so.The full interview is interesting and well worth viewing: youtu.be/tJQac_T_rPoDaniel Schmachtenberger's website is also worth a visit: civilizationemerging.com
I Hope You Will Be Treated Unfairly - Chief Justice John G Roberts Anthony Kellett 2019-12-21 | It seems to me that this is something one could present to both friend or foe.'From time to time, in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly; so that you will come to know the value of justice. I hope that you will suffer betrayal; because that will teach you the importance of loyalty.Sorry to say, but I hope you will be lonely, from time to time; so that you don’t take friends for granted. I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time; so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life, and understand that your success is not completely deserved, and that the failure of others is not completely deserved, either.And when you lose, as you will from time to time, I hope, every now and then, your opponent will gloat over your failure; it is a way for you to understand the importance of sportsmanship. I hope you’ll be ignored; so that you know the importance of listening to others. I hope you will have just enough pain, to learn compassion.Whether I wish these things or not, they’re going to happen. And whether you benefit from them, or not, will depend upon your ability to see the message in your misfortunes.'Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking at his son’s middle-school graduation, June 3, 2017.The full speech is available here...and it's well worth hearing, as is the excellent introduction:youtube.com/watch?v=Gzu9S5FL-Ug
The Intellectual Dark Web - Next Level Thinking - Ken Wilber Anthony Kellett 2019-08-16 | Ken Wilber discusses a framework, which explains the melding of those, with a range of political views, into a movement united against regressive Identitarians and their absolutist bullying.As much as Identitarians claim superiority to racists and nationalists et al, Wilber examines how their mentalities and methodologies are identical.I see little point in me rehearsing his analysis, here. I think this video clip - and those I list below - are more than adequate. I highly recommend them to all, even if it takes you out of your echo chamber.youtube.com/watch?v=bDjCnFvz11Ayoutube.com/watch?v=U2XK812tSmMyoutube.com/watch?v=iLhC8SgDRVw
What Feminists do to Women that Dissent - Cassie Jaye Anthony Kellett 2019-05-29 | Some of us care about women being awakened to the vast wealth of opportunities, which exist for them. At the end of the day, it’s all about personal choice. Nevertheless, for my part, I want women to make those choices - whatever they might ultimately be - with the full range of possibilities seemingly attainable. I could expand on this, ad infinitum, but that’s the basic goal.Let’s get one thing straight; hopefully, once and for all, since I’ve repeated it often enough. My biggest opponents, in attempting to make this a reality, are a plethora of modern feminists. They’ve absolutely no interest in the advancement of women, their rights or their careers. They’re only concerned about the inculcation of their doctrine, on the rest of humanity. The mainstream media buys into their narrative. I don’t think that’s because it understands the implications, or grasps the inescapable outcomes, down the road. It’s because the mainstream media thinks it’s popular and, at the end of the day, what could be wrong about standing up for the oppressed? Unfortunately, so shallow is their thinking, the media buffoons can’t even muster the most basic train of consistent, logical thought.Cassie Jaye is living out everything that encapsulates my intended outcomes. She’s a woman, making inroads into a male-dominated environment; she’s living her dream. Irrespective of what subjects she tackles, nothing alters the fact that she’s a woman of independent mind and means, making her way in the world as she chooses. One might assume, notwithstanding our differences, that feminists would be even more supportive than me; cheering her on and holding her up as an example of what women can achieve, given the correct support and encouragement.Unfortunately, having made several highly acclaimed films about women’s issues, Cassie set out to highlight (as she thought) the misdemeanours of Men's Rights Activists. To her credit, she found them more reasonable than she'd anticipated. The result was her film highlighted some of men’s problems; yes, they do have some issues, too. Now, whilst it may be a diversion from feminism, her film - The Red Pill - is not anti-feminism. If, as Emma Watson keeps trying to assert, “Feminism is about equality”, then it should recognise inequalities, elsewhere. I’m not saying it’s for feminists to highlight such things; that’s a task for men. However, I don’t see why they’d object to men pointing out their difficulties, such as they are.Please, know this. This current feminist cabal cares nothing about women’s empowerment; it’s about the empowerment of ideologues, determined to destroy anyone – man, woman or beast – that questions their ideology. I hope these clips, from a Cassie Jaye interview, convey how postmodern feminists treat a woman, if she dares to stray from their dogma.Personally, I find this distressing and heartrending. If anyone, purporting to be a feminist, does too, then I believe you need to have a serious rethink about what you believe modern feminism is achieving, and the real-world reality. If you don’t, I believe you prove my point.Cassie Jaye’s documentary – The Red Pill – can be viewed here: youtube.com/watch?v=_mB13NV7rY0Here's an article, by Paula Wright, to read (and probably send) to anyone that recites the OED, when you question the egalitarian nature of feminism:psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/rabble-rouser/201512/when-is-feminist-not-feminist
The CIA, Russia and Fake News Anthony Kellett 2019-05-21 | I’m not going to get into the debate about Russians hacking elections, it’s too tedious. However, in drawing attention to the lack of credibility had by the CIA – ‘You must believe us… but we won’t show you the evidence’ – some people have pointed to the debacle of the CIA’s Iraqi WMD claims, made in 2002, as reason to doubt its word.In such cases, I tend to point to a far more convoluted and wide-ranging CIA deceit, called, ‘The Cold War’. There is complex social engineering theory behind this, which I won’t bore you with, here. In short, the US government reasoned that the people needed a common enemy and, through the 1970s and 80s, Russia was the lucky protagonist; though its power was already decaying and its threat negligible.I’ve cobbled together a few clips of interviews, with people in senior positions of government and the CIA – taken from ‘The Power of Nightmares’, an excellent documentary series on the broader philosophical subject - to illustrate how this manifested itself.P.S. In case you're wondering, 'Perry Mason' and 'Gunsmoke' were two of Leo Strauss's favourite TV programmes.
The Paris Agreement is a waste of resources - Bjørn Lomborg Anthony Kellett 2019-05-21 | I've got nothing to add, to this. I'm just putting out opinions, based on facts. Data-driven logic is incovenient, for those seeking popularity.
Rowan Atkinson - Feel Free to Insult Me Anthony Kellett 2019-05-04 | I appreciate this has appeared in numerous places, since 2012, when it heralded the ‘Campaign Against Section 5’, which referred to Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Effectively, it proscribed “insult”, which was very much a subjective judgment. Whilst that campaign was successful in removing the reference, I’m unsure how that alteration has affected the real-world outcome, in terms of how the law (and law enforcers) actually operate.I notice free speech videos and social media pages seem less visited than those for and against various political wings, and the highly polarised views on ‘social justice’, in its more extreme forms. This seems strange, to me, as free speech and, most importantly, the freedom to hear free speech, is paramount and central to all these issues.Tedious though it may be, I’ll continue to wave the flag for all sides of all debates to say what they think and espouse what they believe; and for us all to hear those opinions so we may come to conclusions about them. I cannot grasp the concept that, good or bad or utterly vile, all opinions should not be heard, so they can be evaluated and be open to critical responses. To allow bad ideas to fester, underground and unchallenged, seems to me to be a recipe for disaster. That every educated person cannot see this, is utterly beyond me. Moreover, for some sections of society to believe they’re immune from this reprehensible trend, in western society, is naivety in the extreme.Website: defendfreespeech.org.ukFacebook: facebook.com/defendfreespeech Twitter: twitter.com/speechdefenders YouTube Channel: youtube.com/channel/UCQrJSZqagqHCls2Vkrubkzg
Facebook & YouTube Execs Just Dont Get Free Speech Anthony Kellett 2019-04-15 | Whilst this may be just another video about free speech, I want to focus more on the aspect of freedom to hear free speech. I believe this is too often ignored in the general debates around this subject. People tend to be outraged by the right denied to a single individual to express their opinions, when I believe the greater injustice befalls those who are being denied the right to hear those opinions; in terms of sheer numbers, if nothing else.I should have the right to hear any opinion I wish to hear, irrespective of whether I hate it or not. I find the idea, that a third party will decide what I will hate, utterly repulsive. I hate it far more than any speech I could imagine. Moreover, if I hear speech with which I disagree, I want to be able to formulate arguments against it, notwithstanding I want to hear it myself, so that I can attest that its content has not been ‘twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools’, as Kipling once wrote.These are essential elements of a free society and the bedrock upon which western civilisation has been built. Opinions have been debated and many bad ones gradually eliminated – or, at least, made apparently fallacious – by great people being allowed to hear them and refute them. Eradicating this freedom risks dangerous ideas proliferating and becoming accepted as good ideas, because their flaws are not exposed.On the flip-side, good ideas, which are detested by those in authority, can be quashed and effectively outlawed; and that assumes their conceivers would dare to voice them, in the first instance. Self-censorship, in the face of widespread condemnation or illegality, can be a far more effective tool to censor a disgruntled public than any direct legislation. Self-censorship is inevitably far more restrictive than legislation outlines, because the boundaries of legislation are not tested. People tend to stay so far from illegality that their personal rules are downright draconian, by comparison.Finally, as J. S. Mill points out, it's only by hearing the opinions of others contrary to our own, or maybe the same framed in a different way, that we can test our own ideas. Maybe, our opinions become strengthened or they're changed. This is only possible if we can hear them all, good or bad.I’ve included the answers of Facebook and Google representatives, just to show how they utterly fail to grasp the points made by Tom McClintock. Perhaps, they disagree with him. However, they frame their answers as if they are echoing his concerns, which they are not. McClintock basically claims we should be able to hear hate speech. The Facebook executive merely mentions censoring that which is already illegal and not disputed, by any reasonable person. The YouTube representative seems to agree, even allowing “offensive” material; and then points out that it wants material that is “free from hate”. I wonder who defines ‘hate’, in this context. Who should be defining hate, on my behalf, and unilaterally deciding to protect me from it? I want to know who hates, and what they hate. I want to consider whether that hate is justified, or not. I can only do this by hearing it, for myself.I’m adding a link to an earlier video of mine, where Brendan O’Neill explains much of my case. I believe it should be more widely heard. Even if you hate it, you should hear his points and decide that for yourself. You should not be delegating that responsibility to anyone else, in my opinion; not least global corporations or government thought policeBrendan O'Neill - Why Censorship is Abhorrent - youtu.be/hAFj9_CvRaA
Oscar on the Oscars - Other People are Quite Dreadful Anthony Kellett 2019-02-26 | I couldn't help but think of this, as I watched and cast a critical eye over the latest Oscars red carpet fashion parade.My dear Oscar Wilde; how do you know me so well!?
Peterson and Haidt - Left-Right Viewpoint Diversity Anthony Kellett 2019-02-08 | Full Discussion: youtube.com/watch?v=4IBegL_V6AA
Social Justice Scientists v Proper Scientists Anthony Kellett 2019-02-07 | In English and Norwegian (with English Subtitles)Have you ever felt vicarious embarrassment for a social justice scientist? Try this video, and see how you feel, afterwards. Here are two wonderful quotes, which sum up the obliviousness and predetermined bias of Norwegian gender studies ‘scientists’: “What is your scientific basis to say that biology plays no part in the genders’ choice of work?”Egeland: “My scientific basis? I have what you would call a theoretical basis. There’s no room for biology in there, for me.”“You presume there are no differences until the opposite is proven?”Lorenzten: “Yes.”I could write a long essay, on this. However, I’d be surprised if the rational, amongst you, would require my thoughts on the comparison between proper science and simply believing what one wishes to believe. At one point, a gender researcher suggests that scientists are simply seeing what they wish to see. I point this out, just in case anyone desires to understand the concept of ‘projection’, in psychology.
Niall Ferguson - Refusing to Denounce Thatcher Anthony Kellett 2019-01-31 | It’s a source of constant irritation, to me, that people can continually denounce Margaret Thatcher and escape unchallenged. It seems, in Britain at least, it’s probably safe ground and can be embarked upon as a sure-fire way to ingratiate oneself with many middle-class groups, today. Some of us, who lived through 1970s Britain, will not give you such an easy ride. Make sure you know what you’re talking about, or your smug virtue-signalling could turn into a veritable nightmare; as, I believe, it does for this Bloomberg interviewer. After making several clichéd claims, he starts to revert to, “Just playing devil’s advocate”, as he senses his ignorance is starting to show, and scrambles to distance himself from the plethora of left-wing myths he’s got written down and has yet to espouse.Kipling once wrote, “If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue…”. I wish more closet Thatcher supporters would have the courage to speak out, when crowds deride her. When talking behind closed doors, I find she has countless admirers. In public, her defenders are non-existent. It’s like being at a Hollywood awards ceremony, listening to Trump being berated. Trust me, there are a lot of closet Republicans, in that room, afraid to stand and be counted. Thus, it is with Thatcherites.Niall Ferguson is a man of a different kind. He will not shrink away from those things, which he believes to be true. Britain, in the 1970s, was a complete disaster. Margaret Thatcher restored both order and pride, to that nation. It’s just a pity she was removed, by her spineless colleagues, before the job was completed. Yes, the poll-tax was a mistake; but Margaret Thatcher was a hero. I agree with Niall’s assessment of her ranking, except I believe she would have equalled Churchill, had it been required. She just didn’t have the same problems to resolve. Who knows, Churchill may have failed to resolve those with which she dealt. Either way, for her legacy to be perpetually dismissed as negative is a disgraceful injustice. All Britain owes her a debt, for the foundation on which it now sits, in my opinion.
Fry and Harris on Christopher Hitchens Anthony Kellett 2019-01-31 | I’ve posted this not only to celebrate Hitch but also to bring a smile to the faces of those who knew him.For my part, it made me smile more hearing the list of YouTube archives, that Stephen rehearsed, immersed in which he could lose a day. It seems my channel reflects his admission.Full Interview: youtube.com/watch?v=bCcIYBpRER8
Jordan Peterson - Happiness is the Wrong Goal Anthony Kellett 2019-01-24 | Millennials come in for much stick, not least from me. However, I think it’s also worth taking pause, to acknowledge that much of their worldview is not entirely of their doing. I’m starting to realise that this is even more the case, for ‘Generation Z’. ‘Gen Z’ is not a generation with which I’ve had much personal contact. They’ve existed merely as anecdotal stories and embedded in statistics. However, as I see them emerge, from education, the unpreparedness for life in the competitive, unsympathetic and relentlessly hostile world is actually heartbreaking, to me; particularly, as I become close to some. I’ve said, previously, I think they’ve been let down. I would put it stronger than that, now. I’d say they’ve been utterly betrayed. It's a generation where everyone is special; everyone is a winner; everyone is beautiful. The result is that 'special', 'beauty' and 'winning' are meaningless and, effectively, non-existent. If everyone is beautiful, then no-one is beautiful. Moreover, because oneself is the most important consideration, there's no thought given to the other. The consequences for others, and their suffering, are merely after-thoughts; or, worse still, collateral damage. I could write a short book, detailing the things of which they’re ignorant. That said, if I had the chance to communicate only a single thought, it would be my belief that it’s caring for others and shouldering responsibility, which give life deep meaning and direction. Without that, life is shallow, and ambitions are unfulfilled because goals are capricious.Jordan Peterson (with a valuable contribution from Todd Kashdan) beautifully encapsulates my feelings on the matter, and the message I’d like to convey. Unfortunately, the Catch-22 is that too many of Gen Z will be ill-equipped to process this beautiful observation. They need help, which they cannot recognise they need. Given my description of their self-obsession, many, of older generations, will react with ‘Screw them! It’s their problem and their funeral’. I’m afraid I cannot be so callous, because I cannot hold them to blame. For what it’s worth, and what use it will be, here is Jordan’s take. It only lasts 10 minutes, but it should be downloaded and played on a loop, repeated for an hour or, preferably, two, so every word and thought can be absorbed.
Confusion over UK ‘Extremism’ Definition – Clarified Anthony Kellett 2019-01-18 | It seems UK citizens are confused by what its government and police consider to be ‘extremism’, together with hate crime law and the criteria that defines it. Karen Bradley MP attempts to illuminate them. I wish she had used a brighter bulb.I appreciate I’m conflating ‘extremism’ and ‘hate crime’, but I’m struggling to see that the authorities are not doing likewise.Public Order Act 1986 Chapter 64I have been studying the above act of Parliament. A full analysis is not appropriate, here. So, I’ll limit myself to Part 3A (link below, for that Part, in full) and only one section of that part, in particular. I’ve done all I can to verify that this is still UK law, unamended and applicable, today. Part 3A – Inflammatory Material – Section 29J reads as follows:“Protection of freedom of expression”“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”In view of this, I find many of the current actions, of the British Police in particular, utterly bewildering. How can any religious ‘jokes’ not fall into this exclusion? There is a prohibition against threatening words or behaviour, on religious or sexual grounds, if it’s intended to stir up hatred. Section 29 B (1) states:“Use of words or behaviour or display of written material”“(1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred [or hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation].”However, given the aforementioned catch-all, designed to maintain freedom of speech, I’m at a loss to explain how many prosecutions (or even arrests, for that matter) ever came before the courts, in England and Wales. Clearly, “discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents” cannot be considered “threatening”, because the legislation specifically states precisely that point; they are not prohibited and, therefore, not ‘threatening’ insofar as the law intends that to be defined. They may well be “extremism”, its difficult to say; but it seems they're permissible, nevertheless.Whilst one could argue the descriptions of the act’s offenses are vague, can this exclusion be any clearer?legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/3A My thanks to ‘The Christian Institute’ for this collection of clips: youtube.com/channel/UCeEPehSV8K34BL4PFzcTHkA
Pickard on the Threat to Freedom Anthony Kellett 2019-01-17 | "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably… The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged."“We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, is all ancient history. Then, before you can blink an eye, suddenly, it threatens to start all over again… villains who twirl their moustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well-camouflaged… she, or someone like her, will always be with us. Waiting for the right climate in which to flourish, spreading fear in the name of righteousness… Vigilance… that is the price we have to continually pay.”There have been moral authoritarians, in the past; we have them in the present, with our ‘political correctness’ zealots and social justice warriors. Moreover, we’ll have them in the future. There’s no end to the struggle for freedom to think, to speak and to hear.
Ibn Warraq - Get Stoned First... Anthony Kellett 2019-01-17 | Ibn Warraq neatly sums up his yardstick for the superiority of Western civilisation, when compared to more tyrannical, theocratic regimes. It wouldn't be mine - I've never been so inclined or well disposed towards those who are - but I celebrate the freedom to be so:“I do not wish to live in a society where you get stoned for adultery. I prefer to live in a society where we get stoned, first, and then commit adultery!”
Douglas Murray - Misguided and Misplaced Western Masochism Anthony Kellett 2019-01-17 | I normally add some comments, but I think Douglas Murray says enough, for me. I wouldn’t wish to dilute it or distract from it.As uplifting as his speech was, I will have to give the ‘Quote of the Debate’ award to Ibn Warraq, when he neatly summed up his yardstick for the superiority of Western civilisation, when compared to more tyrannical, theocratic regimes. He declared: “I do not wish to live in a society where you get stoned for adultery. I prefer to live in a society where we get stoned, first, and then commit adultery!”Full Debate: youtube.com/watch?v=n3wcjwY4mz8
Douglas Murray - Europe on the Edge Anthony Kellett 2019-01-16 | Douglas Murray discusses immigration, multiculturalism, and the self-loathing existential crisis, seemingly apparent throughout European middle class.Full Video: youtube.com/watch?v=tMJobh2pbpE
Niall Ferguson - Muslim Legacy and Imperialism Anthony Kellett 2019-01-15 | Niall Ferguson is never one to deny historical fact, simply to run with the crowd. History is a palimpsest of influences and the current vogue, of blaming 'the west' for all current ills, is unidimensional, unbearably naïve and plain wrong.His predictions, for 'Arab Spring' could not be known, for certain. Prediction is about weighing probability, and determining the most likely outcome. Even if one is wrong, the most likely prediction would still be the correct assumption to have made, with hindsight; as long as it's based on sound reasoning, of course. Niall's logic seems to have been far more useful than his interlocutor's "I am totally optimistic".
Niall Ferguson - The Politically Correct Fall of History Anthony Kellett 2019-01-11 | I’m an admirer of Niall Ferguson, not least due to his knowledge of financial market history; a particular interest of mine. I also like his counterfactual method of looking at the past, which yields interesting thought experiments; if it’s done in the search for truth, rather than merely to court controversy. It’s fine to understand ‘how things turned out’; but, I believe, one of the greatest benefits, of a history education, should be understanding ‘how they could have turned out’. This gives one far more chance of avoiding bad outcomes, because one is better able to grasp the possible consequences of various decisions. In short, it’s all well and good, to decry the outcome of a given course of action, but what could a different path yield? Without this capacity, every course becomes a lottery, rather than a reasoned and constructive plan.Niall is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History, at Harvard University. He is also a senior research fellow, at Jesus College, Oxford, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and visiting professor at the New College of the Humanities.On October 28, he accepted the 2016 Philip Merrill Award for Outstanding Contributions to Liberal Arts Education at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, DC. I implore everyone to listen, and digest, his acceptance speech.Full Video: youtube.com/watch?v=7WXNF6Vy07A
Bertrand Russell - Advice to Future Generations Anthony Kellett 2018-12-31 | Face to Face Interview (BBC, 1959).Full Interview: youtube.com/watch?v=1bZv3pSaLtY
Quantum Forces, Solids and Ice - Explained using Aunt Minnies bad hip Anthony Kellett 2018-12-31 | I get asked a lot of questions. These range from ‘computer-stuff’, and ones on some scientific matters, to economics, investment and currency movements. There are also more straightforward questions on history and religion (though some are not so clear-cut), and more nuanced ones related to psychology, and so on.I’ve Lawrence Krauss to thank, for pointing out a video of the legendary physicist, Richard Feynman, being asked about magnetism by a BBC journalist. It made me smile (out loud, actually) because I’ve absolutely no doubt many of my ‘real world’ friends would start pointing at the screens, yelling, “That’s what Anthony does… that’s him all over. Ask him a simple question, and that’s what you get!” It was once said of me, rather astutely I thought and by someone for whom I have the utmost admiration, “Ask him the time and he’ll tell you how to build a clock”. There’s a common theme; it’s because I really want people to work things out, rather than be given an answer, which teaches them nothing other than an answer that a parrot could recite. People are far better armed, if they’re given the power to work things out, because not all problems require the standard answer. A proper understanding will enable people to think on their feet, and adapt to the variations on a given topic, or cross-reference between subjects. This is why I rarely just say what I think; and, instead - where time and space permit - I attempt to explain why I think it.Sometimes, things are not simple, but there’s a requirement to explain things in simple language, understandably. Doing so, when possible, not only enables and audience to grasp it, it also demonstrates you understand it, too. If you can’t put things in simple terms, then either there is no simple explanation – that the listener could understand - or you do not understand it.This illustrates the way some of us think – the process that kicks into gear when faced with a question – and frequently highlights the shallowness of many people’s deliberation and inquisitiveness. Even I’m not arrogant enough to compare my mind to Feynman’s; except insofar as the processes are similar, even if the achievements are somewhat pale, by comparison. The truth is that if you gave a ‘real’ answer, many would find it tiresome and realise they’re not that interested in knowing it. The fun in life begins when you find those people that want to know.I’m contemplating just playing this video, when I know people don’t want a real answer to their questions. They usually consider me tedious, in any event, so it would be better for us both if they watched this, whilst I conversed with more interesting (and interested) people.This is a genius, teaching whilst supposedly explaining why he can't explain something… and it is wonderful!
Hijab – Freedom to Choose; but, not a Symbol of Freedom Anthony Kellett 2018-12-29 | Many, in the West, seem to have developed a strange attitude towards the hijab. They’re trying to embrace it as a rather bizarre symbol of unity and acceptance.I’m led to believe some people like wearing handcuffs, in the bedroom. I believe they should be free to do so; each to their own, as the saying goes. However, I wouldn’t consider wearing handcuffs as a symbol of freedom.I see the hijab no differently. The very fact that many women have it imposed upon them, contrary to their wishes, negates the suitability of such symbolism, in my opinion.By the way, for those continually whining about the “Western patriarchy”, take a look at Iran. That is a patriarchy in action.My Stealthy Freedom - facebook.com/StealthyFreedom
Douglas Murray & Sam Harris - Political Correctness Anthony Kellett 2018-08-17 | Murray: “We’ll all be discussing whether somebody who hasn’t got a penis can be a man and whether somebody who has got a penis can be ‘Glamour Woman of the Year’, when the Islamists come in with Kalashnikovs. It’s Pathetic! It’s a breakdown in our society and you have to rectify it.”Harris: “What you think is not what is important, here, it’s always how you think… it is the fact that you are available to good chains of evidence and argument; and, if you’re not available to those things, you’re simply not in touch with reality… and you are an unreliable witness, to every subsequent event... all you have is dogmatism”Murray: “We have a belief in the truth, because we don’t want to pump out lies, simply to further a political agenda, because we’ve got a bit of decency”.Full Interview: youtube.com/watch?v=yAmE1cNB9WI
Jordan Peterson & Douglas Murray - Fascism, Marxism, Communism Anthony Kellett 2018-08-16 | Full Interview: youtube.com/watch?v=mNJyAKy-A2g
Conflict Avoidance and Associated Problems Anthony Kellett 2018-07-23 | Jordan Peterson touches on what I believe gives any relationship - partner, friend or work mate - a better chance of some longevity. Of course, this same advice could increase its brevity; but, I believe bringing that relationship to an end, sooner, will also be for the best, if that's the outcome.This is not easy; but, it seems to me it's the only way forward, in any meaningful and worthwhile sense.Full Interview (27 mins) - youtube.com/watch?v=PLrV1G1ENlA
Niall Ferguson Comparing Marxism and Fascism Anthony Kellett 2018-07-18 | Full Interview - youtube.com/watch?v=Re0Mu8Tq4fEThe comments have warranted the following links, relevant to the discussion:Stephen Hicks - Short - Explaining Latest Gen Postmodernism: youtube.com/watch?v=jFStsqyelX4 Stephen Hicks - Postmodernism - Long Explanation: youtube.com/watch?v=-BGbHG63x8wStephen Hicks – Explaining Postmodernism – Full Audiobook: youtube.com/watch?v=qQcNjHNXnEE Stephen Hicks – Explaining Postmodernism - Downloads of book or various individual chapters and charts, in text, mp3 or video: http://www.stephenhicks.org/explaining-postmodernism
Jordan Peterson - The Evolution of Enlightenment Values and Western Culture Anthony Kellett 2018-06-14 | Full Interview - goo.gl/zC78Mh
Jordan Peterson - Summary of Maps of Meaning Anthony Kellett 2018-05-08 | I’m starting to grow rather weary of discussions about whether Jordan Peterson is a Christian and whether he believes in the Christian God.The first thing I would say is that I’m not really bothered, either way. He says many things with which I agree. On other matters, he makes me think. These are sufficient for me to want to hear his opinion, on any subject. That said, if he believed in the ‘sky fairy’, which seems to be the default of many religious folk, then I’d be a little disappointed, I must admit. As far as Peterson’s concerned, he is a Christian, and does believe in a God. That would seem to be case closed; but, it’s not that straightforward.Here’s a video of Peterson describing that God, and how that God came to exist. That sentence, alone, will probably make ‘Christians’ balk at Peterson’s religious beliefs. That he subsequently describes how this God evolved, along with human consciousness, would have Billy Graham turning in his grave.Irrespective of your agreement or disagreement with his ideas, Peterson can hardly be dismissed as an unscientific, unthinking, religious zealot, who believes in the existence of a creator. If you get nothing else, from this, just take note of the sources he continually references. He’s read all that material. His conclusions are derived from deep thought on the claims of those sources. It doesn’t matter if you don’t accept Peterson’s conclusions. They’re derived from a logical process; and, as such, worthy of consideration. Though his explanation may seem rather complex, it seems to me one can boil it down to ‘A Presentation on How Man Created God’.Peterson’s hypothesis is based on this ‘creation’ resulting from an evolutionary process, rather than merely a fictitious construct by a thinking man, fully aware of his purpose. As such, I find it thoroughly fascinating. Whether I agree, or not, has no bearing on that fascination. In fact, I don’t know if I’m capable – sufficiently informed – to justify my disagreement. It will require me to spend a considerable amount of time, thinking about this; and, right there is why I’ll continue to listen to Peterson, in a nutshell… because he’s not a nutcase.Please watch Peterson explain his ideas, and his notion of God. Then, you decide if he’s akin to any God-worshipping Christian, whom you’ve ever met.I highly recommend watching the entire hour. It should keep you thinking for a long, long time. It's a shame, if it doesn't.Full Interview - goo.gl/zC78Mh
To Citizens and Immigrants of Europe - Play the Damn Game - Jordan Peterson Anthony Kellett 2018-01-25 | Jordan Peterson outlines a way to think of European culture, and why it should be preserved and adhered to, in the face of the current wave of immigration.Quite rightly, he doesn't denounce immigration as inherently bad. There are many pros and cons. However, as I've attempted on many occasions, what he does do is implore Europeans to recognise the lives that have been devoted to establishing 'the game', as he frames it. Having done that - and for all its imperfections - it should be recognised that the game has brought innumerable benefits to its residents, and that the rules of this 'game' should be followed, by all who wish to play.What he doesn't say, specifically, but which I'll infer and state explicitly, is that if you’re not prepared to follow the rules of the game and play fair, then you shouldn't be allowed to participate. Moreover, its incumbent upon the current ‘players’ to ensure this prerequisite is strictly applied.The source video: youtu.be/kgcoHmgqLBE
Jordan Peterson - Equality - Opportunity v Outcome Anthony Kellett 2018-01-24 | Full Lecture: goo.gl/d66KRi
Jordan Peterson - The Lobster Inconvenience Anthony Kellett 2018-01-22 | I don't know the particular research Peterson read, but here's a similar study, if you wish to examine it:http://www.pnas.org/content/94/11/5939.full
Jordan Peterson - Why he is fighting for Free Speech, Truth and Individualism Anthony Kellett 2017-11-03 | Jordan Peterson explaining why fighting the proposed Canadian hate speech laws was important, to him... and why it should be important to everyone.Hopefully, this might move some people to watch the full interview. If you're unmoved, I'll be despondent about the prospects for western civilisation.youtube.com/watch?v=5n8zn-R10qM
La Bohème - Puccini - Act III Anthony Kellett 2017-09-13 | If I had to live with only one act, of any opera, it would probably be Act III of La Bohème. There may well be many others to which I'd gravitate, from time to time; but forever? I'd pick this.This isn't the best version I have, but it has subtitles, just in case anyone wants to know what's going on. That said, it's hardly a bad version, by any measure... or else I wouldn't have it, would I?! This is a 20-minute emotional rollercoaster, which never fails to send shivers up and down my spine.Luciano Pavarotti - Fiamma Izzo d'Amico - Roberto Servile - Madelyn Renée Monti
Brendan ONeill - Modern Feminism is a War on Women Anthony Kellett 2017-09-09 | I've often repeated that my biggest hurdle, in attempting to persuade women into male-dominated fields - and for them to gain acceptance in those fields - is modern feminism. Here, Brendan O'Neill illustrates why many feel this way.
Are Millennials Revolting... or just Repulsive Anthony Kellett 2017-09-06 | Brendan O’Neill, explaining why 'Millennials' are not rebels, as our generations remember 'rebels'. He also corrects some of the bizarre notions, which this generation seems to hold, about previous ones. This is the best world, which has ever existed, by most reasonable measures; at least, as far as humankind is concerned. As Brendan points out, this generation appears to embrace all the bad notions, which previous generations sought to eradicate, and celebrate the bad ideas, previously introduced and largely discarded. In contrast, it rejects those good ideas we fought to establish; then, they wonder why we describe them as ‘regressive’.Full Debate: youtube.com/watch?v=iV5QvXILJGs
Peterson v Lawyer - University of Toronto - Free Speech Debate - 19-11-2016 Anthony Kellett 2017-08-31 | Full Debate: youtube.com/watch?v=68NHUV5me7Q
Why the Shakespeare Authorship Question Matters - Mark Rylance - 2011 Anthony Kellett 2017-08-31 | ...
Hitch at his Best - Does a Good God Exist - Closing Speech Anthony Kellett 2017-08-30 | A moving and profound closing of the debate, showing Christopher Hitchens at his spontaneous best.Full Debate: youtube.com/watch?v=ctuloBOYolE
Jordan Peterson - Tell Your Truth... Even if its Wrong Anthony Kellett 2017-08-30 | I strongly believe that everyone should be free to spout whatever rubbish they believe. I consider that to play a huge role in education. You should attempt to make a fool of yourself, as many times as possible, each day; and then - most importantly - listen to (and honestly assess) all the responses. You’ll get smarter, exponentially, through this process. However, for this to be possible, no-one should be afraid to speak; no-one should be prevented from speaking; and no-one should be afraid to listen. The pursuit of ‘Political Correctness’ does almost the opposite, of all I just wrote. It scares off any that might speak; it does nothing to educate the wider public, who might benefit greatly from reasoned and educated reposts; it continually attempts to prevent people from speaking; it refuses to listen, and prevents others from listening. I believe this is the reason election polling is becoming wildly inaccurate; because many, ordinary people, are scared to voice an opinion. Then, when no-one is looking and judging them – in the voting booth - they vote for Trump, or his ilk. Why wouldn’t they? No-one put up a coherent argument against him; his opponents were just hell-bent on shaming him, and his supporters. We need more education, not greater fear of causing offense, or more shaming when offense is given. Moreover, if you cannot think of a counter-argument, to something you find abhorrent, then, perhaps, it’s you who needs to reconsider your beliefs. Facts do not care about feelings. Feel bad about the facts, by all means, but don’t attempt to distort the facts, or deny them, to stop you feeling bad; that’s the point at which the line is crossed, in my view.Full Debate: youtube.com/watch?v=30U1AAuo_wE
Senate hearing on Bill C-16 - 17-05-2017 Anthony Kellett 2017-08-30 | Jordan Peterson and Jared Brown
