Books by Russell, Bertrand (sorted by popularity) Bertrand Russell downloads · Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays Bertrand Russell downloads. Unarmed Victory by Bertrand Russell. Spokesman Books, £ It's 50 years since the world held its breath when John F Kennedy and Nikita. [Bertrand Russell] ↠ Unarmed victory [Controversial Book] PDF Å Read Online Download Unarmed victory Author: Bertrand Russell.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Japanese|
|ePub File Size:||19.70 MB|
|PDF File Size:||10.64 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
Unarmed victory 3 editions. Bertrand Russell. World politics, Sino-Indian Border Dispute, , Military bases, Soviet, Military bases, Russian, Cuba, Soviet Military bases, Russian Military bases. Unarmed victory. by: Russell, Bertrand, Publication date: Topics: World Borrow this book to access EPUB and PDF files. ronaldweinland.info, Download Unarmed, Download Unarmed, Read Unarmed victory, Books Russell epub, Books Bertrand Russell, Download Bertrand Russell.
Top 10 Banned Books in India Updated on 19 January, at pm By Arun Thakur The ugly truth, even when it is fictionalized is not allowed to reach the readers, at least not in India. The Indian government has always argued to have banned books for the maintenance of law and order in the country, but it has never really tried to make its citizens more tolerant to the idea of unusual. So, if some writer writes about the lost Sino-China war, or levies allegations against the business lords of the country; their work is going to be banned. In past this many books have escaped this wrath, but many others got clutched for an eternity. The last part obviously brought about the ban. Advertisement 9. The book details his conversation with Nehru over the Sino-India war, and also makes a critical judgment of the acts of war, and the war between India and China, which could had lead to an almost holocaust.
Here are the relevant pages from his autobiography: Note how Russell, under the influence of post Jewish propaganda, always blames Germans and Japanese: ' American conduct in Vietnam as barbarism 'reminiscent of warfare as practised by the Germans in eastern Europe and the Japanese in South-East Asia'.
Russell's letters and appendices say more about the Vietnam War. The biography of by Ronald W Clark gives more information, including Russell's 'Private Memorandum concerning Ralph Schoenman'; the final portion states that Schoenman stated that all Russell's major initiatives since were Schoenman's work, 'in thought and deed', which Russell describes as 'preposterous' and perhaps 'well established in megalomania'. However, it may be truer than Russell thought: the 'Committee of ' started in , and it now appears that nuclear weapons were a hoax, and e.
Cuba was controlled all the time. It's easy to imagine Schoenman selecting misinformation to feed to Russell, in for example Has Man a Future? According to Clark, Schoenman's behavior which included a lot of unexplained absences became erratic and insulting as the War Crimes Tribunal took shape. But note that Russell never, ever, separated the idea of a state or nation from the internal Jewish influence.
No doubt the Vietnam War was a takeover by Jews; to this day as far as can be determined Jews control the money, and also control war crimes information—the opposite policy to their Holohoax fraud. He really thought some countries were 'Communist', for example. Jews gathered round and controlled poor Russell's Foundation. Vladimir Dedijer was probably a Jew activist claiming to be a Serb; Isaac Deutscher wrote a junk biography of Stalin; Noam Chomsky issued statements mainly about Jews, and his later record on e.
A large proportion of the writers in the Foundation's London Bulletin were Jews. Looking back, it's clear a large part of Jewish activity was propagandist, and aimed to conceal Jewish wars and mass killings.
Jewish wars are not between nations or states, as is advertised, but to make money for Jews by control of weapons and equipment by finance, and making money from loans, usually to governments or 'governments', and controlling issue of money, with the bonus of maiming killing goyim and destroying creative achievements such as splendid cities.
None of this is present in Russell. It's just possible, though very unlikely, that John Russell 'Lord John Russell' , could have lived long enough to tell young Bertrand a thing or two. His speech to his tribunal was three or four years after his epistolary exchange with the 'Jew York Times'. His book War Crimes in Vietnam remains discreetly unpublished by Routledge, his posthumous publishers, presumably picked by his Foundation.
All this activity by Russell causes me to doubt Russell ever considered himself a Jew, something which has been suggested. I see why they say it; and why judging from published books it's credible. But I don't think it's true; he was just a Briton being polite and Christian to a few racially outlandish oddities. But he did follow the convention of secrecy about Jews: if there were any in his family tree, as is likely enough, he said nothing of them in his autobiography.
The main office or centre of the B. Certainly atrocity accounts from Vietnam were known in Nottingham University. There were student actions in , which have subsequently been presented by the Jewish media as hippiesque s self-indulgence, and many people considering themselves politically aware have no comprehension of the underlying issues. Most of the activists were Jews, and most non-Jews at the time had no idea of this; and Jewish motives were mainly to hide the truth of creatures like Kissinger, and to hold on to money Jews made from war.
Probably revisionist re-examinations of the s will correct the media mirage which has been assembled. But the picture largely remains intact: Richard Dawkins' autobiography, for example, shows complete ignorance of that time. Looking again at Russell's conclusions drawn from his long life, we find: Consider the vast areas of the world where the young have little or no education and where adults have not the capacity to realise elementary conditions of comfort. These inequalities rouse envy and are potential causes of great disorder.
Whether the world will be able by peaceful means to raise the conditions of the poorer nations is, to my mind, very doubtful, and is likely to prove the most difficult governmental problem of coming centuries. Russell used the expression 'third world' in his Autobiography, perhaps borrowed from Schoenman, I'd guess. But he left the problems to others: he believed 'the techniques are all known' for general prosperity; but he expressed no views on the genetic ability of populations, or the availability of raw materials and energy to move them around.
His final paragraph is about the 'The essential unity of American military, economic and cold war policies was increasingly revealed by the sordidness and cruelty of the Vietnam war. Most difficult for many in the West to admit. After his Autobiography, Russell continued his activities as best he could.
Dear Bertrand Russell was extracted from his archived letters, but edited by two Jews. His last published statement was on Israel's expansionism. Russell's Autobiography is a landmark on the road to reversing several centuries of evil. It is well worth reading in entirety. He was not completely honest; and he missed some important truths, to such an extent that he might legitimately be regarded as worthless.
But he has one thing which Jews and their allies can never have: they will never be able to present their lives, as truthfully as they can, to genuinely interested audiences, in the way Russell does. Volume 1 was published in , shortly after Russell's death; in the period up to , Russell lived, travelled, lectured, and wrote in the USA for a number of years in total. Volume 2, published about ten years later, looks at Russell's work from , mostly on free speech and related issues, supposed nuclear weapons, Kennedy's murder, the Vietnam War and Russell's Tribunal.
He spent little time in the USA, however. The first half of each book is biographical notes, based on Russell's Autobiography, supplemented typically with letters from the McMaster archives. Then there are plates—photographs and reproductions of cartoons and newspaper articles. These seem to be reprinted from the relevant sources; if the published form was different from what Russell wrote, it's not stated anywhere. As might be expected, the editing is Jewish and one can have no faith in its reliability; the feeling is as though edited by Jesuits.
The lead up to the Second World War shows no awareness of the brutal viciousness of the USSR, and Hitler is presented as a serious risk to the entire world. The facts of Polish aggression and Britain declaring war aren't mentioned.
India presents a problem to Russell which he couldn't solve. There's an extract from a letter from an American, presented with some horror, saying that Britain already dragged the US into a war which was none of its business—something Russell himself must have agreed with at one point, since he wasn't happy about the US entry into WW1.
Russell must have been aware of people writing against Jews, as there were so many, including Mencken; and there were issues such as Speyer 'trading with the enemy'. But, if so, none of this appears in these volumes. Russell's generous treatment by Barnes is only partially explained; it puzzles me why Barnes didn't simply help with Russell's History of Western Philosophy, rather than insist on lectures to not very interested parties, and what seems other rather pointless work.
The falling-out is written entirely against Barnes; in view of the points of dispute, such as Russell's wife knitting in lectures, and Barnes seemingly knowing nothing of early philosophy, it's hard to form any sensible opinion.
In volume 2 there's discussion of Sobell-Rosenberg, showing Russell at his most oratorical, and gullible; he based himself entirely on a book on the case, assumed there were no nuclear secrets, although it's hard to see how he could possibly have known. In my opinion, the 'spies' were simply a charade to support the pretence that the USSR Jews had atomic weapons.
Volume 2 has fewer articles than volume 1, including shortish pieces—'What American [sic] Could Do With the Atomic Bomb' and several pieces on black militancy—plus longer pieces on the Vietnam War, and war crimes, ending with 'The Entire American People Are On Trial'—all of course censored out of the Jewish mass media, then and now. Russell didn't seem to realise that the war was expensive - Anyway Shows Russell's passion, but also indirectly reveals how information is controlled.
It's hard to believe it's completely reliable. Late These are from russell-l, a group closed in May All emails except for the first unedited and unaltered, except for formatting and cutting of header info. Too long for inclusion here; they open in a new window, and are in my piece Bertrand Russell, Dupe of Racist Jews.
Bertrand Russell visited the new 'Soviet Union' in , arriving on May 11th and leaving on June 16th. Two or three months later September he wrote the preface to his new book, which was first published in , according to its copyright page.
My paperback copy records no reprints until , when he dropped a chapter written by Dora, his woman companion of , and altered the word "Communism" to "Socialism" 'in many places', 'in order to conform to modern usage'. He wrote that, at the time, there was no sharp distinction between the two words. The point of this brief note is to point out that Russell, who was perfectly aware of the Jewish nature of the Revolution, or coup, consistently failed to mention it in this book.
And he continued to fail to mention Jewishness in modern politics, so far as I know both privately as well as in public though I haven't attempted to check this in detail. For example Russell's character-sketches of Beatrice Webb go into considerable detail as to her family background something like war profiteers from the Crimean War , her habits strange use of the word 'we', fasting, dining , and influence with politicians.
But his Jewishness is omitted, as is any psychological point or philosophical outlook which might be attributed to Jewishness. Even his real name isn't given.
Why this should be, I have no rational or irrational explanation. Russell happily said unpleasant things about Americans, authors, bishops, bookmakers, businessmen, Christians, Muslims, politicians, Russians and so forth.
Why this taboo? The following remarks don't address the issue directly I leave it to the reader to note the ways the omission distorted Russell's analyses. Just two pages from The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism right contain references to Jews; and one of them is encoded. Compare this with Russell's letter, above. Russell chose the word 'Bolshevism' in the title carefully.
The word 'communist' had a sort of vague meaning; suggesting Italian Comune, the Paris commune, millennarians and perhaps medieval monks although their vows to poverty were something of a fake, as the institution itself was rich. Russell adopted the Russian meaning when he wrote p. He is a man who entertains a number of elaborate and dogmatic beliefs.. So long as the Government obtains the food and the soldiers that it requires, it does not interfere, and leaves untouched the old village communism They think that "proletariat" means "proletariat", but "dictatorship" does not quite mean "dictatorship.
When a Russian Communist speaks of dictatorship, he means the word literally, but when he speaks of the proletariat, he uses the word in a Pickwickian sense. He means the "class-conscious" part of the proletariat, i.
Various methods are therefore adopted.. The whole of the press, is of course, official;.. I was met always with the reply that they were not represented at all.. All real power is in the hands of the Communist Party, who number about , in a population of about millions. It's very important to understand the deliberate confusion of socialism, communism, bolshevism, and the rest. There was enormous opposition to socialism by a mixed bag of people, and it was useful to be able to point to a disaster and say "Look, that's socialism.
Britain's LSE illustrates the sort of thing. Another myth is the idea that revolutionaries were persecuted: '.. The real victims were the soldiers more than a million killed? The revolutionaries mostly had a relatively easy time, typically in the US, in Switzerland, or safe in camps.
This of course is why 'workers' had to be altered to 'workers and peasants'. Russell invented or took up the claim that 'bureaucracy' might become the main problem this was, I think, Weber's new and perhaps exciting word. It was important for English ideology to claim that Britain was much more civilised. So, it was habitual to call the entire Russian empire 'Russia', so they could talk about the horrors of Russia under the Tsar. Whereas India was not called 'England'!
This permitted considerable hypocrisy. Thus Russell, after the Second World War, contemplating nuclear weapons, said that Russia had always been imperialist. It's important to realise there was great hostility to the Russian empire.
This appears for example in Kipling, and his 'great game'. The Germans and the Jews were not the only people anxious for Russia's downfall. Opposition is crushed without mercy He doesn't explain why, if something is inevitable, people should be energetic; why not just sit back and wait? Russell also insisted on the stupidity of the peasants whose 'reasons for disliking the Bolsheviks are very inadequate.
The big landowners are dispossessed, and the peasants have profited. In fact, the peasants achieved this partly as a result of Tsarist reforms, and partly as a result of taking things into their own hands as the First World War dissolved into chaos. The Bolsheviks did nothing for them. Also, Russians are lazy.
This contrasts oddly with: '.. The fact is that the rations [BR doesn't state what they were] are not sufficient,.. Some do additional work.. When the day's work is over, a great deal of time has to be spent in fetching food and water The facts of secret financial support by the Germans and various others weren't guessed by Russell. It seems probable that our age will go down to history as that of Lenin and Einstein—the two men who have succeeded in a great work of synthesis in an analytic age, one in thought, the other in action.
Lenin appeared to the outraged bourgeoisie of the world as a destroyer, but it was not the work of destruction that made him pre-eminent. Others could have destroyed, but I doubt whether any other living man could have built so well on the new foundations. His mind was orderly and creative; Russell talked to Lenin for an hour, saw Trotsky at the opera, listened to Kamenev, and was 'acquainted' with Sverdlov, the 'Acting Minister of Transport'.
He also met, and liked, Gorky: '.. He supports the Government..
One felt.. Another interesting chapter looks at 'Deciding Forces in Politics', a theme he liked and which appeared in other books, as e. His theory chapter however is weak on Marxism for example, the 'labour theory of value' an omission he remedied much later in his jointly-written book on 19th century history. Pages have Russell's comparison with Plato's Republic, which, he thought, annoyed many people.
He also says: 'The Communists in many ways resemble the British public-school type: they have all the good and bad traits of an aristocracy which is young and vital. They are courageous, energetic, capable of command, always ready to serve the State; on the other hand, they are dictatorial.. They are practically the sole possessors of power, and they enjoy innumerable advantages in consequence..
Taylor made the same point, that Communism instilled self-confidence. Here again, the facts seem a bit more complicated. Their self-confidence is equally attributable to their position. In retrospect, one of the distinctive features of 'communism' was its lack of prosperity. Was this caused by money being secretly siphoned away? Or weapons production? Or incompetence? Or was it that simple arithmetic shows that a country with little industry must take longer to build things up than one with more?
It's difficult to be certain, and Russell brings up the possibility that the Soviet Union might sustain an enormous industrial revolution. Most people have no experience in building up industries or infrastructure, and so find it impossible to judge.
So this made quite an effective scare story, as did the idea that 'the doctrines of Communism are almost certain, in the long run, to make progress among American wage-earners.. It's curious just how uncreative the experiment was. Consider industries which have been distinctive of the 20th century: motor vehicles and air flight. In neither case did the new arrangement achieve much.
Even such things as battery chickens, for which 'Communism' might have seem well adapted, weren't developed there. A final point, to emphasise the lack of understanding by people who are or in many cases pretend to be on the left: Ken Coates' foreword states that 'All attempts by the left to replicate its previous experience have been blocked..
But in fact, Hungary and Poland, and no doubt other less well-documented places for example, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia , had 'revolutions' very like the USSR ones, also Jewish, in the aftermath of war. Further note: Russell had an odd relationship with the Pole Joseph Conrad not his real name —Russell said Conrad was every inch the Polish aristocrat, and Russell's Autobiography has the two men in mutual exultation together reaching the 'central fire'.
Conrad has of course become established as an official great writer in English. Kennedy in " 16 Questions on the Assassination ," Communism, anarchism and socialism[ edit ] Russell was prior to being a socialist, a Georgist. On his return he wrote a critical tract, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism. He was "infinitely unhappy in this atmosphere—stifled by its utilitarianism, its indifference to love and beauty and the life of impulse.
He was strongly critical of Joseph Stalin 's regime, and referred to Marxism as a "system of dogma. Russell was wrote of Michel Bakunin writing "we do not find in bakunin's works a clear picture of the society at which he aimed, or any argument to prove that such a society could be stable.
In his pamphlet, Anti-Suffragist Anxieties, Russell wrote that some men opposed suffrage because they "fear that their liberty to act in ways that are injurious to women will be curtailed. Marriage and Morals expressed his opinion that sex between a man and woman who are not married to each other is not necessarily immoral if they truly love one another, and advocated "trial marriages" or "companionate marriage", formalised relationships whereby young people could legitimately have sexual intercourse without being expected to remain married in the long term or to have children an idea first proposed by Judge Ben Lindsey.
Russell was also one of the first intellectuals to advocate open sex education and widespread access to contraception. Dyson 's letter to The Times calling for a change in the law regarding male homosexual practices, which were partly legalised in , when Russell was still alive. By , Russell was a vocal advocate of racial equality and intermarriage; he penned a chapter on "Racial Antagonism" in New Hopes for a Changing World , which read: It is sometimes maintained that racial mixture is biologically undesirable.
There is no evidence whatever for this view. Nor is there, apparently, any reason to think that Negroes are congenitally less intelligent than white people, but as to that it will be difficult to judge until they have equal scope and equally good social conditions.
On 16 November , for instance, he gave a lecture to the General Meeting of Dr. Marie Stopes 's Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress on "Birth Control and International Relations," in which he described the importance of extending Western birth control worldwide; his remarks anticipated the population control movement of the s and the role of the United Nations.
This policy may last some time, but in the end under it we shall have to give way—we are only putting off the evil day; the one real remedy is birth control, that is getting the people of the world to limit themselves to those numbers which they can keep upon their own soil I do not see how we can hope permanently to be strong enough to keep the coloured races out; sooner or later they are bound to overflow, so the best we can do is to hope that those nations will see the wisdom of Birth Control The fact is that until the Rushdie affair, Indian Muslims had not been involved in any major censorship row; and nor since then except over the Prophet's cartoons as part of wider global protests.
In fact, India's record in this respect is shameful for a vibrant, free and open society that it is in many ways.
Forget intolerant religious or cultural groups, it is the Indian state that has been the biggest culprit with its proclivity to ban anything that doesn't fit the official narrative. In the s, it is reckoned, the largest number of banned books related to perceived misrepresentation of India's policies or its leaders. Books and foreign magazines such as Time and The Economist are routinely banned for depicting Kashmir as a disputed territory.
When the state itself is so illiberal and quick to shut out dissenting views, it can hardly be expected to act differently when confronted with illiberalism of others. No wonder the history of independent India is littered with banned titles, not to mention the books which were banned by the British and are still proscribed such as Hindu Heaven by Max Wylie. Together, they would perhaps take up a whole library shelf.
Here are some of the more prominent and lesser-known titles banned in India in recent years. The list doesn't include language books except Lajja originally published in Bengali. The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie in which he uses magical realism to fictionalise one of the most controversial and disputed episodes in Islam. The Polyester Prince: The Rise of Dhirubhai Ambani by Hamish McDonald, an unauthorised biography making controversial claims about how Dhirubhai built his business empire was banned in after the Ambanis threatened legal action, calling it defamatory.
Who Killed Gandhi by Lourenco De Sadvandor described as inflammatory and poorly researched was banned in An Area of Darkness by V.