Podcasts about Cambridge Union

President Trump recently blew up his alliance with the conservative legal group that helped him remake the judiciary. But the group's leader is already moving on. This episode was produced by Gabrielle Berbey and Miles Bryan, edited by Jolie Myers, fact-checked by Laura Bullard and Victoria Chamberlin, engineered by Patrick Boyd and Andrea Kristinsdottir, and hosted by Sean Rameswaram. Listen to Today, Explained ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members. Transcript at vox.com/today-explained-podcast. Leonard Leo, co-chairman of the Federalist Society board of directors. Photo by Nordin Catic/Getty Images for The Cambridge Union. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Katie Lam was elected as a new Conservative MP, for Weald of Kent, at the 2024 election. While studying at Cambridge she was president of the Cambridge Union and chairman of the Conservative Association, and she was later a special advisor – first under Boris Johnson in the business unit at Number 10, and then later working on counterterrorism with Suella Braverman. In between university and politics, she worked at Goldman Sachs and at AI-specialists Faculty, and she is also an accomplished lyricist and scriptwriter having co-written five musicals. She was appointed a Tory assistant whip last year when Kemi Badenoch took over as leader.   On the podcast, Katie talks to Katy Balls about attending Tory party conference with her dad, what Katy calls the ‘chief prefect vibes' of her CV and whether investment banking or politics is more cutthroat. Having started at Number 10 in 2019, she also talks about the highs and lows at the end of the Brexit negotiations and why the pandemic will probably be the hardest moment of her professional career – plus a mention of that incident with Dilyn the dog. Having a great-great grandfather who was a socialist politician and fierce critic of the Nazis, and who had to flee persecution, she also opens up about her family's influence on her politics and her values.  Produced by Patrick Gibbons.

Katie Lam was elected as a new Conservative MP, for Weald of Kent, at the 2024 election. While studying at Cambridge she was president of the Cambridge Union and chairman of the Conservative Association, and she was later a special advisor – first under Boris Johnson in the business unit at Number 10, and then later working on counterterrorism with Suella Braverman. In between university and politics, she worked at Goldman Sachs and at AI-specialists Faculty, and she is also an accomplished lyricist and scriptwriter having co-written five musicals. She was appointed a Tory assistant whip last year when Kemi Badenoch took over as leader.   On the podcast, Katie talks to Katy Balls about attending Tory party conference with her dad, what Katy calls the ‘chief prefect vibes' of her CV and whether investment banking or politics is more cutthroat. Having started at Number 10 in 2019, she also talks about the highs and lows at the end of the Brexit negotiations and why the pandemic will probably be the hardest moment of her professional career – plus a mention of that incident with Dilyn the dog. Having a great-great grandfather who was a socialist politician and fierce critic of the Nazis, and who had to flee persecution, she also opens up about her family's influence on her politics and her values.  Produced by Patrick Gibbons.

Britain's free speech crisis is deepening. Police are knocking on doors over online opinions, and laws meant to target hate speech are being used to silence dissent. When Elon Musk highlighted the UK's grooming gang scandals, the media attacked him rather than the perpetrators or the people in power who neglected it.Tom Slater, editor of Spiked Online, joins me to break down how Britain is sleepwalking into censorship. We discuss the rise of authoritarian speech restrictions, how woke culture shapes media and politics, and why merely mentioning the background of grooming gang offenders is now politically dangerous.We also dive into Slater's viral Cambridge Union speech, where he dismantled claims that Trump is a 21st-century fascist. Is labeling populists as fascists a way to shut down debate? And what does this say about the political elite's fear of ordinary voters?Prenumerera eller stötta Rak högerI takt med att fler blir betalande prenumeranter har Rak höger kunnat expandera med fler skribenter och mer innehåll. Vi får inget presstöd, vi tar inte emot pengar från någon intresseorganisation eller lobbygrupp. Det är endast tack vare er prenumeranter vi kan fortsätta vara självständiga röster i en konform samtid. Så stort tack för att ni är med, utan er hade det inget av detta varit möjligt.Den som vill stötta oss på andra sätt än genom en prenumeration får gärna göra det med Swish, Plusgiro, Bankgiro, Paypal eller Donorbox.Swishnummer: 123-027 60 89Plusgiro: 198 08 62-5Bankgiro: 5808-1837Utgivaren ansvarar inte för kommentarsfältet. (Myndigheten för press, radio och tv (MPRT) vill att jag skriver ovanstående för att visa att det inte är jag, utan den som kommenterar, som ansvarar för innehållet i det som skrivs i kommentarsfältet.) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.enrakhoger.se/subscribe

In part two of Red Eye Radio with Eric Harley and Gary McNamara, the CIA is flying drones over Mexico to spy on drug cartels; Senate GOP leap frogs over House Republicans in the battle of the competing spending bills; Comedian Jon Stewart on the over top rhetoric that Trump is a fascist; Tom Slater at the Cambridge Union debate talking about Trump and fascism.      For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Is the American Dream achieved at the expense of the American Negro? That's the question that civil rights icon James Baldwin and conservative leader William F. Buckley debated in the Cambridge Union on February 18, 1965. A new play at DePaul's TimeLine Theatre's is bringing that question to modern audiences, capturing the relevance of the debate 60 years later. Reset sits down with the two lead actors, Teagle F. Bougere and Eric T. Miller, to find out what it's like to reenact a haunting historical discussion and how the play resonates with the current moment. For a full archive of Reset interviews, head over to wbez.org/reset.

Total Runtime: 2:45.39In Ep203 we talk to our mate Trevor John covering many subjects, like his relationship with Kubrick's daughter, Synchronicities, Frank Zappa, 2020 Freedom Rallies in London, Jerry Marzinsky, Meeting Mark Devlin, and the book None Dare Call it Conspiracy from 1971 by Garry Allen.In Pt2 we cover contributors to Cambridge University's debate called 'This House Would Make Vaccinations Mandatory' from the Cambridge Union, you can find it under this title on YouTube. Link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZytSHASCpio&list=PLYpyB-7KwFc6HqtWfgxesrPXTkWHDTitbEvents/Gigs Trevor john John Hamer tour 29th Nov-1st Dec!Christmas Party Gig The Royal George Shoreham on Sea 7th Dec + Mad Mix & Victorius!Supporting the Blockheads 22nd Dec Chinnerys Southend!Contact!TrevorJohnmusic.com@randomhumanmusic (telegram) Richard D. Hall - Legal Fund (richplanet.net) https://www.richplanet.net/donatelegal.php  Sheep Farm - www.sheepfarm.co.ukhttps://www.youtube.com/@sheepfarmstudios2921/videoshttps://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/sheepfarmstudioshttps://rumble.com/user/SheepFarmStudiohttps://odysee.com/@sheepfarmstudios:f 

This strange thing called ‘knowledge' has always been a battleground in educational conversations - for example, in lots of loud calls for “knowledge-rich” curricula! Personally I'm very much in favour of knowledge and knowing, part of the buzz of following curiosity and inquiries! It's just the KIND of knowledge and knowing that we have been conditioned to value over others that I have an issue with! Minna Salami has been deeply challenging this hierarchy of knowing through her extensive work and amazing concept and book of the same title, Sensuous Knowledge. Her work coming from the tradition of African Feminism is to trouble the hierarchies, not simply invert them. Minna Salami is a Nigerian-Finnish and Swedish feminist author, social critic and currently Program Chair at THE NEW INSTITUTE. She is the author of Can Feminism Be African? (forthcoming Harper Collins) and Sensuous Knowledge: A Black Feminist Approach for Everyone (Bloomsbury 2020) which has been translated into multiple languages.  Minna has also co-authored children's books and written content on feminism for numerous anthologies as well as educational textbooks. A leading voice of contemporary feminism, she has drawn over a million readers to her multiple award-winning blog MsAfropolitan.com. Her writing can be found in the Guardian, Project Syndicate, Al Jazeera, and The Philosopher, and many others. She is a frequent speaker and lecturer including at some of the world's most prominent institutions such as the UN, EU, Oxford Union, Cambridge Union, Yale University, and the Singularity University at NASA. She has worked as a Research Associate and Editor at Perspectiva, consulted governments on gender equality, written school curricula, and curated cultural events at The Victoria & Albert Museum in London. Minna is a Full Member of the Club of Rome, a BMW Foundation Responsible Leader and sits on the council of The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the boards of The African Feminist Initiative at Pennsylvania State University, The Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of the Sahel, and is an associate with Perspectiva. She has served as chair for the House of Beautiful Business, a judge for the One World Media Awards, a nominator for the Prince Claus Foundation and the Princess of Asturias Foundation. An alumni of Lund University and SOAS University, Minna has lived in Nigeria, Sweden, Spain, and New York and now lives between London and Hamburg. Social Links: Minna's blog: https://msafropolitan.com/ Linkedin: @minnasalami - https://www.linkedin.com/in/minnasalami/ Instagram: @minnasalami_ https://www.instagram.com/minnasalami_/

The Baldwin/Buckley Debate was a televised debate of The Cambridge Union Society held on 18th February 1965, which has since come to be seen as one of the most historic and influential intellectual debates on race relations in America. James Baldwin, an influential African American writer and activist, and William F. Buckley, a leading conservative intellectual, debated the motion, “The American dream is at the expense of the American Negro.”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Baldwin/Buckley_Debate https://www.nicholasbuccola.com/the-fire-is-upon-us-1  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Baldwin/Buckley_Debate https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/04/reading-james-baldwin-on-the-4th-of-july/ GET AN OCCASIONAL PERSONAL EMAIL FROM ME: www.makeyourdamnbedpodcast.comTUNE IN ON INSTAGRAM FOR COOL CONTENT: www.instagram.com/mydbpodcastOR BE A REAL GEM + TUNE IN ON PATREON: www.patreon.com/MYDBpodcastOR WATCH ON YOUTUBE: www.youtube.com/juliemerica The opinions expressed by Julie Merica and Make Your Damn Bed Podcast are intended for entertainment purposes only. Make Your Damn Bed podcast is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Get bonus content on PatreonSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/make-your-damn-bed. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Linda Ness hears from Ukrainian Civil Rights lawyer Oleksandra Matviichuk who will be talking at the Cambridge Union on 2 February.

Our guest in this episode is Rebecca Gorman, the co-founder and CEO of Aligned AI, a start-up in Oxford which describes itself rather nicely as working to get AI to do more of the things it should do and fewer of the things it shouldn't.Rebecca built her first AI system 20 years ago and has been calling for responsible AI development since 2010. With her co-founder Stuart Armstrong, she has co-developed several advanced methods for AI alignment, and she has advised the EU, UN, OECD and the UK Parliament on the governance and regulation of AI.The conversation highlights the tools faAIr, EquitAI, and ACE, developed by Aligned AI. It also covers the significance of recent performance by Aligned AI software in the CoinRun test environment, which demonstrates the important principle of "overcoming goal misgeneralisation". Selected follow-ups:buildaligned.aiArticle: "Using faAIr to measure gender bias in LLMs"Article: "EquitAI: A gender bias mitigation tool for generative AI"Article: "ACE for goal generalisation""CoinRun: Solving Goal Misgeneralisation" - a publication on arXivAligned AI repositories on GitHub"Specification gaming examples in AI" - article by Victoria KrakovnaRebecca Gorman speaking at the Cambridge Union on "This House Believes Artificial Intelligence Is An Existential Threat" (YouTube)Music: Spike Protein, by Koi Discovery, available under CC0 1.0 Public Domain Declaration

Ben Shapiro just debated...well, the only people he ever seems to want to debate these days--college students. But this time at a fancy setting!Ben Burgis and Victor Bruzzone break it down.Follow Victor on Twitter: @victorbruzzoneFollow Ben on Twitter: @BenBurgisFollow GTAA on Twitter: @Gtaa_ShowBecome a GTAA Patron and receive numerous benefits ranging from patron-exclusive postgames every Monday night to our undying love and gratitude for helping us keep this thing going:patreon.com/benburgisRead the weekly philosophy Substack:benburgis.substack.comVisit benburgis.com

Victor Bruzzone and Ethan from the Confronting Capital channel once again join Ben Burgis for a Thursday Night Debate Breakdown. This week they're taking a look at a Cambridge Union debate from 5 years ago where Norman Finkelstein, left-wing Israeli journalist Gideon Levy and several other speakers debate the question of whether the two-state solution is dead. [Note: The original plan was to watch a different Cambridge Union debate with Norm but we had to switch due to audio issues. Sorry about the confusion!]Read Ethan's Substack:https://confrontingcapital.substack.com/Check out Victor and Ethan's podcast (with Matt McManus and Gordon Katic) "Academic Edgelords"):https://academicedgelords.com/Follow Ethan on Twitter: @anontwtuser11Follow Victor on Twitter: @victorbruzzoneFollow Ben on Twitter: @BenBurgisFollow GTAA on Twitter: @Gtaa_ShowBecome a GTAA Patron and receive numerous benefits ranging from patron-exclusive postgames every Monday night to our undying love and gratitude for helping us keep this thing going:patreon.com/benburgisRead the weekly philosophy Substack:benburgis.substack.comVisit benburgis.com

Hur kan den amerikanska mardrömmen om raser få ett slut? 1965 debatterade författaren James Baldwin med den konservative ideologen William F Buckley. Aleksander Motturi reflekterar över deras möte. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna. Sändes första gången 2020-06-09.I ett av de mest kända filmklippen med författaren James Baldwin får han – på äldre dagar – frågan om han, i början av sitt författarliv, betraktade sig som underlägsen då han både var svart, utfattig och homosexuell.“Herregud, kan man ha sämre förutsättningar?” föreställer sig programledaren att hans gäst måste ha tänkt.Ett leende blottar Baldwins karakteristiska glipa mellan framtänderna. Sedan det blixtsnabba svaret.”Nej, jag tyckte nog att jag fick jackpot.”Ett lättsamt skratt bryter ut i tevestudion, programledaren och studiopubliken skrattar unisont med författaren själv.”Det var”, tillägger Baldwin, ”så skandalöst att man inte kunde tänka sig något värre. Jag var tvungen att dra fördel av situationen.”Det är svårt att föreställa sig att James Baldwin skulle bli så uppmärksammad som han är i vår tid utan alla klipp som finns på nätet. Flödet av kloka, snabbtänkta svar och kommentarer är outsinligt.Men i de flesta klipp är Baldwin inte lika upprymd.Omedelbart efter det historiska grälet med Robert Kennedy 24 maj 1963, som blottade administrationens aningslöshet inför rasfrågan, anlägger han en mer filosofisk ton:”Jag kan inte vara pessimist eftersom jag är vid liv”, säger han i en intervju med psykologen Kenneth Clark. ”Att vara pessimist innebär att man ser livet som en akademisk fråga. Så jag är tvungen att vara optimist. Jag är tvungen att tro att vi kommer att överleva. Men framtiden för de svarta är exakt lika ljus eller mörk som landets framtid i sin helhet.”Baldwins krystade optimism omhuldar inga utopier. Han är inte en tänkare som hänger sig åt ett slutet politiskt system, en religion som erbjuder frälsning, en ideologi som ger löfte om historiens slut. Kyrkan, där han var verksam som ungdomspredikant, lämnade han när han var sjutton. När han – på sin käre vän Eugene Worths inrådan – gick med i ett socialistiskt ungdomsförbund ”distanserade” han sig som trotskist eftersom det – som han skriver i förordet till The Prize of the Ticket – var ”intressant att (som nittonåring) vara antistalinist i en tid när Amerika var allierat med Ryssland”.Inte heller blev han cynisk i sin kritik av samtiden. Så länge man andas måste man söka hopp, brukade han intala sig, länge plågad av vännen Eugene Worths självmord från Washington Bridge. I det televiserade samtalet med Clarke är det dock det misslyckade mötet med Kennedy som tynger honom:”Det finns dagar”, säger Baldwin, ”och det här är en av dem, då jag undrar vad man har för roll i det här landet, vilken ens framtid är, exakt hur man ska kunna förlika sig med situationen här, och hur man ska kunna framföra till den vida, oreflekterade, tanklösa, grymma majoriteten av vita att man är här. Och att vara här betyder att man inte kan vara någon annanstans. Jag är vettskrämd över den moraliskt urgröpta hjärtlöshet som finns i vårt land. De här människorna har lurat sig själva under så lång tid att de inte riktigt tror att jag är en människa, det här baserar jag på deras uppförande, inte på vad de säger. Det innebär att de har format sig själva till moraliska monster.”Baldwin tar sig för pannan, nästan som om han skräms av sina egna ord.”Det är en fruktansvärd anklagelse”, inser han i samma ögonblick som Clarke flikar in en ny fråga.”Men jag menar vartenda ord av det jag säger.”Vanligtvis är han inte lika nedstämd eller uppgiven, snarare kamplysten. I februari 1965 – en vecka innan Baldwins pjäs ”Blues for Mr. Charlie” hade premiär på Dramaten i Stockholm – befann han sig i Cambridge för att debattera med den amerikanska konservatismens huvudarkitekt, William F Buckley.Debatten kretsade kring huruvida den amerikanska drömmen kan gynna den svarta befolkningen, eller om den snarare förverkligas på bekostnad av de svarta.Mötet, som spelades in av BBC, skildras detaljrikt i boken "The Fire Is Upon Us" av statsvetaren Nicholas Buccola. Aulan i anrika The Cambridge Union var fullsatt. Sjuhundra personer trängdes och arrangörerna lär ha rest skyddsstaket för att inte fler skulle försöka ta sig in för att ta del av uppgörelsen mellan de båda intellektuella giganterna.Den ene en radikal förkämpe för medborgarrättsrörelsen – dess ”poet”, för att citera Malcolm X (som skulle mördas tre dagar senare); den andre en man som identifierade sig som den amerikanska drömmens väktare, och som var hängiven tron på att USA förkroppsligade en ”oas för frihet och framgång”. Till de ”omutbara sanningar” på vilka nationen vilade räknade Buckley idén att endast de som visat sig värdiga makt bör ges ”rätt och skyldighet att utöva självstyre”, och att ekonomisk och social trygghet måste förtjänas av individen, snarare än att garanteras av en välfärdsstat.Buckley driver på det hela taget samma linje som när han försvarade de vita i Sydafrika, inte för att han explicit var för apartheid, utan för att tiden – i hans ögon – ännu inte var mogen för jämlikhet och allmän rösträtt. De svarta var, liksom i den koloniala matrisens rashierarkier, ännu inte tillräckligt långt framskridna för att bemyndigas med samma självstyre och makt över sina liv som den vita befolkningen.Under debatten hävdar Buckley att medborgarrättsrörelsen har gjort allt för att rikta fokus på det faktum att vita diskriminerar svarta. Men frågan är vart de är på väg nu? ”Det förefaller”, säger han, ”som om de är på väg att glida in en prokrustisk formel som mindre handlar om att värna svartas utveckling än att förstöra för de vita.”I likhet med FBI, som efter mötet med Kennedy intensifierat övervakningen av Baldwin, utmålar han stjärnförfattaren som en doktrinär och nitisk vänsteranhängare, rent av misstänkt kommunist, som vill omintetgöra den västerländska civilisationen.James Baldwin hade redan tidigare – med essän "Nästa gång elden" – blivit känd för sin skildring av hur rasismen kastar en skugga över den amerikanska drömmen. När han får ordet påminner han om det pris som de lågavlönade och förslavade har betalat och fortfarande betalar för att hålla den drömmen vid liv. Efter 400 år och åtminstone tre krig är, betonar Baldwin, ”amerikansk jord full av lik från mina förfäder”.Från talarstolen understryker Baldwin att det inte bara är de svarta som är offer, utan också de vita; Amerikas moraliska liv och verklighetsuppfattning har ”förstörts av den farsot som kallas färg”. Vad som står i fokus för Baldwin är med andra ord de djupa antaganden som ligger till grund för tron på den amerikanska drömmen.Härigenom blir frågan om identitet oundviklig. Inte i första hand de svartas identitet, eller de vitas identitet, utan nationens identitet. James Baldwin frågar sig hur tillit ska byggas mellan framtida generationers medborgare. Och som så ofta insisterar han på att jämlikhet inte är möjlig innan vi ser slutet på mardrömmen om raser.Aleksander Motturi, författareLitteraturJames Baldwin: The Prize of the Ticket. St Martins Press, 1985.James Baldwin: Nästa gång elden. Översättare: Olof Starkenberg, Norstedts 2019.Nicolas Buccola: The Fire is Upon Us. James Baldwin, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Debate over Race in America. Princeton University Press, 2019.

Liz and Nic are celebrating the ultimate break-up song after hearing about Sinéad O'Connor's death, plus the pair give their review of the Oppenheimer film (Nic still thinks they should have seen Barbie instead). Liz has a VIP invite, but is it really VIP if you're filling a ‘slot'? Plus the pair look back at the time Liz faced off against Katie Price at the Cambridge Union.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jeh Johnson is a partner in the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP and the former Secretary of Homeland Security (2013-2017), General Counsel of the Department of Defense (2009-2012), General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force (1998-2001), and an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York (1989-1991). In private life, in addition to practicing law, Johnson is on the board of directors of Lockheed Martin, U.S. Steel, MetLife, the Council on Foreign Relations, the 9/11 Memorial and Museum in New York City, and is a trustee of Columbia University. Johnson is frequent commentator on national and homeland security matters on NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, FOX, CNBC, NPR, Bloomberg TV and other news networks, and has written op-eds in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Hill, Lawfare, and elsewhere.  As of March 2022, Johnson also hosts a classic R&B radio show on FM public radio station WBGO, 88.3FM, based in Newark, NJ.   As Secretary of Homeland Security, Johnson was the head of the third largest cabinet department of the U.S. government, consisting of 230,000 personnel and 22 components, including TSA, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Services, U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and FEMA. Johnson's responsibilities as Secretary included counterterrorism, cybersecurity, aviation security, border security, port security, maritime security, protection of our national leaders, the detection of chemical, biological and nuclear threats to the homeland, and response to natural disasters.  In three years as Secretary of DHS, Johnson is credited with management reform of the Department, which brought about a more centralized approach to decision-making in the areas of budgets, acquisition and overall policy.  Johnson also raised employee morale across the Department, reflected in the September 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.  As General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Johnson is credited with being the legal architect for the U.S. military's counterterrorism efforts in the Obama Administration.  In 2010, Johnson co-authored the report that paved the way for the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell by Congress later that year. In his book Duty, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote that Johnson "proved to be the finest lawyer I ever worked with in government - a straightforward, plain-speaking man of great integrity, with common sense to burn and a good sense of humor."  According to published reports, Johnson provided the opinion that was the legal basis for U.S. special forces to enter Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011.    Johnson is a 2022 recipient of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor, a 2021 recipient of the American Lawyer's Lifetime Achievement Award, as “an American statesman [who] has devoted his career to the public interest,” and a 2018 recipient of the Ronald Reagan Peace Through Strength Award, presented at the Reagan Presidential Library, for “contribut[ing] greatly to the defense of our nation,” and “guiding us through turbulent times with courage and wisdom.”  In 2020 the Chief Judge of New York State asked Johnson to conduct a comprehensive review of equal justice in the New York State courts.  On October 1, 2020 Johnson issued a public report with his findings and recommendations, all of which the Chief Judge has committed to adopting.  Johnson has debated at both the Cambridge and Oxford Unions in England, and in November 2019 was conferred honorary life membership in the Cambridge Union.  Johnson is a graduate of Morehouse College (1979) and Columbia Law School (1982) and the recipient of 13 honorary degrees.   Johnson married “the girl next-door,” literally, Dr. Susan DiMarco, in 1994. Susan is a retired dentist, a volunteer at the southern border and in numerous other activities, and, at the request of the U.S. Navy, is the sponsor of the Virginia-class submarine USS NEW JERSEY (SSN-796).  In February 2023, Johnson and his family history were profiled on an episode of PBS' Finding Your Roots. For Jazz fans, tune into “All Things Soul with Jeh Johnson", once a month on Saturdays from 8 – 10 am on WBGO 88.3 FM.   On this episode, Secretary Johnson shares his one way ticket to Birmingham, Alabama on May 20, 1961, to resume the Freedom Rides, and highlights the role they had in the US Civil Rights Movement. During the course of our conversation, he also covers his family history as unearthed by Henry Louis Gates on Finding Your Roots, how he approached managing the Department of Homeland Security, concerns about cybersecurity and AI and his love for classic R&B which he features on his radio show.

In this debate from the Reasonable Faith UK tour in 2011, William Lane Craig visited the Cambridge Union. The motion under debate is "This house believes that God is not a delusion". The other debaters are Peter S Williams, Arif Ahmed & Andrew Copson.   • Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: https://pod.link/267142101 • More shows, free eBook & newsletter: https://premierunbelievable.com • For live events: http://www.unbelievable.live • For online learning: https://www.premierunbelievable.com/training • Support us in the USA: http://www.premierinsight.org/unbelievableshow • Support us in the rest of the world: https://www.premierunbelievable.com/donate

An evolved society is one in which people love people and use things.  Unfortunately, we live in a time where we hear more often that not, that people love things and use people to get them and to keep them.   Through unbelievable stories, memorable lessons and realised wisdom, Radhanath Swami shares with us how we can never be satisfied with this consciousness.   This address to the students at Cambridge Union is an invitation to all. An opportunity to realise that we do not need vast amounts of money or resource to have a positive influence on the world and on those around us in our day to day lives.      

Helen Lewis stops by BARPod to help put a very stupid year to bed. After discussing her excellent new BBC show on gurus, including her thoughts on Saira Rao's Race2Dinner initiative to make liberal white women feel worse about themselves, she challenges Katie and Jesse to a quiz about the year in internet b******t. It goes about as well as you would expect.Helen's new show: And her Twitter account: https://twitter.com/helenlewisSaira Rao has to be seen to be believedhttps://twitter.com/sairasameeraraoImage: CAMBRIDGE, CAMBRIDGESHIRE - NOVEMBER 02: Jordan Peterson addresses students at The Cambridge Union on November 02, 2018 in Cambridge, Cambridgeshire. (Photo by Chris Williamson/Getty Images) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.blockedandreported.org/subscribe

On this week's #NCFNewspeak, host Emma Webb, NCF Director Peter Whittle and Senior Fellows Dr. Philip Kiszely and Rafe Heydel-Mankoo discuss: * "Fighting Back: Defending Britain & The West in the Culture War": the New Culture Forum's new publication. * "The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education" watchdog has told universities to teach colonialism & white supremacy in courses including computing, maths, science and geography. The QAA believes that courses should acknowledge “racism, classism, ableism, homophobia and patriarchy”. * The capture of our universities. Rafe Heydel-Mankoo discusses his recent debate at Cambridge Union where he and Calvin Robinson spoke against a motion to pay reparations for colonialism and slavery. He recounts his experience of the student body. * HM Treasury has decreed that 6% of officials must be black, double the UK pop of 3%. This arbitrary target is the first in the department's history. It also requires the LGBTQ+ rainbow flag to be flown from buildings. To pre-order a copy of "Fighting Back: Defending Britain & The West in the Culture War" please click here: https://www.newcultureforum.org.uk/pu... ------------------- SUBSCRIBE: If you are enjoying the show, please subscribe to our channel on YouTube (click the Subscribe Button underneath the video and then Click on the Bell icon next to it to make sure you Receive All Notifications) AUDIO: If you prefer Audio you can subscribe on itunes or Soundcloud. Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/user-923838732 SUPPORT/DONATE / JOIN OUR MEMBERSHIP SCHEME The NCF Channel is still very new and to continue to produce quality programming we need your support. Your donations will help ensure the channel not only continues but can grow into a major online platform challenging the cultural orthodoxies dominant in our institutions, public life and media. You can join our membership scheme or donate in a variety of ways via our website: http://www.newcultureforum.org.uk It is set up to accept one time and monthly donations. JOIN US ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Web: http://www.newcultureforum.org.uk F: https://www.facebook.com/NCultureForum/ I: https://www.instagram.com/newculturef... Y: http://www.youtube.com/c/NewCultureForum T: http://www.twitter.com/NewCultureForum (@NewCultureForum)

For the next few months, we're sharing some of our favorite conversations from the podcast's archives. This week's segments first appeared in 2019 and 2020, respectively.In 1965, James Baldwin, by then internationally famous, faced off against William F. Buckley Jr., one of the leading voices of American conservatism, in a debate hosted by the Cambridge Union in England (and currently being dramatized as a stage show at the Public Theater in New York). The debate proposition before the house was: “The American dream is at the expense of the American Negro.”Nicholas Buccola's 2019 book “The Fire Is Upon Us” tells the story of that intellectual prizefight as well as the larger story of Buckley's and Baldwin's lives.“Although the union had existed for 150 years prior to this night,” Buccola said on the podcast in 2019, “I'm pretty sure that there was never a speech quite like the speech that Baldwin delivered that night, because a lot of formal debate is this combination of intellectual exercise and performance art — you know, a lot of humor injected and that sort of thing. But Baldwin arrives that night and he delivers a sermon; he delivers a jeremiad. He is there to say things that people don't want to hear.”Also this week, we revisit Lydia Millet's podcast appearance from 2020, when she discussed her novel “The Children's Bible,” which went on to be named one of our 10 Best Books of the year. The book was inspired, she told the host Pamela Paul, by younger people who are increasingly alarmed by the future they will inherit: “This generation is starting to notice and get angry, and I think the rage is long overdue, and I think it's the only rational response to the threats we face.” Millet's new novel, “Dinosaurs,” will be published next week.We would love to hear your thoughts about this episode, and about the Book Review's podcast in general. You can send them to books@nytimes.com.

En este audio, sirviéndonos de dos vídeos muy ilustrativos que ahora mismo enlazo, vemos y conectamos algunos temas que ya hemos tratado un poco, y otros que no tanto. Las citas de Harari, que en seguida saco en el audio, están sacadas de la recopilación fantástica que hizo N. M. Laje en su vídeo enlazado en (1) (divulgado también por N. Morás). El vídeo (2) es una charla de Higinio Marín: 1) DATAÍSMO: La nueva religion del WEF ("foro económico mundial") | IA, Transhumanismo y METAVERSO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOrZz9rOhYo 2) 'CORRECCIÓN POLÍTICA Y AGENDA 2030' por Higinio Marín: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6pZwwnzQwE El tema de las citas de esos vídeos es contextualizado en lo que llevamos viendo ya un poco en esta web - conversaciones y audios/vídeos -. Y tiene que ver con este tipo de cosas: Los supuestos extraterrestres serían en realidad, como vimos ya, básicamente desencarnados (espíritus que dejan el cuerpo físico, pues nadie muere; seguimos, como almas que también albergaron siempre un cuerpo espiritual). Entre esos desencarnados quizá tienen un papel preponderante ahora los que vienen de ser abortados (por ley de compensación, en realidad, y debido a este desentendernos masivamente del problema del literal sacrificio de niños que es el aborto y que colectivamente casi "adoramos"). El alma (una creación enormemente poderosa, la más grande que habría hecho Dios, tal como estamos comprobando), el alma... nuestra mitad de alma (pues seríamos una mitad) contiene nuestros dos cuerpos (espiritual y físico). Cuando dejamos el cuerpo físico seguimos con el cuerpo espiritual, como almas, creciendo en amor a lo largo de las dimensiones "pertenecientes" a esta tierra, es decir, en la parte "que nos toca" del "mundo espiritual" (es decir, pertenecientes a la "evolución del alma" que se hace "desde este mundo"). Esas dimensiones, al crecer en amor, tienen poder para visitar el planeta... hacer ciertas materializaciones... influir energéticamente como en general hacen muchísimos desencarnados, a través de nuestras heridas emocionales, etc. El libre albedrío es un don del alma, como vimos que enseña magistralmente Jesús (y su alma gemela). Y las citas de Harari que vemos son escalofriantes y muy ilustrativas por lo claramente que exponen el programa en el que estamos metidos en relación al libre albedrío del alma humana, en esta ingeniería social galopante que nos da pistas sobre la "batalla por el alma humana" en la que estamos (batalla "espiritual"). Nos asomamos pues a las realidades del gobierno humano, a esta "neoaristocracia neutral" - como la describe Higinio - en esta especie de "totalitarismo suave" e industrialización de los cuerpos de la "cuarta revolución industrial", facilitada por el terrorismo mediático, por la "economía" de las emociones y deseos (manipulación de deseos y libre albedrío...), etc. --- Entrada dedicada a este audio: https://www.unplandivino.net/et-abortos/ ‎ --- Enlace a un vídeo citado brevemente: El vídeo que comento muy rápidamente, el de esa "graciosa" asociación de estudiantes de Cambrigde donde deciden sobre el libre albedrío, es: - Esta casa cree que el libre albedrío no existe | Cambridge Union: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA4tGpJPc8Q

Mike Isaacson: If your free speech requires an audience, might I suggest a therapist? [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Welcome once again to The Nazi Lies Podcast. I am joined by two historians today. With us is Evan Smith, lecturer at Flinders University in Adelaide, and David Renton, who taught at a number of universities in the UK and South Africa before leaving the academy to practice law, though he still finds time to research and write. Each of them has a book about today's topic: the free speech crisis. Dr. Smith's book, No Platform: A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and the Limits of Free Speech, chronicles the No Platform policy of the National Union of Students in the UK from its foundation in 1974 to the present day. Dr. Renton's book, No Free Speech for Fascists: Exploring ‘No Platform' in History, Law and Politics, tells a much longer story of the interplay of radical leftist groups, organized fascists, and the state in shaping the UK's speech landscape and their significance in politics and law. Both are out from Routledge. I have absolutely no idea how we've managed to make the time zones work between the three of us, but welcome both of you to the podcast. Evan Smith: Thank you. David Renton: Thanks, Mike. Mike: So David, I want to start with you because your book goes all the way back to the 1640s to tell its history. So what made you start your story in the 1640s, and what did contention over speech look like before Fascism? David: Well, I wanted to start all that time back more than 300 years ago, because this is the moment when you first start to see something like the modern left and right emerge. You have in Britain, a party of order that supports the state and the king, but you also have a party which stands for more democracy and a more equal distribution of wealth. And essentially, from this point onwards in British, European, American politics, you see those same sites recreating themselves. And what happens again, and again, and again from that point onwards for hundreds of years until certainly say 50 years ago, you have essentially the people who are calling for free speech, whether that's the levellers in 1640s, Tom Paine 100 years later, J.S. Mill in the 19th Century. The left is always the people in favor of free speech. In terms of the right, if you want a kind of the first philosopher of conservatism, someone like Edmund Burke, he's not involved in the 1640s. He's a bit later, about a century and a half later. But you know, he supports conservatism. So what's his attitude towards free speech? It's really simple. He says, people who disagree with him should be jailed. There should be laws made to make it harder for them to have defenses. And more and more of them should be put in jail without even having a trial. That's the conservative position on free speech for centuries. And then what we get starting to happen in the late 20th century, something completely different which is a kind of overturning of what's been this huge, long history where it's always the left that's in favor of free speech, and it's always the right that's against it. Mike: Okay. Now, your contention is that before the appearance of Fascism, socialist radicals were solidly in favor of free speech for all. Fascism changed that, and Evan, maybe you can jump in here since this is where your book starts. What was new about Fascism that made socialists rethink their position on speech? Evan: So fascism was essentially anti-democratic and it was believed that nothing could be reasoned with because it was beyond the realms of reasonable, democratic politics. It was a violence, and the subjugation of its opponents was at the very core of fascism. And that the socialist left thought that fascism was a deeply violent movement that moved beyond the traditional realm of political discourse. So, there was no reasoning with fascists, you could only defeat them. Mike: So, let's start with David first, but I want to get both of you on this. What was the response to Fascism like before the end of World War II? David: Well, what you do is you get the left speaking out against fascism, hold demonstrations against fascism, and having to articulate a rationale of why they're against fascism. One of the things I quote in my book is a kind of famous exchange that takes place in 1937 when a poet named Nancy Cunard collected together the writers, intellectuals, and philosophers who she saw as the great inspiration to– the most important writers and so on that day. And she asked them what side they were taking on fascism. What's really interesting if you read their accounts, whether it's people like the poet W.H. Auden, novelist Gerald Bullitt, the philosopher C.E.M Joad, they all say they're against fascism, but they all put their arguments against fascism in terms of increased speech. So C.E.M Joad writes, "Fascism suppresses truth. That's why we're against fascism." Or the novelist Owen Jameson talks about fascism as a doctrine which exalts violence and uses incendiary bombs to fight ideas. So you get this thing within the left where people grasp that in order to fight off this violence and vicious enemy, they have to be opposed to it. And that means, for example, even to some extent making an exception to what's been for centuries this uniform left-wing notion: you have to protect everyone's free speech. Well people start grasping, we can't protect the fascist free speech, they're gonna use it to suppress us. So the Left makes an exception to what's been its absolute defense of free speech, but it makes this exception for the sake of protecting speech for everybody. Mike: Okay. Evan, do you want to add anything to the history of socialists and fascists before the end of World War Two? Evan: Yeah. So just kind of setting up a few things which will become important later on, and particularly because David and I are both historians of antifascism in Britain, is that there's several different ways in which antifascism emerges in the interwar period and several different tactics. One tactic is preventing fascists from marching from having a presence in public. So things like the Battle of Cable Street in 1936 is a very famous incident where the socialists and other protesters stopped the fascists from marching. There's also heckling and disrupting of fascist meetings. So this was big meetings like Olympia in June 1934, but then also smaller ones like individual fascist meetings around the country were disrupted by antifascists. There was also some that are on the left who also called for greater state intervention, usually in the form of labor councils not allowing fascists to congregate in public halls and stuff like that. So these kinds of arguments that fascism needs to be confronted, disrupted, obfuscated, starts to be developed in the 1930s. And it's where those kinds of free speech arguments emerge in the later period. Mike: Now immediately after the Second World War, fascist movements were shells of their former selves. They had almost no street presence and their organizations usually couldn't pull very many members. Still, the response to fascism when it did pop up was equally as vehement as when they organized into paramilitary formations with membership in the thousands. Something had qualitatively changed in the mind of the public regarding fascism. What did the immediate postwar response to public fascist speech look like, and what was the justification? Evan, let's start with you and then David you can add anything he misses. Evan: David probably could tell the story in a lot more detail. In the immediate post-war period in Britain, Oswald Mosley tries to revive the fascist movement under the title The Union Movement, but before that there's several kind of pro-fascist reading groups that emerge. And in response to this is kind of a disgust that fascists who had recently been imprisoned in Britain and their fellow travellers in the Nazis and the Italian Fascists and the continental fascists had been, you know, it ended in the Holocaust. There was this disgust that fascists could be organizing again in public in Britain, and that's where it mobilizes a new kind of generation of antifascists who are inspired by the 1930s to say "Never again, this won't happen on our streets." And the most important group and this is The 43 Group, which was a mixture of Jewish and communist radicals, which probably David can tell you a little bit about. David: I'd be happy to but I think before we get to 43 Group, it's kind of worth just pausing because the point Mike's left is kind of around the end of the Second World War. One thing which happens during the Second World War is of course Britain's at war with Germany. So what you start to get is Evan talked about how in the 1930s, you already have this argument like, “Should stopping fascism be something that's done by mass movements, or should it be done by the state?” In the Second World War the state has to confront that question, too, because it's got in fascism a homegrown enemy, and the British state looks at how all over Europe these states were toppled really quickly following fascist advance, and very often a pro-fascist powerful section of the ruling class had been the means by which an invading fascism then found some local ally that's enabled it to take over the state and hold the state. So the British state in 1940 actually takes a decision to intern Oswald Mosley and 800 or so of Britain's leading fascists who get jailed initially in prisons in London, then ultimately on the Isle of Man. Now, the reason why I'm going into this is because the first test of what the ordinary people in Britain think about the potential re-emergence of fascism comes even before the Second World War's ended. When Oswald Mosley is released from internment, he says he has conditioned phlebitis, he's very incapacitated, and is never going to be politically active again. And the British state buys this. And this creates–and an actual fact–the biggest single protest movement in Britain in the entire Second World War, where you get hundreds of people in certain factories going on strike against Oswald Mosley's release, and high hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions demanding that he's reinterned, and you start to get people having demonstrations saying Mosley ought to go back to jail. That kind of sets the whole context of what's going to happen after the end of the Second World War. Mosley comes out and he's terrified of public opinion; he's terrified about being seen in public. He's convinced that if you hold meetings you're going to see that cycle going on again. So for several years, the fascists barely dare hold public meetings, and they certainly don't dare hold meetings with Mosley speaking. They test the water a bit, and they have some things work for them. Evan's mentioned the 43 Group so I'll just say a couple sentences about them. The 43 Group are important in terms of what becomes later. They're not a vast number of people, but they have an absolute focus on closing down any fascist meeting. We're gonna hear later in this discussion about the phrase "No Platform" and where it comes from, but you know, in the 1940s when fascist wanted to hold meetings, the platform means literally getting together a paste table and standing on it, or standing on a tiny little ladder just to take you a couple of foot above the rest of your audience. The 43 Group specialize in a tactic which is literally knocking over those platforms. And because British fascism remained so isolated and unpopular in the aftermath of the Second World War, you know, there are 43 Group activists and organizers who look at London and say, "All right, if there going to be 12 or 13 public meetings in London this weekend, we know where they're going to be. If we can knock over every single one of those other platforms, then literally there'll be no fascists to have any chance to find an audience or put a public message in Britain." That's kind of before you get the term 'No Platform' but it's almost in essence the purest form of No Platforming. It's people being able to say, "If we get organized as a movement outside the state relying on ordinary people's opposition to fascism, we can close down every single example of fascist expression in the city and in this country." Mike: Okay. So through the 50's and 60's, there were two things happening simultaneously. On the one hand, there was the largely left wing student-led free speech movement. And on the other hand, there was a new generation of fascists who were rebuilding the fascist movement in a variety of ways. So let's start with the free speech movement. David, you deal with this more in your book. What spurred the free speech movement to happen? David: Yeah. Look in the 50s and 60s, the free speech movement is coming from the left. That's going to change, we know it's going to change like 20 or 30 years later, but up to this point we're still essentially in the same dance of forces that I outlined right at the start. That the left's in favor of free speech, the right is against it. And the right's closing down unwanted ideas and opinion. In the 50s and 60s, and I'm just going to focus on Britain and America, very often this took the form of either radicals doing some sort of peace organising–and obviously that cut against the whole basic structure of the Cold War–or it took the form of people who maybe not even necessarily radicals at all, just trying to raise understanding and consciousness about people's bodies and about sex. So for the Right, their counterattack was to label movements like for example in the early 60s on the campus of Berkeley, and then there's originally a kind of anti-war movement that very quickly just in order to have the right to organize, becomes free speech movements. And the Right then counter attacks against it saying, "Essentially, this is just a bunch of beats or kind of proto-hippies. And what they want to do is I want to get everyone interested in drugs, and they want to get everyone interested in sexuality, and they want everyone interested in all these sorts of things." So their counterattack, Reagan terms this, The Filthy Speech Movement. In the late 60s obviously in states, we have the trial of the Chicago 7, and here you have the Oz trial, which is when a group of radicals here, again that their point of view is very similar, kind of hippie-ish, anti-war milieu. But one thing is about their magazines, which again it seems very hard to imagine today but this is true, that part of the way that their their magazine sells is through essentially soft pornographic images. And there's this weird combination of soft porn together with far left politics. They'll get put on trial in the Oz trial and that's very plainly an attempt– our equivalent of the Chicago 7 to kind of close down radical speech and to get into the public mind this idea that the radicals are in favor of free speech, they're in favor of extreme left-wing politics, and they're in favor of obscenity, and all these things are somehow kind of the same thing. Now, the point I just wanted to end on is that all these big set piece trials–another one to use beforehand is the Lady Chatterley's Lover trial, the Oz trial, the Chicago 7 trial, all of these essentially end with the right losing the battle of ideas, not so much the far right but center right. And people just saying, "We pitched ourselves on the side of being against free speech, and this isn't working. If we're going to reinvent right-wing thought, make some center right-wing ideas desirable and acceptable in this new generation of people, whatever they are, then we can't keep on being the ones who are taking away people's funds, closing down ideas. We've got to let these radicals talk themselves out, and we've got to reposition ourselves as being, maybe reluctantly, but the right takes the decision off of this. The right has to be in favor of free speech too. Mike: All right. And also at this time, the far right was rebuilding. In the UK, they shifted their focus from overt antisemitism and fascism to nebulously populist anti-Black racism. The problem for them, of course, was that practically no one was fooled by this shift because it was all the same people. So, what was going on with the far right leading into the 70s? Evan, do you want to start? Evan: Yeah. So after Mosley is defeated in Britain by the 43 Group and the kind of antifascism after the war, he moves shortly to Ireland and then comes back to the UK. Interestingly, he uses universities and particularly debates with the Oxford Union, the Cambridge Union, and other kind of university societies, to find a new audience because they can't organize on the streets. So he uses–throughout the '50s and the '60s–these kind of university platforms to try and build a fascist movement. At the same time, there are people who were kind of also around in the '30s and the '40s who are moving to build a new fascist movement. It doesn't really get going into '67 when the National Front is formed from several different groups that come together, and they're really pushed into the popular consciousness because of Enoch Powell and his Rivers of Blood Speech. Enoch Powell was a Tory politician. He had been the Minister for Health in the Conservative government, and then in '68 he launches this Rivers of Blood Speech which is very much anti-immigration. This legitimizes a lot of anti-immigrationist attitudes, and part of that is that the National Front rides his coattails appealing to people who are conservatives but disaffected with the mainstream conservatism and what they saw as not being hard enough in immigration, and that they try to build off the support of the disaffected right; so, people who were supporting Enoch Powell, supporting the Monday Club which is another hard right faction in the conservatives. And in that period up until about the mid 1970s, that's the National Front's raison d'etre; it's about attracting anti-immigrationists, conservatives to build up the movement as an electoral force rather than a street force which comes later in the '70s. Mike: There was also the Apartheid movement, or the pro-Apartheid movement, that they were building on at this time as well, right? Evan: Yeah. So at this time there's apartheid in South Africa. In 1965, the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia has a unilateral declaration of independence from Britain to maintain White minority rule. And a lot of these people who are around Powell, the Monday Club, the National Front, against decolonization more broadly, and also then support White minority rule in southern Africa. So a lot of these people end up vocalizing support for South Africa, vocalizing support for Rhodesia, and that kind of thing. And it's a mixture of anti-communism and opposition to multiracial democracy. That's another thing which they try to take on to campus in later years. Mike: So finally we get to No Platform. Now, Evan, you contend that No Platform was less than a new direction in antifascist politics than a formalization of tactics that had developed organically on the left. Can you talk a bit about that? Evan: Yeah, I'll give a quick, very brief, lead up to No Platform and to what's been happening in the late '60s. So Enoch Powell who we mentioned, he comes to try and speak on campus several times throughout the late 60s and early 70s. These are often disrupted by students that there's an argument that, "Why should Enoch Powell be allowed to come onto campus? We don't need people like that to be speaking." This happens in the late 60s. Then in '73, Hans Eysenck, who was a psychologist who was very vocal about the connection between race and IQ, he attempts to speak at the London School of Economics and his speech is disrupted by a small group of Maoists. And then also– Mike: And they physically disrupted that speech, right? That wasn't just– Evan: Yeah, they punched him and pushed him off stage and stuff like that. And a month later, Samuel Huntington who is well known now for being the Clash of Civilizations guy, he went to speak at Sussex University, and students occupied a lecture theater so he couldn't talk because they opposed his previous work with the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. This led to a moral panic beginning about the end of free speech on campus, that it's either kind of through sit-ins or through direct violence, but in the end students are intolerant. And that's happening in that five years before we get to No Platform. Mike: One thing I didn't get a good sense of from your books was what these socialist groups that were No Platforming fascists prior to the NUS policy stood for otherwise. Can we talk about the factionalization of the left in the UK in the 60s and 70s? David, maybe you can help us out on this one. David: Yeah, sure. The point to grasp, which is that the whole center of British discourse in the ‘70s was way to the left of where it is in Britain today, let alone anywhere else in the world. That from, say, ‘64 to ‘70, we had a Labour government, and around the Labour Party. We had really, really strong social movements. You know, we had something like roughly 50% of British workers were members of trade unions. We'll get on later to the Students Union, that again was a movement in which hundreds of thousands of people participated. Two particular groups that are going to be important for our discussion are the International Socialists and International Marxist Group, but maybe if I kind of go through the British left sort of by size starting from largest till we get down to them. So the largest wing we've got on the British left is Labour Party. This is a party with maybe about half a million members, but kind of 20 million affiliated members through trade unions, and it's gonna be in and out of government. Then you've got the Communist Party which is getting quite old as an organization and is obviously tied through Cold War politics to the Soviet Union. And then you get these smaller groups like the IS, the IMG. And they're Trotskyist groups so they're in the far left of labor politics as revolutionaries, but they have quite a significant social heft, much more so than the far left in Britain today because, for example, their members are involved in editing magazines like Oz. There is a moment where there's a relatively easy means for ideas to merge in the far left and then get transmitted to the Labour Party and potentially even to Labour ministers and into government. Mike: Okay, do you want to talk about the International Marxist Group and the International Socialists? Evan: Do you want me to do that or David? Mike: Yes, that'd be great. Evan: Okay. So as David mentioned, there's the Communist Party and then there's the International Socialists and the International Marxist Group. The International Marxist Group are kind of heavily based in the student movement. They're like the traditional student radicals. Tariq Ali is probably the most famous member at this stage. And they have this counter cultural attitude in a way. International Socialists are a different form of Trotskyism, and they're much more about, not so much interested in the student movement, but kind of like a rank and file trade unionism that kind of stuff, opposition to both capitalism and Soviet communism. And the IS, the IMG, and sections of the Communist Party all coalesce in the student movement, which forms the basis for pushing through a No Platform policy in the Nationalist Union of Students in 1974. Mike: Okay. So in 1974, the National Union of Students passes their No Platform policy. Now before we get into that, what is the National Union of Students? Because we don't have an analogue to that in the US. Evan, you want to tackle this one? Evan: Yeah. Basically, every university has a student union or a form of student union–some kind of student body–and the National Union of Students is the national organization, the peak body which organizes the student unions on all the various campuses around the country. Most of the student unions are affiliated to the NUS but some aren't. The NUS is a kind of democratic body and oversees student policy, but individual student unions can opt in or opt out of whether they follow NUS guidelines. And I think what needs to be understood is that the NUS was a massive organization back in those days. You know, hundreds of thousands of people via the student unions become members of the NUS. And as David was saying, the political discourse is much bigger in the '60s and '70s through bodies like this as well as things like the trade union movement. The student movement has engaged hundreds of thousands of students across Britain about these policies much more than we see anything post the 1970s. David: If I could just add a sentence or two there, that's all right. I mean, really to get a good sense of scale of this, if you look at, obviously you have the big set piece annual conventions or conferences of the National Union of Students. Actually, it doesn't even just have one a year, it has two a year. Of these two conferences, if you just think about when the delegates are being elected to them how much discussion is taking place in local universities. If you go back to some local university meetings, it's sometimes very common that you see votes of 300 students going one way, 400 another, 700 going one way in some of the larger universities. So there's an absolute ferment of discussion around these ideas. Which means that when there are set piece motions to pass, they have a democratic credibility. And they've had thousands of people debating and discussing them. It's not just like someone going on to one conference or getting something through narrowly on a show of hands. There's a feeling that these debates are the culmination of what's been a series of debates in each local university. And we've got over 100 of them in Britain. Mike: Okay, how much is the student union's presence felt on campus by the average student? Evan: That'd be massive. David: Should I do this? Because I'm a bit older than Evan and I went to university in the UK. And it's a system which is slowly being dismantled but when I was student, which is like 30 years ago, this was still largely in place. In almost every university, the exceptions are Oxford and Cambridge, but in every other university in Britain, almost all social activity takes place on a single site on campus. And that single site invariably is owned by the student's union. So your students union has a bar, has halls, it's where– They're the plumb venues on campus if you want to have speakers or if you want to have– Again, say when punk happened a couple of years later, loads and loads of the famous punk performances were taking place in the student union hall in different universities. One of the things we're going to get onto quite soon is the whole question of No Platform and what it meant to students. What I want to convey is that for loads of students having this discussion, when they're saying who should be allowed on campus or who shouldn't be allowed on campus, what's the limits? They feel they've got a say because there are a relatively small number of places where people will speak. Those places are controlled by the students' union. They're owned and run by the students' union. It's literally their buildings, their halls, they feel they've got a right to set who is allowed, who's actually chosen, and who also shouldn't be invited. Mike: Okay, cool. Thank you. Thank you for that. That's a lot more than I knew about student unions. Okay. Evan, this is the bread and butter of your book. How did No Platform come about in the NUS? Evan: So, what part of the fascist movement is doing, the far-right movement, is that it is starting to stray on campus. I talked about the major focus of the National Front is about appealing to disaffected Tories in this stage, but they are interfering in student affairs; they're disrupting student protests; they're trying to intimidate student politics. And in 1973, the National Front tried to set up students' association on several campuses in Britain And there's a concern about the fascist presence on campus. So those three left-wing groups– the IMG, the IS and the Communist Party–agree at the student union level that student unions should not allow fascists and racists to use student buildings, student services, clubs that are affiliated to the student union. They shouldn't be allowed to access these. And that's where they say about No Platform is that the student union should deny a platform to fascists and racists. And in 1974 when they put this policy to a vote and it's successful, they add, "We're going to fight them by any means necessary," because they've taken that inspiration from the antifascism of the '30s and '40s. Mike: Okay. Now opinion was clearly divided within the NUS. No Platform did not pass unanimously. So Evan, what was opinion like within the NUS regarding No Platform? Evan: Well, it passed, but there was opposition. There was opposition from the Federation of Conservative Students, but there was also opposition from other student unions who felt that No Platform was anti-free speech, so much so that in April 1974 it becomes policy, but in June 1974, they have to have another debate about whether this policy should go ahead. It wins again, but this is the same time as it happens on the same day that the police crackdown on anti-fascist demonstration in Red Lion Square in London. There's an argument that fascism is being propped up by the police and is a very real threat, so that we can't give any quarter to fascism. We need to build this No Platform policy because it is what's standing in between society and the violence of fascism. Mike: Okay. I do want to get into this issue of free speech because the US has a First Amendment which guarantees free speech, but that doesn't exist in Britain. So what basis is there for free speech in the law? I think, David, you could probably answer this best because you're a lawyer. David: [laughs] Thank you. In short, none. The basic difference between the UK and the US– Legally, we're both common law countries. But the thing that really changes in the US is this is then overlaid with the Constitution, which takes priority. So once something has been in the Constitution, that's it. It's part of your fundamental law, and the limits to it are going to be narrow. Obviously, there's a process. It's one of the things I do try and talk about in my book that the Supreme Court has to discover, has to find free speech in the American Constitution. Because again, up until the Second World War, essentially America has this in the Constitution, but it's not particularly seen as something that's important or significant or a key part of the Constitution. The whole awe and  mysticism of the First Amendment as a First Amendment is definitely something that's happened really in the last 40-50 years. Again, I don't want to go into this because it's not quite what you're getting at. But certainly, in the '20s for example, you get many of the big American decisions on free speech which shaped American law today. What everyone forgets is in every single one of them, the Supreme Court goes on to find some reason why free speech doesn't apply. So then it becomes this doctrine which is tremendously important to be ushered out and for lip service be given to, just vast chunks of people, communists, people who are in favor of encouraging abortion, contraception, whatever, they're obviously outside free speech, and you have to come up with some sophisticated justifications for that. In Britain, we don't have a constitution. We don't have laws with that primary significance. We do kind of have a weak free speech tradition, and that's kind of important for some things like there's a European Convention on Human Rights that's largely drafted by British lawyers and that tries to create in Articles 10 and 11 a general support on free speech. So they think there are things in English legal tradition, in our common law tradition, which encourage free speech.  But if we've got it as a core principle of the UK law today, we've got it because of things like that like the European Convention on Human Rights. We haven't got it because at any point in the last 30, or 50, or 70 or 100 years, British judges or politicians thought this was a really essential principle of law. We're getting it these days but largely by importing it from the United States, and that means we're importing the worst ideological version of free speech rather than what free speech ought to be, which is actually protecting the rights of most people to speak. And if you've got some exceptions, some really worked out well thought exceptions for coherent and rational reasons. That's not what we've got now in Britain, and it's not what we've really ever had. Mike: Evan, you do a good job of documenting how No Platform was applied. The experience appears to be far from uniform. Let's talk about that a little bit. Evan: Yeah, so there's like a debate happening about who No Platform should be applied to because it states– The official policy is that No Platform for racists and fascists, and there's a debate of who is a racist enough to be denied a platform. There's agreement so a group like the National Front is definitely to be No Platform. Then there's a gray area about the Monday Club. The Monday Club is a hard right faction within the conservatives. But there's a transmission of people and ideas between National Front and the Monday Club. Then there's government ministers because the British immigration system is a racist system. The Home Office is seen as a racist institution. So there's a debate of whether government politicians should be allowed to have a platform because they uphold institutional racism. We see this at different stages is that a person from the Monday Club tries to speak at Oxford and is chased out of the building. Keith Joseph, who's one of the proto-Thatcherites in the Conservative Party, comes to speak at LSE in the 1977-78 and that there is a push to say that he can't be allowed to speak because of the Conservative Party's immigration policies and so forth like that. So throughout the '70s, there is a debate of the minimalist approach with a group like the International Socialists saying that no, outright fascists are the only ones to be No Platformed. Then IMG and other groups are saying, "Actually, what about the Monday Club? What about the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children? What about Conservative Ministers? Are these people, aren't they also sharing that kind of discriminatory agenda that shouldn't be allowed a platform?" Mike: Okay, and there were some objections within the National Union of Students to some applications of No Platform, right? Evan: Yeah, well, not so much in the '70s. But once you get into the '80s, there's a big push for it. But probably the biggest issue in the '70s is that the application of No Platform to pro-Israel groups and Jewish student groups. In 1975, there's a UN resolution that Zionism is a form of racism, and that several student groups say, "Well, pro-Israel groups are Zionists. If Zionism is a form of racism and No Platform should be applied to racists or fascists, shouldn't they the pro-Israel groups then be denied a platform? Should pro-Israel groups be disaffiliated from student unions, etc.?" Several student unions do this at the local level, but there's a backlash from the NUS at the national level so much so the NUS actually suspends No Platform for about six months. It is reintroduced with an explicit piece of it saying that if No Platform is reinstituted, it can't be applied to Zionists groups, to pro-Israel groups, to Jewish societies. But a reason that they can't, the NUS can't withhold No Platform as a policy in the late 1970s is because they've been playing catch up because by this time, the Anti-Nazi League, Rock Against Racism are major mass movements of people because the National Front is seen as a major problem, and the NUS has to have some kind of anti-Fascist, anti-racist response. They can't sit on their hands because they're going dragged along by the Anti-Nazi League. Mike: One thing that you talked about in your book, David, is that simultaneous to No Platform was this movement for hate speech prohibitions. Talk about how these movements differed. David: Well, I think the best way to convey it is if we go back to the motion that was actually passed at the National Union of Students spring conference in May '74. If you don't mind, I'll just begin by reading it out. Conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance, financial or otherwise, to openly racist or fascist organizations or societies (e.g., Monday Club, National Front, Action Party, Union Movement, National Democratic Party) and to deny them a platform. What I want to try and convey is that when you think about how you got this coalition within the National Union of Students in support of that motion, there were like two or three different ideas being signaled in that one motion. And if you then apply them, particularly what's happening as we're talking 50 years later now, if you apply them through the subsequent 50 years of activism, they do point in quite different directions. To just start up, “conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance” dadadada. What's really been good at here, I'm sure some of the people who passed No Platform promotion just had this idea, right? What we are, we're a movement of students' unions. We're a movement of buildings which are run by students and are for students. People have said to themselves, all this motion is really committing us to do is to say that we won't give any assistance to racist or fascist organizations. So what that means in practice is in our buildings, in our halls, we won't invite them in. Now, it may be that, say, the university will invite a conservative minister or the university will allow some far-right person to have a platform in election time. But the key idea, one key idea that's going on with this, just those things won't happen in our students' unions. They're our buildings; they're our halls. To use a term that hasn't really been coined yet, but this is in people's heads, is the idea of a safe space. It's just, student unions are our safe space. We don't need to worry about who exactly these terrible people are. Whoever and whatever they are, we don't want them on our patch. That's idea number one. Idea number two is that this is really about stopping fascists. It's not about any other form of discrimination. I'll come on to idea three in a moment. With idea three, this is about fascist organizations. You can see in a sense the motion is talking to people, people coming on and saying like I might not even be particularly left wing, but I don't like fascists. Evan talked about say for example, Zionist organizations. Could a Zionist organization, which is militantly antifascist, could they vote this motion? Yes. And how they'd sell it to themselves is this is only about fascism. So you can see this in the phrase, this is about refusing systems to “openly racist or fascist organizations,” and then look at the organizations which are listed: the National Front, well yeah, they're fascists; the Union Movement, yeah, they're fascists; the National Democratic Party, they're another little fascist splinter group.And then the only one there that isn't necessarily exactly fascist is the Monday Club who are a bunch of Tories who've been in the press constantly in the last two years when this motion is written for their alliance with National Front holding demonstrations and meetings together. So some people, this is just about protecting their space. Some people, this is about excluding fascists and no one else. But then look again at the motion, you'll see another word in there. “Conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance to openly racist or fascist organizations.” So right from the start, there's a debate, what does this word racist mean in the motion? Now, one way you could read the motion is like this. From today, we can all see that groups like the National Front are fascists. Their leaders can spend most of the rest of the decade appearing constantly in literature produced by anti-fascist groups, identifying them as fascist, naming them as fascist, then we have to have a mass movement against fascism and nazism. But the point is in 1974, that hadn't happened yet. In most people's heads, groups like the National Front was still, the best way to describe them that no one could disagree to at least say they were openly racist. That was how they described themselves. So you could ban the National Front without needing to have a theological discussion about whether they fitted exactly within your definition of fascism. But the point I really want to convey is that the motion succeeds because it blurs the difference between saying anything can be banned because it's fascist specifically or anything can be banned because it's racist or fascist. This isn't immediately apparent in 1974, but what becomes pretty apparent over time is for example as Evan's documented already, even before 1974, there have been non-fascists, there have been conservatives going around student unions speaking in pretty racist terms. All right, so can they be banned? If the answer is this goes to racists or fascists, then definitely they can be banned. But now wait a second. Is there anyone else in British politics who's racist? Well, at this point, both main political parties are standing for election on platforms of excluding people from Britain effectively on the basis of the color of their skin. All right, so you can ban all the main political parties in Britain. All right, well, how about the newspapers? Well, every single newspaper in Britain, even the pro-Labour ones, is running front page articles supporting the British government. All right, so you could ban all newspapers in Britain. Well, how about the television channel? Well, we've only got three, but the best-selling comedies on all of them are comedies which make fun of people because they're foreigners and because they're Black. You can list them all. There's dozens of these horrible programs, which for most people in Britain now are unwatchable. But they're all of national culture in Britain in the early '70s. Alright, so you say, all right, so students we could ban every television channel in Britain, every newspaper in Britain, and every political party in Britain, except maybe one or two on the far left. It's like, wait a second people, I've only been doing racism. Well, let's take seriously the notion, if we're against all forms of racism, how can we be against racism without also being against sexism? Without being against homophobia? So the thing about No Platform is there's really only two ways you can read it in the end, and certainly once you apply it outside the 1970s today. Number one, you can say this is a relatively tightly drawn motion, which is trying to pin the blame on fascists as something which is growing tremendously fast in early 1970s and trying to keep them out. Maybe it'd be good to keep other people out too, but it's not trying to keep everyone out. Or you've got, what we're confronting today which is essentially this is an attempt to prevent students from suffering the misery, the hatred, the fury of hate speech. This is an attempt to keep all hate speech off campus, but with no definition or limit on hate speech. Acceptance of hate speech 50 years later might be much more widely understood than it is in early '70s. So you've got warring in this one motion two completely different notions of who it's right politically to refuse platforms to. That's going to get tested out in real life, but it's not been resolved by the 1974 motion, which in a sense looks both ways. Either the people want to keep the ban narrow or the people want to keep it broad, either of them can look at that motion and say yeah, this is the motion which gives the basis to what we're trying to do. Mike: Okay. I do want to get back to the notion of the maximalist versus the precisionist view of No Platform. But first before that, I want to talk about the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism to just get more of a broader context than just the students in Britain in terms of antifascism. David, do you want to talk about that? David: Okay. Well, I guess because another of my books is about Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League, so I'll try and do this really short. I'll make two points. First is that these movements which currently ended in the 1970s are really very large. They're probably one of the two largest street movements in post-war British history. The only other one that's candidate for that is the anti-war movement, whether that's in the '80s or the early 2000s. But they're on that same scale as amongst the largest mass movements in British history. In terms of Rock Against Racism, the Anti-Nazi League, the total number of people involved in them is massive; it's around half a million to a million people. They're single most famous events, two huge three carnivals in London in 1977, which each have hundreds of thousands of people attending them and bring together the most exciting bands. They are the likes of The Clash, etc, etc. It's a movement which involves people graffitiing against Nazis, painting out far-right graffiti. It's a movement which is expressed in streets in terms of set piece confrontations, clashes with far-right, Lewisham in ‘76, Southall in ‘79. These are just huge movements which involve a whole generation of people very much associated with the emergence of punk music and when for a period in time in Britain are against that kind of visceral street racism, which National Front represents. I should say that they have slightly different attitudes, each of them towards the issue of free speech, but there's a massive interchange of personnel. They're very large. The same organizations involved in each, and they include an older version of the same activist who you've seen in student union politics in '74 as were they you could say they graduate into involvement in the mass movements like Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League. Now, I want to say specifically about the Anti-Nazi League and free speech. The Anti-Nazi League takes from student politics this idea of No Platform and tries to base a whole mass movement around it. The idea is very simply, the National Front should not be allowed a platform to speak, to organize, to win converts anywhere. Probably with the Anti-Nazi League, the most important expressions of this is two things. Firstly, when the National Front tries to hold election meetings, which they do particularly in the run up to '79 election, and those are picketed, people demonstrated outside of them  A lot of them are the weekend in schools. One at Southall is in a town hall. These just lead to repeated clashes between the Anti-Nazi League and the National Front. The other thing which the Anti-Nazi League takes seriously is trying to organize workers into closing off opportunities for the National Front spread their propaganda. For example, their attempts to get postal workers to refuse to deliver election materials to the National Front. Or again, there's something which it's only possible to imagine in the '70s; you couldn't imagine it today. The National Front is entitled to election broadcasts because it's standing parliament. Then the technical workers at the main TV stations go on strike and refuse to let these broadcasts go out. So in all these ways, there's this idea around the Anti-Nazi League of No Platform. But No Platform is No Platform for fascists. It's the National Front should not get a chance to spread its election message. It's not yet that kind of broader notion of, in essence, anything which is hate speech is unacceptable. In a sense, it can't be. Because when you're talking about students' unions and their original No Platform motion and so forth, at the core of it is they're trying to control their own campuses. There's a notion of students' power. The Anti-Nazi League, it may be huge mass movement and may have hundreds of thousands people involved in it, but no one in Anti-Nazi League thinks that this organization represents such a large majority that they could literally control the content of every single TV station, the content of every single newspaper. You can try and drive the National Front out, but if people in that movement had said right, we actually want to literally carve out every expression of racism and every expression of sexism from society, that would have been a yet bigger task by another enormous degrees of scale. Mike: Okay, I do want to talk a little bit more about Rock Against Racism just particularly how it was founded, what led to its founding. I think it gives a good sense of where Britain was at, politically. David: Right. Rock Against Racism was founded in 1976. The two main events which are going on in the heads of the organizers when they launched it, number one, David Bowie's weird fascist turn, his interview with Playboy magazine in which he talks about Hitler being the first rock and roll superstar, the moment where he was photographed returning from tours in America and comes to Victoria Station and appears to give a Nazi salute. The reason why with Bowie it matters is because he's a hero. Bowie seems to represent the emergence of a new kind of masculinity, new kind of attitude with sexuality. If someone like that is so damaged that he's going around saying Hitler is the greatest, that's really terrifying to Bowie fans and for a wider set of people. The other person who leads directly to the launch of Rock Against Racism is Eric Clapton. He interrupts a gig in Birmingham in summer '76 to just start giving this big drunken rant about how some foreigner pinched his missus' bum and how Enoch Powell is the greatest ever. The reason why people find Eric Clapton so contemptible and why this leads to such a mass movement is weirdly it's the opposite of Bowie that no one amongst the young cool kids regards Clapton as a hero. But being this number one star and he's clearly spent his career stealing off Black music and now he's going to support that horror of Enoch Powell as well, it just all seems so absolutely ridiculous and outrageous that people launch an open letter to the press and that gets thousands of people involved. But since you've asked me about Rock Against Racism, I do want to say Rock Against Racism does have a weirdly and certainly different attitude towards free speech to the Anti-Nazi League. And this isn't necessarily something that was apparent at the time. It's only kind of apparent now when you look back at it. But one of the really interesting things about Rock Against Racism is that because it was a movement of young people who were trying to reclaim music and make cultural form that could overturn British politics and change the world, is that they didn't turn around and say, "We just want to cut off all the racists and treat them as bad and shoot them out into space," kind of as what the Anti-Nazi League's trying to do to fascists. Rock Against Racism grasped that if you're going to try and change this cultural milieu which is music, you actually had to have a bit of a discussion and debate and an argument with the racists, but they tried to have it on their own terms. So concretely, what people would do is Rock Against Racism courted one particular band called Sham 69, who were one of the most popular young skinhead bands, but also had a bunch of neo-nazis amongst their roadies and things like that. They actually put on gigs Sham 69, put them on student union halls, surrounded them with Black acts. Knew that these people were going to bring skinheads into the things, had them performing under Rock Against Racism banner, and almost forced the band to get into the state of practical warfare with their own fans to try and say to them, "We don't want you to be nazis anymore. We want you to stop this." That dynamic, it was incredibly brave, was incredibly bold. It was really destructive for some of the individuals involved like Jimmy Pursey, the lead singer of Sham 69. Effectively saying to them, "Right, we want you to put on a gig every week where you're going to get bottled by your own fans, and you're going to end up like punching them, just to get them to stop being racist." But we can't see any other way of shifting this milieu of young people who we see as our potential allies. There were lots of sort of local things like that with Rock Against Racism. It wasn't about creating a safe space in which bad ideas couldn't come in; it was about going onto the enemy's ideological trend and going, "Right, on this trend, we can have an argument. We can win this argument." So it is really quite an interesting cultural attempt to change the politics of the street. Mike: Okay, now you two have very different ideas of what No Platform is in its essence. Evan, you believe that No Platform was shifting in scope from its inception and it is properly directed at any institutional platform afforded to vociferous bigots. While David you believe that No Platform is only properly applied against fascists, and going beyond that is a dangerous form of mission creep. Now, I absolutely hate debates. [laughter] I think the format does more to close off discussion than to draw out information on the topic at hand. So, what I don't want to happen is have you two arguing with each other about your positions on No Platform (and maybe me, because I have yet a third position). David: Okay Mike, honestly, we've known each other for years. We've always been– Mike: Yeah, yeah, yeah. David: –your listeners will pick up, there's loads we agree on, too. So I'm sure we can deal without that rubbish debate. [Evan laughs] Mike: All right. So what I'd like to do is ground this discussion as much as possible in history rather than abstract moral principles. So in that interest, can each of you talk a bit about the individuals and groups that have taken the position on No Platform that you have, and how they've defended their positions? David let's start with you. What groups were there insisting that No Platform was necessary but its necessity was limited to overt fascists? David: Well, I think in practice, that was the approach of Rock Against Racism. They took a very different attitude towards people who were tough ideological fascists, to the people who were around them who were definitely racist, but who were capable of being argued out of that. I mean, I've given the example of the policy of trying to have a debate with Sham 69 or use them as a mechanism to change their audience. What I want to convey is in every Rock Against Racism group around the country, they were often attempts to something very similar. People talk about Birmingham and Leeds, whether it be sort of local Rock Against Racism groups, they might put on– might get a big band from some other city once a month, but three weeks out of four, all they're doing is they're putting on a local some kind of music night, and they might get a hundred people there. But they'd go out of the way to invite people who they saw as wavering supporters of The National Front. But the point is this wasn't like– We all know how bad faith debates work. It's something like it's two big ego speakers who disagree with each other, giving them half an hour each to debate and know their audience is already persuaded that one of them's an asshole, one of them's great. This isn't what they were trying to do. They were trying to win over one by one wavering racists by putting them in an environment where they were surrounded by anti-racists. So it was about trying to create a climate where you could shift some people who had hateful ideas in their head, but were also capable of being pulled away from them. They didn't do set piece debates with fascists because they knew that the set piece debates with fascists, the fascists weren't going to listen to what they were going to say anyway. But what they did do is they did try to shift people in their local area to try and create a different atmosphere in their local area. And they had that attitude towards individual wavering racists, but they never had that attitude towards the fascist leaders. The fascist leaders as far as they're concerned, very, very simple, we got to close up the platform to them. We got to deprive them of a chance. Another example, Rock Against Racism, how it kind of made those sorts of distinctions. I always think with Rock Against Racism you know, they had a go at Clapton. They weren't at all surprised when he refused to apologize. But with Bowie, there was always a sense, "We want to create space for Bowie. We want to get Bowie back because Bowie's winnable." That's one of the things about that movement, is that the absolute uncrossable line was fascism. But if people could be pulled back away from that and away from the ideas associated with that, then they wanted to create the space to make that happen. Mike: Okay, and Evan, what groups took the Maximalist approach to No Platform and what was their reasoning? Evan: Yeah. So I think the discussion happens once the National Front goes away as the kind of the major threat. So the 1979 election, the National Front does dismally, and we can partially attribute that to the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism, kind of this popular antifascist movement. But there's also that Margaret Thatcher comes to power, and there's an argument that's made by historians is that she has pulled away the racist vote away from the National Front back to the conservatives. It's really kind of a realignment of leftwing politics under Thatcher because it's a much more confrontational conservative government, but there's also kind of these other issues which are kind of the new social movements and what we would now term as identity politics, they're forming in the sixties and seventies and are really big issues in the 1980s. So kind of like feminism, gay rights, andthat,  there's an argument among some of the students that if we have a No Platform for racism and fascism, why don't we have a No Platform for sexism? Why don't we have a No Platform for homophobia? And there are certain student unions who try to do this. So LSE in 1981, they endorse a No Platform for sexist as part of a wider fight against sexism, sexual harassment, sexual violence on campus is that misogynist speakers shouldn't be allowed to have a presence on campus. Several student unions kind of have this also for against homophobia, and as a part of this really divisive issue in the mid 1980s, the conservative government is quite homophobic. Section 28 clause 28 is coming in in the late eighties. It's a whole kind of homophobia of AIDS. There's instances where students object to local Tory politicians who were kind of outwardly, explicitly homophobic, that they should be not allowed to speak on stage. Then also bubbling along in the background is kind of the supporters of apartheid, so South African diplomats or kind of other people who support the South African regime including Conservative politicians, is that several times throughout the 1980s, they are invited to speak on campus, and there's kind of a massive backlash against this. Sometimes the No Platform policy is invoked. Sometimes it's just simple disruption or kind of pickets or vigils against them. But once fascism is kind of not the main issue, and all these different kind of politics is going on in the eighties, is that there's argument that No Platform for fascism and racism was important, but fascism and racism is only one form of hate speech; it's only one form of discrimination; it's only one form of kind of bodily violence; and we should take them all into consideration. Mike: Okay. Now there's been a fair bit of backlash against No Platform in kind of any of its forms from various sectors, so let's talk a bit about that. Let's start with the fascist themselves. So their response kind of changed somewhat over time in response to No Platform. David, you talk about this. David: Yeah. In the early ‘70s in Britain or I suppose in the late ‘70s too, what's extraordinary is how little use fascist make out of saying, "We are being attacked, free speech applies. We've got to have the right to be heard." I made the point earlier that Britain doesn't have a strong legal culture of free speech. We do have some culture of free speech. And again, it's not that the fascists never use these terms at all, they use them, but they use them very half-heartedly. Their dominant approach is to say, "We are being attacked by the left. The left don't understand we have better fighters than them. If they attack us on the streets, we'll fight back. In the end, we'll be the ones who win in a kind of battle of machismo, street fighting power." Now A, that doesn't happen because actually they lose some set piece confrontations, mostly at Lewisham in 1977. But it's interesting that they don't do the kind of thing which you'd expect the far right to do today, which is to say, like the British far right does today, they constantly say, "We're under attack. Free speech demands that we be heard. We're the only people who take free speech seriously." There's a continuous process in the British far right these days of endlessly going on social media every time anyone even disagrees with them a little bit, they immediately have their faces taped up and present themselves as the victim of this terrible conspiracy when in the mid-'70s when there really were people trying to put the far right out of business, that isn't what the far right did. I think, in essence, a whole bunch of things have to change. You have to get kind of a hardening of the free speech discourse in the United States; you have to have things like the attack on political correctness; the move by the American center-right from being kind of equivocal on free speech to being extremely pro-free speech; and you need to get the importation into Britain of essentially the same kind of free speech discourse as you have in States. Once we get all of that, the British far right eventually twigs that it's a far more effective way of presenting themselves and winning supporters by posing as the world's biggest defenders of free speech.  But in the ‘70s, they haven't learned that lesson yet, and their response is much more leaden and ineffective. In essence, they say, "No Platform's terrible because it's bullying us." But what they never have the gumption to say is, "Actually, we are the far right. We are a bunch of people putting bold and dangerous and exciting ideas, and if we are silenced, then all bold and dangerous and difficult ideas will be silenced too." That's something which a different generation of writers will get to and will give them all sorts of successes. But in the ‘70s, they haven't found it yet. Mike: Okay. Now fascists also had some uneasy allies as far as No Platform is concerned among Tories and libertarians. So let's talk about the Tories first, what was their opposition to No Platform about? Evan, you talk about this quite a bit in your book. Evan: Yeah. So the conservative opposition to No Platform is essentially saying that it's a stock standard thing that the left call everyone fascist. So they apply it to broadly and is that in the ‘80s, there's a bunch of conservative politicians to try to go onto campus, try to speak, and there's massive protests. They say that, "Look, this is part of an intolerant left, that they can't see the distinction between fascism and a Conservative MP. They don't want to allow anyone to have free speech beyond that kind of small narrow left wing bubble." In 1986, there is an attempt, after a kind of a wave of protest in '85, '86, there is an attempt by the government to implement some kind of protection for free speech on campus. This becomes part of the Education Act of 1986, that the university has certain obligations to ensure, where practical, free speech applies and no speech is denied. But then it's got all kind of it can't violate the Racial Discrimination Act, the Public Order Act, all those kind of things. Also, quite crucially for today, that 1986 act didn't explicitly apply to student unions. So student unions argued for the last 30 years that they are exempt from any legislation and that they were legally allowed to pursue their No Platform policy.

Arianna Huffington is the founder and CEO of Thrive, the founder of The Huffington Post, and the author of 15 books, including Thrive and The Sleep Revolution. In 2016, she launched Thrive, a leading behavior change tech company with the mission of changing the way we work and live by ending the collective delusion that burnout is the price we must pay for success. She has been named to Time Magazine's list of the world's 100 most influential people and the Forbes Most Powerful Women list. Originally from Greece, she moved to England when she was 16 and graduated from Cambridge University with an M.A. in economics. At 21, she became president of the famed debating society, the Cambridge Union. In this conversation with Dan Pontefract, Arianna discusses the importance of empathy, as well as her two new empathy-based initiatives with SHRM (a mental wellness pledge) and Genesys with the launch of the "Thrive Reset for Genesys" tool to help curb workplace stress.

Thrive CEO Arianna Huffington is best known for the pioneering online publication she founded, the Huffington Post, which she left in 2016. The experience of running the site awakened her to the most important problem she would tackle in her career: The intersecting crises of stress, burnout, poor sleep, and lack of focus, which Thrive teaches businesses how to manage.In this episode, Arianna and Joubin discuss how she went from a poor family in Greece to president of the elite Cambridge Union debate society; what she learned from both her parents, and the big lessons she has tried to impart to her own daughters; the hardships she faced professionally and personally before starting the Huffington Post; how she fell in love with online media, and how running the Huffington Post awakened her to the burnout epidemic; how Thrive is changing the conversation around stress; and the need for resilience-plus and the “obnoxious roommate in your head.”In this episode, we cover: Being present in every interaction is “one of the greatest gifts we can give each other” (02:23)  Arianna's parents, and abundance as a function of your attitude to life (08:08) How she became the first foreign-born president of the Cambridge Union, which led to her first book (18:00) An “incredible gift”: Discovering at a young age that money and fame aren't always fulfilling (25:12) Running in the California recall election against Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a digital media epiphany (31:10) Burning out en route to Huffington Post's $300 million acquisition by AOL (36:53) Why Arianna launched a second startup in her 60s, and the mainstreaming of stress relief (41:35) The meaning of her 2022 word of the year, “resilience-plus” (48:22) How she has constantly re-invented herself, and metabolizing new experiences (55:04) Links: Connect with Arianna Twitter LinkedIn Email Thrive's head of recruiting, Keith Pescosolido: keith@thriveglobal.com Connect with Joubin Twitter LinkedIn Email: grit@kleinerperkins.com  Learn more about Kleiner Perkins

The Cambridge Union debate between James Baldwin and William F. Buckley, Jr. was a flashpoint in the Civil Rights Movement. Nick Buccola, the author of the award-winning The Fire is Upon Us: James Baldwin, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Debate Over Race in America, joins Mark Smith to discuss how this debate between two New Yorkers, taking place in England, has Southern contexts.

The youngest ever Dragon has entered the Den. Steven Bartlett, a Botswana-born businessman who built one of the world's most influential social media organisations from the comfort of his Manchester bedroom at the age of 21, and joined the BBC panel of esteemed investors in 2022.Steven's marketing company The Social Chain went public last year and now has a current market valuation of over $600M.Since then, the young Plymouth-raised entrepreneur has toured the world as a speaker, investor, author and content creator, hosting UK's number one Podcast on Apple podcast, 'The Diary of a CEO'.His latest book, Happy Sexy Millionaire, which tells his story to success, is also a Sunday Times bestseller.I had the wonderful opportunity to interview him through the Cambridge Union. Find out more about the Cambridge Union: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB-BB8g8d8M&t=75s&ab_channel=CambridgeUnion Connect with Steven Bartlett via: website, LinkedIn, Instagram and Twitter.Find out more about Diary of a CEO via: website.A new episode EVERY WEEK, showcasing the journeys of inspirational entrepreneurs, side hustlers and their mentors. We discuss their successes, challenges and how they overcame setbacks. Focusing mainly on what they wish they had known when starting out. The podcast aims to give aspiring entrepreneurs the confidence to Start Up and Start Now by showcasing real and relatable entrepreneurs. After all, seeing is believing!Join the conversation using #startupstartnow and tagging us on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. Don't forget to leave a review as it really helps us reach those who need it and allows us to get the best guests for you! Connect with Start Up. Start Now. and to nominate a guest please visit: www.startupstartnow.co.uk.  To connect with Sharena Shiv please visit: www.sharena.co.uk.

If IDW protocol is going to get engaged, it needs to be about philia-sophia flow not philia-nikia.   @Jordan B Peterson  at  @Cambridge Union  https://youtu.be/miFwrdtTGqY Jordan Peterson and Kathy Newman https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54 The Internet of Beefs https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2020/01/16/the-internet-of-beefs/ Bounded Set vs Centered Set https://paulvanderklay.me/2021/12/27/bounded-set-and-centered-set-hiebert/ Meghan Daum on  @Rebel Wisdom  https://youtu.be/SYREdRuQzJw Marriage requires amnesia https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/24/style/marriage-heather-havrilesky-foreverland.html    Discord link. Good for just a few days. Check with more recent videos for a fresh link. https://discord.gg/6tswqT7Q Paul Vander Klay clips channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX0jIcadtoxELSwehCh5QTg My Substack https://paulvanderklay.substack.com/ Estuary Hub Link https://www.estuaryhub.com/ If you want to schedule a one-on-one conversation check here. https://paulvanderklay.me/2019/08/06/converzations-with-pvk/ There is a video version of this podcast on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/paulvanderklay To listen to this on ITunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/paul-vanderklays-podcast/id1394314333  If you need the RSS feed for your podcast player https://paulvanderklay.podbean.com/feed/  All Amazon links here are part of the Amazon Affiliate Program. Amazon pays me a small commission at no additional cost to you if you buy through one of the product links here. This is is one (free to you) way to support my videos.  https://paypal.me/paulvanderklay To support this channel/podcast with Bitcoin (BTC): 37TSN79RXewX8Js7CDMDRzvgMrFftutbPo  To support this channel/podcast with Bitcoin Cash (BCH) qr3amdmj3n2u83eqefsdft9vatnj9na0dqlzhnx80h  To support this channel/podcast with Ethereum (ETH): 0xd3F649C3403a4789466c246F32430036DADf6c62 Blockchain backup on Lbry https://odysee.com/@paulvanderklay https://www.patreon.com/paulvanderklay Paul's Church Content at Living Stones Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh7bdktIALZ9Nq41oVCvW-A To support Paul's work by supporting his church give here. https://tithe.ly/give?c=2160640

The 4 Horsemen Video with  @Jordan B Peterson   @Bishop Robert Barron   @John Vervaeke   @Jonathan Pageau  https://youtu.be/FCvQsqSCWjA JBP  @Cambridge Union  https://youtu.be/miFwrdtTGqY Audrey Assad on  @Unbelievable?  https://youtu.be/1HcaAgwK7Sk Meaning Awe and the Conceptualization of God https://youtu.be/v0s5klPtQXk Artful Scaling on  @John Vervaeke  channel https://youtu.be/rAnLbaFHYWQ Grail Country with Michael Martin and Sophiology https://youtu.be/EBzZcFYixLg  @John Vervaeke  and  @Jonathan Pageau  about the 4 Horseman convo https://youtu.be/Y9ZaFNIH0co Pagaeau and Shampoo https://youtu.be/TDpvckZLovY Who is John Vervaeke and What is the Meaning Crisis https://youtu.be/2Drb1z9KlNk First Things on Pierre Hadot https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/12/what-is-ancient-philosophy    Discord link. Good for just a few days. Check with more recent videos for a fresh link. https://discord.gg/SWgTRrZb Paul Vander Klay clips channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX0jIcadtoxELSwehCh5QTg My Substack https://paulvanderklay.substack.com/ Estuary Hub Link https://sites.google.com/view/estuaryhubcontent/home If you want to schedule a one-on-one conversation check here. https://paulvanderklay.me/2019/08/06/converzations-with-pvk/ There is a video version of this podcast on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/paulvanderklay To listen to this on ITunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/paul-vanderklays-podcast/id1394314333  If you need the RSS feed for your podcast player https://paulvanderklay.podbean.com/feed/  All Amazon links here are part of the Amazon Affiliate Program. Amazon pays me a small commission at no additional cost to you if you buy through one of the product links here. This is is one (free to you) way to support my videos.  https://paypal.me/paulvanderklay To support this channel/podcast with Bitcoin (BTC): 37TSN79RXewX8Js7CDMDRzvgMrFftutbPo  To support this channel/podcast with Bitcoin Cash (BCH) qr3amdmj3n2u83eqefsdft9vatnj9na0dqlzhnx80h  To support this channel/podcast with Ethereum (ETH): 0xd3F649C3403a4789466c246F32430036DADf6c62 Blockchain backup on Lbry https://odysee.com/@paulvanderklay https://www.patreon.com/paulvanderklay Paul's Church Content at Living Stones Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh7bdktIALZ9Nq41oVCvW-A To support Paul's work by supporting his church give here. https://tithe.ly/give?c=2160640

#64 | Inflation Nation? In our Deep Dive today, we'll look at the variety of factors driving up inflation in the country, the effect it has on consumers, and the inevitable political leverage it creates for politicians on either side of the aisle…  And in our Courage or Cringe segment: I Love Lucy casting controversy, YouTube cancels Dislikes, and John Cleese cancels himself…    Is a major Hollywood director defending artistic integrity in the casting decisions of his new film OR is this another example of Hollywood's consistent lack of Latino representation?  Is the world's largest video platform looking out for creators with their new product update OR are they executing a preemptive move focused on congressional regulators?  And finally… is a seminal British comedian bravely standing up to the cancel mob OR is he just stirring up controversy to generate interest in a new show?   Ad Fontes:  Inflation:  Jesus' source (Forbes): https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/why-is-inflation-rising-right-now/ Charlie's source (Seeking Alpha): https://seekingalpha.com/article/4468897-why-stagflation-is-a-significant-risk?mailingid=25725639&messageid=must_reads&serial=25725639.2792990&utm_campaign=Must%2BRead%2BNovember%2B16%2C%2B2021&utm_content=seeking_alpha&utm_medium=email&utm_source=seeking_alpha&utm_term=must_reads Aaron Sorkin defends casting Javier Bardem and Nicole Kidman in 'Being the Ricardos': 'I'm very comfortable with it' https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/aaron-sorkin-defends-casting-javier-bardem-and-nicole-kidman-in-lucy-movie-being-the-ricardos-003000075.html YouTube is removing the dislike count on all videos across its platform https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/10/youtube-is-removing-the-dislike-count-on-all-videos-across-its-platform/ Netflix new site to track performance: https://top10.netflix.com/ John Cleese ‘blacklists' himself from ‘woke' Cambridge University talk https://nypost.com/2021/11/10/john-cleese-pulls-out-of-woke-cambridge-university-event/ This is all in response to art historian Andrew Graham-Dixon being banned from speaking at the Cambridge Union event. Video of the debate here: President's and speaker's conduct spark controversy at Cambridge Union. Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlTjR75i3Ng  SUPPORT THIS SHOW:   Remember to subscribe!  Patreon.com/TheDiversityRemix 

Robert Costa, national reporter for the Washington Post and co-author of the New York Times Best Selling book Peril with Bob Woodward, joins us today on the program! Adam and Robert discuss their time as colleagues at the Bucks County Courier Times, being a part of The Cambridge Union, the 2020 Election, the differences between Richard Nixon and Donald Trump, and the seriousness of the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol. All of this, plus the story about how Robert got John Mayer to play at his senior prom AND the rundown on the Four Seasons Total Landscaping debacle, today on Foundation Radio! Special thanks to The Dugout - customized and vintage apparel. Use promo code FOUNDATION at checkout and receive 15% off of your entire order! Don't forget to follow them on Instagram. Special thanks to 10th Ward Barbershop - Proudly serving the historic 10th Ward in Lawrenceville and surrounding areas, 10th Ward Barbershop is a full service barbershop offering quality haircuts, beard trims, and hot shaves. Schedule your appointment with "The Fiend" Bray Wyatt and Corey Graves' favorite barbershop today! Follow the show on Twitter - @fndradiopod Adam's Twitter - @thisisgoober Advertising requests can be sent to adam@foundationradio.net. Hosted by Adam Barnard Executive Voice: Sam Krepps Executive Producers: Adam Barnard and Sam Krepps Special thanks to Greg Mead, Joe Keane, Geoff Quinn, and Dr. Ruth Almy Intro music: "Ugly" by Dumb Ugly Outro music: "Rug Burn" by Dumb Ugly Additional music: Enrichment --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/foundationradio/support

CJ and TC discuss the following stories ‘She's been found out': royal despair at Meghan's U-turn The royal family is ‘frustrated' after the Duchess of Sussex was forced to apologise for misleading a court Labour demands investigation into Jacob Rees-Mogg's £6m of loans Testing firm can profit from sale of Covid swabs Company saves customer DNA for future use Noted economist explains what's 'real driving' inflation The #FreeBritney movement finds its moment: ‘All the hard work was worth it' Eamonn Holmes ‘leaving This Morning to join GB News' John Cleese pulls out of Cambridge Union event over ‘woke rules' Bruce Schroeder: Who is the polarising judge in Kyle Rittenhouse trial criticised for Trump-linked ringtone and testy exchanges with prosecutors Greta Thunberg dismisses COP26 deal as more ‘blah, blah, blah' amid fury at last-minute U-turn from China and India on coal If Britain is truly a democracy, the House of Lords has no place in it UK must be ready for war with Russia, says armed forces chief Covid live: Austria puts unvaccinated under lockdown from Monday; 1 million 12-15s in England have had jab Polish PM urges ‘concrete steps' by Nato to address border crisis EU to impose new sanctions against Lukashenko regime as dozens of asylum seekers reportedly breakthrough from Belarus Greek prime minister offers UK treasure in for return for ‘stolen' Elgin Marbles This library lets you borrow people instead of books. It just may help bridge our bitter divisions Wanda Traczyk-Stawska is still fighting extremists — and to keep Poland in the European Union — after all these years.

We open the week with Toby and the terrible winter cold he’s got – which he tells us is far worse than his bout of Covid-19 last year. While he’s on the road and sounds a bit subdued, we throw our best sniffle filter into the mix and the show must go on. Leading the news is the scuppering of the COP26 coal deal by India and China and the slim prospect of Greta Thunberg now turning her fire on the Chinese Communist Party, plus shoutouts to both David Perry, the hero taxi driver who prevented a suicide bomber from detonating a bomb outside a Remembrance Day Service in Liverpool and to John Cleese, who came to the defence of art critic Andrew Graham-Dixon who got into trouble for imitating Hitler at the Cambridge Union. In Culture Corner James reaches the halfway mark of 60(!) hours of The Brothers Karimazov, Toby is into The War of the Wolf, and video-wise James recommends Community. Opening sound this week is Russ Jackson, the North West Counter-Terrorism Unit Chief. As usual, check out the latest Delingpod here and The Daily Sceptic here.

Rich Zeoli fills in for Dana. Kyle Rittenhouse takes the stand in his own homicide trial. The judge rips the prosecution's arguments. Adam Schiff gets confronted over his past comments about the Steele Dossier. John Cleese pulls out of a Cambridge Union event over its woke rules.Please visit our great sponsors:Patriot Mobilehttps://PatriotMobile.com/DanaStand with Patriot Mobile. Free activations with promo code DANA. Patriotmobile.com/dana or call 972-PATRIOT. Kel-Techttps://KelTecWeapons.comKelTec: Creating Innovative, Quality Firearms to help secure your world. Delta Rescuehttps://deltarescue.orgGet your complete Estate Planning kit at deltarescue.org/dana today and let your passion for animals live well into the future. Black Rifle Coffee Companyhttps://blackriflecoffee.com/danatvUse code DANATV to save 20% off your first coffee club, coffee and select gear purchase. Legacy Precious Metalshttps://legacypminvestments.comPick up your free guide to precious metal investments today.Superbeetshttps://DanasBeets.comStart your day a new way and receive a 30-day supply of SuperBeets Heart Chews with your first purchase.

Rich Zeoli fills in for Dana. Kyle Rittenhouse takes the stand in his own homicide trial. The judge rips the prosecution's arguments. Adam Schiff gets confronted over his past comments about the Steele Dossier. John Cleese pulls out of a Cambridge Union event over its woke rules.Please visit our great sponsors:Patriot Mobilehttps://PatriotMobile.com/DanaStand with Patriot Mobile. Free activations with promo code DANA. Patriotmobile.com/dana or call 972-PATRIOT. Kel-Techttps://KelTecWeapons.comKelTec: Creating Innovative, Quality Firearms to help secure your world. Delta Rescuehttps://deltarescue.orgGet your complete Estate Planning kit at deltarescue.org/dana today and let your passion for animals live well into the future. Black Rifle Coffee Companyhttps://blackriflecoffee.com/danatvUse code DANATV to save 20% off your first coffee club, coffee and select gear purchase. Legacy Precious Metalshttps://legacypminvestments.comPick up your free guide to precious metal investments today.Superbeetshttps://DanasBeets.comStart your day a new way and receive a 30-day supply of SuperBeets Heart Chews with your first purchase.

Imogen Grant is a star in the rowing world. She became hooked on rowing at Cambridge University, and was in the winning boat race team two years running. Imogen is now in the Team GB Olympic rowing squad for this summer's Games in Tokyo, and we were lucky enough to catch up with her before she left for Japan. Professor Dame Elizabeth Anionwu was the first sickle cell and thalassaemia specialist nurse in Britain. Elizabeth is author to “Mixed Blessings from a Cambridge Union” which refers to her parents who met at Cambridge University. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

subscribe over @ patreon.com/reelpolitik to hear the full near-hour-long episode after recording another trademark RP Audio Commentary Track (for the 2010 classic MacGruber), Jack and FFF talked politics for a bit, in a conversation centred around the reaction to Jeremy Corbyn's appearance at a Cambridge Union debate. we also addressed the unbearable baldness of being Dorian Lynskey, and checked in on Big Gapes and the mad shit she's retweeting about Sam Tarry speaking at "pro-Hamas hatred rallies"

May 18, 2021 Tom DeWeese is one of the nation's leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence. A native of Ohio, he's been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society. Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report. For 40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man's need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Like our page at Facebook/PatriotRadioUS and listen in each Tuesday and Thursday at 4:00 PST with a replay at 9:00 PST on any of these great stations! 106.5 FM Spokane 101.3 FM Tri-Cities/Walla Walla 93.9 FM Moses Lake 106.1 FM Moses Lake 96.1 FM Yakima 96.5 FM Spokane/CdA 97.7 FM Spokane/CdA 810 AM Wenatchee/Moses Lake 930 AM Yakima 630 AM Spokane 1050 AM Spokane and Far Beyond

Dolly Theis is not your usual public health policy academic. She stood as a Conservative Party candidate in the 2017 general election, winning 10,000 votes in Vauxhall. As a One-Nation Tory, Dolly has also campaigned on environmental and food issues. She has also been involved with initiatives like 50:50 Parliament (for gender balance in Westminster) and the veteran's charity Forward Assist. She is undertaking a PhD at Cambridge University's MRC Epidemiology Unit, researching how policy makers use evidence and the processes that influence change in public health. In this conversation, Zack and Dolly find points of agreement on health and obesity policy despite coming from different political perspectives, and discuss the grit and thought needed to refine your political beliefs early in life, especially in response to criticism. They also explore the different levers government has to improve our health, why a different approach to policymaking would be advantageous, and how to create a world where research and policy are fully integrated with each other. // Links Dolly's Twitter - @Dollytheis Dolly's Book recommedations - Health is Made at Home by Nigel Crisp, On Liberty by John Stuart Mill // About the host Zack Hassan is a junior doctor based in Edinburgh and a Healthcare Leadership Academy Scholar. His podcast hosting combines his experience of debating at the Cambridge Union with insights from the NHS frontline. Socials –> Twitter - @MontereyZack -> LinkedIn -> Weekly Email, "Thinking Allowed" -> YouTube Channel // Music - Overriding Concern by Kevin MacLeod Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/4187-overriding-concern License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ // Our Supporters The Healthcare Leadership Academy has a mission to inspire the next generation of healthcare leaders. They have lots of opportunities on their website for a variety of health professionals, including through HLA Listen, their podcasting channel. Health Education England North East and Health Education England South West support the podcast by sponsoring HLA Listen. Medics.Academy is an online platform which provides technology enhanced learning solutions for organisations and individuals. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/hla-listen/message

Matt Bentman, Alan Alder & Sue Bailey take a look at the Cambridge Union Bar's new Oratory. There's more food tales from Cambridge through the years, and from the ground up; the latest from foraging Chef Steve Thompson as well as regular food news and jobs for the city and South Cambridgeshire.

Professor Partha Kar OBE is a Consultant Endocrinologist in Portsmouth, the National Specialty Advisor to NHS England for Diabetes and Obesity, and the National Associate Clinical Director for Diabetes. He is well recognised by the Type 1 Diabetes community for projects such as TAD talks (Talking about Diabetes), improving access to non-invasive Libre sensors, and his social media presence. He has also co-founded other initiatives such as the Super Six model for diabetes care, Language Matters with NHS improvement to change the language clinicians use with patients, and Getting it Right First Time. In this conversation, Partha and Zack discuss how much power consultants have to make change happen, the value of good senior mentors, how important it is to be honest with patients, the issue of racial prejudice, and the skills and strategies he's used for successful negotiation. // Links Partha's book recommendation - Civil War (Marvel Comics) by Mark Millar & Steve McNiven Twitter - @parthaskar Partha's LinkedIn //Music - Overriding Concern by Kevin MacLeod Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/4187-overriding-concern License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ //About the host Zack Hassan is a junior doctor based in Edinburgh and a Healthcare Leadership Academy Scholar. His podcast hosting combines his experience of debating at the Cambridge Union with insights from the NHS front-line. Twitter – @MontereyZack Zack's LinkedIn //Our Supporters The Healthcare Leadership Academy has a mission to inspire the next generation of healthcare leaders. They have lots of opportunities on their website for a variety of health professionals, including through HLA Listen, their podcasting channel. Health Education England North East and Health Education England South West support the podcast by sponsoring HLA Listen. Medics.Academy is an online platform which provides technology enhanced learning solutions for organisations and individuals. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/hla-listen/message

Dr Lade Smith CBE is Director of Forensic Services at South London and Maudsley Foundation Trust and 2019's Psychiatrist of the Year. Her background as an intensive care forensic psychiatrist has given her insight into the stories of family psychological trauma that are prevalent amongst the UK's violent offenders. She is also an advocate for race equality and has published research examining racial disaprities in the use of detention orders under the Mental Health Act. Zack and Lade discussed how criminality and mental illness can be traced back to adverse childhood experiences, the need for early intervention, and the role doctors should play in changing policy and preventing discrimination. Links Lade's Twitter - @DrLadeSmith Lade's Book recommedations - Ray Bradbury and Margaret Atwood Music - Overriding Concern by Kevin MacLeod Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/4187-overriding-concern License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ About the host Zack Hassan is a junior doctor based in Edinburgh and a Healthcare Leadership Academy Scholar. His podcast hosting combines his experience of debating at the Cambridge Union with insights from the NHS front-line. Twitter – @MontereyZack Zack's LinkedIn Our Supporters The Healthcare Leadership Academy has a mission to inspire the next generation of healthcare leaders. They have lots of opportunities on their website for a variety of health professionals, including through HLA Listen, their podcasting channel. Health Education England North East and Health Education England South West support the podcast by sponsoring HLA Listen. Medics.Academy is an online platform which provides technology enhanced learning solutions for organisations and individuals. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/hla-listen/message

Carey Lunan is a GP in Craigmillar, Edinburgh and Chair of the DeepEnd Group, made up of the 100 GP practices in Scotland's most deprived areas. She has also been chair of the Royal College of GPs in Scotland, leading on reports to government and policy, and representing the profession in mainstream media. She has a long-standing interest in health inequality and is a familiary contributor to public discourse concerning health issues in Scotland. In this conversation, Carey and Zack discuss a range of ideas, including what's different about medicine in deprived populations, the trade-off between access and continuity in healthcare, the opportunities for the NHS during pandemic recovery, lessons learned from Covid-19, the problem of burnout and much more. Links Twitter - @CareyLunan Carey's book recommendation - Intelligent Kindness: Reforming the culture of healthcare by Ballat and Campling - DeepEnd Website via Glasgow University - https://www.gla.ac.uk/researchinstitutes/healthwellbeing/research/generalpractice/deepend/ DeepEnd Twitter - @DeepEndGP Music - Overriding Concern by Kevin MacLeod Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/4187-overriding-concern License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ About the host Zack Hassan is a junior doctor based in Edinburgh and a Healthcare Leadership Academy Scholar. His podcast hosting combines his experience of debating at the Cambridge Union with insights from the NHS front-line. Twitter – @MontereyZack Zack's LinkedIn Our Supporters The Healthcare Leadership Academy has a mission to inspire the next generation of healthcare leaders. They have lots of opportunities on their website for a variety of health professionals, including through HLA Listen, their podcasting channel. Health Education England North East and Health Education England South West support the podcast by sponsoring HLA Listen. Medics.Academy is an online platform which provides technology enhanced learning solutions for organisations and individuals. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/hla-listen/message

The work of the American writer James Baldwin gained a new audience in the months following the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests in Europe and the USA. His observations on race, power and black identity, featured in clips from 1960s chat shows, were widely shared on social media. A spirited performance in a 1965 Cambridge Union debate titled The American Dream is at the Expense of the American Negro is now considered a landmark moment. But in the late 1980s, Baldwin's light was fading, and he was living a quiet life in the south of France when theatre producer and director Anton Phillips of Carib Theatre decided to revive his 1954 play The Amen Corner at London's Tricycle Theatre. It transferred to London's Lyric Theatre in Shaftesbury Avenue - becoming the first all black production to transfer from Fringe to the West End. At Phillips' invitation, Baldwin made the trip to London to meet the cast in final rehearsals and see the production open. During the visit he stayed with one of the cast, Clarke Peters, and gave Joan Bakewell what would be one of his last interviews. He died a few months later in December 1987. In this programme, Clarke Peters recalls that landmark 1987 production, his relationship with "Jimmy", and the lasting legacy of an extraordinary and insightful writer. Producer: Rosemary Laryea Editor: David Prest A Whistledown production for BBC Radio 4

Leila and Amira chat to Tamkeen and Tara about sexism and racism at the Cambridge Union. Pay close attention for some interesting insights in to Leila’s interaction with Piers Morgan...

Richie Cartwright is Co-founder at Fella, a global community-driven digital health platform to guide men through Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Binge Eating. He founded and sold the company Flow X, which worked with the UK government on improving traffic flow using artificial intelligence. An avid entrepreneur and economics graduate from Cambridge, he is determined to share his own story of struggling with binge eating to help the millions of other people who have it too, both men and women. In this conversation, Richie and Zack discuss how to look after our mental health from day to day, how to face binge eating disorder, the difficulties facing men which discourage them from seeking help, and much, much more. Links Richie's book recommendation - Overcoming Binge Eating by Dr Christopher Fairburn Fella's Website Twitter - @rich_cartwright Richie's LinkedIn Music - Overriding Concern by Kevin MacLeod Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/4187-overriding-concern License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ About the host Zack Hassan is a junior doctor based in Edinburgh and a Healthcare Leadership Academy Scholar. His podcast hosting combines his experience of debating at the Cambridge Union with insights from the NHS front-line. Twitter – @MontereyZack Zack's LinkedIn Our Supporters The Healthcare Leadership Academy has a mission to inspire the next generation of healthcare leaders. They have lots of opportunities on their website for a variety of health professionals, including through HLA Listen, their podcasting channel. Health Education England North East and Health Education England South West support the podcast by sponsoring HLA Listen. Medics.Academy is an online platform which provides technology enhanced learning solutions for organisations and individuals. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/hla-listen/message

Welcome to episode #769 of Six Pixels of Separation. Here it is: Six Pixels of Separation - Episode #769 - Host: Mitch Joel. These past few years have seen many fascinating books in the non-fiction and business book genre. Look no further than the archive of podcasts and conversations that have taken place right here. With that, James Suzman's latest book, Work - A Deep History, from the Stone Age to the Age of Robots, seems to be the one that has me most excited (and the one I tend to recommend when asked). What Yuval Noah Harari did to explain humanity with Sapiens, James has done the same with work. It's a book that still rolls around in my mind like a marble (and it will keep you thinking too). James is an anthropologist who first wrote the book, Affluence Without Abundance - The disappearing world of the Bushmen in 2017. James was the first social anthropologist to work in Namibia's eastern Omaheke among "Southern Ju/'hoansi", where he exposed the brutal marginalisation of San people who had lost their lands to white cattle ranchers and pastoralist Herero people. James has worked tirelessly to help the communities in Namibia. In 2007, Suzman joined De Beers, where, as global head of public affairs, he developed the company's award-winning sustainability functions. In 2013 Suzman and Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales teamed up with Lily Cole to launch Impossible.com at the Cambridge Union. As we all ponder the future of work, let's dig deep into how we work and why we work. Enjoy the conversation... Running time: 1:00:08. Hello from beautiful Montreal. Subscribe over at Apple Podcasts. Please visit and leave comments on the blog - Six Pixels of Separation. Feel free to connect to me directly on Facebook here: Mitch Joel on Facebook. or you can connect on LinkedIn. ...or on Twitter. Here is my conversation with James Suzman. Work - A Deep History, from the Stone Age to the Age of Robots. Affluence Without Abundance - The disappearing world of the Bushmen. Follow James on Facebook. Follow James on Twitter. This week's music: David Usher 'St. Lawrence River'.

Born in Belfast, Dr Philippa Whitford studied medicine in the West of Scotland before specialising in breast surgery. She has been a Consultant Breast Surgeon for 19 years, and is now the MP for Central Ayrshire and the Westminster spokesperson on Health and Europe for the Scottish National Party. Over her career she has studied Breast Cancer Immunology for her MD dissertation, worked as a medical volunteer in Palestine and sat on the Health Select committee. In this inspiring conversation, Philippa and Zack discuss the misogyny she experienced as a young surgeon in the 1980s, the advantages of gaining experience abroad, whether we need more doctors in front-line politics, the coronavirus pandemic and much more. Philippa's Links The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett The Health Gap by Michael Marmot Twitter - @Dr_PhilippaW Music - Overriding Concern by Kevin MacLeod Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/4187-overriding-concern License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ About the host Zack Hassan is a junior doctor based in Edinburgh and a Healthcare Leadership Academy Scholar. His podcast hosting combines his experience of debating at the Cambridge Union with insights from the NHS front-line. Twitter – @MontereyZack Zack's LinkedIn Our Supporters The Healthcare Leadership Academy has a mission to inspire the next generation of healthcare leaders. They have lots of opportunities on their website for a variety of health professionals, including through HLA Listen, their podcasting channel. Health Education England North East and Health Education England South West support the podcast by sponsoring HLA Listen. Medics.Academy is an online platform which provides technology enhanced learning solutions for organisations and individuals. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/hla-listen/message

In this week's episode, Revs Jamie and Tom catch up on recent developments, including Tom's shocking lack of knowledge of the contemporary film world. We review a recently leaked document which suggests that 20% per cent of congregants in the CofE will not return after the pandemic restrictions are lifted, and which also postulates "radical changes" for the Church in general. We also talk through the recent Cambridge Union debate on lockdown, which was won by the anti-lockdown debaters. After all that, we get to some of the always interesting correspondence that we've been sent this week.Please visit friend of the show James Blott's blog Reflective Preacher!As always, please email any comments, suggestion, criticisms etc to irreverenedpod@gmail.com, follow us on Twitter @irreverendpod, rate and review us on iTunes, and now follow us on YouTube!

In this episode of "Keen On", Andrew talks with anthropologist James Suzman about his new book, Work: A Deep History, From the Stone Age to the Age of Robots. With a head full of Laurens van der Post and half an anthropology degree from St Andrews University under his belt, James Suzman hitched a ride into Botswana’s eastern Kalahari in June 1991. He has been working with the Bushmen ever since. He remains involved in a number of Kalahari initiatives through the Cambridge based research and support organisation he heads, Anthropos. James is an anthropologist and the author of Affluence Without Abundance: The disappearing world of the Bushmen published by Bloomsbury in 2017. He is the nephew of Janet Suzman and great-nephew of Helen Suzman. Suzman was born in Johannesburg, South Africa, and educated at Michaelhouse. He graduated with an MA (Hons) in social anthropology from the University of St Andrews in 1993. He was awarded a PhD in social anthropology from the University of Edinburgh in 1996. Suzman was the first social anthropologist to work in Namibia's eastern Omaheke among "Southern Ju/'hoansi", where he exposed the brutal marginalisation of San people who had lost their lands to white cattle ranchers and pastoralist Herero people. In 1998 Suzman was appointed to lead the landmark study, "The Regional Assessment of the Status of the San in Southern Africa", based on an ACP/EU resolution. Suzman later led an assessment by Minority Rights Group International to assess how Namibia's ethnic minorities had fared in the first ten years of Namibian Independence. The subsequent report was published in 2002. Emerging during period of political upheaval in Namibia, it led to calls for the better protection of ethnic minorities in Namibia. The Namibian Government rejected the report's findings and the President, Sam Nujoma, accused Suzman of amplifying "ethnic tensions". In 2001, Suzman was awarded the Smuts Commonwealth Fellowship in African Studies at the University of Cambridge. Suzman later established a program to establish opportunities for Hai//om San to benefit from tourism revenues in Etosha National Park. He was also involved in the dispute that arose as a result of the illegal relocation of Gwi and Gana San from Botswana's Central Kalahari Game Reserve. He was highly critical of the Botswana Government's actions and, later, Survival International's campaign, which he claimed undermined ongoing negotiations between the Botswana Government and a coalition of organisations supporting the evicted San. Survival International, in turn, criticised Suzman and members of the negotiating team led by Ditshwanelo, The Botswana Centre for Human Rights of complicity with the Botswana Government. In 2007, Suzman joined De Beers, where, as global head of public affairs, he developed the company's award-winning sustainability functions. He resigned in 2013. In 2013 Suzman and Jimmy Wales teamed up with Lily Cole to launch Impossible.com at the Cambridge Union.[citation needed] In the same year he was invited to deliver the second Protimos Lecture at the Parliament Chamber of London's Inner Temple. Suzman has published widely on San and other issues in academic journals, magazines and newspapers, including The New York Times. In 2017 he published Affluence Without Abundance: The Disappearing World of the Bushmen. Work: A History of How We Spend Our Time, was published in September 2020. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

December 17, 2020 Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence. A native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society. Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report. For 40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Like our page at Facebook/PatriotRadioUS and listen in each Tuesday and Thursday at 4:00 PST with a replay at 9:00 PST on any of these great stations!106.5 FM Spokane101.3 FM Tri-Cities/Walla Walla93.9 FM Moses Lake106.1 FM Moses Lake96.1 FM Yakima96.5 FM Spokane/CdA97.7 FM Spokane/CdA810 AM Wenatchee/Moses Lake930 AM Yakima630 AM Spokane1050 AM Spokane and Far Beyond

Gold Nuggets in this Episode: Juliet took their puppy for a walk at 4:30am. She thinks the puppy had mixed feelings about that. “A lot of people don't always share the tough moments; they kind of gloss over it and say ‘it was a struggle in the beginning, but look at where I am now.'” “Entrepreneurs need to hear that it's not all perfect, and it's not this front that you see on the news or on social media; that there is so much struggle behind it to get them there.” “I'm all for encouraging entrepreneurship. I think there will be a great need for more and more over the coming years. But I don't think it's doing anybody a good service to tell them that it's all fun and games.” “Validating an idea is a plain sensible thing to do.” “People get on their high horse that they have this idea and therefore other people must buy it. They're missing the whole idea that it's a problem that they need to address and find that people want solved.” “In this day and age, there's a good argument for starting a business as a side hustle.” “You are not your business. You should not measure yourself by the success of your business. That is a tough lesson to learn.” “Don't be afraid of learning, because sooner or later you're going to have to.” “If you're going to grow a business, you want to be very sure that your reason behind it is good, and that you are mentally fit enough to do it.” “Fearlessness is not the absence of fear. It's the mastery of fear. It's about getting up one more time than we fall down.” – Arianna Huffington Our guest is author, writer, and speaker, Jan Cavelle. Jan started with a sales business that she ran from under her staircase at home, and through pure determination, she scaled her business to garner great success. She has won numerous awards, represented the UK in Europe as one of the first 50 Female Entrepreneurial Ambassadors, spoken about SME's on Newsnight, debated at the Cambridge Union, formed part of the Women Influence Community, and has written contributions to many publications, including Real Business. Her ambition has always been to author and publish a book, which she will accomplish in 2021. Song by Adam Vitovsky / CC BY 3.0

Together with American Songwriter, we had the pleasure of interviewing Ray BLK over Zoom video! Ray BLK who has established herself as one of the UK’s most challenging and important female voices, drops a second remix to her recent Island single “Lovesick” by Award winning producer MJ Cole (Disclosure, Stormzy), featuring the British Queen of Drill, Ivorian Doll.“Lovesick” has gained wide support since its release in October, including the likes of the BBC Radio 1Xtra, Capital Xtra, The Apple Music 1 List and Kiss Fresh playlist. The release followed Ray’s track “Warriors”, the lead song from the universally acclaimed girlhood drama ROCKS and first release from the South London artist’s eagerly awaited debut album. Ray wrote the powerful anthem specifically for the film and both these new tracks show an artist at the height of her creative powers and bode well for the album which will be released in 2021.Speaking about the MJ Cole remix, Ray says: “I have always loved MJ Coles productions so I’m really happy he has blessed this track”Ray also recently attended Cambridge University this year to discuss what Black History Month means to her with the Cambridge Union, as well as fronting a special Black History Blackout Radio show for Apple music which showcased her passion and knowledge about black women in music including interviews with legends Ms Dynamite and Estelle. Ray also hosted a 10-week run of the Apple Agenda Show with Mabel, Mahalia, Ghetts and many more.We want to hear from you! Please email Tera@BringinitBackwards.com.www.BringinitBackwards.com#podcast #interview #bringinbackpod  #foryou #foryoupage #stayhome #togetherathome #zoom #aspn #americansongwriter #americansongwriterpodcastnetworkListen & Subscribe to BiBFollow our podcast on Instagram and Twitter!

Besides being a celebrated student debater, who replaced Ken Clarke and handily defeated Vince Cable in 1964 as President of the Cambridge Union, then one of Ireland's leading constitutional and administrative lawyers, a biographer, obituarist and a man of letters Charles Lysaght has been a noted cricketer and host of cricketers in Ireland for over sixty years. (For the curious, he is a distant kinsman of Cornelius Lysaght, the racing commentator.) He shares his deep love and knowledge of the history of Irish cricket and its literary heritage with Peter Oborne and Richard Heller as the latest guest in their cricket-themed podcast.Delving into the early history of Irish cricket, Charles Lysaght reveals the score made by the future Duke of Wellington in the match in 1792 between the Dublin Garrison and All Ireland – and the other future duke who dismissed him with an underarm delivery.  2-4 minutesHe explains how cricket became popular in rural Ireland after Waterloo, often but not exclusively through teams raised by landlords for their tenants, and also in Dublin. One cricketing landlord was Charles Stewart Parnell. Charles Lysaght says that he was not a popular captain and once led his team off in a sulk over an umpire's decision. Parnell gave up cricket when he entered the House of Commons and led the campaign for Home Rule – but his onfield behaviour might have inspired his successful obstructive Parliamentary tactics. 5-8 minutesHe mentions another surprising  Irish politician to have played cricket – Eamonn De Valera, at Blackrock school. De Valera enjoyed watching cricket, and even more so rugby, but had to conceal this from the powerful Gaelic Athletic Association, which for nearly a hundred years tried to ban Irish people from playing or even watching so-called English “garrison games.” 9-12 minutesCharles Lysaght describes two nineteenth-century Irish cricketers who played for England, Leland Hone, from a celebrated artistic and literary family, and an irascible but talented baronet, Sir Tom O'Brien (no relation of Ireland's recent batting hero Kevin O'Brien). 13-15 minutes He is surprised to learn of a third: J E P McMaster (born in County Down) accompanied England's first organized tour of South Africa and played in a match later given Test status. He was out for a golden duck, did not bowl and did not take a catch. This represented his entire first-class career. 17-19 minutesHe explores the rich links between Irish cricket and literature, particularly those forged by Clongowes School, in county Kildare. He reads James Joyce's beautiful short description of cricket there in Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Man, although noting that Joyce was forced to leave the school at the age of ten. He is sceptical about the feat later ascribed by Joyce in Ulysses to Captain Buller – hitting a six on the Trinity College ground through the window of the Kildare Street Club at square leg. 25-27 minutesAnother Clongowes cricket-lover was the barrister and Home Rule MP Tom Kettle (who once said that the only legal briefs he ever received were from cricket friends). Charles Lysaght reads Kettle's beautiful sonnet to his infant daughter, composed before his death on the Somme in the Great War. He explains its political and moral context and contrasts this with Yeats' celebrated poem An Irish Airman Forsees His Death (whose subject, Robert Gregory, was also an Irish cricketer.) 21-25 minutesAnd more...

'Free Speech is Dead'. Cambridge Union Debate, Oct 18, 2020. Speech for the motion from Eric Kaufmann See:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDlQOUL1BJQ

Reset is coming soon! Subscribe now to our YouTube channel so you don't miss any of our 15 interviews or 7 episodes looking at the West's origins story. youtube.com/SpeakLifeMediaHere Glen Scrivener and Paul Feesey discuss Christian Atheism and three different approaches to living in a secular West which has undeniably Christian foundations.References:Slavoj Ziek and Jordan Peterson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWndfzuOc4Slavoj Zizek, Christian Atheism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UOM3C3q7II&Douglas Murray on Modern Wisdom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DLrRDSGi6EDouglas Murray at the Cambridge Union: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKK9wajPqCUDouglas Murray on The Mark Steyn Show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iAKfHntZMwTom Holland and Tom Wright clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIJ9gK47OgwTom Holland and Tom Wright Full Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlf_ULB26cUTom Holland and AC Grayling clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGNE5HzNgfoTom Holland and AC Grayling full debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eSyz3BaVK8Ricky Gervais on Children in Need: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DgIRjecItwSpeak Life is a UK based charity that resources the church to reach the world. Learn more about us here: https://speaklife.org.uk/Join our internship programme here: https://speaklifefoundry.com/Subscribe to Speak Life and get our regular videos: http://tiny.cc/ecjbgzSocial Mediafacebook.com/speakLifeuk/twitter.com/speaklifeuk/instagram.com/speaklifeuk/Support the show (https://speaklife.org.uk/give/)

September 10, 2020 Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence. A native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society. Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report. For 40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Like our page at Facebook/PatriotRadioUS and listen in each Tuesday and Thursday at 4:00 PST with a replay at 9:00 PST on any of these great stations!106.5 FM Spokane101.3 FM Tri-Cities/Walla Walla93.9 FM Moses Lake106.1 FM Moses Lake96.1 FM Yakima96.5 FM Spokane/CdA97.7 FM Spokane/CdA810 AM Wenatchee/Moses Lake930 AM Yakima630 AM Spokane1050 AM Spokane and Far Beyond  

This episode features award winning Australian journalist Stan Grant's stirring speech in an IQ2 debate at the Ethics Centre on the topic 'That racism is destroying the Australian Dream'. The speech went viral after it was broadcast in early 2016, and sits as one of the most articulate and challenging speeches ever delivered on the subject of racism. The IQ2 speech is on Speakola, as is Grant's powerful UNSW address in the aftermath of Four Corners revelations of brutality in Northern Territory youth detention centres. The episode opens with a snippet of James Baldwin speaking on a similar topic at the Cambridge Union in 1965. Stan Grant's books are available through Harper Collins, and his 'Tell it to the World' memoir is on Amazon. Tony's books available online and at his website. Send an email to swap details for a signed copy. The video of Tony reading Jack 'The Cow Tripped Over the Moon' is here.  Episode supported by GreenSkin™ and PurpleSkin™ avocados at http://lovemyavocados.com.au.  Please subscribe to the podcast, visit Speakola,  and share any great speeches that are special to you, famous or otherwise. I just need transcript & photo /video embed. Speakola also has Twitter and Facebook feeds.     See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

No one should be shamed. For being different. For the color of their skin. For just being. The feeling and experience of shame can be extremely paralyzing and even lead to depression and anxiety. But facing shame head on is possible, empowering and liberating. And, it starts with your mindset. In today's very special episode, in collaboration with Hub Dot, we speak to a truly remarkable woman who has poignantly illustrated how she's overcome feelings of shame since childhood to build courage, strength and confidence. By overcoming shame, she has built an incredible career as a celebrated nurse becoming one of the 70 most influential nurses in the history of NHS in the UK to fighting inequalities in healthcare and becoming an early activist of sickle cell anemia. She later became UK's first sickle cell nurse specialist in the UK and in 2017 was honored with damehood for her extraordinary services in nursing and the Mary Seacole Statue Appeal. We speak to Dame Elizabeth Anionwu and how she overcame shame, racism and adversities to achieve remarkable success in her career, inspiring so many others today to never settle for a "no" and how to find opportunities to create your visions into reality. To learn more about Elizabeth Anionwu and connect with her directly, you can find her on Twitter here https://twitter.com/EAnionwuAnd don't forget to get your hands on Elizabeth's memoir, Mixed Blessings from a Cambridge Union, here > https://bit.ly/mixedblessingsfromacambridgeunionOh, and if you'd like to hear about Elizabeth's musical tastes - listen here for the eight tracks, books and luxury she would take with her if she was cast away to a desert island as heard on BBC Radio's Desert Island Discs > https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000jn8wTo learn more about Hub Dot, click here > https://hubdot.comTo sign up for the Hub Dot Live Piazza on July 29th, click here > https://hubdot.com/events ---------And, to save yourself that trip to the market and get Instacart to deliver your groceries in as fast as 1 hour, click here > http://instacart.oloiyb.net/P5Zje ---------*Note I am an affiliate of Instacart, which means that I earn a commission for any referral from my link. P.S. Know that I thoroughly vet all brands and companies in an affiliate program and only promote what I believe in.

THE PETE SANTILLI SHOW  WEDNESDAY, JULY 08, 2020 - 6PM EASTERN FULL SHOW Live Broadcast Links    E-Vault Live: https://evault.video/view?l=1475360652  EP 2009-6P High Tech Insurrection: Facebook Takes Down Roger Stone On Eve Of His Incarceration Facebook Inc on Wednesday removed 50 personal and professional pages connected to President Donald Trump’s longtime adviser Roger Stone, who is due to report to prison next week. The social media platform said Stone and his associates, including a prominent supporter of the right-wing Proud Boys group in Stone’s home state of Florida, had used fake accounts and followers to promote Stone’s books and posts. Facebook moved against Stone on the same day it took down accounts tied to employees of the family of Brazilian leader Jair Bolsonaro and two other networks connected to domestic political operations in Ecuador and Ukraine. Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy, said the removals were meant to show that artificially inflating engagement for political impact would be stopped, no matter how well connected the practitioners. EP 2009-6P High Tech Insurrection: Facebook Takes Down Roger Stone On Eve Of His Incarceration – The Pete Santilli Show http://ow.ly/NrTM30qX7cw GUEST: Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise , private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence. A native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society. Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report. For 40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.   https://americanpolicy.org/  https://www.facebook.com/tom.deweese.7

May 26, 2020 Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, freeenterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence. A native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society. Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report. For 40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Like our page at Facebook/PatriotRadioUS and listen in each Tuesday and Thursday at 4:00 PST with a replay at 9:00 PST on any of these great stations! 106.5 FM Spokane101.3 FM Tri-Cities/Walla Walla93.9 FM Moses Lake810 AM Wenatchee/Moses Lake930 AM Yakima630 AM Spokane1050 AM Spokane and Far Beyond

Hur kan den amerikanska mardrömmen om raser få ett slut? 1965 debatterade författaren James Baldwin med den konservative ideologen William F Buckley. Aleksander Motturi reflekterar över deras möte. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna. I ett av de mest kända filmklippen med författaren James Baldwin får han på äldre dagar frågan om han, i början av sitt författarliv, betraktade sig som underlägsen då han både var svart, utfattig och homosexuell. Herregud, kan man ha sämre förutsättningar? föreställer sig programledaren att hans gäst måste ha tänkt. Ett leende blottar Baldwins karakteristiska glipa mellan framtänderna. Sedan det blixtsnabba svaret. Nej, jag tyckte nog att jag fick jackpot. Ett lättsamt skratt bryter ut i tevestudion, programledaren och studiopubliken skrattar unisont med författaren själv. Det var, tillägger Baldwin, så skandalöst att man inte kunde tänka sig något värre. Jag var tvungen att dra fördel av situationen. Det är svårt att föreställa sig att James Baldwin skulle bli så uppmärksammad som han är i vår tid utan alla klipp som finns på nätet. Flödet av kloka, snabbtänkta svar och kommentarer är outsinligt. Men i de flesta klipp är Baldwin inte lika upprymd. Omedelbart efter det historiska grälet med Robert Kennedy 24 maj 1963, som blottade administrationens aningslöshet inför rasfrågan, anlägger han en mer filosofisk ton: Jag kan inte vara pessimist eftersom jag är vid liv, säger han i en intervju med psykologen Kenneth Clark. Att vara pessimist innebär att man ser livet som en akademisk fråga. Så jag är tvungen att vara optimist. Jag är tvungen att tro att vi kommer att överleva. Men framtiden för de svarta är exakt lika ljus eller mörk som landets framtid i sin helhet. Baldwins krystade optimism omhuldar inga utopier. Han är inte en tänkare som hänger sig åt ett slutet politiskt system, en religion som erbjuder frälsning, en ideologi som ger löfte om historiens slut. Kyrkan, där han var verksam som ungdomspredikant, lämnade han när han var sjutton. När han på sin käre vän Eugene Worths inrådan gick med i ett socialistiskt ungdomsförbund distanserade han sig som trotskist eftersom det som han skriver i förordet till The Prize of the Ticket var intressant att (som nittonåring) vara antistalinist i en tid när Amerika var allierat med Ryssland. Inte heller blev han cynisk i sin kritik av samtiden. Så länge man andas måste man söka hopp, brukade han intala sig, länge plågad av vännen Eugene Worths självmord från Washington Bridge. I det televiserade samtalet med Clarke är det dock det misslyckade mötet med Kennedy som tynger honom: Det finns dagar, säger Baldwin, och det här är en av dem, då jag undrar vad man har för roll i det här landet, vilken ens framtid är, exakt hur man ska kunna förlika sig med situationen här, och hur man ska kunna framföra till den vida, oreflekterade, tanklösa, grymma majoriteten av vita att man är här. Och att vara här betyder att man inte kan vara någon annanstans. Jag är vettskrämd över den moraliskt urgröpta hjärtlöshet som finns i vårt land. De här människorna har lurat sig själva under så lång tid att de inte riktigt tror att jag är en människa, det här baserar jag på deras uppförande, inte på vad de säger. Det innebär att de har format sig själva till moraliska monster. Baldwin tar sig för pannan, nästan som om han skräms av sina egna ord. Det är en fruktansvärd anklagelse, inser han i samma ögonblick som Clarke flikar in en ny fråga. Men jag menar vartenda ord av det jag säger. Vanligtvis är han inte lika nedstämd eller uppgiven, snarare kamplysten. I februari 1965 en vecka innan Baldwins pjäs Blues for Mr. Charlie hade premiär på Dramaten i Stockholm befann han sig i Cambridge för att debattera med den amerikanska konservatismens huvudarkitekt, William F Buckley. Debatten kretsade kring huruvida den amerikanska drömmen kan gynna den svarta befolkningen, eller om den snarare förverkligas på bekostnad av de svarta. Mötet, som spelades in av BBC, skildras detaljrikt i boken "The Fire Is Upon Us" av statsvetaren Nicholas Buccola. Aulan i anrika The Cambridge Union var fullsatt. Sjuhundra personer trängdes och arrangörerna lär ha rest skyddsstaket för att inte fler skulle försöka ta sig in för att ta del av uppgörelsen mellan de båda intellektuella giganterna. Den ene en radikal förkämpe för medborgarrättsrörelsen dess poet, för att citera Malcolm X (som skulle mördas tre dagar senare); den andre en man som identifierade sig som den amerikanska drömmens väktare, och som var hängiven tron på att USA förkroppsligade en oas för frihet och framgång. Till de omutbara sanningar på vilka nationen vilade räknade Buckley idén att endast de som visat sig värdiga makt bör ges rätt och skyldighet att utöva självstyre, och att ekonomisk och social trygghet måste förtjänas av individen, snarare än att garanteras av en välfärdsstat. Buckley driver på det hela taget samma linje som när han försvarade de vita i Sydafrika, inte för att han explicit var för apartheid, utan för att tiden i hans ögon  ännu inte var mogen för jämlikhet och allmän rösträtt. De svarta var, liksom i den koloniala matrisens rashierarkier, ännu inte tillräckligt långt framskridna för att bemyndigas med samma självstyre och makt över sina liv som den vita befolkningen. Under debatten hävdar Buckley att medborgarrättsrörelsen har gjort allt för att rikta fokus på det faktum att vita diskriminerar svarta. Men frågan är vart de är på väg nu? Det förefaller, säger han, som om de är på väg att glida in en prokrustisk formel som mindre handlar om att värna svartas utveckling än att förstöra för de vita. I likhet med FBI, som efter mötet med Kennedy intensifierat övervakningen av Baldwin, utmålar han stjärnförfattaren som en doktrinär och nitisk vänsteranhängare, rent av misstänkt kommunist, som vill omintetgöra den västerländska civilisationen. James Baldwin hade redan tidigare  med essän "Nästa gång elden"  blivit känd för sin skildring av hur rasismen kastar en skugga över den amerikanska drömmen. När han får ordet påminner han om det pris som de lågavlönade och förslavade har betalat och fortfarande betalar för att hålla den drömmen vid liv. Efter 400 år och åtminstone tre krig är, betonar Baldwin, amerikansk jord full av lik från mina förfäder. Från talarstolen understryker Baldwin att det inte bara är de svarta som är offer, utan också de vita; Amerikas moraliska liv och verklighetsuppfattning har förstörts av den farsot som kallas färg. Vad som står i fokus för Baldwin är med andra ord de djupa antaganden som ligger till grund för tron på den amerikanska drömmen. Härigenom blir frågan om identitet oundviklig. Inte i första hand de svartas identitet, eller de vitas identitet, utan nationens identitet. James Baldwin frågar sig hur tillit ska byggas mellan framtida generationers medborgare. Och som så ofta insisterar han på att jämlikhet inte är möjlig innan vi ser slutet på mardrömmen om raser. Aleksander Motturi, författare Litteratur James Baldwin: The Prize of the Ticket. St Martins Press, 1985. James Baldwin: Nästa gång elden. Översättare: Olof Starkenberg, Norstedts 2019. Nicolas Buccola: The Fire is Upon Us. James Baldwin, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Debate over Race in America. Princeton University Press, 2019.

Jeh Johnson is the former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security. He served in that position from December 2013 to January 2017. Johnson now practices law again in New York City at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP. Johnson has been affiliated with Paul, Weiss off and on since 1984, and he was elected the firm's first African American partner in 1993. Johnson now serves on the Management and Partnership Committees of the firm. In private life Johnson is also a regular commentator on NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, FOX, FOX Business and Bloomberg News.Prior to becoming Secretary of Homeland Security, Johnson was appointed by President Obama to be General Counsel of the Department of Defense (2009-2012) and appointed by President Clinton to be General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force (1998-2001). Earlier in his career, Johnson was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (1989-1991).Johnson is a graduate of Morehouse College (1979) and Columbia Law School (1982), and the recipient of ten honorary degrees. He has debated at both the Oxford and Cambridge Unions in England and is an honorary life member of the Cambridge Union.

In this next instalment of the Culture and Camaraderie podcast, we discuss the recent interviews held by Cambridge Union featuring JPEGMafia and Sheck Wes and what might have brought them together. We then touch on some new music, reviewing the new Jay Electronica album and Kendricks new 'multimedia company' and what implications that has for his music That and much more on this weeks Episode of the Culture and Camaraderie podcast.

On the 4th November 2010, the Cambridge Union held a debate entitled “This House believes Islam is a Threat to the West”. Muslim speakers include Abdullah al Andalusi and Idris Tawfik. Arguing that Islam is a Threat to the West, is prominent member of Stop the Islamification of Europe (SIOE), Stephen Gash.

On February 18, 1965 a packed hall at Cambridge Union in Cambridge, England came to see a historic, televised debate between James Baldwin, the leading literary voice of the civil rights movement, and William F. Buckley, Jr., a relentless critic of the movement and America's most influential conservative intellectual.  The topic was ‘the American dream … Continue reading EP 309 Baldwin vs. Buckley: The Fire is Still Upon Us

This week, snow is falling in Cambridge and so are LK's inhibitions, as she finds herself in a compromising position at the Cambridge Union. Meanwhile in Nottingham, LG is excelling at her new career, winning the illustrious shot girl of the month award and an even better prize.And finally, the Wheel of Nostalgia lands on our favourite supplier of overpriced pyjamas and infamous colognes - Abercrombie & Fitch.To get in touch with questions, comments, email us on our brand new email: show@revisitingpod.com. We’re also on Twitter and Instagram: @revisitingpod ***Please take the time to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or your preferred podcast- provider. It means a great deal to the show and will make it easier for other potential listeners to find us. Thanks!***@laurakirk12 @lauragallop See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Nicholas Buccola's new book, The Fire Is Upon Us: James Baldwin, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Debate over Race in America (Princeton University Press, 2019), uses the iconic debate between Baldwin and Buckley which took place at the Cambridge Union in February 1965 as an entry point into their own lives and their place within the post black freedom struggle and the rise of the modern conservative movement. A timely and eloquent contribution, The Fire is Upon Us is the first book to tell the full story of the event, the radically different paths that led Baldwin and Buckley to it, and how the debate and the decades-long clash between the men continues to illuminate America's racial divide today. James West is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow in American History at Northumbria University. He is a historian of the modern United States. For more information please visit https://www.ejameswest.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

Nicholas Buccola’s new book, The Fire Is Upon Us: James Baldwin, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Debate over Race in America (Princeton University Press, 2019), uses the iconic debate between Baldwin and Buckley which took place at the Cambridge Union in February 1965 as an entry point into their own lives and...

Nicholas Buccola’s new book, The Fire Is Upon Us: James Baldwin, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Debate over Race in America (Princeton University Press, 2019), uses the iconic debate between Baldwin and Buckley which took place at the Cambridge Union in February 1965 as an entry point into their own lives and their place within the post black freedom struggle and the rise of the modern conservative movement. A timely and eloquent contribution, The Fire is Upon Us is the first book to tell the full story of the event, the radically different paths that led Baldwin and Buckley to it, and how the debate and the decades-long clash between the men continues to illuminate America’s racial divide today. James West is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow in American History at Northumbria University. He is a historian of the modern United States. For more information please visit https://www.ejameswest.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nicholas Buccola’s new book, The Fire Is Upon Us: James Baldwin, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Debate over Race in America (Princeton University Press, 2019), uses the iconic debate between Baldwin and Buckley which took place at the Cambridge Union in February 1965 as an entry point into their own lives and their place within the post black freedom struggle and the rise of the modern conservative movement. A timely and eloquent contribution, The Fire is Upon Us is the first book to tell the full story of the event, the radically different paths that led Baldwin and Buckley to it, and how the debate and the decades-long clash between the men continues to illuminate America’s racial divide today. James West is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow in American History at Northumbria University. He is a historian of the modern United States. For more information please visit https://www.ejameswest.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nicholas Buccola’s new book, The Fire Is Upon Us: James Baldwin, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Debate over Race in America (Princeton University Press, 2019), uses the iconic debate between Baldwin and Buckley which took place at the Cambridge Union in February 1965 as an entry point into their own lives and their place within the post black freedom struggle and the rise of the modern conservative movement. A timely and eloquent contribution, The Fire is Upon Us is the first book to tell the full story of the event, the radically different paths that led Baldwin and Buckley to it, and how the debate and the decades-long clash between the men continues to illuminate America’s racial divide today. James West is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow in American History at Northumbria University. He is a historian of the modern United States. For more information please visit https://www.ejameswest.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nicholas Buccola’s new book, The Fire Is Upon Us: James Baldwin, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Debate over Race in America (Princeton University Press, 2019), uses the iconic debate between Baldwin and Buckley which took place at the Cambridge Union in February 1965 as an entry point into their own lives and their place within the post black freedom struggle and the rise of the modern conservative movement. A timely and eloquent contribution, The Fire is Upon Us is the first book to tell the full story of the event, the radically different paths that led Baldwin and Buckley to it, and how the debate and the decades-long clash between the men continues to illuminate America’s racial divide today. James West is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow in American History at Northumbria University. He is a historian of the modern United States. For more information please visit https://www.ejameswest.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nicholas Buccola’s new book, The Fire Is Upon Us: James Baldwin, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Debate over Race in America (Princeton University Press, 2019), uses the iconic debate between Baldwin and Buckley which took place at the Cambridge Union in February 1965 as an entry point into their own lives and their place within the post black freedom struggle and the rise of the modern conservative movement. A timely and eloquent contribution, The Fire is Upon Us is the first book to tell the full story of the event, the radically different paths that led Baldwin and Buckley to it, and how the debate and the decades-long clash between the men continues to illuminate America’s racial divide today. James West is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow in American History at Northumbria University. He is a historian of the modern United States. For more information please visit https://www.ejameswest.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nicholas Buccola’s new book, The Fire Is Upon Us: James Baldwin, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Debate over Race in America (Princeton University Press, 2019), uses the iconic debate between Baldwin and Buckley which took place at the Cambridge Union in February 1965 as an entry point into their own lives and their place within the post black freedom struggle and the rise of the modern conservative movement. A timely and eloquent contribution, The Fire is Upon Us is the first book to tell the full story of the event, the radically different paths that led Baldwin and Buckley to it, and how the debate and the decades-long clash between the men continues to illuminate America’s racial divide today. James West is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow in American History at Northumbria University. He is a historian of the modern United States. For more information please visit https://www.ejameswest.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

My guest is Nicholas Buccola. His new book is The Fire Is upon Us: James Baldwin, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Debate over Race in America (https://www.amazon.com/Fire-upon-Us-Baldwin-William/dp/0691181543). On February 18, 1965, an overflowing crowd packed the Cambridge Union in Cambridge, England, to witness a historic televised debate between James Baldwin, the leading literary voice of the civil rights movement, and William F. Buckley Jr., a fierce critic of the movement and America's most influential conservative intellectual. The topic was "the American dream is at the expense of the American Negro," and no one who has seen the debate can soon forget it. Nicholas Buccola's The Fire Is upon Us is the first book to tell the full story of the event, the radically different paths that led Baldwin and Buckley to it, the controversies that followed, and how the debate and the decades-long clash between the men continues to illuminate America's racial divide today. Born in New York City only fifteen months apart, the Harlem-raised Baldwin and the privileged Buckley could not have been more different, but they both rose to the height of American intellectual life during the civil rights movement. By the time they met in Cambridge, Buckley was determined to sound the alarm about a man he considered an "eloquent menace." For his part, Baldwin viewed Buckley as a deluded reactionary whose popularity revealed the sickness of the American soul. The stage was set for an epic confrontation that pitted Baldwin's call for a moral revolution in race relations against Buckley's unabashed elitism and implicit commitment to white supremacy. A remarkable story of race and the American dream, The Fire Is upon Us reveals the deep roots and lasting legacy of a conflict that continues to haunt our politics. Special Guest: Nicholas Buccola .

10-11-19 - Cambridge @ Union Local - KISS 95-7

In this episode of the Twenty5 Podcast, I speak to one of the most respected nurses in world the Professor Dame Elizabeth Nneka Anionwu (TW @EAnionwu), and she shares that at 25 she wishes she knew that life would have turned out so well, to avoid the anxieties that she had at that age. We talk about her journey to self-enlightenment as a mixed-race woman and finding out about her Nigerian heritage at 25. She was born in 1947, from the relationship between her father, a Nigerian student, and her mother, an Irish student both studying at the University of Cambridge at the time. She talks about growing up in care for a period of her life and how that actually led her to her chosen career path — read more about her story in her memoirs ‘Mixed Blessings from a Cambridge Union.’ Follow the podcast on IG @Twenty5Podcast and check out the website https://www.twenty5podcast.com/.

Lara speaks to Olivia Potts, Spectator Life’s Vintage Chef and co-host of the Table Talk podcast, about Olivia’s new book, A Half-Baked Idea. Before she became a food writer and Cordon-Bleu trained chef, Olivia was a former president of the Cambridge Union and a high-flying criminal barrister. But her mother’s death changed all that. Tune in to hear a story of love, grief, hope, and cake.   Presented by Lara Prendergast.

Lara speaks to Olivia Potts, Spectator Life’s Vintage Chef and co-host of the Table Talk podcast, about Olivia’s new book, A Half-Baked Idea. Before she became a food writer and Cordon-Bleu trained chef, Olivia was a former president of the Cambridge Union and a high-flying criminal barrister. But her mother’s death changed all that. Tune in to hear a story of love, grief, hope, and cake.   Presented by Lara Prendergast.

Over the last eight years, the Syrian Civil War has left millions of people internally displaced and many more have fled the country to protect themselves and their families. This humanitarian crisis has left the region and its people to face incredible challenges in their everyday lives. Andrew Mitchell, British Member of Parliament and former Secretary of State for International Development considers the situation to be a catastrophe from which the international community can learn many lessons on how to support those in the country, as well as refugees throughout the world. Today on CID’s Speaker Series podcast, Nawal Qutub, student at the Harvard Graduate School of Educaton, interviews Andrew Mitchell, who discusses the humanitarian crisis in Syria following the Civil War and how the international community can assist with rebuilding the country once peace is restored. // www.growthlab.cid.harvard.edu // Interview recorded on February 22, 2019. About Rt. Hon. Andrew Mitchell: Rt Hon. Andrew Mitchell is a British Conservative Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Sutton Coldfield since 2001. He was the MP for Gedling from 1987 to 1997. He served in the Cabinet as Secretary of State for International Development from 2010 to 2012. Mitchell was elected President of the Cambridge Union in 1978. Before university, he served for several months as a United Nations military peacekeeper in Cyprus. He has extensive pre-government experience of the developing world, and is the founder of Project Umubano, a Conservative Party social action project in Rwanda and Sierra Leone in central and west Africa, launched in 2007. Mitchell was returned as MP for Sutton Coldfield at the 2017 general election, with a reduced majority.

Cambridge

Since the end of the Second World War, the international rules-based system has been determined by developed countries with economic power who came together to form multilateral organizations like the United Nations. In today’s world, other nations with conflicting interests are challenging the foundations of the UN and this international rules-based system, making it difficult to reach consensus on pressing global issues like climate change, migration, terror, protectionism, and pandemics. How do we begin to repair this broken international rules-based system? Andrew Mitchell, British Member of Parliament and Former Secretary of State for International Development, discusses ways in which the UN can be adapted to today’s globalized society. Today on CID’s Speaker Series podcast, Anna Mysliwiec, Masters in Public Policy student at the Harvard Kennedy School, interviews Andrew Mitchell who provides further insight on the deterioration of the international rules-based system and how the world can begin to repair it. // www.growthlab.cid.harvard.edu // Interview recorded on October 5, 2018. About Andrew Mitchell: Andrew was born in 1956 and is married with two daughters. He was educated at Rugby School and Cambridge University, where he studied history and was elected as President of the Cambridge Union in 1978. Andrew served in the Army (Royal Tank Regiment) before joining Lazard where he worked with British companies seeking large-scale overseas contracts. He was the Member of Parliament for Gedling from 1987 to 1997. During this period, he held office as a Government Whip and as Minister for Social Security. He also served as a Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party from 1992 to 1993. In 2001 he was re-elected to Parliament as MP for Sutton Coldfield. In November 2003, he was appointed Shadow Minister for Economic Affairs. From September 2004 until the end of the Parliamentary term, he was Shadow Minister for Home Affairs. Following the General Election in May 2005 Andrew joined the Shadow Cabinet and was appointed Shadow Secretary of State for International Development. Andrew Mitchell was Secretary of State for International Development from May 2010 until September 2012 and Government Chief Whip from September – October 2012. An experienced and highly effective MP, Andrew is committed to serving the people of Sutton Coldfield. Andrew is currently campaigning on a number of important local issues in Sutton Coldfield including issues affecting our local environment and the general well-being of the Sutton Coldfield community. He is very active in addressing issues of local development where he feels they adversely affect the Town. He actively supports a number of local charities including Breastfriends, Norman Laud Association, Sutton Coldfield Branch of the RNLI, Parkinson’s Disease Society, Sutton Coldfield Sea Cadets, Greenacres, and Sutton Coldfield Guiding. Since becoming Sutton Coldfield’s MP he is particularly pleased to have achieved the reinstatement of the Sutton Coldfield Civic Service and established the Sutton Coldfield Inter-Schools Debating Competition. As Sutton Coldfield’s MP, Andrew deals with hundreds of letters and emails from constituents every week. He has a dedicated staff of 5 people to assist him with this work. The issues raised are wide ranging and can fall within the responsibility of Government Departments or Birmingham City Council as well as a number of the agencies that now administer specific matters such as immigration, benefits and the environment. In addition he holds regular Advice Sessions where constituents can see him to discuss political issues or matters of personal concern. Andrew has a home in Sutton Coldfield and spends as much time as possible regularly visiting local schools, businesses and voluntary organisations.

Live podcast with Dr. Lilia Giugni on the topic of gender equality - on what role can men play in gender equality and activism.  Recorded live at The Cambridge Union, at the University of Cambridge.  Huge thanks to our generous sponsor The Cambridge Centre for Social Innovation. 

Explore Europe Cambridge, England Podcast Episode Show Notes Here are the show notes from our Explore Europe Cambridge episode brought to you by Used Car Guys!  The University City of Cambridge comprises 31 Colleges and over 150 departments, museums and other institutions. Founded in 1209 and granted a Royal Charter by King Henry III in 1231, Cambridge is the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world and the world's fourth-oldest surviving university. You will see stunning examples of architecture just by walking through the cobbled streets of the city centre and Kings Parade, but the best way to see many of the central Colleges is to take a punt tour along the ‘Backs’ of the colleges that are situated along the River Cam.  This is a really special episode for me and John to share because we go back to our home share some of our favourite places. There really is so much packed into this episode, we tried to fit so much in!    Here are the links from our Explore Europe Cambridge, England episode:   Getting to Cambridge Trains from Stansted to Cambridge: https://www.thetrainline.com/train-times/stansted-airport-to-cambridge-station Buses from Stansted to Cambridge: http://www.nationalexpress.com/coach/Landing/route.aspx?to=Cambridge&from=Stansted Trains from London Kings Cross to Cambridge (also from Liverpool Street, which takes about 30 mins longer: https://www.thetrainline.com/train-times/london-kings-cross-to-cambridge-station   Staying in Cambridge The Tamburlaine Hotel (pretty fancy - near train station): https://www.thetamburlaine.co.uk The University Arms Hotel (pretty fancy -very central): https://universityarms.com Prospero Homes Apartments: http://www.prosperohomes.co.uk Duke House (gorgeous guest house - very central): http://dukehousecambridge.co.uk University Students Rooms (very limited but very cool!):  https://www.speedybooker.com/en-GB/group/default.aspx?g=cambridge&brand=wl&partnerid=79&page=%2fen-GB%2fgroup%2fdefault.aspx   Things to Do & See in Cambridge Cambridge Tourist Website: https://www.visitcambridge.org/ University of Cambridge Visitor Guide: https://www.cam.ac.uk/files/visitor_guide.pdf Hop on hop off bus: https://city-sightseeing.com/en/87/cambridge Visitors Guide to Colleges, Museums & Events at the University of Cambridge (note the Zoology Museum is now completely renovated and opened and highly recommended!): https://fusion2018.eng.cam.ac.uk/univisitorguide Cambridge American Cemetery: https://www.abmc.gov/cemeteries-memorials/europe/cambridge-american-cemetery#.WxobAi-B1Bw Cambridge University Museums & Collections: https://www.museums.cam.ac.uk The Botanic Garden: http://www.botanic.cam.ac.uk/Botanic/Home.aspx The Round Church (one of the four medieval round churches still in use in England): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Sepulchre,_Cambridge Let’s Go Punting (friendly punt company - book in advance): https://www.letsgopunting.co.uk Great St. Mary’s Church (walk up to the top for great views): http://www.gsm.cam.ac.uk The Cambridge Union Debating Society: https://www.cus.org Ely Cathedral: https://www.elycathedral.org/visit     Pubs & Bars 1815 Bar at The Cambridge Union: https://www.1815-bar.co.uk The Eagle Pub on Benet Street: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eagle,_Cambridge Kings College: http://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/visit/index.html Kings College Chapel Evensong: http://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/events/chapel-services The Red Lion Pub in Granchester: http://www.redliongrantchester.co.uk The Rupert Brooke Pub in Granchester: https://www.therupertbrooke.com The Green Man Pub in Granchester: http://www.thegreenmangrantchester.co.uk The Cambridge Gin Distillery: http://www.cambridgedistillery.co.uk Six Roof Top Bar at The Varsity Hotel: https://www.sixcambridge.co.uk Novi Roof Top Bar in Regent Street: http://novicambridge.co.uk   Restaurants & Food Restaurant 22 (it’s on Chesterton Road, not Chesterton Lane as we say in the podcast): http://www.restaurant22.co.uk Midsummer House: http://www.midsummerhouse.co.uk Steak & Honour: http://www.steakandhonour.co.uk The Smoke Works (Michelle might have called it The Smoke House in the podcast): http://www.smokeworks.co.uk Cambridge Food Park (lists all of the street food vans in Cambridge): http://www.foodparkcam.com Cambridge Market: https://www.visitcambridge.org/shopping/cambridge-market-p528371   Podcast Conversation Timeline 00:01 - Welcome to the podcast1:11 - Where are we going to be exploring today?2:45 - How do you get to Cambridge?5:40 - Accomodation - Where should you stay whilst visiting?6:29 - Michelle explains how you can have your very own Cambridge University experience at the student Halls of residence. (And, possibly pretend that you’re in the Harry Potter movies whilst you’re at it).7:25 - But, England’s expensive, right? John lifts the lid on the REAL cost of visiting Cambridge8:10 - More information about accomodation… how about staying with Michelle and John’s cousin for a real authentic hosting experience?8:55 - What should you see whilst you’re there?9:17 - John gets going with his famous podacst nooks and crannies of the area.10:01 - It’s transport time. Information about the park and ride and the hop on and hop off bus (John’s fav : )10:31 - Michelle shares her experience of visiting The American Cemetry and why you shouldn’t miss it too. 11:59 - Michelle debunks the myths about the college system in the U.K. Let’s see if you can keep up - I think John is struggling.14:21 - What’s the deal with Cambridge University? John and Michelle discuss what’s great about it and how it got started and the rivalry between Oxford and Cambridge Universities.15:19 - Michelle explains the best way to see the colleges of Cambrige15:40 - John’s must see’s of Cambridge15:51 - John tells us what Punting is and why you should totally do it whilst in Cambridge!17:37 - What will you see whilst punting?18:28 - Michelle and John prepare you for the weather and when the best time to visit ?19:27 - Even Song - a free event at the free college20:22 - John talks about the infamous King’s college choir and theri Christmas concerts20:41 - World famous Fitzwilliam Museum21:04 - The Botanic Garden21:26 - The Round Church, Bridge Street and The union Society22:32 - A podcast insider tip for The Union Society. Listen closely as Michelle knows the bar manager of the place ; ) 23:18 - Alumni of Cambridge University23:58 - Footlights | The Union Society | ADC Theatre25:52 - English Pubs and English Pub Grub talk27:45 - Visit The Eagle - the most famous pub in Cambridge. But, why is it so famous?29:30 - Gonville & Cauis Clock30:04 - Granchester Meadows31:38 - How about visiting The Cambridge Gin Distillery?32:46 - Parker’s Piece - What is is known for? John tells all33:45 - Here we go…..Food Glorious Food. The best places to eat in Cambridge - from fine dining to street food fares, John and Michelle have you covered.38:21 - The Rooftop Bars of Cambridge39:45 - How about visas and passport restrictions?40:16 - Scared of flying? John tells you how to get to England via Train.42:19 - Do England accept dollars?43:57 - Is Cambridge safe to visit?45:48 - What about travelling with children?47:18 - Michelle and John add a few more tips (and places to visit) during your trip to Cambridge.48:30 - Bury St. Edmunds50:17 - Michelle’s sustainable travel tip Thanks so much for listening explorers! If you do visit Cambridge, please do let us know by leaving a comment or tweet using the hashtag #ExploreEurope. We’d love to know what you think about our home.     Leave a comment/subscribe/tell a friend A Massive Thank You For Listening!

CID Student Ambassador Emily Ausubel interviews Andrew Mitchell, British MP and Former Secretary of State for International Development. Mr. Mitchell talks about his extensive experience in International Development and discusses the challenges and opportunities of a global approach to pressing development issues. www.cid.harvard.edu / Interview recorded on October 20th, 2017. About the speaker: Rt Hon. Andrew Mitchell is a British Conservative Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Sutton Coldfield since 2001. He was the MP for Gedling from 1987 to 1997. He served in the Cabinet as Secretary of State for International Development from 2010 to 2012. Mitchell was elected President of the Cambridge Union in 1978. Before university, he served for several months as a United Nations military peacekeeper in Cyprus. He has extensive pre-government experience of the developing world, and is the founder of Project Umubano, a Conservative Party social action project in Rwanda and Sierra Leone in central and west Africa, launched in 2007. Mitchell was returned as MP for Sutton Coldfield at the 2017 general election, with a reduced majority.

Arianna Huffington is the co-founder, president, and editor-­in­-chief of the Huffington Post Media Group, and the author of 15 books. In May 2005, she launched The Huffington Post, a news and blog site that quickly became one of the most widely­-read, linked to, and frequently­ cited media brands on the Internet. In 2012, the site won a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting. She has been named to Time magazine’s list of the world’s 100 most influential people and the Forbes Most Powerful Women list. Originally from Greece, she moved to England when she was 16 and graduated from Cambridge University with an M.A. in economics. At 21, she became president of the famed debating society, the Cambridge Union. She serves on numerous boards, including The Center for Public Integrity and The Committee to Protect Journalists. Her book, Thrive: The Third Metric to Redefining Success and Creating a Life of Well­-Being, Wisdom, and Wonder, debuted at #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. Sierra Tishgart is the Senior Editor of Grub Street, New York Magazine’s James Beard Award­ winning food blog, where she covers restaurant news, tracks food trends, and writes and edits features about chefs, restaurant designers, and other key industry players. She also interviews chefs for CBS This Morning’s "The Dish," and chimes in as a food expert on television shows like Good Morning America, TODAY, CNN’s New Day, NBC New York, PIX11, NY1, and Fox 5. Previously, Sierra worked at Teen Vogue, where she focused on politics, fashion, and entertainment. She remains a frequent contributor to other magazines, like Cherry Bombe, Bloomberg Businessweek, and ELLE, and most recently has worked as a correspondent on the Prince Street Podcast by Dean and Deluca. Sierra is a graduate of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University.

Arianna Huffington is the cofounder, president, and editor in chief of the Huffington Post Media Group, and the author of fifteen books. In May 2005, she launched The Huffington Post, a news and blog site that quickly became one of the most widely-read, linked to, and frequently- cited media brands on the Internet. In 2012, the site won a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting. She has been named to Time magazine’s list of the world’s 100 most influential people and the Forbes Most Powerful Women list. Originally from Greece, she moved to England when she was 16 and graduated from Cambridge University with an M.A. in economics. At 21, she became president of the famed debating society, the Cambridge Union. She serves on numerous boards, including The Center for Public Integrity and The Committee to Protect Journalists. Her book, Thrive: The Third Metric to Redefining Success and Creating a Life of Well-Being, Wisdom, and Wonder, debuted at #1 on the New York Times bestseller list.

Today's guest is Arianna Huffington, co-founder, president, and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post Media Group, and author of fifteen books. In May 2005, she launched The Huffington Post, a news and blog site that quickly became one of the most widely-read, linked to, and frequently-cited media brands on the Internet. In 2012, the site won a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting. Huffington has been named to Time Magazine's list of the world’s 100 most influential people and the Forbes Most Powerful Women list. Originally from Greece, Huffington moved to England when she was 16 and graduated from Cambridge University with an M.A. in economics. At 21, she became president of the debating society, the Cambridge Union. She serves on numerous boards, including The Center for Public Integrity and The Committee to Protect Journalists. A devoted mom with a deepening focus on redefining the metrics of a life well-lived beyond business, she's decided to make sleep her revolutionary cause with her latest book, The Sleep Revolution: Transforming Your Life One Night At A Time.In This episode, You’ll Learn:What family means to Arianna and how her Greek heritage shaped her lens on relationships.How an health incident awakened her to the important of redefining success.Why she chose sleep as the subject of her attention and new book.Why sleep may well be the single biggest game-changer for your life.What Arianna's doing to make her smartphone into a dumb phone.Simple things you can start that will make the biggest difference in your sleep.How sleep affects mood, cravings and weight.Mentioned In This Episode:Overwhelming Odds#SleepRevolution College Tour

In this debate from the Reasonable Faith UK tour in 2011, William Lane Craig visited the Cambridge Union. The motion under debate is "This house believes that God is not a delusion". The other debaters are Peter S Williams, Arif Ahmed & Andrew Copson For more faith debates visit www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable Join the conversation via Facebook and Twitter Get the MP3 podcast of Unbelievable? http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx or Via Itunes

Purchase Arianna's Books Wednesday, May 7, 6pm EDT: Mitchell's guest this evening is the founder of The Huffington Post, author of the recently released book Thrive and the popular celebrity, Arianna Huffington. Arianna is the chair, president, and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post Media Group, a nationally syndicated columnist, and author of fourteen books. In May 2005, she launched The Huffington Post, a news and blog site that quickly became one of the most widely-read, linked to, and frequently-cited media brands on the Internet. In 2012, the site won a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting. She has been named to Time Magazine's list of the world's 100 most influential people and the Forbes Most Powerful Women list. Originally from Greece, she moved to England when she was 16 and graduated from Cambridge University with an M.A. in economics. At 21, she became president of the famed debating society, the Cambridge Union. She serves on several boards, including HuffPost's partners in Spain, the newspaper EL PAÍS and its parent company PRISA; Onex; The Center for Public Integrity; and The Committee to Protect Journalists. Her 14th book, Thrive: The Third Metric to Redefining Success and Creating a Life of Well-Being, Wisdom, and Wonder was published by Crown in March 2014 and debuted at #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list. You can Listen on-line at www.abetterworld.tv Or listen by phone! 602 753-1860

Purchase Arianna's Books Wednesday, May 7, 6pm EDT: Mitchell's guest this evening is the founder of The Huffington Post, author of the recently released book Thrive and the popular celebrity, Arianna Huffington. Arianna is the chair, president, and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post Media Group, a nationally syndicated columnist, and author of fourteen books. In May 2005, she launched The Huffington Post, a news and blog site that quickly became one of the most widely-read, linked to, and frequently-cited media brands on the Internet. In 2012, the site won a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting. She has been named to Time Magazine's list of the world's 100 most influential people and the Forbes Most Powerful Women list. Originally from Greece, she moved to England when she was 16 and graduated from Cambridge University with an M.A. in economics. At 21, she became president of the famed debating society, the Cambridge Union. She serves on several boards, including HuffPost's partners in Spain, the newspaper EL PAÍS and its parent company PRISA; Onex; The Center for Public Integrity; and The Committee to Protect Journalists. Her 14th book, Thrive: The Third Metric to Redefining Success and Creating a Life of Well-Being, Wisdom, and Wonder was published by Crown in March 2014 and debuted at #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list. You can Listen on-line at www.abetterworld.tv Or listen by phone! 602 753-1860

Purchase Arianna's Books Wednesday, May 7, 6pm EDT: Mitchell's guest this evening is the founder of The Huffington Post, author of the recently released book Thrive and the popular celebrity, Arianna Huffington. Arianna is the chair, president, and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post Media Group, a nationally syndicated columnist, and author of fourteen books. In May 2005, she launched The Huffington Post, a news and blog site that quickly became one of the most widely-read, linked to, and frequently-cited media brands on the Internet. In 2012, the site won a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting. She has been named to Time Magazine's list of the world's 100 most influential people and the Forbes Most Powerful Women list. Originally from Greece, she moved to England when she was 16 and graduated from Cambridge University with an M.A. in economics. At 21, she became president of the famed debating society, the Cambridge Union. She serves on several boards, including HuffPost's partners in Spain, the newspaper EL PAÍS and its parent company PRISA; Onex; The Center for Public Integrity; and The Committee to Protect Journalists. Her 14th book, Thrive: The Third Metric to Redefining Success and Creating a Life of Well-Being, Wisdom, and Wonder was published by Crown in March 2014 and debuted at #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list. You can Listen on-line at www.abetterworld.tv Or listen by phone! 602 753-1860 --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/abwmitchellrabin/support