So, ladies and gentlemen, you're very welcome to the Institute of International and European Affairs for this very important and interesting event. We will have an introduction for Professor Gartnash in just a moment, but just to remind you all to put your phones on silent. We would prefer you don't take any calls during the course of the proceedings, but do feel free to tweet at IIEA. And I just wanted to let you know that this is the first in a series that we are hosting here at the Institute. Can you hear me at the back there, folks? No. Okay. Well, we'll attend to that straight away. While I'm talking, it doesn't matter, but it will matter in a short while. So, what I will say to you is this is the first in a series of speaker events. We are hosting on the issue of challenges to the liberal order. We're going to have a series of these events up until February of next year, and we hope to develop a policy paper looking at the implications for both Europe and Ireland. And we're doing this in collaboration with Trinity College Dublin, and in particular with Tris. So in that regard, I'd like to introduce you to Eleanor Denny, who is here at the front, who will introduce the speaker. Eleanor, thank you. Thank you, Barry. Thank you, Barry. And I'd just like to reiterate that as representing Tris and Trinity College Dublin here today, we're delighted to welcome this collaboration with the IIEA, bringing the fantastic network and outreach activities of the IIEA together with the world-class and policy-relevant research in Trinity College Dublin. This series in particular is being hosted together with Trinity Research in Social Sciences, which represents over 250 academics in Trinity College Dublin, in the social sciences, so in economics, political science, law, business, and so on. And if we look at the themes of the IIEA, future of the EU, Brexit, energy, climate, and so on, these are the major challenges of our time, and to a large part they are social science issues. So I think this collaboration is a wonderful opportunity to bring together the network and the industry and the policy expertise of the IIEA with the academic expertise in Trinity College Dublin. So on behalf of Trinity, I'm delighted to launch this series, and in particular to co-host our distinguished speaker today, who is Timothy Garten-Ash, who is a professor of European studies in the University of Oxford, the IIEA Berlin Professor Oriole Fellow at St. Anthony's College, Oxford, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford University. He has authored ten books and writes a column in The Guardian on International Affairs. In 2017, he was awarded the prestigious Charlemagne Prize, which is awarded to those who have worked in the service of European unification. I'm not going to take up any more of your time, and I'm going to hand over to our distinguished speaker. Thank you. Well, thank you very much. Can you hear me at the back there? It's a great pleasure to be here again, also in the homeland of my maternal grandmother, like thousands of British Europeans. The day after the referendum, the fact that I had an Irish grandmother became fantastically important, as it had not been before. To my great dismay, I discovered that very inconsiderately, she'd chosen to be born in Montana. So otherwise, I'd be asking a lot more about Irishness, but as in the Gilbert and Sullivan song, in spite of all temptations to belong to other nations, he remains an Englishman. But an English-European, and let me say, just to be absolutely clear about my own position on Brexit, I regard Brexit as the greatest and most gratuitous act of national self-harm in modern British history. And harm to others, too, to Ireland, obviously, but also, and I think this is being underestimated, to the rest of the EU. I think the rest of the EU is underestimating the long-term negative impact of Brexit. Now, today is both a good and a bad day to be talking about this subject. It's a good day because everybody's thinking about it because they're meeting over there in checkers and their phones have actually been taken away, not just turned to silent. It's a bad day because we don't know what's going to come out. So what I'm going to do, I'm going to start with a bit about the causes of Brexit, go to the way in which I think Brexit is an instance of the much wider phenomenon of populism. Say a little about how we might combat populism and threats to the liberal order altogether and then come back to Brexit at the end. And I can try and do all that in about 25 minutes so we have plenty of time for discussion. So it will be fairly telegraphic. I mean, the first thing to say about Brexit is there was absolutely nothing inevitable about the outcome. We must be aware of what Henri Bergson called the illusions of retrospective determinism. If there were, say, 10 causes of Brexit, if any two or three of them had gone the other way, if we'd had a different leader of the Labour Party, if Gove and Johnson had jumped the other way, if Merkel had conceded an emergency break on free movement of people, it could have gone the other way. And historians for generations to come would be explaining why it went the other way. Those causes are divided into long and short term British and European. Everyone knows about the British causes and the specifically English causes. The extraordinary emphasis of the English historically are based on strictly legal sovereignty, which goes back to the 1533 Act in Restraint of Appeals to Rome. The legacy of Empire, the legacy of our finest hour in 1940, I would argue no other country in Europe would have had the self-confidence, not even the French, there I say, to believe that they'd actually be OK on their own. All the way through to more recent factors like our very transactional relationship with the EU. More interesting for me are the ways in which Brexit is actually a very European phenomenon. In which we are behaving like many other European countries. In which it's actually a classic example of the subject of this project with Trinity, of populism and threats to liberal order. It's a classic populism. Populism is defined by defining political authority and legitimacy as coming directly from the people. That legitimacy being held to trump all other sources of legitimate authority, independent courts, for example, the famous Daily Mail headline, the High Court judges or enemies of the people. And on closer examination, it turns out the people are only part of the people. Populism is characterized by rhetoric against liberal metropolitan elites, experts with their facts. Against it, it puts a single, strong, emotionally appealing narrative nationalist. Populists are always nationalist. There's no such thing as a non nationalist populist. And the Brexit slogan, the brilliant Brexit slogan, take back control could have been the slogan of the RF Day in Germany, of Viktor Orban in Hungary, of peace in Poland, of the Freedom Party in Austria. It's a classic popular slogan, popular speak in the name of sovereignty, but they also speak in the name of democracy. And this is in the European context, a really important point, sovereignty and democracy against what is seen as undemocratic liberalism, a European Union which says, little country, you voted the wrong way in your referendum. Go away and vote again until you give the right answer.  Go away and think again. Come back and give the right answer. This is a genuine feeling to which populists appeal, a genuine concern. And what we actually have, which is quite significant in terms of Europe where democracy doesn't address it. Now this populism has deep causes. It is, in my view, put it in the simplest terms, a reaction to profound changes over the last 30 years brought about by liberalization, globalization and Europeanization. Europeanization being an intensified form of both globalization and liberalization. Financialized globalization leading us into the 2008 economic financial crisis from which we still not recovered. Economic inequality, familiar, but also as important cultural aspects of inequality. The economic explanation of populism simply does not work in the case of Germany or Poland. Real wages in Poland increased 50 per cent since 2004.    The cultural explanation is at least as important as the economic one. And there are other kinds of inequality. Besides economic inequality, they're what I call the inequality of attention, the inequality of respect. That is to say, there are large parts of our societies which simply feel that they are being completely ignored by liberal metropolitan elites, not even noticed, let alone respected. And you know what? They have a point. How many articles did you read written with real sympathy about the sufferings of the white working class in the American Rust Belt in the New York Times until Trump came along? How many articles did you read in The Guardian written with real sympathy and understanding about the suffering of the post-industrial white working class in the north of England until the crisis came along? This inequality of attention and respect is about education. Having higher education or not having higher education is one of the most reliable predictors of voting behavior on the axis populist anti-populist. And always about geography. There's a geographical inequality in the US, the inland, the Rust Belt against the coast, in Britain, the northern parts of the west against the south-south-east. In Poland, the poorer south-east and east. And so you can go on. And it focuses on the issue of immigration, but the issue of immigration, as we see in the politics of Merkel versus Zehofer, Orban and Salvini, is not just about the immigration of the last few years. It's about a deeper unease about the speed and character of change in European societies. Bertelsmann, who do very good polling on this, had a question in 2017. They asked people to agree or disagree with the following statement. Quote, there are so many foreigners in our country, sometimes I feel like a stranger. The EU average was 50%. So half of the EU average agreed with that statement. In Italy, 71%. In Germany, around 60%. And populists, of course, speak directly into that feeling. It was a very important part of the Brexit vote, but in a rather peculiar way. Because of the foreigners, it was directed against. I went campaigning, canvassing, for remain in the referendum in East Oxford, which is a poorer part of Oxford with a large immigrant population. And my conversations consisted of shopkeepers and householders of Bangladeshi, Pakistani or Indian origin, complaining to me at great length about the bloody foreigners who were taking the housing, the jobs, schools and hospitals. It is an interesting tribute to the success of integration policies in Britain that this was Muslim Asian Brits complaining about bloody foreigners who were white Christian Europeans. But it was a form of xenophobia nonetheless. Not racist, but xenophobia nonetheless. And so in all those respects, and I could go on, the Brexit vote was just an instance of a wider phenomenon brilliantly captured by the wonderful French analysts of international relations in a really prescient article he published in 1991 in which he said, while we celebrate the triumph of liberty and universality, we should not forget that the passions that led to nationalism and socialism, namely, and then he says, the yearning for community and identity on the one hand and solidarity and equality on the other have not gone away. And that brilliantly captures the essence of the point. Community and identity typically concerns more of the right. Solidarity and equality typically concerns more of the left. And that's exactly what we're experiencing. Now, in order to fight back against this wave of populism, which is still advancing in the part, it is still advancing in the politics of Europe, we liberal pro-Europeans need to come up with quite deep, radical and difficult answers to questions like what the hell is the future of work, not just because of globalisation, but because of the digital revolution, now machine learning artificial intelligence, which is certainly going to destroy more jobs before it maybe creates new ones. What is our answer to these fundamental inequalities that have emerged in our society? What are we doing in terms of education for the other 50% who aren't going to hire or further education? What about those regional differences? I mean, if you're going to address regional inequality, that's a long-term project. It's about things like transport infrastructure, not to mention the structural problems of the EU itself. The malfunctioning of the European Parliament, in my humble opinion, and particularly of the European Party system, I can explain that if someone asked me in discussion, the still really considerable problems of the Eurozone, not to mention Donald Trump trying to destroy the liberal international order and China on the rise and a couple of other things. Think about it. The post 1945 Social Democratic consensus, how does that emerge out of the disaster of the Second World War of the 1920s and the Great Depression? First, you have to have your John Maynard Keynes, who comes up with the analytical answer, the theoretical analysis. Then you have to have your Beveridge, who turns it into a concept, and then you have to have your Labour Party under Clem Atley, who turn it into an election-winning programme. That takes at least ten years. Now, I think in many ways that's where we are, also because we don't necessarily have the parties to win the liberal fight back. But I think Macron with en marche is the exception who proves the rule. He's not just the person and the programme, he's also got a movement. But most of our countries, including Britain, we don't have the parties for the fight back. Our two-party system, like the American one, has held, but in response to the new provisions that have opened up in our societies, which I've been talking about, each party is itself two parties. There are two Labour Parties and two Conservative Parties, and at the moment you have the Liberal Left running the Labour Party and the Liberal Right running the Conservative Party. And the Liberal Centre Left and the Liberal Centre Right are going to be that's going to put that programme to the electorate. In short, and this is your longer project, pushing back against anti-liberal populism across Europe is going to be a long struggle. Five years at a minimum, more like 10 to 15 years. But Brexit, we have nine months. And this is where the British case and a couple of others, and here I come back to Brexit, differ from the other European and Western democracy cases. If you think of populism in the US or Germany or the Netherlands or Austria or Spain or Poland or even Greece and Italy, one can imagine that process over five, 10, 15 years in which eventually the pendulum springs back, the Liberal fight back succeeds and the structure, the system while damaged has not been fundamentally changed or destroyed, right? There's no absolute fundamental structural change. In the case of a country like Poland, you're at a cliff's edge. Because what is at stake in the next year and two is whether a fragile Liberal democracy will survive or not or become something different as has already happened in Hungary. And Britain is like Poland because our populism took the form of the Brexit vote nine months cliff's edge.  So my last five minutes before opening it up and I apologize that was a lot to throw at you in rather telegraphic style, but I wanted to lay out the basic analysis and then we can deepen it in discussion. So nobody knows what's going to happen today, let alone in nine months time in Brexit, let that be said. I'm not going to second-guess trekkers, I'm not going to second- I'm not going to go into the technicalities of the border issue because you know them much better than me.  So first of all I still think my hunch is that there's a better than 50% probability that at the end of the day of May we'll get some sort of a massively fudged deal with the EU 27. It'll be October. It'll be November. November will become December. It will have to be a special European council. They'll have to stop the clock. May will have to move on her red lines. The EU will also have to move further than it is conceding at the moment. That seems to be quite clear. And at the 11th hour I wouldn't be at all surprised if France and Germany come back to Ireland and ask Ireland to move a bit too. But my hunch is just in my sort of historically informed bones that that's where we're going to go because that's what the EU generally does at the end of the day. And I think that France and Germany and Italy and Spain have themselves a strong incentive to get a deal. However unsatisfactory and patchy it is because they have so many other much more important and pressing issues on their agendas. That brings us to the second part. The meaningful vote. And again here I would say with regret that I think there is a more than 50% probability that it will just squeak through the meaningful vote in the Commons. Labour although extremely divided depressingly divided on Brexit will probably vote on block against because that's a politics, it's a Tory Brexit with a few died-in-the-wool Labour Eurosceptics. But I don't think as it looks at the moment there are going to be enough Tory rebels to bring it down. And Dominic Grieve voting against his own amendment was a very depressing sign because he was key to the rebellion they're now calling him the Grand Old Duke of Beckinsfield and I just and with a massive pressure being brought to bear on Tories do you want to give us Jeremy Corbyn do you want to be deselected not to mention the attention paid to sensitive parts of the anatomy by the whips I think that it's quite possible by the way this may be the 29th of May or the 29th of June I'm not persuaded we'll get there for the 29th of March but I think it's still odds on that it will just squeak through and that deal whatever exactly it is is going to be a very bad deal for Britain which has currently been leaked some of you will have seen Robert Peston's Facebook post which laid it out very clearly namely effectively staying in the single market for goods but not for services is a pretty good deal for BMW and Mercedes a very bad deal for Britain 80% of whose economy is in services there is however the other somewhat less than half chance that it goes another way now I was on the march in London on the 23rd of June this year the second anniversary of the referendum for the people's vote those of you who read the FT will see that the FT described this in the headline as a huge march I have to say if I'm being very unkind one might call that it was certainly wishful thinking on the part of some pro-European sub-editor it wasn't huge huge was the march against the Iraq war that was a million people it was big it was 100,000 people most of them people like me middle-aged middle-class people quite a lot of other European languages I heard on the march it was big but it's not a game-changer that popular movement is not a game-changer nor is the shift in public opinion which is glacial on the question do you still want remain or leave larger on the question is it going to be bad for the British economy but I don't think public opinion is likely to shift in the next six months such that reluctant MPs will think they can vote country before party the key is therefore in parliament there is still a chance that that deal whatever it is will be voted down at that point a number of options open up one is that there could be a second motion in parliament on a people's vote and that could come in two ways one way would be the deal is voted down and then you have a vote to have a people's vote coming from the opposition the other is the government could turn around and say we've got a perfectly good deal you're defying the will of the people we're going to go to the country on a referendum so that's one option another quite plausible option is a new election at that point and everything hinges on the Labour Party and in the Labour Party we have not one but two problems the problem familiar to you is called Jeremy Corbyn who is an old fashioned hard left Eurosceptic who basically thinks the EU is a capitalist conspiracy if any of you have good connections to Jeremy Corbyn someone from Sinn Fein in the room please have a word in the air the other problem which is somewhat less noticed is Keir Starmer who is not what people have often reported to be in his heart a remainer who is just trying to move Jeremy Corbyn he's someone who himself has major lawyerly reservations about the European Union on issues like the ECJ if Labour could be got to the point where they went into an election with a promise to revisit the whole issue of Brexit or to come up with some much much softer Brexit deal that's a potential election winner and as you know in the British constitutional tradition an election result is as valid as a referendum so we'll buy in the next part so that is a potential way forward there is another if and with this I will conclude the question for Q&A this is very relevant to the Irish government position the Irish position I would hope that the EU 27 would have up their sleeve for this moment of political crisis probably in the late autumn a better alternative or at least some evocation of a possible better alternative firstly flexibility on time scale more time I read in the Irish papers today that Leo Varadkar has said no no no to the Austrian Chancellor's suggestion of extending the deadline I don't understand why you're doing that except tactically I think at some point you want to say we absolutely need more time that offer could be to say why not stay in the EU and by the way in the last two three years it has become a different EU from the one you voted to leave because freedom of movement the key issue of the Brexit referendum is now the key issue in European politics across the continent and even though that's mainly about people from outside the EU rather than freedom of movement inside it's sort of the same issue culturally in terms of the politics of it and therefore on things like the posted workers directive welfare benefits arrangements around immigration in the borders sense this is a slightly different EU you would be staying in a more modest variant of that which I think has a better chance is to say why not stay in the EEA arbitration arrangements it's not the ECJ lots of consultation generous consultation arrangements for Britain on things like financial services it's bound to be a custom deal customised deal because Britain is not Norway and there are the clauses on free movement in the EEA treaties and at least initially a generous interpretation of those particularly generous interpretation the point is not the fine print which would be to negotiate it the point is at the one last chance in the last chance saloon in British politics to send this positive message that there is a better alternative to the very bad deal that Theresa May has brought back and that and with this I do conclude for two reasons reason number one because it actually at least marginally increases the chances of the parliamentary vote going the other way it could potentially sway a few wavering Tory rebels but as important because even if it's all completely in vain and the whole alternative goes down you've tried you've shown real goodwill and an attempt to go the extra mile and the reason for that is that when post-Brexit Britain turns out to be a huge disappointment to many of those who voted for it it's going to be a very bad tempered angry and resentful country which will be playing the blame game and you can bet your bottom dollar that the Eurosceptic press and the Eurosceptic right first of all of course we blame the French scapegoat of first resort always for the English and the Germans and the Belgians but who knows maybe even the Irish if the Irish government has taken a very very hard line I already think that while I absolutely understand the importance of EU 27 unity there has been unnecessary toughness on specific points and the obvious example is Galileo completely gratuitous there were no really good reasons there was a political judgment and that gets noticed in other words the blame game is going to happen anyway but don't give anyone actual good reason to say there is blame that the EU position was unnecessarily hard that the EU did not go the extra mile and so with that I think I'll conclude with that slight appeal all to Ireland and to the Irish government I think but that offer to be made I mean to be prepared now I would argue to be prepared but to be made at the right moment at that moment of crisis which is also a moment of opportunity I look forward to the conversation thank you


I had a very strong religious upbringing and I ended up doing a lot of self-harm and I ended up doing a lot of things just to try and cope with these urges that when I finally gave into them I went this is this is a physical manifestation of love this is glorious and beautiful and any God which denies me for this I don't have a part of. Hey friend I'm a Christian can I speak honestly with you for a second you know regardless of whether your same sex attracted or opposite God calls all of us to put to death who we once were see it's not about singling out gay people it's about recognizing that we are all broken people and in need of God's forgiveness is participation in homosexuality a sin yes first Corinthian six nine is clear on that and it wouldn't be loving of me to hide that from you you see not every one of our desires for sexual expressions is good just because I want to sleep with my girlfriend doesn't mean that's good just because I want to watch pornography doesn't mean that's good at the end of the day we need to come back to God's word and find out his intended design for sexual expression in Genesis we encounter Adam and Eve who were created for each other man and woman created differently with different roles and yet equally created in the image of God we also learn that man shall leave his father and his mother and become one with his wife in that context sexual expression is glorious all other distortions of sexual expression lead to death I want to be honest and let you know that when you come to Christ that doesn't necessarily mean that who you're attracted to is going to change we all encounter different temptations whether that's to sleep with your girlfriend or watch pornography or take part in homosexuality but when we surrender our life to God he empowers us with his power and his presence to step into the person we were created to be


Ni'n fyrwahanol ysgolion ar dros Cymru wedi dod y mae hefyd. Pob i ni'n cynrychioli wlad gwahanol, a ni yma i drafod doi wahanol cynig i'n ynglyn â'n cynnesu bwyd i deall arall am sfyllfa a rianol economaeth o fengledydd Europeaeth. Basically this is a debate where we question two motions after we've made a speech on them. It's been a great experience so far debating properly in the centre with microphones, the works, there's lots of fun and it's definitely given me a better understanding of politics and how foreign policy works. Borodd, good morning to you all. Rwy'n fawr hwnnw'n ffordd gyda hyn, boron, mae'n bryd, pleased to be with you this morning. I'm delighted to see so many young people who've come from all parts of Wales representing all those countries. So today's event is the eighth mock council of the European Union that has taken place in Wales. I hope it does provide you with this opportunity to debate with students from other schools and colleges and to vote on key issues affecting the European Union. So you have got an important and powerful role to play today. So today is about raising awareness of the EU, the important and topical issues that we face together, giving you a taste of how the EU makes decisions in practice. So I'd now like to invite Oscar Glan Cloyson, I'd like to invite the European Commission to present motion number one. Over to you. Cynig i'n yw, dylai'r un diw i'w repiau ddod yn fwy i chelgeisio'l na'i polisi cyfraedol, a mae'r pwysiat i targed o 50 cant o astyniad mewn allwriadau nhw enti gwyddi'r erbyn 2030. Cyn y trafodaethau rungladol allweddol a'r newid hinsawd ymhaerys diwedd y ffwyddi'n. Diolch. Okay, if I may go first of all now to Austria. The Austrian government agree with the motion stated and believe that the EU should adopt a more ambitious policy. With the cooperation of the European Union members, we can go forward with the new 50% greenhouse gas reduction target by 2030 and achieve great reductions in Europe's large carbon footprint. The Austrian climate change assessment report in 2014 says that the average temperatures in Austria have risen by almost two degrees since 1880, compared to the global average increase of 0.85 degrees. The report also runs that the increased efforts of the Austrian Union to promote energy efficiency aren't enough to reduce climate change, so Europe also needs to adapt more to these changes. Ni fydd posib i ni fel glad mag i'r symudiad yma. Rydyn mynd am falchio yn ein cynllun partneriaeth amgylcheddol, allwyd ar mesurau iafal ar dreen ar ein allwyr mwyaf safetraffnidiaeth. Mae'r gwelliant i glidiant gyhoeddus, y 1,000 km o lŷnau beicio a'n prosiecter rhan i ceir, yn adlwyr chi yn ffyrnegrwydd i gydweithio i greu byd mwy gwerth. Mae'r tridiau gycan, ond i'n ysyddion yn gwythio mewn gwledig cyfagos, ac felly i'n defnyddio ceir fel mwyodd o drefnidiaeth dros fynyol yn ddyddol, ac felly y chydig iawn y gallu munud i atal y fath a'lluron. Diolch. Gweithio y fath ar y fath, yn 2012, ynghylch yn fwyaf 80 miliwn bethau sefydliadau gas yn grwng 2020, yna yn 2030, mae'n ddweud o'r sefydliadau i 50 miliwn. Felly, y gallwn i'n gwneud yn gwneud yn gyffredig iawn, a'n gwneud o ffyrnt 50% arall. Gweithio ar gyfer arweithio, energ, gweithio, a'r cyfrifedig iawn, ond mae'n gwneud o'r argyffredig iawn o'n fwrdd syddol yn gweithio i gydweithio ar gyfer iawn. Having already reduced our gas emissions by introducing solar panel, solar power, wind power, hydro power and geothermal power we will veto if special circumstances aren't available. It's been interesting to see how the opinions vary between each of the countries and it's been interesting to see how each school has put forward these opinions. For instance some schools have chosen to go through the diplomatic language channel whereas others have just got their points across as quickly as they could in order to start debating. Mae dyma'r ddim yn arddangach o gyd yn hyn, mae'n lefel iddw i ddweud y gwahanol pobl, sydd wedi'i'n chwyllio mewn i wledd iddw gwahanol ac chi'n trafod gyda'r pobl a dadled o'n hoffonau peth efallai ac chi'n meddwl profiad lefli. I can tell you that the motion number one there were 11 member states in favour, 15 member states against and one abstention which means that the motion is defeated. I'd now like to move on to motion number two which is now set up behind me so over to commission. Mae cynnybdau yn dweud, dda'r polisi cychydol sydd trethu agweithio'n cohoeddus i bwrdd gradd sy'n eilodol ar dda'r eur o gallu rhyol i'n ganolog gan y indeb europiaid. Thank you Finland please. Huwementa, good morning. Firstly we would like to express our support for the current fiscal management of the EU. We very much respect the second motion however our nation takes an alternative opinion. The worst of the financial crisis may be behind us but Europe's economic troubles are far from over. We desperately need growth to create jobs and balance public finances. Without growth and jobs we risk witnessing more social problems and growing disappointment with the political establishment. In Finland we see economic competitiveness as the only way of preserving and improving. These beliefs therefore lead our nation into believing that the EU should not become a federation. Good morning, labr straitas Boreda. Mae Llythwunia yn falch iawn e'n bod ni wedi'u mynog ar dda'l yr eur o ar y cyntaf o ionawr y Lennu. Fel gwlad fach nid i'r broses wedi bod hi'r problemau. Ond byddai chi'n weddill i Llythwunia yn croesawu trafod ieithau ti agatynod werth fawr hon. Yn yn wad i gwysteriaid atblygiadau gweddeddol periglis yn y dwyrain. Diolch y fawr. That's absolutely vital because we're the next generation. We're the ones who are going to be taking up the mantle of international politics in the future. I definitely think everyone should try to get involved in this sort of thing because it's just amazing to get the opportunity to sort of experience what it's like and to get an insight into how it works. Mae dybackwyd am eu mwyfytt ydy iaeth a byrch fy enw i'w sredd i orwyd ynglyn lai ei wneud yn rhywun yn cael eu cyngorol iail i gael y gweld a'r Cyned, ac mae'n mynd i'n meddwl y gallu gweld y ffaith yn ymgyrch. Mae'n mynd i gweithio'r bwrdd y ffaith, ac mae'n mynd i'n meddwl y ffaith yn ymgyrch.


After speaking to Secretary Mattis this morning I decided to address you because there's been a lot of speculation about the operation in Niger. When this information is finally available the first thing we're going to do is go visit the families in their homes should they welcome us and we will have a team go in of experts and I've done this personally myself several times a team of experts go into the family and share with them all the facts they're available as a result of the investigation and give them an opportunity to ask questions and as soon as we're done with that we'll come back in here and we'll share exactly that same information that we share with the families.


Hello I'm not professor Jeffrey sacks from Columbia University I'm professor who chapiro from the Weizmann Institute of Science Apparently these days it's easier to get from Israel to here than from the east side of Manhattan to the west side so Professor sacks will join us soon and he will open the concert, but starting from the second half So I will I will host you for now So welcome to our concert for a sustainable planet Changing reality The title of our concert has two meanings Observing reality as it changes and striving to change reality and we will relate in this concert to both meanings We will open the concert with two pieces that together reflect on our changing reality specifically on climate change Spring as perceived almost 300 years ago by Vivaldi lively pleasant ordered predictable Followed by spring as perceived by Ronan Shapiro today chaotic and unpredictable Welcome to the players


Welcome. I welcome you all to this lecture in the course, Samasa in Panini and Grammar 2. As is our practice, we begin our lecture with the recitation of the Mangala Charana. In this course, we aim to study the features of three important types of samasas in Sanskrit, namely Avyaibhava, Bhuvavrihi and Dhvandva. So far in this course, we have studied in some detail the Avyaibhava Samasa as well as the Bhuvavrihi Samasa. Now we are focused on the study of the Dhvandva Samasa yet another very important type of samasa in Sanskrit, Dhvandva Samasa. The features of the Dhvandva Samasa can be explained in brief with the help of the following equations stated on the slide. Here we have X and Y in independent square brackets indicating that they are two different to independent entities in terms of the word form as well as meaning as well as accent. And they are semantically related. So the speaker of Sanskrit decides to process and merge them together. And so the process of compounding begins and the resultant output is one unit namely X, Y. This X, Y, 1 unit has got three features. Aika arthya ekasata, aika padya ekapadata and aika swarya ekasvarata. Both X and Y in the generated output X, Y are shown in the bold characters. This indicates that in this output samasa both of them they act as the head of the samasa formally as well as meaning wise semantically. In the avyai bhava samasa X was marked with the bold letters indicating that the first member X was acting as the head of the avyai bhava samasa. In the tadpurusha samasa Y was marked with the bold letters indicating that Y which is the second member of the samasa acts as the head of the samasa. In the bahuvrihi samasa neither of them was marked with the bold letters primarily because the head of the bahuvrihi samasa lies outside of the compound. In the dvandva samasa however the head is very much present within the concrete events rather both of them act as the head. Upaya padartha pradhanahan dvandvaha. Now in the ashtadhyayi the dvandva samasa is treated at various places. So the samasa vidhayaka sutra the sutra which prescribes the samasa lays down the conditions for the compound to take place is 2.2.29 namely charthe dvandvaha. There is only one sutra which prescribes the dvandva samasa in the ashtadhyayi. Also there is only one sutra which prescribes the samasantha pratyayya that is 5.4.106. There are only a few sutras which also deal with the accent related to the dvandva samasa otherwise the by default accent takes place on the dvandva samasa. Then there is a section in 2.4 from 2 onwards up to 16 which talks about the ekavad bhava. A number of sutras state that certain conditions restrict the dvandva samasa to take place in a certain meaning condition either samahara or itaretara yoga only. So there is ekavad bhava that is stated in this particular section. And then in 2.4.26 we have a sutra which also talks about the linga of the dvandva samasa and by default it says that the linga of the last member of the samasa becomes the gender of the samasa. In the previous lecture we studied the samasa vidhyayaka sutra charthe dvandvaha. Now in this present lecture we shall study the samasantha pratyayya vidhyayaka sutra that is 5.4.106. We shall also study a small section that appears in 2.2 which is called padha nirdharana which padha should occupy the initial position in the samasa. This is what is the theme of padha nirdharana. Let us study the samasantha pratyayaka sutra first. 5.4.106 dvandvat chudashahantaat samahare. There are 3 padhas in the sutra dvandvat chudashahantaat samahare. Thus delimiting the application of this sutra to the meaning samahara. There is no specific reference of any samasantha pratyayya to be added in the sense of itaretara yoga. Only in case of the samahara dvandva the samasantha pratyayya touch is to be added and that too at the end of a dvandva vidh with samasa which ends in the number of sounds mentioned in this particular sutra. So the meaning of the sutra is immediately after the dvandva samasa which denotes a collection samahara and which ends in chu. Chu means chavarga that is chha chha chha chha and here as well as the shah and her is added the suffix touch. I repeat immediately after the dvandva samasa which denotes a collection and which ends in chu as well as the shah and her is added the suffix touch. This is the only sutra stating the samasantha pratyayya at the end of the dvandva samasa as we have also stated before. Let us look at the examples. So when we intend to convey the meaning a collection of speech and skin together. So vākca tvakca anayoh samahārāha. When this meaning is to be conveyed then we have the samasantha pratyayya touch applying. Now vākca tvakca anayoh samahārāha is the laukika vigraha. So the laukika vigraha is watch plus soo plus touch plus soo. Samasa saudhna takes place so we add the samasantha pratyayya over here so we have watch plus soo plus touch plus touch. Then we apply the pratyavadika saudhna. So the pratyavadika soo applies and then we delete both the soo pratyayyas. So we have watch plus soo plus touch plus soo plus soo.   The sutra chokkuha substitutes ka in place of ch. So we get the form vāk tvakca. Now this is the samahārā so this is in napumsakalinga by the sutra sanapumsakam. And so when we add the soo pratyayya after vāk tvakca we substitute this soo by am by the sutra atom. And then we get the form vāk tvakca. Similarly when the intended meaning is a collection of garland and skin. Then sraksha tvakca anayoh samārāha. This is the laukika vigraha and so the samāsha takes place and so the samāsanta pratyayya takes place.  And because this is samārā so the samāsha is in neuter sanapumsakam. And then we get the form sraksh tvakca plus soo and then so is substituted by am so we get the form sraksh tvakca. This is the finally derived and used dvandva samas in the sentence sraksh tvakca. So that was the example of the word ending in ch which gets the samāsanta pratyayya touch added to it. Let us now look at the example where the dvandva samas is ending in the sound j and when the samāsanta pratyayya is added to it. There is no word no example visible which is where the word ends in ch and is part of the dvandva samas. At least that is not popular. So now we have śrīścha sraksh anayoh samārā. A collection of wealth and garland. This is the meaning to be conveyed. And the laukika vigraha is śrīścha sraksh anayoh samārā. And so we have śrī plus soo plus śraja plus soo as the alaukika vigraha. Samāsa-saudhnyā takes place. So immediately we add the samāsanta pratyayya. So we have śrī plus soo plus śraja plus soo plus touch. Then prakipati ka saudhnyā takes place. And we delete both the soaps by the application of the sutra-supadhātuk prakipati kayoh.  And then we join them together and we get the form śrī śraja ending in a. Then this is samārā. So it is in ekavacchana as well as in napumsakha. So we add the soo suffix after it and this soo gets substituted by am. And then we join them together by this sandhirul. And we get the form śrī śrajam as the prathama ekavacchana of śrī śraja. Similarly, when the meaning to be conveyed is a collection of speech and strength. Vākca urkca anayoho samārāha. Vākca urkca anayoho samārāha. This is the laukika vigraha. And then the compound process begins and we follow the same procedure.  Where the samāsānta prathaya touch is added at the end of urja. And so we get the form vāgūrja. And because this is samārā, it denotes the neuter gender. And so the soo prathaya added after it is substituted to am. And so we get the form vāgūrjam. Now let us look at the example where the dvandva samāsā ends in the. And the samāsānta prathaya is added. So when the meaning to be conveyed is a collection of wealth and calamity. The laukika vigraha is sampacca vipacca anayoho samārāha. Sampacca vipacca anayoho samārāha.  Samāsāsāsādhnyā takes place. So we add the samāsānta prathaya and we get sampada plus soo plus vipada plus soo plus touch. Then we apply the prāthipatika sādhnyā. So then we apply suphodhātup prāthipatika yoho and soaps get deleted. So we have sampada plus zero plus vipada plus zero plus ur. And then when we join them together we get the form sampada vipada ending in ur. Since this is a samahara by the sutra sanapumsakam the samahara dvandva denotes neutral gender and is in singular number. So we have the prathaya soo added to it sampada vipada plus soo. And this soo now will be substituted by am and so we have sampada vipada plus am. And then we do the sandhi and get the form sampada vipada am. Similarly, then the meaning to be conveyed is a collection of firewood and stone. Samidhicha dhrushadhicha anayoha samahara ha. This is the laukika vigraha and by doing the same process by adding the samasanta prathaya touch over here we get the form samidh drushadha as the finally derived dvandva samasa output ending in short ur. And because it is samahara it denotes the neutral gender by the sutra sanapumsakam and also ekavachana and then we get the form samidh drushadham which is used in the actual sentence. So we have seen examples where the dvandva samasa ends in chh, jh and the. Let us now see an example where the dvandva samasa ends in chh. So when the meaning to be conveyed is a collection of speech and spark. Vak chh viprit chh anayoha samahara ha. And so we have vak plus soo plus viprush plus soo as the laukika vigraha. Now the samasa saudhnya takes place so we add the samasanta prathaya touch over here. So we have vak plus soo plus viprush plus soo plus touch in. Then the prakibidhika saudhnya takes place so we delete both the suprathayas.  And when we join them together we get the form vak viprusha ending in ur. Now because this is a samahara we note that by the sutra sanapumsakam the samahara dvandva denotes neuter gender and also singular number. So we add the prathama ekavachana suprathaya after vag viprusha which gets substituted by am. And the resultant prathama ekavachana would be vag viprusham which is used in the sentence. Vag viprusham. Similarly now the example where the dvandva samasa ends in her and gets the samasanta prathaya touch added to it. So when the meaning to be conveyed is a collection of umbrella and shoe. Chaturamcha upanaccha anayoho samaharaha. So we have chhatra plus su plus upanaha plus su as the alaukika vigraha. So samasa saudnaya takes place. So we add the samasanta prathaya touch over here. Chhatra plus su plus upanaha plus su plus touchu. And then the prathipadika saudnaya takes place. So supadhata prathipadika yoho takes place. And so we delete both the subs. So we have chhatra plus zero plus upanaha plus zero plus a. When we join them together we get the form chhatra upanaha. And then we add the su prathaya after it which gets substituted by am. So we get the form chhatra upanaham after having performed the sandhi operations. These are various examples of the samasanta prathaya vidhaya kasutra dvandvat chudasahantaat samaharae. Now let us study an important section related to the dvandva samasa namely the padda nirdharana section which is part of 2.2 in the ashtadhyay padda nirdharana. What is the reason for this particular section to come into being? Since the process of formation of the dvandva samasa involves the sutra 2.229 that is charthe dvandvaha in which the word anekam is continued from 2.224. All words eligible to be compounded are mentioned in the first triplet for it to be termed as opasar janah by the sutra prathama nirudhistham samasa opasar janam. Thereby leaving the choice of the initial member of the dvandva compound unsettled. That is the reason and so opasar janam purvam cannot apply over here because there is no explicit mention of any one of the words to be termed as opasar janah. All words are termed opasar janah so all words are eligible to become the first member of the samasa and that is the reason why this section is needed which lays down certain criteria and says that because of these criteria such words occupy the initial position in the dvandva samasa. Let us study these sutras one by one. First let us study 2.2.31. This was opasar janam purvam mentioned on the previous slide which says that the opasar janah occupies the initial position of the samasa. Now let us study 2.2.32 which is dvandve gi. This sutra means that in the dvandva samasa that word termed gi occupies the initial position of the compound. I repeat in the dvandva samasa the word termed gi occupies the initial position of the samasa. What is gi? Now gi is defined in the ashtadhyayi 147 as sesho gi asakhi. That is all words ending in short e and o which are not denoting feminity except the word sakhi and all the words which denote feminity which are not termed nadi they are all called gi. For example agni, vayu, mati and dhenu. So agni and vayu they are words ending in short e and o respectively and they do not denote feminity and those words mati and dhenu they are the one denoting the feminine gender but they are not termed nadi optionally. So they also optionally are called gi. So here is an example patu guptau and vrdu guptau the terms which are termed as gi are marked in green. So there are two constituents patu and guptau amongst them patu is gi and we have no choice as to which one we have no guideline as to which of these two padas should occupy the initial position by the samasa vidhayaka sutra. So now dvandve gi tells us that in the dvandva samasa the word which is gi occupies the initial position of the samasa. Patu happens to be a gi saudnekashap. The mrdu happens to be gi and therefore it occupies the initial position. Now this sutra states only who will occupy the initial position and not who will occupy the second position. So even if another word termed gi is a constituent its position in the compound will vary. For example if you have the samasa patu mrdu shuklaha there are two words that are termed gi patu and mrdu which are part of this samasa patu and mrdu. So what happens in this case? So the answer provided is that the second member can change its own position. Once patu forms the initial position then mrdu can appear immediately after it or it can also appear at the end. There is nothing said about the second word which is termed gi and its position. Let us go to the next sutra 2233 which is ajad yadantam. What it means is that in the dvandva samasa the word which begins with a vowel and ends in short a occupies the initial position of the samasa. So we have an example ushtrakharam. Ushtrakharam has got two constituents ushtra and khara and both have two vowels. Now ushtra begins with a vowel and ends in short a, khara begins with kh and ends in short a. Now this sutra ajad yadantam says that amongst the constituents the one which begins with a vowel and ends in a short a vowel occupies the initial position and that is why ushtra occupies the initial position. Now what happens if amongst the constituents there are more than one which begins in a vowel and ends in short a. What will we do then? Then they both will occupy or all will occupy the initial position in the compound turn by turn. There will be those many output forms of that compound. So we have the statement bahushu aniyamaha and the samasa is ashvarathendraha. Here we have two ashvar as well as indra words which begin with vowels and end in short a. Now either we have ashvarathendraha where ashvar occupies the initial position or indra rathashvaha same constituents order changed and indra occupying the initial position of the samasa. The next statement compares two to 32 and 33 and says that the dvandvegyantat ajad yadantam purva vipratishedhena. What if in a dvandva samasa one of the constituents is ajad yadant beginning with a vowel and ending in short a and the other one is ghisavadnyaka. Then what do we do? And the answer given is because of the purva vipratishedhena the ajad yadant will prevail and will occupy the initial position of the samasa. So the statement means in the dvandva samasa the word which begins with a vowel and ends in short a occupies the initial position of the compound by negating the eligibility of ghi on account of this being ruled stated later. So if the constituents are indra and agni, agni is ghi, indra is ajad yadant and so it occupies the initial position. So we have the samasa indra agni and indra vayu. Let us proceed further and study 2.2.34. This is alpach taram. This means that in the dvandva samasa the word which possesses lesser vowels occupies the initial position of the compound. Very simple. So we have the samasa plaksha nyagrodhav in which plaksha has 2 vowels, nyagrodhav has got 3. So obviously plaksha occupies the initial position. Similarly dhava khadira palashaha, dhava has only 2 as against 3 in khadira and palashah. So dhava occupies the initial position. Bahushu aniyamaha. If there are more than one alpach taram vowels words then there is no restriction. So we have sankha dundubhi vena advandva samasa in which sankha and vena both have 2 vowels as against dundubhi which has got 3. So now either sankha or vena both of them can occupy the initial position as shown on the slide. Sankha dundubhi vena or vena sankha dundubhaya. The next statement is rutunakshatranam anupur vena samanaksharanam purvanipato vaktavyaha. This means that in dvandva samasa amongst the words denoting the seasons as well as constellations and which have similar number of vowels, similar number of letters, the initial position of the compound is occupied by the sequential order. As far as the rutu or the seasons are concerned we have hemanta sheshera vasanta. This is the order because in this order the seasons appear first hemanta then sheshera and then comes vasanta. All the 3 constituents of this particular samasa have similar number of vowels namely 3 and therefore here we don't apply any other criteria and we simply accept the fact that the order in which these seasons appear determines the order in which they will appear in the dvandva samasa. Similarly chitrasvati they both have 2 vowels, 2 aksharas, krttikarohini they have 3 each. So they are attached in the order in which they appear. We cannot have grishma vasanta because vasanta and grishma they are not in that particular order. Then comes vasanta and then comes grishma. Next we have laghaksarampurvam nipatati meaning in a dvandva samasa the letter which has a short vowel occupies the initial position of the compound. So we have the examples kushakasham and sharashadam where kusha and kasha are the 2 constituents having similar number of vowels and letters too respectively. But kusha begins with a short vowel u as against kasha which begins with a long vowel a and therefore kusha occupies the initial position of the samasa. Same is the case with sharashadam. The next statement is abhairhitamcha purvam nipatati. The meaning is in dvandva samasa the word denoting what is more worshipped abhairhitam occupies the initial position of the compound. For example mata pitaroh. So mata is abhairhitam and therefore it occupies the initial position of the samasa. Same is the case with shraddhamede and diksha tapasi. The next statement is varnanam anupurvena purvani patah. In dvandva samasa the 4 classes appear in their sequence. Brahmanakshatriya vitsudraha. Similarly brhatushchad jayasa ha purvani patah. This statement says that in dvandva samasa the elder brother occupies the initial position of the samasa. So yudhishthira arjuna. So yudhishthira is the first constituent. Arjuna is the second constituent. Even though Arjuna contains 3 vowels yudhishthira has got 4. So Arjuna is alpachhtira still because yudhishthira is the name of the elder brother. So it occupies the initial position in the samasa. Similarly sankhyayaha alpiyasya ha. What it means is in dvandva samasa the smaller number occupies the initial position. So we have dvitraha 2 or 3, trichaturaha 3 or 4, navatishatam 90 or 100. The smaller number occupies the initial position. Then we have a statement which says that there is a list of words which at the beginning of which comes dharma, di. And in this there is a niyama. Both members can occupy the initial position in the samasa. Both members can occupy the initial position in the samasa. For example when dharma and artha are the 2 constituents of the dvandva samasa we can either have dharma artha as the samasa or artha dharma as the variant. Similarly shabda artha and artha shabda. Kaama artha and artha kaama. Kesashmasru and shmasru kesha. Sarpir madhuni and madhusarpishi. Adyanta and antadi. Vrdhiguna and gunavrdhi. There is an interesting statement over here which says that jaya shabdasya jambhavo dambhavascha nipatya te. Jaya means wife and pati means husband. So when there is a dvandva samasa of husband and wife, jaya is substituted by jam as well as tam. So we have the words bharyapati, jaya pati. Now jaya is substituted by jam and dham. So we have the forms jampati as well as dampati which come in that particular order. To summarize the dvandva samasa presents an example where the order of words remains unsettled in many cases. Also there is only one sutra stating the end of the compound suffix in case of the dvandva samasa. The dvandva samasa denoting the samahara or collection is in neuter gender. The number and the gender of the dvandva samasa denoting itaretara yoga is determined by the number of the constituent events and the gender of the last member of the compound. Paravalingam dvandvatat purushayoh. We continue studying the dvandva samasa especially ekavad bhava in the next lectures. These are the references. Thank you very much.


Back in the early 1900s, a couple of scientists named G. H. Hardy and Wilhelm Weinberg started thinking that Darwin's theory of natural selection, survival of the fittest, and Mendel's ideas about inheritance of genes could be combined to help us understand how populations evolve. They were interested in understanding, one, what is the frequency of specific alleles in a population, so what fraction of the total number of alleles are dominant, capital B, or recessive, lowercase b? And two, as the organisms mate and have offsprings over many generations, whether the frequency of those alleles changes over time. So if you start out with 60% of the alleles being capital B and 40% being lowercase b? After the people mate, are there still 60% capital B and 40% lowercase b? Notice also that the allele frequencies 0.6 and 0.4 add up to 1. This is a key aspect of learning how to solve Hardy-Wienberg equilibrium problems. So keep it in mind for later. Hardy and Weinberg postulated that if the allele frequencies did not change over time, then the population was in equilibrium. You would say that such a population is in Hardy-Wienberg equilibrium. In contrast, if the allele frequencies do change over time, the population is not in Hardy-Wienberg equilibrium. For a population to be in Hardy-Wienberg equilibrium, so for the allele frequencies to not change over time, there are five criteria that must be met. These are, number one, the population must be large. Number two, no mutations occur. Number three, no migration into and out of the population, also called gene flow. Number four, mating must be random. And number five, no natural selection can occur. If these five criteria are met, the population is in Hardy-Wienberg equilibrium. Evolution is not occurring at that locus, and the allele frequencies will remain the same over time. If you calculate allele frequencies and find that they have changed over time, you can say that the population is not in Hardy-Wienberg equilibrium, meaning that it has evolved. Let's go through two related examples of Hardy-Wienberg equilibrium problems and learn both how to calculate allele and genotype frequencies as well as to start thinking about why a population may or may not be evolving. You are studying the coat color locus for a population of 100 squirrels living in a forest along the coast of California. The dominant allele, B, gives black fur, while lowercase B, the recessive allele, gives white fur and is recessive. In population genetics, we call the frequency of the dominant allele P and the frequency of the recessive allele Q. The sum of these allele frequencies, all the alleles in the population, must equal 1. Now let's relate this to the genotypes, which is the probability of having an individual that is homozygous dominant, that is having one allele to be B, and the other also of B is P times P equals P squared. The probability of being heterozygous, having one capital B and one lowercase B, is 2 times P times Q, and the probability of being homozygous recessive is Q times Q equals Q squared. The sum of the genotype frequencies must also equal 1, which is this equation, P squared plus 2PQ plus Q squared equals 1. Now back to your squirrels. You find that 20 of the 100 squirrels have white fur, which corresponds to 0.2. White fur is homozygous recessive.   We can solve for Q by taking the square root of 0.2, which gives us Q equals 0.45. Since P plus Q equals 1, we can easily solve for P, which is 0.55. These squirrels breed and in a second generation, you go back to the forest and want to determine if the population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. You count and see that 40 of the 200 squirrels in this generation have white fur. This means that the frequency of the recessive genotype, Q squared, is 0.2. We can now easily solve for Q, the recessive allele frequency, so Q equals 0.45. We can easily solve for P, which is 0.55. Based on these equations, let's see if our population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. We started with P equals 0.55 and Q equals 0.45 in the first generation, and we calculated that P equals 0.55 and Q equals 0.45 in the second generation. So the allele frequencies did not change over time. This means we can accept the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium null hypothesis and say that yes, this population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and has not undergone evolution. Example number two. You are also studying a population of squirrels that live on a nearby beach. In the first generation, they had P equals 0.55 and Q equals 0.45. In the second generation, you find that the frequency of the dominant allele P is 0.7 and the frequency of the recessive allele Q is 0.3. This population of squirrels on the beach is not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, since the allele frequencies did change over generations. So we reject the null hypothesis and can say that this population evolved. Now what factors caused this population to undergo evolution? To answer this, think about the five criteria for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and let's come up with some ideas as to which of these criteria were not met. Number three. No migration into and out of the population. Maybe the water level went down, so some white squirrels living on the coast could come from shore and start living on the island. Number five. No natural selection can occur. Maybe the white squirrels stood out more against the sand than the black squirrels, so they were more noticeable to predators and got eaten. Now let's do a third example to see how we can use the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium idea to solve population genetic problems. You can use the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium to solve population genetic problems if you assume that the population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Let's say that you are now studying eye color in a population of squirrels. You have either brown eyes or blue eyes, and you know that blue is recessive. You look at all of your squirrels and find that 4% of the population has blue eyes. How can you figure out A, the frequency of the brown eye allele, and B, what percentage of the population is heterozygous for this trait? Assuming the population follows Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, let's solve A and B. To solve A, let's start with the information that 4% of the population has blue eyes. This is telling you the frequency of the recessive genotype, blue eyes. So we know that 0.04 equals Q squared. We can easily solve for Q, the frequency of the recessive allele, which is 0.2. Therefore, given that P plus Q equals 1, we know that P equals 0.8. This is the allele frequency of brown eyes. To solve B, let's use the equation P squared plus 2PQ plus Q squared equals 1. The frequency of the heterozygous genotype is 2PQ. So 2 times 0.8 times 0.2 equals 0.32. To get the percentage, we can multiply by 100. So 32% of the population of squirrels are heterozygous at the eye-color locus. Overall, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is a way to apply Mendelian genetics, the idea that traits like coat and eye-color in squirrels get inherited to large populations and to figure out whether that trait is undergoing evolution. Through this lesson, you have learned how to calculate genotype and allele frequencies over several generations and use these calculations to determine if a population is or is not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. If the population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, you can use Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium to solve population genetic problems. On the other hand, if the population is not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, we can start thinking about what selective pressures might be in place that are causing evolution and anticipate how these selective pressures may shape future generations. This video has been provided to you by Eureka Science and Eye Biology, bringing the world's best biology to you.


Hwyl i gael ymddiannol, iawn, mae'n ffaith o'r ffordd o'n ffordd o'r ddweudio'r gyda ni'n gwybod ymddiannol yn ffwg o'r ffwg yw'r ffordd yn rhoi. A wnaeth i wneud â'r byn yn ffraith o'r ffordd o'i gael ymddiannol, oedd ymddiannol yn ffwg o'r cyfodol sy'n gwneud ymdiannol, gwybodaeth fynd i gynnwys iawn ar gyfer y gweithio gyda'r ffordd, maewn i'n gwybod y mynd i'r gyffredig, iawn, mae'r gwahanol yn fwy o'r awl iddo. A'r gwybod, yn unrhyw fawr o'r ddahig a'r prydysusor yn Ysbryd. Mae'n hyn o'r ddweud o'r hynny, rwy'n ni wedi'u gael eu ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, mae'n rhaid i'n gwybod, fel ydych chi'n gwiswch gyna'r ymdw i'r ddweud, ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r gweithio gael bydd ydy'r hwlad o Maenon Llywodraethau Llywodraeth, ond mae Llywodraeth yng Nghymru yn ystod i'r ysgolio, a mae'n fawr. Felly, yn gynnyddio, ydych chi'n gweithio i'r olyfyn, yna'n mynd i'n mynd i'r dyfodol, y cymryd y rhai o'r rhathion sy'n gwybod o'r rhaid i'r rhagorau'r rhagorau yn yr unig i'r rhathion sy'n gwybod o'r rhathion sy'n gwybod o'r rhathion sy'n gwybod o'r rhathion sy'n gwybod o'r rhathion o'r gynhyrch o'r rhagleniaeth cydnod o mor ystafell wedi'i'i maen nhw, oherwydd yma, byddai'r cyrraedd teimlad yn iddynt yn rhan o gwier. Mae'r trafnirio'r cymhwytaeth yn y ddweud y maen nhw, oedd yn fwy gwrs, ag ym mwy o'r gweithau.  Mae'n ddifen allan y byddwch chi. Efallai cyfr foodsbenderfynau a gyd-dych chi yn cyfrwsio'r lŷl, byddwch angen yn cyflawni'r defnyddio'r defnyddio ar y gyrfaen yma. Y rai fod yn i gyd wedi'u'r boblau cyflawni gyrfaen yn iawn i 2020, ond maen nhw yn fflawni gan Afganestan, wedi defnyddio'r boblau cyflawni gyrfaen yma yn yma ar y cyflawni gyrfaen cyflawni gyrfaen. Mae gennym ni'n dweud o'r eich cyflawni gyrfaen yma, gyda chi'n dweud yw'r defnyddiaeth yw'r defnyddio'n ddiddordeb yn yw'r prysig yn gweithio'r yma, ac nid yw'r pethau mewn ond y dyfodol yn ddigonwyr o'r llai'r lleol, yn ddiddordeb yn ddigonwyr o'r llai yn gweithio'r llai'r panffordi. Yn gwybod y sydd ychydig yn ei ddweud o'r pryd-Brytyn oedd sydd yn gweithio'r llai yn y Twentieth Ysgol Rhysg. Rwy'n gael, wrth gwrs, yn y cyfnodol o'r bethau Brytyn gyda'r empyreidol yn ystod o'r rhagol, mae'n cael ei gŵr. Rydw i'n gweithio'r cyfrwyr ymlaenol cyntaf o'r cyfrwyr mewn gyllid, ond mae sy'n gwneud ymddangos gyda'r cyfrwyr yn ysgrifennol ar gyfer y mewn cyfrwyr yn y gwaith ar gwrdd yma i'r ysgrifennol yng ngyfarr yma. Yma yn ymdill ymddangos ymdill yma, o'r cyfnod siarad a'r cyfnodau fyddiol sy'n dod i'r ffyrdd ddweud o ffyrdd yng nghymru. Roedd yr Mhocwyr Ffyrdd yn ymgyrch ym Mhocwyr ddweud o'r Gweithio UK yn y ddweud o'r cyfnodau a'r ddweud o'r cyfnodau ystyried cyfnodau o'r cyfnodau yn yr ymddangos. Fel rhai o'r 5 rwyf, roeddwn ni'n lefnod, rwyf wedi'u cyfo'r gweithio ymddangos o'r tyfnod yma yn yrach a'r afganistau. The defence planners jargon, two medium-scale enduring operations, at a time when our planning assumptions assume no more than one. We still have nine and a half thousand troops in Afghanistan. Although there will be a small drawdown this year, our Prime Minister has recently indicated that the nine and a half thousand stands as the figure within which our armed forces are operating in generating the British contribution to the NATO force. He also said shortly after ynghyd o'r fforwyd de-afgaredd i Afganol sydd wedi gwneud bod yw'r gwbl o'r rhan o'r ffordd o'r rhan o'r ffordd o'r rhan o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r rhan o'r ffordd o'r rhagl.  Fygoedau cymoniwyr o'r cyfrifio ar y gyfer y mawr, mae'n meddwl mae'n meddwl. Mae'r meddwl yw arweinydd a'r meddwl ar gyfer ddim yn ei wneud, ond mae'n meddwl sy'n meddwl mae'r meddwl yw'n meddwl yw feddwl yn meddwl ar y gwasanaeth. Mae'r meddwl ar gyfer meddwl yn meddwl ymlaen, ac mae'n meddwl yw ychydig arnynno fyddwch ar y maes yma, is training for the wider range of military tasks that modern armed forces can expect to encounter. After a slow start, the recent campaigns have also, I believe, led to an improvement in the British public's understanding and support for our armed forces. This has not been straightforward any more than in other European countries, because the decision to join in the invasion of Iraq was controversial with sections of public opinion in the UK. And it's inevitably harder, I think, to rally public support for wars of choice, however important they may be, and their purposes may be, than for wars of national survival. So there have been upsides, but no one who's been involved in these matters could deny that operating for as long as we did, at a higher level of commitment than had been assumed in planning resources, stretched not only the military front line, but the departmental infrastructure, military and civilian, which exists to support it. There have been and continue to be, sorry, these have been and continue to be challenging times. The circumstances are front line troops, and I would argue the supporting cast as well have acquitted themselves extraordinarily well. My second theme is the financial and budgetary pressures, which have been well reported in the media. The headline figure you put on this depends on where you start, how many years you look into the future, and crucially what assumptions you make about cross growth over these years. But on any analysis, our strategic review last autumn had to face the fact that the resources available for defence were likely to fall well short of what would be necessary to fund armed forces of the size and with the equipment that we had previously been planning for. It wasn't that the previous UK government cut the defence budget, it didn't. Like its successor, it funded separately the additional cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But over a period of substantial real terms growth, in particular in health and in education, spending, the core UK defence budget remained broadly constant in real terms and declined as a proportion of GDP, while it should be said remaining higher than that of all other European countries, with the possible exception of France. It's a common place of discussion of health spending in our nations, that there are almost inexorable upward pressures, which mean the budgets tend to rise much more rapidly than general inflation. Less remarked on is that defence spending has some of the same features for slightly different reasons. Technological advance means that each generation of military equipment is more effective than its predecessors in terms of its military impact. But the unit costs, especially of equipment like warships and combat aircraft, which by its nature is produced in small numbers, have over long periods tended to rise significantly in real terms by more than general inflation. There are studies on both sides of the Atlantic that bear this out and suggest that it's true also in relation to the human cost of armed forces. As time goes by, nations get less bang or at least less defence for their buck, their euro or their pound. This may seem like an accountant's digression, but it is actually, in my view, at the heart of the problems that UK defences had to face in recent years and that we had to confront in the SDSR, which was conducted at great, some said excessive, pace in the last six months of my time in the MOD. Added to this is the third element of the sentence I started with from the white paper, the world financial crisis and the steps that our government and all our governments are necessarily having to take to deal with it. It's keenly felt here, I know, and it has defined the first term of our coalition government in London. Personally, I think this is right and was inevitable. Getting the country's finances in order is in the end just as much a question of national security as the issues that I'll spend the rest of this talk discussing. But it did make an already financially constrained review last year even more of a challenge than it would otherwise have been. How then did the SDSR deal with such an unpromising combination of pressures and constraints? I think I would highlight just three factors. First, as I implied a moment ago, the review took a wide view of national security. A deliberate effort was made to identify and prioritise the risks we face across the whole national security domain. It covered not just defence but counterterrorism, energy security, border security. It covered and gave new prominence and funding to what, to my mind, is one of the great national securities of the day, cyber and the increasing risks of successful cyber attack. It looked afresh at the vital contribution of our intelligence agencies. The work was led by Peter Ricketts, whom many of you will know as National Security Advisor, a new appointment at the centre of government and was overseen by a National Security Council chaired by the Prime Minister, which continues to meet almost weekly. I know that the structure and processes of government are not of universal interest, but there are, I suspect, some government process geeks in this room and I would just say that whatever the outcome, and there are plenty of opinions about that, these changes have, to my mind, greatly strengthened our internal decision making process. Secondly, as regards the substance of the decisions on defence, the review made an important distinction between, on the one hand, the measures necessary in the short term to reduce spending and enable defence to make its contribution to fiscal austerity, and on the other, an attempt to define, slightly longer term, a structure and capability for our defence forces in the 2020s, towards which we would work in the latter part of this decade. The short term cuts are significant. They mean that the core defence budget in 2014-15 will be between 7% and 8% less in real terms than it was in 2010-11. This is less than from most other public spending programmes, but defence also has to absorb the inherited financial pressures to which I referred earlier. The cuts, and they're not insignificant, come from reductions in the size of all three armed services and proportionally larger reductions in the number of civilians, cancellation of several equipment programmes, and the taking out of service earlier than had previously been intended of existing ships and aircraft, rationalisation of command structures, and a wide range of other efficiency measures. The definition of force structure in the 2020s is set out in some detail in our published white paper, and I won't attempt to describe it here, although obviously with an expert audience like this you may well have questions on it which I'm happy to answer. What I would say is that to my mind the key consideration throughout was to define a force structure for the 2020s that is flexible and relevant, that plays to our existing strength, and above all has some realistic chances of being affordable, as as we hope will be the case, the UK's economy and public finances strengthen as we go through the 2010s. A key sentence from the white paper reads as follows, our future forces, although smaller than now, will retain their geographical reach and their ability to operate across the spectrum from high intensity intervention to enduring stabilisation activity. That I think is a sensible position for the UK to occupy as a sizeable European power with a strong defence tradition. It lays the lie to the accusation by some commentators that the review was just cover for managed decline, but its deliverability in practice depends crucially on more resources being found after the lean period of the next few years as we approach the 2020s. In that context it was reassuring for those of us who care about defence to that when he launched the white paper last October, David Cameron gave a personal commitment on behalf of his party to real terms growth in defence spending after 2014-15. Maintaining what the Americans referred to as full spectrum capabilities will not be easy. In some cases aircraft carriers being the best publicised example, we took a conscious decision to do without a capability for a number of years until the new carrier now under construction and the new joint strike fighters have come into service. On land forces the review pointed towards a smaller army of 94,000 in 2020, but one which with five multi-role brigades would still be capable of providing a brigade level contribution. That means roughly six and a half thousand compared to the nine and a half thousand we have in Afghanistan now to an enduring stabilisation operation of the Afghan kind. And that brings me to my third point. I spoke about the brigade level contribution and the word contribution is important because although one can never rule it out even these days it is increasingly improbable that the UK will undertake significant military operations in future entirely on its own. The successful stabilisation operation in Sierra Leone in 2000 is the most recent example of such an operation. Our SDSR therefore measured on working more with allies and international partners to and I quote, share the burden of securing international stability and ensure that collective resources can go further. It identified five priorities, our defence and security relationship with the US, which it described as preeminent. New models of practical bilateral defence and security cooperation with a range of allies and partners, and I'll give one example of that in a moment, an effective and reformed United Nations, NATO as the bedrock of our defence and an outward facing European Union that promotes stability and prosperity. One respected British defence commentator, not unknown to some of you I imagine, was quoted in the Economist recently to the effect that the strategic content of the SDSR amounted to the statement that the UK is America's most loyal ally. I think myself that's an unfair assessment, but the fact remains that the defence and security relationship with the US does remain or most important by some way. We need to keep it fresh, we need to think strategically about how best to give effect to it in the 21st century, and we need to be hardheaded about the fact that Americans will themselves be hardheaded and unsentimental about the pursuit of their national interests. But the value of the relationship from the UK point of view in terms of our national interests, particularly in areas like intelligence cooperation and the nuclear deterrent, is to my mind unquestionable. Where the SDSR does represent at least a shift in emphasis is in the focus at Gears to practical bilateral cooperation with other close allies. Formal multilateral alliances are important, if only because they provide a legal framework within which other things can take place, but in practice successful defence cooperation is more about capabilities and common interest. A good example of this in the UK at the moment is the increasingly important defence relationship with France. The white paper commits the UK Government to strengthen the relationship at all levels and gives as examples the provisions of high readiness joint formations for future operations, the development of joint doctrine and training, the extension of cooperation on acquisition of equipment and technologies, notably complex weapons and unmanned aerial systems, and the alignment of logistics support, for example, prospectively for the new A400M transport aircraft when it arrives. This isn't the first time the two countries have tried to achieve a deeper bilateral relationship and it has to be admitted that previous efforts have not always flourished, but I have to say that this time as we got towards the end of my time on the MOD in London it felt different. There is significant shared interest, the military relationship with the French has always been strong. Both countries face acute financial pressures and it has been increasingly evident that there are things that we might conceivably be capable of doing together which we could not do separately. The emphasis on the UK-France relationship does not however mean neglecting our relationship with the wider EU. The total of white paper observes correctly in mind that the EU's ability to integrate civilian and military responses coherently will become increasingly important and commits the UK to, quote, support EU missions, military or civilian, which are in the UK's national interest, offer good value for money, have clear objectives, and in the case of military missions, only when it is clear that NATO is not planning to intervene end of code. This last point about the relationship between NATO and the EU is to my mind one which, as I was saying to Dahye before the session began, still needs more thought and attention than it has had in the past. The two alliances have substantially overlapping membership, shared values and many shared interests, and at the practical level ought to operate in such a way that they complement each other's skills and capabilities rather than duplicating them at a time when none of our nations can afford it. I realise of course I was without saying that the position of Ireland in all this is different from that of the UK. Anyway, to sum up before we open for questions, where does all this leave UK defence? Well, let me put it this way. I rarely disagree with the economist, which I mentioned earlier. I co-wrote the British cabinet minutes for three and a half years and I couldn't therefore fail to admire a house style that explains even the most familiar reference for future generations of readers, as in Coca-Cola, a large American soft drinks manufacturer. But the addition I mentioned earlier included an argument that the Libyan operation somehow invalidated the SDSR, and I don't believe that to be the case. Had we structured our future force predominantly for long running Afghanistan or Iraq style stabilization campaigns, it would have looked very different from that described in the white paper. It's true, as the economist article observes, that some of the equipment that the review concluded should be taken out of service earlier than previously planned might have been used to good purpose in Libya. But that hasn't prevented us making a very substantial contribution so far to the NATO effort in Libya. The guiding principle of our review was to build in flexibility where we could, the so-called adaptive posture. What Libya demonstrates is both the unpredictability of world events and hence the importance of the adaptive posture, and the dilemma which the international community faces when civilian populations are put at risk or worse by their own governments. This is likely to be a constant in itself, but whether governments in responding to it and reacting to the dilemma will be more influenced if I can caricature it by Shevlarica or by Iraq is much harder to predict. Having said that, I would not over claim for the UK SDSR of 2010 for all the reasons I've given, it took place at a very difficult juncture. The fact that the government is committed to five yearly reviews from now on is extremely welcome. I don't doubt that some of the judgments in the 2010 review will need to be revisited in 2015 or perhaps even earlier. The interesting question then will be whether the financial climate in which my successor will be operating allows the white paper's vision of a flexible, broadly full spectrum defence force for the 2020s actually to be realised.


Our final speaker this morning before our Q&A is of course Lou Rockwell who needs no introduction to most of you The founder of the Mises Institute more than 30 years ago. Also our chairman And what I was thinking as we were driving last night from the airport I'm not sure that since Murray Rothbard died in the 1990s that there's anyone in the West or anyone in the U.S Who for whom we can say has been a more steadfast and consistent? anti-state public intellectual than Lou Rockwell and we appreciate it very much Lou So I'm going to talk about the libertarian principle of secession For a century and a half the idea of secession has been systematically demonized among the American public The government schools spin fairy tales about the indivisible union and the wise statesmen who fought to preserve it Decentralization is portrayed as unsophisticated and backward while nationalism and centralization Are made to seem progressive and inevitable When a smaller political unit wishes Excuse me When a smaller political unit wishes to withdraw from a larger one its motives must be Disreputable and base While the motives of the central power seeking to keep that unit in an arrangement It does not want are portrayed as selfless and patriotic if they're discussed at all as usual disinformation campaigns are meant to take to make potentially Liberating ideas appear toxic and dangerous Conveying the message that anyone who seeks acceptance and popularity ought to steer clear of whatever it is in this case secession the regime is condemned For when we see a problem, but when we set the propaganda aside we discover the support for secession means simply this It is morally illegitimate to deploy state violence against individuals who choose to group themselves differently From the way the existing regime chooses to group them. They prefer to live under a different jurisdiction Libertarians consider it unacceptable to aggress against them for this The libertarian principle of secession It's not exactly embraced with enthusiasm By the people and the institutions I call regime libertarians Although these people tend to be located in and around the Beltway Regime libertarians are not a matter of geographic location, which is why I coined the special term for them The regime libertarian believes in the market economy more or less But talk about the Federal Reserve or Austrian business cycle theory and he gets fidgety His magazine or Institute would far rather invite Jen and yell into a cocktail reception than Ron Paul to a lecture The regime libertarian loves the idea of reform whether it's the Fed government schools or whatever But he flees from the idea of abolition. Why? That's just not respectable He spends his time advocating this or that tax reform effort for example But never discusses the idea of repealing or lowering existing taxes It's too tough to be a libertarian when it comes to anti-discrimination law given how much Flak one is liable to take over it so we'll side with left liberals Even though that's completely incompatible with his stated principles He's anti-war sometimes He can be counted on to support the wars However, that have practically defined the American regime and which remained popular among the general public He sucks and happy concord with supporters the most egregiously unjust wars But his blood boils in moral outrage at someone who told an off-color joke 25 years ago I suppose you can guess where our regime libertarians stand on secession Since the modern American regime emerged out of the violent suppression of the attempted secession of 11 states He too is an opponent of secession If cornered he may grudgingly Endorse secession at a theoretical level, but in practice. He generally seems to support only those acts of secession That have the approval or connivance of the CIA Mentioned secession and the subject immediately turns to the Southern Confederacy Whose moral enormity is the regime libertarian proceeds to denounce And said he running insinuating that supporters of secession must be turning a blind eye to those enormities But every libertarian worthy of the name opposes any government support for slavery centralization Inflation conscription Taxation or the suppression of speech and press it goes without saying We shouldn't be surprised by this kind of charge though accusing libertarians of sympathy for slavery because they oppose wars of centralization is the intellectual cousin of the regime's familiar claim that opponents of the war in Iraq must have secretly supported Saddam Hussein or that Opponents of US intervention in World War one. We're just apologists for the Kaiser We expect juvenile nonsense like this from neo conservatives and from the regime itself When it emerges from the pens of alleged libertarians, it says far more about them and their own allegiances that it does about us As Tom Woods will point out this afternoon the classical liberal or libertarian tradition of support for secession Both such luminaries as Alexis de Tocqueville Richard Comden and Lord Acton among many others But I'd like to take talk about two other figures in the 19th century Liza Andrew Spooner and in the 20th century Frank Chodorov Spooner presents a real problem for the regime libertarians every libertarian acknowledges the greatness and the importance of Spooner The trouble is he was an avowed secessionist As Andrew Spooner was born in Massachusetts in 1808 and went on to become a lawyer an entrepreneur and a political theorist He believed the true justice was not so much a matter of compliance with state with man-made law But a refusal to engage in aggression against peaceful individuals His American letter mail company competed successfully against the US post office Offering better services and lower prices till the government forced it out of business in 1851 His work called the unconstitutionality in his work called the unconstitutionality of slavery Spooner argued that the primary interpretive key and understanding the Constitution was what we now call Original meaning this is different from original understanding the concept referred to by figures like Robert Bork and Antonine Scalia According to this view we should interpret the Constitution according to the original intent of those who drafted it and ratified the document Spooner rejected this what mattered according to Spooner was not the inscrutable intention behind this or that word or passage But the clear meaning of the part of the word or passage itself Furthermore given that human liberty was a mandate of the natural law anytime Constitutional language might appear to run contrary to the principle of liberty We ought to prefer some other meaning of the word in question Even if we have to strain a bit to do so and even if the anti-liberty interpretation is the more natural reading The Spooner could claim contrary to the majority of abolitionists that the Constitution was in fact an anti-slavery document And that is unique and it's a bleak and fleeting references to slavery and the Constitution never used that word Did not have to carry the meanings commonly attributed to them Frederick Douglass the celebrated former slave turned abolitionist writer and speaker adopted Spooner's approach in his own work Spooner's anti-slavery work went well beyond this exercise in constitutional exegesis He provided legal services sometimes pro bono for fugitive slaves and advocated jury nullification as a means of defending the escaped slaves in court His 1858 plan for the abolition of slavery called for insurrection in the south as well as lesser measures such as flogging slaveholders who themselves use the whip And encouraging slaves to confiscate their master's property Spooner's approach was informed by four principles. He said which were the with which he introduced his plan one The slaves have a natural right to their liberty To they have a natural right to compensation so far as the property of the slave owner Can compensate them for the wrongs they have suffered Three that so long as the governments under which they live refuse to give them liberty or compensation They have the right to take it by strategy or force for that is the duty of all who can to assist them in this enterprise Spooner was even a supporter of John Brown and in fact raised money and formulated a plan to kidnap the governor of Virginia until Brown was released In other words, it would be difficult to deny Spooner's dedication to the anti-slavery cause and yet here is Spooner on the so-called civil war Quote on the part of the north the war was carried on not to liberate slaves But by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution to keep the slaves in bondage and was still willing to do So if the slaveholders could thereby be induced to stay in the union But we've on Mises give a succinct expression of the libertarian view of secession when he said no people and no part of a people Shall be held against its will in a political association. It does not want simple According to Spooner the US regime waged the war on behalf of the opposite principle the principle on which the war was waged By the north was simply this That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to and support a government They do not want and that resistance on their part makes them traitors and criminals Spooner continued no principle that it is possible to be named can be more self-evidently false than this or more self-evidently Fatal fatal to all political freedom It had triumphed in the field and is now assumed to be established If it really be established the number of slaves instead of having been diminished by the war has been greatly increased For a man that's subjected to a government that he does not want is a slave And there is no difference in principle, but only in degree between political and chattel slavery The former no less of the latter denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor and Asserts that other men may own him and dispose of him and his property for their own uses and at their own pleasure Spooner was withering on the Lincoln regime and the northern mythology of the war and its allegedly noble origins These were all he said gross shameless Transparent cheats so transparent that they ought to deceive no one By the logic of the regime libertarian Spooner must have been a neo-confederate defender of slavery after all He asserted the southern states right to withdraw from the Union. This is too preposterous even for them Spooner was correct about all this needless to say the war was in fact launched not to free the slaves as any historian must concede But for the purposes of mysticism why the sacred Union must be preserved and on behalf of economic interests The regime libertarian expects us to believe that the analysis we apply to all other wars in which we look beneath the official Rationals to the true motivations does not apply to this single Glorious exception to the catalogue of crimes that constitute the story of mankind's experience with military aggression Let's turn out of the second libertarian figure. I've chosen to discuss today Frank Chodorov was one of the great writers of the old Right Liberty fund publishes a collection of his essays the Mises Institute publishes some of his books and they're Available in the bookstore today Chodorov founded what was then called the intercollegiate Society of individualists and served as editor of an editor of human events where the early presence of Felix Morley Ensure that non-interventionist voices at least in the beginning to get a hearing Marian Rothbard considered Chodorov's monthly journal analysis to be one of the great independent publications in American history We're very glad to have the complete run of analysis in the Mises Institute archives Naturally Chodorov supported both the session and states rights In fact, he thought every school child should quote become familiar with the history and theory of what we call states rights But with really just the doctrine of home rule Ralph Raco the great libertarian historian and senior fellow of the Mises Institute has documented how the decentralized Political order of Europe made possible the emergence of liberty The lack of a single political authority uniting Europe and to the contrary a vast Multiplicity of small jurisdictions place a strict limit on the ambition of any particular prince The ability to move from one place to another meant that a prince would be loses tax base if he if his oppressions grew intolerable Chodorov made a similar observation Quote when the individual is free to move from one jurisdiction to another a limit is put on the extent to which the government May use its monopoly power Government is held in restraint by the fear of losing its tax-paying citizens Just as the loss of customers tends to keep other monopolies from getting too arrogant Chodorov noted in the in the years leading up to the New Deal in 1933 various states embarked upon quasi Socialistic experiments who referred to a Wisconsin law passed early on the depression that required restaurants to serve two ounces of Wisconsin-made cheese with every meal whether the patron wanted it or not He mentioned the platform of the farm labor party which emerged in several states What caused these and other schemes to fail was people's ability to move their capital and their physical bodies across state lines The federal government socialism on the other hand in Chodorov's words Could be made to operate somehow only because there was no escape from its constabulary No tyrant ever supports divided or decentralized power which is why 20th century totalitarians were such opponents of federalism By the way Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf specifically denounces secession and federalism So the US regime too has devoted over two centuries to dismantling the barriers the states once imposed to the untrammeled exercise of power As Chodorov put it quote the unlikelihood of getting the states to vote themselves out of existence turn the centralizers to other means Such as bribing the state authorities patronage alienating the loyalties of the citizens with federal subsidies Establishing within the states independent administrative bodies to manage federal works programs Here's our Chodorov concludes Quote there is no end of trouble the states can give the centralizers by merely refusing to cooperate Such refusal would meet with popular acclaim if it were supplemented with a campaign of education on the meaning of states rights in terms of human freedom In fact the educational part of such a secessionist movement should be given the first importance And those who are plumping for a third party because both existing parties are centralist and character Would do well to nail to their master at this banner secession of the 48 states from Washington Now there's a libertarian speaking Secession is not a popular idea among the political and media classes in America to be sure and regime libertarians may roll their eyes at it But a recent poll found that about a quarter of Americans are sympathetic to the idea Despite the ceaseless barrage of nationalist propaganda emitted from all sides a Result like this confirms what we already suspect that a substantial chunk of the public is willing to entertain unconventional thoughts And that's all to the good Conventional American thoughts are war centralization redistribution and inflation The most unconventional thought in America today is liberty