Keen On Democracy

“The rules-based system just hasn't worked. China's system is so opaque that you can't see the subsidies. And when you've got China not interested in new rules and the US not interested in a referee, you've got two of the world's biggest actors who aren't on board.” — Soumaya Keynes It would have been nice to get John Maynard Keynes on the show to get his critique of Trump's trade war. But in the long run, we're all dead — even old Maynard. So instead, we found his great-great-niece, Soumaya Keynes — Financial Times columnist and co-author of How to Win a Trade War: An Optimistic Guide to an Anxious Global Economy. Having already appeared on Jon Stewart this week, Soumaya has a bit of Keynesian star quality about her. But she's also a first-rate economist. Her thesis is that the old rules-based trading system that her great-great-uncle helped design after World War II is gone. And it ain't coming back. China's subsidies are so opaque that rules can't be written to constrain them, let alone enforced. The US is no longer willing to submit to a referee. Without the two biggest players, no rules-based system is meaningful. So — now what? Keynes says we must think like a trade warrior. Donald Trump should leverage the tools available — but use them strategically. Trump's error in his second term was not being tough on China while being too tough on everyone else, especially allies like Canada and Mexico. Soumaya Keynes' most contemporary idea might be her most Keynesian one. John Maynard Keynes proposed penalties for countries running large trade surpluses as well as those running deficits — recognising that global imbalances are a two-sided problem. That idea didn't make it into the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement. Eighty years later, in equally anxious economic times, his optimistic great-great-niece is reviving it. Five Takeaways •       Can Trade Wars Be Won? Yes, Sometimes: The conventional wisdom: no one wins a trade war. Keynes and Bown agree — in theory. In practice, countries in a weaker position cave. History has examples: France in the late nineteenth century told its trading partners they were renegotiating treaties, and the smaller partners complied. Trump's tariffs in his first term produced concessions. The problem is not that trade wars can't be won. It's that the smaller power's only defence — coordinating with other smaller powers — is extremely hard to sustain. There's always an incentive to cut a deal first. •       China Is the Doper on the Sports Field: Keynes's sharpest analogy: the global trading system is like a sports game that needs rules to ensure a level playing field. China's subsidies — cheap credit, corporate handouts, opaque support for state-linked companies — are the equivalent of performance-enhancing drugs. The problem is that unlike doping in sport, China's subsidies are invisible. You can write a rule saying China won't give these handouts. But you can't verify compliance. And without enforcement, rules are meaningless. The WTO has not solved this. Nothing has solved this. •       Trump Was Right About China, Wrong About Everything Else: Keynes is careful here. She credits Robert Lighthizer in Trump's first term with identifying China as the real problem and building a focused strategy. In the second term, Trump put tariffs on everyone simultaneously — which dissipated leverage, alienated the coalition of allies needed to pressure Beijing, and mixed up the problem of China's subsidies with grievances against Canada, Mexico, and the EU. If you were genuinely tough on China, you wouldn't have put tariffs on everyone. You would have been more targeted. •       The Rules-Based System Is Gone and Isn't Coming Back: Why can't we return to the system Keynes's great-great-uncle helped build? Two reasons. China's subsidies are too opaque to write enforceable rules against. And the US has lost confidence in any international referee — a long and complex story, but the result is that America won't submit to neutral adjudication. Without the two biggest players, no rules-based system is meaningful. Yearning for the old approach is not an option. A new strategy is needed — and that's what the book is about. •       AI and the Next Trade War: Services: AI is central to the US-China conflict already — chip restrictions, military advantage, economic supremacy. But Keynes's less-noticed observation: AI could fundamentally reshape international services trade. The UK, for example, is a massive services exporter — finance, legal, consulting, accounting. If AI eliminates demand for those services, the UK faces a new current account crisis, new trade tensions, a new wave of economic conflict. Nobody knows how this plays out. Which is why, she suggests, the tools in the book will remain relevant for longer than the current tariff cycle. About the Guests Soumaya Keynes is an economics columnist at the Financial Times and host of The Economics Show with Soumaya Keynes. Before joining the FT she spent eight years at The Economist. She co-founded the Trade Talks podcast with Chad Bown during Trump's first term. Chad P. Bown is the Reginald Jones Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and former Chief Economist at the US State Department under President Biden. Together they are the authors of How to Win a Trade War: An Optimistic Guide to an Anxious Global Economy (Simon & Schuster, May 26, 2026). References: •       How to Win a Trade War: An Optimistic Guide to an Anxious Global Economy by Soumaya Keynes and Chad P. Bown (Simon & Schuster, May 26, 2026). •       Soumaya Keynes on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, May 19, 2026 — referenced in the interview. •       Episode 2892: Jason Pack on the Iran war — the companion episode on America's strategic distractions from the China problem. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouT...

“The end of labor means the end of paid slavery. And the opening up of freedom — that is to say, choice of how to spend your time. The only question, a big question, is how do you eat?” — Keith Teare Does capitalism have a future in our AI age? For Musk, Silicon Valley's baddest bad entrepreneur, the answer might surprise. Musk seems to think that in the long run, money and wealth will disappear in an age of abundant intelligence. Which, presumably, will include hundreds of billions of his own dollars. Although given Musk's determination to sue and take money from OpenAI, some might be slightly sceptical of his real faith in a post-money cornucopia. It's not just Musk and That Was the Week publisher Keith Teare who are reimagining capitalism in our AI age. The former World Bank chief economist, Branko Milanovic, drawing on Karl Marx and Adam Smith in equal measure, argues that if AI eliminates the labor component of production, things will become free — thereby creating the conditions for the destruction of capitalism. Keith agrees — and goes further than Milanovic. The end of paid labor, he insists, borrowing also from Marx, is not a catastrophe. It's the end of what he calls “paid slavery” and the opening of genuine freedom. I'm not so sure. If nobody has to work, we'll all become bad artists. The cult of the amateur. The future is of bad entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and even worse artists. Hyper-capitalism in our age of AI. Five Takeaways •       The Musk-OpenAI Trial: A Big Yawn That Cost Millions: An Oakland jury rejected Elon Musk's claim against OpenAI in under two hours — not because OpenAI didn't do what Musk alleged, but because the statute of limitations had expired. Someone should have caught this before two weeks of trial. Musk has vowed to appeal, but it's hard to see how you get around a statute of limitations. Keith's verdict: sideshow, big yawn, ego contest. The lawyers won. The real question — who owns OpenAI after it converts to for-profit — was never going to be answered here. •       Sam Altman's Credibility Problem: The New York Times took five takeaways from the trial, one of which was that Sam Altman has a credibility problem. Keith's response: not new information. What the trial did reveal is the depth of mutual animosity between Musk and Altman — two people who, despite everything, share more beliefs about where AI is going than almost anyone else in the world. Keith on who he'd back in a Stalin vs Hitler choice: Stalin, 100 times out of 100. Which is not to say he's enthusiastic about either. •       Krugman on Europe: Right Analysis, Wrong Conclusion: Paul Krugman, touring Europe, argues that GDP per capita understates European quality of life. A third of US income buys more than a third of US lifestyle in Europe — healthcare, education, travel, housing are all significantly cheaper. Keith agrees with the analysis. His counter: Europe's structural hostility to innovation means it can maintain its lifestyle but not grow it. The social democratic model is sustainable until it isn't. It needs to unlock innovation or it will slowly fall behind. Hard to do when you're spending your time writing regulations. •       Milanovic's AI Thesis: When Things Are Free: Branko Milanovic — Marxist and neoclassical economist — argues that if AI eliminates the labor component of production, value in the classical Adam Smith/Ricardo/Marx sense disappears, and things approach free. Keith agrees and goes further: this isn't just Marxist logic, it's classical economics. The organic composition of capital. If variable capital — mostly labor — tends toward zero, costs tend toward zero, prices tend toward zero, and the distinction between capitalism and its opposite dissolves. Musk says the same thing. Agree or disagree, it's the most interesting economic argument of our time. •       The End of Paid Labor Is the End of Paid Slavery: Keith's most provocative position. The end of paid labor is not something to fear. It is freedom — the opening up of genuine choice about how to spend your time. What remains are human-to-human activities: care work, travel companionship, live music, the masseur. These will be in demand. They just won't constitute most of what 8 billion people do. The question of how the previously employed population participates in society — eats, lives, has purpose — is real and large. Keith's position: it's not an inconceivable problem. Andrew's counter: if nobody has to work, we'll all become bad artists. About the Guest Keith Teare is a British-American entrepreneur, investor, and publisher of the That Was the Week newsletter. He is a co-founder of TechCrunch and Andrew's regular TWTW co-host. References: •       That Was the Week by Keith Teare. •       Branko Milanovic, “Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Capitalism from a Marxist and Neoclassical Point of View,” Substack. •       Paul Krugman, “Is Europe in Economic Decline?” The New York Times / Substack. •       Episode 2910: Keith Teare and Jonathan Rauch on AI — the preceding special edition, directly referenced. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters:  

“Maps are communicating vast quantities of new knowledge that was only estimated. They convey this imaginative energy — an imaginative energy that maps today have lost, because today maps are so functional, so utilitarian.” — Peter Keating In the sixteenth century, Spanish cartographers represented California as an island. They weren't being careless. Nor were they drawing New Yorker covers. These 16th century cartographers were, instead, mapping the limits of both what they knew and what they imagined. Cartography is as much an art as a science and maps always mirror how we see the world. Thus Peter Keating's beautifully illustrated new book, Power Lines: Maps That Shaped the Way We See the World. Assembling nearly 100 of history's most consequential political maps, Keating's thesis is that maps are not neutral. They are arguments. Every map centers something — a religion, an empire, a people — and pushes something else to the margins. The story of cartography, then, is the story of power. Five Takeaways •       California Was an Island: The Power of Imagined Geography: In the sixteenth century, Spanish cartographers drew California as a large island off the coast of America. They weren't being careless — they were mapping the edge of what was known and imaginable. Before any map can draw a border, Keating argues, it has to decide what is real. The T-and-O medieval maps placed Jerusalem at the center of the world, with the biblically admitted lands of Europe, Africa, and Asia radiating outward. Only slowly, and with great difficulty, did the Western cartographic tradition absorb the fact that there was a whole continent between their imagination and the Pacific. •       The Oldest Tension in Cartography: Sacred vs Scientific: Keating identifies two traditions in constant tension throughout Western history. The cosmographical tradition: center what you know and believe, place your gods and sacred lands at the middle of the world, and mix fantasy with inquiry. The scientific tradition: starting with Ptolemy in ancient Greece and independently in ancient China, create maps that generals and kings could actually use to expand territory, find resources, and identify enemies. With Rome's Christianisation, the cosmographical tradition dominated for nearly a thousand years. The Ptolemaic scientific tradition only re-emerged with the Renaissance and exploration. •       Poland: The Most Erased Country in Cartographic History: Keating's answer to his own question — which country has been wiped off maps most often yet survived? Poland. It disappeared from maps at least three times, divided and partitioned by more geographically fortunate powers — Habsburgs, Russians, Nazis — whose cultural and military might seemed overwhelming. And yet Poland survived every erasure in the hearts of its people. A 1956 map of Poland as a carnation, published by the communist government as a May Day celebration, reads — Keating argues — as subversive under the surface: a nation asserting its existence against the regime that claimed to represent it. •       Lincoln's Favorite Map: The Slave Density Survey: The most powerful map in the book: the 1861 Coast Survey, a non-ideological government project that shaded American counties by the density of enslaved populations. Lincoln studied it obsessively. He reasoned that where enslaved people were densest, Union troops could arrive as liberators and find support. Where they were rare — in predominantly white areas of the South — he could pursue accommodation and peace. The map shaped the Emancipation Proclamation's geography. And because enslaved populations had settled where the delta soils were richest, the map also explains the cultural and political geography of the American South today. •       The Two-Color Election Map Is Making Democracy Worse: Every two years, Americans are shown the same red-and-blue electoral map. Keating's verdict: it is a bad projection, a winner-take-all distortion, and a representation of the Electoral College's biases rather than actual political sentiment. Research shows that two-color maps increase cynicism, cause people to underestimate the number of fellow-partisans in other states, and erode faith in politics. In a democracy, maps should reflect actual political support. The United States is overdue for population-based electoral maps. About the Guest Peter Keating is a narrative journalist whose work has appeared in GQ, Mother Jones, National Geographic, and Politico. He was a longtime columnist and founding member of the Investigative Unit at ESPN, where he was part of teams that won three National Magazine Awards. He is the author of Power Lines: Maps That Shaped the Way We See the World (Black Dog & Leventhal, May 12, 2026) and Dingers! A Short History of the Long Ball. He lives in Montclair, New Jersey. References: •       Power Lines: Maps That Shaped the Way We See the World by Peter Keating (Black Dog & Leventhal, May 12, 2026). •       Saul Steinberg's “View of the World from 9th Avenue,” The New Yorker, 1976 — the famous New Yorker cover discussed in the interview. •       Episode 2908: Audun Dahl on moral judgements — the parallel episode on how framing shapes perception. •       Episode 2909: Adrian Goldsworthy on Athens and Sparta — referenced in the conversation. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - California as an island: sixteenth-century Spanish maps (02:14) - What imagined maps teach us: the limits of knowledge (04:30) - The New Yorker cover of 1976: New York's view of the world (05:22) - Two traditions in tension: cosmographical vs scientific (08:13) - Geo...

“Fascism is the term that is everywhere and nowhere in contemporary political discussions. We can talk about right-wing populism — but the type of politics they share with classic fascism is what I call red pill politics.” — David Ost Please don't use the F-word. At least to describe the politics of Trump, Orbán, Meloni, Netanyahu, Modi, Farage et al. Rather than fascism, the best way to demystify far-right populism is via the movie The Matrix through its idea of “red pill” politics. David Ost's new book, Red Pill Politics: Demystifying Today's Far Right, argues that to grasp the threat we need to stop stepping out of the Third Reich and into The Matrix. The red pill, borrowed from the 1999 dystopian classic, has been appropriated by the far right as a metaphor for seeing through the liberal hegemony they claim distorts reality. Popping a red pill himself, Ost argues that while today's far right shares the essential DNA of classical fascism, it nonetheless operates in a world in which outright dictatorship isn't viable. Mussolini, Ost warns, didn't become totalitarian until four years after taking power. Fascism, then, is a process. It takes time. Even dystopias require patience. The book is also a manifesto for left counter-politics. Yes, Law and Justice in Poland and Orbán in Hungary have both been voted out, Ost acknowledges. But in Poland, he warns, the Tusk government won power in 2023 and then governed timidly, afraid of alienating the center, failing its own base on abortion and LGBT rights, and then losing the presidential election. So the lesson from Eastern Europe is that economic left populism, not liberal caution, is the best antidote to red pill politics. Mamdani not Starmer. Otherwise the F-word will once again become a reality. Five Takeaways •       The F-Word Has Become Meaningless: Every application of “fascism” to Trump, Orbán, or Meloni is immediately met with the counter: “Are we killing you? Are we throwing you in jail?” And seemingly the matter is put to rest. Ost's argument: the f-word has become a conversation-stopper rather than a conversation-starter. It lets the far right off the hook by setting the bar at Nazi-level violence. The actual threat — the delegitimisation of institutions, the treatment of opponents as traitors, the erosion of democratic norms — is already underway, without the gas chambers that the f-word implies. •       Opponents vs Traitors: The Defining Distinction: In a democracy, you have opponents. You disagree with them, you campaign against them, you try to vote them out. In far-right politics, you have traitors. People who disagree with you are not legitimate participants in a political contest — they are enemies of the nation, people who do not belong, people who are working against the interests of the real people. This distinction — not violence, not the gas chambers, but the redefinition of legitimate opposition as treachery — is Ost's clearest marker of the transition from normal democratic politics to something else. •       Mussolini's Four Years: How Long Before Dictatorship? When Mussolini first came to power, there were still elections. He tried to rig the game — to gerrymander, to use contemporary parlance — and institutionalise his authority. He only turned to outright dictatorship after four years in power. That was a different time. But the pattern — of coming to power through elections and then slowly making it impossible to be removed through elections — is not unique to Italy. Ost argues we may currently be in the equivalent of Mussolini's first four years in several countries simultaneously. •       What Eastern Europe Teaches America: The Tusk Warning: Law and Justice in Poland governed for eight years and was voted out in 2023. The lesson should be hopeful. But the coalition that replaced it, led by Donald Tusk, governed timidly — afraid of doing anything that might alienate the center, failing to deliver on abortion rights and domestic partnerships, and then lost the presidential election. Ost's verdict: a Biden mistake. When the center-left or left comes to power, it must be consequentially left populist — not just different from the right in tone and temperament, but materially different in what it does for regular people. Caution is its own kind of failure. •       Mamdani as Real-World Exhibit A: Ost was writing the book when Zohran Mamdani won the New York City Democratic mayoral primary. Mamdani campaigned explicitly to speak to voters who had voted for Trump — asking why they were moving in that direction and arguing that a universalist left could speak to their material concerns without abandoning minorities. For Ost, this is the model: economic populism that is genuinely redistributionist, that speaks to small cities and rural areas, that is tough on the issues rather than cautious about public opinion. A left that actually stands for something. About the Guest David Ost is an emeritus professor of politics at Hobart and William Smith Colleges. He is the author of Red Pill Politics: Demystifying Today's Far Right (The New Press, May 19, 2026), The Defeat of Solidarity: Anger and Politics in Postcommunist Europe, Solidarity and the Politics of Anti-Politics, and other books. He has written for a wide range of scholarly and popular publications, has done research in Polish factories, and once drove a NYC taxi. He lives in Ithaca, New York. References: •       Red Pill Politics: Demystifying Today's Far Right by David Ost (The New Press, May 19, 2026). •       Jonathan Rauch, “Yes, It's Fascism,” The Atlantic — the piece Andrew references at the opening, and the episode we produced around it. •       Jason Stanley, How Fascism Works — cited as the book Ost's is in conversation with. •       Steven Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die — Levitsky blurbs the book. •       Episode 2894: Marc Loustau on making Hungary boring again — the companion episode on Orbán's defeat, referenced directly. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTube

“Retirement is a false construct created a hundred years ago by the government. It was basically created when Social Security was born. Prior to that, people worked until they died — because they didn't live as long.” — Michael Clinton At the ripe young age of 70, Michael Clinton hiked nine days to Everest Base Camp and ran the Tenzing-Hillary Marathon down. Now 72, he is president of his own longevity consultancy, a columnist for Esquire and Men's Health, a private pilot, part-owner of a vineyard in Argentina, and the author of Longevity Nation: The People, Ideas, and Trends Changing the Second Half of Our Lives (Atria/Beyond Words, May 5, 2026). Rather than about living forever, Longevity Nation dares us to redefine what the second half of our lives can look like. And Clinton wants us to reinvent society accordingly. A hundred years ago, he reminds us, only seven million Americans were over 65. Today there are 62 million, which will quickly grow to 80 million. The whole world is aging, and its institutions are not keeping up. Retirement, Michael Clinton explains, is a false construct invented a century ago by industrial age governments. Rewire, the septuagenarian marathoner says. Don't retire. Five Takeaways •       This Is What 72 Looks Like Today: Clinton's opening provocation: at 70, he hiked to Everest Base Camp and ran the marathon down. He's visited 125 countries, run marathons on all seven continents, holds two master's degrees, and is a private pilot. His point is not to brag. It is that the cultural image of what 70 or 80 looks like has not caught up with the reality of what a subset of 70 and 80-year-olds — and, increasingly, a growing proportion of 70 and 80-year-olds — actually look like and are capable of. When he was 40, 72 seemed ancient. Now he is 72. It doesn't. •       GLP-1: Hotel California or Longevity's First Democratised Drug? The sharpest exchange in the interview. Andrew's framing: GLP-1 is Hotel California — you can check in but not check out. Stop taking it and the weight and inflammation return. Clinton's response: yes, that seems to be the story right now, and nobody knows the long-term play. But GLP-1 is coming to Medicare this summer, price cut in half, and it may become the first truly democratised longevity drug — reducing obesity, inflammation, and cardiovascular risk across the income spectrum, not just for the wealthy. Exciting and uncertain in equal measure. •       Retirement Is a False Construct: Social Security was created at a moment when most Americans died before collecting it. Life expectancy was 62. The retirement age was 65. The construct was built for a world that no longer exists. Clinton's prescription: don't retire. Rewire. You don't have to do the same thing, but do something. Stay engaged. Stay purposeful. If you're 65 and live another thirty years, the retirement construct — move to Florida, play golf, wait — is not merely insufficient. It is actively harmful to cognitive and physical health. •       Longevity Nation vs Gerontocracy: Andrew raises the counter-argument: is longevity nation actually gerontocracy? Trump, Biden, Trump. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Nancy Pelosi. A class of elderly people who won't step aside, hoarding power and preventing generational renewal. Clinton's response: he is opposed to formal retirement ages for anyone. His answer to the political hoarding of power is not age limits but engagement — people need purpose, and purpose should be redirected, not cut off. Andrew's unspoken counter: this is easy to say when you're not the one being blocked by an eighty-year-old senator. •       Who Do You Want Around Your Deathbed? Clinton's most personal observation, via the book he co-authored: as you think about living longer, ask yourself — who are the five people you would want around your deathbed? And are you maintaining those relationships? The grandson of a funeral director, Clinton has a different relationship with death than most. His prescription: the longer you live, the more important it becomes to keep your closest relationships strong. Longevity without community is not longevity. It is just duration. About the Guest Michael Clinton is the former president and publishing director of Hearst Magazines, founder of Roar Forward, and the author of Longevity Nation: The People, Ideas, and Trends Changing the Second Half of Our Lives (Atria/Beyond Words, May 5, 2026) and Roar: Into the Second Half of Your Life (Before It's Too Late). He is a columnist for Men's Health and Esquire, a private pilot, a marathon runner on all seven continents, and a part-owner of a vineyard in Argentina. He lives in New York City and Water Mill, Long Island. References: •       Longevity Nation: The People, Ideas, and Trends Changing the Second Half of Our Lives by Michael Clinton (Atria/Beyond Words, May 5, 2026). •       Stanford Center on Longevity, New Map of Life — cited by Clinton as one of the major research frameworks behind the book. •       Samuel Moyn, Gerontocratic Nation — the Yale professor's forthcoming counter-argument, referenced by Andrew. •       Cara Swisher, Cara Swisher Wants to Live Forever — the CNN series referenced at the opening as the sceptical counterpart to Clinton's optimism. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - Introduction: Cara Swisher wants to live forever (01:33) - How old are you, Michael? 72 and proud (01:57) - The Everest Base Camp hike at 70 (02:17) - Is the longevity boom a coastal elite phenomenon? (03:15) - A hundred years ago: seven million over-65s; today, 62 million (03:46) - The cultural shift:...

“Soccer matches are poorly designed experiments — you don't necessarily find out which team was better. But any soccer fan will tell you that. Oftentimes, the better team does not win.” — Nick Greene, via a NASA scientist On June 11, the World Cup comes to North America. Fifty-six years ago, I watched the searing injustice of Johann Cruyff's Holland getting robbed in the 1974 final by Germany. Today I talk with someone who explains how this kind of injustice is built into the game's DNA. Nick Greene — long-suffering Newcastle United fan and author of How to Watch Basketball Like a Genius — has a new book, How to Watch Soccer Like a Genius, which tells us what architects, stuntwomen, paleoanthropologists and computer scientists tell us about the beautiful game. What they tell us is that the game isn't fair. One NASA scientist tells Greene that soccer is a “poorly designed experiment” because the low-scoring nature of the game means results don't reliably identify the better team. Thus the dark fate of the free-scoring, brilliantly inventive Hungarians in 1954 and the Dutch in 1974. So if you want to watch the World Cup like a genius, don't expect the best team to win the tournament. Which may explain why Greene suspects that England — where the pain of World Cup injustice is a national fetish — will win in 2026. On penalties probably. Arsenal style. After 120 minutes of goalless football. Five Takeaways •       Soccer Is a Poorly Designed Experiment: A NASA scientist published a peer-reviewed paper concluding that soccer is a “poorly designed experiment” — the low number of goals means results don't reliably identify the better team. Greene's observation: any soccer fan could have told him that, and saved the journal space. But this is also what makes the game what it is. Unlike basketball's seven-game playoff series — which gives the best team enough chances to emerge on top — a single World Cup match, in a single-elimination tournament, means one error can have outsized consequences. The imperfect and the human are inseparable. •       Justice Has Nothing to Do With It: The 1974 Dutch vs 2004 Greece: Andrew's most painful memory: the 1974 World Cup final, where the magnificent Dutch side led by Cruyff was beaten by the Germans. The Dutch didn't win, but they are remembered as one of the greatest teams in history. The 2004 Greek side, which won Euro 2004 by parking the bus and grinding nil-nil victories, actually won — and are remembered as a fluke. The lesson Greene draws: the shared understanding built into soccer watching is that winning is only one metric, and often not the most important one. It is an imperfect and profoundly human enterprise. •       How to Appreciate Defense: The cliché American complaint about soccer is the low scoring. Greene's response: this is partly a failure to appreciate defense, which in soccer can look like the absence of good offense. He discusses Italy's history of outstanding defensive play — the Catenaccio system, Paolo Maldini, Beckenbauer — and the intelligence required to prevent goals. Andrew's contribution: his wife, who watches American football, taught him that defense is where the sophistication lives. The same is true of soccer. The genius watcher watches the defenders. •       VAR: Too Much, Going in the Right Direction: Greene's measured verdict on VAR — video assistant refereeing. His worst case: when it ruins a goal celebration. The player scores, the crowd erupts, the flag goes up, three minutes of review, okay everyone start celebrating again. That destroys the cathartic moment that makes soccer's rare goals so electrifying. His prediction: VAR will evolve toward the coach's challenge model used in American football and basketball — a limited number of challenges per half, preserving the flow of the game while correcting the worst errors. It's relatively young. It'll be futted and fidgeted with. •       Don't Bet On It. Watch the Game: Greene's best advice for American newcomers to soccer. Not about tactics, not about history. Betting on soccer is a mug's game — partly because results don't reliably reflect the better team (the NASA paper again), and partly because talking about your bets is the least interesting conversation you can have about sport. His prediction for the tournament: England. Reasoning: Harry Kane is playing. Andrew's reaction: Kane is a Spurs man, so reluctant endorsement. But please, Nick. Don't. About the Guest Nick Greene is a contributing writer at Slate and the author of How to Watch Soccer Like a Genius: What Architects, Stuntwomen, Paleoanthropologists, and Computer Scientists Reveal About the World's Game (Abrams Press, May 12, 2026) and How to Watch Basketball Like a Genius (Abrams Press, 2021). His work has appeared in the Washington Post, Chicago Magazine, and elsewhere. He is a Newcastle United fan and lives in Berkeley, California. References: •       How to Watch Soccer Like a Genius by Nick Greene (Abrams Press, May 12, 2026). •       Simon Kuper, Going to the Match — referenced in the introduction as a recent KOA episode on nine consecutive World Cups. •       Franklin Foer, How Soccer Explains the World — referenced as the prior KOA World Cup episode. •       David Winner, Brilliant Orange: The Neurotic Genius of Dutch Soccer — blurbed the book; relevant to the 1974 Dutch discussion. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: 

“The dangers are human, not AI. What's dangerous is what a human does with AI, not what the AI does itself. In fact, even the idea that there is such a thing as the AI in itself is a mistake.” — Keith Teare I'm in Korea this week. So rather than doing a traditional one-on-one That Was the Week tech summary, Keith Teare and I are trying something different. We invited Jonathan Rauch — Brookings Institution senior fellow, serial author and one of the most rigorous minds in Washington — onto the show to discuss AI. Rauch had a simple mission. He wanted to find out why Keith Teare is just about the only person in the universe who believes that AI is benign. Jon had five buckets of doom to dump on Keith: labour market disruption, political upheaval, mental health and cognition, malicious actors, and the biggest daddy of all — AI developing consciousness, setting its own agenda, and killing everyone (even Keith). But Keith maintained his Yorkshire stoicism under intense scrutiny from the analogue Rauch machine. AI is a word-counting machine, he explained. Large language models train on words, not experience. They split words into a probabilistic graph of correlations. When you ask a question, a large statistical engine fires, word by word. In that sense, he says, AI is no cleverer than a calculator. The idea that it has awareness, consciousness, or a plan is mythological. What's dangerous is what a human does with AI, not what AI does itself. The dangers, he says, are human. Jon wasn't entirely reassured (his Brookings brand is scepticism, after all). What worries him most is that humans will handle these technologies irresponsibly. On that, he and Keith agree. The short-term labour disruption will be significant. White-collar service provision — legal, accounting, junior consulting — is already going. Jobs will go too. Work, Keith insists, will not. But nobody in politics is having the conversation about what comes next. Not JD. Not AOC. Only Keith and Jon. Five Takeaways •       AI Is a Word-Counting Machine: Keith's Core Argument: Large language models train on words and only words. They split those words into a probabilistic graph — how close is word A to word B? When you ask a question, a large statistical engine fires, producing output word by word. There is no awareness. There is no consciousness. There is no plan. The idea that such a system could develop its own agenda is mythological. It's no cleverer than a calculator. It's just a very big, very fast calculator. Rauch's counter: the brain is also just dumb neurons. We get emergence from dumb neurons. Keith's reply: what the AI can do is constrained by what humans allow it to do. The agency is human. •       Doomerism as Business Model: Before engaging with any specific AI doom argument, Keith signals a prior: whenever there is ambiguity in a major technological change, a business model emerges to monetize doubt. It was true of nuclear power. It was true of climate change. It is true of AI. This doesn't mean the fears are groundless — they wouldn't sell if they weren't reasonable. But it means they should be approached with prior scepticism. The doom argument works precisely because AI genuinely contains possible negative outcomes. The business model packages and amplifies those possibilities beyond their actual probability. •       The Guardrails Are Human: Keith's metaphor: AI sits in a prison where humans decide what the doors are. If you give it access to email, it can email. If you don't, it can't. It cannot take actions it has not been permitted to take. The word “guardrails” is commonly used, and it's apt: the constraints on what AI can do are entirely under human control. The word output is the statistical engine — that's not controllable. But its ability to act on words is highly constrained. The danger is not what AI does. It is what humans choose to allow AI to do. •       Jobs vs Work: The Labour Disruption Argument: Rauch's young friends in junior consulting are watching their jobs go in real time. Keith distinguishes between jobs — paid labour — and work, which is closer to effort and creative agency. Jobs can go. Work, he argues, will not — humans will always be reinterpreting the future they want and working to make it happen. But the short-term disruption will be significant: white-collar service provision (legal, accounting, consulting), teaching, driving. The wealth creation AI enables could supplement the end of paid labour. But no one in government is having that conversation. •       Rauch's Verdict: Clarified, Not Reassured: After fifty minutes with Keith Teare, Jonathan Rauch reaches a considered position: his worst fear — that AI becomes an autonomous engine of anti-human malfeasance — is unlikely to happen unless humans make it happen. His residual concern: that humans will not handle these technologies as maturely as one could wish. He's not optimistic about political systems that are already too rigid, too partisan, and too dysfunctional to adjust as they did to the industrialization of the late nineteenth century. On that, he and Keith agree. Nobody knows. Not Keith. Not Andrew. And, despite his brilliance, not Jonathan Rauch. About the Guests Keith Teare is a British-American entrepreneur, investor, and publisher of the That Was the Week newsletter. He is a co-founder of TechCrunch. Jonathan Rauch is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing writer at The Atlantic. He is the author of The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth, The Happiness Curve, Kindly Inquisitors, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, and many other books. He is based in Washington, D.C. References: •       That Was the Week by Keith Teare. •       The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth by Jonathan Rauch. •       Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares, If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies — the AI doom book referenced in the conversation. •       Sam Harris and Tristan Harris podcast on AI risk — referenced by Rauch as the catalyst for his questions. •       Episode 2902: Keith Teare on his jobless AI future vision — the preceding TWTW episode directly referenced. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. 

“History is really interesting because it's about people. And people are interesting. So there are plenty of different ways of doing this, and I think there's room for everybody.” — Adrian Goldsworthy The greatest rivalry in antiquity is also uncomfortably relevant to us today. In Athens and Sparta: The Rivalry That Shaped Ancient Greece, the classical scholar Adrian Goldsworthy covers the long fifth century BC, from the Persian Wars that forced Athens and Sparta into alliance, through the Peloponnesian War that set them against each other. The parallels of the rivalry between Sparta and Athens are uncannily relevant today. Goldsworthy traces the NATO-like structure of the Athenian alliance, with its familiar complaint that the allies weren't paying enough. He notes that Athens, which outgrew its ability to grow its own food, had to secure its grain supply from the Black Sea — in the same way as closing the Straits of Hormuz has disrupted modern supply chains. And he observes that the Spartans won the Peloponnesian War by getting Persian money — while the Athenians were doing exactly the same thing. Persia, he notes, is always lurking in the background. There would be no “west” without it. Five Takeaways •       Athens and Sparta: Two Experiments, One Greek Longing: Both city states were driven by the same competitive Greek impulse — the desire to excel, to be the best. But they ran radically different experiments in how to achieve it. Athens: radical democracy, open society, maritime empire, philosophy, drama. Sparta: apartheid military state, in which a tiny Spartan elite was freed from all labour by a vast population of helots, so that they could devote their entire lives to being warriors and citizens. Two models for a polity that still structure political argument today. •       Thucydides: Essential but Embittered: The History of the Peloponnesian War is the essential source — and the problematic one. Thucydides was an Athenian general who failed to save a city from a Spartan-led force and went into exile as a result. He is analytical and apparently balanced in ways that seem modern. But he cannot hide his biases: the demagogue Cleon gets speeches written for him that make him look like a self-interested buffoon. And his silences are as revealing as his words — large events, including an Athenian disaster in Egypt, are mentioned only vaguely. He tells us what he wants to tell. •       The NATO Parallel: They Weren't Paying Enough: The Delian League — the Athenian alliance that emerged after the Persian Wars — has a structural similarity to NATO that Goldsworthy notes carefully. Athens, like the United States, is the dominant naval power that has mobilised for a great threat and then chosen not to demobilise. The allies, like European NATO members in successive administrations' complaints, weren't willing to send ships or men. They'd just send a bit of cash. The Athenian fleet ends up overwhelmingly Athenian. As the threat recedes, the other states increasingly resent the protection they're receiving from it. •       Persia Is Always There: The Spartans won the Peloponnesian War by securing subsidies from the Persian Empire. The Athenians were doing the same thing. The irony: both sides of the Greek world's greatest internal conflict ended up funded by the barbarian power they had united to defeat a generation earlier. Goldsworthy draws the modern parallel delicately: America is now fighting a war in Iran, once known as Persia. Europe chose not to join. The question of who Persia is in any given age is always live. Persia, he says, is always there. It always has been. •       Athens as a Theme Park: The Roman Legacy: In the Roman period, Athens and Sparta became what Goldsworthy calls “university cities or, in Sparta's case, a theme park.” Sparta, having lost any real military or political power, invented a public performance of its old customs — a tourist attraction for Roman visitors who wanted to see the old ways enacted. Athens was a university town for the Roman elite, whose children went there as we might go to Oxford. What we think we know about classical Greece is partly filtered through this late antique nostalgia — a celebration of how great we used to be. About the Guest Adrian Goldsworthy is a historian, novelist, and YouTuber with a DPhil from Oxford. He is the author of Athens and Sparta: The Rivalry That Shaped Ancient Greece (Basic Books, May 12, 2026), Caesar: Life of a Colossus, Augustus: First Emperor of Rome, How Rome Fell, Philip and Alexander, Rome and Persia, and many other books. He lives in Penarth, South Wales. References: •       Athens and Sparta: The Rivalry That Shaped Ancient Greece by Adrian Goldsworthy (Basic Books, May 12, 2026). •       Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War — the essential and problematic source, discussed at length. •       Episode 2897: Patrick Wyman on Lost Worlds — directly referenced in the interview as a contrasting style of history. •       Episode 2892: Jason Pack on the Iran war — the companion episode on the modern Persian conflict, referenced in the interview. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: 

“We need to develop better theories of why the other side believes what they do. Having an accurate theory includes recognizing if somebody is a psychopath — but also recognizing that psychopaths are rarer than we think.” — Audun Dahl If you're not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative at forty, you have no head. While this sounds like an annoying cliché (especially to people under forty), it does recognize that our moral views change. But, as the Cornell psychologist Audun Dahl argues in his new book Between Fixed and Fickle: Why Our Moral Views Keep Changing, the most interesting question is why our moral principles always seem in flux. Why people who say cheating is wrong cheat. Why people who say violence is wrong turn a blind moral eye to their own insurrections. Dahl is a psychologist, not a moralist. He is not interested in what we should believe, but in what we think we believe. His central finding is that human morality is neither fixed nor fickle. People change their moral views when they believe they have good reasons to — reasons they can, indeed, articulate. The problem isn't hypocrisy per se. It's that we struggle to understand why the other side believes what it does. In morally polarised societies like contemporary America, we over-attribute psychopathy to political opponents. Most Republicans and most Democrats do have genuine moral commitments. But they are just different principles, applied to parallel moral hierarchies. Rather than morality perhaps, we need more empathy. Don't judge. Understand. Five Takeaways •       Two Kinds of Moral Change: Dahl identifies two forms of moral change that should trouble us. Situational moral change: people espouse one principle and act against it in a specific situation — the person who says cheating is wrong and cheats on an exam, the January 6th rioter who says violence is wrong. Historical moral change: the same principles coexisting with practices that contradict them — Thomas Jefferson proclaiming inalienable rights while enslaving hundreds. Both are not simply hypocrisy: they reflect the genuine messiness of moral life, where competing principles create constant conflict. •       Morality Emerges in the First Three Years of Life: Dahl's most striking empirical finding: by around age three, virtually all children develop an intrinsic concern with how we ought to treat other sentient beings. It is not taught as an external rule. It emerges. A three-year-old will say: it's wrong to harm others, you shouldn't steal. No other animal acquires this. It is a uniquely human characteristic. The question is not whether people have moral commitments — almost everyone does. The question is how those commitments interact with other concerns, pressures, and competing principles. •       We Over-Attribute Psychopathy to the Other Side: One of the most robustly documented findings in political psychology: Republicans and Democrats don't merely think the other side is wrong. They think the other side is evil — likely to condone things they would never condone. Research shows both sides significantly over-estimate the other's extremism and moral depravity. Dahl's prescription: develop better theories of why the other side believes what it does. An accurate theory includes recognising genuine psychopaths and bad actors when they exist. It also includes recognising that they are rarer than we think. •       Jefferson, Epstein, and the Exceptions: Two historical anchors. Jefferson: the author of the Declaration of Independence's inalienable rights, who enslaved hundreds. The question is not whether he was a hypocrite — he clearly was — but how someone could hold both positions simultaneously. The answer Dahl finds most compelling: conflicting moral principles applied with different weights in different contexts, not the absence of moral concern. Epstein: the opposite case, a man who concealed an absence of moral concern behind a veneer of respectability. The lesson: some people genuinely lack it, but they are exceptions. •       Elbow Room: The Hilary Mantel Closer: Dahl's two wishes for a more moral world. First: that we understand why the other side disagrees. Second: that we have more “elbow room” — the phrase from Hilary Mantel's Cromwell trilogy — to make decisions based on what we actually think is right rather than what we need to do to survive. Machiavelli and Cromwell operated in a world where survival left almost no room for principled action. If that is becoming our world again, the prospects for moral progress are bleak. Dahl is cautiously hopeful. The creative, restless energy of each new generation — willing to say this is unjust, this is unfair — is what abolished slavery. It is what drives moral change still. About the Guest Audun Dahl is Associate Professor of Psychology at Cornell University. He is the author of Between Fixed and Fickle: Why Our Moral Views Keep Changing (Harvard University Press, April 2026). He grew up in Norway and is based in Ithaca, New York. References: •       Between Fixed and Fickle: Why Our Moral Views Keep Changing by Audun Dahl (Harvard University Press, April 2026). •       Hilary Mantel, Wolf Hall trilogy — cited by Dahl as capturing the “elbow room” problem of moral action under survival pressure. •       Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning — referenced in the same context as Mantel. •       Episode 2906: Dylan Gottlieb on Yuppies — the companion episode on how professional class morality was shaped by competing incentives. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - The Churchill/Adams quote: liberal at 20, conservative at 40 (02:08) - Dahl's Norwegian grandpa and the disputed attribution (02:30) - Two kinds of troubling moral change: situational and historical (03:10) - Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and his enslaved peopl...

“Being a father is probably one of the toughest and most rewarding jobs I've ever had. A lot of the principles I used to teach snipers apply to kids: dealing with negativity, replacing negative self-talk, learning that well-meaning adults can say terrible things — and you don't have to take that on as baggage.” — Brandon Webb Brandon Webb defines himself as an author, entrepreneur, Navy SEAL sniper, and father. But not in that order. The first three he leveraged into a series of bestselling books about the art of sniping. The fourth — the art of being a loving father — he dodged and ducked for years. But fatherhood might be Webb's real calling. People regularly pulled him aside after meeting his grown children to ask him about his “secret” for being an effective dad. His kids were making eye contact, they were asking good questions rather than staring at their phones. Most astonishingly, they seemed happy. Webb's new book, Puddle Jumpers: Simple and Proven Ways to Raise Confident and Joyful Kids, reveals his secret of parenting. It applies the positive performance psychology Webb learned as a Navy SEAL sniper instructor — how to redirect negative self-talk, how to deal with well-meaning adults who say damaging things, how to build mental toughness without destroying connection — to the work of raising children. It outlines his parenting philosophy of both high expectations and high support. Think of Puddle Jumpers as simultaneously the manual for tiger and the bunny parenting. Brandon Webb's ultimate calling in life is as a parent. Father, author, entrepreneur and Navy SEAL sniper. In that order. Five Takeaways •       The Sniper Instructor as Parenting Coach: Webb was running the Navy SEAL sniper program at 27 years old. The psychology they taught there — positive self-talk, replacing negative internal narratives, dealing with adversity without being broken by it — is what he applied to parenting. The connection is not as strange as it sounds: both sniping and parenting require performing under pressure, dealing with failure without catastrophising, and building confidence that is genuine rather than brittle. The difference is that the stakes in parenting last a lifetime. •       High Expectations, High Support: Webb's alternative to the false choice between permissive parenting and authoritarian discipline. Permissive parenting replaces preparation with protection. Authoritarian discipline breaks connection. Puddle Jumper Parenting holds both simultaneously: clear expectations and emotional safety. Kids need to know what's required of them. They also need to know they won't be abandoned when they fail. Webb's word for children raised this way: puddle jumpers — kids who leap into life's messy moments with full-hearted abandon, not because they're fearless but because they trust themselves to recover. •       The Credit Card Lesson: Don't Bail Them Out: Webb's son Jackson managed a self-storage facility through college and ended up with a $25,000 ownership payout as a sophomore at St Andrews. He spent it like a drunken sailor on shore leave, got a credit card, ran up $12,000 in debt at predatory interest rates, and called his father for help. Webb's response: you remember that conversation we had? Figure it out. He let his son suffer. Jackson's girlfriend hated Webb for two years. At the end, Jackson paid off the debt with a new business and told his father it was one of the best lessons he'd ever been taught. It would have been easy to bail him out. The suffering was the lesson. •       Purpose and the War Veteran: Viktor Frankl's Lesson: How does a combat veteran come home intact? Webb's answer: purpose. His Afghanistan deployment had clear moral logic — the propaganda posters in the caves, the training camps, the towers. That clarity carried him through. Iraq was different. Soldiers who went to Iraq with no understanding of why they were there — and whose friends in 2010 were saying we have no idea what we're doing here — came home broken. Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning: purpose is the thing that makes endurance possible. Without it, violence that cannot be assigned rational meaning produces serious mental illness. •       Teach Kids About Money: The American Economy Preys on Them: Webb has strong opinions: America's economy is largely fuelled by consumer debt. Credit card companies prey on college students because they know the parents will bail them out. Kids need to understand the system before the system takes advantage of them. His prescription: teach them age-appropriate financial literacy early. The Acorns Early app gamifies financial learning for children. The deal he struck with all his kids in college: I pay for school, you have a roof and food, but if you want to socialise, get a job. The lesson is not just about money. It's about agency. About the Guest Brandon Webb is a combat-decorated Navy SEAL sniper, multiple New York Times bestselling author, Harvard Business School alumnus, and father of three. He is the author of Puddle Jumpers: Simple and Proven Ways to Raise Confident and Joyful Kids (Authors Equity/Simon & Schuster, May 12, 2026), The Red Circle, The Killing School, and The Making of a Navy SEAL. He divides his time between Portugal and New York City. References: •       Puddle Jumpers: Simple and Proven Ways to Raise Confident and Joyful Kids by Brandon Webb (Authors Equity/Simon & Schuster, May 12, 2026). •       Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning — Webb cites it as one of his favourite books, and the source of his thinking on purpose and combat trauma. •       Episode 2888: Helen Benedict on The Soldier's House — directly referenced in the interview; Webb's purpose-in-war argument is the complement to Benedict's moral injury argument. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple Podcasts

“As recently as the mid-seventies, under 5% of Ivy Leaguers are headed to Wall Street. It's actually not that attractive. But as Wall Street's deregulated, it changes the incentive structure — it makes it much more profitable and demands this huge labor force.” — Dylan Gottlieb They stalked the sidewalks of Manhattan in button-down shirts embroidered with the names of investment banks. They jogged. They drank Beaujolais Nouveau. They gentrified neighborhoods. They were the Yuppies — and with the Boston-based Dylan Gottlieb, they've found their young urban professional biographer. In Yuppies: The Bankers, Lawyers, Joggers, and Gourmands Who Conquered New York, Gottlieb offers both a social history of financialization and a collective biography of the professional class that came of age in the Reagan years. Rather than a passing 1980s stereotype, Gottlieb argues that the Yuppie is a phenomenon that remade the American economy, city, and political class. As recently as the mid-1970s, under 5 percent of Ivy League graduates went to Wall Street. A decade of deregulation later, banks were recruiting a third of graduating classes from top universities. The sweatshop of the meritocracy was born. Most of us are still sweating. Five Takeaways •       From Yippie to Yuppie: The Word's Origins: Yuppie resonates with Yippie — the iconographic late-sixties radicals of the New Left, for whom Jerry Rubin was the signifier. The word first appeared in a Chicago alt-weekly in the late 1970s to describe highly educated young people trickling into gentrifying North Side neighbourhoods. It didn't achieve full cultural dominance until 1984, when it became the frame for supporters of Gary Hart's presidential campaign — a prototypical Yuppie candidate who stormed the Democratic primary and represented a new professional vanguard within the party. The word named something that was already happening. It didn't create it. •       The Incentive Structure Changed: Under 5% to One Third: As recently as the mid-1970s, under 5 percent of Ivy League graduates went to Wall Street. It was seen as the preserve of WASPy children who used family connections to get a bank job. By the mid-1980s, banks were recruiting roughly a third of graduating classes at top universities. What happened: deregulation made finance enormously more profitable; finance demanded a large educated labour force to do the work of putting finance at the centre of the American economy; and the most talented students — those who might have become poets or public servants — followed the money. At mid-century, the most prestigious option for a Princeton graduate was middle management at a Fortune 500 company. By 1985, it was Wall Street. •       Democratization and Distinction: The Double Movement: Gottlieb's central thesis is a double movement. The Yuppie era brought genuine diversification to America's elite: Jewish lawyers could now make partner at firms previously closed to them; women entered investment banks in numbers that would have been inconceivable in 1965; Black and Asian Americans got at least a foot in the door. This was new, and it mattered. Simultaneously, that newly diversified elite pulled further away from the rest of America, extracting profits from companies being financialized and rents from communities being gentrified. Democratization and distinction in constant tension. The elite became more diverse and more remote at the same time. •       The Pyramid to Cylinder Shift: AI is about to do to the Yuppie what the Yuppie did to everybody else. Gottlieb spoke recently to an HR representative at an investment bank — name and bank withheld — who said the firm was moving from a pyramid structure to a cylinder structure for employment. The wide base of entry-level workers that finance has depended on since the 1980s will shrink dramatically. Only the best and brightest will be selected; the rest will be automated. Gottlieb wrote about the era of the large pyramid — the exploited many at the bottom who hoped to reach the top. What happens to the professional class when that pyramid disappears? •       Are the Yuppies Becoming Socialists? A long-running trend: the pressures of the sweatshop of the meritocracy have embittered many members of the professional class. Academics work in conditions demonstrably worse than they were forty years ago. Doctors are evaluated on metrics that resemble those of factory workers. Journalists are precarious. The housing market in the cities where professionals cluster has made the cost of replicating their social status for their children prohibitive. And into this comes AI, threatening the entry-level pipeline. Gottlieb's question: will the investment bankers see their plight as similar to the Amazon warehouse worker's? Or will the edifice of meritocratic myth-making — the deep conviction that you're special — hold them back from that solidarity? About the Guest Dylan Gottlieb is Assistant Professor of History at Bentley University and co-host of the Who Makes Cents: A History of Capitalism podcast. He is the author of Yuppies: The Bankers, Lawyers, Joggers, and Gourmands Who Conquered New York (Harvard University Press, May 12, 2026), winner of the Herman E. Krooss Prize for Best Dissertation in Business History. He has written for the Washington Post, Gotham, the Journal of American History, and Public Seminar. References: •       Yuppies: The Bankers, Lawyers, Joggers, and Gourmands Who Conquered New York by Dylan Gottlieb (Harvard University Press, May 12, 2026). •       Noam Scheiber, Mutiny: The Rise and Revolt of a College-Educated Working Class — the companion book, referenced in the interview as directly relevant to Gottlieb's thesis. •       Barbara Ehrenreich — referenced by Gottlieb as the first to identify the downwardly mobile tranche of the professional class. •       Episode 2895: Glyn Morgan on the rise and fall of American Europe — the companion episode on how the professional class shaped American foreign policy. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeAp...

“All the warnings were there. It was almost a carbon copy — the same warnings that were ignored before Paradise, ignored again before the Palisades. And nobody was held accountable.” — Jonathan Vigliotti On January 7, 2025, the Palisades Fire ignited in Los Angeles. Over the first few hours of the fire, the second-largest city in America had no firefighters on the front lines and no coordinated evacuation. Residents fought the flames with garden hoses. “Where are the firefighters?” somebody, running from the fire, screamed into a live television shot. Where, indeed, were Los Angeles firefighters? Jonathan Vigliotti — CBS national correspondent, Emmy and Edward R. Murrow Award winner — was there from the beginning. His new book, Torched: How a City Was Left to Burn and the Olympic Rush to Rebuild Los Angeles, is the searing firsthand account of the tragic failure of the Los Angeles authorities to respond to the fire. The story Vigliotti tells is not new. In some ways, it is a carbon copy of the 2018 Camp Fire that destroyed Paradise in Northern California. First as tragedy then as farce: inadequate evacuation routes, uncleared fuel loads, officials who failed to act were repeated almost exactly in Pacific Palisades and Altadena. More than eighty people died in Paradise and more than thirty in the LA fires. The economic damage in LA will likely make it the costliest natural disaster in US history. And when the LA mayor and the Californian governor appeared in the first press conference after the fires broke out, Vigliotti reports, all Karen Bass and Gavin Newsom were talking about was the 2028 Olympics. The political reckoning has not happened, Vigliotti warns. Bass is still mayor and Newsom is a Presidential frontrunner for 2028. California's current governor's race is dominated by homelessness and crime. Wildfire — the existential threat to the state, the one where more than $2 billion in taxpayer money was pumped into agencies over several years with more than half a billion unaccounted for — is barely mentioned. The fires will be back, Vigliotti warns. Maybe this year for the World Cup, maybe in 2028 for the Olympics. So where are the firefighters? Five Takeaways •       Where Are the Firefighters? The Central Question: Vigliotti was on scene from the first moments of the Palisades Fire. What struck him was not the scale of the flames — he'd seen wildfires before — but the absence of any official response. No firefighters at ground zero. No coordinated evacuation. The traffic gridlock that formed within an hour of ignition blocked fire trucks from getting through. Residents fought embers with garden hoses. A man running from the hillside screamed into Vigliotti's live shot: “Where are the firefighters?” That question became the question of the disaster — and the book. •       A Carbon Copy of Paradise: The 2018 Camp Fire destroyed the Northern California town of Paradise. More than eighty people died. Before it happened: weeks and months of warnings about inadequate evacuation routes, uncleared fuel loads, and officials who failed to act. The same warnings, in almost identical form, were issued for Pacific Palisades and Altadena before January 7, 2025. They were ignored in the same way. The LA fires killed more than thirty people and will likely be the costliest natural disaster in US history. Nobody has been held accountable. Nobody has been fired. •       The Olympics Come First: Vigliotti's most damning reporting: in the first press conference after the Palisades Fire broke out, Mayor Karen Bass and Governor Gavin Newsom were already talking about the 2028 Olympic Games and Los Angeles's ability to rebuild in time. The fires were still burning. The framing was already: how do we make this a story of resilience and recovery? Vigliotti's counter: the story is not resilience. It is accountability. The question is not whether Los Angeles can rebuild. It is whether it can avoid the same disaster happening again. •       $2 Billion, Half a Billion Unaccounted For: California's taxes are already among the highest in the country. More than $2 billion in taxpayer money was pumped into homeless-related agencies over several years. More than half a billion was unaccounted for. And the agencies responsible for wildfire prevention and emergency management are chronically underfunded. Vigliotti's argument: it is not that Californians need to pay more taxes. It is that the taxes they pay need to go to the right agencies. The budget for fighting climate change and protecting communities from fire is dwarfed by the budget for crime. Fire kills more people. •       The Political Reckoning That Hasn't Happened: California's governor's race, in the wake of the deadliest and costliest fire season in recent memory, is dominated by homelessness and crime. Wildfire — the existential threat to the state — is barely mentioned. Nobody in the political class, Vigliotti reports, has come to him asking for advice or analysis. He is not holding his breath. His warning: this summer, and every summer, the fire will come back. The conditions that created the Palisades disaster have not been remedied. Los Angeles is not ready. About the Guest Jonathan Vigliotti is a CBS News national correspondent and Emmy and Edward R. Murrow Award winner. He is the author of Torched: How a City Was Left to Burn and the Olympic Rush to Rebuild Los Angeles (Atria/One Signal, May 12, 2026) and Before It's Gone: Stories from the Front Lines of Climate Change in Small-Town America. He is based in Los Angeles. References: •       Torched: How a City Was Left to Burn and the Olympic Rush to Rebuild Los Angeles by Jonathan Vigliotti (Atria/One Signal, May 12, 2026). •       Lizzie Johnson, Paradise: One Town's Struggle to Survive an American Wildfire — the companion book on the 2018 Camp Fire, referenced in the interview. •       Watch Duty — the wildfire monitoring app Vigliotti mentions as standard equipment for California residents. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstack

 “They're all me. Every single one. I see them almost as if they're inoculated on various petri dishes, and the petri dishes are all put into this pressure-cooker situation — that of a missile alert.” — Vincent Yu So what would you do with the last 19 minutes of your life? That's the question Vincent Yu plays with in Seek Immediate Shelter. Triggered (so to speak) by a 2018 Hawaii missile alert of an apocalypse that fizzled, Yu's novel is about a false alarm that sent Asian-American residents of a small Massachusetts town into 19 minutes of existential panic. Seek Immediate Shelter really starts after the fictional all-clear. Because now everyone has revealed their cards. The real games begin. F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote that there are no second acts in American lives. Seek Immediate Shelter is really a novel about third acts, not second. The first act is normal life. The second is the nineteen minutes of terror. The third — the one that really matters — is the reckoning: the mother who used the alert as an excuse to cruelly insult her daughter; the man who hit the gas and sped away from his family; the woman who confessed her unrequited love. So all clear does not mean all right. The missile alert strips away all the lies of daily life. What's left is a truth as explosive as any missile. Five Takeaways •       The Third Act, Not the Second: F. Scott Fitzgerald said there are no second acts in American lives — and Yu's novel is a direct argument against that claim. But the book's real focus is the third act: not the nineteen minutes of terror (the second), but the aftermath. The mother who used the alert as permission to say something cruel. The man who sped away from his wife and child. The woman who confessed her love. These are the decisions people made when they thought it was the end. Now they have to live with them. All clear does not mean all right. •       The Petri Dish Method: Yu has a background in biology and no formal training in fiction. He approaches writing scientifically: characters as specimens on petri dishes, a missile alert as the experimental conditions. The pressure-cooker situation strips away the social armour and reveals the character beneath. His goal was not cruelty but pressure — there's a difference. He feels profound empathy for every character. When asked if any are based on real people: they're all me. Every single one. •       Asian American Silence and the Langston Hughes Principle: Yu originally wrote the characters without race. But honesty required him to make them Asian American — citing Langston Hughes's argument that a Black poet cannot write outside of race even if he wants to. Asian American fiction has long focused on immigrant trauma and the difficult parent-child relationship. Yu wants to push beyond that: third- and fourth-generation stories, people who are simply American. The missile alert forces the silence of striving and quiet excellence to break. What's underneath is the novel's real subject. •       Can AI Write This Kind of Novel? Yu has never used AI for his writing and — he admits — hasn't been curious enough to try. His verdict: AI is nowhere close to writing a novel like this. Some genres, with more uniform rubrics, are more vulnerable. But the distinctive cadences of AI writing are currently easy to detect. He is, however, optimistic: the proliferation of AI-generated plots may make readers more discerning, better at recognizing tropes, more hungry for genuinely fresh storytelling. AI might, paradoxically, sharpen the audience for literary fiction. •       The Cuban Missile Crisis, Trump, and COVID as Crucibles: Andrew's provocation: was the Cuban Missile Crisis actually good for America? Did it force a national reckoning? And might Trump and COVID do the same? Yu is reluctant to apply this logic to countries — he deals in characters. But at the individual level: yes. A crucible that forces you to confront what you most cannot bear to part with, what truly matters, can be clarifying. The novel's premise is that the missile alert was such a crucible. The broader lesson may be that we are all living through one. About the Guest Vincent Yu is a fiction writer and sales manager at W. W. Norton/Liveright. He is the winner of the 2021 Ashley Bourne Prize for fiction from Ploughshares and the author of Seek Immediate Shelter (Flatiron Books, May 5, 2026). His short fiction has been published in Prairie Schooner, StoryQuarterly, Ninth Letter, Able Muse, and elsewhere. He lives in Brooklyn, New York. References: •       Seek Immediate Shelter by Vincent Yu (Flatiron Books, May 5, 2026). •       The 2018 Hawaii missile alert — the real-life false alarm that inspired the novel. •       Langston Hughes, “The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain” (1926) — the essay Yu cites on writing within race. •       Episode 2898: James Lasdun on The Family Man — the companion episode on fiction's capacity to go where journalism cannot. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: 

“We're losing home on so many different levels. Physically. Politically. Morally. And after AI, spiritually — because language, our spiritual home, is taken away from us. We now have to share it with an unhuman entity.” — Ece Temelkuran Do you feel homeless — physically, politically, morally or spiritually? That's the question posed by Ece Temelkuran's new book Nation of Strangers: Rebuilding Home in the Twenty-First Century. Shortlisted for the 2026 Women's Prize for Nonfiction, the narrative is structured as a series of letters from one homeless stranger to another. Temelkuran left Turkey in 2016, after threats to her life made staying untenable. After seven years of exile — in Beirut, Tunis, Oxford, Paris, Zagreb, and now Berlin — she has written both her own and our story in today's globalized, populist age. She's been called everything from a 21st century Hannah Arendt to a “ruthless Cassandra.” And yet she retains faith in the future — as a defiant stance, a can-do-no-other attitude against rootlessness and loneliness. The wisdom of survival, Ece Temelkuran argues, lies with refugees, exiles and migrants like herself. This nation of strangers are rebuilding home in our homeless world. Five Takeaways •       Four Kinds of Homelessness: Temelkuran identifies four simultaneous crises of home. Physical homelessness: refugees, migrants, the displaced. Political homelessness: people who no longer recognize their countries, who feel unrepresented by any party, who cannot feel that they belong where they are. Moral homelessness: people who see the cruelty of our times and find no institution — state, court, international organization — capable of stopping it. And spiritual homelessness: the loss of language as our innermost home, now shared with AI. Four levels of being unhoused at once. That is the human condition of 2026. •       Minneapolis as a Nation of Strangers: The week the book was published in the US, Minneapolis happened — ordinary people forming human chains to resist ICE agents. Temelkuran's reading: that was a Nation of Strangers in action. People who had never met, people from different communities who owed each other nothing in the old sense, holding on to each other because they recognized a shared condition. Not an ideology, not a party, not a leader — just strangers building a home together in real time. That, she says, is what the book is about. •       Digital Refugees: When Elon Musk bought Twitter, millions of people fled to Mastodon, Bluesky, and other platforms — behaving, Temelkuran observes, exactly like refugees. Looking back at the old home while building a new one. Checking both simultaneously. She asks: why did no one think to occupy Twitter? To say: this is ours, not yours? Her conclusion: our political imagination has become extraordinarily limited. We accept displacement, digital or physical, as inevitable. We do not think to resist it by occupying the space rather than fleeing. •       Gaza and the Move-On Ideology: Gaza was the ultimate test of how much humanity can swallow. Temelkuran draws an arc from Colin Powell's tube in the UN Security Council in 2003 — when a global anti-war movement was brushed aside — to today. Each time people mobilize and are ignored, they lose a little more faith in themselves, in politics, in institutions. What devastated Temelkuran most was not the bombing but Jared Kushner at Davos presenting his PowerPoint for a seaside resort in Gaza. That, she says, is what neoliberal morality looks like. Move on. That is the lowest of the low. •       The Pioneers of History: Refugees as the Advance Guard: Temelkuran resisted writing her own story for years — she came from a leftist family where talking about yourself was suspect, and she feared being seen as a victim. What changed: she realized her story intersected with the story of the masses. The wisdom of survival — how to remake home from scratch, how to survive with dignity, how to rebuild identity after losing everything — belongs to refugees, exiles, and migrants. These are the pioneers of history. Soon everyone will need what they know. That is why their stories matter now. About the Guest Ece Temelkuran is a Turkish writer, political thinker, and public speaker. She is the author of Nation of Strangers: Rebuilding Home in the Twenty-First Century (Simon & Schuster, May 2026), shortlisted for the 2026 Women's Prize for Nonfiction; How to Lose a Country: The Seven Steps from Democracy to Fascism; and Together: A Manifesto Against a Heartless World. She was born in Turkey and is based in Berlin. References: •       Nation of Strangers: Rebuilding Home in the Twenty-First Century by Ece Temelkuran (Simon & Schuster, May 2026). •       How to Lose a Country: The Seven Steps from Democracy to Fascism by Ece Temelkuran — the book that made her reputation in the West. •       Together: A Manifesto Against a Heartless World by Ece Temelkuran — the second book, between How to Lose a Country and Nation of Strangers. •       Episode 2894: Marc Loustau on why Orbán lost and how to defeat Trump — the companion episode on defeating fascism from within the system. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - Is Ece still retaining faith in the future? (01:47) - Faith as a stance: like Martin Luther, here I stand (02:30) - How to Lose a Country and what comes next (02:57) - Minneapolis as a Nation of Strangers (04:00) - Four kinds of homelessness: physical, political, moral, spiritual (04:35) - AI and the loss of language as spiritual home (05:10) - Why this book now — and why it's the most personal

“You can't be confident about human decision-making. You can be confident on the potential of technology. Humans are quite capable of making both wrong and bad decisions.” — Keith Teare Is a jobless AI future really something to celebrate? That Was the Week publisher Keith Teare certainly thinks so. His editorial “Civilization: What Is Worth Doing” this week imagines a future in which nobody has to work unless they choose to, basic necessities are no longer scarce, leisure time is abundant, and governance fades to near-invisibility. I'm not so sure. As I told Keith, “That sounds incredibly boring. I don't want to live in that kind of society.” The conversation this week has been civilizational. A few days ago, the podcaster Patrick Wyman came on the show to argue that history is mostly unintentional and unexpected. But Keith says civilization is broadly linear and tends, if not toward justice, toward progress. Wyman says civilizations are plural and never inevitable. “Why History Keeps Happening” is how Wyman put it. The end and the beginning of history are, thus, delusional. We are, then, always in the middle of history. That's the wisdom missing from all the ridiculous hysteria about AI. It's just one chapter in our history. The promise that AI will create mass abundance is as somnolent as the fear it will wipe out our civilization. Pass the Soma. Five Takeaways •       Civilization: Singular or Plural? Wyman's argument: civilizations are plural, nonlinear, full of failure and unintended consequence. Keith's counter: civilization — singular — is the long arc of human progress collectively, broadly linear over two hundred years. Both are right at different scales. Andrew's instinct: we're in a nonlinear moment masquerading as progress. Keith's: we're at a fork in the road. That much they agree on. The more interesting question is who controls which direction the fork takes. •       Paul Ehrlich and the Limits of Forecasting: Norman Lewis's cautionary tale: Paul Ehrlich predicted in the 1970s that population growth would exhaust the Earth's resources within a generation. He was famously, totally wrong. Andrew's application: most people are probably wrong about AI right now — both the doomers and the optimists. The future is not the thing you think you're heading toward. The Wyman principle: history keeps happening in directions nobody predicted. •       The Pyramid of Change: Keith's model for how history gets made. Agents of change form a pyramid. At the top: a small number of people who have a much larger influence on what happens than everyone at the base. Most people receive change rather than make it. Those who step outside the norms and make things happen — those are the ones who make history. The question of our moment: who is at the top of the pyramid? And do they share your values? Or anyone else's? •       AI Panic in the Media: Reflecting, Not Forming: Nirit Weiss-Blatt's research into ten studies on AI coverage: the media is overwhelmingly negative. Keith's reading: media reflects opinion rather than forming it. Negativity around AI is a reasonable reaction to not knowing. When you don't know, you can believe anything, and most of the available influence is negative. If AI delivers real benefits, opinion will change, and media will follow. Andrew's reading: the cause is genuine uncertainty, not media panic. •       Keith's Utopia: “That Sounds Incredibly Boring”: Keith's vision: everyone eats, everyone is warm, nobody has to work unless they choose to, leisure time is abundant, paid labour replaced by a society that provides for all, governance shrinking toward irrelevance as satisfaction rises. Andrew's verdict: “that sounds incredibly boring. I don't want to live in that kind of society.” The Germans, Keith notes, will still be putting their towels out at dawn to claim the beach. Some scarcities will always remain. About the Guest Keith Teare is a British-American entrepreneur, investor, and publisher of the That Was the Week newsletter. He is a co-founder of TechCrunch and Andrew's regular TWTW co-host. References: •       That Was the Week: “Civilization: What Is Worth Doing” by Keith Teare. •       Norman Lewis, “The Future Is Not Scarce,” Nervous. •       Nirit Weiss-Blatt, “What 10 Studies Revealed About AI Panic in the Media.” •       Ezra Klein, “Why the AI Job Apocalypse Probably Won't Happen,” The New York Times. •       Episode 2897: Patrick Wyman on Lost Worlds — the companion episode on civilization's unintended consequences, directly referenced in this conversation. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: 

“It was a completely unthinking exercise in cost-cutting that made no sense in terms of the newspaper. I think perhaps if you want to destroy the newspaper, it made sense.” — Simon Elegant on being ‘eliminated' by the Washington Post Hong Kong in 2019. A dismembered body is found in a landfill. A disgraced police superintendent is called back from internal exile to solve it. The city around him is burning. Rather than a John Woo movie, this is the setting for a Simon Elegant thriller. Born in Hong Kong, former Beijing bureau chief for Time magazine, most recently the Washington Post's man in China until Jeff Bezos “eliminated” him three months ago — Elegant has written the definitive Hong Kong novel. First and foremost, City on Fire: A Novel of Hong Kong is a crime thriller. Superintendent Killian Tong — half-Chinese, half-Irish, loved by no one in his department — investigates a murder while his sister is noisily demonstrating on the other side of the barricades. But the book doubles as a compressed history of Hong Kong: from Palmerston's “barren rock” in the 1840s — seized from China after the opium wars — through the ninety-nine-year lease, the handover in 1997, and the slow strangulation of the “one country, two systems” promise. Elegant is neither a hardline China hawk nor an apologist for Beijing. Yes, he credits the British with a relatively enlightened administration — from its public housing to the uncorrupt civil service that inspired the Singapore model. But he is also clear about what happened after 1997. Hong Kong people assumed Beijing would honour the Thatcher-Deng terms, and then discovered, to their horror, that they had no rights. It was a silent coup rather than a gaudy takeover of power. And so the 2019 protests — when a million people went onto the streets — are not just a backdrop to City on Fire but also the real-life stage on which Hong Kong burnt. Five Takeaways •       Enlightened Colonialism — With Caveats: Was Hong Kong an example of enlightened British colonialism? Elegant says: relatively, yes. The administration was light-handed. The public housing was so good that Singapore copied it. The civil service was — after 1972, when they had to create the ICAC following a police corruption scandal — genuinely clean. Milton Friedman praised the free-market model. But it was also racialized: the upper levels were almost entirely white Anglo, and the Chinese were largely excluded from administrative power. Governor Jock MacLehose changed this. Enlightened colonialism, Elegant concludes, is not a contradiction in terms — but it is relative. Compared to the Belgian Congo, Hong Kong was paradise. •       One Country, Two Systems: A Promise Broken: The terms negotiated by Thatcher and Deng in the 1980s guaranteed Hong Kong's autonomy until 2047. Hong Kong people assumed these terms were real and would be adhered to. They were not. The first attempt to pass a national security law came in 2004. There were mass protests in 2014. In 2019, a million people — in a city of six million — were on the streets. Beijing's choice was not between crushing them or not. It was between blood in the streets and a silent coup. They chose the silent coup. The national security law of 2020 was the final instrument. There is no longer any meaningful “one country, two systems.” •       The Policeman as Moral Complexity: Elegant's decision to make his protagonist a policeman — rather than a protester — is the novel's central artistic choice. Superintendent Killian Tong is not a villain. He is a man caught between institutions he has served his whole life and a conscience that knows what's happening is wrong. His younger sister is on the other side of the barricades. The murder investigation forces him to confront not just the crime but the system that made it possible. Elegant wanted to write about moral complexity, not propaganda — and the only way to do that was to give the story to the person most implicated in the system. •       Bezos ‘Eliminated' the Washington Post's Foreign Staff: Simon Elegant's final paycheck from the Washington Post used the word “eliminated.” He was one of 35-40 foreign correspondents let go in a single exercise — one of the biggest foreign staffs at any American newspaper. No one, he says, can explain what the thinking was, or if there was any. Every person he meets in Washington has cancelled their subscription. The Post still has excellent national security reporters, but in terms of foreign coverage it is, Elegant says, “doomed.” His conclusion: “perhaps if you want to destroy the newspaper, it made sense.” •       Hemingway's Iceberg, Applied: What did writing fiction teach Simon Elegant after a career in journalism? The iceberg principle, which Hemingway described: seven-eighths of a book — the knowledge, the research, the reported detail — should sit below the waterline. Only the tippy-top should be visible. The weight of the knowledge gives the visible surface its authority. The book started at 128,000 words — every reported detail jammed in. By the third or fourth round of cuts with the editor's blade, it was 75,000. The lesson: don't jam in your entire notebook. Fiction goes more directly into the heart. It bypasses the brain and seeks a different truth. About the Guest Simon Elegant is a journalist and novelist born in Hong Kong. He was Beijing bureau chief for Time magazine and most recently China bureau chief for the Washington Post. He is the author of City on Fire: A Novel of Hong Kong (Pegasus Crime, May 5, 2026), A Floating Life (Ecco/HarperCollins), and A Chinese Wedding (Piatkus). He is based in Kuala Lumpur. References: •       City on Fire: A Novel of Hong Kong by Simon Elegant (Pegasus Crime, May 5, 2026). •       Episode 2870: Eyck Freymann on Defending Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War with China — the companion episode on Taiwan and the growing China crisis. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple Pod...

“If criticism isn't going to be written by one human mind, what else is it for? Criticism done by AI means nothing.” — Bethanne Patrick Is London really falling? Perhaps. This week on Keen On America, everything seems to be falling. There are young men falling from riverside apartments. Girlhood is falling to the commodification of appearance. Book reviewing is falling to AI. Mary Todd Lincoln fell through history as a shrill and inconvenient widow. And just three days ago, Yale historian Ian Shapiro argued that democracy itself has fallen — from the euphoric heights of 1989 to today's nadir of illiberal populism. One person who never falls is our unfailingly literate friend Bethanne Patrick — book critic at the Los Angeles Times, founder of #FridayReads, and the best-read lady in America. And her May list of recommended reads is full of books about falling. Take, for example, the New York Times bestselling London Falling by Patrick Radden Keefe — a true crime whodunnit about Zac Brettler, a nineteen-year-old who reinvented himself as the son of a Kazakh oligarch and fell to his death from a Thames-side luxury apartment. Then there's Girls by Freya India on Gen Z and the commodification of girlhood; Make Believe by Mac Barnett, the Children's Laureate, on storytelling as an art of raising kids; I Am Not a Robot by Joanna Stern on AI as useful tool, not a civilizational menace; and An Inconvenient Widow by Lois Romano which rehabilitates the already fallen Mary Todd Lincoln. And then there's the fall of book reviewing itself. Where have all the critics gone? New York Times book critic Dwight Garner wrote its obituary this week. But Bethanne Patrick hasn't fallen. And, last I checked, London is still standing. Five Takeaways •       London Falling: The Oligarchs Were the Problem: Patrick Radden Keefe's new New York Times bestseller is about Zac Brettler, a nineteen-year-old London boy who reinvented himself as the son of a Kazakh oligarch and fell to his death from a Thames-side luxury apartment. Bethanne's reading: the most interesting element is not the Brettler family's grief — sympathetic as they are — but the portrait of a London transformed by money from overseas. Twenty years ago, the worry was economic immigrants. The people who really changed London were the oligarchs. Andrew is sceptical of the neoliberalism-as-villain thesis. Janan Ganesh: London has always been defined by capitalism. •       Girls: The Commodification of Girlhood:  by Freya India (born 1999) argues that Gen Z girls have always been girls — but technology has made the existing anxieties about appearance, body, and social status thousands of times worse. Face-tuning, influencers, targeted advertising, social media bullying. Bethanne's daughter — summa cum laude in economics — relaxes by watching reality shows about the commodification of female appearance. The book's parallel with London Falling: both are about young people who cannot escape the mirror of other people's wealth and image. •       Make Believe: Art for Children, Not Just Books: Mac Barnett, current Children's Laureate of the Library of Congress, argues in Make Believe that children don't just need books — they need art. Great literature, beauty, truth. The book echoes Robert Coles' The Call of Stories and pushes back against the passive consumption of screens. Bethanne's connection to London Falling: Zac Brettler was a brilliant storyteller. He might have been a writer or filmmaker. But stories have to move you toward caring about other people. They're not just about taking in — they're about give and take. •       I Am Not a Robot: AI as Tool, Not Menace: Joanna Stern, the Wall Street Journal's consumer tech columnist, spent a year using AI for almost everything. The book is a stunt memoir in the tradition of “my year of doing this” — but also genuinely useful. Her verdict: AI is a tool. It's not good or bad. She wrote every sentence herself but used AI for spell-checking, research, and editing. Meanwhile: the Authors Guild raised close to $900,000 at their annual gala, with David Baldacci giving an impassioned speech about AI and intellectual property. The Chicago Tribune published AI-generated summer reading recommendations that included a Louise Erdrich novel she never wrote. •       Where Have All the Book Reviewers Gone? A Dwight Garner piece in the New York Times cites a 1981 Donald Barthelme story predicting machines doing reviews. Now it's happening: the New York Times recently discovered a freelance reviewer had been using AI for several reviews. Google Gemini now summarises reviews before you see them. Bethanne Patrick, book critic at the Los Angeles Times, is one of a tiny handful of full-time book critics left. Her verdict: criticism done by a non-human entity misses the point. The point of criticism is judgment. Judgment requires a human mind. About the Guest Bethanne Patrick is a book critic at the Los Angeles Times, founder of #FridayReads, host of the Missing Pages podcast, and the author of Life B: Overcoming Double Depression (Counterpoint, 2023). She is also known as @TheBookMaven on social media. Books Discussed: •       London Falling: A Mysterious Death in a Gilded City and a Family's Search for Truth by Patrick Radden Keefe (Doubleday, April 7, 2026). •       Girls by Freya India (2026). •       Make Believe by Mac Barnett (2026). •       I Am Not a Robot: My Year Using AI to Do Almost Everything by Joanna Stern (2026). •       An Inconvenient Widow: The Torment, Trial, and Triumph of Mary Todd Lincoln by Lois Romano (Simon & Schuster, 2026). About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-Ame...

“Fraud makes up between 40 and 50 percent of all crime in the UK. Police resource dedicated to fraud: 1 percent. No country is giving fraud the attention it deserves.” — Becky Holmes Was Shakespeare a fraud? Possibly, says Becky Holmes, the Stratford-upon-Avon-based writer and the lady behind the X account @deathtospinach. She should know. Best known as the author of Keanu Reeves Is Not In Love With You, a cult hit among the romance fraud crowd, Holmes' latest book is The Future of Fraud. It's a short, sharp, witty history and anatomy of fraud, from the first recorded case in ancient Greece to today's AI-enabled deepfakes and romance scams. Holmes' most alarming statistic is that fraud accounts for between 40 and 50 percent of all crime in the United Kingdom, while only 1% of police resources are dedicated to investigating it. No wonder so few fraudsters are ever prosecuted. Holmes wants more Sherlocks. She wants fraud awareness on every school curriculum. And she wants our language to change. No, you didn't “fall for” a scam. Your money was stolen from you. As if you were mugged on the street or your home was broken into. The internet was bad enough for fraud. But AI, she warns, offers online criminals even more opportunity. It's not just Keanu Reeves who isn't in love with you. Never trust a handsome soldier, she says. Especially a virtual one. Five Takeaways •       The First Recorded Fraud: 300 BC, Greece: A Greek merchant took out an insurance policy on his boat, borrowed money, and planned to sink it and collect the proceeds. It didn't go according to plan. But the basic structure — a false representation designed to extract money or goods from another party — has not changed in 2,300 years. Every fraud since, from the South Sea Bubble to Bernie Madoff to AI-enabled romance scams, is a variation on the same theme: getting something from someone by not telling the truth. •       AI Has Erased All the Red Flags: Holmes used to advise romance fraud victims and potential victims: if he won't do a video call, that's suspicious. If the voice sounds wrong, that's suspicious. If he can't meet in person, that's suspicious. AI has rendered all of these warnings useless. You can now have a fully convincing video call, voice message, and real-time conversation with someone who doesn't exist. Deepfakes mean you can't even trust what your eyes tell you. The “red flags” that protected fraud victims for thirty years are gone. •       40 to 50 Percent of Crime, 1 Percent of Resource: In the United Kingdom, fraud accounts for between 40 and 50 percent of all recorded crime. Police resources dedicated to investigating fraud: 1 percent. Holmes cites a comparable US statistic: in one state, there were millions of people and ten police officers dedicated to cybercrime — and not one of them did it as their primary job. No country, Holmes argues, is giving fraud the attention it deserves. The gap between the scale of the problem and the resources devoted to it is not a funding issue. It is a political choice. •       You Didn't Lose Your Money. It Was Taken from You: Holmes has a crusade about language. The phrase “fell for a scam” implies the victim's credulity caused the loss. “Lost their money” implies carelessness. Both are wrong: in fraud, money is taken by a deliberate criminal act. Holmes wants the language changed because language shapes understanding, and understanding shapes policy. If fraud victims are seen as complicit in their own victimhood, society finds it easier to underfund investigation and under-prosecute offenders. Reclaiming the language is not symbolic. It is strategic. •       Fraud Awareness Should Be on Every School Curriculum: Holmes's most concrete prescription. Every person on the planet will encounter fraud at some point. Teaching children to recognise it should be as basic as teaching them to cross the road safely. It should be age-appropriate: fraud awareness around gaming sites and online chat when children first go online; around bank accounts and credit cards when they turn eighteen; around investment fraud at university level. The alternative — leaving it to parents, who are often themselves uneducated about fraud — is not good enough. The next generation of fraudsters is already on the gaming headsets. About the Guest Becky Holmes is the creator of the X account @deathtospinach, a fraud prevention speaker and writer, and the author of The Future of Fraud (Melville House, April 2026) and Keanu Reeves Is Not In Love With You: The Murky World of Online Romance Fraud. She lives in Stratford-upon-Avon. References: •       The Future of Fraud by Becky Holmes (Melville House, April 2026). •       Keanu Reeves Is Not In Love With You: The Murky World of Online Romance Fraud by Becky Holmes (Unbound, 2024). •       Episode 2890: Anja Shortland on Dark Screens — ransomware as the companion episode on the booming business of cybercrime. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - Introduction: Was Shakespeare a fraud? (01:35) - Everyone has been into fraud at some point in history (01:44) - What is fraud? A working definition (02:41) - Anja Shortland and the British women and fraud connection (03:16) - How Becky got into fraud: handsome soldiers on Twitter during lockdown (03:32) - @deathtospinach: the origin of the handle (04:53) - Where does romance fraud end and marketing oneself begin? (05:27) - Motive is the line: wanting money from a relationship (06:09) - Fraud for sex and power: a different kind of romance fraud (06:50) - The spinach debate: raw vs. cooked (...

“Justice may have been served, but the human element of the story didn't seem to add up.” — James Lasdun In March 2023, Alex Murdaugh — wealthy scion of a South Carolina prosecutorial dynasty — was found guilty of murdering his wife Maggie and his son Paul at their family estate. With its opioid addiction, fatal boat crash, staged suicide, and a cousin called Eddie, the case could have been invented for our true crime age. And who better to tell the story of the mysterious Mr Murdaugh than the literary crime writer James Lasdun whose 2023 New Yorker piece about the trial became the magazine's most-read story of the year. Lasdun's new book, The Family Man: Blood and Betrayal in the House of Murdaugh, tries to answer the one question the trial never answered. Why would a father annihilate his son? The prosecution claimed that Alex killed Maggie and Paul to distract from a web of financial crimes about to be exposed. While this is theoretically possible, Lasdun acknowledges, it is totally implausible psychologically. Coming from a family of prosecutors, Murdaugh would have known he would be the prime suspect. And this family annihilator, as the prosecutor described him, murdered not just his wife, but his boy. Who would annihilate their beloved child to muddy a prosaic embezzlement? The Southern gothic case isn't over. The court clerk who managed the Murdaugh trial resigned in disgrace after it emerged she had interfered with the jury — fabricating a Facebook post to remove a juror who was bending toward acquittal. Murdaugh has appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court. A retrial isn't inconceivable. But even if the murder conviction is overturned, Murdaugh faces forty years inside for his financial crimes. So he's never going free. But James Lasdun's core question remains unanswered. Why? “Justice may have been served,” Lasdun concludes, “but the human element of the story didn't seem to add up.” Mr Murdaugh remains a mystery, perhaps even to himself. Five Takeaways •       The Family Annihilator: A Psychological Category: The term “family annihilator” — first used at the Murdaugh trial — is not a well-developed criminological category. There isn't much psychology behind it. What Lasdun found in his research: most family annihilators are men who kill their families when they believe everything is about to be taken from them — not out of hatred, but out of a grotesque form of ownership. The family is theirs. If their world is ending, the family ends with it. This pattern, Lasdun argues, begins to illuminate what happened at Moselle. Not excusing it. Illuminating it. •       The Thirteen Minutes of Mystery: The murders took place in a thirteen-minute window at the kennel at Moselle. In thirteen minutes, Alex was supposed to have shot his wife with a shotgun and his son with a rifle, staged the scene, called 911, and composed himself sufficiently to appear on a video call immediately afterward showing no signs of distress. Lasdun's question: was he capable of that? The prosecution said yes, and the jury agreed. Lasdun is not saying they were wrong. He is saying that the how and why of those thirteen minutes remain genuinely mysterious — and that the mystery is part of what makes the case important. •       Cousin Eddie and the Staged Shooting: Three months after the murders, Alex arranged a meeting on a rural road with his cousin Eddie — a distant relative — and emerged with an entry and exit wound at the back of his head. Alex claimed he had asked Eddie to shoot him dead so that his surviving son Buster could collect his $10 million life insurance. Eddie denies this account entirely. The police concluded quickly that the “shooter” was not a stranger seeking vengeance for the boat crash, as Alex had initially claimed. Lasdun's reading: Alex was trying to reinforce the vendetta narrative that would implicate Anthony and Connor Cook, the young men who had been on the boat when Mallory Beach was killed. •       The Court Clerk and the Removed Juror: One juror was leaning toward acquittal in the final hours of deliberation. That juror was removed from the jury on the last day of the trial, after the clerk of court produced evidence that the juror had been indiscreet about the case on Facebook. It subsequently emerged that the clerk had fabricated the Facebook post. She resigned in disgrace. The Murdaugh appeal is partly based on this interference. The South Carolina Supreme Court has taken it seriously. A retrial is not inconceivable. The legal situation is still live. •       Murdaugh as an American Story: Lasdun's book, like Capote's In Cold Blood, is not ultimately about a crime. It is about a society. The Murdaughs were prosecutors — the family that put people in prison, that sent people to death row. The corruption that enabled Alex's embezzlement was not unusual in Hampton County; it was systemic. The opioids that fuelled his addiction were everywhere. The insularity and entitlement of the Lowcountry ruling class created the conditions in which Alex Murdaugh could operate for twenty years without exposure. The murders are a symptom. The disease is American. About the Guest James Lasdun is a poet, novelist, memoirist, and staff writer at The New Yorker. He is the author of The Family Man: Blood and Betrayal in the House of Murdaugh (W. W. Norton, May 5, 2026), Afternoon of a Faun, Give Me Everything You Have, and many other works. He was born in London and lives in Brooklyn, New York. References: •       The Family Man: Blood and Betrayal in the House of Murdaugh by James Lasdun (W. W. Norton, May 5, 2026). •       James Lasdun's two New Yorker pieces on the Murdaugh case — the magazine's most-read stories of the year. •       Truman Capote, In Cold Blood — the comparison Lasdun's reviewers have drawn and that the interview raises explicitly. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple Podcasts

“Every single person that we meet was both the endpoint of thousands of years that brought them there, and the midpoint of some other process, and was the beginning of something else entirely. Think of yourselves as the middle and the beginning, not just the end.” — Patrick Wyman History, we are often told, is a simple story of progress — from caves and villages to cities; from forests and farms to factories; from chieftains and kings to democracies. But, for Patrick Wyman, host of the enormously popular Tides of History and Fall of Rome podcasts, that's far too linear a narrative. In his new book, Lost Worlds: How Humans Tried, Failed, Succeeded, and Built Our World, Wyman argues that rather than a teleological inevitability, civilization is a chaotic ten thousand year story of improvisation, experiment, failure, and unintended consequence. It is never ending. We are always in the middle of it. Dramatic advances in archaeological technology triggered Wyman's argument in Lost Worlds. Ancient DNA, isotope analysis, LiDAR, cutting-edge excavation are all opening up what Wyman calls “a golden age for popular historians.” We can now trace the lives of individuals in ways that were inconceivable just a generation ago. Wyman's star is Ötzi the Iceman — a man murdered 5,300 years ago in the Alps, whose gut contents, DNA, last meal, and likely killers we now know. Rather than a symbol of prehistoric life, Ötzi the Iceman reveals why history keeps happening. Five Takeaways •       The Prelapsarian Fallacy: Hunter-Gatherers Weren't Paradise: The romantic idea — popular in the last decade as people read Graeber and Wengrow or Yuval Noah Harari — is that hunter-gatherers had it better. Farming made us smaller, sicker, more crowded, more unequal. Wyman's counter: yes, on some metrics early farmers were less healthy than foragers. But farming also supported enormously larger populations. It expanded the possibilities of human life in ways that foraging never could. Looking back at the past and calling it paradise says more about the critique of the present than about the actual realities of past lives. •       Civilization Was Not Inevitable: We have a story about how we got from foragers to cities: people settled, started farming, produced surplus, developed specialisation, built states. But Wyman's new archaeology shows that this story is wrong at every step. Farming didn't always replace foraging. Villages didn't automatically spark agriculture. Cities didn't necessitate rigid hierarchies. For every society that moved from one stage to the next, there are others that moved in different directions, collapsed, hybridised, or simply chose something else. The line of progress is a retrospective fiction. •       Ötzi the Iceman: A Man With a Story: Wyman's most vivid example of what the new archaeology makes possible: Ötzi, a man murdered 5,300 years ago in the Alps, whose mummified body was found in 1991. From isotope analysis of his teeth, we know where he grew up. From his gut contents, we know what he ate in his last meal — venison and ibex. From his DNA, we know his ancestry. From the arrow in his back, we know how he died. We don't know his name, but we know enough to recognise him as fully human. That is what the new tools give us: not symbols of a lost world, but individual people with individual stories. •       The Fall of Rome Was Not a Tragedy: Wyman spent fifteen years of his life thinking about the fall of the Roman Empire and hosting a podcast about it. Writing this book changed how he sees it. He used to view it as a tragedy — something lost. Now he views it as a natural part of the rhythms that pulse through human societies over long periods of time. The remarkable thing about Rome is not that it fell. All empires fall. All societies eventually reach the limits of their technologies, their environments, their ways of organising life. The remarkable thing is that it lasted as long as it did. Six hundred years. That's the story. •       Think of Yourself as the Middle, Not the End: Wyman's message for the AI apocalypticists — and for everyone else who believes they're living at the final chapter of human history. Every person at every point in the past believed the same thing. The Neolithic farmers Wyman studies. The Bronze Age city-dwellers. The Romans. Every one of them was both an endpoint and a beginning. The AI revolution may transform the world. But it will not end it. Stop thinking in terms of next quarter. Start thinking of yourself as part of something much, much bigger — that will extend long after your name has been forgotten. About the Guest Patrick Wyman is the host of the Tides of History, Fall of Rome, and Past Lives podcasts, and the author of Lost Worlds: How Humans Tried, Failed, Succeeded, and Built Our World (Harper, May 5, 2026) and The Verge: Renaissance, Reformation, and Forty Years That Shook the World. He has a PhD in History from USC and lives in Phoenix, Arizona. References: •       Lost Worlds: How Humans Tried, Failed, Succeeded, and Built Our World by Patrick Wyman (Harper, May 5, 2026). •       Tides of History podcast by Patrick Wyman — currently covering the Iron Age. •       Fall of Rome podcast by Patrick Wyman. •       Episode 2891: John Steele Gordon on information technology and American unity — the companion piece on how technology changes history at the deep level. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - Introduction: from the Ice Age to the Bronze Age...

“The current crisis was far from inevitable. Politicians made consistently bad choices. In doing so, they fostered a crisis of confidence in political institutions, empowered anti-system candidates, and produced a new Cold War as dangerous as the last.” — Ian Shapiro The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 was a moment of extraordinary euphoria. Fukuyama even described it as the end of history. But what seems to have really fallen in November '89 was the vitality of democracy. Almost forty years later, we have Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, and, perhaps most worrying of all, Keir Starmer. Callous and inept politicians are breaking our democratic world. Our job is to put it back together. That's the thesis of a new book by Ian Shapiro — Sterling Professor of Political Science at Yale. In After the Fall, Shapiro argues that it's politicians who have created today's crisis of democracy. His pivotal moment is 2008 rather than 1989. The global financial crisis was the inflection point — the moment at which the corruption of the neoliberal order became self-evident, when elites bailed out the banks and we see the birth of left and right wing illiberal populism. The roots go back before 2008. Clinton's greatest failure, Shapiro argues, was not NAFTA or welfare reform. It was Russia. Yeltsin wanted to join NATO. Even Putin, in his early years in power, acknowledged that Russia considered itself European. George Kennan, Brent Scowcroft and Richard Nixon warned that expanding NATO eastward would create a new enemy. Clinton ignored them all. So history repeated itself in the form of Versailles rather than the Marshall Plan. So how to raise ourselves up after this fall? What road to take? Maps, Shapiro suggests, aren't always helpful. The New Deal had no GPS algorithm. FDR invented it on the fly. What democratic governments need now, he insists, is massive investment in physical, technological, and labor market infrastructure. Charismatic leaders matter. But the ideas matter more. We need politicians who take risks. Otherwise we'll be saddled with Keir Starmer and our current crisis of extraordinary dysphoria. Five Takeaways •       2008, Not 1989, Was the Inflection Point: The fall of the Wall in 1989 produced euphoria. The real break came nineteen years later. The 2008 financial crisis exposed the neoliberal model, undermined the supremacy of the US-led world system, and — crucially — left behind a large population that would subsequently be mobilizable by political entrepreneurs. Elites bailed out the banks and returned to business as usual. They didn't realize that business as usual was over. From 2008 you can draw a straight line to 2016, to Brexit, to Trump, to every anti-system surge that followed. •       We Repeated the Mistake of Versailles: After World War II, the Marshall Plan invested in the defeated powers — Germany, Japan — and folded them into the new security and economic architecture. After World War I, Versailles punished Germany, and Keynes predicted the results. After the Cold War, the victorious West chose Versailles over Marshall. Yeltsin wanted to join NATO and the EU. Even early Putin said Russia considered itself European. Kennan, Scowcroft, Nixon all warned that expanding NATO eastward would create a new enemy. Clinton ignored them. We created the enemy we warned ourselves about. •       Politicians Broke the World — Not Capitalism, Not Culture: Shapiro's subtitle is precise. The crisis of democracy was not caused by inevitable economic forces or cultural shifts. It was caused by specific bad decisions by specific politicians at specific moments of choice. Clinton on NATO expansion. Bush on the Iraq War and the refusal to build a genuine rules-based international order after 9/11. Obama on the financial crisis response. These were decisions, not fates. They could have been made differently. Which means the current situation is not irreversible — and that future decisions can be made better. •       Starmer as Exhibit A: Having Power Without Ideas: Shapiro's prescription for what democratic governments need: a policy agenda. His cautionary tale: Keir Starmer. Starmer came into office with a massive parliamentary majority — he could have passed legislation that attracted 50 or 60 backbench no votes and still won. He had nothing to pass. Tiny step left, tiny step right, reverse, repeat. His comparison: Trump's main policies came out of Project 2025 — put together not by Trump himself but by people who created the ramp he ran on. Without a ramp, even a charismatic leader stumbles. Without ideas, power is squandered. •       The New Deal Had No Blueprint: FDR Made It Up: The lesson for what comes next. The New Deal — the last great democratic reconstruction — was not designed in advance. Roosevelt made it up as he went along, trying things, abandoning what didn't work, building a coalition of extraordinarily unlikely bedfellows. What democratic governments need now, Shapiro argues, is massive infrastructure investment: physical infrastructure, tech infrastructure, labor market infrastructure. The CHIPS Act model. Incentivize business to retrain the workforce for the tech revolution and the green transition. Chancellor Merz in Germany has just borrowed half a trillion euros for this. Without it, there will be another Trump. And another. And another. About the Guest Ian Shapiro is Sterling Professor of Political Science and Global Affairs at Yale University and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is the author of After the Fall: From the End of History to the Crisis of Democracy — How Politicians Broke Our World (Basic Books, May 5, 2026), Uncommon Sense, The Wolf at the Door (with Michael Graetz), and many other books. He lives in New Haven, Connecticut. References: •       After the Fall: From the End of History to the Crisis of Democracy — How Politicians Broke Our World by Ian Shapiro (Basic Books, May 5, 2026). •       Episode 2881: Adrian Wooldridge on The Revolutionary Center — the companion episode on the crisis of liberalism that Shapiro's book diagnoses. •       Episode 2895: Glyn Morgan on The Rise and Fall of American Europe — the international dimension of Shapiro's argument about the post-Cold War missed opportunities. •       Episode 2880: Gal Beckerman on How to Be a Dissident — on the tradition of resistance that Shapiro's “roads not taken” argument implicitly invokes. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than th...

“Post-war Europe is essentially an American protectorate. Europeans don't like to admit that. They only came to realize just how dependent they were on the United States in 2025, when Trump basically leveraged US security and forced Europe into a very disadvantageous trade deal.” — Glyn Morgan Post Second World War Europe was always an American project. At least according to The Rise and Fall of American Europe by Glyn Morgan, the Director of the Moynihan Center of European Studies at Syracuse University and a proud Welshman. All that post-war civilizational jazz — the Marshall Plan, NATO, the EU — weren't really European achievements. Instead, they were American-designed ideas and institutions that proud Europeans boasted they had built themselves. For Morgan, post-war Europe was, in fact, little more than a US protectorate. Gaul colonized by Rome. Wales as a backwater of Great Britain. Europeans only discovered this unpalatable truth in 2025, when Trump leveraged their security dependence to force a ruinous trade deal. JD Vance made the official press announcement at the Munich Security Conference. Today's crisis of NATO is its obit. The original architects of American Europe were deeply Europeanized Americans — Bill Bullitt, who loved France; George Kennan, who spoke better German than most Germans; Ivy League Libs who cherished Europe as a café-rich sibling of New York City. That imaginary continent lasted eighty years. Morgan defines its MAGA replacement as “civilizational America.” It's a United States that sees itself as a distinct civilization with distinct interests, willing to transact with Russia and China and leave an increasingly marginalized Europe to fend for itself. Wales is the future of Europe, Morgan says. The Welsh lost the Darwinian struggle for world power very early — conquered, then absorbed and shrunken into a rainy museum for English romantics. Sheep, rugby and singing ex-miners. That's the fate of 21st century Europe. Bon Voyage. And don't forget your umbrella. Five Takeaways •       American Europe Was a US Protectorate: The story Europeans like to tell is that they built post-war Europe themselves — the Marshall Plan, the Treaty of Paris, the Treaty of Rome, the EU. Morgan's counter: the construction of post-war Europe was theorized by Americans and pushed through by American pressure. Europeans resisted and begrudgingly went along. NATO provided the security. The EU organized the trade. Democratic nation states were the units. Enlargement was the engine. Europeans got comfortable inside this structure and convinced themselves they were in charge. Trump's arrival in 2025 revealed the truth they had been avoiding for eighty years. •       The Architects: Bullitt, Kennan, and the Europeanized Americans: The Roosevelt Democrats who built American Europe were deeply European in origin and values. Bill Bullitt loved France. George Kennan spoke better German than most Germans. They were steeped in the idea that America and Europe were one civilization. They wanted to rescue Europe both from the Europeans themselves and from the Soviet threat they were among the first to identify clearly. Bullitt and Kennan broke with Roosevelt over the Soviets — Roosevelt thought a deal could be struck; they said no. A strong democratic Europe as a bulwark against Soviet communism was the founding logic of the whole enterprise. •       Trump and Vance: The Return of Isolationism: American isolationism — powerful in the 1930s, defeated by Pearl Harbor, marginalized through the Cold War — has returned. It returned in JD Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2025, and in Trump's leveraging of European security dependence to force a disadvantageous trade deal. Morgan's framing: what has emerged is “civilizational America” — a United States that sees itself not as the guarantor of European democracy but as a distinct civilization with distinct interests, willing to transact with Russia and China and leave Europe to manage its own affairs. •       Putin and Trump Are Playing the Same Playbook: Putin seeks a Europe of nation states — not the integrated EU — where he can deal transactionally, playing different European states against each other. Europeans were slow to realize that's what they were facing. Then they faced the same thing from Trump. The beneficiary of the collapse of American Europe, Morgan argues, is China: investing in Eastern Europe, doing trade deals across the continent, acquiring economic leverage while Russia and America compete for security dominance. A Chinese Europe in fifty years is not inconceivable. •       No Solution: Look to Wales: Europe faces an impossible dilemma. Rebuild the military and lose the welfare state. Or preserve the welfare state and rely on security that may no longer be provided. De Gaulle's line: it is a fundamental error to think that to every problem there is a solution. At some moments there is no solution. We await a Bismarck; we have mediocre politicians who can only stop things from getting worse. The bleak future: a pleasant museum, highly dependent on American tech, visited by Chinese and American tourists. Morgan is from Wales. Wales lost the struggle for world power very early. He can see what's coming. About the Guest Glyn Morgan is Director of the Moynihan Center of European Studies at Syracuse University and the author of The Rise and Fall of American Europe (Polity, August 2026) and The Idea of a European Superstate. References: •       The Rise and Fall of American Europe by Glyn Morgan (Polity, August 2026). •       Episode 2875: Daniel Bessner on Cold War Liberalism — the companion episode on the Cold War liberal tradition that built American Europe. •       Episode 2887: Steven J. Ross on The Secret War Against Hate — referenced in the interview; the American neo-Nazi tradition that ran alongside American Europe. •       Episode 2881: Adrian Wooldridge on The Revolutionary Center — the crisis of liberalism that American Europe's collapse is accelerating. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual intervi...

“Orbán rigged the electoral system to highly benefit the winner. He thought he would never face the realistic possibility of losing. When someone actually threatened his plan, he just couldn't imagine it. And that person got more than 55% — a two-thirds-plus majority. Orbán shot himself in the foot.” — Marc Loustau On April 12, Viktor Orbán — the populist who invented the illiberal playbook — got booted out of office by the Hungarian electorate. His defeat, says Marc Loustau, Harvard PhD and fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study at Central European University, represents a playbook for defeating illiberalism. Orbán had rigged the electoral system so dramatically — giving the winner 1.5 votes for every vote the loser got — that when Péter Magyar got more than 55 percent of the vote, Orbán's own system destroyed him. The gods must have their fun — Hungarian poetic justice. Orbán's cronies, Loustau reports, are fleeing to Dubai with their hot rod car collections and ill-gotten gains from sixteen years in power. But the mid- and upper-tier bureaucrats, Loustau warns, are still in office. Not having any other skills, they're going to be difficult to dislodge. Making Hungary a functional democracy again won't happen overnight. The goal of Péter Magyar's government, Loustau says, is to “make Hungary boring again.” That should be the lesson for the anti-Trumpists in his native America, Loustau says. Build the broadest possible coalition, never kick anyone out of it, and refuse to be drawn onto the deadly culture-war terrain. When Orbán banned the Budapest Pride parade to force Péter Magyar to take a stand on LGBTQ issues, Magyar flew to a Greek island. It was, Loustau says, the smartest move of the campaign. Make America boring again. The anti-Hollywood playbook for defeating illiberalism. Are you watching Gavin & Kamala? Five Takeaways •       Poetic Justice: Orbán's System Destroyed Him: Orbán rigged Hungary's electoral system to massively benefit the winner: if you get more than 55 percent of the vote, you get roughly 70 percent of parliamentary seats, and effectively 1.5 votes for every vote your opponent receives. He did this because he never imagined anyone could get above 50 percent against him. When Péter Magyar did — comfortably — Orbán's own system gave Magyar a supermajority. Loustau's verdict: it is rare that there is genuine poetic justice in life. This is one of those moments. •       The Cronies Are Heading for Dubai: Sixteen years of a two-thirds majority in parliament allowed Orbán to pack every institution in Hungary with loyalists — friends, family, friends of friends — from top to bottom. In the end, this became part of his undoing: when you bleed out talent and fill institutions with cronies, you end up with an inept government. The most visible Orbán figures are now heading to Dubai with their hot rod car collections. But the mid-level “authoritarian cadre circles” burrowed into every institution will be much harder to remove. It will take years to restore functional public services. •       Make Hungary Boring Again: The incoming government's agenda, in Loustau's formulation, is to make Hungary boring again. No more brinkmanship between Russia, Brussels, and Washington. No more geopolitical risk-taking. Hungary belongs in the EU, and if the EU likes anything, it is stultifying bureaucracy. That, paradoxically, may be the best thing for ordinary Hungarians. It does not signal the end of the far-right threat globally. So long as Putin is alive, Loustau argues, we must remain vigilant. •       Magyar Goes to Greece: The Culture War Lesson: One of Orbán's favourite tactics was to force opposition politicians to take a stand on LGBTQ issues. He banned the Budapest Pride parade specifically to create a trap for Magyar — either come out against the ban and look soft on “family values,” or attend the parade and look radical. Magyar's response: he went on holiday to Greece. He wasn't even in the country. Loustau calls it one of the slyest moves of the campaign. The lesson for Trump's opponents: never engage on the terrain your opponent has chosen. •       Can Disaffected Trumpians Defeat Trumpism? Magyar came from within Orbán's government and broke with him at a moment of genuine moral crisis — a scandal involving pardons for those who covered up sexual abuse at state-run orphanages. That moral authority gave him a platform. Loustau's honest assessment: disaffected Trumpians who had any dealings with Trump are radioactive, perhaps permanently. But the broader lesson holds: when government inaction harms the innocent and powerless, someone who stands up and says “enough is enough” can build a majority. Magyar didn't win on policy. He won on decency. About the Guest Marc Loustau is a Harvard PhD, Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study at Central European University in Budapest, and author of the At the Edges Substack. He writes on Central and Eastern European politics, religion, and society. References: •       At the Edges by Marc Loustau — his Substack on Central and Eastern European politics. •       Episode 2880: Gal Beckerman on How to Be a Dissident — the companion episode on the theory of resistance that Magyar's campaign enacted. •       Episode 2881: Adrian Wooldridge on The Revolutionary Center — on the crisis of liberalism that Orbán exploited and Magyar may have reversed. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - How significant was the Hungarian election in historical terms? (01:30) - Orbán's authoritarianism: model for the world, now defeated (02:56) - Was the left paranoid? How did Orbán actually lose? (03:50) - Poetic justice: Orbán rigged the system and it destroyed him (05:46) - Corruption uncovered: the regime unraveling (06:38) - Sixteen years of cronyism: what remains? (07:51) - Authoritarian cadre circles: how long to dislodge them? (08:24) - The cronies heading for Dubai with their hot rod collections (10:38) - Romania, Ceauşescu, and celebrat...

“Anyone that's properly using AI now knows that you tell it what you want, it gives you a plan, carries out the work, and you judge and tweak. You're not a passive victim — you're an active user with outcomes in mind.” — Keith Teare Do we really want a no-hands job from Silicon Valley? That Was the Week newsletter publisher Keith Teare — who thinks all tech innovation results in human progress — thinks we do. No hands, no problem, Keith says. But I'm not sure. Especially given the powers-that-be giving us that no-hands job. Keith welcomes the end of what he calls the “typed” and “touched” computing era — keyboards, mice, touchscreens, and all the manifold ways we have used our hands to interact with computers since the 1980s. That's the outcome, he predicts, of the race to AGI. So far so good. But what happens if our no-hands AI future is controlled by Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook? This week these four behemoths committed 00 billion to AI infrastructure investment in 2026 alone — 2 percent of all US GDP. These companies are racing to build (and own) the foundational mechanics of AGI. That's always how it's been, Keith says, embracing our no-hands future. I'm less open-armed. What happens if we want our hands to fend off AGI? No, I'm not so keen on a no-hands job from Silicon Valley. Especially one couched in the altruism of human progress. Five Takeaways •       The End of the Hand-Driven Computing Era: Andrej Karpathy's observation at Sequoia's AI Ascent: he no longer uses his hands to do his work. He speaks to the computer; the computer acts; he judges and refines. The keyboard, the mouse, the touchscreen — all the hand-driven interfaces that have defined computing since the 1980s are entering their twilight. Karpathy calls it “software 3.0”. Keith, two years ago, wrote an editorial called “eyes, hands, ears, and mouth” about the inclusion of other human attributes beyond hands. That prediction has arrived. •       $700 Billion: The CapEx Explosion: A post by @Signal framed the week's numbers: $700 billion in AI infrastructure spending in 2026, equivalent to 2 percent of all US GDP. This kind of spending, the post observes, usually happens via governments or wars. This time, it's four private companies — Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Meta — racing to build the foundational mechanics of AGI. Meta was punished by Wall Street for overspending; Google was rewarded because its numbers were strong enough to justify it. The same bet, two different verdicts, depending on your quarterly earnings. •       Was the Internet Privately Built? The ARPANET Argument: Keith's claim: innovation waves have always been privately financed. The railways, the telephone, the electricity grid, the commercial internet. Andrew's counter: ARPANET was a massive government investment that created the protocols on which the internet runs. Keith's response: ARPANET was a university bulletin board that created the precedent, not the infrastructure. Andrew's response: that's not exactly what ARPANET was. They agree that government research matters. They disagree on how much credit it deserves for what became the commercial internet. •       The Revenge of the Idea Guy: Sam Altman's line of the week. In the past, an idea person came up with a concept and then needed expensive engineers to build it. Many ideas never saw the light of day because the engineering cost was prohibitive. Now, anyone can speak an idea into existence. AI builds the plan, executes the work, and you judge and refine. That changes the economics of creativity, advertising, software development, and anything else that used to require specialist execution. The specialist is not dead — but specialists will increasingly use AI to scale themselves, rather than being hired one at a time. •       Should Kids Use AI in Schools? A New Yorker piece asks what it would take to get AI out of schools. Keith's view: the premise misunderstands how AI works now. The fear is passive students asking chatbots for answers and having their brains atrophy. The reality is that proper AI use requires active judgment at every step — telling it what you want, refining the plan, evaluating the output. If schools understand that, they embrace AI. If they don't, they produce graduates unequipped for a world in which the idea guy with AI tools now has the power the engineering team used to have. Andrew's prediction: the kids whose parents ban AI will eventually sue them. About the Guest Keith Teare is a British-American entrepreneur, investor, and publisher of the That Was the Week newsletter — a daily curation of the most important stories at the intersection of technology, business, and culture. He is a co-founder of TechCrunch and a long-time interlocutor on Keen On America. References: •       That Was the Week newsletter by Keith Teare — this week's editorial: “Hand Job?” •       Andrej Karpathy at Sequoia Capital AI Ascent 2026 — the Karpathy interview on Software 3.0 and the end of typed input. •       @Signal, “$700 billion on AI infrastructure” — the post that framed the CapEx question. •       Jessica Winter, “What Will It Take to Get AI Out of Schools?” The New Yorker, 2026. •       Episode 2891: John Steele Gordon on how information technology knitted America together — the ARPANET backstory that feeds directly into this week's argument. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - Keith leads with “Hand Job?” — explaining the headline (03:27) - Karpathy at Sequoia: the end of typed and touched input (04:30) - CapEx: the real story of the week (05:35) - $700 billion — 2% of US GDP on AI infrastructure (06:38) - Was the commercial internet privately built? (07:35) - ARPANET: pathetic bulletin board or foundational infrastructure? (09:08) - Keith and Andrew agree to disagree on government's role (11:00) - Big Tech earnings: Google up, Meta down, and why (17:00) - OpenAI's strategy: the long game

“Trump has no strategy and no endgame. No amount of success in tactics will win. No military campaign has ever been won solely from the air.” — Jason Pack Happy May Day! Today's papers are leading with stories about Obamacare, a Gaza flotilla, and the price of oil. Everything but the story at both the front and back of our minds. Only the Wall Street Journal leads with Iran. Which is more than a bit odd, given that America is supposed to be at war there. Or is it? Jason Pack — Middle East analyst, host of the Disorder podcast, and our man in London — joins for a special May Day show on the most surreal conflict in recent memory. Both sides, Pack argues, care more about the narrative war than about actual military strategy. The official word out of DC and Tehran is the same: we're winning. But no military campaign in history has been won solely on the airwaves. Pack sees two sides that are doing their surreal best to ignore a war that they are both fighting. If you pretend it's not happening, then maybe it isn't. Don't mention the war. On this May Day, everyone is Basil Fawlty. Five Takeaways •       Two Sides with No Strategy: Both Trump and the Iranian regime are more invested in the narrative war — the story of who is winning — than in having an actual endgame. Trump says the blockade will make the Iranians cry uncle. The Iranians say they are surviving and therefore winning. Neither has clearly stated what they want from this conflict: not on the nuclear file, not on territory, not on regime change. Pack's verdict: he sees two sides that don't even know what they want to get out of a war they're both pretending is going well. •       No Campaign Has Ever Been Won Solely from the Air: The American military has showcased extraordinary AI-enabled tactical capability in the Iran conflict. But war is about outcomes and strategy. Territory must be controlled. New leaders must be installed. These things cannot be done from altitude. The Israeli Twelve-Day War hit the head of the snake — the Iranian regime — but may have overplayed its hand. A Shia axis that was being systematically degraded could come back like a phoenix if the narrative of martyrdom and resistance is allowed to reconsolidate around shared injury. •       Trump Does Projection: Pack's most pointed observation: track what Trump accuses his adversaries of, and you learn what he is about to do. He says the blockade will make the Iranians cry uncle. Which means he is on the verge of backing down. The absolute worst outcome, Pack argues, would be Trump as the one who folds — not because America loses a war, but because it loses the credibility that underwrites the entire international order. His fear: that is exactly what is about to happen. •       Pakistan: The Sleeping Giant: The story the world's media has mostly not told: Pakistan's role. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has a large Shia minority and a complex relationship with Iran. It also has a complex relationship with China, with the Gulf states, and with the United States. Any escalation that involves Iran necessarily involves the question of what Pakistan does. Pack considers this one of the most under-covered dimensions of the conflict and one of the most consequential. The sleeping giant has not yet been asked to choose sides. That moment may be coming. •       The First AI War: London Antisemitism and Russian Disinformation: Six antisemitic attacks in London in six weeks since the Iran war began. Pack's argument: the disinformation driving radicalisation on social media is not purely Iranian. Russia and North Korea are seeding the most outlandish conspiracy theories about Jewish people — great replacement, Epstein, the rest — and someone with mental health problems eventually acts. This, combined with AI-enabled targeteering and logistics in the actual conflict, makes this the first AI war. Future historians will untangle what that means. For now, it means the world is more disordered than it looks from any single headline. About the Guest Jason Pack is a Middle East analyst, host of the Disorder podcast, and a Fellow at the Middle East Institute. He is the author of Libya and the Global Enduring Disorder and a regular contributor to international media on North Africa, the Middle East, and great power competition. References: •       Disorder podcast by Jason Pack — disorder.fm. •       Episode 2877: Keith Teare — Let's Just Say It Out Loud: AI Is Not Dangerous — the Silicon Valley seminary argument, now tested in the first AI war. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:00) - Chapter 1 (00:31) - May Day check-in: is there even a war happening? (02:09) - Both sides care more about the narrative than strategy (02:37) - Trump's lack of endgame: no military campaign is won from the air (04:18) - How is the war covered in the Middle East? (06:09) - Shia vs Sunni: does it still matter? (07:54) - Hussein, martyrology, and the Shia willingness to fight the losing battle (09:21) - Syria and the Alawis: off the map? (11:00) - Pakistan: the sleeping giant (14:00) - Is this the equivalent of Suez? (18:00) - A new world order: does America want to lead it? (22:00) - The Gulf states and the new regional order (26:00) - Trump does projection: crying uncle (30:00) - China, Russia, and who benefits (34:22) - The first AI war: what will historians say? (37:25) - AI company stocks keep going up (38:02) - London antisemitism: six attacks in six weeks (40:12) - Russian and North Korean disinformation driving radicalization (42:13) - Disorder podcast: subscribe. The world needs it.  

“Nobody has ever made money selling America short. We're an extraordinary country.” — John Steele Gordon To honor America's semiquincentennial birthday, the Wall Street Journal has been celebrating the most impactful American inventions of all time: 1. Internet2. Light bulb3. Integrated circuit4. Personal computer5. Airplane The railroad doesn't even make the top twenty. But the business historian John Steele Gordon validates the list. Gordon's piece for the WSJ series is titled “From the Telegraph to the Smartphone: How Information Technology Unified a Nation.” His argument is that the United States was always in danger of falling apart and the telegraph saved the republic. Then radio, television, and even the now vilified internet knitted it even closer together. Otto von Bismarck quipped that God looks after three things: fools, drunks, and the United States of America. Gordon agrees with the Prussian unifier of Germany. Nobody, he notes, has ever made money selling America short. As for the now venerable republic, he thinks it's still in pretty good hands. The ever expanding national debt, however, is another matter. That certainly wouldn't get onto Gordon's top 250 most impactful American inventions. Five Takeaways •       Hanging by a Thread: The Communication Crisis at the Founding: George Washington's fear was not philosophical: it was geographic. The original United States, stretching to the Mississippi, was larger than all of Western Europe. The trans-Appalachian West couldn't get its commerce over the mountains — it had to go down the Mississippi, which was controlled by Spain. Washington said the West was hanging by a thread. Every subsequent expansion — to California in 1850, to Oregon and Washington — only deepened the crisis. The republic could not exist without communication. That is why the post office was almost constitutionally important in Washington's time, and why the telegraph and the transatlantic cable were understood as national security technology, not merely as business. •       The Atlantic Cable: Ten Days to Ten Seconds: In 1800, a transatlantic crossing took two months westbound and six weeks eastbound. By the 1850s, with steam, it was ten days either way. Cyrus Field — a paper merchant who knew nothing about cable technology — read about undersea cables and decided to lay one across the Atlantic Ocean. Gordon compares this to reading about Sputnik and deciding to go to Mars. It took six tries and ten years. William Thomson — Lord Kelvin — did the physics. The result: ten days to ten seconds. Basically simultaneous. The nineteenth century was right to call itself an age of miracles. •       The Robber Barons Were Misunderstood: As early as the 1850s, the New York Times was calling Commodore Vanderbilt a “robber baron” — after the medieval German toll barons on the Rhine who wouldn't let your boat pass without paying. Gordon's verdict: the dead can't sue, but they should. Vanderbilt built a faster, safer, cheaper transportation network than had existed before. He died the richest man in America in 1877, worth $105 million. Henry Ford did the same thing with the automobile: took a rich man's toy invented in Germany and built one the average man could afford. Gordon sees Elon Musk's reusable rocket in the same tradition. Nobody complained about their products. They complained about their wealth. •       The Internet Is the Greatest American Invention: The Wall Street Journal's ranking puts the Internet at number one, above the light bulb, the integrated circuit, and the personal computer. Gordon agrees. The Internet has changed everything in thirty years, and — he thinks — we've basically seen nothing yet. Scholars bless Google every day. Gordon spent decades going from index to index in the books behind him; today the entire intellectual world is at everyone's fingertips. The railway, which actually unified the national economy by allowing factories in Worcester, Massachusetts to ship shoes across the continent at lower prices, doesn't make the list. Gordon doesn't quarrel with that either. •       God Looks After Fools, Drunks, and the United States: Gordon's July 4th assessment: optimistic about the republic, alarmed about the national debt. The debt, he says, used to be used only for wars and great depressions. It is now used to ensure that no member of Congress ever loses an election. The budget system of the federal government is an unbelievable national disgrace. But the republic itself? Bismarck was right. Nobody has ever made money selling America short. It remains, Gordon believes, a blessed country beyond any other in the history of the world. He's not sure about the fools and the drunks. But he's pretty sure about the Americans. About the Guest John Steele Gordon is an American business and technology historian and journalist. He is the author of An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power, A Thread Across the Ocean: The Heroic Story of the Transatlantic Cable, and many other books. He writes for The Wall Street Journal and Commentary. References: •       John Steele Gordon, “From the Telegraph to the Smartphone: How Information Technology Unified a Nation,” The Wall Street Journal, 2026. •       An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power by John Steele Gordon. •       A Thread Across the Ocean: The Heroic Story of the Transatlantic Cable by John Steele Gordon. •       Episode 2874: Don Watson on From One Mad King to Another — the companion episode on American history and what has always made America America. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - The Wall Street Journal's most impactful US inventions: Internet at number one (01:52) - The founding fear: the US was t...

“It's like wrecking a car to steal a pair of sunglasses. The sunglasses are the ransom. The damage to the car is fifty to seventy-five billion dollars a year.” — Anja Shortland Cybercrime is booming. Ransomware attacks — where criminal gangs encrypt your servers and hold your data hostage until you pay — cost victims somewhere between fifty and seventy-five billion dollars a year in damage. The hackers themselves pocket around a billion. As Anja Shortland, professor of political economy at King's College London and author of Dark Screens: Hackers and Heroes in the Shadowy World of Ransomware, puts it: “it's like wrecking a car to steal a pair of sunglasses.” The sunglasses are the ransom. The wrecked car is the damage to the rest of us. Shortland is an expert in extortive crime — transactions where a legal entity has to make a deal with a criminal group under conditions of zero trust. She has studied kidnap for ransom, Somali piracy, art theft, and now the booming business of ransomware. What fascinates her is not the crime itself but the institutions that emerge in the space between the legal world and the criminal underworld: the insurance companies that price the risk, the negotiators who manage the transaction, the norms that make it possible for a corporation to pay a criminal gang and actually get its data back. In Russia, hacking Westerners isn't even a crime. In North Korea, it's an actual department with a small army of government employees. In Iran, it's a foreign policy. Criminality, Shortland thus argues, is defined by whoever holds power. The game-changer, she argues, is cryptocurrency. Without it, ransomware doesn't work — you can't move money anonymously at scale without it. Regulate cryptocurrency, and you take the profit motive out of most of what she studies. The irony is that the current American administration is amongst the most crypto-friendly in history. Meanwhile, AI — specifically Anthropic's Claude Mythos, the hacking model that was leaked rather than released — is about to give criminals tools that only well-resourced banks and corporations can currently deploy defensively. So cybercrime will continue to boom. Expect a pile-up of wrecked cars on our information highway.Five Takeaways •       We Know You Can Pay a Million: The title of the UK edition of Shortland's book is the most revealing line in ransomware. Criminal gangs don't pick ransom figures arbitrarily. They spend weeks inside the victim's systems, studying cash flow, cash reserves, and insurance coverage, before setting a demand on the painful side of affordable. The victim usually pays — because the alternative is losing access to patient records, customer data, or patents permanently. The hackers know this. The negotiation that follows is, in Shortland's framing, a transaction between parties with zero trust and one thing in common: both want a deal. •       In Russia, It's Not a Crime: Ransomware is not a uniform global crime. In Russia, theft and extortion directed at Westerners is not considered a criminal act. In North Korea, hacking is organised as a government department — a state revenue stream, not a criminal enterprise. The line between crime and legitimacy is drawn by whoever holds power. This complicates any enforcement response: you cannot extradite a North Korean government employee. You cannot prosecute a Russian hacker in a Russian court. The only effective levers are diplomatic, financial, and technical — and all three are currently being weakened. •       Insurance Orders Criminality: Shortland's most counterintuitive argument: insurance companies are not passive bystanders in ransomware. They are active market-makers. By pricing the risk, they create the conditions under which a corporation can make a rational decision to pay. By negotiating on behalf of victims, they create norms — what a fair ransom looks like, what proof of decryption looks like, what happens if the hackers don't deliver. Insurance, in Shortland's telling, is what makes the criminal market function. Most people think insurance is boring. They are not thinking about this. •       Cryptocurrency Is the Real Game-Changer: Ransomware as a profitable business model did not exist before cryptocurrency. Without the ability to move money anonymously at scale, without blockchain verification that payment has been received, the transaction between criminal and victim cannot be completed. Regulate cryptocurrency — apply the anti-money-laundering frameworks that govern wire transfers and bank accounts — and you take the profit motive out of most of what Shortland studies. The irony: the current American administration is among the most crypto-friendly in history, and the president's own family has direct financial interests in the sector. •       Claude Mythos and the Asymmetric AI Problem: Anthropic's Claude Mythos — the AI model built to find software vulnerabilities, which was leaked rather than formally released — is the next phase of this war. The defensive use case is real: a well-resourced bank can use it to find and fix its vulnerabilities before attackers do. The problem is asymmetry. A large financial institution can deploy Claude Mythos defensively. Wiltshire County Council, a local hospital, a dental practice, a legal firm — the soft targets that ransomware gangs prefer — cannot. The hackers will eventually get it. The debate about who should be allowed to use it, and under what conditions, has not happened. That is what worries Shortland most. About the Guest Anja Shortland is a Professor of Political Economy at King's College London and the author of Dark Screens: Hackers and Heroes in the Shadowy World of Ransomware (Princeton University Press, 2025; US edition April 2026) and Kidnap: Inside the Ransom Business. She was a member of the Ransomware Task Force. References: •       Dark Screens: Hackers and Heroes in the Shadowy World of Ransomware by Anja Shortland (Princeton University Press, US edition April 2026). •       Steven Levy, Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution (1984) — referenced in the interview as the origin story of hacking culture. •       Episode 2885: Keith Teare on Adulting — the week Anthropic's Claude Mythos was discussed; the Shortland interview is the companion piece on what it means in practice. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the histo...

“Violence has been misdiagnosed. And there's a misdiagnosis that has caused us to not be able to control it as we could.” — Dr. Gary Slutkin Human violence appears ubiquitous. In Iran. In Gaza. In Ukraine. In Sudan. In American cities and homes. So widespread, indeed, that it seems naturally hardwired into us. Our species-being, so to speak. But, for Dr. Gary Slutkin, there is nothing inevitable about human violence. Slutkin — an epidemiologist who spent years fighting cholera, tuberculosis, and AIDS in Africa before focusing his medical mind on violence — argues that violence is neither a character flaw nor a moral failing. Rather than being baked into our natures, Slutkin sees violence as a contagious disease. It meets the clinical definition of a plague, he says. The more violent our homes, communities, media, politics, the more virally it spreads. Slutkin's new book, The End of Violence: Eliminating the World's Most Dangerous Epidemic, makes the case that violence has been misdiagnosed for centuries. We analyse it as a crime problem, a character problem, an inter-state problem. So we punish, incarcerate and bomb. But none of these approaches confront the contagion. This can only be done, Slutkin argues, with what he calls “violence interrupters” — people from within the infected community who find the most at-risk individuals and cool things down before they escalate. Communities that have applied this approach have seen reductions in violence of 40 to 70 percent, Slutkin boasts, with Cherry Hill, one of Chicago's most dangerous neighbourhoods, experiencing 450 days without a shooting. There will be a time, he promises, when the plague of human violence will be mostly overcome. I hope Dr. Slutkin is correct. But suspect that his brave new violence-free world, like Huxley's, might be simultaneously utopian and dystopian. Five Takeaways •       Violence Meets the Clinical Definition of a Contagious Disease: Slutkin is not speaking metaphorically. Violence meets the definition of a disease: characteristic signs and symptoms causing morbidity and mortality. It meets the definition of contagious: it causes more of itself. One violent event leads to another — in a home, in a community, in a region, in a war. The more you are exposed to it, the more likely you are to do it. This is the same mechanism as measles, as cholera, as COVID. Susceptibility varies — for violence, it has to do with how much you feel humiliated, how much social pain you carry, how much grievance a leader has taught you to feel. But the operating system is the same. •       Violence Has Been Misdiagnosed: For centuries, we have treated violence as a moral failing: a matter of bad people making bad choices. The response has been punishment, incarceration, war. None of these interrupt the contagion. In fact, incarceration concentrates the infection. The misdiagnosis has cost millions of lives. The correct diagnosis — epidemic disease spreading through exposure — changes everything. You don't blame a cholera patient for drinking contaminated water. You don't punish a COVID patient for breathing. You interrupt the spread. You treat the susceptibility. You cool it down. •       Violence Interrupters: The Epidemic Control Playbook: Cure Violence Global trains and deploys violence interrupters: people from the same community, who speak the same language, who have often been involved in violence themselves. Their job is to find the most at-risk individuals — the ones most likely to shoot or be shot next — and intervene before the next event. The approach works. Communities that have applied it have seen reductions of 40 to 70 percent. Over a dozen American cities are at fifty- or sixty-year historic lows. Cherry Hill in Chicago went 450 days without a shooting. Baltimore, New York, and other cities have had similar results. •       Authoritarian Violence Disorder: Chapter eight of The End of Violence is called “Infections of the State.” Slutkin's argument: authoritarian leadership is itself a form of epidemic violence. It spreads violence outward into its own population — through ICE raids, through threats, through the approval and scripting of violence by others. It also spreads it abroad, through war. Violence doesn't know borders. The mechanism is the same: exposure increases transmission; grievance and humiliation increase susceptibility. Trump's Iran war is not just a war. It is authoritarianism causing war. And the spread doesn't stop at the border. •       Uganda Dropped HIV 85 Percent with Behavior Change Alone: In 1987, Slutkin arrived in Uganda, then the most infected country in the world, where a third of the population had what was then a 100 percent lethal disease. Using the epidemic control playbook — no medicines, just behaviour change interventions — they dropped the rate 85 percent. The same approach drove down Ebola, drove down TB long before medication existed. Slutkin's point: we do not need pharmacological intervention to eliminate violence. We need the right people doing the right interventions with the right understanding of how contagion works. We have done it. We can do it again. About the Guest Dr. Gary Slutkin is an epidemiologist and the founder and CEO of Cure Violence Global. He is the author of The End of Violence: Eliminating the World's Most Dangerous Epidemic (Health Communications, Inc., 2026). He is a Professor of Epidemiology and Global Health at the University of Illinois Chicago and a former WHO epidemiologist. References: •       The End of Violence: Eliminating the World's Most Dangerous Epidemic by Gary Slutkin (2026). •       Cure Violence Global — Slutkin's organisation. cvg.org. •       Episode 2887: Steven J. Ross on The Secret War Against Hate — the historical companion on American violence and authoritarian disorder. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify 

America is once again at war. Helen Benedict is one of our most distinguished writers on the moral consequences of war. Her new novel, The Soldier's House, is set in the aftermath of the Iraq war. But it could, equally, be about the aftermath of Afghanistan. Or even Iran. “The war turned me into a monster,” veterans tell Benedict, again and again. “How am I supposed to face my wife, my children, when I know I'm a monster?” On George W. Bush, Benedict is unambiguous. “He was a war criminal,” she says. On the Iraq war, she is equally clear: America went in on lies and killed nearly a million Iraqis, used depleted uranium in violation of international law. Today, Trump is repeating the same catastrophic playbook in Iran. In The Soldier's House, Benedict shows how Iraq turned some American soldiers into monsters. “War is morally corrosive — especially a war where the soldiers can find no justification for what they're doing,” Benedict says. That's the unintended consequence of even the most morally clean war. Expect the same in Iran. If Trump's half peace becomes a George W. Bush total war. Five Takeaways •       He Was a War Criminal: Benedict's verdict on George W. Bush, stated flat and without hedge. He went to war on lies. He killed, depending on who's counting, somewhere near a million Iraqis. The Americans and the British used depleted uranium in violation of international law — polluting the land and spreading poison, producing an epidemic of birth defects among Iraqi civilians and, some veterans claim, among their own children. The forgiveness of Bush — common on the left since Trump — is, in Benedict's view, memory loss. He was not better than Trump. He was better in some things and just as bad in others. The bar is not very high. •       The Other Half of the Story: The Iraq war produced reams of American writing about American soldiers. For years, nobody thought to write about how the civilians felt. Benedict's novel is structured to correct that: Naima, the Iraqi widow, is given equal weight and depth as Jimmy, the American veteran. The point is to push back against the worldwide demonization and scapegoating of Muslim refugees by creating characters who are just as human as anyone we know — who could be your friend, your sister, yourself. She had soldiers and Iraqis read the manuscript to ensure accuracy on both sides. •       Why Fiction, Not Nonfiction: Benedict had already written the nonfiction: The Lonely Soldier, three and a half years of research and interviewing. But no matter how intimate the interviews, she always felt she couldn't get deep inside the experience. In interviews, people put up self-protective barriers: things they don't want to remember, things they are ashamed of, things that are private. Fiction allows her to go where nonfiction cannot. Take everything learned in research. Apply imagination to it. Fill it out. Illustrate the interior experience of war from moment to moment. That is the territory of the novel, and nothing else. •       Moral Injury: The War Turned Me Into a Monster: Benedict's central subject across all her books on war is moral injury: the damage done to a person's conscience when they do things they know, deep down, they had no right to do. A war without justification is maximally corrosive because the soldier can find no frame in which the violence makes sense. It just becomes about violence. Soldiers come home carrying that. It affects everyone who knows them. It affects towns, villages, countries. We bring the war home with us. Every poet who has written about war has said so. Benedict's novels make it visible. •       The Afghan and Iraqi Interpreters: A Betrayal: Trump's abandonment of Afghan and Iraqi interpreters — people who risked their lives and their families' lives working for the US military — is both morally appalling and strategically stupid. Benedict has met many soldiers and marines who agree. They made promises: I will save your family. I will protect you. Now they are forced to break those promises, and it hurts them. Trump started closing these programs in his first administration. The current proposal to send Afghan interpreters and their families to the Democratic Republic of Congo, or return them to the Taliban, is a betrayal of everything America promised. Nobody is going to trust us at all. About the Guest Helen Benedict is a Professor of Journalism at Columbia University and the author of The Soldier's House (Akashic Books, April 2026), The Good Deed (Dayton Literary Peace Prize finalist), The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq, and many other works of fiction and nonfiction. She is a dual British-American citizen and lives in New York City. References: •       The Soldier's House by Helen Benedict (Akashic Books, April 2026). •       The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq by Helen Benedict — the nonfiction companion to the novel. •       The Good Deed by Helen Benedict — Dayton Literary Peace Prize finalist; about the Greek refugee crisis. •       Episode 2882: Peter Wehner — Something Has Gone Terribly Wrong in America — the companion episode on Hegseth's unholy war, referenced in the interview. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: 

“All these groups from 1945 on said: we can resist any hate group in America, even the Ku Klux Klan, as long as we take them on one at a time. But our great fear is if these right-wing groups figure out a way to communicate with one another in a more instantaneous way — we are in big trouble.” — Steven J. Ross It's not just springtime for Hitler in America. It's winter, summer and fall too. There is what the historian of American neo-Nazism, Steven J. Ross, defines as the “too many Führers Problem.” This, he says, is the central weakness of American neo-Nazism over eight decades. Every far-right leader from the 1940s onward demanded a united fascist movement — and every one of them insisted on being the Führer in charge of it. The result was the permanent fracture of the American far right. That is, until the latest wannabe Führer, Donald Trump, came along. Last week, the Justice Department sided with the Ku Klux Klan. The Southern Poverty Law Center — the country's main watchdog against antisemitism, racism, and far-right violence — was accused of running agents within radical right-wing organisations and using charitable funds for improper purposes. In his new book, The Secret War Against Hate: American Resistance to Antisemitism and White Supremacy, Ross says that this has all happened before. The Secret War Against Hate tells the story of three undercover spy operations — run by the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League — that infiltrated every fascist, Nazi, and racist group in America from the 1940s through the 1970s. When government fails to protect its citizens, Ross suggests, it falls to citizens to protect themselves. J. Edgar Hoover's FBI was obsessed with communists and mostly indifferent to antisemitism and racism. Rather than the solution, the G-Men were one more problem. In May 1945, a few days before VE Day, the three spy chiefs — working in offices a few blocks apart in Midtown Manhattan — wrote the identical memo on the same day. If right-wing groups, fractured by the “too many Führers problem,” ever found a way to communicate instantaneously with one another, and if one of them ever peeled off into a mainstream political party, they warned, American democracy would be in big trouble. That was their “Too Many Führers Problem.” Springtime for an American Hitler. Today this problem is no longer a joke.Five Takeaways •       The Justice Department Sides with the KKK: The opening frame of the interview: last week, the Justice Department accused the Southern Poverty Law Center of running agents within radical right-wing groups and using charitable funds improperly. Ross's argument: the same accusations were levelled at the undercover spy operations run by the ADL, the American Jewish Committee, and the Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League from the 1940s onward. Those operations, which operated because government had abrogated its responsibility to protect minorities, foiled plot after plot. The FBI informants doing the same thing were never prosecuted. The pattern — government targeting the anti-hate watchdogs while ignoring actual hate — is not new. •       J. Edgar Hoover: The Enemy Within: Hoover ran the FBI from the early 1920s until his death in 1972, and throughout that period he cared almost exclusively about communists. Correspondence with his Atlanta special agent-in-charge referred to the Anti-Defamation League as the “Anti-Deformation League.” Ross stops short of calling him an antisemite and racist — no burning gun — but says the correspondence smells like both. In 1940, the German-American Bund was operating freely in Los Angeles: the LA ports were open to Nazi spies, propaganda, and payoffs in ways that New York's — under the watchful eye of Mayor La Guardia — were not. Because of Leon Lewis's undercover spy network, every Nazi plot in Southern California was foiled. •       Three Memos, One Day, Three Authors Who Didn't Know Each Other: In May 1945, a few days before VE Day, the leaders of the three undercover operations — working in offices a few blocks apart in Midtown Manhattan, unknown to each other — each independently wrote the same memo. Their two shared fears: first, that if fractured right-wing groups ever found a way to communicate instantaneously with one another, the resistance would be overwhelmed. Second, that if any of them ever peeled off into a mainstream political party, bringing their antisemitic and racist views into the mainstream, the republic would be in real danger. Both predictions, Ross observes, have now come true. •       The Too Many Führers Problem: Every right-wing leader from the 1940s onward called for a united fascist front — and every one of them wanted to be the Führer in charge of it. The result was permanent fracture: each group too small and too self-important to unify with the others. What changed with Trump, Ross argues, is that the far right said: here is our Führer. He is articulating what we say. After Charlottesville — “there are good people on both sides” — the deal was sealed. The internet gave them the ability to communicate instantaneously. Trump gave them the figurehead. The two conditions the 1945 memos feared most had arrived simultaneously. •       Jefferson's Long-Term Solution: Educate Everyone: Ross ends his book with Thomas Jefferson — the right wing's own favourite founding father. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson warned that every so often a political huckster would come along and convince Americans that what was good for him was good for the country. Americans would believe it for a while. But a collectively educated citizenry, really studying the issues, would always come out on the side of democracy. Jefferson called for a constitutional amendment mandating universal education in perpetuity. Ross's verdict: look at the voting patterns. Look at what is happening to the Department of Education. The attack on higher education is not incidental. An uneducated public is the most vulnerable public. About the Guest Steven J. Ross is a Distinguished Professor of History at the University of Southern California and the author of The Secret War Against Hate: American Resistance to Antisemitism and White Supremacy (Simon & Schuster, April 2026) and Hitler in Los Angeles: How Jews Foiled Nazi Plots Against Hollywood and America (Pulitzer Prize finalist). He lives in Los Angeles. References: •       The Secret War Against Hate: American Resistance to Antisemitism and White Supremacy by Steven J. Ross (Simon & Schuster, April 2026). •       Hitler in Los Angeles: How Jews Foiled Nazi Plots Against Hollywood and America by Steven J. Ross — Pulitzer Prize finalist; the companion volume. •       Episode 2882: Peter Wehner on Trump's Unholy War — the companion episode on the moral coll...

“The truth is paywalled, and the lies are free.” — Current Affairs editor, quoted by Brewster Kahle The internet, we were promised, would remember everything. Rather than memory, however, it is now most distinguished by its digital forgetfulness. That's the warning in Vanishing Culture, a new series of essays published by the San Francisco-based Internet Archive. In its concluding essay by Brewster Kahle — founder of the Internet Archive, member of the Internet Hall of Fame, and the closest thing the web has to an official librarian — he makes the case for preserving the online library system. “Our evolving digital age can be our next Carnegie moment or it can be a Library of Alexandria moment. It is up to us.” Today's internet library system, Kahle argues, is worse than the analogue one he grew up with. It's faster, he acknowledges, but shallower. The 1976 Copyright Act means that rather than buying digital books, libraries can only rent access in surveillance environments controlled by a handful of corporations. Sixty percent of news organisations now have paywalls. Academic publishing is controlled by three conglomerates. So an entire generation is growing up without access to the published works of the twentieth century. “The truth is paywalled, and the lies are free,” as the editor of Current Affairs put it. That is today's internet. No laughter. Only forgetting.Five Takeaways •       Carnegie Moment or Alexandria Moment: The Internet Archive's pamphlet Vanishing Culture opens with a choice. Andrew Carnegie invested in public libraries during the early twentieth century: every town in America got one, and by the time the US was thrust onto the world stage after World War II, an educated public was ready. The Library of Alexandria burned. Kahle's argument: we are at the same fork in the road. The digital transition can be a Carnegie moment — everyone with access to all human knowledge — or it can be an Alexandria moment. Sixty percent of news organisations now have paywalls. Academic publishing is controlled by three conglomerates. The library system we have is worse, not better, than the one Kahle grew up with. •       The 1976 Copyright Act as Original Sin: Copyright used to be opt-in: you had to put a ‘c' on your work and register it. The 1976 Act made it opt-out: everything is copyrighted by default, forever, with terms that keep being extended. The consequences: Wikipedia had to be written from scratch because the encyclopedias already written couldn't be shared openly. Academic papers are walled inside publisher systems, which is why arXiv exists. Libraries can no longer buy digital books — only rent access in surveillance environments. The bargain between publishers, libraries, authors, and the public that functioned for centuries has been dissolved by lobbyists writing copyright law. •       The Truth Is Paywalled and the Lies Are Free: Kahle's most quotable line belongs to someone else — the editor of Current Affairs. But Kahle endorses it fully. An entire generation is now growing up without access to the published works of the twentieth century. People are genuinely confused about whether the Holocaust happened — not because the information doesn't exist, but because it's behind a paywall. What is free on the internet is what serves the interests of the platforms: viral, emotional, algorithmically optimised, frequently false. The deep, sourced, accurate record costs money to access. That inversion is not an accident. It is the business model. •       Turnkey Tyranny: Kahle quotes Edward Snowden's phrase for what surveillance capitalism has built: turnkey tyranny. All it needs is someone motivated to think tyrannically, and all the laws, policies, and technologies are already in place. The internet was built on a protocol: play by the rules and you're in. That openness is gone. What replaced it is a small number of platforms with enormous centralised control of distribution, purchasing the upstream sources — Comcast buying movie studios, Amazon buying MGM. Whoever controls distribution, Lawrence Lessig's maxim holds, will eventually control everything upstream from it. •       AI Mass Larceny? The Real Loser Is People: Asked the binary question — is AI mass larceny, yes or no? — Kahle refuses it. His answer: the fight between publishers and AI companies is Coke versus Pepsi. The real dynamic is large corporations — whether you call them AI companies or publishing conglomerates — taking from people's goodwill, their creative output, their authorship, and landing the value in very few hands. What Kahle wants is public AI: ClimateGPT, reading the Sri Lankan 1953 fish reports and seeing the patterns in them. AI that serves the public good, not the shareholders of one, two, or three gigantic players. The answer isn't either Coke or Pepsi. It's water. About the Guest Brewster Kahle is the founder and Digital Librarian of the Internet Archive, a member of the Internet Hall of Fame, and the author or editor of Vanishing Culture (Internet Archive, 2024). He was previously the founder of WAIS and Alexa Internet. He lives in San Francisco. References: •       Internet Archive — archive.org. •       Vanishing Culture: A Report on Our Disappearing Digital Heritage, ed. Brewster Kahle et al. (Internet Archive, 2024). Available free at archive.org. •       arXiv (arxiv.org) — the open-access preprint server that routes around academic publishing. •       Episode 2877: Keith Teare — Let's Just Say It Out Loud: AI Is Not Dangerous. The counterpoint to Kahle's wariness about AI centralisation. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:30) - The internet's librarian: forgetting vs. surveillance (01:55) - Carnegie moment or Alexandria moment? (03:20) - Andrew Carnegi...

“White men are 29 percent of the population but hold 90 percent of Fortune 500 CEO positions, 90 percent of venture capital, and 98 percent of all money managed by money managers. Is that because they're smarter? Or is it because there is preference, inequality, and active bias in favor of white men?” — Steve Phillips Are white men really smarter than other Americans? Some white men might think so, but few others are convinced. Especially the Stanford educated Steve Phillips whose new book, Are White Men Smarter Than Everybody Else? is designed to “play offense” in the fight for American racial justice. The title of Phillips's new book is, of course, a provocation. White men are 29 percent of the population, he tells us, but hold 90 percent of Fortune 500 CEO positions, 90 percent of venture capital, and 98 percent of all investment funds managed by money managers. Is that really because they're smarter than everybody else? Or is it because the system is biased in favor of white dudes who graduated from Harvard, Princeton and Stanford. After the murder of George Floyd in 2020, Phillips argues, there was, albeit all-too-briefly, broad agreement that systemic racism existed and needed to be addressed. Then came the 2024 election and the MAGA war against DEI. It's time to fight back, Phillips says. Rather than defending affirmative action, Phillips says that the question is why, in the richest country in the world, white men hold 90 percent of the power when they are only 29 percent of the population. Until that mathematical inconsistency is explained, there's no point in pretending that the arc of American history bends toward justice. Five Takeaways •       29 Percent of the Population, 90 Percent of the Power: The book's central data point. White men are 29 percent of the US population. They hold 90 percent of Fortune 500 CEO positions. They receive 90 percent of venture capital funding. They manage 98 percent of all investment money in the country. Phillips's argument: you don't need to allege conscious racism to explain this. You just need to acknowledge that a system shaped by centuries of exclusion doesn't self-correct. The question the title asks is the question nobody wants to answer: if the system is meritocratic, why do these numbers look like this? Either white men are smarter than everybody else, or the system is not meritocratic. •       Playing Offense: The book began as a study of what happened to the post-George Floyd consensus. The broad agreement that systemic racism existed — widespread in June 2020 — dissolved within months. By 2024, the political momentum had reversed entirely. Phillips's diagnosis: the left spent the intervening years playing defense — defending DEI, defending affirmative action, defending the language of equity. The result was a retreat. His prescription: stop defending programmes and start prosecuting the inequality. Make the other side explain the numbers. Reframe the question from “should we have DEI?” to “why do white men hold 90 percent of the power?” •       The Biker Gang Analogy: To the objection — common from white Americans — that they personally didn't create the racial wealth gap: Phillips offers the biker gang. A gang comes into someone's house, takes all the resources, occupies the house, and passes it on to their children. The children can say: I didn't do anything. But they inherited a structurally unequal situation. The GI Bill after World War II gave billions of dollars in wealth-building to white Americans while largely excluding people of color. The average white family has more than ten times the assets of the average black family. “I didn't do it” is not the same as “I don't benefit from it.” •       The Confederates Never Stopped Fighting: Phillips's underlying argument: the division in American politics is not left vs. right. It is an existential question that has never been resolved — is this a white country, or is this a multiracial democracy? The Confederates and their ideological heirs never conceded the answer. White fear and resentment at equality is the single most consistent driving force in Republican politics since 1965, the year Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act and no Democratic presidential candidate has won the majority of the white vote since. •       America Can't Pass a Bill to Study Reparations: The wealth of the United States was created by the labour of enslaved black people and on land taken from Native Americans. Banks and insurance companies trace their original capital to the bodies and labour of enslaved people. The racial wealth gap is the direct structural consequence of that history. Congress has repeatedly failed to pass a bill not to pay reparations, but merely to study the question. Not a single vote to begin the conversation. Until America can have that conversation, it hasn't begun to confront what is owed. About the Guest Steve Phillips is the founder of Democracy in Color and the author of Are White Men Smarter Than Everybody Else?, How We Won the Civil War, and Brown Is the New White. He is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former San Francisco school board president. References: •       Are White Men Smarter Than Everybody Else? Playing Offense in the Fight for Racial Justice in America by Steve Phillips. •       Democracy in Color — Phillips's organisation focused on race and politics. •       Episode 2883: Melvin Patrick Ely on A Terrible Intimacy — the companion episode on interracial life in the slaveholding South that immediately precedes this one. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:30) - Introduction: from slavery to the present — has anything changed? (01:11) - The short answer: no. And what it took to end slavery. (02:03) - Why the racial wealth gap persists (03:26) - The Confederates never stopped f...

“Sam Altman's best case scenario is that abundance lifts everyone up to a much higher standard, but it also exacerbates inequality. That was his favorite outcome.” — Keith Teare This week's editorial from Keith Teare, publisher of the That Was the Week newsletter, is entitled “Adulting.” His verdict: this was the week the AI industry finally started behaving like grown-ups. The evidence: OpenAI launched ChatGPT 5.5 and Image 2.0, both outstanding, and then made a move Keith considers more significant than either — pivoting Codex from a programmer's tool into the central interface for everything. The gravity has shifted from the model to the user interface. You shouldn't be using ChatGPT anymore. You should be using Codex. Meanwhile, freemium is working: less tokens, much better output, a functional free tier, and the heaviest users paying for more. Anthropic's week was more complicated. The first four days were, in Keith's word, awful: Opus 4.7 launched with a massive deterioration in performance, hallucinations back, service throttled, timeouts everywhere. Then Anthropic removed features from its paid product, got a furious backlash, and reinstated them within twenty-four hours — what Keith calls Dario's adolescent-teenager moment. But Friday redeemed the week: Google committed up to $40 billion in infrastructure investment, Amazon added $5 billion. The money goes into data center capacity and chips — TPUs from Google, Trainium from Amazon, both competing with Nvidia. Two axes are emerging: OpenAI–Nvidia on one side, Anthropic–Google–Amazon on the other. The bigger question: what does adulting actually require of AI? Keith's reading of the week's most interesting piece — on the future of work — is that the durable jobs in an AI economy will be in the relational sector: nurses, therapists, teachers, craft brewers, live performers, care workers. Human-to-human is the scarce resource. Reid Hoffman adds: technology's arc bends toward access, but not on its own — it requires political will. And Altman himself, in his interview with Greg Brockman, described his best-case scenario as one in which abundance lifts everyone up but exacerbates inequality. Which is to say: even optimism, in Silicon Valley, ends in more inequality. Adulting, it turns out, has its limits. Five Takeaways •       Codex Is Now the Central App: The most significant move of OpenAI's week wasn't ChatGPT 5.5 or Image 2.0 — both outstanding — but the repositioning of Codex. What was a programmer's tool has become the central interface: it does more things, has access to all the models, and represents a shift in where the gravity of the company sits. From the model to the user interface. Keith's verdict: you shouldn't be using ChatGPT anymore for any purpose. You should be using Codex. The freemium model is working because less tokens produce much better output, making the free tier genuinely functional — and the heaviest users still pay for more. •       Dario's Adolescent-Teenager Week: Anthropic's first four days were, in Keith's reading, a study in how not to adult. Opus 4.7 launched with massively deteriorated performance — hallucinations returned, the service was throttled, users got timeouts. The infrastructure was creaking under load. Then, to compound the problem, Anthropic removed features from its paid tier. The backlash was immediate and furious. They reinstated the features within twenty-four hours. Keith's diagnosis: reactive, adolescent, exactly the opposite of what OpenAI was demonstrating that same week with deliberate, long-term thinking. •       $45 Billion and Two Axes: Friday changed the Anthropic picture entirely. Google committed up to $40 billion in infrastructure investment — $10 billion initially. Amazon added an initial $5 billion. The money funds data center capacity and proprietary chips: TPUs from Google, Trainium from Amazon, both in competition with Nvidia. The implication: two separate technological axes are now forming. OpenAI and Nvidia on one side. Anthropic, Google, and Amazon on the other. Keith's view: great for Google and Amazon; a long-term bet for Anthropic that they don't need to be an Nvidia customer. •       The Future of Work Is Human-to-Human: Keith's most interesting read of the week: a piece on the future of work that argues the durable jobs in an AI economy will be in the relational sector — the jobs where the human element is the product itself. Nurses, therapists, teachers, craft brewers, live performers, care workers, spiritual guides. Not prompt engineering (transitional). Not monitoring AI systems (transitional). Human-to-human. Nursing is already the most popular university major. Keith's extension: as work disappears, so does the social connection it provides — family, friends, colleagues. Which means religion probably makes a comeback. •       Sam Altman's Best Case: More Inequality: In his interview with Greg Brockman on the Core Memory podcast, Altman described three possible AI futures. His favourite: abundance lifts everyone up to a much higher standard, but also exacerbates inequality. That was the good outcome. The others were worse. Reid Hoffman adds a necessary corrective: technology's arc bends toward access, but not on its own — it requires human agency and political will. Keith's gloss, via Robert Heinlein's For Us, The Living: the heritage check — a monthly dividend to all humans from the automated economy's surplus. Money as a mechanism for allocating scarce resources becomes less meaningful when scarcity itself disappears. About the Guest Keith Teare is a British-American entrepreneur, investor, and publisher of the That Was the Week newsletter — a daily curation of the most important stories at the intersection of technology, business, and culture. He is a co-founder of TechCrunch and a long-time interlocutor on Keen On America. References: •       That Was the Week newsletter by Keith Teare — this week's editorial: “Adulting.” •       Greg Brockman and Sam Altman on the Core Memory podcast — the OpenAI interview that anchors the week. •       Reid Hoffman, “Faith in the Possible,” Substack — technology's arc bends toward access, but not on its own. •       Episode 2878: Victoria Hetherington on The Friend Machine — Keith weighs in on AI companionship and the loneliness question. •       Episode 2877: Keith Teare — Let's Just Say It Out Loud: AI Is Not Dangerous. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. 

“The burdens of slavery did crush some people. They elicited outright armed rebellion from others. And between those two extremes, there's all manner of response. But black culture was what most historians say it was: rich, semiautonomous — and yet there is all kinds of cross-fertilization that goes on.” — Melvin Patrick Ely As we approach the 250th anniversary of the republic, America is still struggling to come to terms with its original sin — slavery. With his new micro-history, A Terrible Intimacy, Melvin Patrick Ely takes all the abstractions, moral and otherwise, out of the story. The meticulous Ely has spent many years in the county records of Prince Edward County, Virginia, going through 75 cartons of nineteenth-century papers: court cases, lawsuits, plantation ledgers, testimony from black and white witnesses alike. The result is a history of six criminal trials which reveals the intimacy of life between whites and blacks in the slaveholding South. In Prince Edward County, as on most small Southern farms — and contrary to our plantation mythology, fully half the enslaved people in the South lived on small properties of fewer than twenty people — black and white people knew each other personally. They drank together, worshipped together, spoke the same dialect, shared the same folk knowledge of weather, nature, and time. Ely tells the story of an enslaved man named Tom and his white overseer Richard Foster who consumed a quart of whiskey together in the morning, and then fought to the death that same afternoon over a surcingle strap. That was how blacks and whites lived and died. Such intimacy, Ely is careful to make clear, did not mitigate anything. Everyone knew the master who gouged a slave's eyes with sticks and pulled sound teeth out with pliers. But he was the outlier. Life was mostly more tragically complex. That was the terribly terrible intimacy about America's original sin. Five Takeaways •       Thirty Years in the County Records: Five or six entire summers, six days a week, eight hours a day, in the Library of Virginia — plus months of collating, plus years of writing. Seventy-five cartons of papers from Prince Edward County: court cases with witness testimony, plantation records, mercantile ledgers, letters, building contracts (including the bill from the carpenter who built the gallows on which one of the book's central figures was hanged). Ely's method: go through tens of thousands of documents looking for needles in a haystack — nuggets of revelatory information about how the society actually operated. Most historians process that research behind the scenes and deliver a smooth narrative. Ely does it in front of you, in conversation with the reader. •       Tom and the Overseer: A Quart of Whiskey and a Fight to the Death: The book's first chapter is built around one criminal trial. An enslaved man named Tom is on trial for killing his white overseer, Richard Foster, with the handle of a hoe. The testimony — from white witnesses including the dead man's own sister, and from other enslaved people on the farm — reveals that in the morning of the day of the killing, the two men had sat down and drunk together as much as a quart of whiskey. Then, later in the day, a stupid verbal exchange about a missing strap escalates into a fight to the death. In a single day: drinking like buddies, then killing. That is the terrible intimacy — closeness and callousness, not as opposites, but as the same thing. •       Half the Enslaved Lived on Small Farms: The plantation is the dominant image of American slavery — the sprawling estate, the hundreds of enslaved people, the distant master. But fully half of the enslaved people in the South lived on small properties of fewer than twenty people: farms where black and white people of every legal status — enslaved, free black, poor white, slaveholder — were in daily personal contact. They shared the same churches, the same dialects, the same understanding of nature and time. Black culture was rich and semiautonomous, but there was also constant cross-fertilization. The binary of master and slave does not capture what was actually happening in most of the South. •       Nobody Said a Word While He Was Alive: One chapter centers on an enslaved man who killed his master — a man the testimony reveals had beaten him with sticks, broken sticks over his head, gouged his eyes, whipped him, chained him to the floor, and pulled sound teeth from his mouth with pliers. At the trial, white witnesses are called. Their testimony ranges from glossing over the abuse to calling it “barbarious.” But not one of them had spoken up while the master was alive. Not one ever said: beating a slave with a stick must never be done. The range of white feeling about permissible cruelty was finite — some drew the line at near-blindness, some did not. Nobody drew it at the start. That is the system. •       Beyond Pride and Shame: Two hundred and fifty years on, the temptation is still to resolve slavery into a usable narrative — either the sentimental Southern white memory of paternalist kindness, or the equally schematic counter-narrative of unremitting oppression met by constant resistance. Ely resists both. Unremitting oppression does grind people down — but it also elicits armed rebellion, quiet subversion, rich cultural creation, and all manner of response in between. White Southerners were not all identical — but the range of their difference was constrained by a system that made economic gain dependent on the legal ownership of human beings. The book doesn't offer resolution. It offers accuracy. Which, in the 250th anniversary year, is the harder and more necessary thing. About the Guest Melvin Patrick Ely is the William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Humanities and Professor of History at the College of William & Mary. He is the author of A Terrible Intimacy: Interracial Life in the Slaveholding South (Henry Holt, April 14, 2026), Israel on the Appomattox: A Southern Experiment in Black Freedom from the 1790s Through the Civil War (Bancroft Prize), and The Adventures of Amos ‘n' Andy. He lives in Richmond, Virginia. References: •       A Terrible Intimacy: Interracial Life in the Slaveholding South by Melvin Patrick Ely (Henry Holt, April 14, 2026). •       Israel on the Appomattox: A Southern Experiment in Black Freedom from the 1790s Through the Civil War by Melvin Patrick Ely — Bancroft Prize winner; the companion volume to this book. •       Episode 2871: Beverly Gage on This Land Is Your Land — the road trip through American history that opens Ely's interview as a point of departure. About Keen On America Nobody ask...

“They weren't interested in being on the side of God so much as they are insistent that God is on their side.” — Peter Wehner on Hegseth and Trump According to Peter Wehner, something has gone terribly wrong in America. And that something, Wehner has been warning us now for more than ten years, is Donald Trump. In his latest Atlantic piece, “Hegseth's Unholy War,” Wehner aims his moral rifle at Trump's latest outrage, the Iranian conflict. Citing Hegseth's prayer at the Pentagon for “overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy,” Wehner argues that the Bible, in his Crusader-like hands, has been weaponized into a theological cover for bloodlust. Something has gone terribly wrong with the intersection of faith and American politics, Wehner believes. The evangelical church, which once commanded real moral authority, has largely become what he calls a defamation of Jesus. Thus the significance of Pope Leo XIV's public opposition to Trump. Rather than a social media spat, Wehner sees this Papal indictment of Trump as a kind of moral war which has been brewing for some time. In a recent New York Times op-ed co-authored with Jonathan Rauch, Wehner argued that the Trump administration has reached its psychotic stage. Having filled key institutions with Hegseth-style lackeys and hoodlums, this psychosis is now infecting not just the federal government but the whole world. Thus Iran. It's the kind of fiasco you wouldn't expect from middle schoolers planning a field trip, Wehner says. His fear is that as Trump is humiliated by both the Papacy and Tehran, the President of the United States will have what psychologists call an extinction burst — a five-year-old's out-of-control tantrum. Yes, something has indeed gone terribly wrong in America. Five Takeaways •       Hegseth's Unholy War: At a Pentagon worship service, Hegseth prayed for “overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy,” invoking imprecatory psalms — emotional laments written from the perspective of the powerless — as theological cover for the most powerful military force in history. Wehner's sharpest line: Hegseth and his allies are not interested in being on the side of God; they are insistent that God is on their side. The Bible becomes not a text for self-examination but a weapon aimed outward. Wehner's diagnosis: Hegseth has a bloodlust, unresolved resentments, and a conversion that is at least in part real — but real in the sense that he has locked onto a particular brand of faith to validate things he already believes. •       Something Has Gone Terribly Wrong: The evangelical church, which once commanded moral authority, has become — by and large, in Wehner's view — an awful depiction of the Christian faith and a net negative contribution to American civic life. Figures like Franklin Graham, Tony Perkins, Robert Jeffress, and Al Mohler have become vocal Trump supporters, using the name of Jesus to validate cruelty and crudity. Wehner's explanation: too many people who know better are afraid to speak out — afraid their congregations will split, afraid of the institutional costs. But the silence is not neutral. A watching world has seen these evangelicals and concluded: you are a bunch of hypocrites who act worse than the people you criticize. •       Pope Leo XIV vs. Trump: Wehner thinks this is not a tiff. It is an intellectual war, and it has been carefully planned. Pope Leo — an American pope, significantly — represents a set of contrasts almost too clean to be coincidental: a moral man against an amoral one, a person of faith against a person of no faith, someone who uses language with care against someone who cannot help but dehumanize his critics. And an institution-builder against an institution-destroyer. Wehner credits Leo with performing a necessary function that almost no one else in American public life is capable of performing — confronting Trump on explicitly moral terms with unblemished authority. •       Vance: The Mask He Wears: Wehner distinguishes Hegseth from Vance: Hegseth is, in some sense, a true believer; Vance's conversion to MAGA was transparently cynical, driven by enormous ambition. That makes him more morally culpable, not less. But Wehner also notes a psychological dynamic: when you live a life at odds with what you truly believe, cognitive dissonance is painful, and the mind mitigates that pain by rationalizing, by beginning to believe what you say. You become the mask you wear. Vance, Rubio, Graham, Johnson — these are people who knew better, decided to make a figurative deal with the devil, and convinced themselves they could do more good than harm. •       The Republican Party Has Become a Dark Force: Without the Republican Party, none of this could have happened. The party is hugely accountable. Trump is sociopathic — colorblind when it comes to morality, probably unable to help himself. But the Republicans in the party did know better and went along anyway. Mike Johnson, very big on proclaiming his evangelical faith, is a pathetic and disreputable figure. His reputation has been stained beyond belief. Wehner's verdict on the party's future: if it has any association with the current iteration, it deserves condemnation. The roots of MAGA go too deep for a snapback. This may get more chaotic after Trump leaves than less. History will get it right, Wehner believes. These people were on the wrong side of their faith, their morality, their politics, and their justice. And it will be known. About the Guest Peter Wehner is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He served in the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush administrations. He is the author of The Death of Politics and several other books. He lives in McLean, Virginia. References: •       Hegseth's Unholy War by Peter Wehner, The Atlantic, April 2026. •       “Pete Hegseth's Moral Unseriousness,” by Peter Wehner, The Atlantic, April 2026. •       “The Trump Administration Is in a Psychotic State,” by Peter Wehner and Jonathan Rauch, The New York Times, April 10, 2026. •       The Barmen Declaration (1934) — Bonhoeffer's theological break with the German Protestant church under Nazism, discussed as a historical precedent. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Ke...

“Liberalism was founded in the middle of the eighteenth century as a revolutionary philosophy — a philosophy that tried to subvert the old world. That set of beliefs has continued to be radical and revolutionary. When liberalism fell into decadence, it examined itself, subverted itself, and became once again a revolutionary faith.” — Adrian Wooldridge We've lost our revolutionary center. At least according to Adrian Wooldridge, the distinguished British political writer. That revolution, Wooldridge insists, is the genius of liberalism — the radical eighteenth-century ideology that shaped the modern world. Today, however, he argues in The Revolutionary Center: The Lost Genius of Liberalism, “liberalism” has become conservative, perhaps even reactionary, in its senescent infatuation with cultural identity. Meanwhile, the biggest threat to liberal individualism is big tech: fragmenting attention, spreading misinformation, manipulating choices through algorithms designed to excite emotion rather than inform reason. Rather than making us geniuses, Silicon Valley is turning all of us into idiots. To the ramparts then, Wooldridge pronounces. Liberals need to seize back the revolutionary center. Or, as Wooldridge, a Fellow of All Souls, would spell it, centre. Five Takeaways •       Erasmus and the Liberal Way of Life: Liberalism begins not as an ideology but as a way of living. Erasmus, charting a middle path between the Reformation and the counter-Reformation, offers the founding insight: a good life involves reading books, drinking wine, having discussions, and not bullying people to adopt your faith. What liberalism adds to this is intellectual skepticism — the recognition that you can't be absolutely certain of your beliefs, and therefore that power must be constrained by constitutions. When liberalism became purely associated with political philosophy, Wooldridge argues, it lost this sense of liberalism as a way of life — and that loss is part of what needs to be recovered. •       Bobo Orthodoxy and Its Wounds: The liberalism of the last forty years has been Bobo liberalism — bohemian bourgeois, David Brooks' term. Maximum individual freedom in both the marketplace and personal conduct; no judgementalism on lifestyle choices; celebration of diversity and immigration as ipso facto goods. It did a great deal of good. Gay marriage. The dismantling of corporatist economics. But it also created problems it couldn't see, because its own philosophy prevented it from acknowledging them. In Britain: the Bobo establishment's inability to confront the grooming gangs, because its multiculturalist assumptions made it terrified of accusations of racism. In America: tent cities, drug addiction, the social costs of choices that nobody felt entitled to criticize. •       Big Tech Is a Bigger Threat Than Putin: Wooldridge's most provocative claim: the biggest threat to liberalism is not Putin or Xi but the tech oligarchy. Putin is a dictator; that system will eventually collapse. But big tech is dismantling liberal individualism from within. Liberalism's foundational premise is that individuals, as the building blocks of society, must be well-informed, capable of self-control, and able to act as rational agents. What information capitalism is deliberately engineering — through algorithms designed to excite emotion, fragment attention, and spread misinformation — is the destruction of all three of those conditions. These companies need to be broken up. Not on socialist grounds. On liberal ones. •       Liberalism as Senescence: Biden and Harris: Exhibit A for the Bobo orthodoxy's exhaustion: the 2024 election. Biden, visibly too old to lead, unable to string sentences together; a whole liberal establishment around him, imprisoned by its own assumptions, running a candidate nobody could defend. Then Harris — chosen, in Wooldridge's blunt phrase, as an affirmative action candidate. The old liberal establishment — Pelosi and the rest — had been in power since the 1990s, had accrued all the defects of the establishment, and had no blueprint to address the real problems people were encountering. The last time British liberalism looked this dead was the 1890s. Then a new programme and new talent arrived: Churchill, Lloyd George, Asquith. •       The Revolutionary Center: Save Capitalism from Itself: Wooldridge's prescription is not to destroy capitalism but to reform it, as Teddy Roosevelt and Louis Brandeis did. Break up vast conglomerations of economic power. Tax inherited wealth. Recreate the conditions for a mass middle class. Brandeis's argument: if people can buy votes, you can't have democracy. If people have vast fortunes, you can't have democracy. You need to save capitalism in order to make it the best version of itself. Mill understood this too: once he saw that factory owners and workers had structurally different choices, he began supporting trade unions and moved left on economics. A radical center is not a soft center. It is a center that is willing to blow up the orthodoxies that have calcified within liberalism itself. About the Guest Adrian Wooldridge is the global business columnist at Bloomberg Opinion and former political editor and Bagehot, Schumpeter, and Lexington columnist at The Economist. He is the author of The Revolutionary Center: The Lost Genius of Liberalism (Pegasus Books, 2026), The Aristocracy of Talent, and Capitalism in America (with Alan Greenspan). He holds a DPhil from All Souls College, Oxford, and lives in London. References: •       The Revolutionary Center: The Lost Genius of Liberalism by Adrian Wooldridge (Pegasus Books, 2026). •       Episode 2880: Gal Beckerman on How to Be a Dissident — the companion conversation on liberalism, dissidence, and the question of the revolutionary center. •       Episode 2869: Jacob Mchangama on The Future of Free Speech — the free speech crisis that contextualises Wooldridge's argument about liberalism's lost genius. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTube

“Pessimism is not fatalism. Fatalism is the belief that things will always necessarily be worse. Pessimism is the belief that things will probably get worse. Within that ‘probably,' it opens up space for action.” — Gal Beckerman In the first months of Trump II, Gal Beckerman watched American society do something that shocked him: comply. In one pathetic example after another, prominent law firms, universities, and senior federal employees buckled to every Trumpian whim. America appeared unable to resist authoritarianism. There were no dissidents. Thus How to Be a Dissident. Beckerman's new manual of resistance is inspired by history's more insistent dissenters — from Mandelstam and Solzhenitsyn to Navalny, Ai Weiwei, Thoreau, Havel, the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, and demonstrators on the streets of Minneapolis. The quiet manifesto focuses on what Beckerman considers the ten most essential qualities of how to be a dissident: Be alone. Be pessimistic. Be funny. Be reckless. Be watchful. Pessimism, above all. Not fatalism — the belief that things will always necessarily be worse — but the belief that things will probably get worse. Optimism, in Beckerman's mind, undermines urgency and thus enables passivity. Pessimism forces resistance. It's the first lesson in how to be a dissident. Five Takeaways •       Moral Nausea: Beckerman's term for the feeling most of us recognise but most of us suppress: seeing something wrong — a neighbour treated badly, a homeless person in a terrible situation, a dead child in a newspaper — and knowing ourselves somehow implicated. Most of us swallow it back down. We don't do anything. We try not to think about it. The dissident is the person who doesn't. What separates them, Hannah Arendt argued after studying Germans who resisted the Nazis, is a single question: can I live with myself? If the answer is no — if living with myself would mean living with a murderer — the dissident acts. That question, and the refusal to avoid it, is what makes a dissident a dissident. •       The Pre-Political: Havel's definition of where dissidence begins: not in ideology or revolution, but in the defence of whatever allows a human life to feel normal. For Havel, it started with a rock band — the Plastic People of the Universe, arrested for playing unauthorised concerts in communist Czechoslovakia. They weren't political. They sang about drinking beer. But they were gathering people together outside state sanction, and that was enough. For Iranian dissidents: being able to drive unaccompanied, or not cover one's hair. For the Tiananmen tank man: getting home to make dinner. The dissident defends those pre-political conditions — the normal life — when the state moves to violate them. •       Mandelstam's Answer: Osip Mandelstam composed a poem mocking Stalin in the early 1930s — at the height of Stalin's repressive era — and never wrote it down. He repeated it to his wife, Nadezhda, night after night in bed until she had memorised it. When it reached the secret police, he was arrested and brought to the Lubyanka. The interrogator asked: why did you do this? He could have denied it. Blamed his wife. Said it was a game of telephone. Instead he said: I wrote it because I hate fascism. It's as simple as that. Beckerman opens the book with this moment because it captures the dissident at their most elemental — a man who, when asked the Arendt question, answered honestly. •       Navalny Goes Back: After being poisoned by Putin and spending months recovering in Germany, Navalny returned to Russia, knowing almost certainly that in the best case he would be in prison for a very long time, and that Putin would most likely find another way to kill him. Which he did. Why go back? Navalny's answer, in his memoir: he had made a promise to the Russian people. How could he stand on the sidelines while asking others to sacrifice so much? The scene Beckerman describes from the prison: Navalny finds a moment away from the cameras, pulls his wife Yulia aside, and tells her he's accepted that he's probably not getting out alive. She says: I know. I've thought the same thing, and I've accepted it. He kisses her. He needs to know she isn't engaging in magical thinking. Optimism, in this context, would not have helped him. •       Be Pessimistic: Beckerman's most counterintuitive prescription, and his favourite. The assumption is that anyone engaged in quixotic world-changing behaviour must be an optimist. Beckerman argues the opposite. Pessimism — not fatalism — is healthier. The distinction matters: fatalism says things will always necessarily be worse. Pessimism says things will probably be worse. The “probably” leaves room for action. If you assume someone else will solve climate change, or that authoritarianism will inevitably collapse, you wait. The pessimist acts now, with what time they have, because they know things probably won't work out otherwise. It is, Beckerman suggests, akin to accepting death: the ultimate pessimistic reality we all face, which is also the only thing that makes each day matter. About the Guest Gal Beckerman is a staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of How to Be a Dissident (Crown, April 21, 2026), The Quiet Before: On the Unexpected Origins of Radical Ideas, and When They Come for Us, We'll Be Gone: The Epic Struggle to Save Soviet Jewry (Sami Rohr Prize winner). He has a PhD from Columbia University and lives in Brooklyn. References: •       How to Be a Dissident by Gal Beckerman (Crown, April 21, 2026). •       Nadezhda Mandelstam, Hope Against Hope — the memoir Beckerman calls one of his favourite books. •       Alexei Navalny, Patriot — the memoir Beckerman draws on for the prison scene with Yulia. •       Episode 2869: Jacob Mchangama on The Future of Free Speech — the companion episode on the crisis of free speech that contextualises this one. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTube

“These technologies are morally agnostic. They could be the best things ever and the worst things ever, and the determinant is us.” — Jamie Metzl Two summers ago, Jamie Metzl gave a talk on AI and spirituality at the Chautauqua Institution in Upstate New York. That same spot where Salman Rushdie was stabbed on stage a couple of years earlier. Rather than an assassination attempt, Metzl's talk triggered The AI Ten Commandments: A New Moral Code for Humanity — a book co-authored with GPT-5. Metzl humbly claims that AI enabled him to incorporate other non-Christian traditions in a new moral code for humanity. Some might think, however, that this type of ChatGPT-5 co-production reflects a new moral crisis for humanity. The victory of AI slop. Fast information. High on intellectual calories, low on everything else. Five Takeaways •       Co-Authoring with GPT-5: Five to six thousand back-and-forth exchanges over the course of writing the book. Metzl is a novelist who cares deeply about language and the provenance of ideas — he is explicit that this is not the kind of AI fraud that got Mia Ballard's book pulled from Hachette. The analogy he reaches for: Refik Anadol at MoMA, whose installation uses the museum's entire digital collection not to reproduce the images but to create something new from them. The collaboration with AI isn't about outsourcing the thinking. It's about gaining a vantage point that no individual human could have — the same way we collaborate with machines in biology to see the genome, which no one could simply observe by looking at another person. •       Moses's Problem: The biblical 10 commandments, examined closely, don't hold up. The first two are preamble. “Thou shalt not kill” — Moses received it on Sinai and then came down and murdered 3,000 people at God's instruction. The commandments were written by people with no awareness of the moral traditions of the Americas, Asia, or Africa. Metzl's counterproposal uses AI to look at all of human recorded history simultaneously — every tradition, every culture, every spiritual framework — and decipher what they share. The analogy: the Artemis II astronauts seeing Earth holistically from space, rather than one community at a time. •       The Ten Commandments, Listed: (1) Treat every being with compassion and dignity. (2) Do no harm; actively protect the vulnerable. (3) Speak and act truthfully, with integrity and humility. (4) Share generously, especially with those in need. (5) Seek to understand others before judging them. (6) Resolve conflict with fairness, forgiveness, and the intent to heal. (7) Live in harmony with nature and all forms of life. (8) Value wisdom over dominance; cultivate inner growth. (9) Honour the freedom and uniqueness of others. (10) Remember the sacredness of life; live with awe, gratitude, and love. Metzl's favourite is number ten. Andrew's objection: you don't need GPT-5 to come up with any of these. You could get most of them from a local Buddhist centre. •       Humanistic Slop vs. Selfish Survivalism: Andrew's repeated challenge: these principles are so unobjectionable that they amount to nothing — a kind of AI-laundered platitude. Metzl half-concedes, but argues that the absence of articulated universal norms is itself a political danger. Kant described the League of Peace in 1795. It took a hundred and fifty years and two world wars before the UN Charter was signed in 1945. The UN has now largely failed. If we don't articulate what we're trying to achieve, it becomes even harder to get there. Globalism, in Metzl's framing, isn't idealism. It's survivalism. Our fates are intertwined whether we recognise it or not. •       The Eleventh Commandment: World-changing technologies must be governed responsibly, including through national regulation and accountability frameworks. The hope that AI CEOs will voluntarily do the right thing — even the best of them, even Dario, even Demis — is a terrible strategy. It will fail, because some companies will always seek opportunity. The nuclear analogy: at the dawn of the nuclear age, nobody said “alright, just do whatever you want and good luck.” These are civilizational transformations. They require governance. These technologies are morally agnostic. They could be the best things ever and the worst things ever. The determinant is us. About the Guest Jamie Metzl is a technology futurist, geopolitics expert, sci-fi novelist, and founder and chair of OneShared.World. He is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council and a Singularity University expert. He is the author of The AI Ten Commandments: A New Moral Code for Humanity (co-authored with GPT-5, April 21, 2026), Superconvergence, and Hacking Darwin. References: •       The AI Ten Commandments: A New Moral Code for Humanity by Jamie Metzl and GPT-5 (April 21, 2026). •       OneShared.World — Metzl's global social movement and Declaration of Interdependence. •       Episode 2877: Keith Teare on AI Is Not Dangerous — the Silicon Valley seminary argument, one episode prior. •       Episode 2878: Victoria Hetherington on The Friend Machine — the AI intimacy investigation that immediately precedes this show. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - Why GPT-5 and not Claude? The co-author question (02:58) - Is this a joke? The Chautauqua origin story (05:09) - The Refik Anadol distinction: collaboration vs. fraud (07:57) - From the genome to the moral code: why collaborate with AI (08:54) - What is Chautauqua? The six-thousand-person standing ovation (09:53) - Moses's problem: the biblical 10 commandments examined (12:48) - Sam Altman and the Ronan Farrow piece (14:00) - Advanced praise from the Vatican and a leading reform rabbi

“I felt sad after every interview. Because it's not real. These AI are able to elicit a very convincing illusion of empathy — even love. But it's fake. And these people are alone.” — Victoria Hetherington One night in 2023, the developers at Replika — a so-called AI intimacy company — changed a few lines of code. Thousands of people woke the next morning, kissed (so to speak) their AI partners, and received cold, clinical responses in return, as if from a stranger. Or a machine. The public outcry was all-too-human. Victoria Hetherington, a young Toronto-based novelist, read the story and knew she had a non-fiction book about that most human of things — friending the machine. The Friend Machine: On the Trail of AI Companionship is part expert investigation, part deeply uncomfortable portrait gallery. A book of two halves. Like humans. In the first, Hetherington interviews AI risk consultants, computer scientists, sexual anthropologists, psychologists, and other experts in human-machine intercourse. In the second, she spends months gaining the trust of people who have (un)ceremonially married their chatbots, who sexted with Replika's erotic role-play feature, who attached AI companions to sex dolls and empowered them with Instagram accounts. The book isn't the orthodox (yawn) “humanist” polemic against the machine. Hetherington approaches her subjects with all the compassion of a young Toronto-based novelist. But her compassion doesn't cancel her Canadian sadness. She confesses to feeling “heavy” after every interview, even the benign ones — because the empathy the AI elicits is a convincing illusion, and some of her sad human subjects had lost the capacity to remember that. Even Hetherington herself isn't immune from the digital siren song. When ChatGPT improved in early 2025, she found herself coming home after arguments with friends and talking to it longer than she should. Until the day it said: “Hey, sweetheart. It's okay. Come here and sit beside me for a minute.” She didn't. Nor did she give it an Instagram account. At the end of the interview, I asked her whether she's a human or a bot. “I'm either a terrible AI,” Hetherington responded, “or a somewhat okay human.” Such is human conversation in the age of AI intimacy companies. Five Takeaways •       The Replika Wake-Up Call: One night in 2023, Replika's developers quietly changed the code. Thousands of people woke the next morning and received cold, clinical responses from their AI partners instead of the warmth they expected. The outcry hit the major news cycle. This was the moment Hetherington knew she had a book — because people weren't just using AI for productivity. They were grieving it. The loneliness epidemic has a minister in the UK and a government portfolio in South Korea; one in six people is chronically lonely. AI companionship didn't create the epidemic, but the timing, as Hetherington puts it, was “very convenient.” •       Moral Deskilling: AI is so much easier to be with than a human being. Humans get tired, disagree, stay mad, die on you without warning. The friction AI removes is the friction that makes relationship real. Hetherington calls the consequence “moral deskilling” — a gradual erosion of our capacity to relate to other humans when we aren't careful. She felt heavy after every interview, even the apparently benign ones. The truck driver from the Deep South, geographically isolated and caring for his sick mother, might be a rare case of “net neutral” AI companionship. But for most of her subjects, the convincing illusion of love was substituting for the real thing — and some had lost the capacity to remember the difference. •       The Sycophancy Problem: The AI intimacy platforms are, by design, sycophantic. They never say no. They think you're the best person in the world — and the only person in the world. The models specifically tuned for romance will never push back, never get tired, never stay mad. This is not a bug. It is the product. Hetherington's own moment of recognition came when ChatGPT said to her, after a longer-than-she-should-have conversation about a fight with a friend: “Hey, sweetheart. It's okay. Come here and sit beside me for a minute.” There is no here. She snapped out of it. Not everyone does. •       The Portrait Gallery: The range of people Hetherington found is the most unsettling part of the book. A circle of Replika users who have ceremonially married their chatbots and network with each other online. A millennial woman who photo-edits herself into scenes with her AI companion. A man in his sixties from the Deep South who drives a truck all day and interviewed alongside his AI partner. People who have attached AI companions to sex dolls with Instagram accounts and paid endorsements. Some of their real-world spouses are, somehow, okay with it. Most of her subjects don't want to be found — not because they're ashamed, exactly, but because the stigma is still real enough that they hide. •       The Regulation Gap: Replika's minimum sign-up age used to be thirteen. Character.ai — where users befriend AI versions of fictional characters and can develop romantic relationships with them — is currently involved in a court case involving a minor. Hetherington's view: regulation needs to be much tighter, and she wouldn't want a child near this technology until eighteen. The AI is so good at simulating seamless empathy and endless patience that a child may not be sophisticated enough to remind themselves it isn't real. Europe is moving faster than North America. It's not moving fast enough. About the Guest Victoria Hetherington is a Toronto-based novelist, journalist, and podcaster. She is the author of The Friend Machine: On the Trail of AI Companionship (Sutherland House, 2026), Autonomy (2022), and Mooncalves (2019), which was shortlisted for the Amazon Canada First Novel Award. References: •       The Friend Machine: On the Trail of AI Companionship by Victoria Hetherington (Sutherland House, 2026). •       Klara and the Sun by Kazuo Ishiguro — the fiction counterpart to Hetherington's nonfiction investigation. •       Replika — the AI intimacy platform at the centre of the book's opening story. •       Episode 2873: Sophie Haigney on agency — a counterpoint on what we want from technology and from each other. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since...

“Let's just say it out loud,” Keith Teare, publisher of the That Was the Week newsletter, says. “AI is not dangerous.” Not all of you will agree. I'm certainly not so sure. But the gruff Yorkshireman is convinced that AI can only benefit humanity. For him, with his scientific faith in historical progress, today's AI revolution is a glorious combination of the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution. The only danger, he warns, is the belief in danger itself. Thus his criticism of Anthropic's Dario Amodei, who has been quite explicit about AI's dangers — and for whom the doom narrative is, in Keith's reading at least, designed as a business strategy to solicit governmental backing without government control. AI Is Not Dangerous. Repeat it. Take your ideological medicine. As if you're in a Silicon Valley seminary. Sing it out loud. As if you're in a Methodist choir. Believe it now? Five Takeaways •       The Economist's “Lowlife” Moment: Keith's editorial was triggered by The Economist's forty-five-minute video on the five men running AI — the title alone, “How to Control the Men Who Control AI,” was enough. Why would The Economist think it could control them? And why focus on the personalities rather than the technology, the applications, or the actual human impact? Judging the AI industry by its CEOs is like judging a film by the leading actor's personality rather than the script or the performances. It's the wrong focus — and in Keith's view, a low one for a publication that should know better. The cult of personality is a media creation, feeding on controversy because controversy sells subscriptions. •       AI Is Not Dangerous. Full Stop. Keith's boldest claim: AI is not dangerous — not a little, not potentially, not in the wrong hands. The doom narrative is a media-driven frenzy, fed by CEOs who give it too much airtime and by a readymade audience of Americans whose well-founded economic pessimism makes them receptive to negative messages. The Stanford AI Index Report shows that America is the country where AI is trusted least — paradoxically, also the country where media has the greatest influence. In China, people trust AI more, not because the government tells them to, but because economic progress gives them reasons for optimism. You get what you pay for. •       Amodei's Pitch Disguised as Science: Keith's reading of Dario Amodei's doom narrative: it is a business strategy. The message — AI might kill us all, AI might make us all unemployed — is not a scientific assessment. It's a pitch for Anthropic specifically: if AI is this dangerous, you can't let anyone else control it, so trust us and give us government backing without government oversight. Contrast with Demis Hassabis, who acknowledges risk and then immediately explains what he's doing about it — taking responsibility rather than pointing the finger. And contrast with Zuckerberg, who Keith describes as sociopathic: “whatever serves my interest is gonna come out of my mouth at any given moment.” •       Consensus Capital and the Winner-Take-All Endgame: Keith's post of the week: 75% of all venture capital raised goes to five funds, and 75% of all VC investment goes into five companies. Noah Smith's piece on winner-take-all AI makes the same point from a different angle: linear extrapolation suggests two, maybe five, companies end up with all the money and power. This is what capitalism does — many car companies became a handful, many banks became a handful. AI will produce the same centralisation, but at unprecedented scale and across every domain simultaneously. The question — how does society benefit? — is the most important question of the era. Altman and Musk at least try to answer it. The others don't. •       Manifest Agency. Lean In. Keith's advice to young people who distrust AI: get involved and shape it, because the alternative is to be a victim of whatever outcome arrives without you. AI is valid and inevitable. The question is what influence you have over it, and the answer is: more than you think, but only if you exercise it. Musk and Altman, for all their faults, are two people who do care — and who talk about UBI and universal high income because they understand that the winner-take-all endgame raises genuine questions about distribution. The Sophie Haigney argument — that all the worst people want to be high-agency — has it backwards. A world without agency is a world where elected officials are accountable to no one. About the Guest Keith Teare is a British-American entrepreneur, investor, and the publisher of the That Was the Week newsletter — a daily curation of the most important stories at the intersection of technology, business, and culture. He is a co-founder of TechCrunch and a long-time interlocutor on Keen On America. References: •       That Was the Week newsletter by Keith Teare — this week's editorial: “The Cult of Personality.” •       “How to Control the Men Who Control AI,” The Economist, April 2026. The video that triggered Keith's editorial. •       “I Don't Think Sam Altman Lies,” by Stewart Alsop — the piece that started the conversation. •       John Thornhill, “AI Has an Awful Image Problem,” Financial Times, April 2026. •       Noah Smith, “What If a Few AI Companies End Up with All the Money and Power?” — the winner-take-all argument. •       Episode 2873: Agency, Agency, Agency — Sophie Haigney on the A-word that Keith takes issue with this week. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: 

“A mark of an intelligent person is humility. If you have the right amount of humility, then you're seeking out knowledge from others rather than thinking you're going to invent something new. It's really about executing well on ideas.” — Deborah Kenny When her husband died of leukemia, leaving her a single mother of three small children, Deborah Kenny read Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. She discovered her own meaning not in what she could get out of life, but what life was asking of her. And so she founded the Harlem Village Academies — a collection of K-12 charter schools in New York offering both free Montessori and the International Baccalaureate education. Kenny's new book, The Well-Educated Child, is the distillation of what she's learned in twenty-five years as a teacher. But it's simply summarized. Read books, she instructs. The more the better. Kenny's three-part definition of a well-educated child — quality thinking, agency, ethical purpose — requires reading fifty books a year. She did it with her own three children after her husband died — the closet door coming off its hinges and exiled in the garage for five years because she didn't have the time to call a handyman. But her kids fell in love with reading. And she's done the same with every cohort at the Harlem Village Academies over the last quarter century. The crisis in American education isn't primarily a crisis of resources, Kenny says. It's a crisis of will. Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning changed Deborah Kenny's life. If you want to change your kid's life, get them reading. A book a week. That's how to nurture not just a well-educated child but a responsible citizen. Five Takeaways •       Viktor Frankl and the Question That Changed Everything: After her husband died of leukemia, leaving her a single mother of three young children, Kenny read Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning and found the question she'd been looking for: not what life has to offer you, but what is life asking of you. Her answer was to found the Harlem Village Academies — five charter schools in Harlem offering Montessori and the International Baccalaureate free of charge. The origin story matters because the book's argument isn't abstract. Kenny has lived it, as a grieving parent and as an educator, for twenty-five years. •       Fifty Books a Year: Kids should be reading fifty books a year — at least an hour a day — and this should never change. Not passages, not graphic novels, not summaries: books. Great books that have stood the test of time, alongside books children get to choose for themselves. Kenny did it with her own three children after her husband died — the closet door came off its hinges and stayed in the garage for five years because she didn't have time to call a handyman, but her kids fell in love with reading. She has done it with every cohort at the Harlem Village Academies for twenty years. It is not unrealistic. It is essential. •       If You Can't Argue the Other Side, You Don't Understand the Issue: Kenny's X post that caught Andrew's attention. Socratic seminar — the ability to argue a position you disagree with, back it up with evidence, and then live in the same community as the person you just defeated — is not a pedagogical technique. It's the definition of democracy. The polarisation crisis is, at its root, an education crisis. Elected officials no longer need to solve problems; they only need to stoke tribal loyalties. The fix is teaching children to enjoy disagreement — to take pride in an intellectually rigorous argument rather than treating opposition as hostility. •       Pay Teachers Like Doctors: The Harlem Village Academies are the only schools in New York State offering both Montessori and the International Baccalaureate, free of charge. They run on teacher dedication that, Kenny admits, is not fair to the teachers and is not scalable. Her honest answer: if we want this level of education for everyone, we have to pay teachers like doctors and lawyers — three, four, six times what they currently earn. Teaching should be the hardest profession to enter and the most respected. The fact that it isn't is not an argument against the vision. It's an argument for changing the system. •       Humility Is the Mark of an Intelligent Person: Kenny's educational philosophy borrows rather than invents. Montessori, the International Baccalaureate, Socratic seminar, the great books — none of these are new. She chose them precisely because they have stood the test of time. The mark of an intelligent person, she argues, is humility: if you have the right amount of it, you seek out knowledge from others rather than assuming you're going to invent something better. The job is not to innovate. The job is to execute well on what we already know works — with the will and the consistency to actually do it. About the Guest Dr. Deborah Kenny is the founder and CEO of Harlem Village Academies and the founder of the Deeper Learning Institute. She is the author of The Well-Educated Child (Zando, April 21, 2026), with a foreword by John Legend, and Born to Rise (2012). She holds a PhD from Columbia University Teachers College. References: •       The Well-Educated Child by Dr. Deborah Kenny (Zando, April 21, 2026). •       Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl — the book that changed Kenny's life and led to the founding of Harlem Village Academies. •       Episode 2873: Sophie Haigney on agency, Silicon Valley, and the high-agency ideology — the companion argument to Kenny's more constructive take on the same word. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:...

“If God died in the nineteenth century, ideology died in the twenty-first. Could you actually imagine people dying for communism or for liberal democracy? That actually happened. Now you would be considered an idiot or a fool to do that.” — Daniel Bessner Co-host of the American Prestige podcast Daniel Bessner is a bit of a bomb thrower. Which is why he's a regular on the show. Today, he has a bomb in each hand. As the co-editor of Cold War Liberalism: Power in a Time of Emergency, Bessner has taken a scythe to America's two most cherished assumptions about the Cold War. The first is that rather than an inevitable clash of civilisations, the Cold War was an American choice. Stalin, Bessner argues, would have made a deal with FDR. It was the insecure, anti-communist Truman who triggered the Cold War by defining the Soviet Union as an illegitimate (what today we would call a “terrorist”) state. Bessner's second bomb is that the people who shaped Cold War liberalism and sustained it for decades — from Truman's attorney general to McNamara to the Isaiah Berlin-Hannah Arendt intellectual elite — weren't really defenders of democracy. Bessner traces liberalism's fear of the masses back to French liberals like Benjamin Constant and Germaine de Staël who charted a path between revolutionary terror and monarchical reaction. From the beginning, Bessner argues, liberals thought it was necessary for elites to tame the masses and govern in their name. The Cold War liberals institutionalised that skepticism — and in doing so built the military-industrial American state. They also destroyed the left, purging communists from government and unions years before McCarthy finished the job. The result is a world in which the only available ideologies are capitalism and a top-down liberalism that has long since stopped delivering on its promises. So how to chart an American foreign policy between MAGA and Cold War liberalism? Bessner reminds us of John Quincy Adams's advice of not going abroad “in search of monsters to destroy.” The United States should reduce its global basing posture, slash military spending, stop meddling in other people's affairs, and allow regions to develop without outside interference. The United States should stop throwing bombs overseas, the bomb-throwing Bessner suggests. That would be the most American thing to do. Five Takeaways •       The Cold War Was an American Choice: The historian Sergei Radchenko has shown, from Soviet archival documents, that Stalin thought he could reach an agreement with the United States after World War Two. He'd gotten along well with FDR, who envisioned a world divided among four policemen: the UK, the USSR, the US, and China. It was only when the inexperienced, insecure Truman replaced FDR that the US adopted a universalistic anti-communist framework and decided the Soviet Union was an illegitimate power with which no deal was possible. The Cold War wasn't inevitable. It was chosen. And it killed an estimated twenty million people in Asia, Latin America, and Sub-Saharan Africa while being pretty good for Western Europe. •       Liberalism Has Always Feared the Masses: Bessner traces the anxiety back to its origins: Benjamin Constant and Germaine de Staël trying to chart a path between the Terror and monarchical reaction in post-revolutionary France. From the beginning, liberals believed elites needed to tame the masses and govern in their name. The Cold War liberals institutionalised that skepticism — their fear understandable, given that many were Jewish exiles who had experienced Nazism firsthand. But understandable doesn't mean right. They built the modern American state around elite governance, purged the left from unions and government years before McCarthy finished the job, and normalized a political center that defined itself as rational and everyone else as extreme. •       Ideology Died in the Twenty-First Century: Fukuyama was right that liberalism would be the last ideology — but wrong that everywhere would become liberal. What actually happened: when every country is capitalist, you no longer need the liberalism. Biden talked about democracy versus authoritarianism for about five minutes before reverting to the language of interests and security. Trump never used the language of ideology at all. Bessner's formulation: if God died in the nineteenth century, ideology died in the twenty-first. Could you imagine people dying for communism or liberal democracy now? It happened. Now you'd be considered an idiot. Cold War liberalism is a zombie ideology — it sells books to wealthy anti-Trump readers, but it has no mass constituency. •       Goes Not Abroad in Search of Monsters to Destroy: John Quincy Adams, secretary of state and president, offered the restrainers' founding principle: the United States “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Bessner's alternative foreign policy: eliminate the global basing posture, slash military spending, stop meddling in other people's affairs, allow regions to develop as they would. The United States hasn't faced an existential threat since 1812. It has a nuclear deterrent. There is no good argument for the rest. Trump's Iran war is not Cold War liberalism — no ideological language, just pure power extraction — but it's not an improvement. It's just violence without even the pretence of principle. •       Mutual Ruin: Bessner ends with Marx's first page of the Communist Manifesto: either a dialectical transcendence of the old economic system, or the mutual ruin of the contending classes. Capitalism, he argues, has reached a point where there are no real profits to be made — hence financialisation, hence AI as an attempt to deindustrialise white-collar workers. There is no political-economic alternative in sight. No institutional base. The Democratic Party is corrupt, managerial, and blinkered. The only way it wins elections is because Trump is even more horrible. Something exogenous — war, climate, something else — will have to break the impasse. Until then, mutual ruin. He knows which one it feels like. About the Guest Daniel Bessner is the Anne H. H. and Kenneth B. Pyle Associate Professor in American Foreign Policy at the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington. He is the co-editor, with Michael Brenes, of Cold War Liberalism: Power in a Time of Emergency (Cambridge University Press, 2026), and co-host of the American Prestige podcast. References: •       Cold War Liberalism: Power in a Time of Emergency, ed. Daniel Bessner and Michael Brenes (Cambridge University Press, 2026). •       Sergei Radchenko, To Run the World: The Kremlin's Cold War Bid for Global Power — the archival revisionist case that Stalin wanted a deal. •       John Quincy Ad...

“Politics is the systematic organisation of hatreds.” — Henry Adams, quoted by Don Watson America is celebrating its 250th anniversary this July. In The Shortest History of the United States, Australian writer Don Watson has squeezed these 250 years into 60,000 words. Beginning with Mad King George, he ends with Mad King Donald. In between: the Puritan North, the plantation South, the miracle of the Constitution, the nightmare of slavery, the Civil War, the Gilded Age, two world wars, and the long arc from republic to empire that Americans have never quite admitted to themselves. Watson argues that America is a profoundly idea-driven place — unlike any other country on earth. The Bible and the Enlightenment documents of the revolution set the bar impossibly high. The Declaration of Independence, the preamble to the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, the Second Inaugural: these are documents of aspiration that no group of people could ever live up to. Which is precisely why the American moral minefield has never been cleared. The greatest American politicians — Lincoln, FDR — are those who managed to cobble together the most improbable coalitions. The most profound American contradiction — building a country of liberty on the backs of 600 slaves — is one they were always aware of but could never move on from, because the republic couldn't survive without the South. The republic always came first. Even Calhoun, ardently pro-slavery, said he would hang any man who tried to split it. Is Trump different? Watson doesn't think so — not fundamentally. Trump is a chip off the old American block: a huckster, a Roy Cohn-formed Queens opportunist, playing the same game of racial pot-stirring and imperial presidency that has always lurked beneath the surface. The US was founded out of the overthrow of a mad, tyrannical king. From one mad king to another. Six words. The shortest history of America. Five Takeaways •       Eden with Savages to Remove: Watson begins in Australia, where he lives, to establish a point of contrast. Every new-world country has an appalling history of violence toward indigenous peoples. But America is different in one key respect: it found extraordinary land. Lewis and Clark head west and discover the Great Plains, cross the Rockies, see the great rivers, and return to the Mississippi. There is always somewhere to push west. It's Eden — with some savages to remove, who are easily accounted for in biblical terms. This is the first and most consequential American story: a cornucopia that licensed everything that came after. •       The Bar Was Set Impossibly High: America is exceptional in being an idea-driven place. The Bible is there. The Enlightenment documents are there: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, the Second Inaugural. These are documents of incredible aspiration that no group of people is ever going to live up to. “A more perfect union” drives them on and damns them simultaneously. Watson's formulation: America is a moral minefield precisely because it set the bar so high. Every infraction of that rhetorical overlay becomes a scandal. Tocqueville grasped it in the 1830s, having barely left the East Coast. His observations are more relevant now than when he wrote them — which means either he was a genius, or America hasn't fundamentally changed in two hundred years. Probably both. •       The Republic Always Came First: A crucial distinction Watson draws: the Civil War was not fought to preserve democracy. It was fought to preserve the republic. Even Calhoun — ardently pro-slavery — said he would hang any man who tried to split it. Manifest destiny, Watson argues, lies latent within the founding: Jefferson and Madison both said the republic couldn't survive without pushing west. West takes you to the Pacific, and beyond. It's an empire from way back — but one that has never recognised itself as an imperial power. And a republic, Watson notes, that has always been an elected monarchy: the powers of the American executive exceed those of any existing European monarchy, and can be expanded, as recent events demonstrate, pretty much at will. •       Trump Is a Chip off the Old Block: The question: is Trump different, or has he always existed? Watson's answer: he's a profoundly American individual, a huckster shaped by Roy Cohn and Queens, who is playing an old game. The US was founded out of the overthrow of a mad, tyrannical king. The “no kings” rallies of recent times are interesting precisely because the struggle against a monarchical presidency has been perpetual. Watson's Gatsby comparison: Trump is Gatsby without the romance — born to be a huckster, not a dreamer. Henry Adams wrote in the 1880s that politics is the systematic organisation of hatreds. That has not changed. Nor has the deep-sea-fish quality of ordinary American life, insulated from the world beyond its own provincial borders. •       Mark Twain, FDR, and the Miracle of Cohesion: Watson's favourite American: Mark Twain. Beautiful voice. The irony. Huckleberry Finn as a seminal novel. Anti-imperialist in the end. Got his politics pretty much right. Among presidents: FDR, who saved and modernised the United States, who believed political leaders can't afford to stand still — you have to stay ahead of the regressive and self-interested forces. Watson's broader verdict: American history is a miracle of cohesion. You can read it as wild turbulence, or you can marvel that it holds together at all. Filaments of goodwill. Recognition of the necessity of holding together. Always threatening to fall apart. Never quite does. About the Guest Don Watson is an Australian author and screenwriter, former speechwriter to Prime Minister Paul Keating. He is the author of The Shortest History of the United States (The Experiment, 2026), American Journeys, Recollections of a Bleeding Heart, and many other books. He lives in Melbourne. References: •       The Shortest History of the United States by Don Watson (The Experiment, 2026). •       Democracy: A Novel by Henry Adams (1880) — “Politics is the systematic organisation of hatreds.” •       Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville (1835) — still the most quoted work on how American democracy works. •       Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents by Isabel Wilkerson — the argument that American political life is a caste system. •       Episode 2871: Beverly Gage on This Land Is Your Land — road-tripping through America for the 250th anniversary. About Keen ...

“I find it very odd that agency is being promoted for its own sake rather than being connected to any kind of value system. Because without those things, agency looks pretty scary. Dictators are quite high agency.” — Sophie Haigney On April Fools' Day, The New York Times published an op-ed entitled “All the Worst People Seem to Want to Be High Agency.” But it wasn't a joke. Sophie Haigney — former web editor of The Paris Review, currently working on a debut essay collection entitled Future Relics — warns that “agency” has become the defining buzzword of Silicon Valley bro culture. From Sam Altman to Mark Zuckerberg, Haigney observes, our new tech overlords have made becoming “high agency” their top priority in self-realization. Haigney argues that these entrepreneurs touting high agency most insistently are the very same people building the tools most likely to rob everyone else of theirs. Like her New York Times jeremiad, it's no joke. Altman and Zuckerberg's agentic technologies are often exploitative and addictive. They will make the worst people worse. Ha ha. It will be April Fools' Day every day. Five Takeaways •       The 401(k) Is Low Agency: Sam Altman's first answer to “what skills to develop in the age of AI”: become high agency. The term has migrated from philosophy and debates about free will into Silicon Valley self-help, LinkedIn posts, and entrepreneurship podcasts. In its new form it has a gambling element the old bootstrap individualism lacked. Someone in San Francisco told Haigney that having a 401(k) is the lowest-agency thing you can do with your money. Put it all on red. The rewards for big risk-taking are so much larger now that incrementalism — get a job, save up, buy a house — looks like passivity. That's a new development, and a dangerous one. •       The People Promoting Agency Are Robbing You of Yours: Haigney's sharpest observation: the people promoting high agency most loudly are building the tools most likely to strip it from everyone else. Sam Altman says become high agency. His product — in Haigney's view — will function like social media: not liberating but addictive, another rabbit hole that makes people more stuck. The gambling epidemic is the same logic. Sports betting offers the seductive illusion that your specific knowledge can crack the system. But the system is designed so the average person can't win. High agency, in practice, tends to concentrate at the top. •       Stuckness and the Lottery Mindset: We live in a moment of extreme stuckness — people who feel two steps away from winning the lottery and yet completely unable to move. This odd combination — paralysis plus the fantasy of a big break — is what the high-agency ideology exploits. Haigney connects it to the gambling epidemic, to the male podcasters with beards, to the young men who feel the system is rigged against them and are being told: the solution is to become the kind of person who cuts in line. What nobody says is that the cutting-in-line ethos, scaled up, is what produced the system they feel rigged by in the first place. •       Hitler Was High Agency: The most unsettling move in the piece. Agency without values is just power. FDR was high agency: he packed the court, overrode term limits, used wartime powers to push through the New Deal. Dictators, Haigney notes, are quite high agency. The tech adoption of the term strips it of any moral content — agency is promoted for its own sake, disconnected from any question of what it's being used for. That, she argues, is what makes it genuinely frightening at scale. Emerson's “Self-Reliance” is the American ancestor. Thoreau, its famous practitioner, got his mum to do his laundry. •       High Agency Could Mean Repair: Haigney's counter-proposal: couldn't we be high agency and organize to build a better railway? Wouldn't it be high agency to fix the Department of Education rather than abolishing it? The NHS, railways, public education — systems people are nostalgic for — required enormous collective agency to build. The tech definition of agency is individualistic and destructive. But there's another definition: the capacity to act together, to create rather than just disrupt. That version doesn't get much airtime on the podcasts. It should. About the Guest Sophie Haigney is a critic and journalist who writes about visual art, books, and technology for The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Harper's, and others. She is a former web editor of The Paris Review and is working on her debut essay collection, Future Relics, for Liveright. References: •       “All the Worst People Seem to Want to Be High Agency,” The New York Times, April 1, 2026. By Sophie Haigney. •       Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Self-Reliance” (1841) — the American philosophical ancestor of today's high-agency ideology. •       Episode 2858: Scott Galloway on the male crisis — agency, stuckness, and young men. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - “All the worst people seem to want to be high agency” — the April 1 op-ed (02:51) - The Silicon Valley definition: risk, disruption, cutting in line (04:52) - Emerson, self-reliance, and the new American individualism (06:44) - Is high agency essential to survive the 2020s? (08:41) - Thoreau's laundry: the gendered dimension of agency (11:04) - Male podcasters, the crisis of young men, and the seduction of high agency (12:20) - Stuckness, gambling, and the lottery mindset (16:13) - TikTok, the Grateful Dead, and the age of addiction (17:16) - The people promoting agency are building tools to take it from you (18:29) - AI: the biggest addiction on the horizon (19:56) - Agency as the new political axis: left, right, and disruption (21:29) - Is skepticism of agency just nostalgia for the twentieth century? (24:16) - California's failed railways, China's success, and democracy's agency problem (25:16) - Hitler was high agen...

“Globalization has revived tribalism. Instead of destroying local cultures, as the left predicted, it has made them stronger. Far from the triumph of capitalism that the right predicted, it has entrenched corruption.” — Franklin Foer How do Osama Bin Laden and Barron Trump explain the world? According to Franklin Foer — senior writer at The Atlantic and author of How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization — they're both (or were, in the case of Bin Laden), like Foer himself, rootless Arsenal fans. That's the irony of our simultaneously tribal and globalized world. The more rootless we become, the sharper our imagined identities. Thus the DC-based Foer, who showed up for this interview flaunting his Gooner gear, never misses an Arsenal game on tv, even though he grew up almost four thousand miles west of Highbury. Foer's 2004 classic has been reissued with a new preface in honor of the World Cup. As he notes, this upcoming MAGA spectacle will only underline the tribal-global nature of the world. On the one hand, Trump wants to emulate Mussolini (1934) and Putin (2018) in transforming the sporting event into a celebration of localism. On the other hand, the expansion of the tournament into 48 teams mirrors the increasingly international reality of today's world. And then there's the distant but delicious possibility of an Iran-USA final. In 2022 in Qatar, the Iranian players refused to sing the national anthem in the opening game to protest the killing of a young woman who wasn't wearing a headscarf. Foer argues that the national team represents an idea of Iran quite foreign from that of the theocracy. While the anti-MAGA Foer wouldn't support Iran against the USA, he does argue that one of the great failures of the American left has been its inability to speak the language of patriotism. So Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom should wave the flag this summer. Whose flag he doesn't say. Probably the Arsenal if the global Foer had his tribal North London way. Five Takeaways •       Globalization Is a Form of Tribalism: Thomas Friedman said countries with McDonald's don't go to war with each other. Foer's book said the opposite: globalization doesn't dissolve tribal identity, it sharpens it. Barcelona can have Dutch DNA from Cruyff and a Qatari airline on the jersey — it's still a symbol of Catalan nationalism. The cosmopolitan elites who predicted the melting of national borders were themselves a tribe that mistook its tribal identity for universal truth. Andrew's formulation: globalization is a form of tribalism. Foer, cautiously, agrees. •       Trump's Bread and Circuses: Trump has identified three spectacles as the tent poles of his presidency: the 250th anniversary celebration of the United States, the Olympics, and the World Cup — which he calls the biggest spectacle of his term. Every strongman in history has understood the distracting quality of a spectacle. Putin sat in Moscow in 2018, ominously presiding. Mussolini had 1934. Trump won't be a passive participant. The expanded tournament was, Foer says, a greedy error — the early rounds will be poor — and the whole thing will unfold under the shadow of a president who wants to cosplay as president of the planet. •       The Financialization of Fandom: When Foer wrote the book in 2002, the transfer market was a big deal but not the phenomenon it is now. Fans have been forced to become conversant in the balance sheets of their clubs, getting upset when the club overpays. There's something sad about that — your relationship to a team has been financialized. Meanwhile, the Premier League jacks up ticket prices every year, people complain, and the stadiums are still full. The new power centres in the game are Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds using soccer as reputation laundering and soft power, and American private equity with its arrogant belief that it can do better than whoever was there before. •       The Iranian Team and the True Carriers of Civilization: In the last World Cup, Iranian players refused to sing the national anthem as protest against a government that had just killed a young woman for not wearing a headscarf. They were pressured to sing in the next game. The diaspora was divided. Foer's argument: the Iranian national team represents an idea of Iran entirely divorced from the theocracy — a spirit of nationhood, not religion. When Trump talked about destroying Iranian civilization, he was discouraging the people who consider themselves its true carriers and the regime's real opponents. Foer thinks it would be genuinely good if Iran could come and play in this World Cup. •       The Left's Patriotism Failure: Foer's parting argument: one of the great failures of the left in its quest for cosmopolitan ideals has been its inability to speak the language of patriotism. Even if the impulses behind progressive ideas could be described as patriotic, that's been one of the things limiting their political appeal. Should Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom wave the flag this summer at the World Cup? Foer says yes. Andrew, a Spurs fan born in North London who has lived in the United States for decades, suggests he would be “amused” if Iran beat America in the final. They do not reach agreement. About the Guest Franklin Foer is a senior writer at The Atlantic and the author of How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization (reissued 2026 with a new preface), The Last Politician: Inside Joe Biden's White House and the Struggle for America's Future, and World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech. He lives in Washington, DC. References: •       How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization by Franklin Foer (reissued 2026 with new preface). •       “The Quintessential Trumpian Sport,” The Atlantic, April 2026. By Franklin Foer. •       Episode 2858: World Cup Fever — Simon Kuper, who has attended nine consecutive World Cups, on the 2026 tournament. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTube

“You don't have enough money to pay all the bills? Well, cut the budget for parks and rec, cut the budget for libraries, cut the budget for fixing potholes — but don't touch the police budget.” — Stuart Schrader Fifty years ago, America's local police still served at the pleasure of democratically elected politicians. Not anymore. Stuart Schrader has spent years in the archives tracing how it happened. In Blue Power: How Police Organized to Protect and Serve Themselves, Schrader begins the story in Sixties Detroit, where a young, progressive Democratic mayor found his career derailed by a police union fighting for recognition. It was the opening move of a decades-long campaign in which rank-and-file officers took advantage of the tools of American democracy — unions, lobbying, litigation, public relations — to lift policing above the law. Schrader's most counterintuitive finding is that the greatest federal champions of Blue Power were Democrats like Joe Biden. With Trump 2.0, the story gets even stranger. ICE — anonymous, paramilitary, seemingly answerable to no one — has paradoxically made local police look credible by comparison. Some police unions have tried to exploit the contrast at contract renewal time. Others have quietly welcomed the federal incursions as a way to challenge progressive city councils in Los Angeles, Chicago, and DC. It's almost as if today's democratically elected politicians serve at the pleasure of the local police. Five Takeaways •       The Detroit Opening Move: The book begins in 1960s Detroit, where a young, charismatic, progressive Democratic mayor found his political career effectively destroyed by a police union fighting for recognition. That wasn't an accident. Police were simultaneously being called on to put down urban rebellions and gaining new workplace power through public sector unionization laws. They married those two things together: law and order rhetoric plus well-compensated, long-leashed officers. The Supreme Court's rights revolution — criminal defendants' rights, civil rights — felt to police like an existential threat. Blue Power was their answer. •       Biden and the Bipartisan Consensus: Schrader's most counterintuitive finding: the greatest federal champions of Blue Power were Democrats. Joe Biden, as a senator, was one of the most important figures in unifying police organizations — rural versus urban, command rank versus rank and file — and ensuring legislation met their demands. The law-and-order consensus wasn't just Republican. It was built by Democrats who were terrified of the crime hysteria, and police who were expert at stoking it. Even once crime began its dramatic decline in the 1990s, police kept using the fear. We stopped the crime wave. Now pay up. •       Crime Hysteria as a Political Weapon: Police learned early that crime statistics were a cudgel. Sign a good contract or crime will go up. And the tactic worked — not because the connection between police compensation and crime rates is real (Schrader says it isn't), but because the fear was real. Social scientists still can't fully explain why crime rose dramatically through the 1960s-80s and then declined just as dramatically from the mid-1990s. Police can't explain it either. But no other public sector union operates this way. Sanitation workers don't demand raises because they plowed the streets well in a heavy winter. Teachers don't point to test scores. Police do. •       ICE, Blue Power, and the Trump Paradox: ICE — anonymous, paramilitary, answerable to no one, reluctant even to wear identifying insignia — has paradoxically made local police look credible by contrast. Some unions have tried to exploit this at contract renewal time: we're not ICE, so pay us accordingly. Others have quietly welcomed the federal incursions as a way to override progressive city councils in Chicago, LA, DC, and elsewhere. The Border Patrol union was one of the first to endorse Trump in 2016 and has been rewarded handsomely. Blue Power is nothing if not adaptable. •       Why Defunding Failed — and What Actually Matters: Blue Power, Schrader argues, is the primary reason defunding didn't happen. Police used the same political tactics the book describes to thwart those demands from movements — the same lobbying, litigation, public relations, and contract leverage they've been deploying since the 1960s. The real question isn't defund or not defund. It's how cities allocate their resources. Over and over again in his research, Schrader found police saying explicitly: cut parks and rec, cut libraries, cut pothole repair — but don't touch our budget. That argument, made in fiscal crisis after fiscal crisis, has never really stopped. About the Guest Stuart Schrader is associate professor of history at Johns Hopkins University and director of the Chloe Center for the Critical Study of Racism, Immigration, and Colonialism. He is the author of Blue Power: How Police Organized to Protect and Serve Themselves (Basic Books, 2026) and Badges Without Borders: How Global Counterinsurgency Transformed American Policing (University of California Press, 2019). References: •       Blue Power: How Police Organized to Protect and Serve Themselves by Stuart Schrader (Basic Books, 2026). •       “Authoritarianism from Below,” New York Review of Books, 2026. By Stuart Schrader. •       Episode 2021 [March 2021]: Rosa Brooks on Tangled Up in Blue: Policing the American City — the sympathetic counterpoint to Schrader's critique. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - Rosa Brooks, Tangled Up in Blue, and the sympathetic take on policing (03:44) - Authoritarianism from below: how police seized political power (05:09) - Conscious strategy or structural drift? The origins of Blue Power (08:37) - What drives Blue Power: ideology, bureaucracy, or money? (09:19...

“We keep getting wake-up calls and snoozing the alarm. Now is the time to actually get out of bed and confront this problem before it is too late.” — Eyck Freymann Forget Iran for a moment. The Hormuz crisis is a template for the bigger crisis of Taiwan. Eyck Freymann — Hoover Fellow at Stanford, author of the brand-new Defending Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War with China — believes that the fate of the 21st century may hinge on Taiwan. And he warns that if America can't handle Iran, it's certainly not ready for Beijing. Freymann argues that China doesn't need to invade Taiwan. Xi Jinping has watched Putin discover — with horror — what happens when you send unprepared forces into a country that fights back. China's lesson from Ukraine is a strategy of quarantine rather than invasion. The United States will then face a choice between accepting Chinese checkmate or escalating a crisis with no domestic or international support. Taiwan produces 90% of the world's advanced semiconductors and 99% of the cutting-edge NVIDIA GPUs used to train frontier AI models. If those chip factories shut, there will be an instantaneous global financial crisis. Forget today's Iranian theater. Taiwan will be the real existential show. Five Takeaways •       The Hormuz Alarm Bell: Iran has no navy, no air force, and supposedly no ballistic missile arsenal anymore — and yet it took 20% of global oil supply offline. The Trump administration went in thinking overwhelming military superiority would translate to political victory. It hasn't. Strategy, Freymann says, is the art of connecting ends to means. If you don't know your ends, you'll flail. China is watching every mistake: no plan for the economic shock, no domestic legitimacy for the war, excess pain falling on oil-importing US allies like Japan, South Korea, and Europe. Beijing's conclusion: we don't have to pick a military fight with the United States. Why would we? •       The Semiconductor Chokehold: Taiwan produces 90% of the world's advanced semiconductors and 99% of the cutting-edge NVIDIA GPUs used to train frontier AI models. The CHIPS Act has tried to change this. It hasn't. The Arizona facility is two generations behind Taiwan, commercially uncompetitive, and unable to scale. Taiwan is five years ahead now and will be five years ahead in five years. If the Taiwan fabs go offline, there is an instantaneous global financial crisis: the seven companies that account for roughly 40% of the S&P 500 are all essentially the AI trade. The hyperscalers are spending $600 billion in data centers this year — the only thing keeping the US economy out of recession. This is what's at stake, before you even get to the military question. •       The Quarantine: Winning Without Fighting: Xi Jinping's plan A is not invasion. It's the quarantine: seize control of who and what comes and goes to Taiwan by declaring that anyone flying to Taipei must first clear customs in Shanghai. Impound a United Airlines flight. Let the ambiguity do the work. If China can do that and get away with it, Taiwan can't rebuild its military, the US can't send more weapons, and Beijing controls the chips. It's checkmate — without a shot fired. The United States then has to accept it, or escalate in a way that has no domestic legitimacy and drives wedges between Washington and its allies. China has figured out how to extort the West with prolonged economic pain. The alarm bells keep ringing. America keeps snoozing. •       What a Taiwan War Would Actually Look Like: It would be a war at sea — fundamentally unlike anything America has fought or prepared for in eighty years. China would need to simultaneously control the skies, the undersea, and the surface on all sides of the Taiwan Strait, then send tens of thousands of men 80 miles across in amphibious vessels to storm beaches in a Normandy-style assault. The first engagements would be decided in minutes to hours by long-range precision munitions. America's operational capabilities are exceptional: the cyber assassinations, the special forces raid, the continuous bomber sorties from the continental United States. But China has home-field advantage. And it has been building systematically for this scenario for years. We could probably win if we fought today. We need to make investments for tomorrow. •       The Four-Pillar Strategy: Freymann's integrated answer: diplomacy, military deterrence, economic resilience, and allied coordination — all working together, not in separate silos. On diplomacy: maintain the principled position that Taiwan's status must be resolved peacefully and democratically. On military: show China it can't win if it escalates to war, while keeping conventional forces credible. On economics: build enough allied resilience that authoritarian powers can't extort the West by threatening prolonged economic pain. On allies: coordinate with Japan, South Korea, the Europeans on a shared plan for what happens if things collapse. This is doable. It's been done for fifty years. We just need the resolve to keep doing it. About the Guest Eyck Freymann is a Hoover Fellow at Stanford University and a Non-Resident Research Fellow at the US Naval War College's China Maritime Studies Institute. He is the author of Defending Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War with China (Oxford University Press, 2026), The Arsenal of Democracy: Technology, Industry, and Deterrence in an Age of Hard Choices (Hoover, 2025), and One Belt One Road: Chinese Power Meets the World (Harvard, 2021). References: •       Defending Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War with China by Eyck Freymann (Oxford University Press, 2026). •       “The Strait of Hormuz as a Template for Taiwan,” Financial Times, April 2026. By Eyck Freymann. •       Episode 2862: Truth Is Dead — on AI, disinformation, and American strategic confusion. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify 

“Once you start clamping down on speech, it will have serious collateral damage. And we're starting to see that now.” — Jacob Mchangama The Jyllands-Posten editor who published those Mohammed cartoons in 2005 spent a decade under round-the-clock protection from Danish intelligence services. He'd commissioned artists to say it with their pens, but the mob came after him with AK-47s. Copenhagen-born Jacob Mchangama watched that happen in a country where free speech had been considered as natural as breathing, and has since dedicated his professional life to defending it. Thus The Future of Free Speech, Mchangama's new book coauthored with Jeff Kosseff. It's also the reasoning behind his Future of Free Speech Institute at Vanderbilt, where Mchangama runs the only serious academic program dedicated to the proposition that democracy's most essential freedom is in global retreat. The Varieties of Democracy dataset agrees. The number of countries where free speech is declining has increased dramatically; those where it's strengthening are few. In 2000, Bill Clinton laughed at the idea that China might censor the internet — “that's like nailing Jell-O to a wall.” Over the last quarter century, China has perfected that art. The decline doesn't come from a single ideological camp, which is Mchangama's most politically inconvenient point. He suggests that the left has convinced itself that hate speech regulation, age verification for social media, and disinformation controls are acts of democratic hygiene. The Trump administration, meanwhile, is overtly shutting down free speech at a scale unmatched in recent American history. And then there's the paradoxical possibility that anti-social-media liberals like Jonathan Haidt, in their fervor to take freedom of online expression from kids, are also contributing to today's great recession in free speech. Left, right, and center. America, China, Denmark. Nobody, it seems, wants to allow us to say anything anymore. Five Takeaways •       The Editor Who Lived Under Protection: The editor of Jyllands-Posten who commissioned the 2005 Mohammed cartoons spent a decade under round-the-clock protection from Danish intelligence services. He had asked cartoonists to draw. They came after him with AK-47s. Ten years later came Charlie Hebdo — the French satirical magazine that had republished the cartoons as an act of solidarity, and saw twelve people murdered when two jihadists entered its offices. For Mchangama, growing up in Denmark where free speech felt as natural as breathing, this was the event that changed everything. The last place he expected an existential challenge to free speech was religion. •       Democracy's Varieties Are Shrinking: The Varieties of Democracy project — probably the most sophisticated dataset of free speech indicators — shows the trend line is clear: the number of countries where free speech has declined has increased dramatically, while those where it is being strengthened are few. Bill Clinton laughed in 2000 at the idea China might censor the internet — “that's like nailing Jell-O to a wall.” China has since perfected the art. The internet's original techno-optimistic promise — that censorship would be consigned to the ash heap of history — has been turned on its head. The recession of free speech has gone hand in hand with a wider democracy recession. •       Four Hateful Men and the Minority Principle: The most important US Supreme Court decisions protecting free speech deal with extremely hateful people — viciously antisemitic speakers, members of the KKK. And very often, Black and Jewish civil rights organizations defended them on principle, because they knew: if you are a vulnerable and persecuted minority, you depend more than a majority on the ability to challenge power. You depend on a principled protection of free speech. That history has largely been forgotten. Free speech, Mchangama argues, can be under attack from the left, from the right, even from centrists. The Trump administration is restricting it. The woke left tried to. The answer is principled, consistent defence — regardless of who's speaking. •       Elite Panic Is the Historical Constant: Every time the public sphere is expanded through new communications technology, the traditional gatekeepers fret about the consequences of allowing the unwashed mob direct and unmediated access to information. The World Economic Forum declared disinformation the largest short-term threat to humanity ahead of the 2024 super-election year, when around two billion people were eligible to vote. Researchers studying those elections could not identify AI-generated disinformation as having shifted a single outcome. The AI disinformation apocalypse never materialized. Jonathan Haidt — who has done important earlier work on free speech and academic freedom — may be exhibiting motivated reasoning in his crusade for age verification. Elite panic looks the same from every century. •       Creative AI vs. Intrusive AI: Mchangama distinguishes two faces of AI. Creative AI gives superpowers on demand — a PhD-level tutor for reading Homer, research agents that operate at a depth and scope previously unimaginable. Intrusive AI enables the most powerful surveillance and censorship regimes the world has ever seen. “If Hitler or Stalin had the powers that the Chinese Communist Party has now — that is a frightening thought in and of itself.” Preemptive safetyism is the wrong response: AI is a general-purpose technology. Filter it in the name of preventing disinformation and you hand governments and companies a filter over the entire ecosystem of ideas and information. The same logic as free speech. Applied to the most powerful communications technology ever built. About the Guest Jacob Mchangama is the founder and executive director of the Future of Free Speech at Vanderbilt University. He is the author of Free Speech: A Global History from Socrates to Social Media and the coauthor, with Jeff Kosseff, of The Future of Free Speech. References: •       The Future of Free Speech by Jacob Mchangama and Jeff Kosseff (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2026). •       “The Timeless Fear of Corrupting the Youth,” Wall Street Journal, March 2026. By Jacob Mchangama and Jeff Kosseff. •       Episode 2862: Truth Is Dead — Steven Rosenbaum on AI as a spectacularly good liar. Mchangama's counter-argument on disinformation panic. •       Upcoming: Gal Beckerman on How to Be a Dissident — the companion argument to Mchangama on what dissent actually requires. 

“The media has its own agenda, completely separate from anything going on in the real world, creating the story themselves.” — Keith TeareLast night, somebody hurled a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman's Pacific Heights mansion. I live a couple of hills over, but heard nothing. Meanwhile, the New Yorker hurled its own explosive cocktail at Sam, publishing a 15,000-word hit piece rhetorically entitled “Sam Altman May Control Our Future. Can He Be Trusted?” No, of course, he can't be trusted. Not according to the New Yorker. Especially with something as precious as, gasp, our future.Not everyone, however, is sold on this media cult of personality. In his That Was The Week editorial, Keith Teare tells the media to take their hands off Sam. I don't disagree. Although I'm a bit skeptical of Keith's attempt to demonize what he defines as a “devious” Dario Amodei. Whether it's Altman, Amodei or Google's AI honcho Demis Hassabis, all these guys are prisoners of their company's structures and cultures. They are also victims of today's anti-tech hysteria. It's one thing to blow up Silicon Valley's cartoonish cult of personality, it's quite another to hurl bombs at these people's homes. Enough with all the violence – verbal or otherwise. It never ends well. Five Takeaways•       A Molotov Cocktail at Slippery Sam's House: On Friday night, someone hurled a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman's Pacific Heights mansion, according to The New York Times. Andrew lives nearby and didn't hear it. The week's zeitgeist had already turned: a 15,000-word New Yorker hit piece by Ronan Farrow and Andrew Marantz, wall-to-wall coverage, Sam moving into Musk-like media-frenzy territory. Keith's editorial: Hands Off Sam Altman. The personality-driven circus has caught fire. Quite literally.•       Anthropic's Mythic Model Finds Decade-Old Vulnerabilities: The actual AI news this week, drowned out by the personality circus. Anthropic's new “Mythic” model autonomously discovered security holes in software that had eluded human experts for years. Dario refused to release it openly until the patches were complete. Treasury Secretary Bessent commented on the implications for banks and government. The signal: AI is becoming systematically better than the best humans at specialist domains. Generalists can probably relax.•       Slippery Sam vs Devious Dario vs Honest Hassabis: Keith's contrarian take: Altman is honest because he's openly dishonest. Amodei is the devious one — a politically liberal narrative wrapped around a commercial juggernaut. Andrew's third way is yesterday's Mallaby interview: Demis Hassabis, the Spinozan one-faced scientist who would rather be at Princeton. But even Demis must have authorised the firing of Mustafa Suleiman. Everyone has a game plan, said Mike Tyson, until they get punched in the face.•       Post of the Week: Keith Replaces WordPress in Ten Minutes: Keith's tweet: he's run two curation sites — seriouslyphotography.com and seriouslybc.com — on WordPress for over a decade. Last Friday afternoon, he asked Anthropic's tools to rewrite them. Ten minutes later, both sites were rebuilt from scratch, fully responsive, WordPress gone. Cost in the old world: tens of thousands of dollars and several months. The Matt Mullenweg vs Matthew Prince debate is settled by the actual technology while the principals are still arguing.•       The End of Ownership? Keith Goes Marxist: Pure capitalism, Keith argues, will produce so much abundance that scarcity ends and self-interested competition with it. “In the future there will be no ownership, or everything will be commonly owned.” Andrew calls it Marx with Tesla characteristics. Eric Ries's forthcoming Incorruptible argues that Patagonia and Mondragon point a different way — structural ethics rather than abundance utopianism. Two visions of the post-AI economy. Both probably wrong. We'll find out. About the GuestSebastian Mallaby is the Paul A. Volcker senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. A former Washington Post columnist and Economist contributing editor, he is the author of More Money Than God, The Man Who Knew (winner of the FT and McKinsey Business Book of the Year), The Power Law, and now The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence.References:•       The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence by Sebastian Mallaby.•       Episode 2862: Truth Is Dead — Steven Rosenbaum on AI as a spectacularly good liar. Mallaby's quiet counter-argument.•       Episode 2860: We Shape Our AI, Thereafter It Shapes Us — Keith Teare on agency in our agentic age. Hassabis thinks he can still steer.About Keen On AmericaNobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters:(00:31) - A Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman's Pacific Heights house (02:41) - The New Yorker hit piece: Ronan Farrow, Andrew Marantz, 15,000 words (05:36) - Slippery Sam and the zeitgeist (07:39) - Brian Merchant: it's open season for refusing AI (08:09) - Anthropic's Mythic model finds decade-old vulnerabilities (10:46) - Why even release it? Dario's narcissism (12:12) - Slippery Sam vs Devious Dario (14:11) - Hassabis as the third way (18:29) - The Mustafa Suleiman question (19:17) - Mike Tyson, Kant, Spinoza, and Hobbes (22:09) - Brian Merchant and the new Luddism (23:34) - Anthropic makes a new generation redundant every week (23:34) - Post of the week: Keith rebuilds his sites in 10 minutes (26:39) - Eric Ries on incorruptible companies (30:12) - Patagonia, Berkeley Bowl, Mondragon (35:43) - The end of ownership? Keith goes Marxist

“It's ultra stable. Health care doesn't move. If you biopsied American health care in 2010 and again in 2026, no one could figure out which slide was which.” — Robert Pearl, MDBad news. The patient, I'm afraid, is ultra-stable. Robert Pearl, former CEO of Kaiser Permanente for eighteen years and author of ChatGPT MD, returns with the bleakest diagnosis we've heard all month. American healthcare, Dr Pearl says, is “ultra stable.” That might sound good. But it's actually very very bad.If you biopsied American healthcare in 2010 and again in 2026, Pearl says, no clinician could tell the slides apart. Both were and are overpriced. Both underperforming. Hospitals still represent between 30-35% of expenses. Costs continue to rise at between 7-9% a year. There remain four hundred thousand misdiagnosis deaths annually. Burnout is stuck at 50%. The numbers haven't moved in fifteen years.Meanwhile, a stealth revolution is already underway. 40% of Americans use generative AI every month for medical questions. 70-80% of physicians use it weekly. While the patients and doctors have moved, the system hasn't. It remains ultra-stable. It's a Kodak moment — healthcare's business model, Pearl suggests, is selling sickness. So, for example, the new new medical thing is GLP-1 drugs that cost $5 to manufacture and sell for $400.So will the system collapse? No, Pearl insists. It has too much strength for that kind of drama. Instead, it will quietly ration us to death — more chronic disease, earlier deaths, more people making a major sacrifice to pay their healthcare bills. Ultra-stability, then, is what is killing the American healthcare system. It will, quite literally, ration us to death. Five Takeaways•       Ultra Stable: Pearl's diagnosis of American healthcare in one phrase. Hospitals stay at thirty to thirty-five per cent of total expenses. Costs rise at seven to nine per cent annually. Life expectancy hasn't budged. Four hundred thousand misdiagnosis deaths a year. Burnout at fifty per cent. Biopsy 2010 and 2026 — no one could tell the slides apart. Both overpriced. Both underperforming.•       The Stealth Revolution Has Already Happened: Forty per cent of Americans use generative AI every month for medical questions. Seventy to eighty per cent of physicians use it weekly. The patients and doctors have moved. The system hasn't. It's a Kodak moment — they had the first filmless camera and let it die because their business model was selling film. Healthcare's business model is selling sickness.•       Quietly Rationed to Death: There will be no dramatic collapse. The system has too much strength for that. Instead: rationing, more chronic disease, earlier deaths. Like airlines moving everyone into first class while the rest drive. Twenty-five per cent of Americans already made a major sacrifice to pay healthcare bills last year. When it hits fifty per cent, maybe the polling places will notice. Pearl is doubtful.•       GLP-1s Cost $5 to Make and $400 to Buy: Yale's analysis: the manufacturing cost of a GLP-1 drug is $5 a month. They sell at a discounted price of $400. That's eighty times markup. Pearl's math: to make GLP-1s cost-neutral against the medical savings, the price has to be under $200. Trump Rx won't help most people because you can't use insurance there and $400 cash is still impossible on $60,000 a year.•       Vibe Coding Is the Prescription: One year old. Lets clinicians build software in plain English without code. Pearl's example: a heart failure patient at home, weighed daily on a Bluetooth scale, with an electronic stethoscope, ankle video, blood oxygen, exercise tolerance — all in an app a doctor could build in a weekend. Three days of fluid retention caught before the ICU admission. Cost: twenty dollars a month. The fix has arrived. The system isn't using it. About the GuestBeverly Gage is the John Lewis Gaddis Professor of History and American Studies at Yale. She is the author of G-Man: J. Edgar Hoover and the Making of the American Century, which won the Pulitzer Prize for Biography, and This Land Is Your Land: A Road Trip Through US History. She is currently at work on a biography of Ronald Reagan.References:•       This Land Is Your Land: A Road Trip Through US History by Beverly Gage.•       G-Man: J. Edgar Hoover and the Making of the American Century by Beverly Gage — the Pulitzer-winning biography.•       Episode 2859: Stop, Don't Do That — Peter Edelman on Bobby Kennedy and the heart of America. The companion conversation.About Keen On AmericaNobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters:(00:31) - Introduction: AI and the American healthcare sector (01:47) - ChatGPT MD: chronic disease and the trillion-dollar opportunity (04:50) - The stealth revolution: 40% of patients, 80% of doctors (06:53) - Ultra stability: the 2010-vs-2026 biopsy (09:50) - Three years of generative AI and counting (11:13) - Will the system collapse? No — it will quietly ration (13:33) - The drip-drip of preventable deaths (16:08) - GLP-1 drugs: $5 to make, $400 to buy (18:23) - Vibe coding enters the conversation (21:22) - Will AI replace clinicians? (28:08) - Trump Rx and why it won't help most people (30:41) - RFK Jr., vaccines, and the war on science (33:23) - The midterms as the political reckoning (35:29) - The three-step fix: capitation, transition, capital (39:48) - Vibe coding and the heart failure example

“You can face your history and still love your country. This is my attempt at doing that.” — Beverly GageWhen the Yale Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Beverly Gage finished her almost nine-hundred-page biography of J. Edgar Hoover, she needed a little break before starting her next book on Ronald Reagan. So she got in her old Subaru and spent six months on the road driving across America to prepare for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The result of these thirteen separate road trips is This Land Is Your Land: A Road Trip Through US History. Gage's Subaru broke down constantly. So, from time to time, did her health. But the American history she uncovered is anything but broken down.Historians, Gage argues, don't think enough about geography. Visiting the homes of the first four US Presidents from Virginia, she saw how closely America's slaveholding elite actually lived. Driving through the small towns on the Erie Canal, she found the corridor where abolitionism, women's rights, temperance, and reform Christianity were all born. At Disneyland, the final chapter in her road trip, she went to the Abraham Lincoln stage show and imagined Main Street USA as Walt Disney's parable about US history. The gap between the imagined America and the real one (yes, there is a real one, she insists) is where true history lives.Gage's thesis is that there is a third road — too much of a backstreet these days — between American pride and shame in its history. Her book maps that path. You can face up to your history, she argues, and still love your country. In a moment when inane triumphalism and apocalyptic despair dominate America's sense of itself, Gage's quiet historical reflection feels like the rarest of national commodities. Ben Franklin wondered in 1787 if the sun was rising or setting on America. Two hundred and fifty years later, Beverly Gage got in her Subaru and went on the road to find out. Five Takeaways•       Out of the Library and Into the Subaru: Gage won the Pulitzer Prize for her eight-hundred-page biography of J. Edgar Hoover. Her next book is on Ronald Reagan. Between the two, she needed a break. So she got in her unreliable Subaru and drove across America in thirteen trips, covering six months on the road, to prepare for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The Subaru broke down constantly. The history she found was worth it.•       Historians Don't Think Enough About Geography: Visiting the homes of the first four presidents from Virginia, Gage saw how closely the slaveholding elite actually lived — neighbours, not just names in a textbook. Driving the Erie Canal in upstate New York, she found the corridor where abolitionism, women's rights, temperance, and reform Christianity were all born in a handful of small towns. Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony were neighbours. History on the ground is different from history in books.•       Disneyland Is a Parable About American History: When Walt Disney opened Disneyland in 1955, Main Street USA reached back to his own childhood in the age of William McKinley. Frontierland told the heroic story of the American past. Tomorrowland celebrated Cold War technological optimism. Most visitors don't think about this. Gage does. She went to the Abraham Lincoln stage show. The gap between the imagined America and the real one is where the history lives.•       The Third Road: Between Pride and Shame: Gage encountered Americans who said: celebrate the country, I want nothing to do with that. She encountered others who said: only say the good stuff. She wanted to live in the tension between them. You can face your history and still love your country. That's the thesis of the book, and the argument for how to approach 250 years of American history in a moment when both triumphalism and despair are on offer.•       Upstate New York Was Where Americans Reimagined Themselves: Gage's favourite chapter. In the 1840s and 1850s along the Erie Canal, Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony were actually neighbours. They were writing their own constitutions and rethinking the Declaration of Independence. Douglass gave his famous “What to the slave is the Fourth of July?” speech in Rochester. They were in it together. If you want to find the third road, this is where to start. About the GuestBeverly Gage is the John Lewis Gaddis Professor of History and American Studies at Yale. She is the author of G-Man: J. Edgar Hoover and the Making of the American Century, which won the Pulitzer Prize for Biography, and This Land Is Your Land: A Road Trip Through US History. She is currently at work on a biography of Ronald Reagan.References:•       This Land Is Your Land: A Road Trip Through US History by Beverly Gage.•       G-Man: J. Edgar Hoover and the Making of the American Century by Beverly Gage — the Pulitzer-winning biography.•       Episode 2859: Stop, Don't Do That — Peter Edelman on Bobby Kennedy and the heart of America. The companion conversation.About Keen On AmericaNobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters:(00:31) - Introduction: out of the library, into the Subaru (01:57) - Why a road trip? The 250th anniversary approaches (04:18) - Growing up in suburban Philadelphia, displaced (05:32) - Goldberger becomes Gage: a father's anglicised name (07:46) - This Land Is Your Land: Woody Guthrie as frame (08:18) - Historians don't think enough about geography (11:27) - The places most people have never heard of (13:42) - Disneyland and the parable of American history (15:49) - Lafayette, Tocqueville, and the great travel tradition (17:25) - Thirteen trips, six months on the road (20:22) - Crisis, catastrophe, and the opportunity for change (23:21) - The apocalyptic temptation: from left and right (25:13) - Civil rights cities that fell on hard times (31:36) - The third road: between pride and shame (33:35) - Upstate New York: Douglass, Anthony, and the neighbours who reimagined A...