Podcasts about Anglo

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

This evening we dive into market movements with Rand Swiss, we speak to PPC and Alexforbes about their recent results, Deal Leaders International gives us a update on Anglo divesting from De Beers, aviation analyst Edward Makwana discusses SAA looking to expand (but at whose cost?) and we speak to Crue Invest about navigating offshore investments. SAfm Market Update - Podcasts and live stream

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

The Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604) was an intermittent conflict between the Kingdoms of Spain and England. The conflict included much English privateering against Spanish treasure ships in the New World, and several major sea battles including the Spanish Armada in 1588 which influenced the subsequent exploration, commercialization, settlement and colonization of North America. E124. Check out the YouTube version of this episode at https://youtu.be/QpuID4MUwNg which has accompanying visuals including maps, charts, timelines, photos, illustrations, and diagrams. THE DEAD LETTER by Mark Vinet (Elizabethan Age Denary Novel) is available at https://amzn.to/3AG63BG Spanish Armada books available at https://amzn.to/3BQzphd ENJOY Ad-Free content, Bonus episodes, and Extra materials when joining our growing community on https://patreon.com/markvinet SUPPORT this channel by purchasing any product on Amazon using this FREE entry LINK https://amzn.to/3POlrUD (Amazon gives us credit at NO extra charge to you). Mark Vinet's HISTORICAL JESUS podcast at https://parthenonpodcast.com/historical-jesus Mark's TIMELINE video channel: https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVinet Website: https://markvinet.com/podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.vinet.9 Twitter: https://twitter.com/MarkVinet_HNA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denarynovels Mark's books: https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM Audio Credit: BBC Radio - In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg (The Spanish Armada, 07oct2010 episode). Audio excerpts reproduced under the Fair Use (Fair Dealings) Legal Doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, teaching, education, scholarship, research and news reporting.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

In this episode Dan (@timely_moments) sits down with AJ (@ajbarse) and have a catch up over Cyprus, The Vancouver Timepiece Show as well as the releases of Watches and Wonders. After their catch up they then look at future plans and ideas for AJ's trip to Europe in August. References for the episode are below.Dan - @timely_moments / timelymomentsphotography92@gmail.comBuy me a brew - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/pmgwgzwbq7q?l=fr AJ - @ajbarseKill Shot - https://amzn.eu/d/4sOQAlpUnknown Rider - https://amzn.eu/d/j2kLYHYTitan : The OceanGate Disaster - https://www.netflix.com/latest?jbv=81712178

rWotD Episode 2948: San Luis Valley Welcome to Random Wiki of the Day, your journey through Wikipedia's vast and varied content, one random article at a time.The random article for Friday, 30 May 2025, is San Luis Valley.The San Luis Valley is a region in south-central Colorado with a small portion overlapping into New Mexico. The valley is approximately 122 miles (196 km) long and 74 miles (119 km) wide, making it the largest alpine valley in the world. It extends from the Continental Divide on the northwest rim into New Mexico on the south. It contains 6 counties and portions of 3 others. It is an extensive high-elevation depositional basin of approximately 8,000 square miles (21,000 km2) with an average elevation of 7,664 feet (2,336 m) above sea level. The valley is a section of the Rio Grande Rift and is drained to the south by the Rio Grande, which rises in the San Juan Mountains to the west of the valley and flows south into New Mexico. The San Luis Valley has a cold desert climate but has substantial water resources from the Rio Grande and groundwater.The San Luis Valley was ceded to the United States by Mexico following the Mexican–American War. Hispanic settlers began moving north and settling in the valley after the United States made a treaty with the Utes and established a fort in the early 1850s. Prior to the Mexican war the Spanish and Mexican governments had reserved the valley to the Utes. Later in the 19th century Anglo settlers began to settle in the valley and engaged in mining, ranching, and irrigated agriculture. Today the valley has a diverse Anglo and Hispanic population.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:12 UTC on Friday, 30 May 2025.For the full current version of the article, see San Luis Valley on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm standard Brian.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

Yesterday, the self-styled San Francisco “progressive” Joan Williams was on the show arguing that Democrats need to relearn the language of the American working class. But, as some of you have noted, Williams seems oblivious to the fact that politics is about more than simply aping other people's language. What you say matters, and the language of American working class, like all industrial working classes, is rooted in a critique of capitalism. She should probably read the New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy's excellent new book, Capitalism and its Critics, which traces capitalism's evolution and criticism from the East India Company through modern times. He defines capitalism as production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets, encompassing various forms from Chinese state capitalism to hyper-globalization. The book examines capitalism's most articulate critics including the Luddites, Marx, Engels, Thomas Carlisle, Adam Smith, Rosa Luxemburg, Keynes & Hayek, and contemporary figures like Sylvia Federici and Thomas Piketty. Cassidy explores how major economists were often critics of their era's dominant capitalist model, and untangles capitalism's complicated relationship with colonialism, slavery and AI which he regards as a potentially unprecedented economic disruption. This should be essential listening for all Democrats seeking to reinvent a post Biden-Harris party and message. 5 key takeaways* Capitalism has many forms - From Chinese state capitalism to Keynesian managed capitalism to hyper-globalization, all fitting the basic definition of production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets.* Great economists are typically critics - Smith criticized mercantile capitalism, Keynes critiqued laissez-faire capitalism, and Hayek/Friedman opposed managed capitalism. Each generation's leading economists challenge their era's dominant model.* Modern corporate structure has deep roots - The East India Company was essentially a modern multinational corporation with headquarters, board of directors, stockholders, and even a private army - showing capitalism's organizational continuity across centuries.* Capitalism is intertwined with colonialism and slavery - Industrial capitalism was built on pre-existing colonial and slave systems, particularly through the cotton industry and plantation economies.* AI represents a potentially unprecedented disruption - Unlike previous technological waves, AI may substitute rather than complement human labor on a massive scale, potentially creating political backlash exceeding even the "China shock" that contributed to Trump's rise.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. A couple of days ago, we did a show with Joan Williams. She has a new book out, "Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back." A book about language, about how to talk to the American working class. She also had a piece in Jacobin Magazine, an anti-capitalist magazine, about how the left needs to speak to what she calls average American values. We talked, of course, about Bernie Sanders and AOC and their language of fighting oligarchy, and the New York Times followed that up with "The Enduring Power of Anti-Capitalism in American Politics."But of course, that brings the question: what exactly is capitalism? I did a little bit of research. We can find definitions of capitalism from AI, from Wikipedia, even from online dictionaries, but I thought we might do a little better than relying on Wikipedia and come to a man who's given capitalism and its critics a great deal of thought. John Cassidy is well known as a staff writer at The New Yorker. He's the author of a wonderful book, the best book, actually, on the dot-com insanity. And his new book, "Capitalism and its Critics," is out this week. John, congratulations on the book.So I've got to be a bit of a schoolmaster with you, John, and get some definitions first. What exactly is capitalism before we get to criticism of it?John Cassidy: Yeah, I mean, it's a very good question, Andrew. Obviously, through the decades, even the centuries, there have been many different definitions of the term capitalism and there are different types of capitalism. To not be sort of too ideological about it, the working definition I use is basically production for profit—that could be production of goods or mostly in the new and, you know, in today's economy, production of services—for profit by companies which are privately owned in markets. That's a very sort of all-encompassing definition.Within that, you can have all sorts of different types of capitalism. You can have Chinese state capitalism, you can have the old mercantilism, which industrial capitalism came after, which Trump seems to be trying to resurrect. You can have Keynesian managed capitalism that we had for 30 or 40 years after the Second World War, which I grew up in in the UK. Or you can have sort of hyper-globalization, hyper-capitalism that we've tried for the last 30 years. There are all those different varieties of capitalism consistent with a basic definition, I think.Andrew Keen: That keeps you busy, John. I know you started this project, which is a big book and it's a wonderful book. I read it. I don't always read all the books I have on the show, but I read from cover to cover full of remarkable stories of the critics of capitalism. You note in the beginning that you began this in 2016 with the beginnings of Trump. What was it about the 2016 election that triggered a book about capitalism and its critics?John Cassidy: Well, I was reporting on it at the time for The New Yorker and it struck me—I covered, I basically covered the economy in various forms for various publications since the late 80s, early 90s. In fact, one of my first big stories was the stock market crash of '87. So yes, I am that old. But it seemed to me in 2016 when you had Bernie Sanders running from the left and Trump running from the right, but both in some way offering very sort of similar critiques of capitalism. People forget that Trump in 2016 actually was running from the left of the Republican Party. He was attacking big business. He was attacking Wall Street. He doesn't do that these days very much, but at the time he was very much posing as the sort of outsider here to protect the interests of the average working man.And it seemed to me that when you had this sort of pincer movement against the then ruling model, this wasn't just a one-off. It seemed to me it was a sort of an emerging crisis of legitimacy for the system. And I thought there could be a good book written about how we got to here. And originally I thought it would be a relatively short book just based on the last sort of 20 or 30 years since the collapse of the Cold War and the sort of triumphalism of the early 90s.But as I got into it more and more, I realized that so many of the issues which had been raised, things like globalization, rising inequality, monopoly power, exploitation, even pollution and climate change, these issues go back to the very start of the capitalist system or the industrial capitalist system back in sort of late 18th century, early 19th century Britain. So I thought, in the end, I thought, you know what, let's just do the whole thing soup to nuts through the eyes of the critics.There have obviously been many, many histories of capitalism written. I thought that an original way to do it, or hopefully original, would be to do a sort of a narrative through the lives and the critiques of the critics of various stages. So that's, I hope, what sets it apart from other books on the subject, and also provides a sort of narrative frame because, you know, I am a New Yorker writer, I realize if you want people to read things, you've got to make it readable. Easiest way to make things readable is to center them around people. People love reading about other people. So that's sort of the narrative frame. I start off with a whistleblower from the East India Company back in the—Andrew Keen: Yeah, I want to come to that. But before, John, my sense is that to simplify what you're saying, this is a labor of love. You're originally from Leeds, the heart of Yorkshire, the center of the very industrial revolution, the first industrial revolution where, in your historical analysis, capitalism was born. Is it a labor of love? What's your family relationship with capitalism? How long was the family in Leeds?John Cassidy: Right, I mean that's a very good question. It is a labor of love in a way, but it's not—our family doesn't go—I'm from an Irish family, family of Irish immigrants who moved to England in the 1940s and 1950s. So my father actually did start working in a big mill, the Kirkstall Forge in Leeds, which is a big steel mill, and he left after seeing one of his co-workers have his arms chopped off in one of the machinery, so he decided it wasn't for him and he spent his life working in the construction industry, which was dominated by immigrants as it is here now.So I don't have a—it's not like I go back to sort of the start of the industrial revolution, but I did grow up in the middle of Leeds, very working class, very industrial neighborhood. And what a sort of irony is, I'll point out, I used to, when I was a kid, I used to play golf on a municipal golf course called Gotts Park in Leeds, which—you know, most golf courses in America are sort of in the affluent suburbs, country clubs. This was right in the middle of Armley in Leeds, which is where the Victorian jail is and a very rough neighborhood. There's a small bit of land which they built a golf course on. It turns out it was named after one of the very first industrialists, Benjamin Gott, who was a wool and textile industrialist, and who played a part in the Luddite movement, which I mention.So it turns out, I was there when I was 11 or 12, just learning how to play golf on this scrappy golf course. And here I am, 50 years later, writing about Benjamin Gott at the start of the Industrial Revolution. So yeah, no, sure. I think it speaks to me in a way that perhaps it wouldn't to somebody else from a different background.Andrew Keen: We did a show with William Dalrymple, actually, a couple of years ago. He's been on actually since, the Anglo or Scottish Indian historian. His book on the East India Company, "The Anarchy," is a classic. You begin in some ways your history of capitalism with the East India Company. What was it about the East India Company, John, that makes it different from other for-profit organizations in economic, Western economic history?John Cassidy: I mean, I read that. It's a great book, by the way. That was actually quoted in my chapter on these. Yeah, I remember. I mean, the reason I focused on it was for two reasons. Number one, I was looking for a start, a narrative start to the book. And it seemed to me, you know, the obvious place to start is with the start of the industrial revolution. If you look at economics history textbooks, that's where they always start with Arkwright and all the inventors, you know, who were the sort of techno-entrepreneurs of their time, the sort of British Silicon Valley, if you could think of it as, in Lancashire and Derbyshire in the late 18th century.So I knew I had to sort of start there in some way, but I thought that's a bit pat. Is there another way into it? And it turns out that in 1772 in England, there was a huge bailout of the East India Company, very much like the sort of 2008, 2009 bailout of Wall Street. The company got into trouble. So I thought, you know, maybe there's something there. And I eventually found this guy, William Bolts, who worked for the East India Company, turned into a whistleblower after he was fired for finagling in India like lots of the people who worked for the company did.So that gave me two things. Number one, it gave me—you know, I'm a writer, so it gave me something to focus on a narrative. His personal history is very interesting. But number two, it gave me a sort of foundation because industrial capitalism didn't come from nowhere. You know, it was built on top of a pre-existing form of capitalism, which we now call mercantile capitalism, which was very protectionist, which speaks to us now. But also it had these big monopolistic multinational companies.The East India Company, in some ways, was a very modern corporation. It had a headquarters in Leadenhall Street in the city of London. It had a board of directors, it had stockholders, the company sent out very detailed instructions to the people in the field in India and Indonesia and Malaysia who were traders who bought things from the locals there, brought them back to England on their company ships. They had a company army even to enforce—to protect their operations there. It was an incredible multinational corporation.So that was also, I think, fascinating because it showed that even in the pre-existing system, you know, big corporations existed, there were monopolies, they had royal monopolies given—first the East India Company got one from Queen Elizabeth. But in some ways, they were very similar to modern monopolistic corporations. And they had some of the problems we've seen with modern monopolistic corporations, the way they acted. And Bolts was the sort of first corporate whistleblower, I thought. Yeah, that was a way of sort of getting into the story, I think. Hopefully, you know, it's just a good read, I think.William Bolts's story because he was—he came from nowhere, he was Dutch, he wasn't even English and he joined the company as a sort of impoverished young man, went to India like a lot of English minor aristocrats did to sort of make your fortune. The way the company worked, you had to sort of work on company time and make as much money as you could for the company, but then in your spare time you're allowed to trade for yourself. So a lot of the—without getting into too much detail, but you know, English aristocracy was based on—you know, the eldest child inherits everything, so if you were the younger brother of the Duke of Norfolk, you actually didn't inherit anything. So all of these minor aristocrats, so major aristocrats, but who weren't first born, joined the East India Company, went out to India and made a fortune, and then came back and built huge houses. Lots of the great manor houses in southern England were built by people from the East India Company and they were known as Nabobs, which is an Indian term. So they were the sort of, you know, billionaires of their time, and it was based on—as I say, it wasn't based on industrial capitalism, it was based on mercantile capitalism.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the beginning of the book, which focuses on Bolts and the East India Company, brings to mind for me two things. Firstly, the intimacy of modern capitalism, modern industrial capitalism with colonialism and of course slavery—lots of books have been written on that. Touch on this and also the relationship between the birth of capitalism and the birth of liberalism or democracy. John Stuart Mill, of course, the father in many ways of Western democracy. His day job, ironically enough, or perhaps not ironically, was at the East India Company. So how do those two things connect, or is it just coincidental?John Cassidy: Well, I don't think it is entirely coincidental, I mean, J.S. Mill—his father, James Mill, was also a well-known philosopher in the sort of, obviously, in the earlier generation, earlier than him. And he actually wrote the official history of the East India Company. And I think they gave his son, the sort of brilliant protégé, J.S. Mill, a job as largely as a sort of sinecure, I think. But he did go in and work there in the offices three or four days a week.But I think it does show how sort of integral—the sort of—as you say, the inheritor and the servant in Britain, particularly, of colonial capitalism was. So the East India Company was, you know, it was in decline by that stage in the middle of the 19th century, but it didn't actually give up its monopoly. It wasn't forced to give up its monopoly on the Indian trade until 1857, after, you know, some notorious massacres and there was a sort of public outcry.So yeah, no, that's—it's very interesting that the British—it's sort of unique to Britain in a way, but it's interesting that industrial capitalism arose alongside this pre-existing capitalist structure and somebody like Mill is a sort of paradoxical figure because actually he was quite critical of aspects of industrial capitalism and supported sort of taxes on the rich, even though he's known as the great, you know, one of the great apostles of the free market and free market liberalism. And his day job, as you say, he was working for the East India Company.Andrew Keen: What about the relationship between the birth of industrial capitalism, colonialism and slavery? Those are big questions and I know you deal with them in some—John Cassidy: I think you can't just write an economic history of capitalism now just starting with the cotton industry and say, you know, it was all about—it was all about just technical progress and gadgets, etc. It was built on a sort of pre-existing system which was colonial and, you know, the slave trade was a central element of that. Now, as you say, there have been lots and lots of books written about it, the whole 1619 project got an incredible amount of attention a few years ago. So I didn't really want to rehash all that, but I did want to acknowledge the sort of role of slavery, especially in the rise of the cotton industry because of course, a lot of the raw cotton was grown in the plantations in the American South.So the way I actually ended up doing that was by writing a chapter about Eric Williams, a Trinidadian writer who ended up as the Prime Minister of Trinidad when it became independent in the 1960s. But when he was younger, he wrote a book which is now regarded as a classic. He went to Oxford to do a PhD, won a scholarship. He was very smart. I won a sort of Oxford scholarship myself but 50 years before that, he came across the Atlantic and did an undergraduate degree in history and then did a PhD there and his PhD thesis was on slavery and capitalism.And at the time, in the 1930s, the link really wasn't acknowledged. You could read any sort of standard economic history written by British historians, and they completely ignored that. He made the argument that, you know, slavery was integral to the rise of capitalism and he basically started an argument which has been raging ever since the 1930s and, you know, if you want to study economic history now you have to sort of—you know, have to have to address that. And the way I thought, even though the—it's called the Williams thesis is very famous. I don't think many people knew much about where it came from. So I thought I'd do a chapter on—Andrew Keen: Yeah, that chapter is excellent. You mentioned earlier the Luddites, you're from Yorkshire where Luddism in some ways was born. One of the early chapters is on the Luddites. We did a show with Brian Merchant, his book, "Blood in the Machine," has done very well, I'm sure you're familiar with it. I always understood the Luddites as being against industrialization, against the machine, as opposed to being against capitalism. But did those two things get muddled together in the history of the Luddites?John Cassidy: I think they did. I mean, you know, Luddites, when we grew up, I mean you're English too, you know to be called a Luddite was a term of abuse, right? You know, you were sort of antediluvian, anti-technology, you're stupid. It was only, I think, with the sort of computer revolution, the tech revolution of the last 30, 40 years and the sort of disruptions it's caused, that people have started to look back at the Luddites and say, perhaps they had a point.For them, they were basically pre-industrial capitalism artisans. They worked for profit-making concerns, small workshops. Some of them worked for themselves, so they were sort of sole proprietor capitalists. Or they worked in small venues, but the rise of industrial capitalism, factory capitalism or whatever, basically took away their livelihoods progressively. So they associated capitalism with new technology. In their minds it was the same. But their argument wasn't really a technological one or even an economic one, it was more a moral one. They basically made the moral argument that capitalists shouldn't have the right to just take away their livelihoods with no sort of recompense for them.At the time they didn't have any parliamentary representation. You know, they weren't revolutionaries. The first thing they did was create petitions to try and get parliament to step in, sort of introduce some regulation here. They got turned down repeatedly by the sort of—even though it was a very aristocratic parliament, places like Manchester and Leeds didn't have any representation at all. So it was only after that that they sort of turned violent and started, you know, smashing machines and machines, I think, were sort of symbols of the system, which they saw as morally unjust.And I think that's sort of what—obviously, there's, you know, a lot of technological disruption now, so we can, especially as it starts to come for the educated cognitive class, we can sort of sympathize with them more. But I think the sort of moral critique that there's this, you know, underneath the sort of great creativity and economic growth that capitalism produces, there is also a lot of destruction and a lot of victims. And I think that message, you know, is becoming a lot more—that's why I think why they've been rediscovered in the last five or ten years and I'm one of the people I guess contributing to that rediscovery.Andrew Keen: There's obviously many critiques of capitalism politically. I want to come to Marx in a second, but your chapter, I thought, on Thomas Carlyle and this nostalgic conservatism was very important and there are other conservatives as well. John, do you think that—and you mentioned Trump earlier, who is essentially a nostalgist for a—I don't know, some sort of bizarre pre-capitalist age in America. Is there something particularly powerful about the anti-capitalism of romantics like Carlyle, 19th century Englishman, there were many others of course.John Cassidy: Well, I think so. I mean, I think what is—conservatism, when we were young anyway, was associated with Thatcherism and Reaganism, which, you know, lionized the free market and free market capitalism and was a reaction against the pre-existing form of capitalism, Keynesian capitalism of the sort of 40s to the 80s. But I think what got lost in that era was the fact that there have always been—you've got Hayek up there, obviously—Andrew Keen: And then Keynes and Hayek, the two—John Cassidy: Right, it goes to the end of that. They had a great debate in the 1930s about these issues. But Hayek really wasn't a conservative person, and neither was Milton Friedman. They were sort of free market revolutionaries, really, that you'd let the market rip and it does good things. And I think that that sort of a view, you know, it just became very powerful. But we sort of lost sight of the fact that there was also a much older tradition of sort of suspicion of radical changes of any type. And that was what conservatism was about to some extent. If you think about Baldwin in Britain, for example.And there was a sort of—during the Industrial Revolution, some of the strongest supporters of factory acts to reduce hours and hourly wages for women and kids were actually conservatives, Tories, as they were called at the time, like Ashley. That tradition, Carlyle was a sort of extreme representative of that. I mean, Carlyle was a sort of proto-fascist, let's not romanticize him, he lionized strongmen, Frederick the Great, and he didn't really believe in democracy. But he also had—he was appalled by the sort of, you know, the—like, what's the phrase I'm looking for? The sort of destructive aspects of industrial capitalism, both on the workers, you know, he said it was a dehumanizing system, sounded like Marx in some ways. That it dehumanized the workers, but also it destroyed the environment.He was an early environmentalist. He venerated the environment, was actually very strongly linked to the transcendentalists in America, people like Thoreau, who went to visit him when he visited Britain and he saw the sort of destructive impact that capitalism was having locally in places like Manchester, which were filthy with filthy rivers, etc. So he just saw the whole system as sort of morally bankrupt and he was a great writer, Carlyle, whatever you think of him. Great user of language, so he has these great ringing phrases like, you know, the cash nexus or calling it the Gospel of Mammonism, the shabbiest gospel ever preached under the sun was industrial capitalism.So, again, you know, that's a sort of paradoxical thing, because I think for so long conservatism was associated with, you know, with support for the free market and still is in most of the Republican Party, but then along comes Trump and sort of conquers the party with a, you know, more skeptical, as you say, romantic, not really based on any reality, but a sort of romantic view that America can stand by itself in the world. I mean, I see Trump actually as a sort of an effort to sort of throw back to mercantile capitalism in a way. You know, which was not just pre-industrial, but was also pre-democracy, run by monarchs, which I'm sure appeals to him, and it was based on, you know, large—there were large tariffs. You couldn't import things in the UK. If you want to import anything to the UK, you have to send it on a British ship because of the navigation laws. It was a very protectionist system and it's actually, you know, as I said, had a lot of parallels with what Trump's trying to do or tries to do until he backs off.Andrew Keen: You cheat a little bit in the book in the sense that you—everyone has their own chapter. We'll talk a little bit about Hayek and Smith and Lenin and Friedman. You do have one chapter on Marx, but you also have a chapter on Engels. So you kind of cheat. You combine the two. Is it possible, though, to do—and you've just written this book, so you know this as well as anyone. How do you write a book about capitalism and its critics and only really give one chapter to Marx, who is so dominant? I mean, you've got lots of Marxists in the book, including Lenin and Luxemburg. How fundamental is Marx to a criticism of capitalism? Is most criticism, especially from the left, from progressives, is it really just all a footnote to Marx?John Cassidy: I wouldn't go that far, but I think obviously on the left he is the central figure. But there's an element of sort of trying to rebuild Engels a bit in this. I mean, I think of Engels and Marx—I mean obviously Marx wrote the great classic "Capital," etc. But in the 1840s, when they both started writing about capitalism, Engels was sort of ahead of Marx in some ways. I mean, the sort of materialist concept, the idea that economics rules everything, Engels actually was the first one to come up with that in an essay in the 1840s which Marx then published in one of his—in the German newspaper he worked for at the time, radical newspaper, and he acknowledged openly that that was really what got him thinking seriously about economics, and even in the late—in 20, 25 years later when he wrote "Capital," all three volumes of it and the Grundrisse, just these enormous outpourings of analysis on capitalism.He acknowledged Engels's role in that and obviously Engels wrote the first draft of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 too, which Marx then topped and tailed and—he was a better writer obviously, Marx, and he gave it the dramatic language that we all know it for. So I think Engels and Marx together obviously are the central sort of figures in the sort of left-wing critique. But they didn't start out like that. I mean, they were very obscure, you've got to remember.You know, they were—when they were writing, Marx was writing "Capital" in London, it never even got published in English for another 20 years. It was just published in German. He was basically an expat. He had been thrown out of Germany, he had been thrown out of France, so England was last resort and the British didn't consider him a threat so they were happy to let him and the rest of the German sort of left in there. I think it became—it became the sort of epochal figure after his death really, I think, when he was picked up by the left-wing parties, which are especially the SPD in Germany, which was the first sort of socialist mass party and was officially Marxist until the First World War and there were great internal debates.And then of course, because Lenin and the Russians came out of that tradition too, Marxism then became the official doctrine of the Soviet Union when they adopted a version of it. And again there were massive internal arguments about what Marx really meant, and in fact, you know, one interpretation of the last 150 years of left-wing sort of intellectual development is as a sort of argument about what did Marx really mean and what are the important bits of it, what are the less essential bits of it. It's a bit like the "what did Keynes really mean" that you get in liberal circles.So yeah, Marx, obviously, this is basically an intellectual history of critiques of capitalism. In that frame, he is absolutely a central figure. Why didn't I give him more space than a chapter and a chapter and a half with Engels? There have been a million books written about Marx. I mean, it's not that—it's not that he's an unknown figure. You know, there's a best-selling book written in Britain about 20 years ago about him and then I was quoting, in my biographical research, I relied on some more recent, more scholarly biographies. So he's an endlessly fascinating figure but I didn't want him to dominate the book so I gave him basically the same space as everybody else.Andrew Keen: You've got, as I said, you've got a chapter on Adam Smith who's often considered the father of economics. You've got a chapter on Keynes. You've got a chapter on Friedman. And you've got a chapter on Hayek, all the great modern economists. Is it possible, John, to be a distinguished economist one way or the other and not be a critic of capitalism?John Cassidy: Well, I don't—I mean, I think history would suggest that the greatest economists have been critics of capitalism in their own time. People would say to me, what the hell have you got Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in a book about critics of capitalism? They were great exponents, defenders of capitalism. They loved the system. That is perfectly true. But in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, middle of the 20th century, they were actually arch-critics of the ruling form of capitalism at the time, which was what I call managed capitalism. What some people call Keynesianism, what other people call European social democracy, whatever you call it, it was a model of a mixed economy in which the government played a large role both in propping up demand and in providing an extensive social safety net in the UK and providing public healthcare and public education. It was a sort of hybrid model.Most of the economy in terms of the businesses remained in private hands. So most production was capitalistic. It was a capitalist system. They didn't go to the Soviet model of nationalizing everything and Britain did nationalize some businesses, but most places didn't. The US of course didn't but it was a form of managed capitalism. And Hayek and Friedman were both great critics of that and wanted to sort of move back to 19th century laissez-faire model.Keynes was a—was actually a great, I view him anyway, as really a sort of late Victorian liberal and was trying to protect as much of the sort of J.S. Mill view of the world as he could, but he thought capitalism had one fatal flaw: that it tended to fall into recessions and then they can snowball and the whole system can collapse which is what had basically happened in the early 1930s until Keynesian policies were adopted. Keynes sort of differed from a lot of his followers—I have a chapter on Joan Robinson in there, who were pretty left-wing and wanted to sort of use Keynesianism as a way to shift the economy quite far to the left. Keynes didn't really believe in that. He has a famous quote that, you know, once you get to full employment, you can then rely on the free market to sort of take care of things. He was still a liberal at heart.Going back to Adam Smith, why is he in a book on criticism of capitalism? And again, it goes back to what I said at the beginning. He actually wrote "The Wealth of Nations"—he explains in the introduction—as a critique of mercantile capitalism. His argument was that he was a pro-free trader, pro-small business, free enterprise. His argument was if you get the government out of the way, we don't need these government-sponsored monopolies like the East India Company. If you just rely on the market, the sort of market forces and competition will produce a good outcome. So then he was seen as a great—you know, he is then seen as the apostle of free market capitalism. I mean when I started as a young reporter, when I used to report in Washington, all the conservatives used to wear Adam Smith badges. You don't see Donald Trump wearing an Adam Smith badge, but that was the case.He was also—the other aspect of Smith, which I highlight, which is not often remarked on—he's also a critic of big business. He has a famous section where he discusses the sort of tendency of any group of more than three businessmen when they get together to try and raise prices and conspire against consumers. And he was very suspicious of, as I say, large companies, monopolies. I think if Adam Smith existed today, I mean, I think he would be a big supporter of Lina Khan and the sort of antitrust movement, he would say capitalism is great as long as you have competition, but if you don't have competition it becomes, you know, exploitative.Andrew Keen: Yeah, if Smith came back to live today, you have a chapter on Thomas Piketty, maybe he may not be French, but he may be taking that position about how the rich benefit from the structure of investment. Piketty's core—I've never had Piketty on the show, but I've had some of his followers like Emmanuel Saez from Berkeley. Yeah. How powerful is Piketty's critique of capitalism within the context of the classical economic analysis from Hayek and Friedman? Yeah, it's a very good question.John Cassidy: It's a very good question. I mean, he's a very paradoxical figure, Piketty, in that he obviously shot to world fame and stardom with his book on capital in the 21st century, which in some ways he obviously used the capital as a way of linking himself to Marx, even though he said he never read Marx. But he was basically making the same argument that if you leave capitalism unrestrained and don't do anything about monopolies etc. or wealth, you're going to get massive inequality and he—I think his great contribution, Piketty and the school of people, one of them you mentioned, around him was we sort of had a vague idea that inequality was going up and that, you know, wages were stagnating, etc.What he and his colleagues did is they produced these sort of scientific empirical studies showing in very simple to understand terms how the sort of share of income and wealth of the top 10 percent, the top 5 percent, the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent basically skyrocketed from the 1970s to about 2010. And it was, you know, he was an MIT PhD. Saez, who you mentioned, is a Berkeley professor. They were schooled in neoclassical economics at Harvard and MIT and places like that. So the right couldn't dismiss them as sort of, you know, lefties or Trots or whatever who're just sort of making this stuff up. They had to acknowledge that this was actually an empirical reality.I think it did change the whole basis of the debate and it was sort of part of this reaction against capitalism in the 2010s. You know it was obviously linked to the sort of Sanders and the Occupy Wall Street movement at the time. It came out of the—you know, the financial crisis as well when Wall Street disgraced itself. I mean, I wrote a previous book on all that, but people have sort of, I think, forgotten the great reaction against that a decade ago, which I think even Trump sort of exploited, as I say, by using anti-banker rhetoric at the time.So, Piketty was a great figure, I think, from, you know, I was thinking, who are the most influential critics of capitalism in the 21st century? And I think you'd have to put him up there on the list. I'm not saying he's the only one or the most eminent one. But I think he is a central figure. Now, of course, you'd think, well, this is a really powerful critic of capitalism, and nobody's going to pick up, and Bernie's going to take off and everything. But here we are a decade later now. It seems to be what the backlash has produced is a swing to the right, not a swing to the left. So that's, again, a sort of paradox.Andrew Keen: One person I didn't expect to come up in the book, John, and I was fascinated with this chapter, is Silvia Federici. I've tried to get her on the show. We've had some books about her writing and her kind of—I don't know, you treat her critique as a feminist one. The role of women. Why did you choose to write a chapter about Federici and that feminist critique of capitalism?John Cassidy: Right, right. Well, I don't think it was just feminist. I'll explain what I think it was. Two reasons. Number one, I wanted to get more women into the book. I mean, it's in some sense, it is a history of economics and economic critiques. And they are overwhelmingly written by men and women were sort of written out of the narrative of capitalism for a very long time. So I tried to include as many sort of women as actual thinkers as I could and I have a couple of early socialist feminist thinkers, Anna Wheeler and Flora Tristan and then I cover some of the—I cover Rosa Luxemburg as the great sort of tribune of the left revolutionary socialist, communist whatever you want to call it. Anti-capitalist I think is probably also important to note about. Yeah, and then I also have Joan Robinson, but I wanted somebody to do something in the modern era, and I thought Federici, in the world of the Wages for Housework movement, is very interesting from two perspectives.Number one, Federici herself is a Marxist, and I think she probably would still consider herself a revolutionary. She's based in New York, as you know now. She lived in New York for 50 years, but she came from—she's originally Italian and came out of the Italian left in the 1960s, which was very radical. Do you know her? Did you talk to her? I didn't talk to her on this. No, she—I basically relied on, there has been a lot of, as you say, there's been a lot of stuff written about her over the years. She's written, you know, she's given various long interviews and she's written a book herself, a version, a history of housework, so I figured it was all there and it was just a matter of pulling it together.But I think the critique, why the critique is interesting, most of the book is a sort of critique of how capitalism works, you know, in the production or you know, in factories or in offices or you know, wherever capitalist operations are working, but her critique is sort of domestic reproduction, as she calls it, the role of unpaid labor in supporting capitalism. I mean it goes back a long way actually. There was this moment, I sort of trace it back to the 1940s and 1950s when there were feminists in America who were demonstrating outside factories and making the point that you know, the factory workers and the operations of the factory, it couldn't—there's one of the famous sort of tire factory in California demonstrations where the women made the argument, look this factory can't continue to operate unless we feed and clothe the workers and provide the next generation of workers. You know, that's domestic reproduction. So their argument was that housework should be paid and Federici took that idea and a couple of her colleagues, she founded the—it's a global movement, but she founded the most famous branch in New York City in the 1970s. In Park Slope near where I live actually.And they were—you call it feminists, they were feminists in a way, but they were rejected by the sort of mainstream feminist movement, the sort of Gloria Steinems of the world, who Federici was very critical of because she said they ignored, they really just wanted to get women ahead in the sort of capitalist economy and they ignored the sort of underlying from her perspective, the underlying sort of illegitimacy and exploitation of that system. So they were never accepted as part of the feminist movement. They're to the left of the Feminist Movement.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Keynes, of course, so central in all this, particularly his analysis of the role of automation in capitalism. We did a show recently with Robert Skidelsky and I'm sure you're familiar—John Cassidy: Yeah, yeah, great, great biography of Keynes.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the great biographer of Keynes, whose latest book is "Mindless: The Human Condition in the Age of AI." You yourself wrote a brilliant book on the last tech mania and dot-com capitalism. I used it in a lot of my writing and books. What's your analysis of AI in this latest mania and the role generally of manias in the history of capitalism and indeed in critiquing capitalism? Is AI just the next chapter of the dot-com boom?John Cassidy: I think it's a very deep question. I think I'd give two answers to it. In one sense it is just the latest mania the way—I mean, the way capitalism works is we have these, I go back to Kondratiev, one of my Russian economists who ended up being killed by Stalin. He was the sort of inventor of the long wave theory of capitalism. We have these short waves where you have sort of booms and busts driven by finance and debt etc. But we also have long waves driven by technology.And obviously, in the last 40, 50 years, the two big ones are the original deployment of the internet and microchip technology in the sort of 80s and 90s culminating in the dot-com boom of the late 90s, which as you say, I wrote about. Thanks very much for your kind comments on the book. If you just sort of compare it from a financial basis I think they are very similar just in terms of the sort of role of hype from Wall Street in hyping up these companies. The sort of FOMO aspect of it among investors that they you know, you can't miss out. So just buy the companies blindly. And the sort of lionization in the press and the media of, you know, of AI as the sort of great wave of the future.So if you take a sort of skeptical market based approach, I would say, yeah, this is just another sort of another mania which will eventually burst and it looked like it had burst for a few weeks when Trump put the tariffs up, now the market seemed to be recovering. But I think there is, there may be something new about it. I am not, I don't pretend to be a technical expert. I try to rely on the evidence of or the testimony of people who know the systems well and also economists who have studied it. It seems to me the closer you get to it the more alarming it is in terms of the potential shock value that there is there.I mean Trump and the sort of reaction to a larger extent can be traced back to the China shock where we had this global shock to American manufacturing and sort of hollowed out a lot of the industrial areas much of it, like industrial Britain was hollowed out in the 80s. If you, you know, even people like Altman and Elon Musk, they seem to think that this is going to be on a much larger scale than that and will basically, you know, get rid of the professions as they exist. Which would be a huge, huge shock. And I think a lot of the economists who studied this, who four or five years ago were relatively optimistic, people like Daron Acemoglu, David Autor—Andrew Keen: Simon Johnson, of course, who just won the Nobel Prize, and he's from England.John Cassidy: Simon, I did an event with Simon earlier this week. You know they've studied this a lot more closely than I have but I do interview them and I think five, six years ago they were sort of optimistic that you know this could just be a new steam engine or could be a microchip which would lead to sort of a lot more growth, rising productivity, rising productivity is usually associated with rising wages so sure there'd be short-term costs but ultimately it would be a good thing. Now, I think if you speak to them, they see since the, you know, obviously, the OpenAI—the original launch and now there's just this huge arms race with no government involvement at all I think they're coming to the conclusion that rather than being developed to sort of complement human labor, all these systems are just being rushed out to substitute for human labor. And it's just going, if current trends persist, it's going to be a China shock on an even bigger scale.You know what is going to, if that, if they're right, that is going to produce some huge political backlash at some point, that's inevitable. So I know—the thing when the dot-com bubble burst, it didn't really have that much long-term impact on the economy. People lost the sort of fake money they thought they'd made. And then the companies, obviously some of the companies like Amazon and you know Google were real genuine profit-making companies and if you bought them early you made a fortune. But AI does seem a sort of bigger, scarier phenomenon to me. I don't know. I mean, you're close to it. What do you think?Andrew Keen: Well, I'm waiting for a book, John, from you. I think you can combine dot-com and capitalism and its critics. We need you probably to cover it—you know more about it than me. Final question, I mean, it's a wonderful book and we haven't even scratched the surface everyone needs to get it. I enjoyed the chapter, for example, on Karl Polanyi and so much more. I mean, it's a big book. But my final question, John, is do you have any regrets about anyone you left out? The one person I would have liked to have been included was Rawls because of his sort of treatment of capitalism and luck as a kind of casino. I'm not sure whether you gave any thought to Rawls, but is there someone in retrospect you should have had a chapter on that you left out?John Cassidy: There are lots of people I left out. I mean, that's the problem. I mean there have been hundreds and hundreds of critics of capitalism. Rawls, of course, incredibly influential and his idea of the sort of, you know, the veil of ignorance that you should judge things not knowing where you are in the income distribution and then—Andrew Keen: And it's luck. I mean the idea of some people get lucky and some people don't.John Cassidy: It is the luck of the draw, obviously, what card you pull. I think that is a very powerful critique, but I just—because I am more of an expert on economics, I tended to leave out philosophers and sociologists. I mean, you know, you could say, where's Max Weber? Where are the anarchists? You know, where's Emma Goldman? Where's John Kenneth Galbraith, the sort of great mid-century critic of American industrial capitalism? There's so many people that you could include. I mean, I could have written 10 volumes. In fact, I refer in the book to, you know, there's always been a problem. G.D.H. Cole, a famous English historian, wrote a history of socialism back in the 1960s and 70s. You know, just getting to 1850 took him six volumes. So, you've got to pick and choose, and I don't claim this is the history of capitalism and its critics. That would be a ridiculous claim to make. I just claim it's a history written by me, and hopefully the people are interested in it, and they're sufficiently diverse that you can address all the big questions.Andrew Keen: Well it's certainly incredibly timely. Capitalism and its critics—more and more of them. Sometimes they don't even describe themselves as critics of capitalism when they're talking about oligarchs or billionaires, they're really criticizing capitalism. A must read from one of America's leading journalists. And would you call yourself a critic of capitalism, John?John Cassidy: Yeah, I guess I am, to some extent, sure. I mean, I'm not a—you know, I'm not on the far left, but I'd say I'm a center-left critic of capitalism. Yes, definitely, that would be fair.Andrew Keen: And does the left need to learn? Does everyone on the left need to read the book and learn the language of anti-capitalism in a more coherent and honest way?John Cassidy: I hope so. I mean, obviously, I'd be talking my own book there, as they say, but I hope that people on the left, but not just people on the left. I really did try to sort of be fair to the sort of right-wing critiques as well. I included the Carlyle chapter particularly, obviously, but in the later chapters, I also sort of refer to this emerging critique on the right, the sort of economic nationalist critique. So hopefully, I think people on the right could read it to understand the critiques from the left, and people on the left could read it to understand some of the critiques on the right as well.Andrew Keen: Well, it's a lovely book. It's enormously erudite and simultaneously readable. Anyone who likes John Cassidy's work from The New Yorker will love it. Congratulations, John, on the new book, and I'd love to get you back on the show as anti-capitalism in America picks up steam and perhaps manifests itself in the 2028 election. Thank you so much.John Cassidy: Thanks very much for inviting me on, it was fun.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

Constitutional Conventions: Theories, Practices and Dynamics (Routledge, 2025) is an excellent edited volume exploring the various ways in which governments and constitutional structures operate in the spaces that are not necessarily articulated in law, edict, or formal documents. This is not a text about the folks who gathered together in 1787 in Philadelphia, or even those who wrote new constitutional structures after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Conventions means the rules that govern the interactions between political actors and the governments they inhabit. In many ways, this refers to the kinds of norms that have grown up around different parts of the systems of government. The strength and endurance of those rules or norms can change over time and in response to crises or dynamic changes. Constitutional Conventions: Theories, Practices, and Dynamics explores these thick and thin dimensions of the governing structures from a comparative perspective, taking up Anglo and American systems in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The book also examines the cases of Hungary and Czechia (the Czech Republic), two post-Cold War systems; and finally, also, China. In considering these constitutional conventions, we can think of them as structures or engagement that is not enforced by the courts, since these are not, per se, written constitutional laws. In long standing liberal democracies, there is an inclination towards adhering to conventions. But when these conventions are under strain, how they work, or maintain “regular order” becomes a critical test within the established governmental systems. Constitutional Conventions provides another dimension of significant interest in the discussion of how China works within these kinds of conventions within the process in which political individuals come up through the governmental and party systems and move into leadership roles. The comparative case study of Hungary and Czechia indicates that even in somewhat similar structures, the conventions and norms are not always the same. Constitutional Conventions: Theories, Practices, and Dynamics is an important analysis of the ways in which governmental structures work beyond what is written or built as the official system. The discussions cover theoretical, practical, and comparative dimensions of our understandings of the processes and functions of governments. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or send her missives at Bluesky @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

De la musique tirée de la voûte anglophone de CISM.

Constitutional Conventions: Theories, Practices and Dynamics (Routledge, 2025) is an excellent edited volume exploring the various ways in which governments and constitutional structures operate in the spaces that are not necessarily articulated in law, edict, or formal documents. This is not a text about the folks who gathered together in 1787 in Philadelphia, or even those who wrote new constitutional structures after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Conventions means the rules that govern the interactions between political actors and the governments they inhabit. In many ways, this refers to the kinds of norms that have grown up around different parts of the systems of government. The strength and endurance of those rules or norms can change over time and in response to crises or dynamic changes. Constitutional Conventions: Theories, Practices, and Dynamics explores these thick and thin dimensions of the governing structures from a comparative perspective, taking up Anglo and American systems in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The book also examines the cases of Hungary and Czechia (the Czech Republic), two post-Cold War systems; and finally, also, China. In considering these constitutional conventions, we can think of them as structures or engagement that is not enforced by the courts, since these are not, per se, written constitutional laws. In long standing liberal democracies, there is an inclination towards adhering to conventions. But when these conventions are under strain, how they work, or maintain “regular order” becomes a critical test within the established governmental systems. Constitutional Conventions provides another dimension of significant interest in the discussion of how China works within these kinds of conventions within the process in which political individuals come up through the governmental and party systems and move into leadership roles. The comparative case study of Hungary and Czechia indicates that even in somewhat similar structures, the conventions and norms are not always the same. Constitutional Conventions: Theories, Practices, and Dynamics is an important analysis of the ways in which governmental structures work beyond what is written or built as the official system. The discussions cover theoretical, practical, and comparative dimensions of our understandings of the processes and functions of governments. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or send her missives at Bluesky @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Constitutional Conventions: Theories, Practices and Dynamics (Routledge, 2025) is an excellent edited volume exploring the various ways in which governments and constitutional structures operate in the spaces that are not necessarily articulated in law, edict, or formal documents. This is not a text about the folks who gathered together in 1787 in Philadelphia, or even those who wrote new constitutional structures after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Conventions means the rules that govern the interactions between political actors and the governments they inhabit. In many ways, this refers to the kinds of norms that have grown up around different parts of the systems of government. The strength and endurance of those rules or norms can change over time and in response to crises or dynamic changes. Constitutional Conventions: Theories, Practices, and Dynamics explores these thick and thin dimensions of the governing structures from a comparative perspective, taking up Anglo and American systems in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The book also examines the cases of Hungary and Czechia (the Czech Republic), two post-Cold War systems; and finally, also, China. In considering these constitutional conventions, we can think of them as structures or engagement that is not enforced by the courts, since these are not, per se, written constitutional laws. In long standing liberal democracies, there is an inclination towards adhering to conventions. But when these conventions are under strain, how they work, or maintain “regular order” becomes a critical test within the established governmental systems. Constitutional Conventions provides another dimension of significant interest in the discussion of how China works within these kinds of conventions within the process in which political individuals come up through the governmental and party systems and move into leadership roles. The comparative case study of Hungary and Czechia indicates that even in somewhat similar structures, the conventions and norms are not always the same. Constitutional Conventions: Theories, Practices, and Dynamics is an important analysis of the ways in which governmental structures work beyond what is written or built as the official system. The discussions cover theoretical, practical, and comparative dimensions of our understandings of the processes and functions of governments. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or send her missives at Bluesky @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Constitutional Conventions: Theories, Practices and Dynamics (Routledge, 2025) is an excellent edited volume exploring the various ways in which governments and constitutional structures operate in the spaces that are not necessarily articulated in law, edict, or formal documents. This is not a text about the folks who gathered together in 1787 in Philadelphia, or even those who wrote new constitutional structures after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Conventions means the rules that govern the interactions between political actors and the governments they inhabit. In many ways, this refers to the kinds of norms that have grown up around different parts of the systems of government. The strength and endurance of those rules or norms can change over time and in response to crises or dynamic changes. Constitutional Conventions: Theories, Practices, and Dynamics explores these thick and thin dimensions of the governing structures from a comparative perspective, taking up Anglo and American systems in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The book also examines the cases of Hungary and Czechia (the Czech Republic), two post-Cold War systems; and finally, also, China. In considering these constitutional conventions, we can think of them as structures or engagement that is not enforced by the courts, since these are not, per se, written constitutional laws. In long standing liberal democracies, there is an inclination towards adhering to conventions. But when these conventions are under strain, how they work, or maintain “regular order” becomes a critical test within the established governmental systems. Constitutional Conventions provides another dimension of significant interest in the discussion of how China works within these kinds of conventions within the process in which political individuals come up through the governmental and party systems and move into leadership roles. The comparative case study of Hungary and Czechia indicates that even in somewhat similar structures, the conventions and norms are not always the same. Constitutional Conventions: Theories, Practices, and Dynamics is an important analysis of the ways in which governmental structures work beyond what is written or built as the official system. The discussions cover theoretical, practical, and comparative dimensions of our understandings of the processes and functions of governments. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or send her missives at Bluesky @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Constitutional Conventions: Theories, Practices and Dynamics (Routledge, 2025) is an excellent edited volume exploring the various ways in which governments and constitutional structures operate in the spaces that are not necessarily articulated in law, edict, or formal documents. This is not a text about the folks who gathered together in 1787 in Philadelphia, or even those who wrote new constitutional structures after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Conventions means the rules that govern the interactions between political actors and the governments they inhabit. In many ways, this refers to the kinds of norms that have grown up around different parts of the systems of government. The strength and endurance of those rules or norms can change over time and in response to crises or dynamic changes. Constitutional Conventions: Theories, Practices, and Dynamics explores these thick and thin dimensions of the governing structures from a comparative perspective, taking up Anglo and American systems in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The book also examines the cases of Hungary and Czechia (the Czech Republic), two post-Cold War systems; and finally, also, China. In considering these constitutional conventions, we can think of them as structures or engagement that is not enforced by the courts, since these are not, per se, written constitutional laws. In long standing liberal democracies, there is an inclination towards adhering to conventions. But when these conventions are under strain, how they work, or maintain “regular order” becomes a critical test within the established governmental systems. Constitutional Conventions provides another dimension of significant interest in the discussion of how China works within these kinds of conventions within the process in which political individuals come up through the governmental and party systems and move into leadership roles. The comparative case study of Hungary and Czechia indicates that even in somewhat similar structures, the conventions and norms are not always the same. Constitutional Conventions: Theories, Practices, and Dynamics is an important analysis of the ways in which governmental structures work beyond what is written or built as the official system. The discussions cover theoretical, practical, and comparative dimensions of our understandings of the processes and functions of governments. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or send her missives at Bluesky @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Right versus left. Democrat versus Republican. Liberal versus Conservative. These are the terms we are all too familiar with that practically serve to symbolize the political struggle between good and evil, freedom and tyranny, or big and small government. But if the last 50 years of politics have proven anything, it's that these labels mean shockingly little. Whether it's Reagan opening the nation's floodgates via amnesty under a Republican elephant or the supposedly anti-big corporation Democrats mandating an untested vaccine, both ideas functionally operate as little more than two sides of the same coin. The yard sign changes every four years, but the underlying assumptions and commitments to liberal democracy don't.Yet when you trace the intellectual formation of the American conservative identity you find that wasn't always the case. Something happened in the '60s and '70s that broke our connection to our English, Anglo, and Protestant past and made America into the degenerate war hawk it became in the '90s and early 2000s. Committed to a defense of Israel and esoteric readings of the Ancient Greek philosophers, influential academics like Leo Strauss and Harry Jaffa—alongside journalists like Irving Kristol—birthed a powerful new flavor of conservatism that took root in the American consciousness.This supposedly right-wing political thought had little differences with the left in its embrace of liberal democracy and equality, but served its purpose in turning America into a dominant foreign adversary alongside a compelling narrative about its embrace of creedal nationhood and the peoples of the world. But as the downstream effects of decades of universal suffrage and propositional nationhood come home to roost, neoconservatism offers shockingly little substance in the way of resistance or conserving our Christian European heritage. Populism and revolution are on the rise, and the strong gods are coming home.It's time to stop calling ourselves conservatives and falling into the same dialectical trap again and again. We are not neocons and we are not interested in the solutions of Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, and Mitch McConnell. Like the Founding Fathers who risked it all to forge a new, self-governed future, we also need real and potentially radical solutions to our dilemma. Cutting taxes by 10% and another war in the Middle East isn't going to do it.Tune in now as we discuss Leo Strauss, American conservatism, and the coming right-wing revolution.MINISTRY SPONSORS:Reece Fund. Christian Capital. Boldly Deployedhttps://www.reecefund.com/Private Family Banking How to Connect with Private Family Banking: FREE 20-MINUTE COURSE HERE: View CourseSend an email inquiry to chuck@privatefamilybanking.comReceive a FREE e-book entitled "How to Build Multi-Generational Wealth Outside of Wall Street and Avoid the Coming Banking Meltdown": protectyourmoneynow.netSet up a FREE Private Family Banking Discovery call: Schedule HereMulti-Generational Wealth Planning Guide Book for only $4.99: Seven Generations LegacyWestern Front Books. Publishing for men on the right. Not churchy. Christian.https://www.WesternFrontBooks.com/Mid State Accounting Does your small business need help with bookkeeping, tax returns, and fractional CFO services? Call Kailee Smith at 573‑889‑7278 for a free, no‑obligation consultation. Mention the Right Response podcast and get 10% off your first three months. Kingsmen Caps Carry the Crown with Kingsmen Caps — premium headwear made for those who honor Christ as King. Create your custom crown or shop our latest releases at https://kingsmencaps.com. Squirrelly Joes Coffee – Caffeinating The Modern Reformation Get a free bag of coffee (just pay shipping): https://squirrellyjoes.com/rightresponse

GUEST: Crishaun the Don on racial identity, who builds society, South African refugees, and our loss of bravery!The Hake Report, Friday, May 16, 2025 ADCrishaun the Don https://x.com/crishaunthedon - https://x.com/TheMisfitNation - https://www.youtube.com/@TheMisfitNationpodcast - https://misfitnation.podbean.com/ - https://shopmisfitnation.com/ TIMESTAMPS* (0:00:00) Start* (0:00:48) Anecdotes and lies... Job 12: 5* (0:10:28) Hey, guys!* (0:13:02) Crishaun is Anglo, Caribbean* (0:14:26) If whites left… High trust society* (0:22:30) MANUEL, CA: Joel, "bean," ape-ray, refugees* (0:29:04) MANUEL: Refugee "families"* (0:33:21) MANUEL: Super Mom… Formula babies?* (0:37:29) MARK, CA: Without our power structure… white decline* (0:50:22) LINGYU, L.A.: They call me names here, I'm from China* (0:55:18) SKRILL, MSFT, FL: If they left… fighting!* (1:03:02) Coffee: Soying out, Haka dance, white nostalgia* (1:13:29) Coffees…* (1:15:38) Super: Lin Yen Chin* (1:18:07) STEV'N, MD: India, Egypt, Poland* (1:25:46) ANTHONY, SoCal: Mark's race paradigm helpful? Mixed identity.* (1:32:31) ANTHONY: Ideology is more powerful. Islam…* (1:38:16) Supers: LYC on exercise and Mark* (1:41:00) DAVID, TX: "Maryland man"* (1:42:55) DAVID: Surprised by Joel; I was ex-homeless; parasite awareness* (1:47:09) MAZE, OH* (1:53:55) Crishaun, The Misfit Nation; Baixinha Forte - Hake News RapLINKSBLOG https://www.thehakereport.com/blog/2025/5/16/crishaun-the-don-on-the-conversation-fri-5-16-25PODCAST / Substack HAKE NEWS from JLP https://www.thehakereport.com/jlp-news/2025/5/16/jlp-fri-5-16-25Hake is live M-F 9-11a PT (11-1CT/12-2ET) Call-in 1-888-775-3773 https://www.thehakereport.com/showVIDEO YT - Rumble* - Pilled - FB - X - BitChute (Live) - Odysee*PODCAST Substack - Apple - Spotify - Castbox - Podcast Addict*SUPER CHAT on platforms* above or BuyMeACoffee, etc.SHOP - Printify (new!) - Cameo | All My LinksJLP Network: JLP - Church - TFS - Nick - Joel - Punchie Get full access to HAKE at thehakereport.substack.com/subscribe

The newly signed US-UK trade agreement is more than just a deal - it's a blueprint for a rising Anglosphere Civilization State. As Trump resets global trade priorities and redraws geopolitical boundaries, I discuss how the emerging civilizational order, rooted in shared Anglo heritage, may reshape the West. From BREXIT to tariffs, to the spiritual foundations of English-speaking nations, we're entering a new phase of global realignment - one led by the cultural consolidation of the Anglosphere.--Stay ahead of the spin. Go to https://ground.news/steve to cut through media bias and see the full picture. Use my link to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan.*The content presented by sponsors may contain affiliate links. When you click and shop the links, Turley Talks may receive a small commission.*Leave a message for Steve! Call now! 717-844-5984--Thank you for taking the time to listen to this episode. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and/or leave a review.FOLLOW me on X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/DrTurleyTalksSign up for the 'New Conservative Age Rising' Email Alerts to get lots of articles on conservative trends: https://turleytalks.com/subscribe-to-our-newsletter**The use of any copyrighted material in this podcast is done so for educational and informational purposes only including parody, commentary, and criticism. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015). It is believed that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

Wilhelm Hertzog, portefeuljebestuurder by Rozendal Partners, verduidelik wat Anglo American nou met De Beers gaan doen. Volg RSG Geldsake op Twitter

Taking the eye off the prize.  Related Resource What Would You Say?: Doesn't Religious Liberty Protect Extremists? _____________ Register for an upcoming Colson Fellows Informational Webinar at colsonfellows.org/webinar. 

In this episode of The Attacking Scrum, Ged sits down with Telegraph rugby journalist Charlie Morgan to unpack the growing rumours around Steve Tandy becoming Wales' next head coach. Is he the right choice to rebuild the national side? Then the conversation shifts to the looming transformation of English club rugby into a franchised Premiership. Will this kill off any chance of an Anglo-Welsh league, or could it offer a surprising lifeline for the Welsh regions? Big insights and even bigger questions on the future of the game. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Co-host Devina Divecha continues her conversation with Chef JP Anglo at Konya Filipino Eatery with details about the dishes they tried from the chef himself.

SummaryIn this episode of the Stoke It Up podcast, hosts Kenneth Priest and Alan Stoddard welcome Pastor Andrew Johnson of Faith Memorial Church in Houston, Texas. Andrew shares his journey of faith, his action hosting God's presence, and the revival of his congregation. The conversation emphasizes the significance of the call to reach all nations with the gospel.TakeawaysAndrew's early life was shaped by a challenging home environment.His father's transformation through faith inspired Andrew's ministry calling.Andrew's experience in a black church enriched his understanding of multi-ethnic ministry.Faith Memorial Church was predominantly Anglo when Andrew arrived.The community around the church has shifted to a more diverse demographic.Andrew emphasizes the importance of hosting God's presence in worship.The church is experiencing a revival through prayer and fasting.Creative problem-solving has been essential for church growth.Partnerships with other churches have provided vital support.The church aims to reach all nations and foster community engagement.Chapters00:00 Introduction to Pastor Andrew Johnson03:08 Andrew's Journey to Faith and Ministry06:01 Cultural Experience in a Black Church08:53 Transitioning Faith Memorial Church11:58 Pastoring in a Challenging Community15:02 Growth and Diversity at Faith Memorial18:10 Hosting the Presence of God22:00 Revival and Spiritual Growth24:05 Creative Solutions for Church Challenges27:48 The Importance of Partnerships in Ministry

En este episodio, mi invitada es Alf Bojórquez, novelista y ensayista yucateca. Su primera novela, Pepitas de calabaza (2023) salió en la editorial Fondo Blanco. Se segundo libro, No existe dique capaz de contener al océano furioso. Potencia, alegría y anarquismo, apareció hace unos meses. Fue ganadora del premio Moving Narratives (2024) de Prince Claus Fund y el British Council. Ha hecho giras en América Latina, Europa, Estados Unidos, Marruecos y Filipinas haciendo lecturas de su obra y dando talleres sobre narrativa, arte y teoría crítica. Tiene un programa de radio sobre lo mismo que se puede escuchar gratis en cualquier aplicación de podcasts: Un sueño largo, ancho y hondo. Ha colaborado con varios colectivos y organizaciones abajo y a la izquierda.Notas del Episodio* La traduccion de Joyful Militancy a Militancia Alegre* Diferencias en el radicalismo rigido entre norte y sur* Recuperando la miltancia y el contexto contemporaneo en militancia alegre* Tejiendo a la Organización Revolucionaria* La perdida de propiedad comunal en Mexico y la llegada del turismo* Las redes sociales como una arma del imperio* La imagen y la gestion, el usuario y el premio* Contraturismo como peregrinajeTarea* Pagina profesional - Instagram* Un sueño largo, ancho y hondo - Instagram* No existe dique capaz de contener al océano furioso - Volcana - Polilla - Utopicas - Traficantes de Suenos - Novedades don Gregorio (OAX)* Militancia alegre: Tejer Resistencias, florecer en tiempos toxicas* Pepitas de calabazaTranscripcion en espanol (English Below)Chris: [00:00:00] Bienvenida al podcast El Fin del Turismo, Alf. Un placer hablar contigo hoy. Alf: Ajá. Chris: Este me gustaría empezar preguntándote donde te encuentras hoy y cómo se ve el mundo a través de tus ojos? Alf: Este hoy me encuentro en mi cocina. Desde ahí trabajo yo. En la ciudad de México, en una colonia se llama Iztaccihuatl. Cómo se ve el mundo? Pues mira, yo no tengo una vista tan mala. Este no es un edificio grande, pero tengo una vista linda, no? O sea, no me tapa la vista otro edificio ni nada. Se ven muchas plantas. Y bueno, supongo que sabes que yo soy de provincia. Entonces yo siempre he sentido que aquí donde yo vivo es como una, un poquito provincia en la capital, porque no hay edificios tan grandes.Este y bueno, desde aquí se ve, se me olvida que estoy en CDMX ahora, sabes a Chris: Gracias. Pues eres entre otras cosas, autora de varios [00:01:00] textos entre ellos Pepitas de Calabaza y el muy reciente No Existe Dique Capaz de Contener al Océano Furioso. También coordinaste la traducción al español del texto en inglés de Militancia Alegre:Deje Resistencias Florecer en Tiempos T óxicos. (o Joyful Militancy) A esa traducción le siguió un podcast complementario con Pamela Carmona titulado Alegría Emergente: Deshaciendo el Radicalismo Rígido. Entonces, para empezar, me gustaría preguntarte cómo conociste, el libro Joyful Militancy y qué te llevó a traducirlo. Alf: Yo conocí ese libro. Lo cuento un poquito en el prólogo, pero yo conocí ese libro, en Estados Unidos, porque yo tenía una banda. Yo toqué en una banda de hardcore punk muchos, muchos años, la batería. Y entonces así accedí a Estados Unidos y estando [00:02:00] en el underground americano, que fue una parte importante de mi de mi de mi vida, estando en en California en concreto.Me encontré ese libro como en una cafetería y yo me enamoré. Entonces lo traje y primero lo leí en inglés con alguna gente y muy lentamente empecé a trabajar con ese libro, traducir. Eso es una historia más larga que está ahí bien en el prólogo, pero bueno, llevo años como militando ese libro. También hubieron una serie de coincidencias de gente muy amable como Tumba a la Casa, como los autores canadienses, los derechos nos los regalaron. Se metió la gente de Traficantes de Sueno.O sea, en realidad hay un montón de gente. Es como una red de redes, ese libro y una serie de casualidades y favores y gestos agradables de mucha gente que logró que eso saliera como salió, la verdad. O sea, yo pienso mi irrepetible, esa esa serie de factores. Ajá. Chris: Ah chingón. Muy bien, Bueno, pues ese libro originalmente [00:03:00] se publicaron en 2016. A leer, reeler y traducir ese texto, tengo curiosidad por saber que crees que ha cambiado de este entonces, o qué diferencias principales has visto entre el radicalismo rígido descrito en el libro de la anglosfera o America norte, Anglosajona y la hispanesfera o Latinoamérica? Alf: Este? Pues muchas cosas que decir, no. La parte que confirmé yo fui trabajando ese libro, eh? Porque digamos que yo, todavía este año presenté ese libro. O sea, y le fue muy bien en Costa Rica. Fue la última. A mí se me acabaron los ejemplares. Y digamos, terminé mi labor con con Militancia en Costa Rica hace dos, tres meses.No es tanto, no? O sea todavía después de la del programa de radio con Pamela, se hizo en Costa Rica de presentación y le fue muy bien, eh? Y se [00:04:00] reimprimió ese sí. Ese libro fue un éxito de muchas maneras, no? Y fíjate a mí. Una cosa que con por me pasaban los años, no me gustó, es que yo siento que tiene un lado como muy liberal, osea, hay un lado donde es demasiado suave, no? O sea, al criticar lo rígido, siento que se pasa de flexible, por decir así. Entonces, y eso pasa un poco como con ciertos radicalismos del norte, que tienen que ver con la retórica de la amistad de la ternura como tan enfocados en el cuidado.Y así, yo siento que sin querer como por llevarle la contraria al opuesto, como el machismo lo rígido, bla, bla, bla, caen en una cosa un poco... o sea yo siendo que ese el libro o por lo menos mi lectura de ese libro, ya estas alturas, si lo siendo demasiado suave, porque yo creo que la parte negativa de militar y de organizarse, pues es importante, no, eh?Es importante de hablar, no? Entonces, cierto que en el libro, se pasa de buena onda, por [00:05:00] decirlo asi. Creo que por eso es un éxito porque hay lado "pop" en ese libro, un lado suavecito, dulcecito, que se mastica bien. Y está bien para los activismo, pero hay una parte en mi que dice bueno, pero hay que hablar del resentimiento, hay que hablar del odio.Hay que hablar de la importancia de romper entre nosotras, de pelearnos entre nosotros, sin caer en el castigo y la culpa y la persecución. Pero yo sí, creo que la ruptura o la negatividad en general ese el libro no lo logra del todo. Habría que ir a otros lados y pienso que de un año para acá, desde que se recrudeció el genocida ahora, pues justo toca repensar el antiimperialismo, toca repensar cosas que no pueden ser tan flexibles, no? O sea, pues están matando, están cayendo bombas y no se trata de vamos a ver si nos cae el 20 o no, o cuando nos cae el 20.Pues hay un imperio gestionando un genocidio que se recrudeció muy fuerte el último año. Y eso implica, se endurece, se endurece. O sea, ha cambiado el panorama político. Y hay [00:06:00] procesos donde podemos ser muy flexibles y pacientes, pero hay procesos donde no, donde hay que responder porque la bomba te ca en la cabeza, o sea, y ya está.Entonces me recuerdo un poco como en los del paso de los 60s a los 70s, o el paso hacia los 20, no? O sea, históricamente esto ha pasado. Se acaba el hipismo y y llega la guerrilla. Se acaba el anarquismo y empieza el partido comunista. O sea, hay momentos donde la historia te come y se vuelve un poquito más pues no te voy a decir duro, pero pero sí, incluso en el norte, los anarquistas que venían de escribir ese libro como muy ticunistas se están volviendo más de izquierda, más revolucionario, más leninistas mucho. Y yo creo que eso tiene que ver, bueno, una especie el leninismo, pues moderno o buena onda.El tipo zapatismo en versión anglo, pero yo creo que eso tiene que ver con las condiciones actuales. Yo creo que antes de la pandemia, después de la pandemia, son dos planetas, tanto por el reconocimiento de genocidia, como porque lo que se [00:07:00] hizo toda la década que para mí acaba en pandemia. Pues tenía un lado muy chido, pero también a un lado muy de todo es válido.La insurrección ya está aquí. Y pues ahora decimos no, pues no está aquí. No estamos parando a Estados Unidos este el imperio, no lo estamos parando. En otros momentos de la historia, si se la podido o poner ciertos límites al imperialismo." No del todo, pero se han ganado algunas luchas.Entonces, bueno, ese libro creo que fue de su época. O sea, 2016 y ese anarquismo de la amistad y de hay que conectar y fluir y todo ese lado que para un poco hippie. Creo que es muy de su momento, de la década pasada, pero yo creo que esa época, ya no es la nuestra, por las por las condiciones. O sea, porque estamos reaccionando y respondiendo y organizándonos frente a otros problemas.Chris: Claro, claro. Y si podrias actualizarlo en tus propios palabras, cuáles serían los temas más importantes [00:08:00] para cambiar o reemplazar? Alf: O sea, mira te voy a contar de otro libro, pero también es del norte.Entonces, pues no me encanta darle tanto entre ellos, pero un libro que, por ejemplo, le respondería fuerte de ese libro, sería este que me regalaban los de Traficantes, ahora que trabaje con ellos en en Madrid, que se llama Hacia Una Nueva Guerra Civil Mundial, de Lazzarato, no?Entonces digo, lo que pasa es que él es un leninista, no? Entonces, le pega duro, le pega duro. O sea, pero esto ha pasado siempre, pero hay varias banda que está respondiendo, no? O sea, por ejemplo, en el caso de este libro que te a acaba de mencionar Lazzarato.Pues él dice que los últimos 50 años, incluido militancia, que estaría al final de 50 años, lo político como tal no se habló? Entonces, si le aplicas Lazzarato a Militancia Alegre, efectivamente, nunca se habla de que a ver, o sea, el gobierno estadounidense control el mundo y va ganando. O sea, y hubieron luchas en los 60s, 70s, que lograron más o menos parar [00:09:00] ese imperialismo, los liberaciones nacionales, por ejemplo.Las luchas de empezamos por Vietnam, Malher y Cuba y acabando con otras. Si más o menos se le pudo parar a ese imperialismo de ese momento? Pero por ejemplo, Militancia en ni un solo momento habla de política en un sentido duro, no? O sea anti-Trump, por ejemplo, anti-global como global north o norte y global. O sea, en el sentido que gobiernan en el mundo, no?Y eso no se habla no? O sea, en ningún momento se dice bueno, nosotras, como norte, tenemos una deuda con el sur, no solo económica, sino política, no? O sea, en cuanto a no permitir la autonomía de los sur. Y palestina y Líbano es el, pues es el caso más extremo, no? Aunque aquí es lo mismo, no? O sea, la lucha la guerra contra los zapatistas es el mismo genocidio, con la misma bala. O sea el mismo inversionista, las mismas ganancias. Es el mismo genocidio. Entonces, pero no hablar de eso, no hablar de lo meramente político, [00:10:00] no? O sea de como Morena trabaja para el gobierno gringo y mata a los zapatistas y los centroamericanos. Al no hablar de este tipo de cosas como duramente políticas.O sea, como Trump controla a la milicia mexicana, la la la. Pues sí que es un libro hippie, no? O sea, en el sentido de que, ahí los leninistas tienen un punto. En este caso, Lazzarato pero mucha otra banda, al contestarle a la banda anárquica. Si muy chida la amistad y muy chida la... Lets tune in.O sea, está bien, pero tú estás parada en un mundo que de beneficia de destruir este mundo donde tú y yo estamos parada, no? Entonces, de muchas maneras: lo real, lo simbólico en lo económico. El turismo, para mí solo es un capítulo de esa serie de industrias de muerte. Entonces no, al no hablarlo.Yo pienso que es un libro que omite el lugar de enunciación principal, que es el imperio si habla del imperio, pero yo siento que si le faltó lo político político. Osea, como el norte domina y controla [00:11:00] al sur, el gobierno del norte en concreto. Al no hablar eso pues si hizo darle un libro que pues no sé cómo va a envejecer. O sea, digo, bueno, a ver cómo le va, porque porque sí que sirve para lo que sirvió Tiqqun y esas cosas en su momento que era contestarle a la izquierda vertical, por decir así. Pero ese momento, por lo menos en el norte, ya pasó, no? Y ellos esos mismos ya regresaron a la verticalidad.O sea, los que atacaron al leninismo, estamos en esta otra. Entonces chistosasto porque ellos tienen sus propios ciclos y nosotras tenemos otros ciclos de lucha, no? Y otras genealogías y otras retóricas. O sea, es muy diferente. Ahí la traducción. Por eso milita tanto ese libro porque, había que defender nuestro propio contexto, no?Y decir bueno, es la genealogia de ellos, la nuestra tiene otras conceptos. O sea, ha ganado guerras y revoluciones. Hay muchos triunfos en nuestra historia del sur. De hecho, en la del norte hay más derrotas y en cambio, [00:12:00] las liberaciones nacionales, pues prácticamente todas triunfaron, si las piensas, contra el imperialismo. Claro que ya no está de moda hablar de eso porque de colonial ya está en otra... ya se fue a otro lado. No? La mayoría de de anticolonial ya no está viniendo su genealogía en las luchas de liberación nacional y o la violencia?Ya la violencia pasó de moda y justo este libro tiene algo de eso? Como de no hay que hablar de cómo en México tuvimos que tirar balazos para recuperarlo un poco que tenemos. No! Hay que hablar de la amistad del amor, la ternura. Esa parte es la que yo pienso que ya no le habla mucho a nuestro tiempo y a ver qué va a pasar después, a ver qué va a pasar después.No, aunque tienes utilidad, no? O sea, mucha gente que está en el activismo vive con mucho, cariño de ese libro y está bien. O sea, Creo que está bien. Yo creo que le falta la parte política y negativa, pero bueno, no lo pudimos pedir todo a un solo libro. No. Eso es lo que hicieron los europeos con nosotros, traer la biblia y [00:13:00] matarnos pretexto de un solo libro. Entonces yo creo que no hay que caer. Eso es, es colonial quererle pedir todo a un solo libro. Si ese libro dio lo que tuvo que dar en su contexto y ese contexto para mí pasó este listo. O sea, fue una herramienta útil que respondió y ya este lo que sigue. Chris: Pues sí, este recuerdo que hubo una, una nota de pie en en el libro, de Silvia Federici y la tengo.La cita aquí decía que"lo que más importa es descubrir y recreer la memoria colectiva de las luchas pasadas. En los Estados Unidos, hay un intento sistemático de destruir esta memoria. Y ahora esto se está extendiendo por todo el mundo. Revivir la memoria de las luchas del pasado nos hace sentir ser parte de algo más grande que nuestras vidas individuales y de esta manera de un nuevo sentido a lo que estamos haciendo y nos da coraje, porque nos hace tener menos miedo en lo que [00:14:00] nos puede pasar individualmente." Y siento que hay algo allá como también la, no sé si está impulsado desde arriba o si es solo una falta de memoria, pero sí, siento que es, es muy fuerte que hay una falta de linaje, en la política en el día de hoy, en los momentos sociales contemporáneos. Pero pues, quería preguntarte un poco de tus experiencias también con el turismo. Me gustaría preguntarle de qué tipo de reacciones recibiste, recibieron cómo resultado del podcast y si esas conversaciones cambiaron sus ideas sobre los temas tratados.Alf: Este una parte había que preguntárselo directo a Pame porque yo creo que ella lo vivió a su forma también. Pero bueno, pues fue muy chido. Primero que nada, lo lo bonito. Ese programa varias cosas. Primero, ese programa fue apoyado por el instituto de estudios anarquistas americano, y eso [00:15:00] fue lindo, tener el apoyo. O sea, no precarizarnos tanto. Y tampoco tener que pedirle dinero a gente de mierda para hacer co chidas no, eso siempre se siente bien. Como no traicionar el contenido, o sea que vaya mucho la forma con el fondo, no. Entonces, de entrada, eso fue muy alegre. De segunda gran alegría, yo siempre trabajo a puerta cerrada.Yo soy un poco celosa de mi trabajo. Entonces, pues a abrir la puerta y trabajar con no solo dos, vieron un podcast que éramos cuatro, cinco. Eso es rarísimo. Yo nunca había hecho eso. Yo no suelo hacer eso. Si, trabajo con gente, pero no con el micrófono, normalmente no, eh?Siempre trabaj o con grupos y movimientos y cosas, pero digamos que a puerta cerrada por decir así o o coyunturas específicas. Entonces, primero la congruencia que yo siento que tuvo ese programa, como alinearnos en un anarquismo internacionalista, que yo creo que hay que recuperar.El internacionalismo en general, eh? Y creo que a [00:16:00] veces la lucha contra el turismo sin querer se vuelve muy nacionalista y no distingue entre migrante y turista esas cosas, como en un México, es mejor que todo lo demás. Un poco raro, pero bueno, antes de perderme, yo creo que ahí hubo un gesto internacionalista lindo.O sea, entre anarquistas del norte con los del sur primero y segundo, pues, abrir el micro porque que yo no es algo que suelo o solía hacer hasta hace hasta este año, por decir, o sea, yo llevo en un monólogo de locutora varios años porque mi parte social la hago cuerpo a cuerpo, por decir así. Y ya te podría platicar muchas cosas.Pero a mí me emociono muchísimo el programa con Tejiendo a la Organización Revolucionaria, eh? La verdad me encantó. O sea, a mí ellos me parece que hacen un trabajo importante. Y me parece que nuestro tiempo se está pensando desde los revolucionarios también. No necesariamente como la decada pasada la insurreccional y el todo se vale.Este, yo creo que está [00:17:00] cambiando un poco esos enfoques y justo ellos que llevan más de 20 años y son como 50 personas organizadas desde abajo con mucha claridad y mucha fuerza. Pues hicimos un puente muy chido, no entre en anarquismo y otras partes de la izquierda radical, que normalmente no nos damos la mano y no platica.O sea, no es común ni es fácil. Y cuando se da, suele ser tenso. Y no hubo para mí nada de tensión, al revés. Hubo una complementación muy chida contorno. Es el último capítulo de Emergente. Bueno, o sea, y siento que conecta con Militancia Alegre. O sea, llamarla en militancia y no "activismo alegre" era una provocación de los autores.Y yo creo que movimiento es como ?, entre muchos otros que se mencionan justos son militantes, no activistas, no? O sea que el activista tiene genealogía muy del norte y muy de los noventas para acá. Y yo creo que ellos como que leídos por "los cool" que Militancia Alegre sigue siendo el libro más cool, como que no suelen voltear, la gente cool, no suele voltear a ver a ese tipo de militancias como Thor. [00:18:00] Todos estuvieron muy chidos, pero yo le tengo especial cariño, a ese último, porque sí, pienso que hay que pensar alianzas insólitas, como todas las izquierdas radicales, tratar de articular. Y para mí, eso lo más cercano fue contorno. Y yo lo sigo reescuchando. Y hay cosas que me dejar pensando, por ejemplo, lo que dicen de los sectores de la clase trabajadora, que hay un sector indígena, entonces se pelean entre ellos y como son sectorizados, en fin a mí, hay varias cosas que ellos me hacen pensar. Me hacen pensar mucho. Y su chamba es muy chida. Solo que, como no es la más cool y como nice. No tiene este super diseño ni nada. Pues mucha gente no les presta atención. Entonces yo, para mí, fue importante darles el micro a ellos y más bien me faltaron programas con ellos, la verdad.Entonces, para mí, eso fue muy lindo, con el pretexto del libro, porque la verdad, casi ni hablamos o muy poquito. Ya haber podido entrevistar, por ejemplo, a Raquel Gutiérrez. De poder pues yo hubiera [00:19:00] entrevistado a John Holloway. O sea, yo me hubiera seguido. Lo que pasa es que la chamba entrevistadora es muy distinta a la que yo hago como locutora, o sea, es otro camino. Y pues, el recurso. Pues no lo hay. Claro. Claro. Porque esa lo pudimos hasta pagar un poquitito de dinero a la gente que entrevistamos. Pudimos autocobrar un poquitito. Pagarle a la diseñadora. Fue muy distinto a todo lo que yo hago. No este ese ese programa.Insisto por el apoyo internacionalista que poco o mucho, pues fue muy lindo tener, porque normalmente no se puede pagar entrevistas y cosas, que es chistoso tanto tanto de lucha de clases, con compas que pu pues obviamente les cuesta venir para acá. Chris: Ya no, pues es muy difícil, pero sí, fue un episodio muy bonito. Y lo voy a poner en el sitio web d El Fin de Turismo cuando lanzamos este podcast y también por los que quieren saber, es el último episodio de Alegría Emergente. Pues, hablando de tus obras Alf [00:20:00] en Pepitas de Calabaza, exploras algunos temas periférico de turismo, desde la Merida en la que creciste, los chiqui loteros o aquellos que dividen grandes lotes en lotes pequeños para venderlos a un precio normalmente superior, a veces a extranjeros. Es uno de esos temas.Cómo influyó tu tiempo en Merida en tu comprensión del turismo? Alf: Primero, extender un poco la la invitación a la lectura de mi trabajo. Este el tema de la propiedad y del turismo y del colonialismo, básicamente atraviesa toda toda mi obra, pero medida en concreto que que te interesa con Pepitas también es algo que menciono en el libro nuevo.Él No Existe Dique Capaz de Contar y hablo específicamente de cómo el turismo, la industria del turismo ha ido como arrebatándonos a quienes venimos de las clases populares. Crecimos abajo y demás, sobre todo el placer, el ocio. Olvídate de la [00:21:00] tierra. Si el acceso al agua, una serie de cosas, no.Entonces ahí se trabaja un poco más elabor adamente pero efectivamente desde Pepitas. Pues a mí, es un tema que me, central en mi trabajo. El tema del colonialismo, porque para mí, hablar de turismo se hablar de colonialismo actual, colonialismo interno externo, pero es el colorismo vigente. O sea, es un desplazamiento, parte de un proceso de desplazamiento em.Entonces, en Pepitas, pues efectivamente eso es un protagonista, que digamos es el burgués nacional, por decirlo como muy teóricamente el chiquilotero, le decimos regionalmente, que es el es el terrateniente. No es Carlos Slim. O sea, no es el más rico, el lo rico, pero es, digamos, el terrateniente de mediano alcance que puede comprar tierra y fragmentarla y venderla, especular con la tierra, al final. Pero en el sur resiste, el año pasado, para para subir el tono a lo político otra vez... El el año pasado en el sur [00:22:00] resiste, nos decía el Congreso Nacional Indígena, que la mitad de la tierra en México es propiedad social, no? Y esto lo platicaba presentando no Existe Dique con Yasnaya Aguilar porque Oaxaca es un caso distinto y da mucha envidia.Tiene una tercera forma de tierra que en la tierra comunal, pero no vamos entrar a las legalidades. El sureste de México, como representa a Paco y hablo en mi segundo libro también este de ah, el turismo ha entrado porque legalmente, desde el 92 se cambió la constitución y se ha roto la propiedad ejidal y ha entrado la propiedad privada, no?Entonces, para llevarlo lo meramente político, luchar en contra del turismo hoy en México sería exigir que no se pueda vender, como en Oaxaca existe la propiedad comunal, no en ninguna otra parte del país hasta donde yo sé, que no se pueda legalmente vender esa tierra. Entonces, para no abstraer, o sea para ir a concreto, el turismo avanza, por el primermundista, coludido con [00:23:00] con con el tercermundista de la clase alta, en este caso, Paco, para romper la la propiedad social y meter la propiedad individual o privada, no? Si hubiera un mecanismo que la revolución mexicana nos heredó, ese mecanismo legal no podría existir el turismo en México, por lo menos no legalmente. Entonces, como desde el 92, se terminó de caer lo que nos quedaba de revolucion mexicana y que se peleó a balazos. Hay que recuperar esa negativa. En el 92 se cambia, es perdemos eso que habíamos ganado la revolución. Y entonces el turismo ya explotan. Y eso es muy notorio para gente que somos del sur.O sea, si yo te cuento cómo fui a Tulum por primera vez, y cuando volví a Tulum 10 o 20 anos después, o cómo fui a Zipolite por primera vez. Y eso es el resultado. O sea, te puedo escribir 30 libros, pero todo eso es result resultado específicamente una partecita de la constitución que menciona en mi segundo libre, legal, que permitió destruirlo lo que ganamos en la revolución mexicana, [00:24:00] que es la propiedad colectiva, en algunos casos propiedad indígena en otros casos, simplemente propiedad social de las clases populares.Y esto lo he trado mucha gente y me fui enterando estando con la gente en territorio, por ejemplo, con la asamblea de defensores de territorio Maya Muuch Xiinbal, ellos en la práctica, me enseñaron toda esta serie de mecanismos y defensas caminando con los pueblos, estando ahí. O sea, porque hay que estar ahí a veces para entender la magnitud.O sea, si tú lo piensas, el los muchos pueblos indígenas y clases populares son dueñas de hectáreas, el 40% del país, está en sus manos a nivel de propiedad legal, pero la propiedad privada va ganando, no, no. Y para mí, el turismo solo es un pedacito de ese proyecto colonizador actual, que va, va quitándonos, lo poquito que ganamos en la revolución mexicana. Bueno, ganamos varias cosas: la educación pública, salud pública, todo eso lo van privatizando. Pero es muy loco tierra y territorio, porque es muy específico. O sea 40 percent versus [00:25:00] 60 percent, un artículo de constitución, no hay que perdernos, osea. Ahí está. Pero mira el ombligo del pedo. Ajá. Chris: Mm, gracias. Me gustaría proponer algunos algunas preguntas, algunas provocaciones. Quizás respeto de cómo el turismo y más bien, más recientemente, las entrecomillas invasiones de turistas, nómadas digitales a México desde la pandemia y otras partes también. O sea, no es solo México, pero obviamente hay otros lugares.Y pues, hay ciertas cosas que ha surgido en otros episodios de podcast, respeto de el radicalismo rígido, y como lo veo a veces culturas de descartabilidad, que siento que es algo fundamental y también como desconocido en cómo funciona, pues la modernidad, la colonia, toda ese trayectoria [00:26:00] de mierda. Pero lo vemos mucho. Siento, siento yo en los redes sociales. Entonces, me gustaría preguntarte, qué piensas sobre los efectos de las redes sociales en los contextos de las luchas contemporáneas, pero también bajo de este contexto de turismo, de las invasiones en México. Entonces mi pregunta es, cómo crees que las redes sociales contribuyen al radicalismo rígido?Alf: Eh? Pues mira, yo creo que no solo contribuyen radicalismo rígido, o sea, respondiendo muy rápidamente. Yo creo que el algoritmo está diseñado y eso lo sabe la mayoría, espero, supongo este para generar estos echo-chambers que le llaman. Entonces, yo creo que lo mínimo, o sea, lo más x es que genere radicalismo rígido yo creo que en realidad la [00:27:00] ultraderecha está ganando en el mundo por las redes sociales. Y esto no lo digo yo. Esto está demostradisimo. O sea, Milei, Trump y todo el fascismo en el poder que desgraciadamente es, yo calculo la mitad del planeta, Bukele, etcétera, Bolsonaro, tienen mucho que ver con lo que aquí sería Chumel Torres, con lo que aquí sería Eduardo Verastegui. Tiene todo que ver, no?Y yo creo que eso, el pensamiento crítico, como le nos queremos llamar a este el otro lado antifascista sea, no hemos tomado suficientemente en serio eso como un enemigo, no? Porque volviendo la negatividad, el resentimiento, pues hay ese es un nuevo enemigo. Para mí, hay que destruirlo este.Acomodé lugar, o sea, como tenga que hacer. Entonces, esto lo hablaba también con Benja, la pareja de Yasnaya, el día de mi presentación en Volcana. O sea, qué pasa que mucha izquierda, mucho pensamiento crítico y todo, no quiere hacer pop. Entonces la derecha sí que está haciendo [00:28:00] pop y por eso ganó Trump, y por eso está Milei en el poder, porque hacen un un tipo de redes sociales poperas. No tienen miedo a reducir el pensamiento, a provocar. No tienen miedo porque tienen el poder, obviamente, controlan el mundo. En concreto, Trump, no? Entonces, nosotras desde el miedo y desde un un clasicismo extraño, un machismo raro, como que decimos el "pop" está mal porque reduce. Ser influencer está mal porque hace de lo abstracto. Lo reduce. Lo simplifica. Y ese es un problema. Es un problema grande que tiene que para mí tiene que ver con el problema de la es escolarización. Pero para contestarte, y yo creo que las redes sociales sostienen al fascismo actual, más que cualquier otra cosa, yo creo que más que ninguna otra cosa. Y por eso nos gobiernan celebridades y estamos en una fase nueva de la política como espectáculo. Y no estábamos ahí, volvemos a militancia como un libro que ya no responde a esta época, yo no siento que Obama era eso.Yo no [00:29:00] siento que el PRIismo y el PANismo era eso. Estamos en otro momento, entonces, como siempre la izquierda o como lo quieras llamar, el pensamiento, el antifascismo general, que a mi me da igual los conceptos, como siempre estamos lentas, lentas en reaccionar. Porque? Pues porque nos asusta. Las redes sociales, yo pienso que nos están bombardeando, emocionalmente con el genocidio. Yo creo que la manera en que están manejando la imagen del genocidio está tronando la salud mental, terminando de tronar, si no, es que ya la había tronado de buena parte de de de quienes estamos contra de Trump y Milei, por decir el amor que yo espero que seamos más o de la mitad de la tierra otra vez, este me gusta creer. Entonces eso, yo creo que estamos lentas porque quieren ellos porque nos han tronado la la salud mental. Y eso hace que nos aletargamos en responder con la fuerza con la que ellos, o sea nos faltan influencers un poco más rudos, para decirlo como es, o sea un poco más tan fuertes y provocadores como ellos.Yo [00:30:00] siento que los influencers de este lado hacen un trabajo importante, pero muy suave. O sea, está muy abajito. Muy bien portado. Cuando tú escuchas a Bukele, tú escuchas hablar a Milei o Trump y son los provocadores, realmente. Este, no le tienen miedo a decir pendejadas. Y la izquierda, sí. Sí, le tienen miedo a cagarla. Cuando no se dan cuenta que lo que están haciendo ellos es provocar para mover, no? O sea, la gente sabe que es una exageración. Los votantes de Milei de Bukele y de Trump saben que dicen mucha, es un borracho, que está diciendo pendejadas, pero van y votan. Chris: Claro. Alf: La izquierda no está logrando subir el tono. Al revés. O sea, entre más, baja en el fondo y más banderitas de palestina, como que más bien portadas, somos. Y entonces, ah, "pues vamos a hablar de la cultura de palestina, que es muy importante. Es muy bonita. Pero yo te apuesto que se hubieran influencers diciendo vamos a tirarles bombas y vamos a matar sería más fuerte, no? O sea, le daría [00:31:00] miedo a ellos como ha pasar, si ha pasado la historia en los 70. Esto sí que pasó. Si le dábamos miedo a ellos. Ya no le damos miedo. Y yo creo que eso tiene todo que ver con como el imperialismo hoy, es un algoritmo. Antes era otra cosa, y es un imperialismo de la mente y de las emociones.Y es meramente como manejan la imagen. Osea, da igual lo que nos muestren, sino la manera en que se utiliza el discurso de Trump y la manera en que se utiliza la imagen del genocidio, no el genocidio. Eso a ellos no les importa, sino el uso, nos truenan, nos truenan todo el tiempo.Entonces no logramos articular. No logramos reconocernos. Empezamos a competir, nos peleamos y es porque ellos van ganando. Han habido otros momentos de la historia donde este lado de veras le daba miedo sin idealizarlo porque también puede ser muy machista. Este le daba miedo a Trump y a los Trumps. O sea, se [00:32:00] cagaban de me decían no, no.Entonces, bueno, van a matar, no? Y entonces, había algo positivo ahí. Había algo positivo ahí y eso se perdió, nuestra propia capacidad de dar miedo y defendernos. Se ha ido perdiendo. O sea, y es muy material, porque matan defensores del territorio cada semana, así como palestinos y libaneses con la misma pistola, la misma arma. Cada semana los matan. Entonces, pues, claro que da miedo de subir el tono. No porque siento que te van a matar. Hay un fantasma. Entonces, yo creo que las redes sociales se tienen toda la culpa y que están gestionadas maravillosas, perfectas, las redes sociales y y el internet porque permitió que el imperialismo, se vuelva.O sea que lo cargues a todos lados, que desees el fascismo. Y eso está en las pantallitas y en el celular. Lo manejaron muy bien. El que lo explica más bastante bien es, Adam Curtis, en Can't Get You Outta My Head. Y creo que eso hay que tomarlo [00:33:00] todavía más enserio, porque la gente nada más dice "ah, pinche Chumel Torres". No, wey. O sea, es el cáncer de esta sociedad. O sea, no se explicar. Es un verdadero enemigo y "ah x solo es un panista ahí raro." Lo que quiero decir es que no le damos la seriedad, como que no estamos leyendo el imperio en su nueva fase y cómo se maneja. Chris: Pero entonces, tú crees que las maneras que podemos socovar el algoritmo es de, quitarnos de la pantalla? O sea, pero cómo está también el algoritmo no solo internalizándose según yo en los movimientos, pero en las mentalidades de la gente y dentro de los movimientos?Alf: Claro que yo no tengo una respuesta, pero a mí se me ocurre que esto ya se intentado muchas veces como crear nuestros propios tecnologías. Lo que pasa es que nunca van a ser igual de atractivas y poderosas, como clase de quienes controlan la tierra, porque pues por algo [00:34:00] las controlan y van ganando no? Porque tienen todos los recursos y toda la inteligencia puesta ahíEntonces, si los movimientos ya les pueden tener redes sociales, pero pero sus posts no tienen ningún alcance y eso está gestionado desde arriba. Entonces este es un problema más profundo que tiene que ver con el problema de la imagen y su gestión. O sea, al controlar el algoritmo, el imperio, lo que está controlando son las imágenes y las narrativas. Las gestionan, a eso me refiero con imperialismo. O sea, vemos lo que el imperio quiere que veamos y se acabó. O sea, es una nueva fase porque no necesariamente tienes al gringo gobernando a tu país como lo fue antes de la revoluciones nacionales, por ejemplo, pero tienes el celular que sólo te va a mostrar lo que le conviene al gobierno gringo o mayoritariamente.Entonces quebrar el algoritmo es quebrar el imperio, o sea la verdad, o sea, no es otra cosa que eso . Y eso hace que lo [00:35:00] cool sea cool y lo no cool que suele ser más importante, no se vea y no tenga acceso recursos y no generar imágenes chidas. Y si logras de una imagen, no tiene ningún alcance. O sea, es muy notorio para mi trabajo.O sea, si yo subo mi gatito 500 views, si yo subo el tipo de cosas que estamos platicando 5. Sí, claro. Es super evidente, no el manejo de la imagen y la gestión. Entonces, pues hay que volver. Hay que volver a la auto publicación. Hay que volver a los medios libres como se estuvieron haciendo hasta si varias decadas. O sea, y rehacerlo recuperarlos, repensarlos. La gente que se está yendo a Mastodon en redes sociales. La gente que se está saliendo de los algoritmos, los más feos. Digo, no sé qué tanto lo vamos a lograr. O sea, por eso yo, mi parte política, la vivo más en presencial. O sea, yo voy. Trato de ir ahora que se cumplen 50 años de Lucio cada año, hacer pueblo, estar con el pueblo, ser pueblo. O sea, porque [00:36:00] claro que si yo no voy, nunca me voy a enterar.Y si no camino con, como te conté, la asamblea maya, aunque sea cinco minutos, yo no me entero de que el pedo principal de todo esto es simplemente un artículo de la constitución, no? Entonces, o sea, pon tú que ellos postan en internet. Quién lo escucha? Nadie muy poca gente, pero eso es por quien controla.Que la info no llegue no. Entonces, claro. Entonces a eso voy, o sea, hay un problema con la imagen. O sea, hay un gran problema con la imagen porque también lo que la ultra derecho y el fascismo ha logrado perfectamente bien en nuestra época. Es que la gente prefiere el reconocimiento y el like, el premio no que la reparación real.Y entonces las redes sociales están basadas en un nuevo modelo de contra insurgencia y de pacificación y neutralización política, que es, yo voy, te doy un premio, yo voy y te muestro, yo te doy un like, pero para que ya te calles, no. Y para que no digas las cosas, [00:37:00] estamos decían, es un solo artículo.Si echamos para atrás de artículo, pues vamos a parar buena parte de los capitales colonialistas y turísticos hoy, etc. O sea a lo que voy es que van y te premian, van y te likean para que te vayas pacificando. Y ahí hubo un cambio estrategia que también estamos muy lentas en sí, porque los setentas te mataban, a las clases medias organizadas políticamente. Hoy no. Hoy no es así.Hoy matan a la gente de abajo, a los defensores que viven y habitan las clases populares, el territo y a la clase media la premia pa que te calles. Entonces, cómo te premian haciendo que el algoritmo te vea mucho y hables mucho y produzcas mucho contenido, pero es un contenido. Te repito muy bien portado.Es un contenido suave, que omite las partes políticas que omite temas de imperialismo contra insurgencia, bla, bla, osea. Habla de todo lo demás, formas de vida, ternura radical, [00:38:00] consumo alternativo, sororidad solidaria, todo lo que tú quieras, excepto si no le cortamos la cabeza a Trump, esa condición no para. O sea, no sé si me explico.Menos lo más importante, digo, lo estoy caricaturizando. Cortando la cabeza de Trump no vamos a parar el periodismo, pero me estás entendiendo. Están manejando la censura y estamos ya hablan de tecno tecnofeudalismo. Estamos regalándole un contenido que soporta el imperialismo y no nos damos... estamos tan enajenadas en este momento con el algoritmo que trabajamos para el gratis.No? Y me incluye, o sea mis PDFs, son gratis. Mi radio es gratis. Yo soy una esclava del internet y se acabó, no? Y entonces, en la medida en que no lo sepamos, sentir la negatividad de ese despojo y de cómo todas trabajamos para el imperio. Nos gusta no poco mucho, este pues más nos enajenamos no? O sea, porque yo no cobro por mis ramas de radio.Yo no cobro por el PDF [00:39:00] literal. Me despoja y me precariza en un sentido duro, directo. El pedo es que decirlo es fuerte porque la gente, pues como escucha en tu programa o el mío, y nos va MXN $5. Bien, pues la gente se compra la amiga y dice que padre, el internet me ven. Cuando solo te está viendo la gente que piensa como tú. Y ya nadie más. O sea, ni un solo seguidor más. Gente que ya pensaba como tú, antes de llegar a tu contenido. Entonces, en realidad no estamos logrando hacer propaganda, no? Y yo creo que es super importante, porque porque en la medida siempre trabajamos con los que piensan como nosotras, no estamos empujando el ese 50 percent fascista, al reves, lo respetamos y decimos, bueno, yo trabajo con el 50%. Me quedo en el 40% de la propiedad social y nunca empujo la propiedad privada o el 50% fascista.Y ya ahí te quedas que es muy cómodo también hablar entre nosotras. Pues que nadie te también te madres que nadie te mande [00:40:00] bots. Porque a mí lo que hacen es que me atacan en internet, no? Entonces, cada vez que digo lo que hay que decir, pues me mandan bots y me asustan me, como mucha gente, no, te amenazan.Y todos eso esta perfectamente gestionado, en México desde Peña Nieto, del Peña bots. Se siente muy claramente esas tecnologías. Muchas veces israeles. Se siente muy clarito, no? Y funcionan perfectamente bien, porque pacifican y neutralizan maravillosamente. Ya la gente deja de lo que hay que decir porque tú sientes que... o sea, porque tú sientes lo general, el efecto contrario, las censuras se siente como premiOChris: total. Muchas gracias. Alf. me gustaría provocar un poco ese idea que la algoritmo sólo nos este en suavece. En suaveza, dijiste? En suavece. Ajá. Ajá, porque pues, [00:41:00] también a mí parece que algoritmo está pidiendo, metiendo, reforzando la rabia.Y hace hace poco descubrí, descubrí un libro llamado Discard Studies en inglés, Estudios de Descarte, que intenta formular hipótesis no solo en torno a las historias sociales de la basura y contaminación, pero sino también del exilio y desplazamiento. Y la idea en los estudios del descarte es que todas estas cosas están muy relacionadas entre sí.Las redes sociales creen una plataforma para los también expulsiones sociales en forma de cancelaciones o escrachees, por ejemplo. Alf: Mm-hmm. Chris: Entonces, también que si el el algo ritmo está imponiendo, invitándonos a ser más pacíficos, siento que hay una manera que está imponiendo, impulsando, invitándonos a descartar, tirar, la [00:42:00] gente entre los movimientos sociales, o sea, entre movimientos sociales, también en la manera interpersonal.Y quería preguntarte sobre eso y las consecuencias a las luchas de largo plazo. Alf: Mm-hmm. Mira, yo siento que si se habló particularmente en el segundo capítulo de Alegria Emergente con un invitado que se llama Tomás Calles. Con él, se habló eso. Mira, yo siento que que es bien complicado este tema, porque para mí, el escrache pues que últimamente más sé hoy es el escrache que llegar con el género, con abuso sexual. Y a la vez, yo creo que hay que hacerle su genealogía completa el escrache porque el escrache cada vez... o sea, si lo sacamos de género y lo metemos a la política, clase, a raza, y a todo lo demás, este de si tú te das cuenta, todo el tiempo, volviendo al 50 facho y al no facho, el 50% facho ha estrechado al 50% no facho. Todo este es el tema del control de las narrativas y las imagenes. O sea, [00:43:00] si tú ves la imagen, por ejemplo y para mí, es una forma de escracheeo pre nuestra época. Si tú ves como Estados Unidos, creo la imagen de Cuba, es una forma de escrache, no? O sea, como, voy a hablar super mal de esos wey. Voy a decir. Voy a publicar todos los libros y todos los contenidos que hablen mal de Cuba, no?Y para mí, hay un escracheeo ahí, un pre escracheeo, por decir así. Entonces, en términos políticos, que te vuelvo a decir que siento que son los cabezas, nos faltan en toda esta discusión. Siempre ha existido y va a existir formas de manipular y de destruir cuando la gente está haciendo cosas más o menos chidas, pues te van a buscar dónde y ahí te van a chingar, no?Y el gobierno también participa eso con sus bots, no? Y su manejo de la información, de la distribución de la información en concreto. Entonces, yo siento que el escrache hay que verlo como también como parte de la contra insurgencia, no todos los escrachees, porque hay escrachees que, por ejemplo, no se vuelven públicos y se vuelven en procesos, por ejemplo, [00:44:00] de... o sea, no es la denuncia pública el punitivismo como ejercicio de castigo ejemplar público, hay escrachees o denuncias en concreto, que más bien se vuelven en ejercicios de justicia reparativa, puertas cerrada, que han sido efectivos.Y yo me he enterado de varios y me han invitado a varios procesos. Este y con varios movimientos. Yo me he dado cuenta de la justicia ejercía por nosotras mismas. Sí, llevada a cabo reparar cosas concretas con soluciones concretas sin hacer una imagen, sin darle al algoritmo lo que nos quita todo el tiempo - tiempo, energía, sin darle la fotita donde dice "para hacer tu eescrache chido habla..." o sea, simplemente resolver, es lo que muchas cosas en internet no hacen. Hablan pero no acciones, y tú puedes hablar lo que quieres siempre y cuando no actúes. Ese es el gran truco de la red social. No hablemos todo, mientras no cambiemos nada.Este entonces nada. Yo siento que el escrache pues hay que verlo así como, tiene una parte [00:45:00] chida para mí, sobre todo a puerta cerrada, como de procesos que yo llamaría, justicia reparativa, restaurativa, osea que no tienden a la imagen, puede crear una imagen, pero no es su fin su objetivo final, sino reparar daños específicos con soluciones específicas, no caso por caso, sin abstraer a ese, este versus un tipo de escrache liberal, blanqueado, espectacular, chafa, que lo único que ha hecho es contra insurgencia. Cada vez que hay liderazgos. "Ah, es un macho," no? Cada vez que hay movimiento sociales, "ah, trabajan para los rusos, trabajan para los chinos, este, reciben dinero, reciben dinero de tal, este." Ose y el escrache, si es una de las mejores herramientas, porque genera volvemos en el tema de narrativas y imágenes, no que contraponen lo que ha ganado.Osea, yo te voy a dar un fondo a ti como activista para que hables del turismo, todo lo que tú quieras, siempre y cuando no hables de esto y de esto, okey, [00:46:00] entonces tu envía a cobrar y te va a super bien. Y te voy el súper famoso y que chido.Pues esa es la lucha que nos vaya bien materialmente a todas. Pero a ti te censuraron. Te dijeron sólo hablas de, entonces, fíjate, volvimos al tema del escrache. O sea mucha de esa gente eescracheada. Voy a poner uno. Miguel Peralta. El caso de Miguel Peralta, para mí sería un caso de escrache, no este Miguel Peralta hoy está perseguido por el estado mexicano y mucha gente te va a decir que es un machista. Te va a decir muchas cosas, pero no te va a decir la otra parte, no? La parte política de su lucha, contra un gobierno que el gobierna, por no decir Samir Flores como un escrache, por no decir Hortensia Telesforo con un tipo de escrache.O sea, si me estás cachando? O sea, y entonces que pasa que que desde arriba, como controla la narrativa y controlan la imagen y la distribución de la información. Te dicen a ver, yo te voy a pagar por una cosa, pero cállate la otra. Entonces pon la banderita de colores. Y ya CDMX es gay y es trans, [00:47:00] pero nunca vuelves a hablar de clase social.Por favor que el pobre siga siendo pobre. Ella solo habla Alf de trans, no? Si te das cuenta, es como el escrache. O sea, el escrache dice vamos a destruir el liderazgo político de Miguel Peralta poniendo ultra énfasis en su lado machista, que que yo no dudo que haya tenido como muchos líderes y como mucha gente, o sea, yo no estoy diciendo que no, solo estoy diciendo la manera en que se utiliza ese tipo de denuncias es para destruir el lado político. Muchas veces no todas. Mm, pero para poner un solo caso, y hoy, por hoy te estoy hablando de un caso de criminalizacion actual, como podríamos hablar de Samir Flores o Hortensia Telesforo y toda la contrainsurgencia. La contrainsurgencia es un tipo de escrache. Es que eso ya cambió.También te repito, la gente más visible van y le dan premios y le dan atención. A la gente menos visible, la matan o la criminalizan como Miguel. Están a punto de meterlo a la cárcel 50 años si no le prestamos atención [00:48:00] a ese caso, no? Que es lo que quieren, que no le prestamos atención. Entonces a eso voy, o sea, casi que ni importa el crimen, casi que no importa la falta del daño, sino el manejo. Hay como una economía, fíjate, hasta te diría yo, una economía de las quejas y una economía de la imagen que no estamos siendo conscientes. Estamos tan alejanadas, que nos vamos, por lo primero que nos dan "Ah, ese ese wey era un macho." Listo. Todo quedó o ese wey trabajo para china y hasta todo el trabajo que haya hecho, como trabaja para china, o como hablan de, por ejemplo, piensan las narrativas sobre ve Venezuela y Nicaragua y Cuba.O sea, es impresionante. Es escrache, o sea. Quién te va a hablar bien de ese tipo de países? Está difícilisimo Chris: o o al menos decir como, "no sé, no sé"... Alf: o al menos decir, "no sé," pero lo que quiero decir es que el independientemente lo que han hecho Venezuela y los machismos de izquierda, [00:49:00] el manejo de ese error.O sea, supongo, sí, yo creo que comete errores como toda la gente cometemos. El manejo es la parte más como las redes sociales, la distribución de esa información, es la que a mí me preocupa más. O sea, como, solo vamos a hablar de lo mierda, déjate claro, porque a Estados Unidos le conviene, que Miguel Peralta está en la cárcel, que Venezuela solo se una mierda, que China solo se una... que yo no dudo que tiene un lado de mierda, pero es interesante los límites del discurso.No puedes hablar de lo hecho. En el momento en el que dice es algo bueno. Cancelada. A la cárcel. Se acabó el pedo. Entonces a mí eso me llama la atención, porque la gente cree que es un momento de libertad discursiva. El fascismo va ganando, no? O sea, y eso es Trump, pero y eso es el genocidio Palestino y Libanes.Pero pero pero hay un síntoma de eso en que no podemos, no podemos hablar. Yo siento que el [00:50:00] internet es mucho más facho que lo previo. O sea, yo me siento mucho más censurada que lo que yo veo que ha pasado en el siglo 20. Me explico? La verdad. O sea, yo veo los discursos del Che Guevara y digo no, pues en ese tiempo podías hablar.Habla así hoy, balazo en la frente. Así es fácil. No amaneciste. Te desapareceria. Entonces digo, ganamos o perdimos en términos discursivos? No, yo pienso que perdimos porque tu ves la tele el siglo 20 y está hablaba sin que le den un balazo. Hoy, ya no hoy. Samir habló, lo mató Morena. Ya. Listo. O sea, hoy hablaban los Palestinos todos muertos.O sea, entonces yo creo que perdimos con internet. No ganamos, pero yo pienso que el turismo te repito, o sea, y el colonialismo, entonces solo es como una partecita. Sinceramente, yo pienso que es como un pedazo chiquitito, de todo una cosa más grande. Claro que es una industria que ha [00:51:00] ido ganando mucha fuerza, pero para mí se habría un contra turismo y un peregrinaje.Yo siento que hago peregrinaje. Fíjate, qué es lo que destruyó el o el turismo está reedificando cuando trato de acercarme los movimientos sociales, desde mi clase, o sea, desde mi color piel y todos mis contradicciones. Pues yo sigo a veces caminando, con gente que me ha enseñado cosas que nunca van a salir en el celular.Adrede no sabemos la verdad. Aunque las posten, no me van a llegar. Y entonces yo creo que si hay un contraturismo y un yo pienso que tendríamos que ir a buscar en el tema del peregrinaje o la hospitalidad radical . Por qué? Porque había un tema sagrado, no? O sea, había algo sagrado en el peregrino. No era turismo nada más de placer, aunque tenía a su lado del compartir y ocioso, pero para mí se recuperáramos la capacidad de defendernos, varias cosas que nos han quitado, la capacidad de hablar que yo creo que nos la quitaran a base de premios y views, no a base de castigos, pues habría un [00:52:00] peregrinaje, por el lado político, no?.Por ejemplo, me cuentan que el año que viene va haber en Brasil. No, mucha gente va a estar yendo a Brasil de diferentes latitudes. Y ese para mí, eso es contra turismo y peregrinaje político sagrado. No. Entonces la gente va o el Anticop, vas, o sea, el ir es súper importante porque tiras el suelo de la basura y estás cuerpo a cuerpo con una realidad que que el algoritmo imperialista quiere que no nos llegue, tu salir. Claro. El problema es que te insista. Está tan de moda, "muerte al turismo," que no es fácil hablar de que hay contraturismos muy importantes. Siempre lo han habido no? O sea, cuando los zapatistas dicen vengan, pasan cosas que no pasan.O sea que hay que ir, no. A huevo, hay que ir. Entonces, y eso es un contraturismo. Y el zapatista está super consciente. No viene puro gringo aquí, puros güerito. Cuál es el pedo así se politizan. Sí, yo creo que es más de clase media no tratar de [00:53:00] buscarle la deriva y darle la vuelta a la industria. Mmm. Y simplemente decir merte a todo el turismo. Pues sí, en la teoría suena muy bien, pero en lo práctica va ganando. Chris: Mmm, claro, y así pues me gustaría preguntarte también de ese hospitalidad radical, pero siento que muchos caen intentar a definir lo que es.Pero entonces me gustaría nada más de preguntarte igual de peregrinaje, si quieres, de si has en tus viajes o en casa, o sea en tu colonia barrio, encontrado lo que llamarías tu hospitalidad radical, en el camino.Alf: Mira yo, esto es algo que aprendí. O sea lo que lo que llama hospitalidad radical es algo que yo hice en la práctica toda mi vida y solo después empecé a elaborar. Pues yo me moví toda mi vida y me sigo moviendo principalmente en el underground. Queda de contracultura. Y pero por ejemplo, yo en el punk, en las [00:54:00] patinetas, como en la izquierda radical en general, con todas sus ramas, toda la vida, he ido y han venido.Y mi casa siempre ha sido la casa de mucha gente y es una práctica que no me había sentado a pensar, no?. Ese no quedarse en el hotel, ese tú llevar a la gente a pasear y mostrarle los lugares ocultos de la ciudad, no los lugares como limpios y en inglés. O sea, es algo que en el Punk y en el anarquismo de esas cosas está muy metido, no?Y yo tengo casa en muchos lugares del mundo porque también he dado casa a mucha gente de muchos lugares del mundo, desde muy chavita, desde tours de skate cuando tenía 14 años, llegaba gente de todos lados y se quedaban en mi casa y yo no me daba cuenta de que es algo, que si tú te vas al peregrinaje, la hospitalidad radical o como queremos llamar, a lo previo a los boom's inmobiliarios, turísticos. Pues siempre existió no? Siempre he existido, no? Entonces nada. Para mí es raro hablarlo porque porque para mí, no se cuestiona, no? O sea, yo recibo gente todo el tiempo y me [00:55:00] recibe gente todo el tiempo de de mucho. Últimamente ya se hizo más internacional. Pero antes era más entre pues, las sociedades chiquitas, lo que sea.Entonces yo te podía contar toda mi historia, a partir de ese eje, si tú quieres. Pero pero mi punto es que es una práctica que yo tengo integrada. O sea, no, nunca me la cuestioné. O sea, y yo como mucho lo que queda en la contracultura, lo que queda underground o sea, mucha gente así lo vive este. Y cada vez que a mí me invita, por ejemplo, la última vez que me invitaron a un pueblo, fue Yasnaya, que ya habíamos quedado de ir.Porque el programa lo escuchan los Mixes y todo. Y yo le dije "claro que sí." O sea a mí en el momento en que me digas cuando voy, yo voy. Y para mí hay algo, o sea, tiene que venir de un pueblo como el Mixe, la invitación para que no sea turismo. Para mí, tiene que haber un receptor explícito y una invitación. O sea, es parte de la economía del regalo y esas cosas que, que en los sures siempre hemos hecho y en el abajo siempre hemos hecho consciente o inconscientemente.Creo que ahora hay que empezar [00:56:00] a elaborarla también. Ahora que empezar a teorizarlo y pensarlo porque conforme avanza, la propiedad privada de la colonización, pues se va perdiendo esos comunalismos, porque son prácticas que los pueblos tienen, que las clases populares tienen, que los undergrounds. La gente se mueve todo el tiempo, todo el tiempo.Solo no se mueve de maneras fancy y y cool. O sea, la foto no es la bonita del Instagram. Entonces, por lo tanto, esa práctica que a mí lo interesa es la práctica, no tanto la conceptualización o la imagen. Pues no la logramos reproducir y va ganando el turismo comercial. Por darte otro ejemplo, varios pueblos en el sureste también me hablaban de turismo alternativo. Y, por ejemplo, armaban varias cosas con los pueblos alrededor pidiéndole permiso, volviendo al al 40% de la propiedad social y esa parte la constitución que habría que pedir que nos regresen, le pedían permiso a todos los ejidos. Entonces ibas en bici o pajareando [00:57:00] las cosas que hacen turismo normal, pero hablaban con los dueños de los ejidos con el de la propiedad social que yo y los zapatistas y mucha gente defendemos y le decían bueno, "voy a traer gringos que que como quieren que le hagamos. Pues da tu caguama" o "cuánto les vas a cobrar?" Y para mí es contraturismo, fíjate, y caminando con ellos en esos territorios. Lo aprendes. O sea, escuchando programas de radio y leyendo libros va a estar cabrón. O sea, hay que ir, no este y fíjate que interesante, porque ese 40% de esa propiedad social, pues bien, que podría recibir la lana, que se le da el hotel? No? Porque mucha de esta gente está muy precarizada, entonces no simplemente decir "ah, a la verga, el dinero en el turismo," sino a quien se lo damos y por qué. Cuando fíjate, yo veo en los pueblos ya iniciativas muy chidas de redistribución para este lado. Hay un montón de cooperativas muy chidas que redistribuyen lo opuesto a lo que hay un hotel. Pero volvemos al tema, pues como "no [00:58:00] son cool" y no tienen el diseño más chido y y no son influencers."Pues nadie se entera que que hay prácticas comunalistas que incluyen la movilidad de entre pueblos y entre personas muy chidas. O sea, la verdad. Yo he visto muchas proyectos de cooperativismo contraturístico increíbles. Entonces, bueno, eso. La gente que hace caminantes informativas, como pedagogías de caminantes como contraturísticas. Hay un montón de gente y un montón de cosas, historiadores radicales, ahí que hacen sus sus contradiscursos y llevan a la gente. Osea, yo creo que hay muchas, para mi, hay mucha esperanza ahí. Lo que pasa es que no la conectamos. O sea justo el algoritmo hace que no la alcances a ver y que te quedes, o sea, esa información, pon tu que la postan, no te va a llegar, no? O sea, está diseñado pa que no te llegue. Entonces, pero hay un montón de cosas muy chidas. Yo no vivo esa [00:59:00] distopia triste, que mucha gente vive de "yo valio verga". "Hay que dejar de movernos." Yo no lo vivo. Tampoco hay que ultra movernos. Yo pienso que el nomadismo en la clase media ya es una forma de de despojo también. Hay como no forzado en las clases medias. No abajo. Pero bueno, yo no lo vivo con esta doom ccomo sea. Condena. O sea, como de, ah, todo movimiento está de la verga, que hay gente muy esencialista que tu dice. "Todo turismo es una mierda."Y diría, bueno, pues vives con mucha culpa. Wey está muy bien. Se llama catolicismo. Y y lo conozco muy bien. Hay otras formas. O sea sin tanta culpa, le puedes dar tu lana a gente chida y no va a solucionar el problema, pero vaya que está más chido que dárselo al hotel y al colonialista y al que rompió la propiedad social.O sea, estás si algo haces, no es mínimo, pero algo haces. Pues eso a mi me ha tocado ver cositas que digo bueno, aquí hay algo no, [01:00:00] aquí hay algo. Pasa que también muchas veces iniciativas como rechazan "lo cool" no quieren ser muy visibles y no quieren ser muy famosas, pues ahí es el problema del comercio justo y el comercio alternativo, que busca, busca hacer un poco invisible a veces.Eso es problemático, no? Porque entonces, como mandamos a la banda con la banda chida, si la banda chida no quiere que le manden banda siempre. O sea, no quiere hacer negocio, no quiere hacer negocio porque se vuelve capitalistas. En fin. Pero ese, ese es otro problema, no el problema del cooperativismo.Chris: Claro. Ya pues, sobrebordando con temas y plática hermosa, Alf, pero si puedo antes de de terminar, me gustaría preguntarte sobre tu nuevo libro. No Existe Dique Capaz de Contener al Océano Furioso. Nos podrías contar un poco de que trata y cómo tus trabajos anteriores han influido en [01:01:00] ese nuevo?Alf: Sí, Chris: has mencionado un poquito, pero Alf: ajá. Este es un libro que que pueden comprar en varias librerías Volcana, en Polilla y ahí donde estás con don Gregorio, pronto queremos tener en Jícara, en Utópicas, en casa Casa Tomada y conmigo en internet, y lo pueden descargar en el PDF. Envíos. Yo hago también a todo el mundo. Pero, bueno, es un libro que básicamente, para decirlo en una frase, es mi experiencia y mi elaboración sobre el anarquismo o la izquierda radical en general. Básicamente. O sea, te cuenta un poco mi historia de vida y como yo lo viví, lo recibí. Y qué es lo que yo he investigado y pensado sobre una práctica? Que en este momento la historia le podría unos ya anarquismo, pero en otro me momento se llama otras formas, pero sí, como antiautoritaria, etcétera. Entonces, el libro es eso. O sea, es un ensayo personal, pero también es un [01:02:00] ensayo político filosófico, no? Entonces van las dos. Te voy narrando mi vida, pero también te voy narrando la historia de estas ideas y cómo las hevisto, en la práctica y practicado hasta dónde he podido.Mmm. Chris: Pues este me voy a asegurar que esos lugares en al menos en Oaxaca y además en línea, van a estar listados en el sitio web del fin de turismo cuando lance el episodio y este, pues en nombre de nuestros oyentes Alf, me gustaría expresarte mi más sincero agradecimiento por tu disposición de acompañarnos hoy, hablar estos temas complejos y garantizar que esta disidencia tenga un lugar en el mundo.Muchísimas gracias. Y cómo podríamos este encontrar tu trabajo en línea? O sea por redes sociales o Alf: Si? Lamentablemente, me encantaría que no, no tuviera que ser por ahí. Pero no, no me [01:03:00] quedó de otra. Si, mi trabajo principalmente yo tengo dos libros afuera que se consiguen las librerías que mencioné. Lo que hago como locutora se encuentra gratis en todos lados, es Un Sueño Largo Ancho y Hondo. Es u arroba @1slaaahh en varias redes sociales. Y nada le ponen ahí en internet y les va a salir gratis y como lo platicaba antes, pues todo va muy junto. Mi parte de ficción y mi parte pedagógica y política va bastante unificada.Es más o menos la misma onda pero si, digamos lo más inmediato es escucharla lo que hago, llevo varios años haciendo, como locutora. Entonces nada más le da un click y ya está. Y les pido ahí que me den likecito que me den el porque hasta ahora no, no hay quien si, o sea, yo no trabajo para una [01:04:00] radio difusora que se encargue en mis redes y que yo nada más llegue a grabar y estaría bien a gusto, pero no, pues yo la autogestiono.Entonces, por ahora, si es necesario, el likecito y el compartir. Chris: Claro. Pues también esos van a estar en el sitio web de fin de turismo cuando lanza el episodio. Entonces, pues muchísimas gracias Alf. Alf: Gracias, Chris.English Transcription.Chris: [00:00:00] Welcome to the podcast The End of Tourism, Alf. Nice to talk to you today.Chris: I'd like to start this off by asking you where you are today and how the world looks through your eyes?Alf: Today I am in my kitchen. I work from there. In Mexico City, in a neighborhood called Iztaccihuatl. How does the world look? Well, look, I don't have a bad view. This is not a big building, but I have a nice view, right? I mean, my view is not blocked by another building or anything. You can see a lot of plants. And well, I guess you know that I am from the provinces. So I have always felt that where I live is like a little bit of a province in the capital, because there are no such big buildings.This one and well, from here you can see it, I forget that I'm in CDMX now, you knowChris: Thank you. Well, you are, among other things, the author of several [00:01:00] texts, including Pepitas de Calabaza and the very recent No Existe Dique Capaz de Contenedor al Océano Furioso. You also coordinated the translation into Spanish of the English text of Militancia Alegre:Let Resistance Bloom in Toxic Times. (or Joyful Militancy) That translation was followed by a companion podcast with Pamela Carmona titled Emerging Joy: Undoing Rigid Radicalism. So, to start, I'd like to ask you how you came across the book Joyful Militancy and what led you to translate it.Alf: I knew that book. I tell you a little bit about it in the prologue, but I knew that book, in the United States, because I had a band. I played drums in a hardcore punk band for many, many years. And so that's how I got to the United States and being [00:02:00] in the American underground, which was an important part of my life, being in California specifically.I found that book in a cafe and I fell in love with it. So I brought it and first I read it in English with some people and very slowly I started to work on that book, translating. That's a longer story that's right there in the prologue, but well, I've been campaigning for that book for years. There were also a series of coincidences with very kind people like Tumba a la Casa, like the Canadian authors, the rights were given to us. The people from Traficantes de Sueno got involved.I mean, there are actually a lot of people. It's like a network of networks, that book and a series of coincidences and favors and nice gestures from many people who made it come out the way it did, really. I mean, I think it's unrepeatable, that series of factors. Aha.Chris: Oh, cool. All right. Well, that book was originally [00:03:00] published in 2016. After reading, re-reading, and tran

For years, Rachid Badouri has been one of Quebec's biggest comedy stars. His shows have sold millions of tickets around the world, he has a Netflix stand-up special called “Les fleurs du tapis,” and he's also a judge on “Quel talent!” (Quebec's version of “Canada's Got Talent”). But now, Rachid is ready to make a name for himself in the English-speaking world. He sits down with guest host Garvia Bailey to talk about his journey in comedy, what it's like translating his French jokes into English, and how stand-up has helped him embrace his Moroccan heritage. If you like this conversation, check out Tom Power's interview with Montreal comedian Sugar Sammy.

Assassin's Creed Chronicles: India puts players in the heart of the Sikh Empire in 1841, at a time when only the Sikh Empire remained unconquered by the British. Perhaps inevitably, this decade witnessed the bloody Anglo-Sikh Wars. These conflicts would ultimately determine the fate of British power in India, and by extension, the power of Britain worldwide for the next century.To shed light on these complex events, Matt is joined by historian, author and Director of the Sikh Museum Initiative, Gurinder Singh Mann.Echoes of History is a Ubisoft podcast, brought to you by History Hit. Hosted by: Matt LewisEdited by: Robin McConnellProduced by: Matt Lewis, Robin McConnellSenior Producer: Anne-Marie LuffProduction Manager: Beth DonaldsonExecutive Producers: Etienne Bouvier, Julien Fabre, Steve Lanham, Jen BennettMusic by Aaron Miller, Mark RutherfordIf you liked this podcast please subscribe, share, rate & review. Take part in our listener survey here.Tell us your favourite Assassin's Creed game or podcast episode at echoes-of-history@historyhit.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Education Stocks: Winners and Losers Stadio: Strong performance with double-digit growth and 50,000+ learners. Benefiting from a shortage of university spaces and the struggles at UNISA. Potential for further growth through distance learning and university status. ADvTech*: Long-term holding with solid but not as aggressive growth. Strong presence in tertiary education and schools. Expansion into East Africa showing promise. Curro: Disappointing results with flat learner numbers and write-downs on buildings. Struggles may be due to internal issues or broader economic pressures on lower-income consumers. Commodity Movers: Copper & Rhodium Copper: Near all-time highs due to demand from EVs, data centers, and energy transition. Companies like BHP*, Anglo, and Rio ramping up production. Simon is playing the copper trade through BHP Group. Copper | Weekly | 25 March 2025 Rhodium: Seeing a price recovery after a prolonged downturn. Benefiting PGM miners, though still far from peak levels. Platinum & Palladium: Relatively stable within established price ranges. BYD's Breakthrough in Battery Tech BYD claims a five-minute charge for 400 km range, setting a new benchmark for EVs. Outpacing Tesla and other competitors in rapid-charging efficiency. Dominating the affordable EV space with sub-$10,000 models. Tesla's Market Share Decline in Europe Tesla's share of the European BEV market dropped from 21% to 9.6%. Competitive pricing from BYD and lack of Tesla model updates. CEO Elon Musk's political involvement potentially affecting brand perception. Remgro: Growing Discount to NAV Reported net asset value (NAV) of R276.89, but share price only R155. The discount to NAV is reaching extreme levels. Historically, Remgro traded at a much smaller discount, raising questions about potential revaluation. Simon Brown * I hold ungeared positions. All charts by KoyFin | Get 10% off your order 00:00 Market Overview and Education Stocks 06:51 Commodities: Copper and Rhodium Insights 13:34 Electric Vehicle Market Dynamics 18:02 Remgro's Financial Performance and Valuation Insights    

Get the whole episode on Patreon here! https://www.patreon.com/posts/123683504 Liveshow tickets are now available for April 11th in London: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/lions-led-by-donkeys-podcast-live-in-london-11th-april-2025-tickets-1266997737339?aff=oddtdtcreator Livestream tickets are also available for those who can't make it: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/livestream-lions-led-by-donkeys-podcast-live-in-london-11th-april-2025-tickets-1266999251869?aff=oddtdtcreator PRE ORDER YOUR EMU JIMA SHIRT HERE: https://llbdmerch.com/products/llbd-emu-jima-shirt Joe and Nate are joined by Trashfuture and No Gods No Mayor's Riley Quinn to talk about one of the shortest wars in history. Sources: https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/shortest-war-history/ https://www.thecollector.com/anglo-zanzibar-war/ https://www.history.org.uk/publications/resource/7950/the-shortest-war-in-history-the-anglo-zanzibar-wa https://altezzatravel.com/articles/the-anglo-zanzibar-war https://explorethearchive.com/anglo-zanzibar-war