Podcasts about Anglosphere

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

A version of this essay was published by firstpost.com at https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/shadow-warrior-britains-outsized-malign-role-in-global-chaos-13872084.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialBeing a keen observer of the United Kingdom, I have lately noticed a few apparently unconnected events with dismay. If I were to connect the dots, it begins to appear that Britain has had an outsize influence on international affairs. Maybe the James Bond meme isn't the total fantasy I had assumed it was: a juvenile wet dream about nubile maidens and irresistible heroes bumping off sundry villains.The reality appears to be quite impressive. This tiny, rainy island off Northwest Asia has been running quite a number of worldwide schemes. Its administrative center, Whitehall, manages a global web of intrigue and narrative-building, and has created a number of ‘imperial fortresses', thus punching above its weight-classOne of their principal assets in gaslighting others is the BBC (not to mention their plummy accents that, for example, make Americans just melt). The BBC has a sterling reputation which does not seem well-deserved. There have been many instances of motivated bias (eg. in their Brexit or India coverage), lack of integrity (eg. sexual transgressions by senior staff) and so on. In reality, it is about as unabashed at pushing its agenda as Al Jazeera is about its own.Admittedly, Britain has made one major blunder along the way, though: Brexit, which left them in trisanku mode, sort of adrift mid-Atlantic. They were distancing themselves from the European Union, counting on their so-called ‘special relationship' with the US to sustain them, away from what they perceived, correctly, as a declining and disunited Europe. They also thought they could dominate their former colonies again (see the frantic pursuit of a Free Trade Agreement with India?) without onerous EU rules. Sadly, none of this quite worked out.The reason is a fundamental problem: there is not much of a market for British goods any more. Indians once coveted British products as status symbols, but today, with the possible exceptions of Rolls Royce cars and single-malt whiskey, there's very little anybody wants from them. They still do good R&D, make aircraft engines (India could use that technology), and their apparently for-hire journalism is well-known, but that's about it.On the other hand, they have managed to stay entrenched in the international financial system, starting with colonial loot, especially the $45 trillion they are believed to have taken from India. It is rumored that they used stolen Indian gold to buy distressed assets in the US after the Civil War. It is possible they had the same game plan for Ukraine: acquire rich agricultural land and mineral deposits at distressed prices. Some point to the port of Odessa as another targetUkraine: bad faith actor?It is remarkable how Boris Johnson, then PM of UK, is alleged to have single-handedly ruined the chance of a ceasefire in April 2022 during his visit to Kiev in the early days of the Ukraine war, when there was a chance of a negotiated cessation of hostilities with all parties adhering to the Minsk 1 and 2 agreements.In January, just before President Trump took office, UK PM Starmer signed a minerals agreement with Ukraine as part of a “100-Year Partnership” that appears to pre-emptively undercut Trump's proposed $500-billion US deal. That lends credence to allegations about the UK's coveting minerals, as well as its not being interested in ending the tragic war.Gold: is it all there?The UK does have a thing for tangible assets, including gold. A lot of the world's gold (5000 metric tons) is supposedly held in secure custody in London. But there are fears that this may not physically be there in the vaults of the Bank of England any more. They may have indulged in ‘gold leasing', where the actual gold ends up being replaced by paper promises after it is lent out to bullion banks, from where it may be moved around and be inaccessibleExtraordinary delays in gold deliveries in 2025 (on withdrawals to New York triggered by tariff fears) increase this concern. There is a lack of transparency in transactions in the metal in the UK. Spooked, many countries are taking their gold back. India repatriated 200+ tons of its own gold from London in 2024. Venezuela is fighting a court battle to get its gold back.Then there are concerns raised by the arguably unfair freezing of Russian assets held abroad as part of Ukraine-war sanctions: Starmer recently promised to give Ukraine $2 billion, basically the interest generated by those assets. This doesn't sound quite right, and has dented the image of London as a reliable financial hub. Brexit was a blow; the rise of Dubai, Singapore, Shanghai and Zurich all threaten the City of London, but it is second only to New York, still.Imperial Fortresses galoreAnother win for the British was the selection of Mark Carney, a former Bank of England governor, as the Prime Minister of Canada. The Anglosphere continues to be dominated by the UK, although the Commonwealth is a club that serves no particular purpose any more, except as a curious relic of the British empire.This highlights the concept of ‘imperial fortresses': far-flung outposts that have helped sustain British military power and diplomatic clout despite the loss of empire. Traditionally, these were naval bases/garrisons such as those in Malta, Gibraltar, Bermuda, etc. that allowed Britain to keep an eye on the ‘restless natives'. However, I contend that the entire Anglosphere has been treated as imperial fortresses by them.Canada, Australia and New Zealand still continue to have the British King as their Head of State, which is astonishing for supposedly sovereign nations. But it's far more interesting that, in effect, the US has been treated as another vassal by the Brits, pillow-talked into doing things that are generally only in the interests of Britain. All that pomp and circumstance has beguiled poor Americans. Whitehall, I assert, have been Svengalis to Foggy Bottom.Master Blaster blowback?The other metaphor is from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985), where "Master Blaster" is a literal duo: Master, a cunning dwarf, and Blaster, his brawny, enforcer bodyguard. The Americans unwittingly have provided the muscle to the calculating dwarf's machinations, which generally end up mostly benefiting the latterBut there is yet another imperial fortress that we should consider: Pakistan. It was created expressly to be a geographically well-placed client state for the Brits to continue their 19th century Great Game from afar to checkmate Russia, and incidentally to contain India. From that point of view, Pakistan has been a successful imperial outpost, notwithstanding the fact that it, despite decades of US largesse, is a failing state (see the Baloch train hijack recently).This is part of the reason why Americans have a hard time explaining why they get involved in Pakistan and Afghanistan again and again to their ultimate regret, with painful exits. They have been induced to do this by the clever Brits, who, quite evidently, sided with Muslims against Hindus in the sub-continent, for instance in the British-led merger of Gilgit-Baltistan into Pakistan, contrary to the Instrument of Accession.There is considerable irony in all this, because one could argue that Pakistani-origin Brits have now done a ‘reverse master-blaster' to the Brits. That sounds eerily like the ‘reverse-Kissinger' that Trump is supposed to be doing. Or maybe it is a ‘recursive master-blaster', although the mind boggles at that.Consider the facts: UK rape-gangs are almost entirely of Pakistani origin; several current mayors (including Sadiq Khan in London) and past mayors are of that ethnicity, indicating a powerful vote-bank; they have at least 15 MPs and a large number of councillors.There's Pakistani-origin Sir Mufti Hamid Patel, the chair of the Office of Standards in Education; Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary; Humza Yusuf, the former First Minister of Scotland. This imperial fortress is fighting back, indeed, and winning. The UK may not have quite anticipated this outcome.The American vassal-state is also beginning to rebel. Trump was personally incensed by the fact that Starmer sent 50 Labor operatives to work against him in the 2024 US elections: their interactions have been a little frosty.Khalil, an embedded asset?Then there is the case of a current cause celebre in the US, Mahmoud Khalil, a Syrian-born Algerian citizen of Palestinian descent. He has been accused of leading violent anti-Israel protests at Columbia University, and detained on that count. Interestingly, he had a security clearance from the UK, and was part of the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, living in Beirut and leading a scholarship program for Syrians. Yes, Syria.And then Khalil suddenly showed up with a green card (not a student visa), got married to a US citizen named Noor Abdalla, finished his program at Columbia, and so on. To me, all this sounds like it was facilitated, and that he has certain powerful foreign friends. No prizes for guessing who they were.Iraq, Libya and Syria: Humanitarian crisesSpeaking of Syria, Whitehall spent at least 350 million pounds sterling between 2011 and 2024 in regime-change activities targeting the Assad government, according to Declassified UK.The UK's meddling in the Middle East, going back to the Sykes-Picot carving up of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, and mandates in Palestine and Iraq, and even earlier to the antics of T E Lawrence, was clearly intended to advance and sustain British interests in, and influence on, the region. Which is not unreasonable.The sad fact, though, is that it appears the British have actively fomented, or been deeply involved in, a lot of the military misadventures that have turned the region into a mess of human misery. To take relatively recent history, the invasions of Iraq, Libya, and now of Syria were arguably dreamt up or at least actively supported by Britain.The invasion of Iraq was certainly endorsed by Tony Blair's infamous September 2002 dossier about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which turned out to be imaginary, but then, lo! Saddam Hussein was overthrown and killed.The invasion of Libya saw Britain take on an even more active role. David Cameron and France's Nicolas Sarkozy in effect prodded a somewhat reluctant Barack Obama to invade, even co-drafting the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 in 2011 that was the formal permission for the war. The net result was the killing of Muammar Gaddafi.In the case of Syria, Britain began covert operations in 2012, with MI6 allegedly organizing arms shipments, training and coordination of groups opposed to the Assad regime. The sudden fall of Assad in December 2024, driven by groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) that Britain indirectly supported, underscores the successful outcomes of this policy.In all three cases, a secular dictatorship was overthrown and religious extremists took over. Earlier, civilians had reasonably prosperous lives; women were generally educated and present in the workforce. After the regime changes, all three are bombed-out hellholes, with no rights for women or religious minorities. In particular, the latter have been consistently subjected to massacres, as in the recent large-scale executions of Alawites in Syria.Even though Americans were the principal players in all these cases, the impression is that British Whitehall's gaslighting of their US counterparts in Foggy Bottom could well have tipped the scales and turned skirmishes into outright war and disaster.Thus it is clear that Britain is still a formidable player in the world of international relations, despite the loss of empire and relative decline. It is unfortunate, however, that the net result of its actions is to add to entropy and chaos and the loss of human lives and rights. Perfidious Albion it still is.1950 words, Mar 16, 2025AI-generated podcast from NotebookLM.google.com: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com/subscribe

A version of this essay was published by deccanherald.com at https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/h-1b-rape-gangs-and-fact-checks-when-narratives-boomerang-3351471For students of media, the last week of December and the first week of January have been a treat: a rare occasion to watch narrative wars in real time.The first manufactured narrative was the all-out attack on H1-B Indians. An impartial Martian, on observing this, would have concluded that if only the million Indians (mostly engineers) were sent back pronto to India, all of a sudden world peace would break out, or whatever heralds the Millennium for those who believe in all that.Au contraire, it was a mountain being made out of a molehill, an astroturfed story that didn't have legs. It is true that there is resentment in the US about illegal aliens, as the 10 million or so that Biden allowed in are going to be a burden on the country both socially and economically. Illegal immigrants are committing horrific crimes, for example setting a woman on fire in the New York subway.The subway story got visibility for a day or two (according to Google Trends), but then all of a sudden the narrative switched to H1-B Indians taking jobs away from natives. With a heady cocktail of xenophobia, racism and religious bigotry, the story turned into a tirade against Hindus in particular, and how primitive India is, according to extreme right-wing MAGA Trumpies.‘Manufacturing consent' usually has somebody instigating it, and normally it is the US left wing: remember the ‘critical caste theory' circus and accusations of casteism against two engineering managers at Cisco in California, that fell apart in court? Tablet magazine had a long read titled Rapid Onset Political Enlightenment on the ‘permission structure' created by Democrats like Obama to manipulate public opinion: a proverbial Deep State operationBut this time the US right wing was also in the fray. So you have to look further for possible puppeteers. The usual suspects would be China and Pakistan, as those most keen to put India down. But it may be Britain, based on anecdotal evidence: the Economist magazine's choice of Bangladesh as the “country of the year” while Hindus are being genocided there; and the Financial Times' decidedly sour take on D Gukesh's staggering chess world championship win.Brits continue to be severely prejudiced against India; they left a divided subcontinent with lots of fault lines; and they cannot come to terms with their fall and India's simultaneous rise. Whitehall also has disproportionate influence on the Anglosphere.But the H1-B controversy boomeranged on them, as it embroiled Elon Musk, who had been on such a visa, as he stoutly defended the idea that the US needed to attract talented immigrants.It is a bad idea to fight Elon Musk, because he has Trump's ear, and more importantly, he has the megaphone of X (earlier Twitter). He demonstrated that by bringing up what the entire British establishment had swept under the carpet: the long-running industrial-scale ‘grooming' and rape of young white girls by Pakistani gangs. The cases in towns like Rotherham and Rochdale and many others got some publicity earlier, but that has long receded in the public memory.But Musk turned the tables by highlighting the appalling allegation that as many as 250,000 underage (some as young as 11), mostly working-class white girls, often residents of foster homes (where they were because of problems with their families), were systematically targeted mostly by Pakistani-origin Britons. The girls were gaslighted, raped, gang-raped, tortured, forced into prostitution, trafficked, mutilated, and, in some cases, killed. It is horrendous sexual exploitation.Even more appallingly it appears that UK authorities (including police and politicians) and the media deliberately suppressed all this in the interests of “preserving communal harmony”, a euphemism for political correctness and fear of violence. And instead of calling the perpetrators “Pakistani Muslims”, the term used was “Asian”, which is misleading. It wasn't Chinese, Japanese, or Indians doing it, it was almost 100% Pakistani Muslims.It is even alleged that Keir Starmer of the Labor Party, the UK Prime Minister, may be implicated because he was Director of Public Prosecution (2008-2013). This is a major crisis. The Anglosphere was falling apart already with Trump's obvious contempt for Trudeau, which may have been partly why the latter quitOn top of this, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg announced that he was dispensing with ‘fact-checkers' and going with community notes, a la X. This is an implicit admission that much of the narrative on Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram etc. has been fake.2025 is off to a good start. Manufactured narratives are in headlong retreat.Here's the AI-generated podcast about this essay, by NotebookLM by Google: 770 words, 8 Jan 2025 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com/subscribe

On November 14th every year, I mourn my old friend Varsha Bhosle on her birth anniversary. This year she would have turned 69. Unfortunately she passed away in 2012, and she had ceased being her fiery public self a few years before that when she went into self-imposed exile from her column-writing.When she and I used to write together on rediff.com we used to dream of an India that would “be somebody” (credit Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront). Today India is beginning to matter, “not in full measure” (there, obligatory nod to Nehru, because Varsha shared a birthday with him), but there are “green shoots”.In Malayalam, we say vyazhavattom, or a revolution of Jupiter (which is twelve years), to denote a significant period of time in which epochal things may well have taken place. What has happened in the dozen years since Varsha left us? Let me take a general inventory.Despite misgivings about the lack of movement on serious Hindu issues (such as the freeing of temples from the grip of bureaucrats and hostile politicians) it must be granted that Narendra Modi's 10+ years have substantiated what Varsha and I honestly thought: that the only thing missing in India is leadership. (I said that in my homage to her in 2012.) Maybe, just maybe, Modi is India's Lee Kwan Yew.India is finally moving away from its dirigiste Nehruvian stupor, which was exacerbated, and extolled, by the Anglo-Mughalai hangers-on of Lutyens and Khan Market and JNU, and which resulted in an increasingly depressing relative decline compared to the rest of Asia and the rest of the world. That India is beginning to matter, especially economically, and consequently in the military and diplomatic domains, should be seen as the result of bhageeratha prayatnam, especially since the Swamp in India (not the Military Industrial Complex per se but babudom) is so powerful. Not to mention the Media, and the Judiciary.But there is so much more to be done. And Varsha would have pointed this out with her signature directness and humor: she could get away with that because she was She Who Must Be Obeyed, and imperious. She used to say things that I wouldn't dare say: for instance, she called Antonia Maino “The Shroud of Turin”.Varsha would have had a field day with the silly viswaguru meme, for instance. For, it is much better to learn from others, rather than have everybody mine our traditional knowledge systems and then go and patent them and sell the result back to us (eg. basmati, turmeric, yoga). India should be vishwa-vidyarthi. Learn, and, if possible, steal from everyone. (Ask China how to).Similarly, sabka sath sabka vikas sounds like a good slogan, but let me give you Exhibit A: Lebanon. I will not elaborate, but you can go look it up for yourself.On the other hand, as a warlike Maratha, she would have been happy to see an assertive India, one that upholds its national interests and does not bend to threats or blandishments (Exhibit B: Dalip Singh of the US trying to bully India into a sanctions regime against Russia re Ukraine).I am not quite sure what she'd have made of the Covid fuss, but I'm pretty certain she'd have gone hammer and tongs against the imperialism of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and the propagandists for the same (Exhibit C: I guess I can't name names, but there's a famous and prize-winning doctor who was on every TV channel at the time deriding Indian vaccines).I write this on 18th November, another painful anniversary, that of 13 Kumaon's last stand, and here too India has made progress, standing up to China in Galwan, going eyeball-to-eyeball on the Indo-Tibetan frontier. But India has made only very slow progress in catching up on manufacturing, and for the wrong reasons (Exhibit D: a famous Indian-American economist).Yet, there is good news. Indians as a whole are more optimistic about their country's future. This may be because the economic center of gravity is shifting towards us, and because it appears the Anglosphere, China, Europe, and Wokeness are all declining at the same time, and India may well benefit from being the swing state between the West and China, both hegemons.I wonder what Varsha would have had to say about this bitter-sweet stage in India's trajectory. Alas, I can only conjecture.Varsha left us at a point when, as in the Malayalam saying, swaram nallappozhe pattu nirthuka, that is, as a singer you should stop singing when your voice is still good. People will ask you why you stopped singing, not why you haven't stopped singing. She lives on in our collective memory, fierce, powerful, a compelling voice. I miss her. May she live on, forever young.800 words, Nov 18, 2024, posted 7 Jan, 2025 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com/subscribe

Timothy Garton Ash, the British historian and columnist, wrote in The Guardian's op-ed page three days after America's 2016 election secured Donald Trump the White House that the phrase “leader of the free world” is usually applied to the US president, "and rarely without irony”. Garton Ash was tempted to say, at that time, “that the leader of the free world is now Angela Merkel”. This should be a familiar trope to our listeners, whom by the way we've subjected to an unusually long wait since our last episode. Those who have stuck with us—through long hiatuses and prolific bouts of production—will remember that our third guest on the show, back in early October 2020, was John Kampfner. Merkel had one year left in office then, but the veteran British correspondent reflected already on her legacy. The Anglosphere, with its Brexit-cum-Trump dual schock of right-wing populism in 2016, had been losing its cachet for facts, expertise and statesmanly maturity. The German model, instead—and Angela Merkel's leadership of it specifically—offered the liberal West a different way: a model of competent management but also a mystic of anti-populism, a disposition towards consensus even at the risk of appearing aloof. This dilemma surfaces repeatedly in today's episode, with which we resume our activities. Is Merkelism style or substance? The former Empress of Europe was often hailed as a stalwart of liberal values. But why not focus on her methods, now that scorching challenges to her worldview are back in force since Trump's re-election? What does it say about the West that we're in desperate need of liberal heroes when, what we do have—or used to have in Merkel—is excellent pragmatists? Our conversation naturally touches on the former Chancellor's geopolitical legacy since the Ukraine war, but also China and the economy. It is timed with the release of her memoir, Freedom (1954-2021). We are delighted to have with us two distinguished journalists, Guy Chazan of the Financial Times and Tom Nuttall of The Economist. As always, please rate and review Uncommon Decency on whatever platform you use, and send us your comments or questions either on Twitter at @UnDecencyPod or by email at undecencypod@gmail.com. Consider supporting the show through Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/undecencypod), although this time the full episode will be available to all listeners.

On this episode of Unsupervised Learning Razib talks to Misha Saul, the host of the Kvetch Substack. Saul is a first-generation Jewish Australian, born in Georgia (former Soviet republic), who grew up in Adelaide and now lives in Sydney. He graduated from the University of Adelaide with degrees in commerce and law. His day job is in finance, but the Kvetch highlights his interests in history and Jewish culture. Razib and Saul discuss extensively the differences and similarities between the US and Australia, and how each relates to other Anglophone nations like Canada, New Zealand and of course the UK. Saul asserts though Australia leans into its frontier reputation, in reality it is much more of a bureaucratic-ruled nation than the US, albeit with more of a Scots-Irish flavor than comparatively middle-class New Zealand. He also contrasts the relatively generous welfare-state of Australia and America's inequality, which he describes by analogy to the film 2013 Elysium, with its contrast between an earth dominated by favelas and a well-manicured low-earth orbit utopia for the super rich. They also discuss the geographical and cultural coherency of a vast nation like Australia, which has a desert at its center. Saul mentions it is often actually cheaper to fly to and vacation in Bali or another Asian locale than going to Perth from Sydney. Despite the reality that Australia has exotic fauna, it is notably an overwhelmingly urban society, where few have any interaction with the “bush.” Though Australians appreciate archetypes like “Crocodile Dundee,” Saul paints a picture of a much more urbane reality. Razib asks about the phenomenon of “white-presenting” Aboriginals, and Saul argues all societies look somewhat crazy from the outside because of their shibboleths, and the debates around Aboriginality are Australia's. As an immigrant and first-generation Australian, Saul also discusses Australia's immigration system, which strictly controls and regulates migration. Saul argues that because of the high educational and skill qualifications most Australian immigrants assimilate well, and he contends that there is a broad consensus to maintain strict limits on inflows. He argues that the Anglo-Australian identity is strong enough that the assimilative process continues to work even with the large number of Asians from China and India, who have triggered nativist worries and political activism.

Dan addresses recent political changes affecting the investment outlook, such as the UK budget and the Trump win and its potential to significantly cut the US deficit.

A time-travelling, multi-regional journey through the histories of ceramics that explores how contemporary artists are politicising this elemental medium.Nell has said that “all my life is a practice", but what does that mean for the work she creates? And how has her latest piece, a quilt featuring work by 400 people, changed her perspective on collaboration?Glenn Barkley looks back at the many histories of ceramics, shares his favourite skewer, and discusses the impact of the “Anglosphere mind virus.”

Does the reach of the USA and its cultural influence mean "we're all American now?" Anne McElvoy and her guests discuss the similarities and differences across the Anglosphere and think about the changing dynamics on the international stage. They are: Freddy Gray, Deputy Editor of the Spectator Magazine and host of the Americano podcast. Dr Katie McGettigan, Senior Lecturer in American Literature and co-editor of the Journal of American Studies. Amanda Taub writes The Interpreter, an explanatory column and newsletter about world events for The New York Times. Kit Davis, an American living in London, an anthropologist and Emeritus Professor at SOAS. Rana Mitter ST Lee Chair in US-Asia Relations at the Harvard Kennedy School.Producer: Lisa Jenkinson

The podcast above was made by the Google Gemini AI via notebookLM.A version of this essay was published by firstpost.com at https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/shadow-warrior-narrative-building-of-west-and-the-threat-of-regime-change-13827231.htmlWhile we can all laugh at the absurdities mouthed by Justin Trudeau in his crusade against India and Hindus, there are meta-questions that really beg for an answer: what the heck is going on? Who is behind all this? Why now? What other precedents do we look at? What do we see as immediate fallout?I am a student of narrative building. I wrote of information warfare a couple of months ago in https://rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com/p/ep-131-information-warfare-narrative and pointed out that this particular method of creation of narratives, while it has long been popular, now functions at warp speed, and the targets of such narratives often get blind-sided, or worse.I spoke of the sudden U-turns that ended up deposing erstwhile friends like Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega; and I pointed out that something along those lines had happened with Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh in August. There are other examples: for instance, the Maidan Revolution courtesy Victoria Nuland that ended up in the overthrow in Ukraine of Viktor Yanukovych, the installation of Vladimir Zelensky, and… well, you know the rest. There is a pattern: you unilaterally label somebody a terrorist, and then you proceed to topple him/her. In the old American idiom, “give a dog a bad name, and hang him”. With our supine obeisance to Big Tech and Western media, and thus the gaslighting, we (that is, anybody other than the elites running the West) just believe this, and blame ourselves for not noticing this all along. Total mind-control, in other words.That makes me quite nervous about what's going on with the Canadians. It's true that the Trudeaus, pere et fils, have simply ignored the Khalistani terror problem, both before and after the tragic downing of Air India Kanishka, Flight 182, almost 40 years ago, and the deaths of 329 people. Since those 329 were mostly brown people, it appeared to be not an issue. There was dissenting opinion: the Major Commission report from 2021 https://www.majorcomm.ca/en/reports/finalreport.html  excoriated the Canadian government for incompetence and complacency. Here is an excerpt.But nobody has ever been brought to book for the bombing. And this has gotten worse over time: Khalistanis like US citizen Gurpatwant Singh Pannun regularly threaten to blow up Air India planes, and warn that this will happen on specific occasions where he suggests people should avoid flying on Air India. These are acts of transnational terror and intimidation, but he gets a pass.Maybe it's a coincidence, but after Trudeau's outburst earlier this week, there have been at least a dozen incidents of bomb threats against Indian-owned aircraft. One circumpolar Air India Delhi-Chicago flight ended up landing in an obscure Canadian airport in Iqualuit in the Great White North because of an online bomb threat. It's possible that Khalistanis are involved.Furthermore, there is some kind of a summons issued against Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval in a lawsuit filed by Pannun (who is a lawyer himself) in the comical case of an alleged plot to bump him off, wherein an alleged Indian operative allegedly tried to pay an alleged hitman money to do the deed. The latest round of the hoo-haa has Canadians targeting Home Minister Amit Shah. Dutifully, the Washington Post with its old US State Department links has made a whole series of serious allegations, which would be funny if they weren't noir. The fact that the Ministry of External Affairs reacted sharply to this circus, alas, does not mean there is some new-found spine, but simply that the bureaucrats were peeved that one of them, the senior IFS officer who was Ambassador to Canada, was humiliated. Normally, most bureaucrats have children in the US, or are eyeing lucrative Western sinecures. They tend not to do anything that might damage their personal interests. But this time it IS different. Things are coming to a head. The sum and substance is that, after the long-running attack on social media on Hindus as ‘pajeets' and ‘street defecators', now the stage is set to declare “the Modi regime” a “rogue government”, as though fascist, brutal, anti-minority, and other epithets they habitually use were not enough. The next step would be regime change, of course. Is India prepared to defend itself?All this is strictly from the Deep State playbook, so a priori I would blame either Foggy Bottom or Langley, but right now, in the middle of a grueling Presidential election? Don't they have bigger fish to fry? So I started to wonder if it was some other entity that had prodded Trudeau. It was interesting to see the closed ranks among the Five Eyes, which is to say English-speaking white countries or Anglosphere. Keir Starmer of the UK, again dutifully, supported Trudeau with alacrity, so much so that I began to wonder if this assault on India is actually a British plot, considering two things.Brits must have been really annoyed that an Indian-origin PM, Rishi Sunak, ruled them for a while, and they think India is insufficiently respectful of the British King, who, oddly enough, is Canada's Head of State, and probably Australian and New Zealand's as well. Maybe they blame India for Chagossians finally getting out of brutal colonial control (which by the way means the end of the grandly named “British Indian Ocean Territories”) which has an impact on the US naval base at Diego Garcia, for which Chagos islanders had been displaced. The Five Eyes have exalted opinions of themselves. For instance, one of the Biden administration's many unfathomable decisions was to downgrade the sensible Quad (the brainchild of Abe Shinzo) and instead plump for AUKUS (which is all, well, white) with the remarkable story of wanting British technology transfer to Australia re submarines. Let me repeat that: British. Technology. Transfer. And here I was, thinking the objective was to contain a rampaging China!Then there are other little episodes that need to be remembered. Sheikh Hasina stated that the US wanted an island near Chittagong for a naval base, and more alarmingly, that there was a plan for a Christian Zo state that would include territories in India, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. This is again a Deep State modus operandi, see East Timor and South Sudan. Furthemore, the US Ambassador to India, Eric Garcetti, has been hyperactive in “sub-national diplomacy” along with other US officials, meeting a Tamil supremacist M K Stalin one day, doling out funds paying special attention to the restive Northeast the next day.Not content with that, here's more from the energetic Garcetti:Assuming these tweets are authentic, things do look a little bleak for India and the “Modi regime” at the moment. Balkanizing India has long been a goal of the Deep State, reflecting the wishes of its proxies in Rawalpindi and Islamabad. I hate to be a Cassandra, but a rising and strong India is not on the agenda of anybody but Indians, and that too only some Indians. Others, and you know who they are, are quite happy to revert to the status quo of the pre-1991 era, when India, the alleged socialist paradise, steadily lost ground and became poorer and poorer relative to other countries.These are dangerous times. I have been nervous about Deep State intent since the days of Madeleine Albright and Robin Raphel, and I am concerned about the coming Kamala Harris Presidency (yes, she will be POTUS). I am worried about a faction of the US establishment that is congenitally anti-India. Given the looming threat of China, I would much prefer a good working relationship between the US and India, my two favorite countries, and I'd like to take the protestations of common interests (including a very large purchase of Predator drones by India) at face value, but as Ronald Reagan said memorably, “Trust, but verify”. 1325 words, 17 Oct 2024 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com/subscribe

Until recently, David Benatar was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, where he also directed the university's Bioethics Centre. He is widely known for his controversial and challenging views on topics like antinatalism—captured in his groundbreaking book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence—which argues that bringing new life into the world inevitably leads to suffering. In addition to his work on antinatalism, Benatar has written extensively on practical ethics, morality, and human suffering, and his most recent contributions to Quillette have focused on the conflict in Israel and rising antisemitism in the Anglosphere. In this conversation, we reflect on the anniversary of 7 October and the ethical questions it raises. The conversation concludes with a discussion of his new book, Very Practical Ethics: Engaging Everyday Moral Questions (2024). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo is a Historian and Broadcaster specialising in Royalty, British identity, the Anglosphere and immigration. He has been regularly called upon for news analysis by international media stations such as the BBC, SKY, FOX, ABC, CBS, CBC and CTV. Rafe has provided live television commentary for every major royal or ceremonial event of the past 20+ years and, in recognition of his royal commentary, received honours from the Crown in 2002 & 2012. He is a Senior Fellow at the New Culture Forum, a Fellow of the R.C.G.S. and a Trustee of the Canadian Royal Heritage Trust. He has advised various governments and NGOs. Rafe was co-editor of the critically acclaimed Burke's Peerage: World Orders of Knighthood & Merit' & author of the best-selling ‘A London Peculiar' - available here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1742575730 Rafe's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@rafalhm Rafe on X (Twitter): https://x.com/RafHM Check out our hand-selected sponsors: Ketone IQ: Save 30% off your first subscription order & receive a free six-pack of Ketone-IQ with https://ketone.com/TRIGGERNOMETRY Mint Mobile: To get your new 3-month premium wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month, go to https://mintmobile.com/TRIGGER Join our Premium Membership for early access, extended and ad-free content: https://triggernometry.supercast.com OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Music by: Music by: Xentric | info@xentricapc.com | https://www.xentricapc.com/ YouTube: @xentricapc  Buy Merch Here: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: marketing@triggerpod.co.uk Join the Mailing List: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/#mailinglist Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media:  https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod/ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod/ About TRIGGERnometry:  Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why can the United Kingdom be counted on to join the United States in blindly supporting Israel and organized Jewry's foreign policy interests?The writer Horus argues that Jewish interest groups were able to capture British institutions throughout the late 19th century and early 20th century, thereby re-orienting the UK's public policies in a pro-Jewish direction. Tune in to this thought-provoking episode of El Niño Speaks to get the red pill on Jewish influence in the Anglosphere. Buy My Book "The 10 Myths of Gun Control" TodayIf you're serious about changing the gun control status quo we live in, this book is a must.After reading this text, you will be able to hold your own in any debate with your anti-gun friends, family, or associates. No questions asked.And heck, you will have a solid foundation in championing issues like gun rights should you take your activism to the next level.Knowledge is power and the foundation for any worthwhile endeavor. With this next-level information at your fingertips, the sky is the limit.So make today the day you say NO to the gun control status quo by taking action NOW.The full retail price for The 10 Myths of Gun Control is $6.Get Your Copy TodayBookmark my Website For Direct ContactIn the era of Big Tech censorship, we can't rely on just one or two platforms to keep us connected. Bookmark my website today so you always know where to get the true, unfiltered information about the news and views that matter to you.Don't Forget to Follow me on Twitter @JoseAlNino This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit josbcf.substack.com/subscribe

Across the Anglosphere, governments on both sides of politics have never been more interested in the personal lives of their citizens. The nanny state thrives from Australia to the United Kingdom, and even in that traditional bastion of freedom, the USA.Christopher Snowdon is the UK's leading warrior against the excesses of the nanny state. He is the Head of Lifestyle Economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs, the author of six books, the editor of the Nanny State Index, and the co-host of the brilliant “Last Orders” podcast from Spiked.Please leave Fire at Will a rating and a review in your favourite podcast app!Follow Will Kingston and Fire at Will on social media here.Read The Spectator Australia here.Visit Christopher's website here.

Look who we have on a short-turnaround visit to Midrats, Dr. Emma Salisbury!We're going to cover the waterfront issues in the Anglosphere, but we'll kick off the discussion with the issues she outlined in her recent Behind the Front post, Franken-FREMM: How the Constellation Class Became a Monster.Emma recently completed her PhD at Birkbeck College, University of London, with research focusing on the history of the U.S. military-industrial complex. She is the Sea Power Research Fellow at the Council on Geostrategy, Fellow at UK Strategic Command Defence Futures, and an assistant editor at War on the Rocks.ShowlinksFranken-FREMM: How the Constellation Class Became a Monster - Emma SalisburyBeyond the Iron Triangle: The Military-Industrial Complex as Assemblage - Emma SalisburyThe US Navy has Fallen Victim to the British Disease - Tom SharpeSummaryThe conversation discusses the challenges and systemic problems in naval shipbuilding, specifically focusing on the Constellation Class FFG program. The guests highlight the lack of learning from previous failures, the accumulation of unnecessary changes, and the desire for perfection at the outset. They also explore the mindset issue in shipbuilding, the impact of economic considerations on decision-making, and the importance of maintaining shipbuilding capacity. The conversation emphasizes the need for an iterative approach and long-term planning to address these issues. The conversation explores the challenges and issues surrounding naval procurement and shipbuilding in the UK and the US. It discusses the underfunding of the armed forces, the problem of project creep, the need for investment in defense, and the importance of having a clear vision for ship designs. The conversation also touches on the potential of AI and unmanned assets in the future, the need for flexibility in ship designs, and the importance of maintaining a strong defense industrial base.TakeawaysNaval shipbuilding faces systemic problems and a lack of learning from previous failures.The desire for perfection at the outset and the accumulation of unnecessary changes contribute to shipbuilding challenges.Economic considerations and the impact on local communities often influence decision-making in shipbuilding programs.Maintaining shipbuilding capacity is crucial for national security and requires long-term planning.An iterative approach, similar to China's shipbuilding strategy, could be beneficial for naval shipbuilding programs. Both the UK and the US have historically underfunded their armed forces, leading to challenges in naval procurement and shipbuilding.Project creep, the tendency to continuously add features and modifications to a design, has been a major problem in naval procurement.Investment in defense is necessary to ensure the readiness and capability of armed forces.There is a need for a clear vision and focus on the intended role and capabilities of ships, rather than trying to make them do everything.While AI and unmanned assets hold promise for the future, there is still a long way to go in terms of technology development and integration into fleet structures.Flexibility in ship designs is important to accommodate future upgrades and capabilities.Maintaining a strong defense industrial base is crucial for national security and the success of naval procurement and shipbuilding.Chapters00:00: Introduction01:21: Systemic Problems in Naval Shipbuilding03:03: The Constellation Class FFG Program and its Challenges06:01: The Desire for Perfection and Accumulation of Changes10:26: The Need for an Iterative Approach in Shipbuilding17:47: Economic Considerations and Decision-Making in Shipbuilding22:40: The Importance of Maintaining Shipbuilding Capacity25:23: Long-Term Planning for Naval Shipbuilding29:48: Underfunding and Sea Blindness33:01: The Problem of Project Creep35:44: The Need for Defense Investment38:41: Making the Case for Defense Spending44:12: The Importance of Clear Ship Designs46:09: The Potential and Limitations of AI and Unmanned Assets49:32: Flexibility in Ship Designs for Future Upgrades52:09: The Challenge of Limited Space and Displacement55:09: Fixing the Defense Industrial Base

GUEST 1 OVERVIEW: It's 1944 and two-year-old Suzi Smeed is being smuggled out of a Hungarian ghetto into hiding. In three days, her grandparents will be on a cattle train to Auschwitz—a place they will never leave. Separated from her parents, the orphanage that was her temporary refuge is destroyed by bombing. Suzi was hidden by good people trying to keep her alive. Her desperately searching mother did find her—surviving, just, in a barn. Her beautiful red hair had fallen out and she was covered in sores. The clothes she wore, when taken away, more recognisable than her physical features. This is Suzi Smeed's harrowing start to life, revealed in her book The Courage to Care. Her memoir details her survival of the Hungarian holocaust and fleeing to Australia as a refugee with her mum and her then successful life in Australia. Now in her 80s, Suzi visits schools to educate children about the dangers of prejudice, racism and discrimination. GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: Dr Bella d'Abrera is the Director, Foundations of Western Civilisation Program at the Institute of Public Affairs. She has BA in History and Spanish from Monash University, an MA in Spanish from the University of St Andrews and a PhD in History from the University of Cambridge.  She has written and illustrated a children's book, is the author of The Tribunal of Zaragoza and Crypto-Judaism 1484-1515 and a trilogy on the English Reformation. She is currently on the Advisory Committee for the National Archives and is also member of ‘History Reclaimed' a counter-offensive against “fake history” comprising a group of more than 40 senior UK and Anglosphere academics.  Bella is a regular contributor to The Spectator Australia and other media.

Hang out with Al Mega as he chats with Wes Al-Dhaher, the Director of Tales of Khayr, publisher of “The Brotherhood of the Wolf” comic series and the first comic book publisher (indie or otherwise) creating professional comic books for English-speaking Muslim males in the Anglosphere. Tune in to learn all about the thematically rich storytelling, art and more… Don't miss this opportunity to join the Tales of Khayr community and discover the world's finest Muslim adventure story. Visit the website at: https://talesofkhayr.com/ Thank You for Watching / Listening! We appreciate your support! Episode 438 in an unlimited series! Host: Al Mega Follow on: Twitter | Instagram | Facebook): @TheRealAlMega / @ComicCrusaders Make sure to Like/Share/Subscribe if you haven't yet: https://www.youtube.com/c/comiccrusadersworld Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/comiccrusaders Visit the official  Comic Crusaders Comic Book Shop: comiccrusaders.shop Visit the OFFICIAL Comic Crusaders Swag Shop at: comiccrusaders.us Main Site: https://www.comiccrusaders.com/​​​​   Sister Site: http://www.undercovercapes.com​​​​ Pick up official Undercover Capes  Podcast Network merchandise exclusively on RedBubble.com: bit.ly/UCPNMerch Streamyard is the platform of choice used by Comic Crusaders and The Undercover Capes Podcast Network to stream! Check out their premium plans for this amazing and versatile tool, sign up now: https://bit.ly/ComicCrusadersStreamyard * Edited/Produced/Directed by Al Mega

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Number of EAs per capita by country, published by OscarD on June 30, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. I was surprised I couldn't find a graph like this already on the forum, so I made one and thought I would share it: The data is from the 2022 EA survey,[1] and here is my sheet. The main surprising thing to me is that English-speaking countries are less dominant than I expected, in this per capita framing. My vague sense was that the EA community was notably more popular in the Anglosphere than even in other rich countries, but eyeballing this data makes me think I was wrong: Northern/Western Europe seems to have quite comparable rates of EAs. And what on earth is happening in Estonia? Perhaps some Estonian EAs can tell us all what you are doing that works so well! 1. ^ Maybe there are quite different response rates by country, and this could explain some of the variance but I assume there isn't a large or systematic effect here. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Zach Rausch is Associate Research Scientist at NYU-Stern School of Business, lead researcher to Social Psychologist Jonathan Haidt, for the book- The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness and a researcher for the Center for Humane Technology. Zach worked for two years as Communications Manager at Heterodox Academy. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in sociology and religious studies and a Master of Science in psychological science from SUNY New Paltz. Zach previously studied Buddhism in Bodh Gaya, India, worked in Wilderness Therapy, and was a direct care worker in two psychiatric group homes. Zach's research and writing have been featured and cited internationally, in outlets such The Atlantic, The New Yorker, The Times, The After Babel Substack, The Free Press, Axios, Politiken, Zeit, and more. He has also given expert testimony to multiple state legislatures on the impact of social media on adolescent mental health. Zach has been called “a highly interesting person from the Anglosphere.” Zach lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and enjoys trying to fix his bicycle. Check out new book- The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness https://a.co/d/1KuyEJn

Canada was once one of the most prosperous polities in the Anglosphere. However, multiple decades of multicultural policies that have eroded Canadian identity coupled with heavy-handed regulations are beginning to make Canada inhospitable. Financial economist Fergus Hodgson authored Financial Sovereignty for Canadians: Untether Yourself from the Ottawa Leviathan to serve as a warning to all about Canada in the 21st century — a country that is on the precipice of societal decay. Tune in to this episode of El Niño Speaks to learn why dark times lie ahead for Canada. Buy My Book "The 10 Myths of Gun Control" TodayIf you're serious about changing the gun control status quo we live in, this book is a must.After reading this text, you will be able to hold your own in any debate with your anti-gun friends, family, or associates. No questions asked.And heck, you will have a solid foundation in championing issues like gun rights should you take your activism to the next level.Knowledge is power and the foundation for any worthwhile endeavor. With this next-level information at your fingertips, the sky is the limit.So make today the day you say NO to the gun control status quo by taking action NOW.The full retail price for The 10 Myths of Gun Control is $6.Get Your Copy TodayBookmark my Website For Direct ContactIn the era of Big Tech censorship, we can't rely on just one or two platforms to keep us connected. Bookmark my website today so you always know where to get the true, unfiltered information about the news and views that matter to you.Don't Forget to Follow me on Twitter @JoseAlNino This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit josbcf.substack.com/subscribe

Embark on a riveting exploration of the multifaceted relationship between the US and Europe as we're joined by Robert Greenfield, a seasoned world traveler with an expansive grasp of global affairs. Together, we traverse the landscape of Europe's defense autonomy, societal shifts stemming from immigration and demographic changes, and the continent's economic hurdles, all under the looming influence of US politics. Our guest's profound insights shed light on the integration challenges faced by European nations, while we analyze the significant influences that the impending US presidential election may exert on the transatlantic alliance.Venture deeper into the heart of European sentiment on American global standing in a post-pandemic era, where we dissect perceptions of the US as an economic titan. The conversation pivots to the contentious subject of nationalism and globalism, nuclear politics, and the evolution of modern warfare tactics, touching upon the societal implications of conflicts like those in Ukraine. We untangle the complexities of European leadership roles, with particular focus on France and Germany's delicate dance within the global security theater and their internal socio-political landscapes.To cap off our discourse, we scrutinize the cultural implications of 'woke' ideologies within European education, and the intricate entanglement of globalism, nationalism, and media portrayal in current affairs. Diving into the automotive sector, we highlight Hungary's surprising emergence as a linchpin in electric vehicle production, illuminating the broader geopolitical and economic repercussions this entails. Throughout this episode, Robert Greenfield's profound commentary illuminates the enduring partnership within the Anglosphere and its pivotal role in fostering Western unity amidst an ever-shifting global power balance.Support the Show.Engage the conversation on Substack at The Common Bridge!

Duelling was at its peak in the Anglosphere in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and entailed with a very specific code of conduct 

In this episode the Anglosphere is thoroughly represented as Thomas (UK) is joined by Antipodean Bolt (AUS) and Anaxandrides (US) for a globe spanning NCA faction review! Find out what's new for the grand old lady of PanOceania since Reinforcements dropped and hear a few tactical pearls of wisdom from our two long serving PanO veterans. WARNING: There is one (1) swear in this episode unforgivably uttered by your Northern host for which he has been publicly flogged and made to wear a dunces cap for a whole day. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/wip12podcast/message

GUEST OVERVIEW: Darren Brady Nelson is a truth-bomb throwing chief economist, media commentator and apologetic Christian who calls both Australia and America home. He works with think tanks, industry associations and political influencers from around the Anglosphere in dogged pursuit of Life, Liberty and Economics.

On this episode, my guests are and of the Podcast.Clementine Morrigan is a writer and public intellectual based in Montréal, Canada. She writes popular and controversial essays about culture, politics, ethics, relationships, sexuality, and trauma. A passionate believer in independent media, she's been making zines since the year 2000 and is the author of several books. She's known for her iconic white-text-on-a-black-background mini-essays on Instagram. One of the leading voices on the Canadian Left and one half of the F*****g Cancelled podcast, Clementine is an outspoken critic of cancel culture and a proponent of building solidarity across difference. She is a socialist, a feminist, and a vegan for the animals and the earth.Jay is a writer, artist and designer from Montreal and is the author of the Substack jaylesoleil.com and the zine series What Else Is There to Live For. Jay is also the co-host of F*****g Cancelled.Show Notes:Clementine & Jay's TravelsThe NexusIdentitarianism and Identity PoliticsGentrification & SolidarityHow Nationalism Leaks into the LeftThe Contradictions of IdentitarianismFreedom, Limits and GuesthoodBorders and BiomesThe Quest for Offline CommunitiesRadical & Reciprocal HospitalityAuthenticityHomework:Clementine's SubstackJay's Substack (including Dumplings & Domination)Clementine's ShopJay's StoreF*****g Cancelled ShopF*****g Cancelled PodcastTranscriptChris: [00:00:00] Welcome to the pod, Clementine and Jay. It's an honor to have you both here today. Each of your work both individually and together has been a great influence on mine and definitely eye-opening and if I can say so much needed in our time. So thank you for joining me. Jay: Thank you, man. Thanks for having us.Clementine: Thanks for having us.Chris: So, I'd like to start, if we can, by asking you both where you find yourselves today and what the world looks like for you through each of your eyes.Jay: Well, we both find ourselves in Montreal which is where we live. I was working in homeless shelters for years and then I got let go cause I tried to unionize the one I was working at. Actually I succeeded in unionizing the one I was working at. And they mysteriously did not have any money to renew my contract after that.And yeah, so I'm writing and I just launched a new solo podcast about like world history outside of the West. And so I've been working on that. It's called [00:01:00] dumplings and domination, which are two things that human beings love. And Yeah, so that's, that's what I'm up to. Clementine: Yeah, so I'm also, yeah, I find myself in Montreal, in the snow, and I guess, relevant to the topics of this podcast one of the things I'm grappling with now is my perpetual existence as a unilingual anglophone in the city of Montreal, which is a bilingual city, but it's a French city, like.Actually. And I'm planning on having a child and I'm planning to have this child here. And so I'm facing the dilemma of being like an English speaker whose child is not going to just be an English speaker. And so I really need to learn French, basically. So this is my struggle, because being 37 and only speaking one language my entire life, it's like super hard to learn another language.And I've really, really struggled. A couple times I've made an attempt to learn French, and it's like really [00:02:00] frustrating, but that is one of the things I'm grappling with. I feel like it's relevant to the podcast, because in many ways, even though I've lived in Montreal for like almost seven years, there's a way in which I still am kind of like a tourist here, because I haven't learned the language.So, will I complete my transition into becoming Quebecois? Chris: Yeah, maybe so. Jay: Only time will tell. Chris: I was just reading this biography of Ivan Illich, who's like was an Austrian philosopher and he said that like trying to learn a new language, especially if you're immersed in the place is the greatest measure or degree of poverty that one can undertake because of the degree of dependence that they have on other people and not just dependence, but like dependence on their hospitality, assuming it exists in order to, you know, be able to understand what you're saying and communicate in that way. Clementine: Like Montreal is interesting because at least in the neighborhood that I live and in many places in [00:03:00] Montreal, it's functionally bilingual. So it's not like learning in an immersive environment as if you went somewhere and everybody's speaking that language.So you kind of just have to or you won't be able to communicate. Like you have to learn here. You know, when I'm fumbling around trying to speak French, people just start speaking English to me because even if they're a francophone, like, at least in the neighborhoods where I live, most people are bilingual, and they speak better English than I do French, so they will accommodate me, which is polite of them, and also, It does not help me learn, you know?Jay: Whereas the government of Quebec will not accommodate you. Clementine: No, the government will not accommodate you at all. And so, like, it's only in circumstances where, like, I desperately need to understand where, like, there's no, there's absolutely no accommodation. So. Chris: And that kind of touches on my next question, which is, you know, in terms of the travels that you two have.Has there been that degree of poverty elsewhere? I mean, I imagine you might have traveled to other places maybe in Canada, maybe elsewhere. [00:04:00] What have your travels taught you each, if anything, about the world, about your lives, about culture? Jay: Yeah. I had kind of an unusual relationship with travel.Because as a kid, I moved to a different country every like three or four years cause of my parents work. And so, yeah, I grew up like in Asia and not just like dipping into a place and then like leaving right away but spending years of my life in each country. Right. And like learning the languages and stuff.And so, yeah, I think that was a quite an unusual way to kind of experience travel as a kid. And I think that it did definitely have a lot of impact on me. Because I think that travel in general, I think is a wonderful and amazing thing, you know, which is why people like to do it. And it can be really profound for your mind and your understanding of the world and of other people, you know but obviously there's travel and then there's [00:05:00] travel.I feel really grateful that I was able to see so much of the world by living there, you know and I think that it was really important for me in my kind of embodied understanding that other people and other parts of the world are, you know, just as real and just as important and just as embedded in history as I am and as like the people are in my passport country, which happens to be Canada, you know?Clementine: Yeah. I've traveled a little bit, but I think for me, like, When I was young, I was too crazy to travel, you know, and I truly mean that, like I have complex PTSD and like as much as my life was so chaotic and like really, like, you know, on F*****g Cancelled, Jay and I talk about how we're both alcoholics in recovery, like, When I was drinking, I always wanted to be someone who traveled, and my life was very, like, chaotic and full of violence and danger and all those types of things, but the PTSD made it really hard to do [00:06:00] anything because I was always scared, you know and being a woman traveling... like, in recovery, I've wanted to try to travel more, but the combination of one being a woman traveling alone, it does come with certain risks to it.You're more vulnerable in certain ways and then add that to the PTSD. It's like... it's super anxiety producing, you know, so it's something that I've done a little bit but not as much as I would have liked to and I guess we'll see like what the future holds with that. One thing is is that like I learned to drive pretty late.I learned to drive in my 30s and once I learned to drive going on road trips was actually a way that really opened up travel for me because having my car with me gave me this sense of like safety, basically, that I could leave a situation like I was there with my car. So I had like the independence to like not be dependent on like strangers because I was afraid of them basically.But we went on a podcast tour last [00:07:00] year and drove like all across the United States in like a month and like drove down to like Arizona and like back up the West coast. And like, that was really, really cool. Chris: Beautiful. Thank you both. And so, you know, it might seem a little strange for you two to be invited on a podcast about tourism, migration, hospitality given that, you know, perhaps on the surface of things, your work doesn't appear to center around such things, but I've asked you both to speak with me today, in part, because I see a lot of parallels between what you've both referred to as the nexus in your work and what I refer to as the, a touristic worldview. And so to start, I'm wondering if you two could explain for our listeners, what the nexus is and its three main pillars.Clementine: So, in shorthand, or in, like, common language, you might call it social justice culture. There's a lot of different ways that this culture has been talked about but it's a particular [00:08:00] way of doing politics on the left, or left of center. And. Like, Jay and I come from inside this culture, so we are coming from inside social justice culture, being, like, leftists and being queer people and having existed in, like, progressive social justicey spaces for our entire adult lives, basically.And basically, we're noticing that there wasn't really language to talk about some of the phenomenons that were happening inside social justice culture or even, you know, social justice culture itself doesn't really give itself a name. Like we can call it social justice culture or we could call it something else, but it doesn't really have a name that it like claims for itself.It basically describes itself as like just doing politics or like being morally correct, you know, right? Yeah, being right. So we just started using the nexus as kind of like a placeholder for talking about a phenomenon that like doesn't really have a name. And we were trying to describe like this social phenomenon that we were totally [00:09:00] immersed in that there wasn't really language to describe. And we pulled out like three components that we saw interacting with each other to produce this phenomenon that we were calling the Nexus. And those pillars or components would be cancel culture, social media, and identitarianism. So, you maybe want to say more. Jay: Yeah, and we were just noticing how like when those three components were interacting on the left, you know they were producing a kind of like fourth thing that we were calling the Nexus and it's just like cancel culture was kind of this, you know, this culture of disposability and very sort of like intense acrimony functioned to sort of like boundary the whole thing and to keep, you know, certain views out and keep certain views in and sort of like establish the boundaries of what was thinkable or not.And the identitarianism provided the sort of ideological underpinning of the whole thing, like a way of making sense of the world, a [00:10:00] way of thinking about any problem and any issue, you know? And then social media was kind of the medium in which it was all taking place. And that was providing a lot of the kind of like the scaffolding of what it ended up looking like.Yeah. Does that make sense? Chris: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you both. And so I like to start then if I can with with identitarianism and you know as it pertains to, I guess, the end of tourism podcast and the way I've come to understand it is that to be a tourist isn't just to be a foreigner, but a stranger to the place one inhabits.And so in this sense, I feel that people can be tourists in their own homes and to a large degree the housing crisis, among many others seems to enable and ennoble this, you know, people know that they won't be able to afford a rent increase. And so they don't bother getting to know their neighbors or participating in the community.And beyond that community is often described in demographic terms, you know, the black community, the queer community, et cetera. But rarely [00:11:00] anymore in terms of the diverse people that you actually live beside or near. And so, for me, this is where tourism not only hits home, but is kind of unveiled as maybe beginning at home.You know, it's not just an industry, but something akin to a lifestyle or culture, as you said, Jay, of disposability. And so in this context, what I understand is identitarianism seems to enable this kind of touristic mentality of not needing to think of myself as a person of consequence in my building or in my neighborhood because I'll be out of here in another year or two anyway, right?And so I'm curious what you think of this idea and whether you think that identitarianism is a consequence of these crises that exist today, like the housing crisis, like landlordism, for example. Jay: Yeah, I definitely think it's all connected.And I think that I think that a huge part of all of this, right, is accelerating alienation that people are experiencing under the [00:12:00] dominant form of neoliberal capitalism. And alienation just describes this deep embodied sense of disconnection from oneself, from one's work and from one's fellows.And this is a concept that goes all the way back to Marx and before him even, you know, but Marx, I think correctly identified that capitalism had a mechanism within it that amplified this, this sense and created more of it. And I think that as we hurdle down the path of neoliberal apocalypse, we're sort of like more and more exposed to the sense of alienation.And so what does that mean? It means that we end up feeling like we don't know who we are. We don't know where we are. We don't know who the people around us are. We're just sort of floating, we're atomized, you know. We don't have roots or the connections that we do have feel fleeting and shallow.You know, and it produces obviously a deep sense of like misery in a lot of people, [00:13:00] whether they know it or not, I would say. But it also produces a longing for connections that feel real and that feel authentic. And I think that the turn towards identitarianism that has become more and more apparent over the last like decade or so both on the left and the right because I think that the rise of like the alt right, for example, was very much an identitarian movement as well. Yeah, it's that, that pivot towards identitarianism is a consequence of people feeling like they have no connections and they really want connections. They want to feel embedded in something, you know and so they're looking for other forms of community that they can belong to other than the communities that they actually live in, you know, because those communities that they actually live in have started to feel so disconnected and illusory, right?I do have more to say about the concept of like authenticity and all of this, which I think is like really foundational to tourism. But I will pass the mic. Well, I feel like we're probably going to get [00:14:00] into it later. Clementine: Okay. Well, yeah. So I mean, I think when talking about identitarianism, it's useful to make the distinction between identitarianism and identity politics.And we make that distinction on the podcast, but in case listeners aren't really familiar with the term identitarianism, I think it's useful for us to be a little bit clear about what we mean. And basically, identitarianism is distinct from identity politics. So, identity politics is just basically saying that identity matters when we're thinking about what is affecting people's lives, right?And when we're organizing politics, when we're trying to think of solutions where we can make the world better, identity is going to play a role. And that just means we're acknowledging that things like racism exists, homophobia exists, like, sexism exists, that the ways that our lives are shaped are impacted by identity.And like, we agree with that, we're not against that, as a framework. But identitarianism takes identity politics to a new place, where it basically does two main things to it. One, it [00:15:00] acts as if identity groups are homogenous, or share, like, very intense essential qualities, you know? So, when you make a statement, like, the BIPOC community thinks this.You're being identitarian and you're also being essentialist because you're actually making a statement in which you're saying that billions of people share a view, which is incorrect and also, like, very disrespectful to the vast diversity of thought that exists within any identity group, right? So it's actually like, it's an expression of essentialism and this belief that, like identity groups share essential qualities.And it erases, like, the vast political differences and personal differences that don't exist always within any identity group. And then secondly, Identitarianism acts as if identity is the primary or only way that power functions. So when we're trying to understand, like, what is wrong with the world, and what is going on, and why are we all suffering?Identitarianism [00:16:00] encourages us to look first, and maybe only, at identity as the way in which power is divided and organized. And so, in this way, you know, we have people, like basically collecting identity points. And what I mean by that is, like, adding up their various identities to try to understand their lives and their access to power.So people will be like, okay, I have these identities that are considered marginalized identities, and then I have these identities that are considered privileged identities. And so if I do some math, I'll be able to figure out where I stand in terms of power, right? And this is a total oversimplification of the way that power works.Identity is probably impacting your life in various ways. and may have a role in like your access to power, but it is not the only thing, and it's not as simple as just adding and subtracting to try to figure this out, and many, many things are lost when we are only using identity as the way to understand power, and so like when you're talking about, I just want to say that like that what you said [00:17:00] about people moving, I think is really fascinating because I moved like every year or two years.My entire, like actually I kind of haven't stopped because I've only lived where I currently live for like just about two years. So, I've basically been doing that since I was 16. I'm 37. Wow. Chris: Wow. Wow. Clementine: You know, and like, I don't mean cities, but I mean neighborhoods and at least apartments, you know, and actually my current neighborhood I've lived in probably the longest that I've ever lived anywhere but I've still moved several times and I've managed to stay in the same neighborhood, but like over the course of my teenage years, all my entire twenties and into my thirties, like, I was just constantly moving.And, you know, I, I had a sense of place in terms of the city I lived in. Like, I was living in Toronto for most of for my twenties. But I lived all over that f*****g city. Like, all over that city. You know, I didn't live in any particular neighborhood. And so because of that, like, I didn't really have that sense of like place and like there wasn't really a point in knowing my neighbors because it's true. I was going to [00:18:00] be moving and I knew that and so that is like a material reality that is being structured by capitalism and by landlords and rent and not having enough money and not having housing security.And identitarianism isn't really helping me to understand that, right? Like I can't really make sense of that experience if my only lens that I'm looking at the situation with is identity. And that's just like one example, but there's many, many things that, identity as if it's our only frame is not going to help us to understand.Jay: Or like it, it might help you feel like you understand it, but it's probably not going to give you a very good explanation, you know clear picture. Yeah, it's like there's this word that I stumbled across recently. I think it's like "monocausotaxophilia" I'm pretty sure is what it is and it's like the it's like the obsessive belief that like one there's like one answer for everything or like one thing can help you explain everything and it's it's like a common like logical fallacy that humans fall into, where like we just we discover something that really seems like it's right and then we're [00:19:00] like this can explain everything we can just apply this to everything, you know, and I think that identitarianism is like a an excellent example of this tendency that humans have Chris: Yeah.Wow. Kind of monotheism for politics, I guess. It's fascinating for me because I see a lot of these identitarianist dynamics play out in the context of tourist cities and the one that I lived in, still live around, just not in anymore.And then of course the people that I interview who deal with over tourism and of course all the crises that come with it. And so You know, like in the early pandemic, for example, in places like Oaxaca or Medellin in Colombia, for example, they suddenly became hotspots for digital nomads and other tourist escapees.And the consequences of over tourism in these places already existed, but once travel restrictions had [00:20:00] dropped and vaccines were doled out, places like this, and maybe the more obvious ones like Bali or Hawaii or Barcelona those consequences exploded and, you know, the number of visitors skyrocketed. And so both local people and foreigners opened Airbnb after Airbnb, and this is kind of what ended up happening in a lot of places in the, in the course of, you know, a couple of years essentially deepening the economic and social divisions in those places. And so what we've seen is that people simply tend to point their finger at the tourists, at the foreigner, ignoring the economic and political issues that affect these things.And so, what's arisen on the internet at least have been faceless social media accounts basically cancelling tourists or foreigners for you know anything you can think of for being cheap, people complaining about prices on their YouTube video or whatever, and others criticizing local cultures for X Y Z Zed pardon me and some Some who [00:21:00] refuse to, like, to speak the local language, for example, all of which, you know, constitutes bad behavior.And even still, like, other people, foreigners who become landlords in their new homes, right, who move to another country and just, you know, rent a nice place and then put it on Airbnb or something. And so, I'm curious about the individual? And why do you think, in so many of these cases, especially in regards to people who claim to be leftists or anarchists or radicals, that the focus is squarely put on individuals or individual behavior as opposed to the conditions or systems that created that behavior?Jay: Oh yeah, I mean, we've become like ludicrously unable to actually look at structural causes of anything in a way that allows us to formulate policy and work towards policy. Like, I think that like one of the major like failings of the left currently is that it is, especially in like the Anglo world, like completely f*****g unmoored from policy.I think in the US there's like a really [00:22:00] obvious reason for that, which is that there is, you know, no political party that's even remotely. So the idea that you could, that you could have policy that you like is sort of like nonsense to people in the first place. Right.So everything then becomes about either it would become either about individual behavior or about some sort of like more radical revolutionary option, you know but the radical revolutionary option doesn't exist. So it's all about the individual behavior. And a comparable situation is going on elsewhere in the Anglosphere as well where the sort of like political avenues for policymaking are severely lacking.So I think that there's this like strong, strong emphasis on the individual, on individual behavior, on moralizing on sort of angrily saying what should be true rather than working with like, you know, like reality. Yeah. Clementine: Yeah, I think that people, like, we haven't seen an effective left in our lifetime, like, you know, like we haven't seen the left making gains, like, for [00:23:00] millennials, like basically for our entire lives, you know?We haven't seen movements be successful, and so we feel very powerless. Like, there's a deep, deep sense of powerlessness in the face of capitalism and in the face of climate change and in the face of so many of the horrible conditions that we're living under, and we don't have a lot of evidence of things working, but we know we have the power to take down some individual person and publicly humiliate them and destroy their life.And so I think people get very addicted to that sense of power because it is like a balm to the abject helplessness that we feel under capitalism where we don't have a lot of power to really make the changes that we want to make, you know, but one of the things we're always talking about on the podcast is how cancel culture, while it provides this like temporary relief and this feeling like we're doing something like we have power.In fact, it erodes the very conditions that would allow us to have real power and the conditions that would allow us to have real power are solidarity. Right. Like, the one thing that the working class of the world [00:24:00] has that the capitalists don't is our numbers, right?Like, they have all the money and the use of force, you know? But we, there's just lots of us, and also we are the ones who make all their s**t. Like, or like, run their little online companies or whatever it is that they're doing now. Yeah, exactly. So, it's like literally the workers of the world are the ones who actually make capitalism run and there are no profits if the workers of the world organized and f*****g withdrew their labor, right? But currently, we don't have any conditions of like an organized working class movement that could actually threaten to do something like that. And so, there's no real avenue. Like unions have been like totally f*****g eroded there's no solidarity.There's no, like Workers movement that is being effective. I mean there are attempts at it like there was I don't know what happened with it because I'm off social media now, and I haven't been checking the news, but there was a gigantic like uprising of Bangladeshi textile workers who were like going on strike and like the police were trying to totally shut them down.I don't know what ended up happening kind of disappeared off my radar, but I think any movement for solidarity, you [00:25:00] know, cancel culture b******t aside, because honestly, it is such a distraction. Like it's annoying and it's a distraction would have to move towards like international solidarity.And I think that this is something that... we don't even have, like, solidarity, like, where we live, let alone solidarity, like, across the globe with workers in different places, you know? But under global capitalism, I think we're going to have to start looking with an internationalist lens and thinking about what would it look like to have the workers of the world actually uniting.Jay: Yeah. It reminds me of gentrification, you know? It's like, individual gentrifiers are sure like annoying, right? You know, people who sort of like don't belong there and are bringing their like annoying habits into the neighborhood or whatever, you know, and driving up prices and all this.But at the end of the day, this is like a structural issue that can only be solved by policy, right? You can't, you can't just sort of like be hostile towards gentrifiers and expect that to sort of like end up with anything other than you being angry and other people perhaps being frightened for like a couple of years until the [00:26:00] process of gentrification is complete.And I think that you know, there's like a similar thing with tourism, you know, I mean, tourism is just kind of like gentrification on like a, an international scale in a certain sense. Yeah. Chris: Yeah. Yeah. I mean here in Oaxaca, tourism is like 85 90 percent of the economy in the center of the city. And so it's all changing really quickly, wherein, people are sometimes hearing more English than Spanish in the streets, right? Not just in Oaxaca, but in other places as well. So there's this relative and understandable kind of resentment against the foreigner, but then when we have these gatherings and, you know, people ask me, well, like, "what should we do?" And I say, "well, go talk to the tourist, like, you can build solidarity with that person, even if it's by them understanding what's going on here, and maybe not coming back. As an extreme example, right. But what's also happened as a result, not just this waving or wagging the finger at the individual, but also in the context of identitarianism, reconvening the nation state.[00:27:00] And so my next question.. It kind of feeds off of the first and has to do with the effects or consequences of this kind of pseudo cancel culture that arises from tourism crises in places like Oaxaca and others. And so what you tend to see are locals identifying tourists or foreigners based on skin color.In Latin America, you know, the tourist is by and large the gringo, or the gringa, basically a white American. And what's happening as a result, especially among people who consider themselves, again, leftist or anarchist, is that they end up self identifying in opposition to the foreigner. And so what we see is an over identification, or what I will call anyways an over identification, with one's own skin color, class, and especially, especially now, nationality.And so, understanding the other as American means I'm Mexican or Colombian, or whatever, right? And I'm curious whether or not either of you consider [00:28:00] identitarianism to be a child of nationalism or how nationalism fits into these contemporary understandings of identitarianism.Jay: Right, right. Well, okay, I definitely have some thoughts about that for sure. I would say that like, nationalism is certainly one of the kind of original modern identities, right?And it was very much like crafted on purpose to be that, which I think that a lot of people don't know, unless they've like, you know, done like a sociology degree or something, but nationalism and the nation itself was like a modern invention created a couple of hundred years ago for specific political purposes, namely to unite quite disparate populations within at that time, mainly like European countries and to try to get the children of those people to think of themselves as like French instead of Breton, you know and to get them to speak French instead of Breton, right? As an example. And there is similar cases all over Europe. Anyways, that being aside, yes, like [00:29:00] nationalism certainly is like a form of identity and one of the most important forms of modern identity. I think that when we talk about identitarianism, often we end up not talking about nationalism very much because on the left, nationalism tends to be sort of like not the most important identity.It's one that you kind of downplay, especially if your nationality is one of the privileged Western rich nationalities, right? However, obviously if your nationality might you know get you points in, in whatever sort of like game you're playing, then you might, you might play it up.Clementine: Yeah, I have a couple things to say about this. I mean, one, the nexus or social justice culture, that we talk about on F*****g Cancelled, comes out of the United States of America. And the United States of America, they don't know that they're in the United States of America. So, Jay: This might be surprising to people because of the number of flags that are everywhere in America, but they don't know that they're in america.Clementine: They think they're just in the world. They think that that is the world, you know? And so, [00:30:00] there is this like, this lack of awareness or like basically they're not contextualizing what they're thinking and doing in an American context, even though it is, and then they're exporting that to the rest of the world, especially like English speaking places.But then it like leaks out from there. But it is an American way of understanding things based in an American context and an American history, right? And so you see this a lot with identitarianism where the popular framings and understandings around race, for example, that are going around social justice culture right now are specifically coming out of an American context and American constructions around race, and they don't map on perfectly to other contexts, but because it's being exported, because Americans are exporting their culture all over the world, we, in other places, are expected to just take it on and to start using that framework. And people do, but it doesn't really work properly. It doesn't really make sense in a different context. So that is a way in which like nation kind of disappears even though it is operating [00:31:00] in the way that identity is actually being shaped. Another thing that happens, and Jay and I were just talking about this for an upcoming episode. Another thing that happens is that because in North America anyway, like we don't really use nation as a category in identitarian thought, what ends up happening is that people actually racialize their national identity in a weird way to make it make sense in identitarianism. And so one of the ways that this can happen is that people from South America who are white, in a Northern American context, are sometimes racialized and considered people of color because they are not speaking like English as a first language, for example, or because there's cultural markers that are showing them as not North American, and so therefore they are impacted by various types of discrimination and so on and so forth, but in their context, they are actually racialized as white, but then in North [00:32:00] America, they may be racialized as non-white. And so this actually comes through like a I mean, first of all, it shows that race is like a made up category that can shift and be expressed in different ways.But also it is partially like the narcissism of North America that can't conceptualize difference, basically, and understand that, like, a person can actually be white and from South America and speak Spanish, for example. Jay: Which, like, this can also sometimes, we were joking about this, too, because it's true, like, this can also sometimes extend to people not being sure about, for example, like Portuguese people, and sort of like racializing Portuguese people on the basis of their sort of supposed affinity with like Latin America.⌘ Chris Christou ⌘ is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Yeah. Yeah. And I don't know, one thing that I want to mention too, you're just reminding me of this because of my research that you, that you mentioned is that like racialism, which is the idea that race is important and, and as a major identity category that people should care about a lot, let's put it that way, has often existed very [00:33:00] uneasily with nationalism.And so for a lot of like neo Nazis, they're not necessarily like opposed to nationalism, but they would, they would treat racial affinity with much more importance than they would a national affinity, especially when the national affinity is seen to have been kind of polluted by like foreign elements, for example, you know, and a big part of the national project has been to say that, like, we are all members of this national identity, sort of like, no matter who we are, blah, blah, blah. Right. And obviously some of us are more than others, right, is usually is how it's gone, but it tries to integrate like many different groups of people, including, you know, in the United States, for example, including like black Americans.Right. And, you know, the project of the integrated military, for example, has been a big part of the American national imaginary but if you're a white racist, you're not interested in a sort of national identity that, that includes black Americans as [00:34:00] well.Right. And this is also somewhat true on the left in different ways. But yeah, I'll just put that out there. Yeah. And then I guess the only other last thing I would like to say about this is that when we are anti essentialist and anti identitarian on the left, one of the things that, that like an anti racism that is rooted in an opposition to essentialism will argue and put forth is that race is a constructed and made up concept, right, which is something that I believe: race is not a real thing.It is like racism is real, but racism is based on the invention of this way of dividing up people based on race. And so there's a lot of anti essentialist leftists who are arguing this, but one thing that is important is to not confuse race, which is a made up category, with culture and ethnicity, which are real things, right?And one of the things, like, Jay and I have been talking about, and we're going to do an episode about this, or, like, related to these ideas, is, like, we actually care a lot about things, like, language protection, [00:35:00] culture protection, like the importance of people being able to keep and protect their cultural identities is like, it's a very important thing in respecting people's like human dignity.And in Canada, where colonialism has so thoroughly attacked indigenous Canadian people's cultures. They don't have their languages anymore. And like, Protecting language is, like, hugely important for people's mental health and well being, right? So, dividing those two things, that being, like saying race isn't real doesn't mean that we're not in favor of protecting culture and language.Yeah. Chris: Right, right, right. Of course. What's interesting about the, I guess, the reactions to overtourism here, it's not just that, Oh, the gringo is an American, so I'm a Mexican, but it's also racialized. It's also, okay. So who I see on the street, white people, and because I'm dark skinned, it reinforces those dualities, binaries, et cetera but it re-racializes local people, and in the context of Mexico [00:36:00] anyways the roots of their understandings of their racializedness, if I can say that comes from the imposition of race, of races, by the Spaniards, onto them, and saying this is who you are now, 400 years ago.Right? And so the new invasion, the tourism, right, is recapitulating that dynamic in ways in which people internalize the racial impositions that were put on them 400 years ago. Or their ancestors, right, I should say. So it's just mind boggling.Clementine: Yeah, I think, I think it's interesting though, right? Because how do we hold, like, the importance of culture and language and ethnicity while also acknowledging that those things were always shifting, changing, like, were never a static, constant thing, you know?That always included diversity, and within it, language is always changing and evolving. Culture is always changing and evolving, but also those things are real things that you can speak about and point to, and definitely notice when they'restolen from you or when you're no longer allowed to speak your language.Right. So yeah, like, I think we tend to go [00:37:00] to extremes. It's either like it doesn't exist or it's not important, or it's like a very essential, like static thing that has always only been one thing. Chris: Yeah, and also for a lack of history, right? I've been doing this investigation into Macedonian culture, ethnicity, history, etc, in part because my father is a first generation immigrant to Toronto, but from Agaean Macedonia and, you know, the Ottoman Empire was there controlling those lands for four or 500 years.And so the Ottomans were Muslim and the Macedonians weren't Macedonians to them, they were Christians. They were a Christian race, Mm-Hmm regardless of their language. And then when the Ottoman Empire fell, the Greeks and the Bulgarians ended up fighting over that territory, that land, that a lot of people considered to be Macedonian.And so the Greeks and the Bulgarians referred [00:38:00] to the Macedonians as the Macedonian race, no longer the Christian race, but the Macedonian race. So anyways, beyond that, once you get into the 20th century and start speaking in a global context, it's like, no, no, no, they're not the Macedonian race, they're a white race from Macedonia.And so, just this idea that race is inherently tied to skin color is very contemporary and it depends, of course, where it's coming from and who it's coming from, right? This idea of what race is becomes very fluid. I wanted to ask you two about escapism. I was just listening to your episode on freedom as a principle. Mm hmm. One of your most recent episodes and in it, you two speak of carceral institutions, jails, obviously, and I don't think it's very difficult to imagine how a touristic worldview, one built around escapism arises so fervently among people who feel powerless [00:39:00] to change the conditions in the culture that are oppressive and domineering.At the same time the glorification and commodification of that escapism through tourism creates a kind of a culture of abandonment and disposability, in the sense that you're leaving behind all your people and then once you get to this place, well, you're actually not responsible for anything you do there because it's not my, it's not my people, not my home.And so I'm curious, do you think that the freedom, that is usually couched in the freedom of movement has limits? And what do you make of the the inability to stay still in the context of all this?Jay: Man. Yeah, I mean it just makes me think about my own sort of like internal struggles that I have where like, basically like whenever I'm not doing very well, I have this part of me that wants nothing more than to just f**k off and travel sort of like indefinitely. It's like one of my strongest like internal urges, you know.I [00:40:00] don't know. I just keep thinking about that. But yeah, I mean, another thing that comes to mind for me, that is not, not a direct answer to your question, but it's just something that's coming up for me is that like, I think for like so many people in the wealthy West, you know they live in places that are comfortable because they're in the wealthy West, but they're like psychologically so destructive because it's just like these like vistas of like parking lots and like box stores and like depressing nothing places that no one could ever love and I think that like for a lot of people, and I hate to say this because it sounds like snobbish, you know, but it's like, whether or not they know it they are being psychologically attacked by the f*****g places that they live, you know, and there's a part of them that is like, I want nothing more than to get out of here, you know, and see something beautiful, and my question is sort of like, why can't we live in beautiful places? You know, and, and I actually like do live in a beautiful place and I love where I live, you know, [00:41:00] and the neighborhood in Montreal where I live is like gorgeous, you know it's a beautiful place to just walk around and look at stuff.It's very f*****g pretty. And there's a reason why I live here, you know, and I lived in other parts of the city and, and I gave up. You know, bigger, cheaper apartments to live here because I like how it looks and I like how it makes me feel to sort of like leave my house and f*****g walk around. And other people like it too.Millions of people come to Montreal as tourists. We actually have tourists in this neighborhood. And, and like when I leave my house and like walk around the corner, there's like lineups of tourists, you know that I have to sort of like navigate to like get to the gym.Because they're flocking around because it's f*****g nice here. But like a lot of places in North America are really not nice. They're not nice places to look at. They're not nice places to live. You can't f*****g walk anywhere, even if you wanted to you know, everything basically looks the same as everything else, you know?And yeah, it's not surprising to me that people would want to get out of there. Right. Also though, as I say this, it's not just North America that people [00:42:00] come from when they're tourists, right. Right. We're seeing like a gigantic increase in tourism from countries like China. Japan has always produced a lot of tourists, you know? So I think like part of it is just that like, as people get wealthier the desire to just see different things and whatever is always present in people and if they can do it, like there's no particular reason why they wouldn't but I think that it's, it's definitely worth trying to imagine what travel could look like and what like guesthood could look like, you know outside of a context where it's all just like this very commodified process that is not necessarily very great for the people who are on the kind of like hosting end of it.But yeah, again, like I live in a heavily touristed city, but apart from the tourists being quite annoying to have to walk around, like when there's like snow everywhere and they're taking up the whole sidewalk apart from that, and the fact that like Airbnb is a big problem in Montreal they don't bother me much here and I think that like a big part of that is just the, like, you know, Montreal is a very wealthy city, you know, so like an influx of like wealthy [00:43:00] foreigners doesn't like impact it that much other than to sort of like inject cash into the economy, which is not such a bad thing, right? And I do think that like part of the answer to all this is that we need to be like taking seriously internationalist solidarity and like the development of places that are not as developed.And it reminds me of like sort of debates about immigration to the West, you know, and it's like immigration, is a complicated topic and people have lots of different opinions about it, but like a lot of people on the liberal left will, will, will act like immigration is all by itself, like an amazing, awesome thing, always. And then people on the right will act like it's this terrible thing always. And I'm like, I don't know, it's kind of a neutral thing, you know, like there are good and bad things about it. Obviously people being able to travel is like a nice thing. I'll just say this, like, I think that like immigration is a good thing when the places that people are coming from are not so undeveloped or so poor that it's like forcing people out. Right. You know what I mean? And yeah, I dunno, , that was, that was like five [00:44:00] different tensions, so That's great. Chris: Love it. Clementine: So what, what is coming up for me is I saw this drawing that was like of whales swimming in the ocean.And it was like, basically saying something like, borders aren't real, because like, there's no borders in the ocean for whales or whatever. And this is part of this, like, thing on the left, and it's kind of related to what Jay was just saying, that, like, on the left, we do have this, this big like, belief in things like open borders or just free movement, free travel as, like, this positive and, kind of obviously good thing that we should support and I understand it, but at the same time, the fantasy that there aren't different areas in the natural world is false.There might not be borders, but there are biomes. And one of the things about travel that I don't think gets talked about a lot, and that is a big issue with, like, environmental destruction, is actually the reality of biomes and the fact that the movement of people across the world at the rapid way that we do it now [00:45:00] is moving plants, microbes, fungus from biome to biome and in different biomes the way that evolution works is that, like, those ecosystems were totally separate for all of this time, and then when some new, plant, animal, microbe, fungus gets into this new ecosystem, it may be that the other beings that live there have no defense against it, right? And then it causes massive problems, such as what goes on with invasive species.But like, just as a random example, like one of the major things that's causing extinction of bats is the introduction of this fungus into North America that comes from Europe or something and it comes on like tourists. They come and they don't know that they have it on them because it's just like little fungus and then they go and they visit bat caves and then they accidentally infect the bats and the bats are all getting sick and dying, you know, and so I just bring up this random example because the question of like what does it mean to be responsible when we go somewhere [00:46:00] when Even us just going there can cause problems that we didn't intend, you know?And it is a really complicated question. I'm not saying I necessarily have the answer. But especially from an environmental perspective, even if we get climate change under control, even if we deal with, you know fossil fuels, which we're not even close to dealing with, but even if we deal with that, we would still have this big question of, if we are going to continue to travel, say we get rid of planes, and then we have like airships and we're able to fly in a way that's not killing the climate, we still have this big question about what it means when we're bringing things on our clothes by accident.And I'm kind of like, instead of like security at airports, like I wonder if there could be like these places where we go in and we basically have to like leave our things. And like, when we arrive, we get like a special clothes that we wear. I don't know what it would look like because we're carrying fungus on our clothes.Jay: So. It would be really interesting to think about borders in a better world, you know and what that might look like, because I can imagine something like where it's like a supra national kind of like agreement between [00:47:00] different countries and stuff. And like the border is the border of the biome, not the border between the countries, you know?Clementine: Yeah, and I was just talking about it on like an environmental level, which I do think is very important and doesn't really get talked about enough. But I also think we can look at this on a human level where, you know, if we're thinking about like invasive species and like a plant coming in and just growing and taking over, we can also think about how when we bring.You know, for example, English, we can think about English as an invasive species, you know, like English is a species that's going to go there and because it's the language that if people speak more than one language, one of the languages that they speak might be English because it's kind of like taken over the world, then it means more and more people are going to be speaking English and then other languages are going to start dying out.And so this is like literally what an invasive plant species does, you know? And so I think, We need to think about that when we're bringing English into a space. Like, what are we doing in that space? How are we changing that space by bringing English into it? And I say that very self consciously as a unilingual English speaker, but [00:48:00] it is, you know, like.So, like, this idea of what it means to be a responsible guest, what it means to be somewhere, to visit somewhere, we need to think about, not even just the more obvious things, like throwing our garbage around, or being totally disrespectful, or using a place as a party spot, and then leaving, like, all of those things, I think, are very obviously disrespectful, and we need to be more considerate, but there's even more subtle ways, where just our very presence and the way that we bring ourselves can have an impact that we don't intend. That I think is part of the conversation about what it can mean to, to travel in a more ethical and responsible way. Chris: Amen. Amen. Yeah, I'm reminded of, and I don't know how relevant it is for the conversation, but I'm reminded of Terrence McKenna, the great psychedelic bard. He had a hypothesis that the main vehicle of evolutionary change or growth wasn't human beings or mammals, for example, but language.And we were just vehicles for language's evolution and spreading. And that languages are just fighting this secret battle, this secret [00:49:00] war. But, anyways. To speak to what both of you are saying, I interviewed, a man named Daniel Pardo in the first season of the pod, this activist from Barcelona, and he said, you know, "in no way can tourism be sustainable because we can't extend it to everyone on the planet. Like, it's actually impossible to ensure that seven or eight billion people can go on vacation once a year or fly. Right? He said, "there's no right to fly." And, so it's important to ensure that people have these freedoms, but then to what extent can they actually be applied? And I remember being back in Toronto last summer for a few months, and there were whole families and communities of migrants sleeping in front of churches on the street because from what I understand, the Canadian government the year previous had let in something like a million migrants and maybe half of them went to Toronto because it's the financial hub of the country. And there was [00:50:00] simply nothing for them there. There was no plan for them, by the government, there was no jobs, no social support, nothing, right?And so they ended up on the street, sleeping on the street in front of churches, en masse. In terms of the people that I knew who grew up there, and myself, we had never seen that before. And so you can create the freedom to migrate and things like that but what is at the end of that movement, right? So there are definitely these dynamics and nuances that need to be spoken of in terms of travel and the way people travel and the borders and, and biomes that affect the way we move. Yeah, and of course, I could go on and on. I have two more questions for you two, if that's alright? Sure. Okay. So on some of the f*****g canceled podcast episodes you have subtitled the theme of the quest for the offline left. And, you know, I think [00:51:00] largely emphasizing the word offline. And so, you know, what do you think being together offline and organizing offline can do to people whose lives have been shaped around online and social media mentalities?I mean, the three of us are more or less of the age that we still have a lived memory of life before the internet, but what about those who don't? Clementine: Yeah, absolutely horrifying. I mean, I think we are social animals who evolved to be together, looking at each other's faces, like, talking and being in the same space together.Like the alienation that Jay was talking about before, like both leads to our compulsive social media use and our desperate attempt to find community through that, and also completely contributes and worsens the problem, making it a million times worse where we are staring at our phones when we are literally, actually, physically together and could be having a conversation.And that is really like sad and depressing. And I [00:52:00] think that in terms of organizing across difference building solidarity with people... like on the Internet, we can believe that a community is people who share either like an interest or an identity category with us. And that is a community online whereas in real life, community is going to be full of people who are not necessarily like ourselves, who we might not share interests in common with, and we might not share identities in common with, but they actually are the people who are in our spaces in real life, and we actually share many things in common with them that we might not realize because we share a place together, we share a world together and being able to build relationships with people who are different from ourselves is, first of all absolutely necessary as a political strategy if we want to get anything done on the left.But also, it's deeply enriching for our human lives, you know, to be able to meet and talk to people who are not exactly the same, not the same age, not sharing the same politics, like, who are just different from ourselves. So I think it's very important. The other thing is like, the absolute erosion of our [00:53:00] attention span due to social media.I have recently not been on Instagram for, like, a month, and I feel like my brain is, like, damaged, and I'm, like, recovering from a severe damage to my attention span, you know? Like, I wasn't able to read books for years, because I just didn't have an attention span to, like, really keep up with it.It was, like, way harder for me than it used to be when I was younger, you know? Because I have been on the feed that is giving me just five second blips of information and then giving me something else and getting my brain hooked on this, like, dopamine response cycle, which is absolutely horrifying.So, I think it's also really bad for us, like, mentally in terms of our ability to think critically and at length and to, like, pay attention to what we're thinking about. Yeah, Jay: I think that the internet gives people the illusion that things are happening that are not actually happening You know like I don't know you make a a really good post and 2, 000 people like it Wow.Okay. They're all scattered across the f*****g planet. [00:54:00] You know what I mean? It doesn't, you don't know them. It doesn't translate into anything, right? It feels good. And you feel like maybe you're influencing the discourse or something like that, you know but it doesn't translate into anything.And it can give you It can give you the idea that like to be politically active and to be politically successful is to get more people liking your f*****g posts or whatever, you know, but it's not true, right? It also gives people the illusion and Clementine was gesturing at this that a group of people, it's not even really group, it's like a category of people that are like you, is a meaningful sort of group to be in. But let's say like, take like queer people, like LGBTQ community. Okay. And then you extrapolate that to like the whole world, or you can even just extrapolate it to like North America. You know, that's like a scattering of people that are spread out over this enormous geographic area.You couldn't possibly meet them all. Not only because there's so many of them, but also because they're so scattered, right? And you couldn't possibly organize them all and like, and so [00:55:00] on. And, and it's not a community. It's not a community. It is. It's like there's a word I'm looking for and I was, I've been trying to think of it for the past, like five minutes, but I'm just going to say it's like an electorate or something rather than like rather than like a community, you know it's like this, it's this like demographic group that like marketers might market to you or that politicians might try to get to vote for them or something like that. But that's not, that's not what a community is. That's not what a real group is like a real group automatically encompasses difference.Like a, a sort of like authentic human group, like always has differences of like age and occupation and often ethnicity and all these sorts of internal differences that, you know, human groups have always had. Right. And when we try to sort of like make these groups based on identity, which the internet makes very, very, very easy.We like miss. The people that were actually around, like, yeah, but yeah, as for the offline left, I mean, we desperately need to be organizing and in the real world, and I think that[00:56:00] that's not to say that like you can't do anything on the internet.Like the internet obviously has massive advantages for many, many reasons, you know. F**k, there's this like, there's this like image in my head. I'm a very like visual person. I get these like pictures in my head and then I'm like, I have to explain this picture. But it's like the, the thing about like the, the, the groups being this, these kind of like electorates, it's like, if you are this electorate, then you're only choice is to sort of petition your leaders to do something for you. You know what I mean? But like if you are a real and authentic community, you can organize your community to enact something in the real world, you know? And I don't want us to always be in the position of petitioning our leaders, because it presupposes the leaders, it presupposes that we accept their authority, you know, it presupposes that we don't have another option other than to allow a tiny class of parasitical, like rich people to rule everything for us, you know but I would like us to move away from that.Clementine: Yeah. Like just one other thing about that is you'll [00:57:00] see, you know, this gesturing towards actual organizing but through posting, but it's missing the actual organizing piece, which involves building relationships, right? And building trust. And so one of the things you'll, you'll see, like in the last couple of years, I've seen it a few times with different political things that are going on where people will just randomly call for like a mass strike and they'll make a post about it.And they'll be like, on this day, we are calling for people to strike for like this political issue. I saw it for like abortion rights in the United States and I recently saw it for solidarity with Palestine. But it's like, people can't just walk out of their jobs randomly because they will be fired.Like, the point of unions and the point of organized labor is that you have this guarantee where all of these people are taking this risk together in an organized and strategic way and they are trusting each other that they are doing it together and it is their numbers that makes it so that the boss can't just fire them all.And they have strike fund. There's a lot of them and they're [00:58:00] supporting each other to do this and it's organized and they've actually built enough relationship to be like, okay, I trust that my fellow workers are going to do this with me. So, like when I take this risk, it's like the risk is mitigated by the numbers and I know I'm not alone in it.Right. But a social media post cannot produce that. It is not relationship. And so random people reading that, like they're like, "should I just walk out of my job tomorrow?" Like, probably if they do that, they're going to be the only person at their job who's doing that, and they're just going to be fired or reprimanded, best case scenario. And that is not organized at all. And, and so then people are like, "Why aren't you guys walking out of your job? This is not solidarity." And it's like, "you're right. It's not solidarity. Because the solidarity hasn't been built." Like, you have to actually build trust with people to get them to take risks. And if you don't build that trust, and you don't have those actual real relationships, it's not a good idea for people to take those risks because they'll be by themselves taking those risks. Chris: Yeah, begs the question if in order to have solidarity with people elsewhere, does it [00:59:00] have to exist at home first?Clementine: I would say yeah. Absolutely. Jay: And solidarity is kind of meaningless if it's just you. Like it kind of has to be organized, you know, like in some meaningful fashion and that can take place in a small scale or a large scale. But if it was just you feeling solidaristic, like it doesn't, yeah, Clementine: like for example, with the Bangladeshi textile workers, you know. If there was organized labor in North America and say, for example, that like the H&M's were unionized, which I do not think that they are, but if the H& Ms were unionized because, like, the clothing at H&M all comes from Bangladesh, the workers could choose to do a solidarity strike, to strike alongside the Bangladeshi workers, so that the retailers were striking alongside the textile workers, right?And that would be very effective and very cool if that was happening, but in order for that to happen, the retail workers first have to be organized, and they have to have unions, and they actually have to have like an organized labor force here in order to do any kind of meaningful action in [01:00:00] solidarity with the workers in Bangladesh.Chris: Food for thought. Yeah. Thank you both. So my final question. Of the main themes of the pod, one is radical hospitality, which, to me at least, stands as a kind of antidote to industrial hospitality. You know, the systems, the

Daniel Herriges has been one of my favorite reads on the Strong Towns site for many years. He has thoughtful, in-depth pieces on many subjects, notably housing. Now, he has co-authored a new book with Chuck Marohn called “Escaping the Housing Trap.” We discuss the book, and much more, including my guest appearance in the book.New feature: transcript belowFind more content on The Messy City on Kevin's Substack page.Music notes: all songs by low standards, ca. 2010. Videos here. If you'd like a CD for low standards, message me and you can have one for only $5.Intro: “Why Be Friends”Outro: “Fairweather Friend”Kevin K (00:02.704)Welcome back to the Messy City podcast. This is Kevin Klinkenberg. Thanks for listening. I've got a special guest here today, somebody who has been one of my favorite reads for many years now. Daniel Herrigus is here joining us. And Daniel, it's great to see you.Daniel Herriges (00:24.11)Great to be here, Kevin. Thank you.Kevin K (00:25.85)We're going to talk a lot about housing today and housing itself is obviously, it's probably one of the most, been one of the most talked about topics nationally inside the urban planning and development world and outside that world as well, probably for at least a decade as housing costs have really exploded in a lot of places in the country. So it's a very, very common conversation piece.And a lot of it is often frustrating and confusing to talk about. So into this, Daniel Steps, he's actually been writing about this for some time on the Strong Towns website and writing really great pieces. And now he is the co -author of a new book with Chuck Marrone called Escaping the Housing Trap, which comes out, when does it come out Daniel?Daniel Herriges (01:21.494)April, April 23rd.Kevin K (01:23.152)April 23rd, okay. So I'm really, really looking forward to this. I think Daniel and I have probably learned from each other quite a bit in things that we've talked about and written about. And so I'm really, I'm excited to have this conversation and kind of dive deeper a little bit into the general topic of housing and his perspective and the book's perspective on it.So Daniel was kind enough to share with me a little bit of the introduction. And I say that just because I've marked a few notes to help me direct the conversation a little bit. Housing is so broad as a topic. There's about a thousand different places you can go. And I really like how you laid it out here in the beginning. But I do want to start with just kind of one piece that I think is really fundamental that I just highlighted here a couple of sentences.And I know probably for strong towns readers, this will sound familiar, but I just think it's important to emphasize this and repeat it because, and have you expand on it. But you talk about central to this approach is that recognition that cities are complex systems. They are shaped by countless decisions made by millions of individuals over time with interconnections that are challenging to trace or fully grasp. When attempts are made to simplify.or ignore this inherent complexity in organizing urban life, challenges and disruptions arise. I wonder if you could expand a little bit on that and why do you think that's so fundamental to this conversation?Daniel Herriges (03:04.526)Yeah, well, it's something that's been it's been fundamental to the Strong Towns conversation for a long time, as I think anybody who's read the blog and is familiar with our work knows. And I do think it's central to to grasping what's really gone wrong. You know, it's it's funny, I would talk to people casually, you know, old friends and stuff in the process of writing this book, and they'd say, well, what's new in your life? And I'd say, well, I'm co -writing this book with my boss and.It's about the housing crisis. And an old high school friend of mine, I remember I'm sitting down for coffee with him, and I said, I'm writing a book about the housing crisis. And he goes, oh, cool. Wait, which one? I've never talked to anybody who like, I say housing crisis and they scoff at the idea like, oh no, there isn't a housing crisis. But people's understandings of what that means are incredibly varied because of exactly what you're saying and what you pulled out of the intro to the book. That what,Kevin K (03:41.84)Hahaha.Kevin K (03:49.776)Yeah.Daniel Herriges (04:02.03)really we try to organize the narrative around in this book is we have this massive paradigm shift in the 20th century in how we house ourselves as a society in the US. And to a lesser extent, Canada, I think throughout the Anglosphere, you can see commonalities, but we have this massive paradigm shift alongside sort of the broader paradigm shift that we've talked about as the suburban experiment at Strong Towns.starting in the mid 20th century and really upending the way we finance housing and all sorts of urban development, the way we finance it, the way we plan it and regulate it, and our cultural assumptions about it. And what that really amounts to, at the core of that paradigm shift, is this very modernist, this very 20th century idea that we can solve, we can permanently solve the messiness of the city.that we can permanently solve these tensions that exist around, well, how is your neighborhood going to change and evolve? Are you going to be uncomfortable with that change? Are people going to be displaced? Is the character going to change? How are you going to finance housing? Is it going to be a struggle? Are you going to have to make sacrifices? This idea emerges for a number of reasons that we can delve deeper into that, well, we can solve all these problems now. In a modern, prosperous society, we're going to have mass.middle class prosperity, we're going to have mass homeownership. It's going to be an economic engine. It's going to be the the foundation of everything good in society. We're going to build, we're going to plan neighborhoods that are better than the places people have lived in the past. It's all going to be scientific and orderly and optimized. And through that, we can deliver kind of a permanently prosperous society. And this is the vision that emerges through the 1930s into the middle of the century.And looking back now, decades later, we can really see the cracks in that vision. And those cracks look like a whole bunch of different things breaking. And to most people, housing crisis means the affordability crisis, which is especially acute in certain kind of high cost regions of the country. So a lot of the discourse around, quote unquote, the housing crisis, initially starts to come out of places like New York City, like San Francisco, like Boston, and it's all about, well, nobody can afford the rent anymore.Daniel Herriges (06:26.926)But we paint, I think, a picture of it that's inclusive of that, but broader than that. Because there are all sorts of ways in which housing is just broken. We're not building the right kinds of housing for people's needs. We're not building it in the right places. A lot of people are squeezed. They're overly indebted. They're making huge sacrifices in terms of how they live their life or where they can live their life. We're not happy. We've largely lost faith that...the development industry is going to be responsive to community needs and is going to give us products that really amount to the kind of communities we want to live in. Things are just, they're fundamentally broken in a lot of ways that don't necessarily tie up with a bow into a really neat package. Like, well, this is the definition of the housing crisis and this is the thing that's wrong. So I think the messy city is a great place to be having this conversation because it's kind of a messy book, and deliberately so, because it tries to get at all of these different facets of, well, what is the paradigm that emerged with the suburban experiment? And then what are all these sort of cascading consequences of it that have led to the situation we're in today?Kevin K (07:45.36)So let me give you some of the, just right off the top, let's maybe get the grumpy old man questions out of the way. I'll give you some of the grumpy old man questions. Well, so one of them is, well, you know, you're mostly talking about cities in certain parts of the country where they just make it really hard to build anything, and that's why housing is so expensive. And...Daniel Herriges (07:52.846)Hahaha.Kevin K (08:09.968)Also, you know, when I was a young person, we shared bedrooms. My starter home was an 800 square foot house and you expect a 2000 or 2400 square foot house. And it's really just expectations have changed.Daniel Herriges (08:29.166)Yeah, so that's two great kind of grumpy old man questions to use your parlance there. Yeah, I think that in terms of sort of the geographic question, the loudest voices in the discourse tend to be from these places that are really kind of exceptional, San Francisco, New York. But the sense that there's a housing crisis is much, much broader and more widespread than that. It just manifests a little bit differently.Kevin K (08:32.016)I'm good for those.Daniel Herriges (08:56.654)I think that you hear it and you see it in Kansas City where you are. I mean, I'm certainly aware of some of the stories of, you know, some of the tenant activism that has come out of Kansas City, people who really are finding their housing situation, the options available to them, finding it to be dire. I think that in every city, there are issues where there are these mismatches and these spillovers in terms of where really should we be building housing and what kind of product should we be building?versus what are we building? You have neighborhoods that are mired in stasis, that are mired in disinvestment for decades. They've got really good bones, they're good places, they have a lot of historic character, they have people who deeply love them, but places that just can't catch a break. At the same time, you've got these building patterns happening maybe out on the suburban fringe that are...I mean, they're financially ruinous, which is a core thing we've talked about at length at Strong Towns. They're producing more liabilities than they are revenue for the communities that they're in. But they're also mismatched with where the demand really is, especially among younger people who want to move into home ownership. So even in a place like Kansas City, where if you look at aggregate, like metro area statistics, like housing is a bargain there compared to on the coasts.And even if you look at relative to local wages, which are certainly lower than in a San Francisco or New York, it's still better. Home prices in Northern California are 10 times median income. Where you are, it might be four times. But there are still people who are stretched and who are squeezed. There are neighborhoods where there is a shortage of decent housing in good condition that meets the needs of people there. There's definitely a shortage ofwalkable urban places. I'm sure that there are places that people are getting pushed out of. And then there are these mismatches that are really pervasive all over the country from small towns to mid -size and big metros, where, for example, one statistic that I find myself repeating a lot, and I learned this from Ali Thurmond -Quinlan, who I know you know, Kevin, fantastic incremental developer in Arkansas. She does this great presentation about how,Daniel Herriges (11:19.15)Two thirds of American households are made up of one or two people. And yet 88 % of the new homes that are built have three bedrooms or more. It's that kind of thing that plays into the housing crisis where like we keep churning out this really, really limited range of products, these monocultures. And often it's, you know, the suburban tract home in a cornfield where the financing is in place, the institutional arrangements are in place. We've made it really, really easy.to keep churning that out. But even within a relatively small geography, you can have housing shortages in other places. You can have real problems with people being able to access close -in neighborhoods, close to jobs, close to amenities, or housing that is the right size and configuration for what they actually need, where they are in life.Kevin K (12:11.472)Let's dive into the starter home piece of that a little bit because I just know you've written about that extensively in the past and I think about like my own situation. When I look at the houses my parents owned when – either before I was born or shortly after I was born, they were very modest houses. I think when I was born in 1969, at that point –Daniel Herriges (12:15.758)Mm -hmm. Yeah.Kevin K (12:39.632)When I was born, we had four kids and I think we lived in a three bedroom ranch with a basement in Omaha, a pretty small place. And then we're able to get a little bit bigger place, probably more like a four bedroom or so. But I mean, really for most of my childhood, we shared bedrooms as kids. And there's certainly, I know as a parent today, there's a vastly different expectation.on the part of my other parents, on the part of kids, about what constitutes an appropriate house for a family. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about that and just how that all has changed so much over the years.Daniel Herriges (13:19.758)Right. Right.Daniel Herriges (13:26.414)I think the expectations are in a feedback loop with these other kind of institutional factors that are affecting what we build and what we don't build and what options are out there. So I think, I hear what you're saying and I think there's a lot of truth to that. I mean, I look at my family, I got two young children and would sharing a bedroom be the worst thing in the world for them? No, but even when we like, when we go on vacation somewhere, when we...go stay with in -laws and there's the prospect that they're gonna have to sleep in the same room. It's like, oh God, they won't get any sleep. They'll keep it to like, but it's really alien to like what we've assumed is just like the basic, like this is how you're supposed to live as a middle -class American family. And I think there has been that shift. I think it's also the case though that like the kind of starter home you're talking about, like you even look at the old photos of Levittown or those early sort of mass production suburbs.in the 1950s, like we're not building those anymore. Houses like that, almost nothing is built that's on that scale. There are institutional factors that play into that. I mean, there are regulatory factors like minimum lot sizes in a lot of communities. There are things that we've done that basically make it uneconomic to build smaller homes on smaller lots. And then, you know, combine that with this cultural expectations question. I think there's a little bit of chicken and egg there.I do think though that maybe not in the context of families with children specifically, but there is a huge amount of demand out there for maybe a different version than what you're thinking of in the 50s, the leave it to beaver kind of era, but there's a huge amount of demand out there for what we might call a starter home today. It just looks different. My wife and I, when we were in our 20s,starting out not making a lot of money, we didn't own a lot of stuff. We lived in backyard accessory dwelling units, backyard cottages behind a larger single family home. And these were all homes that had been built in like the 1930s. So they were kind of grandfathered into a zoning code that doesn't allow them anymore. We were lucky to find these, they were fantastic. I mean, they were the right sized living arrangement for where we were in life. We weren't ready to be homeowners. Maybe in a different era, we might've been homeowners at that age, I don't know.Daniel Herriges (15:47.566)But a very small home for a modest rent, like that was perfect. In big high cost cities, you see there's a lot of push to, can we do more micro apartments? Can we do sort of a modernized version of the single room occupancy where amenities like the kitchen are shared? There is demand out there for this stuff. I think that the new version of it needs to be allowed to evolve. And I think it will.Kevin K (16:18.704)Yeah, I think you could see this even when you look to, you know, I think a lot about some of the things that the author Joel Gourault wrote years ago. He wrote a couple of books that I really loved, but one of them was called Edge City. And he came up with this whole notion of the favored quarter, that if every metro area has like a quarter, if it's a pie, there's a quarter of it that just has better.demographics, better reputation, whatever, than the other parts of the metro area. And I think if you look in some of those favored quarters that have those subdivisions still from the 1940s and 50s, the very small Cape Cod homes and others that were built in that era, it's amazing how you, I think it validates what you're talking about. There's incredible demand for those. Those areas have really continued to be.desirable places to live for young families, even though they're much smaller homes than they might buy on the edge. And in the unfavored quarters, you don't see as much of that. They've had a lot more decline. And that speaks to other factors. But there's clearly this interest in demand still for the people will make that trade off to have a smaller place, you know, regardless if it's in an area they want to be in.Daniel Herriges (17:47.15)Yeah, the thing that's tough is that that stuff is getting bid up really fast in a lot of cities to the point where it's not really a viable starter home option for a lot of people. I mean, those old like Cape Cod, you know, those houses, you find them in California now. Like you're paying two million dollars for one of those. It's valued for the land underneath it. And often it's going to be torn down and replaced with a much larger home. But I mean, my wife and I, when we did buy our house in Sarasota, Florida, where we lived until...on the middle of last year, we bought in the neighborhood, like we really prized the location. We wanted to be somewhere where she could walk to work, where we only had to own one car, where we were close to downtown, close to walkable parts of the city that we liked. And we bought in the neighborhood that was sort of the last bastion of affordable home ownership in that it is these really modest houses. A lot of them are under a thousand square feet. But the prices have run up like crazy just in the...in the seven years since we made that purchase. We couldn't have gone back and bought that house today, the one that we just sold last year. And the notion that like this is a viable option for working class families, I mean, that's gone. Like it's a working class neighborhood that is transitioning really fast because anywhere, like you said, where the location is desirable, when we have an overall scarcity, small homes, big homes, it doesn't matter, they're gonna be bid up.Kevin K (19:11.472)How much in your writing or thinking about this has the impact of kind of just shifting demand for like more urban or walkable places? How does that play a role in exactly what you talked about there with Sarasota where, you know, we had a few decades of really going gung -ho with building suburbia and then all of a sudden we've had this major shift in interest and demand in the last couple of decades.on the part of all age groups, but especially younger people. And yet those new places haven't built much housing at all. So what do you see? How do you see that? Is that like a major factor in what people are talking about in terms of the pain they're feeling?Daniel Herriges (19:58.926)I think that shift is huge and I think it's underappreciated. I think it's actually hard to quantify because you got another kind of chicken and egg thing, right? Where people, I mean, you hear the contrarians right now. Like there are a lot of voices saying there's been this big shift and millennials are much more pro -urban than older generations were. And Gen Z is even more pro -urban than that. People want to live in walkable places, centrally located places. They don't want to do all this driving like.And then you see the confrarians come back and say, well, actually, millennials are all having kids and buying homes out in the suburbs. And it's kind of like, well, they're, do you know that that's what they want or are they buying where they can afford? And there's probably a bit of both in a lot of cases, but I think that the notion of revealed preference gets really tricky here. Does the fact that 10 ,000 more times, 10 ,000 times more people buy Camrys than Lexuses, does that mean that everybody likes the Camry more as a car?That's probably 10 ,000 is probably not the factor there. I'm positive it's not, but I needed a number real quick. But like there's suppose it revealed preference is going to be shaped by what the market makes available. You know, in Sarasota, there are tons of great kind of single family, quote unquote, homes that are occupied by families. They're occupied by a bunch of 20 something roommates who work in the service industry and they're crowding into a house because that's how they can afford the rent.Not, it's not because that's the way those people would prefer. Like that's the ideal living arrangement for people at that stage in life and in kind of a roommate situation. It's because that's all that there is. So I think, yeah, I think that there is evidence of a really profound shift and where it's showing up is not so much in where people currently live or what they're buying, what they're renting. It shows up to some extent in preference surveys that you'll hear from like the National Association of Realtors, like.Oh, 42 % of Americans would rather have a smaller house in a walkable neighborhood than a larger house in a place they have to drive. But more than that, it's showing up in prices. It's showing up in the way some of these preferred locations are being bid up. Despite being older housing, smaller housing, maybe lower quality, you look at price per square foot and it becomes really obvious that the places where people will pay a premium for less house tend to be walkable, really well -located locations withDaniel Herriges (22:23.406)with access to some urban amenities. We're just beginning to re -legalize more of that pattern. So there's gonna be a big lag in how much of this is actually being built and how are people actually living. One thing we talk about in the book is that I think a bunch of people's assumptions about the housing market were shaped during this really anomalous era, you know, post -post -World War II and the era of kind of urban decline, where from the 1970s through the 1990s, you had had massive suburban flight out of core cities in almost every metro in America. You had huge amounts of vacant real estate, even in New York, even in Manhattan, you had huge vacancy rates. And so the city became this place that, if that was when your attitudes were shaped, you thought like...this is a place, this is affordable, this is where the artists go to get their cheap studio space, this is where the people who are kind of on the margins of society, the city is where they go to live and they live this cool bohemian life. And so the most important policy priority is preventing the decline of these places. Let's do really rigid historic preservation, let's zone them in amber, let's try to protect this environment. Nobody was thinking about large -scale gentrification, nobody was thinking aboutpeople actually being displaced en masse from these urban locations. That wasn't on the radar in the late 20th century. I think there has been an absolute sea change now where in some ways the policies that we established in that era now are really, really biting us because we essentially locked down a bunch of what remained of our pre -suburban kind of built environment.And now there's this massive demand for these places and there's this need to change. And the only lever we have is, well, let's pick pockets of it and let's allow mass scale redevelopment, like giant five over one buildings, you this wholesale sort of wiping clean. Like we're struggling with, oh, wait a minute, now there's actually all this demand for what used to be like sort of the fringe oddball.Kevin K (24:25.104)Yeah.Daniel Herriges (24:41.068)Bohemian choice. I don't know.Kevin K (24:42.672)Yeah. It's funny how that kind of infects people's brains in so many respects. And I know that because I'm old enough to have lived in my part of the city when it was still pretty rough and pretty cheap. And I know a lot of people and friends who were older than me in that era who did exactly as you described. They were able to buy these incredible historic homes or buildings for next to nothing.And they have a vision of the way things were in that era as like they haven't really changed all that much. And I've often talked about it. They went from being basically no demand neighborhoods to now a lot of them are high demand, but they're still kind of using that like no demand thinking about how to solve problems. And it's like, I'm sorry, it's just, it's a different world now.Kevin K (25:38.96)So I want to piggyback a little bit on this. There's another sentence here, a couple sentences I picked up on that you wrote that I'd like to just kind of talk about, because I thought this was really insightful. You said, those who set housing policy often do not understand housing finance. Those who focus on finance are often oblivious to the effects of land use policy. These conversations, housing finance and land use policy, occur in separate circles.and are often insufficiently informed by each other. I really like the way that you talk about that. It certainly resonates with my experience. I wonder if you could expand a little bit more on how you've seen that play out.Daniel Herriges (26:21.838)Yeah, you can kind of witness it. If you go on Twitter, which I refuse to call X, but you can actually see the separate conversations happening in real time, depending on kind of who you follow and who's responding to those conversations, you can see that there are people who are interested in land use policy and zoning in housing development. A lot of them are associated with things like the Yes in My Backyard movement, and they're talking about housing in one set of terms.Kevin K (26:29.588)Likewise.Daniel Herriges (26:51.47)And, but then you go and you follow people who analyze the financial markets and they're looking at the housing market in the sense of what is happening with housing as an asset class. And they like, it's literally like they're speaking different languages. It's these people aren't in conversation with each other. Like they're literally not in each other's replies, but they're also it's different metrics. It's different assumptions about like, what even is quote, quote unquote, the housing market? Are we talking about,housing as a financial product, mortgages and their secondary, their derivatives as a financial product. Are we talking about the homes that people live in and the rents that they pay? And it's a really funny divide. And that divide, the stage was set for that through the policy decisions made in the 20th century to create a mass market in federally supported, federally insured.long -term mortgages and to make that the foundation of how we're going to house people in this country. And what we did was we created a system where increasingly housing was the foundation of the financial system. It was also the foundation of a bunch of other things. It became the foundation of local government's ability to fund their own operations. So many things are riding on housing prices going up and up and up.And if you talk to someone in that finance world, what is a housing crisis? A housing crisis is 2008. A housing crisis is when housing prices crash and it brings the economy with it. And fears of a housing crisis mean, well, we're afraid that building is going to slow down and prices are going to slump and rents are going to slump and it's going to have all these cascading effects on the financial system. If you go talk to a bunch of yimbies in San Francisco, what is a housing crisis? Well, duh, a housing crisis when people can't pay their rent.There is a really fundamental tension that is deeply ingrained in our society because we expect housing to do two contradictory things. We expect it to be a reliable, secure source of shelter for everyone who needs shelter, which is everyone. We also expect it to be this sort of indefinitely appreciating financial asset. Not necessarily like your home, though often your home, but...Daniel Herriges (29:18.446)more broadly, the housing market as a whole needs to go up and up and up or things break. That is the fundamental, you know, the book is titled Escaping the Housing Trap. That is fundamentally what the housing trap is. It is this contradiction that we haven't grappled with that a whole bunch of us need housing prices to fall and a whole bunch of us are also going to suffer if housing prices fall.Kevin K (29:42.224)Yeah. How have you, I'm just curious, how have you been able to talk to people in your own community or at the local level? Do you engage, especially for the dozen or so years you lived in Sarasota, did you engage with housing activists or people who are trying to shape local housing policy and talk about this perspective that you bring about?the housing trap and the different perspectives and motivations.Daniel Herriges (30:16.078)I did, you know, I had the chance in Sarasota to talk with a wide variety of people from kind of community and neighborhood activists to local elected officials, chamber of commerce types. I can't say I was super successful at influencing the conversation there. I would try to plant seeds when I talk to people, because I think that there's a lot of lack of understanding of even the contours of the issue. Like, I guess I'd tell you two stories here kind of related to that, and I'll try not to ramble.When I was in planning school, I had to do a summer internship and I did mine. I went to grad school up in Minneapolis, but then I went back to Sarasota where my wife lived for the summer and I did my internship in the county planning department. I think at this point, it's been far enough, you know, it's been enough years that I can say this and I don't have to worry about who I might be offending by saying this, but they tasked me as part of my planning internship with doing some kind of internal research, internal white papers basically on.best practices for promoting affordable housing. Because by 2016, they understood Florida is growing really fast. We have a housing crisis. We don't have enough housing. Rents are skyrocketing. But the prevailing thinking was so undeveloped about like even the terms of the conversation. So like I'm I'm trying to put together this research on, you know, what what levers do we have as the local government, as the county government to promote affordable housing?And I'm thinking of it in terms of how do we promote housing affordability, you know, get supply and demand aligned, remove zoning related obstacles to the production of more inexpensive housing, the production of housing where there's high demand. And then there's also this conversation about sources of subsidy and how do we get purpose -built affordable housing built. And that's all well and good. I went into one meeting where I'm supposed to like briefly summarize some of these results. And I realized sitting at this table, like 20 minutes in,it kind of dawns on me and a couple of the other planners that half the people at this table think that we're there to talk about homelessness. And they're they're baffled by everything coming out of my mouth and out of the, you know, the other planners' mouths because we're talking about zoning and they're like, but, you know, we what we really want to talk about is we've got this handful of vacant lots that the county owns and can we partner with any of the providers who Salvation Army or Habitat or both? And all of a sudden it's kind of like, wait a minute.Daniel Herriges (32:42.734)we're talking about affordable housing, we're not talking about homelessness. And they're like, I thought they were the same. Like, people are really way more, if you're immersed in kind of urbanist debates or just thinking about these issues, like the average person, including the average local policymaker, is way closer to square one than you think they are. So I saw that in Florida that like the everybody who was elected to office there had this sense that, well, we got to do something about affordable housing.and they didn't have the slightest clue how to think holistically about housing affordability as an issue in their community. Like, literally it was like, who can we partner with to get a small amount of subsidy delivered to one nonprofit that's gonna build a few homes? No sense of the scale of the problem or really, you know, the problem as a basic issue of what do we allow the market to build? And when you...That conversation has grown and Sarasota is, I think it's behind the curve, but I think they are tackling some of these broader questions of like, what does it say in our zoning code and how does that affect what gets built and what can't get built? There's still this mentality that's really, really ingrained. And it goes back to what I was saying about kind of that 1970s through 1990s, that defensive mentality of cities are.You know, we've got suburban flight and urban neighborhoods have suffered decline and they've suffered stagnation. And the thing we need to do is hold the line and protect them. We're not even worried about overwhelming demand. We can't even conceive of that. So I sat in this meeting once. I was asked to come by the president of my neighborhood association and it was a handful of neighborhood advocates and then a local elected official and a couple of city staff. And we're talking about missing middle housing because they were considering a.zoning code change to allow a modest amount of what's called the missing middle. Essentially in some neighborhoods in Sarasota where only single family homes were allowed to be built, they were gonna allow up to four units on a residential lot. And the question is, how broad will this be and what are the parameters of it be? And I'm listening to these people who work for the city and they're saying, well, I'm just concerned that this needs to be tightly, tightly regulated to prevent abuses. So.Daniel Herriges (35:06.478)You know, what if, what if people build multiple units and then they Airbnb them? Well, we got to make sure we have provisions that they can't turn them into short -term rentals. And, you know, what if, what if someone builds a fourplex and, you know, there are loud parties there and it's a nuisance to the neighbors. So, okay, we got to have special, um, provisions to, you know, maybe there's more landscaping screening or a bigger setback or something, but we got to make sure it won't be a nuisance to the neighbors. And well, you know, the goal of this is to provide more housing for our downtown workforce in our restaurants and stores. And.But what if the people who are living in this housing, what if they're vacationing snowbirds? What if they're not our workforce? Well, can we put a provision into the lease? You know, if you want to build multiple units on this lot, maybe you should be required to put a provision into the lease that the person living there must be employed in downtown Sarasota. Like these were literally the things being thrown out in this conversation. It needs to be tightly, tightly regulated to make sure it does exactly what we think it should do. And, um,You know, I pointed out and I think it largely fell on deaf ears. Like, do we say any of this stuff about new single family houses? Well, no, we don't. It's only this prospect of something that is a change in the existing pattern, you know, God forbid. But the funny thing that happened in this conversation was it kind of reached a natural lull and people are just sort of shooting the breeze for a while. And it's mostly a bunch of like neighborhood association presidents in Sarasota who are people in their 60s and 70s.They've moved down to enjoy the Florida sunshine and they're all from somewhere else. Everyone in Florida is from somewhere, pretty much. And the gentleman to my left starts talking about his childhood in Fall River, Massachusetts. And he, you know, lived on this wonderful street and it was full of triple -decker houses where you've got the family that owns it is probably living in one of the units and they have a couple tenants. And there was this restaurant on the ground floor of an apartment building on the corner and he used to love it.this idyllic picture of just kind of traditional, missing middle urbanism. And other people chimed in and they had similar childhood experiences. And the person who kept saying tightly, tightly regulated, chimes into the conversation and turns out that one of her family members, I don't remember if it was father or grandfather, but had owned a triple decker in Massachusetts. And it had been a stepping stone into building some wealth and joining the middle class and being homeowners in an affordable way.Daniel Herriges (37:31.402)had nothing but fond things to say about this. And so they all have these really positive experiences with real missing middle housing in the real world. And then the conversation goes back to the topic at hand and immediately a switch flips and it's, anyway, yeah, this is all great. I love this stuff. I think we should allow the missing middle. I just think it needs to be tightly, tightly regulated. So there's this huge disconnect. There's this huge sort of loss aversion that people have.Kevin K (37:53.296)Ha ha ha ha.Daniel Herriges (38:01.006)And this disconnect between like the stuff we're talking about as urbanists, the kind of things that have been illegal for a long time in most places that we're talking about allowing again, they're not alien to Americans. People have been to places that have this development pattern, they've seen it, and they largely have positive impressions of it. And the question is, how do you get past that wall with people? When I would talk with people in Sarasota, I would always point out like,because there were a lot of similar fears about an ordinance to allow backyard accessory dwelling units. And I would point out that the one neighborhood in Sarasota that has a lot of existing accessory dwelling units, it was built in the 1920s and 30s, it is one of the wealthiest, one of the nicest, one of the universally thought most charming, successful neighborhoods in Sarasota. Everybody loves this place. Everybody is simultaneously terrified of what could go wrong.Kevin K (38:57.84)Ha ha.Daniel Herriges (38:57.902)if we allowed more places like it to be built today.Kevin K (39:00.464)Yeah, we can't have any of that. It's clearly way too desirable. I think that's a great segue into this other piece, another piece here that really caught my eye in your introduction where you talked a little bit about James C. Scott's book, Seeing Like a State and his ideology of high modernism. And so just a couple of quick sentences on that where he said, high modernism consists of a strong belief in the scientific perfectibility of society. The high modernist seeks to rendercomplex social phenomena, discrete, legible, and measurable in order to prescribe solutions through rational scientific management. And then later how you said we believed we could devise permanent solutions to problems that had bedeviled city dwellers forever. So I mean, I love that. It kind of speaks to something that I've thought a lot about as well. And one of the more...of all the fascinating changes that we made in the 20th century, really one of the least talked about is just exactly this that you highlighted there was this adoption of that everything in society could be categorized and scientifically managed and that that was the right approach. But I think what you point out here is that it also had tons of consequences.Daniel Herriges (40:22.51)Mm -hmm.Yeah, in the more historical portion of the book, I got to do a lot of research on the origins of American zoning for this book. And you really see that underlying ideology in the way people talk about it. The earliest attempts at residential zoning came from a really good place. They largely came from progressive public health reforms in the late 19th and early 20th century. People looking at squalid conditions in tenements and like...Kevin K (40:33.68)Lucky you.Kevin K (40:53.488)Mm -hmm.Daniel Herriges (40:53.71)People are getting sick, these buildings are catching on fire, what can we do? And so there are some really obvious reforms that take shape that, okay, we're gonna require a little more space between buildings so light and air can get in, we're gonna require firewalls. But then you very quickly see that morph into a tool that can be used not for sort of urgent public health and safety needs, but for either to address circumstances that...frankly, kind of really elitist reformers deem morally objectionable. You see anti -immigrant sentiment play into it. You see a lot of things, but you see this notion that, well, now that we have this tool of we can regulate the form and the arrangement of buildings in the city, hey, this is great. We can designate whole neighborhoods where apartment houses aren't allowed because we think that apartment houses are going to be a deleterious impact on the moral well -being of the neighborhood, on the children who are going to play with God knows who.Um, a mere parasite. Take advantage of the, I can't, I can't quote the whole thing from memory, but yeah, take advantage of the pleasant residential character in the neighborhood, but degrade that character at the same time. You can find tons of quotes like that and you can find it from the same reformist figures who were involved in sort of the anti -tenement struggles. So it's really easy, I think, to moralize about figures of the past and to judge them by what we know in the present.Kevin K (41:51.312)What were they described as in the Euclid decision, like parasites? Yeah.Daniel Herriges (42:21.326)And I'm doing a little bit of that right now. And I do try to be disciplined about not doing that. You have to understand that these people thought they were doing good and they were products of their time. And that in some ways they were doing good. But what you see is that these regulatory tools, whether the intentions were good to begin with or not, they've metastasized into this notion that now we're going to order the entire urban landscape and we're going to strictly separate uses from each other.residential zone over here and the apartment the higher density apartment zone over here and the commercial over here. And it becomes this thing that's less about you know well we can really articulate the the urgent public purpose here the urgent health and safety issue and more about well of course we should do this of course we should diligently plan every aspect of the city to ensure that it's harmonious and works well and.And so it gets put to all sorts of purposes where each one in isolation might make sense. The rationale for building setback requirements might make sense in isolation. The rationale for parking mandates, especially at a certain time in history, might have made sense in isolation. There's often a very concrete problem that the planners of the day are trying to address. You lump all of it together, and now we've got this system that we've inherited that has just become this multi -headed hydra.The zoning chapter of the book starts with an anecdote about Somerville, Massachusetts, which I'm indebted to Daniel K. Hertz, who's a housing scholar for this. But the illegal city of Somerville was a blog post that Hertz initially wrote back in 2015 based on a study that Somerville's own planning department did where they found that in a city of 80 ,000 people, there were only 22 conforming lots. There were only 22 lots in the entire city of Somerville where...What was standing on that lot, if it burned down today, you could get a permit to rebuild it tomorrow. Like, that's insane. And nobody who initially contributed to the spread of zoning, nobody foresaw that outcome. But we have a broken paradigm.Kevin K (44:26.448)And I think most lay people especially have no idea how crazy that's gotten. And I think the house that I live in now is actually a non -conforming lot for the zoning that we live in. And it's pretty amazing how that has metastasized so much. I wonder, and I also do appreciate what you're talking about. I do feel like sometimes it's easy to cast dispersions on.I mean, I think if you went back in time, you would find that it was often many, most of the smartest and most idealistic people of those generations who were really doing what they felt was the right thing to do to make better places and have a better society. And we have a hundred years of hindsight now to look at those things. And it's, so we have a lot of easier way to look at what's worked and what hasn't. But...I really do think that a lot of it had good intentions behind it that we don't talk about. One thing I want to hit on while I have you is, you know, now that you're back in Minnesota and you left Florida, which is a very high growth state, and I'm not sure how fast growth Sarasota and that region is in particular compared to other parts of Florida. But...Daniel Herriges (45:50.166)extremely.Kevin K (45:53.52)How do you perceive these issues, especially some of the housing issues being different in really fast growth places like the Sunbelt versus here in the Midwest, Kansas City and Minneapolis are both growing metropolitan areas, but they grow very modestly. Although I think the Twin Cities probably grows faster than most people realize, but they're still by comparisons of Sunbelt cities, they're slower growing.Daniel Herriges (46:18.67)Yeah. The issues of people struggling to afford rent or to find a home in the kind of place they want, I mean, those exist in both kinds of places. I do think there are some really key kind of contextual differences in the Sunbelt. I mean, Sarasota, that region is home to two of the three fastest growing master planned communities in the US. Number one is the villages, which is the 55 plus.Kevin K (46:47.92)Yeah. Sure. Yeah.Daniel Herriges (46:48.43)like Metro at this point outside of Orlando, but then two and three are both in Greater Sarasota. So incredible amounts of in -migration from other parts of the US, incredible rate of growth. And so it gives you the opportunity to make big mistakes really quickly. Like from my perspective, I mean, driving around on the suburban fringe of Sarasota is kind of this horrifying scene of just like, okay, here's two more square miles that have been clear cut that weren't clear cut last month, and they're going to be subdivisions and.We can replicate our bad mistakes really, really quickly. But we can also, there's a whole bunch of energy that can go towards like making things better. You know, you just like, when you're growing, there are resources to be spread around. I think there's a zero sum element to the conversation in slow or no growth places that becomes a little bit more challenging where like, you know, I'm...I would love to see a whole bunch of urban revitalization in St. Paul where I live now. I can think of specific spots around the city that have just sort of languished for decades, you know. Big giant vacant lots that were vacant when I was a little kid and are still vacant. And it's kind of like, when is somebody going to do something here? And it's like, well, when are enough people going to move to St. Paul to make it economically viable for somebody to, quote unquote, do something with all of this land? And I'm dying to see it happen.And I think the kind of opportunities are different. I was in Charlotte for the Congress for New Urbanism, along with the Strong Towns National Gathering last May. And in Charlotte, it's incredible. They've built this light rail line and at like three different stops on the one light rail line, there are entire high density mixed use neighborhoods popping up out of full cloth. And it's just like, how on earth is there this much money going like...And nothing like that is going to happen here. And we kind of have to resign ourselves to like, we're not going to see these miraculous things just emerge from the dirt. But what's possible in, you know, the kind of environment where you don't have the cataclysmic money so much, you don't have the, you know, real estate isn't the same kind of like just omnipresent giant business as it is in somewhere like Florida or somewhere like North Carolina.Daniel Herriges (49:14.958)What you have is opportunities for incremental developers who are resourceful and a little bit scrappy. And if, especially if local government can find the way to support people who want to be the one to buy that vacant lot in their neighborhood and put up something cool on it, remove the barriers in the way of that person, help them connect with each other, learn from each other, access financing. Cool things can happen from the bottom up.in places where, you know, from a 30 ,000 foot view, they're not growing or exploding in the same way. And that's something that I get really excited about. It's something that the last third of our book is really heavily devoted to. Kevin, you're actually in the book. I don't know if you knew this. You are credited with the term swarm for talking about, you know, having a whole bunch of small scale developers.Kevin K (50:00.432)Uh oh, I didn't know that.Kevin K (50:05.464)Ha ha ha ha.Daniel Herriges (50:11.598)building within existing neighborhoods, within the existing fabric of our cities, as opposed to the current large developer, large site led model of how we build housing. But that's to the extent that we have a prescription for what needs to happen, that's at the core of it, is we need to cultivate and enable and support the swarm of.up, you know, infill developers working at small scales, often people working with property they already own and live on or in the neighborhood where they live, to start to thicken up the places that we already have where we do need housing, doing backyard cottages, doing vacant lot infill, doing small apartment buildings, mixed use projects. And the places where we see that happening, where we see like some snowballing momentum with a community of people doing the small scale development work,It's not the San Francisco's of the world. Nobody can afford to do it there. It's not the big Sunbelt cities. It's not Sarasota. It's not Charlotte. It's not Nashville. Those places are a little more mired in this like kind of suburban experiment mindset. That's really, really hostile to anyone other than a big entrenched developer. Where we see it happening is it's in South Bend, Indiana, which we discuss a lot in the book. It's in Memphis, Tennessee. It's in these poorer places, these disinvested places where there's a huge amount of opportunity to bring them back.But it's going to happen through kind of scrappy people working, you know, working in the cracks and the seams of what's already there.Kevin K (51:43.408)Yeah, I was going to ask you, you know, it's always dangerous to give kind of generic advice in a book or on a podcast. And I want people to buy the book. So we don't want to give away everything here. But what else might you tease that you talk about in the book as potential avenues for people to look at? And is it mostly focused like at the local level or do you talk about like national?Daniel Herriges (51:58.542)Hahaha.Kevin K (52:13.476)changes as well.Daniel Herriges (52:16.174)I think the national aspect is there in talking about the housing finance system and the history of how it's developed. A lot of the historical stuff meant to set the context. I think we deliberately shy away from offering federal policy prescriptions. True to the bottom -up emphasis of strong towns. What you're gonna get out of this book, if you go in looking for the solution to the housing crisis, you're gonna be disappointed.In fact, our publisher wanted us to have the Strong Towns solution to the housing crisis be the subject of the book. And we fought them on it. We said, no, it's the Strong Towns response to the housing crisis. We don't have a solution for you, but we have avenues to pursue. And those avenues are local. I think there's a lot that is within the power of local governments to jumpstart and to help snowball and sometimes just to get out of the...Kevin K (52:50.128)Oh, there you go.Daniel Herriges (53:13.102)of the paradigm shift that really needs to happen. I'm not gonna spoil it, I want people to buy the book. Believe it or not, much more than you want people to buy the book, I want people to buy the book. There's some stuff, and some things that Chuck came up with that I was kind of blown away by, like it's never occurred to me that this is a policy tool we could use, but there's some really good practical advice for local leaders.Kevin K (53:22.416)I'm sure you do.Daniel Herriges (53:41.838)local developers, local governments in particular, to not be helpless at the hands of these overbearing market forces. The housing market, capital H, capital M, is this thing that just goes up and up and up forever. But how can we get out of the clutches of that? And how can we enable bottom -up solutions to actually proliferate in our communities from people who are invested in our communities?Kevin K (54:07.696)Great. That's great. Daniel, what else is next up for you? I presume you're going to keep writing. Are you going to become a small developer at some point?Daniel Herriges (54:17.71)Uh, not out of the question. I will never say it's out of the question, because small developers are kind of... Small developers are kind of my heroes. I've got the bug, you know? I go, I'm out and about around the city, I'm walking, I'm riding my bike, and I'm constantly looking at some derelict or vacant lot and saying, well, what could be there? And who's gonna do it? And like, I get excited about that. I'm probably not becoming a small developer anytime soon. I don't know that I have the risk tolerance or the constitution for it.Kevin K (54:18.672)I ask I try to I try to ask everybody that and put and nudge peopleKevin K (54:36.272)Shush, shush, shush.Daniel Herriges (54:47.598)Definitely gonna keep writing. I write every week just about for Strong Towns and we'll see what else comes next. But I'm really excited to have finished this book and for the world to get to read it.Kevin K (54:58.96)Well, I'm looking forward to it. I'll certainly buy it myself and look forward to finding out where I am in the book. That's interesting to hear. So always fascinating. So Daniel, as we wrap up, do you have a favorite messy city or messy neighborhood that you want to talk about?Daniel Herriges (55:07.406)HeheheDaniel Herriges (55:17.614)Oh man, that's a really good question.Kevin K (55:19.952)That's why I ask it.Daniel Herriges (55:23.906)That's why you ask it.Kevin K (55:24.91)Yeah.Daniel Herriges (55:33.774)I got too many favorite messy places. The places that I go to is just my favorite kind of urban places are often not particularly messy. They're just the shining examples, like Savannah's historic district of just like, man, if we could just do this all day every day, that would be great. But I do appreciate messiness. I appreciate kind of ad hoc places where people are doing what they can with what they have.Honestly, you see a lot of that outside the US. It's been a while since I've left the country and I feel like I'm due to find a chance to travel. I am fascinated by cities in the global south. I lived in Quito, Ecuador for a little less than a year when I was younger and the tolerance for messiness there is like super cool. Like if you want to do something, you kind of go out and do it, largely because like the state doesn't have the capacity to stand in your way, but...Kevin K (56:18.704)Oh wow.Daniel Herriges (56:34.776)There is like an ad hoc transportation system in Quito that I went my first two months that I lived there I went looking fruitlessly over and over for like a system map where I could see all the bus routes and where they go I finally realized that there wasn't one There was no such thing because these are just private operators and they run a bus and they'd slap a bunch of signs on the front windshield of neighborhoods that that bus served and you paid a quarter and you got on and You kind of had to figure it out through trial and errorKevin K (56:47.44)Ha ha.Kevin K (57:01.968)Yeah, that's the...Daniel Herriges (57:03.086)But it was this incredibly adaptive system. You could get anywhere once you figured out how to use these informal buses. But same things like informal forms of like the lowest bar to entry development. You would see street vendors all over the place. Like that's the entry stage restaurant. You know, you set up a little shack in the park, or let's shack a little stand, and you sell like skewered meats in the park. And eventually you get a brick and mortar space. And you like, I love that kind of thing.There's an energy and an excitement that it's almost totally absent from North American cities.Kevin K (57:36.784)Yeah, actually, I just read a really great article that Chris Arnod just published, I think this week, on the very topic. And he even talked about Quito, Ecuador. And he was comparing the experience as a bus rider there versus being a bus rider in Los Angeles or a lot of other American cities. And just completely echoed almost everything you just said, which is very true. Yeah. Yeah, he's a brilliant writer. So.Daniel Herriges (57:43.5)Mm -hmm.Daniel Herriges (57:53.294)YeahDaniel Herriges (57:58.382)Yeah, I read that same article, it was great. I always love his writing.Kevin K (58:04.624)Well, Daniel, thanks so much for all this. It's really great to catch up and look forward to getting the book and engaging more and talking about these issues. So appreciate your time.Daniel Herriges (58:09.486)Thank you.Daniel Herriges (58:16.398)Totally, I will tell your listeners, housingtrap .org is the one stop shop if you wanna, you can pre -order the book from there, you can get links to places you can do it, you can also learn about hosting an event to talk about some of these issues. So.Kevin K (58:30.244)Terrific, terrific. And could also find you on the Strongtown site and on social media. All right. All right, Daniel. Thanks again. Take care.Daniel Herriges (58:35.796)Absolutely.Daniel Herriges (58:40.078)Thank you, Kevin. Take care. Get full access to The Messy City at kevinklinkenberg.substack.com/subscribe

The idea that young people are the most liberal and progressive people you'll ever meet is being challenged as new studies show youth are detaching from democracy across the Anglosphere. Instead, they are finding forms of authoritarianism appealing. Fed up with the challenging generational hand they've been dealt, some are denouncing democratic institutions and looking towards strong leaders to quickly fix their problems. Is Canada immune to this trend?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.louiseperry.co.ukMy guest today is Rachael Wong, CEO of Women's Forum Australia and an Adjunct Lecturer in the School of Law at the University of Notre Dame Australia. We spoke about a whole host of legal issues of concern to Australian feminists right now: self-ID, surrogacy, prostitution, pornography, and more. We also spoke about why Australia – and New Zealand even more so – seems to be so much more extreme on progressive issues than other parts of the Anglosphere, and the extent to which it is the law, rather than culture, that is driving that.

Welcome to this festive episode of the Edition podcast, where we will be taking you through the pages of The Spectator's special Christmas triple issue.  Up first: What a year in politics it has been. 2023 has seen scandals, sackings, arrests and the return of some familiar faces. It's easy to forget that at the start of the year Nicola Sturgeon was still leader of the SNP! To make sense of it all is editor of The Spectator, Fraser Nelson, The Spectator's political editor Katy Balls, and Quentin Letts, sketch writer for the Daily Mail. (01:06) Next: The story that has dominated the pages of The Spectator in the latter half of this year is of course the conflict in Gaza. Writing in the Christmas magazine, Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Bloomberg Opinion columnist Niall Ferguson discusses the history of generational divide when it comes to geopolitical conflicts. This is partly inspired by a piece that Douglas Murray wrote earlier in the year, pointing out the generational divide in the Anglosphere when it comes to support for either Israel or Palestine. They both join the podcast to ask why the kids aren't all right? (19:29) Then: In the Christmas magazine this year Charles Moore discusses the divine comedy of PG Wodehouse, and discloses to readers the various literary and biblical references contained within The Code of the Woosters. To unpack the Master's references further and discuss the genius of Wodehouse, Charles is joined by evolutionary biologist and author, Richard Dawkins. (41:03)  And finally: who would put on a village Christmas play?  This is the question Laurie Graham asks in her piece for The Spectator where she rues her decision to once again take charge of her community's Christmas play. It's a struggle that our own William Moore knows all too well. He has written and will star in his local village Christmas play this year. Laurie and William join  the podcast to discuss how to put on a great Christmas play. (57:30).  Throughout the podcast you will also hear from The Spectator's agony aunt Dear Mary and the special celebrity guests who have sought her advice in this year's Christmas magazine, including Joanna Lumley (17:43), Nigel Havers (39:36), Sharron Davies (55:56) and Edwina Currie (01:10:59).  Hosted by William Moore and Lara Prendergast.  Produced by Oscar Edmondson. 

Welcome to this festive episode of the Edition podcast, where we will be taking you through the pages of The Spectator's special Christmas triple issue.  Up first: What a year in politics it has been. 2023 has seen scandals, sackings, arrests and the return of some familiar faces. It's easy to forget that at the start of the year Nicola Sturgeon was still leader of the SNP! To make sense of it all is editor of The Spectator, Fraser Nelson, The Spectator's political editor Katy Balls, and Quentin Letts, sketch writer for the Daily Mail. (01:06) Next: The story that has dominated the pages of The Spectator in the latter half of this year is of course the conflict in Gaza. Writing in the Christmas magazine, Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Bloomberg Opinion columnist Niall Ferguson discusses the history of generational divide when it comes to geopolitical conflicts. This is partly inspired by a piece that Douglas Murray wrote earlier in the year, pointing out the generational divide in the Anglosphere when it comes to support for either Israel or Palestine. They both join the podcast to ask why the kids aren't all right? (19:29) Then: In the Christmas magazine this year Charles Moore discusses the divine comedy of PG Wodehouse, and discloses to readers the various literary and biblical references contained within The Code of the Woosters. To unpack the Master's references further and discuss the genius of Wodehouse, Charles is joined by evolutionary biologist and author, Richard Dawkins. (41:03)  And finally: who would put on a village Christmas play?  This is the question Laurie Graham asks in her piece for The Spectator where she rues her decision to once again take charge of her community's Christmas play. It's a struggle that our own William Moore knows all too well. He has written and will star in his local village Christmas play this year. Laurie and William join  the podcast to discuss how to put on a great Christmas play. (57:30).  Throughout the podcast you will also hear from The Spectator's agony aunt Dear Mary and the special celebrity guests who have sought her advice in this year's Christmas magazine, including Joanna Lumley (17:43), Nigel Havers (39:36), Sharron Davies (55:56) and Edwina Currie (01:10:59).  Hosted by William Moore and Lara Prendergast.  Produced by Oscar Edmondson. 

Connor interviews Professor Eric Kaufmann, adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute and head of the Centre for Heterodox Social Science at the University of Buckingham, about his 2018 book Whiteshift, the origins and aims of Woke, and if demographic change spells cultural extinction for the Anglosphere.

Freedom of expression is under the gun in the Land of the Free. We look at what media in the United States is missing in Israel's war on Gaza - and why it matters.Contributors:Noura Erakat - Associate Professor, Rutgers UniversityAbdallah Fayyad - Journalist; Former Member, Boston Globe Editorial BoardAlex Kane - Senior Reporter, Jewish CurrentsJack Mirkinson - Acting Senior Editor, The NationOn our radar:The vast majority of mainstream outlets in the US are corporate-owned. Nic Muirhead reports on how publicly-funded broadcasters in the Anglosphere are taking heat over their coverage of the Gaza story.‘India Stands With Israel':Indo-Israeli relations have been on the upswing for the past few years. And in this war, Indians have been showing their support through posts online, and rants on TV with some disinformation thrown in, to skew how this conflict is understood. Meenakshi Ravi reports.Contributors:Azad Essa - Author, Hostile Homelands; Journalist, Middle East EyePooja Chaudhuri - Researcher and Trainer, BellingcatSwasti Rao - Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and AnalysesSubscribe to our channel http://bit.ly/AJSubscribeFollow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/AJEnglishFind us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/aljazeeraCheck our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/Check out our Instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/aljazeeraenglish/Download AJE Mobile App: https://aje.io/AJEMobile@AljazeeraEnglish#Aljazeeraenglish#News

I went to the ARC conference yesterday - to give it its full name the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship. It is an organisation set up by Jordan Peterson, Paul Marshall, Philippa Stroud, Alan McKormick and others to “develop a better narrative in response to life's most fundamental social, economic, philosophical and cultural questions”. I spent much of the day taking notes, and I thought I'd write them up here so that readers can enjoy a distilled version, without the rigours of having to travel to the depths of London SE and sitting through a lot of talking.“What's it like?” Merryn Somerset Webb texted on her way in that morning. “A bit like a religious gathering,” I replied, (something Tim Stanley also observed in a barbed piece in the Telegraph). I'm quite happy with that, because I am one of the believers. I have to say the organisers have put together quite a roster of speakers, one massive oversight aside, which was not having me speak.Philippa Stroud and Jordan Petersen hosted the morning events, which began with recently removed US speaker of the house Kevin McCarthy. Peterson, who had made a brave choice of suit even by his standards - and, I say with a little concern, looked exhausted  - made the point that we each have a responsibility to do our own little bit, if we are to improve things.In this Noah's Flood of podcasts through which we are currently living, I'm kind of done with conversations. So many people now just seem to be regurgitating the words of others. So few seem to say anything original or interesting. We are caught in this media merry-go-round in which everyone is just commenting on what everyone else has said and nobody actually seems to be creating anything. Moreover, I am kind of done with panels. Three guests, sitting on chairs, a host, who keeps opening it up the the audience, where the conversation then loses all direction. Give me strength. It's always a good way to go into an event with low expectations because when reality exceeds expectation you end up happy. So it was here. (Read more on the secret of happiness). Laurence Fox, who is a buddy and with whom I hung out, was in a similarly jaded frame of mind. The right is great at identifying what the problem is, he said to me over coffee and a fag, but no good at doing anything about it. The problem, I suggested, is that many don't actually know what to do, which is why so much talking goes on. Perhaps the answer lies in Peterson's solution. We each have to do our own little bit in our own little worlds, doing whatever we do. That's the nature of free markets and free everything: it starts with the individual and it is a bottom-up thing.The first panel was about narrative. That had former Aussie deputy PM John Anderson, who was excellent on the fact that in the Anglosphere, we have stopped telling our own story and, as a result, lost sight of who we are and what we stand for. This was a recurring theme throughout the day. Somali-Dutch activist, Ayaan Hersi, talking about Hamas and Islamic extremism, added that “their story is not your story and your story is not their story”, so it is never going to work. She may not have meant it, but that is actually quite a strong argument against multiculturalism. And I loved this line from US author Os Guiness: “freedom is not the power to do what you like. It is the power to do what you ought”I went into the break keen to do my own little bit and put the world right, and ran into my old boss from GB News, Angelos Frangopoulos, who was similarly invigorated. I had a good chat with him. I then ran into Jimmy Carr, of all people, who I know of old, and had a good chat with him too. I then met Holly Valance, who is a famous actress from Neighbours, if you didn't know (I didn't) and had a good chat with her about home education. So, never mind the roster of speakers, the calibre of audience was pretty good too.The next session was hosted by Fraser Nelson of the Spectator, another of the many UK media outlets which has forgone the opportunity to give me work. There was a talk by MP Miriam Cates about mental health and the decline of family. I agreed with pretty much every point she made, but don't read your speeches, speak them, Mmiriam. They have more impact when you do.Next Nelson would interview a chap over videolink to the states, Jonathan Haidt, and my heart sank. Why have I come all this way to watch a live zoom call? Guess what? It was brilliant.It was about children and mobile phones. Moral of the story? Don't let your kids anywhere near them. Mental health, depression, anxiety and suicide rates among young women  in the Anglosphere and Nordic countries are all all at all time highs. They are not so bad among religious conservatives, they are much higher in cultures where female independence is strong, especially left wing, secular liberals (who tend to be allowed on their phones more). It has rocketed since 2010 when we all got smartphones.  He talked about the importance of play amongst children, and how we have replaced a play-based childhood with a phone-based childhood. Kids see each other and socialise far less now than they used to. Kids don't need connections. They don't need retweets and likes. Even less do they need all the bullying and shaming that goes on. Tiktok messes with your mind and your ability to concentrate, but Instagram is the worst for women and mental health.Haidt's solution was not to give kids a smartphone before the age of 14, give them flip phones. No social media before the age of 16. No phones in schools, not even in your backpacks otherwise kids will find a way to feed the addiction. Get back to play. The rise in teenage suicide is perhaps the biggest problem since we wiped out polio, cholera and mass disease.Tell your mates.So to the afternoon …In the afternoon, Paul Marshall gave a brilliant talk. For someone who is supposed to be shy and retiring, he was great - and he didn't read his speech, or if he did it didn't show. He was particularly good on one of my pet hates, crony capitalism. (I even wrote a song about it). He observed how we have benefited from capitalism and free markets, peppering his talk with great historical stories. He bemoaned the conflation of capitalism with monopolistic capitalism, crony capitalism and, what he called swamp capitalism, describing US politics as “continuity swamp”, and called for a politician with strength to stand up to vested interests. He didn't say anything particularly new, but it was one of the best summaries of everything I had heard in a long time. We are both singing so loudly from the same song sheet, I felt he must have been studying my stuff (I doubt he has), though he didn't mention the zero patients in all of this: our systems of money and tax.Then there was another video link with US presidential candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy, on the campaign trail in Utah or somewhere I've never been to. He went down very well in the room too. Merryn Somerset Webb hosted a good panel on ESG investing. The S in ESG is totally subjective, said Derek Kreifels, while Terry Keeley called it the biggest misallocation of capital in history. The general takeaway is that ESG is done. The arguments have been lost, even the FT is now slagging it off. It is, I'd say, roughly where the Nazis were in 1943 after they failed to take Moscow and winter set in.Michael Shellenberger, not a man with whom I was previously familiar, was next and he came out with my line of the day. “Pull back the curtain and there is no Wizard of Oz, just Greta Thunberg with a really bad religion.”His main theme was debunking climate alarmism. He argued that carbon emissions are improving, sea levels are not an issue if the Netherlands is anything to go by. The reason northern countries are so wealthy is that the harsher conditions forced us to develop more. Deaths from climate disasters are down 90%, he said, against a population that is four times bigger. He is more worried about death from drugs. You can't say much of this on the internet though because you get censored. Climate change is a religion. Nihilism leads to secular religions, and not very good ones. There are three new secular religions: they are climate, race and gender. Climate change is also a psychopathology, and most activists have some kind of personality disorder, often narcissism. Frequently they are just spoilt children.The answers lie in increased efficiencies. The fact that the amount of land required to make the same amount of food is decreasing is good: it means more land for nature. The fact that less material is required to do stuff (eg all the things you can do on your phone, a bluetooth speaker vs a stack stereo kit from the 1980s) is another example. Think of the woman who used to have to cook food using dung and wood. Gas has been liberating for her. The solutions lie in gas and nuclear. Not in solar, the panels for which are made by slave labour in concentration camps in China, nor in wind, the blades of which do not recycle or decompose. A panel next with Alex Epstein and Marian Tupy made similar points, and was great. Epstein's argument was that so much of environmental philosophy is just anti-human. That's the underlying problem. We ignore the human flourishing effects of fossil fuel to be anti-human. While Tupy pointed how much better we are producing resources and using them so that their prices fall. Eventually we will create elements through nuclear fission or mine them in outer space where they are plentiful. I liked Tupy. Humans create as well as destroy. Atoms may be finite, but knowledge is infinite, and the more knowledge you consume, the more you end up with. We need freedom and we need population. We need the freedom to explore, the think, to invent, to experiment. And it is so much better when the market, not the government, chooses the winners. In the final session of the day, historian Niall Ferguson spoke. He described how liberal democracy, which in the context of the world today and of history, is tiny, is now under threat, both from within - so many now dare not speak or explore issues because they are scared of the backlash - and from outside. Beware the alliance between China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. I'd had enough talking by this point, so I left the auditorium, had a cup of tea and did some networking. I hope this summary was useful.In other news, I am working on a piece on S&P500, which could be set up for a good year end rally. I am also working on something to do with gold. It is finally catching a bid. New highs around the corner? Maybe. We are going to need them if juniors are to finally catch a bid.Please subscribe to this brilliant newsletter. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

Vladimir Putin is attending the 3rd BRI Forum hosted by Chinese President Xi Jinping. At the same time, the Anglosphere intelligence alliance Five Eyes has just held a public meeting, with a press conference in Silicon Valley. In Ep 1333 of Cut The Clutter, Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta talks about the common theme that emerged from the two events and the evolving theatres of geopolitics. Also featuring a special interaction with ThePrint Deputy Editor Moushumi Das Gupta, just back from covering the ruinous flood in Sikkim.   MI5 head warns of 'epic scale' of Chinese espionage : https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67142161 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Threat of Chinese economic espionage, Beijing's 'strategy' & more: Five Eyes Intel Chiefs' briefing : https://youtu.be/NEhVAP_W44Q  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Five Eyes launches the Five Principles of Secure Innovation : https://www.npsa.gov.uk/blog/security-planning/five-eyes-launches-five-principles-secure-innovation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Threats, Innovation, And Security | Hoover Institution : https://youtu.be/FLqDQvgxenU?si=34KE1q3DgEkP8nTK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Xi aims higher than Mao & Deng on eve of 3rd term, obsesses on security, puts world on notice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_wDqRYgeqs --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) How an alert ITBP jawan on duty 8 km away from South Lhonak lake raised 1st flood alarm in Sikkim : https://theprint.in/india/how-an-alert-itbp-jawan-on-duty-8-km-away-from-south-lhonak-lake-raised-1st-flood-alarm-in-sikkim/1797562/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) What's a ‘moraine', how its fall caused Sikkim's South Lhonak Lake flood and why threat remains: https://theprint.in/india/whats-a-moraine-how-its-fall-caused-sikkims-south-lhonak-lake-flood-and-why-threat-remains/1798392/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Insurance claim filed for Sikkim's submerged Rs 13,965 cr Teesta-III hydel plant, but wait could be long : https://theprint.in/india/flood-submerged-teesta-iii-hydropower-plant-but-sikkim-govt-operator-still-owe-lenders-rs-10000-cr/1800822/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) If Chungthang dam is ‘substandard', why did govt not take action, asks former Sikkim CM Chamling : https://theprint.in/india/governance/if-chungthang-dam-is-substandard-why-did-govt-not-take-action-asks-former-sikkim-cm-chamling/1803601/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Power-surplus state no longer? Sikkim braces for winter after 3 hydropower plants damaged in floods : https://theprint.in/india/governance/power-surplus-state-no-longer-sikkim-braces-for-winter-after-3-hydropower-plants-damaged-in-floods/1810301/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet empire in 1989, many believed that we had arrived at the 'End of History' - that the global dominance of liberal democracy had been secured forever. Now however, with Russia rattling its sabre on the borders of Europe and China rising to challenge the post-1945 world order, the liberal West faces major threats. These threats are not only external. Especially in the Anglosphere, the 'decolonisation' movement corrodes the West's self-confidence by retelling the history of European and American colonial dominance as a litany of racism, exploitation, and massively murderous violence. In Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning (William Collins, 2023), Nigel Biggar tests this indictment, addressing the crucial questions in eight chapters: Was the British Empire driven primarily by greed and the lust to dominate? Should we speak of 'colonialism and slavery' in the same breath, as if they were identical? Was the Empire essentially racist? How far was it based on the theft of land? Did it involve genocide? Was it driven fundamentally by the motive of economic exploitation? Was undemocratic colonial government necessarily illegitimate? and, Was the Empire essentially violent, and its violence pervasively racist and terroristic? Biggar makes clear that, like any other long-standing state, the British Empire involved elements of injustice, sometimes appalling. On occasions it was culpably incompetent and presided over moments of dreadful tragedy. Nevertheless, from the early 1800s the Empire was committed to abolishing the slave trade in the name of a Christian conviction of the basic equality of all human beings. It ended endemic inter-tribal warfare, opened local economies to the opportunities of global trade, moderated the impact of inescapable modernisation, established the rule of law and liberal institutions such as a free press, and spent itself in defeating the murderously racist Nazi and Japanese empires in the Second World War. As encyclopaedic in historical breadth as it is penetrating in analytical depth, Colonialism offers a moral inquest into the colonial past, forensically contesting damaging falsehoods and thereby helping to rejuvenate faith in the West's future. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. 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

In the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet empire in 1989, many believed that we had arrived at the 'End of History' - that the global dominance of liberal democracy had been secured forever. Now however, with Russia rattling its sabre on the borders of Europe and China rising to challenge the post-1945 world order, the liberal West faces major threats. These threats are not only external. Especially in the Anglosphere, the 'decolonisation' movement corrodes the West's self-confidence by retelling the history of European and American colonial dominance as a litany of racism, exploitation, and massively murderous violence. In Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning (William Collins, 2023), Nigel Biggar tests this indictment, addressing the crucial questions in eight chapters: Was the British Empire driven primarily by greed and the lust to dominate? Should we speak of 'colonialism and slavery' in the same breath, as if they were identical? Was the Empire essentially racist? How far was it based on the theft of land? Did it involve genocide? Was it driven fundamentally by the motive of economic exploitation? Was undemocratic colonial government necessarily illegitimate? and, Was the Empire essentially violent, and its violence pervasively racist and terroristic? Biggar makes clear that, like any other long-standing state, the British Empire involved elements of injustice, sometimes appalling. On occasions it was culpably incompetent and presided over moments of dreadful tragedy. Nevertheless, from the early 1800s the Empire was committed to abolishing the slave trade in the name of a Christian conviction of the basic equality of all human beings. It ended endemic inter-tribal warfare, opened local economies to the opportunities of global trade, moderated the impact of inescapable modernisation, established the rule of law and liberal institutions such as a free press, and spent itself in defeating the murderously racist Nazi and Japanese empires in the Second World War. As encyclopaedic in historical breadth as it is penetrating in analytical depth, Colonialism offers a moral inquest into the colonial past, forensically contesting damaging falsehoods and thereby helping to rejuvenate faith in the West's future. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. 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

In the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet empire in 1989, many believed that we had arrived at the 'End of History' - that the global dominance of liberal democracy had been secured forever. Now however, with Russia rattling its sabre on the borders of Europe and China rising to challenge the post-1945 world order, the liberal West faces major threats. These threats are not only external. Especially in the Anglosphere, the 'decolonisation' movement corrodes the West's self-confidence by retelling the history of European and American colonial dominance as a litany of racism, exploitation, and massively murderous violence. In Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning (William Collins, 2023), Nigel Biggar tests this indictment, addressing the crucial questions in eight chapters: Was the British Empire driven primarily by greed and the lust to dominate? Should we speak of 'colonialism and slavery' in the same breath, as if they were identical? Was the Empire essentially racist? How far was it based on the theft of land? Did it involve genocide? Was it driven fundamentally by the motive of economic exploitation? Was undemocratic colonial government necessarily illegitimate? and, Was the Empire essentially violent, and its violence pervasively racist and terroristic? Biggar makes clear that, like any other long-standing state, the British Empire involved elements of injustice, sometimes appalling. On occasions it was culpably incompetent and presided over moments of dreadful tragedy. Nevertheless, from the early 1800s the Empire was committed to abolishing the slave trade in the name of a Christian conviction of the basic equality of all human beings. It ended endemic inter-tribal warfare, opened local economies to the opportunities of global trade, moderated the impact of inescapable modernisation, established the rule of law and liberal institutions such as a free press, and spent itself in defeating the murderously racist Nazi and Japanese empires in the Second World War. As encyclopaedic in historical breadth as it is penetrating in analytical depth, Colonialism offers a moral inquest into the colonial past, forensically contesting damaging falsehoods and thereby helping to rejuvenate faith in the West's future. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

In the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet empire in 1989, many believed that we had arrived at the 'End of History' - that the global dominance of liberal democracy had been secured forever. Now however, with Russia rattling its sabre on the borders of Europe and China rising to challenge the post-1945 world order, the liberal West faces major threats. These threats are not only external. Especially in the Anglosphere, the 'decolonisation' movement corrodes the West's self-confidence by retelling the history of European and American colonial dominance as a litany of racism, exploitation, and massively murderous violence. In Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning (William Collins, 2023), Nigel Biggar tests this indictment, addressing the crucial questions in eight chapters: Was the British Empire driven primarily by greed and the lust to dominate? Should we speak of 'colonialism and slavery' in the same breath, as if they were identical? Was the Empire essentially racist? How far was it based on the theft of land? Did it involve genocide? Was it driven fundamentally by the motive of economic exploitation? Was undemocratic colonial government necessarily illegitimate? and, Was the Empire essentially violent, and its violence pervasively racist and terroristic? Biggar makes clear that, like any other long-standing state, the British Empire involved elements of injustice, sometimes appalling. On occasions it was culpably incompetent and presided over moments of dreadful tragedy. Nevertheless, from the early 1800s the Empire was committed to abolishing the slave trade in the name of a Christian conviction of the basic equality of all human beings. It ended endemic inter-tribal warfare, opened local economies to the opportunities of global trade, moderated the impact of inescapable modernisation, established the rule of law and liberal institutions such as a free press, and spent itself in defeating the murderously racist Nazi and Japanese empires in the Second World War. As encyclopaedic in historical breadth as it is penetrating in analytical depth, Colonialism offers a moral inquest into the colonial past, forensically contesting damaging falsehoods and thereby helping to rejuvenate faith in the West's future. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/caribbean-studies

In the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet empire in 1989, many believed that we had arrived at the 'End of History' - that the global dominance of liberal democracy had been secured forever. Now however, with Russia rattling its sabre on the borders of Europe and China rising to challenge the post-1945 world order, the liberal West faces major threats. These threats are not only external. Especially in the Anglosphere, the 'decolonisation' movement corrodes the West's self-confidence by retelling the history of European and American colonial dominance as a litany of racism, exploitation, and massively murderous violence. In Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning (William Collins, 2023), Nigel Biggar tests this indictment, addressing the crucial questions in eight chapters: Was the British Empire driven primarily by greed and the lust to dominate? Should we speak of 'colonialism and slavery' in the same breath, as if they were identical? Was the Empire essentially racist? How far was it based on the theft of land? Did it involve genocide? Was it driven fundamentally by the motive of economic exploitation? Was undemocratic colonial government necessarily illegitimate? and, Was the Empire essentially violent, and its violence pervasively racist and terroristic? Biggar makes clear that, like any other long-standing state, the British Empire involved elements of injustice, sometimes appalling. On occasions it was culpably incompetent and presided over moments of dreadful tragedy. Nevertheless, from the early 1800s the Empire was committed to abolishing the slave trade in the name of a Christian conviction of the basic equality of all human beings. It ended endemic inter-tribal warfare, opened local economies to the opportunities of global trade, moderated the impact of inescapable modernisation, established the rule of law and liberal institutions such as a free press, and spent itself in defeating the murderously racist Nazi and Japanese empires in the Second World War. As encyclopaedic in historical breadth as it is penetrating in analytical depth, Colonialism offers a moral inquest into the colonial past, forensically contesting damaging falsehoods and thereby helping to rejuvenate faith in the West's future. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

In the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet empire in 1989, many believed that we had arrived at the 'End of History' - that the global dominance of liberal democracy had been secured forever. Now however, with Russia rattling its sabre on the borders of Europe and China rising to challenge the post-1945 world order, the liberal West faces major threats. These threats are not only external. Especially in the Anglosphere, the 'decolonisation' movement corrodes the West's self-confidence by retelling the history of European and American colonial dominance as a litany of racism, exploitation, and massively murderous violence. In Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning (William Collins, 2023), Nigel Biggar tests this indictment, addressing the crucial questions in eight chapters: Was the British Empire driven primarily by greed and the lust to dominate? Should we speak of 'colonialism and slavery' in the same breath, as if they were identical? Was the Empire essentially racist? How far was it based on the theft of land? Did it involve genocide? Was it driven fundamentally by the motive of economic exploitation? Was undemocratic colonial government necessarily illegitimate? and, Was the Empire essentially violent, and its violence pervasively racist and terroristic? Biggar makes clear that, like any other long-standing state, the British Empire involved elements of injustice, sometimes appalling. On occasions it was culpably incompetent and presided over moments of dreadful tragedy. Nevertheless, from the early 1800s the Empire was committed to abolishing the slave trade in the name of a Christian conviction of the basic equality of all human beings. It ended endemic inter-tribal warfare, opened local economies to the opportunities of global trade, moderated the impact of inescapable modernisation, established the rule of law and liberal institutions such as a free press, and spent itself in defeating the murderously racist Nazi and Japanese empires in the Second World War. As encyclopaedic in historical breadth as it is penetrating in analytical depth, Colonialism offers a moral inquest into the colonial past, forensically contesting damaging falsehoods and thereby helping to rejuvenate faith in the West's future. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

In the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet empire in 1989, many believed that we had arrived at the 'End of History' - that the global dominance of liberal democracy had been secured forever. Now however, with Russia rattling its sabre on the borders of Europe and China rising to challenge the post-1945 world order, the liberal West faces major threats. These threats are not only external. Especially in the Anglosphere, the 'decolonisation' movement corrodes the West's self-confidence by retelling the history of European and American colonial dominance as a litany of racism, exploitation, and massively murderous violence. In Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning (William Collins, 2023), Nigel Biggar tests this indictment, addressing the crucial questions in eight chapters: Was the British Empire driven primarily by greed and the lust to dominate? Should we speak of 'colonialism and slavery' in the same breath, as if they were identical? Was the Empire essentially racist? How far was it based on the theft of land? Did it involve genocide? Was it driven fundamentally by the motive of economic exploitation? Was undemocratic colonial government necessarily illegitimate? and, Was the Empire essentially violent, and its violence pervasively racist and terroristic? Biggar makes clear that, like any other long-standing state, the British Empire involved elements of injustice, sometimes appalling. On occasions it was culpably incompetent and presided over moments of dreadful tragedy. Nevertheless, from the early 1800s the Empire was committed to abolishing the slave trade in the name of a Christian conviction of the basic equality of all human beings. It ended endemic inter-tribal warfare, opened local economies to the opportunities of global trade, moderated the impact of inescapable modernisation, established the rule of law and liberal institutions such as a free press, and spent itself in defeating the murderously racist Nazi and Japanese empires in the Second World War. As encyclopaedic in historical breadth as it is penetrating in analytical depth, Colonialism offers a moral inquest into the colonial past, forensically contesting damaging falsehoods and thereby helping to rejuvenate faith in the West's future. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-studies

The ongoing India-Canada row over the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar has brought into spotlight ‘Five Eyes', an “Anglosphere” alliance comprising the UK, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In Ep 1314 of Cut The Clutter, Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta explains what the alliance is, takes you back to its roots in World War 2, and the secrecy around its operations until about a decade ago. At the end of the episode, find a short conversation with ThePrint's award-winning reporter Jyoti Yadav as she discusses her latest assignment tracking down Bhanwari Devi, and the nine-month-old girl whose marriage she tried to stop three decades ago.   ----more----   Bhanwari Devi was raped for trying to stop 1992 child marriage. ‘I curse her daily,' says bride : https://theprint.in/ground-reports/bhanwari-devi-was-raped-for-trying-to-stop-1992-child-marriage-i-curse-her-daily-says-bride/1765956/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhanwari Devi was raped for trying to stop child marriage, ThePrint traces that child who's now 32: https://youtu.be/y70zQ5PVPJA?si=JVBPTlluR08ePsBm 

Get full access to INDIGNITY at indignity.substack.com/subscribe

Connor is joined by author Doug Stokes, Professor in International Security at the University of Exeter and Senior Advisor at the Legatum Institute, to discuss his new book Against Decolonisation: Campus Culture Wars and the Decline of the West (2023) about the cultural revolution that Critical Race Theory has wrought on the Anglosphere's institutions, and its impact on the emergence of a unipolar global order.

Listen in as we tackle a crucial question on the concern of all BRICS members having religious beliefs and traditions that are historically hostile towards Christianity and Israel. We highlight the increasing shift from geopolitics to theopolitics in our discussion. We also explore the possibility of forming a union of the Anglosphere with the Brick Nation forming a new currency and a new trading block.   Resources:  ●     Start the 24/7 Protection of Your Home and Equity Today! Go to https://www.hometitlelock.com/turleytalks  ●     Get carrying TODAY with Countrywide Concealed HERE: https://www.frebahlem.com/BG484F42/G38H44Q/ ●     Join me and Ross on Thursday, August 31st at 3PM EST, and learn exactly how YOU can turn the swamp's corruption into value for you and your family! Sign up HERE: https://turleytalksinsidertrading.com/registration/?tambid=18762 ●     HE'LL BE BACK! Get your limited edition TRUMPINATOR 2024 Bobblehead HERE: https://offers.proudpatriots.com/ ●     The Courageous Patriot Community is inviting YOU! Join the movement now and build the parallel economy at https://join.turleytalks.com/insiders-club-evergreen/?utm_medium=podcast    Thank you for taking the time to listen to this episode.  If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and/or leave a review. Sick and tired of Big Tech, censorship, and endless propaganda? Join my Insiders Club with a FREE TRIAL today at: https://insidersclub.turleytalks.com Make sure to FOLLOW me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrTurleyTalks BOLDLY stand up for TRUTH in Turley Merch! Browse our new designs right now at: https://store.turleytalks.com/ Do you want to be a part of the podcast and be our sponsor? Click here to partner with us and defy liberal culture! If you would like to get lots of articles on conservative trends make sure to sign-up for the 'New Conservative Age Rising' Email Alerts.

Special thanks to Birch Gold Group for sponsoring today's episode. Text "PETER" to 989898 for your FREE info kit on gold. Glenn Loury, one of the leading public intellectuals in the Anglosphere, is known for his astute observations and forthright delivery. He does not disappoint in this conversation with Peter Boghossian during the University of Austin's Forbidden Courses program. Glenn and Peter discuss pressing social, racial, and economic topics of our era, including affirmative action, student debt relief, and criminal justice reform. Glenn explains his distrust of public policy to remedy social ills that should be managed through individual responsibility. He discusses disempowering narratives promoted by progressives and shudders at the “infantile, unserious arguments” of Ibram X. Kendi. Glenn also talks about how he derives meaning in life and his religious ambivalence. He shares his deep love for his wife in spite of political differences between them. When Peter asks Glenn about his hopes for his grandchildren, Glenn shares words of wisdom that reveal his deepest values. He also describes his favorite recent books: "A Certain Ambiguity" by Guarav Suri and "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" by Reza Aslan. Author, economist, and social critic Glenn Loury is the Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences and Professor of Economics at Brown University. He is the recipient of many honors, including a Guggenheim Fellowship and a Carnegie Scholarship. He hosts The Glenn Show, frequently joined by another friend of the show, linguist John McWhorter. Glenn's publications include, “The Anatomy of Racial Inequality,” “Race, Incarceration, and American Values,” “One by One from the Inside Out,” and “Ethnicity, Social Mobility and Public Policy.” His memoir, “Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative,” is forthcoming.Glenn's Substack: https://glennloury.substack.com/Watch this episode on YouTube. 

On this week's #NCFNewspeak, NCF Director Peter Whittle is joined by Senior Fellows Dr. Philip Kiszely & Rafe Heydel-Mankoo and special guest John O'Sullivan, President of the Danube Institute, Editor-at-Large of National Review and former speech and policy writer for PM Margaret Thatcher. Topics discussed: * Schools across the UK are permitting children to identify as animals, without parents' knowledge. * The Diversity Clash: As Muslims become an increasingly sizable segment of the population in the Anglosphere, they are becoming more vocal in their opposition to LGBTQ+. This is creating a true dilemma for liberals and those on the left. Can they ever reconcile this? * What is the future for conservatism? John O'Sullivan, President of the Danube Institute, discusses his conference on the future of conservatism, which took place this week with many eminent speakers. --------------- SUBSCRIBE: If you are enjoying the show, please subscribe to our channel on YouTube (click the Subscribe Button underneath the video and then Click on the Bell icon next to it to make sure you Receive All Notifications) AUDIO: If you prefer Audio you can subscribe on itunes or Soundcloud. Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/user-923838732 itunes: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/s... SUPPORT/DONATE: Your donations will help ensure the show not only continues but can grow into a major online platform challenging the cultural orthodoxies dominant in our institutions, public life and media. PAYPAL/ CARD PAYMENTS - ONE TIME & MONTHLY: You can donate in a variety of ways via our website: http://www.newcultureforum.org.uk/#do... It is set up to accept one time and monthly donations. JOIN US ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Web: http://www.newcultureforum.org.uk F: https://www.facebook.com/NCultureForum/ Y: https://www.youtube.com/@NewCultureForum T: http://www.twitter.com/NewCultureForum (@NewCultureForum)

Ciarán and Riley talk about Gunther Fehlinger, Matt Hancock, WKD, neutrality and war-time neoliberalism in the Anglosphere and Europe. LISTEN TO THE FULL EPISODE HERE: https://www.patreon.com/cornerspaeti HOW TO REACH US: Corner Späti https://twitter.com/cornerspaeti Julia https://twitter.com/KMarxiana Rob https://twitter.com/leninkraft Nick https://twitter.com/sternburgpapi Uma https://twitter.com/umawrnkl Ciarán https://twitter.com/CiaranDold Special Guest: Riley Quinn.

Catholic University of America Press recently launched a major new series: the English Critical Edition of the Works of Karol Wojtyła/John Paul II. The first volume of the series was a new translation of Wojtyła's 1969 book Person and Act, along with related essays. In Person and Act Wojtyła set forth the foundation of his blend of phenomenology, Thomism and personalism, a foundation underlying much of his other philosophical and theological writing. The first English translation is generally considered to be quite inaccurate, and, crucially, removed the Latin terms by which Wojtyła refers to the Thomistic and scholastic tradition, leading to a false impression that Wojtyła was much more of a pure phenomenologist and less of a Thomist than he really was. Thus the new translation by Gregorz Ignatik is a significant moment for the reception of Wojtyła/John Paul II's thought in the Anglosphere. In this episode, Timothy Flanders joins Thomas Mirus to discuss Person and Act as they attempt to boil down some of the key points of this rather challenging book, to set Wojtyła's philosophy in its intellectual, cultural, and religious context, and showing why his insights about human consciousness, the experience of morality, and the person are important for us as well. Points discussed include: How Wojtyła's use of phenomenology and personalism relates to the traditional Aristo-Thomistic anthropology The importance of phenomenological methods for the "healing of experience" and giving an objective account of the subjective Correcting modern errors about consciousness The concept of the person in relation to the traditional concept of human nature The need to integrate cognition with experience and the danger of the "emotionalization of consciousness" The centrality of morality to personhood Links The Meaning of Catholic https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaMoKEEA-KKDNgx3icjA36Q Person and Act and Related Essays https://www.cuapress.org/9780813233666/person-and-act-and-related-essays/ Recommended secondary sources: Accessible: Crosby, The Personalism of John Paul II https://www.amazon.com/Personalism-John-Paul-II/dp/1939773148 Jablonska, A Pope for All Seasons https://www.amazon.com/Pope-All-Seasons-Testimonies-Inspired/dp/1621388840 Less accessible: Buttiglione, Karol Wojtyla: The Thought of the Man Who Became Pope John Paul II https://www.amazon.com/Karol-Wojtyla-Thoughtof-Became-Thought-ebook/dp/B002BWPTOW Weigel, Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II https://www.amazon.com/Witness-Hope-Biography-Pope-John/dp/0062996010/ DONATE to make this show possible! http://catholicculture.org/donate/audio Go to Catholic Culture's website for tons of written content, including news, articles, liturgical year info, and a vast library of documents: https://www.catholicculture.org

Economic Hit Man (EHM) John Perkins discusses his new book and how the Chinese have appropriated the EHM model for global takeover. He argues that the use of the EHM model by both the Anglosphere and Beijing is creating a death economy. He sees the New Cold War as a race to disaster. However, China's model is different, it's got a great growth story to tell, and it doesn't impose draconian conditions like the West does. He discusses meeting luminaries such as Nursultan Nazarbayev and Sergey Glazyev and how colonial resentment is growing against the U.S. as Washington loses hegemony and China takes over. But this is all leading to a global death economy and we need to change the system. Watch On BitChute / Brighteon / Rokfin / Rumble / PentagonTube Geopolitics & Empire · John Perkins: China & West Are Both Creating Death Economy Using Hit Man Model #361 *Support Geopolitics & Empire! Become a Member https://geopoliticsandempire.substack.comDonate https://geopoliticsandempire.com/donationsConsult https://geopoliticsandempire.com/consultation **Visit Our Affiliates & Sponsors! Above Phone https://abovephone.com/?above=geopoliticseasyDNS (use code GEOPOLITICS for 15% off!) https://easydns.comEscape The Technocracy course (15% discount using link) https://escapethetechnocracy.com/geopoliticsPassVult https://passvult.comSociatates Civis (CitizenHR, CitizenIT, CitizenPL) https://societates-civis.comWise Wolf Gold https://www.wolfpack.gold/?ref=geopolitics Websites Website https://johnperkins.org Books https://johnperkins.org/books Twitter https://twitter.com/jperkinsauthor About John Perkins As Chief Economist at a major international consulting firm, John Perkins advised the World Bank, United Nations, IMF, U.S. Treasury Department, Fortune 500 corporations, and countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. He worked directly with heads of state and CEOs of major companies. John's classic, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (2004) spent 73 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list and has been published in more than 35 languages. It was a groundbreaking exposé of the clandestine operations that created the current global crises. The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (2016) brought the story of economic hit men and jackal assassins up to date at that time and chillingly home to the U.S. It went on to provide practical strategies for each of us to transform the failing global death economy into a regenerative life economy. The two books have sold more than 1.9 million copies. In addition to economics, politics and global intrigue, John has also written books on indigenous cultures and what they can teach us about sustainability and transformation, including The World Is As You Dream It, Spirit of the Shuar, and The Stress-Free Habit. John has lectured at Harvard, Oxford, and more than 50 other universities around the world. He has been featured on ABC, NBC, CNN, NPR, A&E, the History Channel, Time, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Cosmopolitan, Elle, Der Spiegel, and many other publications, as well as in numerous documentaries including The End of Poverty?, Zeitgeist Addendum, and Apology of an Economic Hit Man. He is a founder and board member of Dream Change and The Pachamama Alliance, nonprofit organizations devoted to establishing a world that future generations will want to inherit. He was awarded the Lennon Ono Grant for Peace, and Rainforest Action Network Challenging Business As Usual Award, among other accolades. *Podcast intro music is from the song "The Queens Jig" by "Musicke & Mirth" from their album "Music for Two Lyra Viols": http://musicke-mirth.de/en/recordings.html (available on iTunes or Amazon)