Podcast appearances and mentions of Bertrand Russell

Jim Marrs joins Freeman for a discussion of Alien connections to the Nazi elite and the rise of the Fourth Reich in America. Also discussed are the Annunaki, ancient Sumer and Egypt. Jim is an expert on Ancient Astronauts, the NWO, Nazi UFOs, Skull and Bones, Bush Dynasty, the CIA, and NSA, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, CFR, Flying Saucers, and the Alien Agenda. This show with Jim Marrs aired on Radio Freeman Nov. 09, 2010 on American Freedom Radio Jim Marrs is author of Rule by Secrecy, which traced the hidden history that connects modern secret societies to the Ancient Mysteries. It reached the New York Times Best Seller list. In 2003, his book The War on Freedom probed the conspiracies of the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath. It was released in 2006 under the title The Terror Conspiracy. In mid-2008, his book The Rise of the Fourth Reich, detailing the infiltration of National Socialism into the USA, was published followed by a study of mysteries entitled Above Top Secret. Associate Producer: Steve Mercer Send comments and guest suggestions to producersteve@freemantv.com Topics include: Freemasonry, Religion of World - Bureaucrats - Skull and Bones - Perks for Lower Masons - Albert Pike, Albert Mackey - Rosicrucians. Levels, Grades, Degrees - Noble Orders, Old Aristocracy, Knighting, Sirs - Terminology of Architecture and Building - "Building the Temple" - Knights Templars. United States, Founding Fathers, British Crown, Royal Charters - Masonic Lodge Meeting, Constitution, Benjamin Franklin, France. Foundations under Cloak of Charity - Political Group and NGO funding - Demands for Laws to be Passed - Soviet Union. Chemtrails - Aerial Spraying of Prozac, Valium - Weather Modification - Tranquilizing Public - "Brave New World". Hollywood (Holy Wood, Grove) - Giving You Your Thoughts - Subliminals - Royal Institute for International Affairs, Council on Foreign Relations. Worldwide HAARP - Earthquake, Tornado, Drought, Famine, Tsunami Creation. Mystery Religions, "Societies with Secrets" - Masonic Obelisks across U.S.-Canada Border. Hermaphroditic Symbol - Perfection of Human Being - Cessation of All Conflict - Perfected Worker Breed, Ideal Design, Purpose-Made Humans. Dictatorships - Scientific Indoctrination, Bertrand Russell, Experimental Schools - "Contaminated Ideas" - Kindergarten. Total War - British Military Academies, Hitler's Army - Mercenaries, Armies - Carroll Quigley. Project for a New American Century, Wolfowitz - War in Middle East - John Stewart Mill - Peoples, Races to be Eliminated - H.G. Wells.

Jasun Horsley was born into a family of the British 'elite'.  When he was a child he was unaware that his paternal grandfather, Alec Horsley, Oxford Balliol graduate and founding member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, was also a Fabian and helped found the Hull branch when he was Sheriff of Hull. Jasun's father also rubbed elbows with characters like Sir Richard Acland, Bertrand Russell, and the Paedophile Information Exchange, a British pro-paedophilia activist group. Jasun was made aware that his family's circle of influence were mockingly called “champagne socialists,” and that the family business, Northern Foods was in cahoots with other notable corporate giants, while being a major player in world business. One thing was clear to Jasun from an early age, he had no interest in joining the family business! At 18, he inherited a small fortune from his father, which landed him in New York as an aspiring filmmaker. Upon his discovery of "The Teachings of Don Juan" through the works of Carlos Castaneda he decided that sorcery was a truer and more adventurous path.  He later concluded that there was much congruity between the film industry and sorcery, which was later explored in his book "Seen and Not Seen: Confessions of a Movie Autist" that examines the military-entertainment complex, and how American movies have become weaponized. Jasun's pursuit of sorcery knowledge led him to Oaxaca, Mexico, and then to New Mexico, where he made a "misguided" attempt to start an intentional community, after which, at age 24, he disinherited his fortune and disappeared to Morocco, with nothing but a poncho and meager belongings. Some thirty years since, Jasun has continued his introspection into the ways in which popular culture, alternate or “counter-” culture, politics, and pseudo-spiritualty are all limbs of a covert, multi-generational, social-engineering octopus that includes occult societies, intelligence agencies, and organized crime networks. While spanning centuries along many disparate groups, ideologies, organizations, and agendas, Jasun has determined this “superculture” to be largely consistent in its aims, principles, and methods. Join us in this free-flowing discussion as Jasun and the Alfacast crew review his many provocative works for an insider's view of the world through the eyes of the so-called "elite". Show links: https://childrenofjob.substack.com/ Learn The True Nature Of Dis-Ease & How Our Bodies Actually Work: https://alfavedic.com/themyth/ Join Our Private Community And Join In The Discussion: https://alfavedic.com/join-us/ Follow our new YT channel: / @offgridelegance Start healing yourself and loved ones with ozone! https://alfavedic.com/ozone Protect yourself & your teens from media manipulation & groupthink w/ Dani Katz's Pop Propaganda Course! http://alfavedic.com/poppropaganda Get our favorite blue blocker glasses! Use code 'alfavedic' for 10% off! https://alfavedic.com/raoptics Join Qortal for free, the truly decentralized internet. https://qortal.dev/downloads Learn how to express your law and uphold your rights as one of mankind. https://alfavedic.com/lawformankind Alfa Vedic is an off-grid agriculture & health co-op focused on developing products, media & educational platforms for the betterment of our world. By using advanced scientific methods, cutting-edge technologies and tools derived from the knowledge of the world's greatest minds, the AV community aims to be a model for the future we all want to see. Our comprehensive line of health products and nutrition is available on our website. Most products are hand mixed and formulated right on our off grid farm including our Immortality Teas which we grow on site. Find them all at https://alfavedic.com​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ Follow Alfa Vedic: https://linktr.ee/alfavedic Follow Mike Winner: https://linktr.ee/djmikewinner

Den Siegern gelingt die Verankerung des Narrativs vom imperialen DeutschlandEin Standpunkt von Wolfgang Effenberger. "Die Geschichte wird von den Siegern geschrieben" – ein häufig zitierter Satz, der sich in Deutschland mächtig und nachhaltig entfaltet hat. Insbesondere wurde die Darstellung Deutschlands als imperialistische Großmacht nach beiden Weltkriegen maßgeblich von den Siegermächten geprägt und tief im kollektiven Gedächtnis Europas und der Welt verankert. Dieses Narrativ hat nicht nur die Wahrnehmung deutscher Geschichte und Identität beeinflusst, sondern auch politisch und gesellschaftlich tiefe Auswirkungen auf Deutschland selbst gehabt. Vor allem den Briten gelang es, das Bild vom „imperialen Deutschland“ zu etablieren, und es gilt, aufzuzeigen, welche Funktion diese Narration erfüllt hat und welche Folgen dies für Deutschland und seine Erinnerungskultur hat.Maßgeblich an diesem "Erfolg" beteiligt war der heute noch von Vielen als Pazifist und Anhänger der sozialistischen Fabian-Society gefeierte britische Propagandist und politische Intellektuelle H.G. Wells (1866–1946).Die wirkmächtige Propagandaarbeit des Briten H.G. WellsH.G. Wells war vor allem für seine Science-Fiction-Romane wie „Die Zeitmaschine“ und „Krieg der Welten“ bekannt. Weniger bekannt, aber von großer Bedeutung für die geistige Neuausrichtung Deutschlands nach 1945, ist Wells' Rolle als Propagandist und Popularisierer von Weltgeschichte. Seine Werke zielten darauf ab, Nationalismus, Militarismus und die überholten politische Ordnungen der Gegner des Empire zu überwinden und stattdessen ein universales Geschichtsverständnis im Sinn eines anglo-amerikanischen Imperiums, wie es Cecil Rhodes vorschwebte, zu fördern. (1)So wie Rhodes oder Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) träumte H. G. Wells (1866–1946), von einem perfekten Weltstaat mit einem»ethischen System«, welches »die Fortpflanzung dessen begünstigt, was in der Menschheit fein, wirksam und schön ist – schöne und starke Körper, einen klaren und mächtigen Geist und einen wachsenden Wissenskörper – und ... die Fortpflanzung von niederen und unterwürfigen Typen, von angstgetriebenen und feigen Seelen, von allem, was in den Seelen, Körpern oder Gewohnheiten der Menschen gemein, hässlich und bestialisch ist, kontrolliert“ (2) Der irische Dramatiker George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950) nahm offenbar für die eugenische Verbesserung der Menschheit sogar Gaskammern in Kauf:»Wir sollten uns verpflichtet fühlen, sehr viele Menschen zu töten, die wir jetzt am Leben lassen, und sehr viele Menschen am Leben zu lassen, die wir gegenwärtig töten. Wir sollten alle Ideen über die Todesstrafe loswerden müssen ... Ein Teil der eugenischen Politik würde uns schließlich zu einer umfassenden Nutzung der Totenkammer verhelfen. Sehr viele Menschen müssten aus dem Leben gerissen werden, nur weil es die Zeit anderer Menschen verschwendet, sich um sie zu kümmern.« (3) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I boken Our knowledge of the external world (1914, denne ut. 1993) drøfter Bertrand Russell forholdet mellom virkeligheten og våre mentale modeller av virkeligheten. Den avantgarde filosofen Robert Anton Wilson låner Russells argumenter i boken Quantum psychology (1990, denne utg. 2007), hvor han forsøker å bevise at mennesket har to hoder (!) Jeg vil kort gjengi Wilsons begrunnelser som er både selvfølgelige og oppsiktsvekkende på samme tid. De fleste mennesker er inneforstått med at vi lever i en objektiv virkelighet, eller at den objektive virkeligheten eksisterer utenfor oss eller omslutter oss. Den ytre virkeligheten blir tilgjengelig for oss blant annet via øynene. Ved hjelp av synet overføres ”energisignaler” eller ”bilder” av verden til hjernen som fortolker bildene og lager mentale representasjoner. Hjernen er en dirigent som setter sammen den innkommende informasjonen om den ytre virkeligheten til en indre modell av verden. Det betyr at vi lever i en ”ytre virkelighet” som vi lager bilder eller modeller av i vår ”indre opplevelsesverden”. Dermed kan man si at vi egentlig aldri har en direkte erkjennelse av den ytre virkeligheten. Det vi kjenner er de mentale modellene av den ytre virkeligheten som er konstruert inne i vårt eget hode. Det vi ser, som vi alminneligvis tror og mener eksisterer utenfor oss selv, eksisterer egentlig internt, altså inne i hodet. Alt vi tenker og vet noe om baserer seg på erfaring med egenkomponerte mentale modeller, noe som leder enkelte filosofer til å tvile på at verden over hodet eksisterer. Siden vi ikke kan erfare verden direkte, men gjennom våre egne modeller av verden, er det i prinsippet mulig at vi egentlig lever i en drøm hvor opplevelser av den ytre virkeligheten egentlig er et mentalt produkt av vår egen kreative bevissthet(!)Denne posisjonen kalles solipsisme, og den er ikke spesielt populær i vitenskapsteoretisk sammenheng. Solipsisme kommer fra latin sol som betyr alene, og ipsis som betyr selv. Dette er rett og slett en ganske merkverdig filosofisk posisjon som hevder at psyken er det eneste som eksisterer, og følgelig at verden og andre mennesker kun er et resultat av psykens egenkomponerte mentale forestillinger. Når verden ikke eksisterer og andre mennesker er et spillfekteri for min egen bevissthet, blir det vanskelig å forholde seg til noe som helst. Dermed unngår vi en solipsistisk konklusjon ved å anta at den ytre virkeligheten eksisterer. Det vi imidlertid kan utlede fra det ovenstående, er at vi ikke kan se eller erkjenne denne virkeligheten direkte. Vi ser en modell av den inne i vårt eget hode. Til daglig glemmer de fleste av oss at vi fortrinnsvis opplever vår egen modell av virkeligheten, hvorpå vi oppfører oss som om den indre modellen eksisterer utenfor oss selv. Faktum er at virkeligheten er ekstern og modellen er intern, og de to versjonene av virkeligheten okkuperer hvert sitt område. Vil du ha mer psykologi og flere dypdykk i menneskets sjelsliv? Bli medlem på vårt Mentale Helsestudio.Last ned SinSyn-appen på www.sinnsyn.no/download/ Eller meld deg inn via www.patron.com/sinsyn Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As the physicist and astrobiologist Sara Imari Walker—the author of the mind-expanding book Life as No One Knows It: The Physics of Life's Emergence—sees it, every single thing on Earth can be traced to life's beginnings. Walker studies the origins of life on this planet—one of science's greatest unsolved puzzles—and, beyond that, whether alien life exists on other planets. As part of her research, she's advancing a physics known as “assembly theory,” a new way of thinking and talking about life's origins and, in turn, time. She displays that rare gift for demystifying deeply layered concepts—and for reminding us of how profound it is to be alive, in this moment, in the first place. On this special episode—produced in partnership with the Aspen Art Museum and recorded in Aspen, Colorado, during the inaugural AIR festival earlier this month—Walker makes a compelling case for why understanding life's origins is crucial to understanding ourselves.Special thanks to our episode sponsor, the Aspen Art Museum. Show Notes:Sara Imari Walker[6:59] Assembly theory[10:00] Thomas Moynihan[11:13] “Life as No One Knows It: The Physics of Life's Emergence” (2024)[13:36] Michael Lachmann[18:38] Lee Cronin[18:48] Bertrand Russell [21:04] “A.I. Is Life”[24:10] Paley's watch argument[25:36] Steve Jobs[25:54] “Reflecting on the iPhone's cultural impacts as it turns 18”[29:14] “It's Time to Retire the Word ‘Technology'”[32:46] Copernican Revolution[36:14] “Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein” or “One Hundred Authors Against Einstein” (1931)[40:54] Arizona State University: School of Earth and Space Exploration[45:03] AIR Aspen[46:20] Carlo Rovelli[47:44] Thaddeus Mosley[47:54] Constantin Brâncuși[47:55] Isamu Noguchi

On Thursday 7th August, I walked around Bethnal Green with Christopher Daniel, who organises Long Now London.We walked through East London, discussing architecture, philosophy, and the importance of long-term thinking. We explored the evolution of our own projects, especially Long Now London and Bryan's discussion group Through a Glass Darkly. We delved into broader themes like societal change, the impact of technology, and embodied experience versus conceptual abstraction. We wandered the streets, thinking about history, our own personal stories, and how to create meaningful and sustainable communities.The Bertrand Russell quote I butchered:“Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid.”See some photos I took of East London over on SubstackMy piece on HeraclitusMy piece on Dependent ArisingJamie Stantonian on the Uffington White HorseAnab from Superflux whom Chris mentioned a few times.I wrongly called one of the Greek schools of medicine "Dogmatist" when I should have said "Rationalist"; Sextus opposes both dogmatism and rationalism. The three schools of medicine in 2nd century AD were "Empirical," "Rationalist," and "Methodist."

Dr. John Patrick delivers a provocative critique of modern education and worldview in this intellectually rich episode. From challenging Bertrand Russell's idea that knowledge only comes from science, to explaining why reading Dante or Pascal feeds the soul more than media ever could, Dr. Patrick urges listeners to think deeply and live wisely. He explores how language is corrupted, why universities have abandoned truth, and how God's revelation through the Bible offers a foundation for meaning, value, and beauty. This is not just a philosophical discussion. It's a wake-up call for parents, teachers, students, and Christians to seek wisdom, pass on truth, and live lives of consequence. // LINKS // Website: https://www.johnpatrick.ca/ Podcast: https://doctorjohnpatrick.podbean.com/ Biblical Literate Quiz: https://www.johnpatrick.ca/meaning-metaphor-and-allusion/ Recommended Reading list: https://www.johnpatrick.ca/book-list/ Ask Doctor John: https://www.johnpatrick.ca/ask/ LINKS: https://beacons.ai/doctorjohnpatrick

The famous philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if, after death, he found himself standing before almighty God. Russell replied - "Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence." Many people share the sentiment, but is that right? According to the Bible God is a speaking God. Psalm 19 shows us that God is speaking constantly, universally and verbally. 03-08-2025 - Lucas Durant

A troubling statement makes us want to think of exceptions to it that would prove that statement to be wrong.“Outliers are interesting, but they rarely matter,” is a troubling statement, and you may already be thinking of exceptions to it. But it remains true nonetheless.This second statement is also true. “If there were no outliers, there would be no new inventions, no innovations, no progress. We would be trapped forever in the status quo.”These seemingly contradictory statements can both be true because there are two kinds of outliers.Leonardo da Vinci made marvelous art and filled fabulous sketchbooks with his insightful ideas, but he didn't really change anything. He was just an interesting outlier whose mind was ahead of his time.Rare is the outlier who throws a pebble into the ocean of time and shifts the world off its axis. Electricity is harnessed. Computers are invented. Someone connects them and now everyone knows everything all the time.“What distinguishes the past from the present is not biology, nor psychology, but rather technology. If the world has changed, it is because we have changed the world.”– Ezra Klein & Derek Thompson in their new book, AbundanceTechnology changes the world, but persuasion changes hearts and minds.I am an ad writer.When I was in my 20s, I was told,“People never change their mind. If you give a person the same information they were given in the past, they will make the same decision they made in the past. When a person appears to have ‘changed their mind,' what they have really done is made a new decision based on new information.*”Ten years later I realized that those people were trying to use logic to create “persuasion technology.” Their mistake was assuming that people make their decisions logically. But people do not trust new information when it disagrees with their belief system.New information may allow you to win the argument, but it rarely wins the heart.And a person convinced against their will, remains unconvinced, still.Wash away the opinions, bravado, and fluff, and you will find that most people are NOT seeking new information. They are seeking identity reinforcement.Bertrand Russell was a mathematician and a logician. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature eight years before I was born.He said,“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance with his instincts, he will accept it even on the slenderest evidence.”When your goal is persuasion, don't begin with new information. Begin by agreeing with what they already believe. Meet them where they are. Only then can you hope to lead them to where you want them to go.Abraham Lincoln knew that persuasion is easier when you begin at a point of mutual agreement.“If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what you will, is the greatest high-road to his reason, and which, when once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing his judgment of the...

Andrew Copson speaks to actor, writer, and Humanists UK patron Stephen Fry about his life and career, touching on everything from his concerns that near-universal perspectives on equality could be under threat from prejudiced AI models, to the intriguing paradox of human behaviour in relation to the individual vs the mass. He delves into our innate moral sense of right and wrong, as well as the value of uncertainty. Please note: there are some quality issues with Andrew's audio. What I Believe was the title of two separate essays by the philosopher Bertrand Russell and the philosopher EM Forster in the early 20th century. These two humanists set out their approach to life, their fundamental worldview, in a way that was accessible to all. In this podcast, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, Andrew Copson, speaks to humanists today to understand more about what they believe, to understand more about the values, convictions, and opinions they live by. Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non religious people to advance free thinking and promote a tolerant society. If you'd like to support the podcast or find out more about the humanist approach to life or the work that we do, please visit humanists.uk. If you like what you see, please consider joining as a member. You can follow Humanists UK on Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram, X, and TikTok – and please remember to leave a 5 star review! What I Believe is produced by Sophie Castle.

Andrew Copson speaks to Professor of Palaeobiology and Humanists UK patron Anjali Goswami about how her study of the history of life on Earth profoundly shapes her humanist worldview and sense of interconnectedness. Anjali discusses how a childhood encounter with a tiger has led the course of her career as well as humanity's responsibility towards a sustainable future in the face of ‘‘selfish nihilism'. Please note, this episode unfortunately has some audio quality issues.  What I Believe was the title of two separate essays by the philosopher Bertrand Russell and the philosopher EM Forster in the early 20th century. These two humanists set out their approach to life, their fundamental worldview, in a way that was accessible to all. In this podcast, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, Andrew Copson, speaks to humanists today to understand more about what they believe, to understand more about the values, convictions, and opinions they live by. Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non religious people to advance free thinking and promote a tolerant society. If you'd like to support the podcast or find out more about the humanist approach to life or the work that we do, please visit humanists.uk. If you like what you see, please consider joining as a member. You can follow Humanists UK on Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram, X, and TikTok – and please remember to leave a 5 star review! What I Believe is produced by Sophie Castle.

Scopri le idee fondamentali dell'opera di Bertrand Russell, che ha rivoluzionato il pensiero logico e matematico del Novecento. Un viaggio tra logica, linguaggio e fondamenti della matematica, spiegato in modo chiaro e accessibile.Ecco il LIBRO

Andrew Copson speaks to Labour MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale and Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, Lizzi Collinge, about the practical application of humanist principles within the often-turbulent world of politics. It's a glimpse into the unique challenges and 'profound' rewards of being a humanist voice in Westminster, and how MPs can work within the system to create collective and meaningful change. This podcast was recorded on 11 June 2025. What I Believe was the title of two separate essays by the philosopher Bertrand Russell and the philosopher EM Forster in the early 20th century. These two humanists set out their approach to life, their fundamental worldview, in a way that was accessible to all. In this podcast, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, Andrew Copson, speaks to humanists today to understand more about what they believe, to understand more about the values, convictions, and opinions they live by. Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non religious people to advance free thinking and promote a tolerant society. If you'd like to support the podcast or find out more about the humanist approach to life or the work that we do, please visit humanists.uk. If you like what you see, please consider joining as a member. You can follow Humanists UK on Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram, X, and TikTok – and please remember to leave a 5 star review! What I Believe is produced by Sophie Castle.

Boken The Conquest of Happiness ble først publisert i 1930. Det er en guide til å leve et lykkelig liv; en selvhjelpsklassiker skrevet for en tid da folk var mer praktiske og mindre selvopptatte enn i dag. Boken tar opp et grunnleggende spørsmål – Hvordan kan vi være lykkelige? Forfatteren, den britiske filosofen Bertrand Russell, vil ikke at leseren skal anspores til å overtenke problemet, lage endeløse lister eller grave dypt i underbevisstheten, men snarere foreslå nyttige og praktiske ting som kan gjøres for å forbedre hverdagen.I følge Bertrand Russell handler lykke om noe vil kan oppnå gjennom innsats, men vi må ikke prøve for hardt. Samtidig er det mye vi kan vite om det å leve lykkelig, og denne kunnskapen er viktig å ha med seg. Men hvis vi ikke evner å omsette kunnskapen i praksis, har den lite verdi. Derfor er veien til lykke en kombinasjon av innsikt og innsats. Bertrand Russell var en banebrytende britisk filosof og logiker fra det tjuende århundre, og det er hans bok om lykke som danner utgangspunktet for dagens episode av SinnSyn. Velkommen skal du være!Vil du ha mer psykologi og flere dypdykk i menneskets sjelsliv? Bli medlem på vårt Mentale Helsestudio.Last ned SinSyn-appen på www.sinnsyn.no/download/ Eller meld deg inn via www.patron.com/sinsyn Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Andrew Copson speaks to economist James Forder about his view on individual freedom and limited government as a self described 'old-fashioned liberal'. He discusses his belief in free enterprise as not just an economic engine but a powerful moral good that fosters self-reliance and the pursuit of individual goals. He also delves into the profound philosophical implications of our finiteness and how this very limitation gives life its meaning.  What I Believe was the title of two separate essays by the philosopher Bertrand Russell and the philosopher EM Forster in the early 20th century. These two humanists set out their approach to life, their fundamental worldview, in a way that was accessible to all. In this podcast, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, Andrew Copson, speaks to humanists today to understand more about what they believe, to understand more about the values, convictions, and opinions they live by. Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non religious people to advance free thinking and promote a tolerant society. If you'd like to support the podcast or find out more about the humanist approach to life or the work that we do, please visit humanists.uk. If you like what you see, please consider joining as a member. You can follow Humanists UK on Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram, X, and TikTok – and please remember to leave a 5 star review! What I Believe is produced by Sophie Castle.

Andrew Copson speaks to a leading voice in human-technology interaction, Dr Kate Devlin, about becoming the unexpected 'face of sex robots' and why our fascination with artificial companions reveals more about us than the machines. Kate discusses repeating patterns of human fear and adaptation in the face of new technology, the critical ethical challenges of AI – from algorithmic bias impacting facial recognition to the darker side of its supply chain – as well as the need for value-driven and human-centric AI development. This episode was recorded in April 2024.   What I Believe was the title of two separate essays by the philosopher Bertrand Russell and the philosopher EM Forster in the early 20th century. These two humanists set out their approach to life, their fundamental worldview, in a way that was accessible to all. In this podcast, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, Andrew Copson, speaks to humanists today to understand more about what they believe, to understand more about the values, convictions, and opinions they live by. Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non religious people to advance free thinking and promote a tolerant society. If you'd like to support the podcast or find out more about the humanist approach to life or the work that we do, please visit humanists.uk. If you like what you see, please consider joining as a member. You can follow Humanists UK on Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram, X, and TikTok – and please remember to leave a 5 star review!   What I Believe is produced by Sophie Castle.  

The Harvest Series Podcast returns with a new season!In this episode, Rose Claverie interviews Satish Kumar, a former Jain monk, peace activist, and advocate for simple living. Satish shares the profound lessons he's learned about courage, love, and the importance of embracing the unknown. His personal journey, which includes walking from India to the world's nuclear capitals without money, highlights the human connection that unites us all, regardless of nationality or religion.In an era where conflict seems pervasive, Satish's message is clear: love is the answer to every problem. He talks about the courage required to live authentically, how love can bridge divides, and why peace must start in our hearts. This episode is filled with invaluable insights on how to live a life rooted in courage, simplicity, and compassion. If you want to know more about the Satish Kumar foundation.Chapters 00:00 - Introduction to Satish Kumar 00:30 - The Meaning of Courage 01:00 - Escaping the Monastery: A Moment of Courage 03:00 - The Journey to Find Peace 06:00 - The Importance of Love in Conflict Resolution 09:00 - Walking for Peace: 2.5 Years, 15 Countries 14:00 - Satish's Encounter with Bertrand Russell 18:00 - Bhutan: A Country of Happiness 22:00 - Courage in Relationships: Satish's 40-Year Marriage 25:00 - The Bravest People Satish Has Met 28:00 - Conclusion: A Life of Action, Not AchievementYou can follow us on Instagram at @HarvestSeries or @rose.claverie for updates.Watch our podcast episodes and speaker sessions on YouTube: Harvest Series.Credits:Sound editing by: @lesbellesfrequencesTechnicians in Kaplankaya: Joel Moriasi & teamMusic by: ChambordHarvest Series is produced in partnership with Athena Advisers and Capital PartnersHarvest Series Founders: Burak Öymen and Roman Carel

Andrew Copson speaks to bestselling author Sarah Bakewell who discusses her intellectual journey through the lives and ideas of history's great thinkers. From Montaigne's enduring wisdom to the existentialists' quest for meaning and the rich tapestry of humanism, Sarah discusses how she uncovers the 'inhabited philosophy' of fascinating individuals from the past and what these explorations reveal about the particularities and universalities of being human. What I Believe was the title of two separate essays by the philosopher Bertrand Russell and the philosopher EM Forster in the early 20th century. These two humanists set out their approach to life, their fundamental worldview, in a way that was accessible to all. In this podcast, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, Andrew Copson, speaks to humanists today to understand more about what they believe, to understand more about the values, convictions, and opinions they live by. Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non religious people to advance free thinking and promote a tolerant society. If you'd like to support the podcast or find out more about the humanist approach to life or the work that we do, please visit humanists.uk. If you like what you see, please consider joining as a member. You can follow Humanists UK on Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram, X, and TikTok – and please remember to leave a 5 star review! What I Believe is produced by Sophie Castle.

Send us a textPhilip Yancey's courageous and penetrating new book, his memoir - Where the Light Fell - will be released on October 5. There's a big audience for Philip's story. There are over 100 million claim to have experienced Christian fundamentalism and 25 million more identify as "exvangelicals." Brother Marshall, a musical prodigy, had perfect pitch. Philip's  father contracted polio and died when Philip was only 18 months old. Ken notes that Philip's experience in segregationalist fundamentalism is extreme. Paul Van Gorder, Bob Jones, Jr., Lester Maddox all would come to Philip's church. The Prophecy Conferences were an annual event, providing much to fear. Tony Evans came to the church, and was turned away.  Philip's mother, a well known Bible teacher, struggled to make ends meet but never quite recovered from her husbands passing. The three Yancey's lived in a mobile home, located in an Atlanta area "trailer park." The Lost Cause narrative permeated church life, but high school opened new perspectives for Philip.  He shares bitter-sweet memories of church life. Philip appeared as the Southern preacher Elijah in a high school performance of Inherit the Wind. In Bible College, Philip had a reputation as an intellectual rebel, reading Bertrand Russell and Harvey Cox. Then he met his match, Janet. The parable of the Good Samaritan changed everything. He would later write. What's So Amazing about Grace. George Beverly Shea's song touches Philip.SHOW NOTES Support the showBecome a Patron - Click on the link to learn how you can become a Patron of the show. Thank you! Ken's Substack Page The Podcast Official Site: TheBeachedWhiteMale.com

Andrew Copson speaks to journalist and political powerhouse Ian Dunt about the uncomfortable truths of liberalism, the rise of populism, and tensions between freedom to Vs freedom from.  This episode was recorded in January 2024.   What I Believe was the title of two separate essays by the philosopher Bertrand Russell and the philosopher EM Forster in the early 20th century. These two humanists set out their approach to life, their fundamental worldview, in a way that was accessible to all. In this podcast, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, Andrew Copson, speaks to humanists today to understand more about what they believe, to understand more about the values, convictions, and opinions they live by. Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non religious people to advance free thinking and promote a tolerant society. If you'd like to support the podcast or find out more about the humanist approach to life or the work that we do, please visit humanists.uk. If you like what you see, please consider joining as a member: You can follow Humanists UK on Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram, X, and TikTok – and please remember to leave a 5 star review! What I Believe is produced by Sophie Castle.

Andrew Copson speaks to acclaimed novelist and Humanists UK patron Jane Fallon about the beliefs that have shaped her journey from vegetarianism to veganism, her lifelong love for animals, and her transition from TV producer to the author of 14 bestselling books. What I Believe was the title of two separate essays by the philosopher Bertrand Russell and the philosopher EM Forster in the early 20th century. These two humanists set out their approach to life, their fundamental worldview, in a way that was accessible to all. In this podcast, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, Andrew Copson, speaks to humanists today to understand more about what they believe, to understand more about the values, convictions, and opinions they live by. Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non religious people to advance free thinking and promote a tolerant society. If you'd like to support the podcast or find out more about the humanist approach to life or the work that we do, please visit humanists.uk. If you like what you see, please consider joining as a member: You can follow Humanists UK on Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram, X, and TikTok – and please remember to leave a 5 star review! What I Believe is produced by Sophie Castle.

In philosophy of mind, panpsychism is the view that the mind or a mind-like aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. It is also described as a theory that "the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe". It is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed in some form to philosophers including Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, Schopenhauer, William James, Alfred North Whitehead, and Bertrand Russell. In the 19th century, panpsychism was the default philosophy of mind in Western thought, but it saw a decline in the mid-20th century with the rise of logical positivism. Recent interest in the hard problem of consciousness and developments in the fields of neuroscience, psychology, and quantum mechanics have revived interest in panpsychism in the 21st century because it addresses the hard problem directly.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/monster-fuzz--4349429/support.

Andrew Copson speaks to Labour peer, campaigner, humanist, and former child refugee Lord Alf Dubs who shares the beliefs that have shaped his lifelong quest for social justice, including a childhood encounter with discrimination in 1940s UK and finding himself unexpectedly part of history as a hospital patient on the day the NHS began. He also opens up fleeing the Nazis, travelling as a child refugee on Nicholas Winton's Kindertransport. What I Believe was the title of two separate essays by the philosopher Bertrand Russell and the philosopher EM Forster in the early 20th century. These two humanists set out their approach to life, their fundamental worldview, in a way that was accessible to all. In this podcast, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, Andrew Copson, speaks to humanists today to understand more about what they believe, to understand more about the values, convictions, and opinions they live by. Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non religious people to advance free thinking and promote a tolerant society. If you'd like to support the podcast or find out more about the humanist approach to life or the work that we do, please visit humanists.uk. If you like what you see, please consider joining as a member: You can follow Humanists UK on Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram, X, and TikTok – and please remember to leave a 5 star review! What I Believe is produced by Sophie Castle.

In which Robert goes solo, while Amy enjoys a Girls Night Out!   A discussion of Joy, Fun, Heartiness, Panaché, Joie De Vie ... Objectivism and the Lust For Life.  Being, doing, getting, having more of everything.  Also, Mount St. Helens, Halley's Comet, "No Dirty Dishes Day" (and Robert's GLO Rules), and Happy Birthday to Tina Fey, Mark Mothersbaugh, Rick Wakeman, Frank Capra, and Bertrand Russell & his Teapot!

Many of us have plenty of experiences with math, especially when we were younger. Perhaps some of your memories of what math was like for you in school are unpleasant, to say the least. Yet there are many people who are passionate about mathematics, especially Christians who see mathematics as the God-given language by which we can better understand not only the physical world around us, but God Himself. Naturalism has no real answers for why mathematics is so useful and even beautiful and practical not only for doing science, but in our everyday lives. And how are beauty and mathematics linked? What do beauty and math tell us about God Himself? This week we wrap up our conversation with youth leader, math professor, friend of Watchman Fellowship and Christian apologist Paige Lehrmann. Paige will share with us her passion about mathematics, beauty, and how we can incorporate them in our defense for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). Paige Lehrmann is the Director of Student Ministries at St. Andrew's Community Church in Oklahoma City and a student at Dallas Theological Seminary. She earned her B.A. in Philosophy and Mathematics from Oklahoma Baptist University, where she completed an interdisciplinary thesis on the Trinity. Paige went on to pursue graduate studies in mathematics at the University of Oklahoma and has taught as an adjunct professor at Mid-America Christian University. She has presented at apologetics conferences on topics such as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and theistic arguments from beauty. Through her work, she hopes to help others think deeply about faith, truth, and the beauty of the Gospel.You may contact Paige via email at Paige.lehrmann@gmail.com. Free Resources from Watchman Fellowship Atheist New Testament scholar Dr. Bart D. Ehrman: www.watchman.org/Ehrman  Atheism: www.watchman.org/Atheism  Latter-day Saints: www.watchman.org/Mormonism Panpsychism: https://www.watchman.org/files/ProfilePanpsychism.pdf The New Age Movement: https://www.watchman.org/profiles/pdf/newageprofile.pdf Hinduism: https://www.watchman.org/staff/jwalker/ProfileHinduism.pdf Additional ResourcesFREE: We are also offering a subscription to our 4-page bimonthly Profiles here: www.watchman.org/FreePROFILE NOTEBOOK: Order the complete collection of Watchman Fellowship Profiles (around 700 pages -- from Astrology to Zen Buddhism) in either printed or PDF formats here: www.watchman.org/NotebookSUPPORT: Help us create more content like this. Make a tax-deductible donation here: www.watchman.org/GiveApologetics Profile is a ministry of Watchman Fellowship For more information, visit www.watchman.org © 2025 Watchman Fellowship, Inc.

Following on from "One to One", Martin and I spend this week and next discussing the politics of Paul (and Linda) McCartney.     This week, the Beatle years.    How Paul brought John into the peace movement (and possibly why he deserves that credit on "Give Peace a Chance"), McCartney and Bertrand Russell, Blackbird, Commonwealth and on through the early solo years.    Next week, a rundown on solo McCartney's political songs! #madeonzencastr

A year ago, the great American historian Adam Hochschild came on KEEN ON AMERICA to discuss American Midnight, his best selling account of the crisis of American democracy after World War One. A year later, is history really repeating itself in today's crisis of American democracy? For Hochschild, there are certainly parallels between the current political situation in the US and post WW1 America. Describing how wartime hysteria and fear of communism led to unprecedented government repression, including mass imprisonment for political speech, vigilante violence, and press censorship. Hochschild notes eery similarities to today's Trump's administration. He expresses concern about today's threats to democratic institutions while suggesting the importance of understanding Trump supporters' grievances and finding ways to bridge political divides. Five Key Takeaways* The period of 1917-1921 in America saw extreme government repression, including imprisoning people for speech, vigilante violence, and widespread censorship—what Hochschild calls America's "Trumpiest" era before Trump.* American history shows recurring patterns of nativism, anti-immigrant sentiment, and scapegoating that politicians exploit during times of economic or social stress.* The current political climate shows concerning parallels to this earlier period, including intimidation of opposition, attacks on institutions, and the widespread acceptance of authoritarian tendencies.* Hochschild emphasizes the importance of understanding the grievances and suffering that lead people to support authoritarian figures rather than dismissing their concerns.* Despite current divisions, Hochschild believes reconciliation is possible and necessary, pointing to historical examples like President Harding pardoning Eugene Debs after Wilson imprisoned him. Full Transcript Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. We recently celebrated our 2500th edition of Keen On. Some people suggest I'm mad. I think I probably am to do so many shows. Just over a little more than a year ago, we celebrated our 2000th show featuring one of America's most distinguished historians, Adam Hochschild. I'm thrilled that Adam is joining us again a year later. He's the author of "American Midnight, The Great War, A Violent Peace, and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis." This was his last book. He's the author of many other books. He is now working on a book on the Great Depression. He's joining us from his home in Berkeley, California. Adam, to borrow a famous phrase or remix a famous phrase, a year is a long time in American history.Adam Hochschild: That's true, Andrew. I think this past year, or actually this past 100 days or so has been a very long and very difficult time in American history that we all saw coming to some degree, but I don't think we realized it would be as extreme and as rapid as it has been.Andrew Keen: Your book, Adam, "American Midnight, A Great War of Violent Peace and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis," is perhaps the most prescient warning. When you researched that you were saying before we went live that your books usually take you between four and five years, so you couldn't really have planned for this, although I guess you began writing and researching American Midnight during the Trump 1.0 regime. Did you write it as a warning to something like is happening today in America?Adam Hochschild: Well, I did start writing it and did most of the work on it during Trump's first term in office. So I was very struck by the parallels. And they're in plain sight for everybody to see. There are various dark currents that run through this country of ours. Nativism, threats to deport troublemakers. Politicians stirring up violent feelings against immigrants, vigilante violence, all those things have been with us for a long time. I've always been fascinated by that period, 1917 to 21, when they surged to the surface in a very nasty way. That was the subject of the book. Naturally, I hoped we wouldn't have to go through anything like that again, but here we are definitely going through it again.Andrew Keen: You wrote a lovely piece earlier this month for the Washington Post. "America was at its Trumpiest a hundred years ago. Here's how to prevent the worst." What did you mean by Trumpiest, Adam? I'm not sure if you came up with that title, but I know you like the term. You begin the essay. What was the Trumpiest period in American life before Donald Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I didn't invent the word, but I certainly did use it in the piece. What I meant by that is that when you look at this period just over 100 years ago, 1917 to 1921, Woodrow Wilson's second term in office, two things happened in 1917 that kicked off a kind of hysteria in this country. One was that Wilson asked the American Congress to declare war on Germany, which it promptly did, and when a country enters a major war, especially a world war, it sets off a kind of hysteria. And then that was redoubled some months later when the country received news of the Russian Revolution, and many people in the establishment in America were afraid the Russian Revolution might come to the United States.So, a number of things happened. One was that there was a total hysteria against all things German. There were bonfires of German books all around the country. People would take German books out of libraries, schools, college and university libraries and burn them in the street. 19 such bonfires in Ohio alone. You can see pictures of it on the internet. There was hysteria about the German language. I heard about this from my father as I was growing up because his father was a Jewish immigrant from Germany. They lived in New York City. They spoke German around the family dinner table, but they were terrified of doing so on the street because you could get beaten up for that. Several states passed laws against speaking German in public or speaking German on the telephone. Eminent professors declared that German was a barbaric language. So there was that kind of hysteria.Then as soon as the United States declared war, Wilson pushed the Espionage Act through Congress, this draconian law, which essentially gave the government the right to lock up anybody who said something that was taken to be against the war. And they used this law in a devastating way. During those four years, roughly a thousand Americans spent a year or more in jail and a much larger number, shorter periods in jail solely for things that they wrote or said. These were people who were political prisoners sent to jail simply for something they wrote or said, the most famous of them was Eugene Debs, many times the socialist candidate for president. He'd gotten 6% of the popular vote in 1912 and in 1918. For giving an anti-war speech from a park bandstand in Ohio, he was sent to prison for 10 years. And he was still in prison two years after the war ended in November, 1920, when he pulled more than 900,000 votes for president from his jail cell in the federal penitentiary in Atlanta.So that was one phase of the repression, political prisoners. Another was vigilante violence. The government itself, the Department of Justice, chartered a vigilante group, something called the American Protective League, which went around roughing up people that it thought were evading the draft, beating up people at anti-war rallies, arresting people with citizens arrest whom they didn't have their proper draft papers on them, holding them for hours or sometimes for days until they could produce the right paperwork.Andrew Keen: I remember, Adam, you have a very graphic description of some of this violence in American Midnight. There was a story, was it a union leader?Adam Hochschild: Well, there is so much violence that happened during that time. I begin the book with a graphic description of vigilantes raiding an office of the Wobblies, the Industrial Workers of the World, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, taking a bunch of wobblies out into the prairie at night, stripping them, whipping them, flogging them fiercely, and then tarring and feathering them, and firing shotguns over their heads so they would run off into the Prairie at Night. And they did. Those guys were lucky because they survive. Other people were killed by this vigilante violence.And the final thing about that period which I would mention is the press censorship. The Espionage Act gave the Postmaster General the power to declare any publication in the United States unmailable. And for a newspaper or a magazine that was trying to reach a national audience, the only way you could do so was through the US mail because there was no internet then. No radio, no TV, no other way of getting your publication to somebody. And this put some 75 newspapers and magazines that the government didn't like out of business. It in addition censored three or four hundred specific issues of other publications as well.So that's why I feel this is all a very dark period of American life. Ironically, that press censorship operation, because it was run by the postmaster general, who by the way loved being chief censor, it was ran out of the building that was then the post office headquarters in Washington, which a hundred years later became the Trump International Hotel. And for $4,000 a night, you could stay in the Postmaster General's suite.Andrew Keen: You, Adam, the First World War is a subject you're very familiar with. In addition to American Midnight, you wrote "To End All Wars, a story of loyalty and rebellion, 1914 to 18," which was another very successful of your historical recreations. Many countries around the world experience this turbulence, the violence. Of course, we had fascism in the 20s in Europe. And later in the 30s as well. America has a long history of violence. You talk about the violence after the First World War or after the declaration. But I was just in Montgomery, Alabama, went to the lynching museum there, which is considerably troubling. I'm sure you've been there. You're not necessarily a comparative political scientist, Adam. How does America, in its paranoia during the war and its clampdown on press freedom, on its violence, on its attempt to create an authoritarian political system, how does it compare to other democracies? Is some of this stuff uniquely American or is it a similar development around the world?Adam Hochschild: You see similar pressures almost any time that a major country is involved in a major war. Wars are never good for civil liberties. The First World War, to stick with that period of comparison, was a time that saw strong anti-war movements in all of the warring countries, in Germany and Britain and Russia. There were people who understood at the time that this war was going to remake the world for the worse in every way, which indeed it did, and who refused to fight. There were 800 conscientious objectors jailed in Russia, and Russia did not have much freedom of expression to begin with. In Germany, many distinguished people on the left, like Rosa Luxemburg, were sent to jail for most of the war.Britain was an interesting case because I think they had a much longer established tradition of free speech than did the countries on the continent. It goes way back and it's a distinguished and wonderful tradition. They were also worried for the first two and a half, three years of the war before the United States entered, that if they crack down too hard on their anti-war movement, it would upset people in the United States, which they were desperate to draw into the war on their side. Nonetheless, there were 6,000 conscientious objectors who were sent to jail in England. There was intermittent censorship of anti-war publications, although some were able to publish some of the time. There were many distinguished Britons, such as Bertrand Russell, the philosopher who later won a Nobel Prize, sent to jails for six months for his opposition to the war. So some of this happened all over.But I think in the United States, especially with these vigilante groups, it took a more violent form because remember the country at that time was only a few decades away from these frontier wars with the Indians. And the westward expansion of the United States during the 19th century, the western expansion of white settlement was an enormously bloody business that was almost genocidal for the Native Americans. Many people had participated in that. Many people saw that violence as integral to what the country was. So there was a pretty well-established tradition of settling differences violently.Andrew Keen: I'm sure you're familiar with Stephen Hahn's book, "A Liberal America." He teaches at NYU, a book which in some ways is very similar to yours, but covers all of American history. Hahn was recently on the Ezra Klein show, talking like you, like we're talking today, Adam, about the very American roots of Trumpism. Hahn, it's an interesting book, traces much of this back to Jackson and the wars of the frontier against Indians. Do you share his thesis on that front? Are there strong similarities between Jackson, Wilson, and perhaps even Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I regret to say I'm not familiar with Hahn's book, but I certainly do feel that that legacy of constant war for most of the 19th century against the Native Americans ran very deep in this country. And we must never forget how appealing it is to young men to take part in war. Unfortunately, all through history, there have been people very tempted by this. And I think when you have wars of conquest, such as happen in the American West, against people who are more poorly armed, or colonial wars such as Europe fought in Africa and Asia against much more poorly-armed opponents, these are especially appealing to young people. And in both the United States and in the European colonization of Africa, which I know something about. For young men joining in these colonizing or conquering adventures, there was a chance not just to get martial glory, but to also get rich in the process.Andrew Keen: You're all too familiar with colonial history, Adam. Another of your books was about King Leopold's Congo and the brutality there. Where was the most coherent opposition morally and politically to what was happening? My sense in Trump's America is perhaps the most persuasive and moral critique comes from the old Republican Center from people like David Brooks, Peter Wayno has been on the show many times, Jonathan Rausch. Where were people like Teddy Roosevelt in this narrative? Were there critics from the right as well as from the left?Adam Hochschild: Good question. I first of all would give a shout out to those Republican centrists who've spoken out against Trump, the McCain Republicans. There are some good people there - Romney, of course as well. They've been very forceful. There wasn't really an equivalent to that, a direct equivalent to that in the Wilson era. Teddy Roosevelt whom you mentioned was a far more ferocious drum beater than Wilson himself and was pushing Wilson to declare war long before Wilson did. Roosevelt really believed that war was good for the soul. He desperately tried to get Wilson to appoint him to lead a volunteer force, came up with an elaborate plan for this would be a volunteer army staffed by descendants of both Union and Confederate generals and by French officers as well and homage to the Marquis de Lafayette. Wilson refused to allow Roosevelt to do this, and plus Roosevelt was, I think, 58 years old at the time. But all four of Roosevelt's sons enlisted and joined in the war, and one of them was killed. And his father was absolutely devastated by this.So there was not really that equivalent to the McCain Republicans who are resisting Trump, so to speak. In fact, what resistance there was in the U.S. came mostly from the left, and it was mostly ruthlessly silenced, all these people who went to jail. It was silenced also because this is another important part of what happened, which is different from today. When the federal government passed the Espionage Act that gave it these draconian powers, state governments, many of them passed copycat laws. In fact, a federal justice department agent actually helped draft the law in New Hampshire. Montana locked up people serving more than 60 years cumulatively of hard labor for opposing the war. California had 70 people in prison. Even my hometown of Berkeley, California passed a copycat law. So, this martial spirit really spread throughout the country at that time.Andrew Keen: So you've mentioned that Debs was the great critic and was imprisoned and got a considerable number of votes in the election. You're writing a book now about the Great Depression and FDR's involvement in it. FDR, of course, was a distant cousin of Teddy Roosevelt. At this point, he was an aspiring Democratic politician. Where was the critique within the mainstream Democratic party? Were people like FDR, who had a position in the Wilson administration, wasn't he naval secretary?Adam Hochschild: He was assistant secretary of the Navy. And he went to Europe during the war. For an aspiring politician, it's always very important to say I've been at the front. And so he went to Europe and certainly made no sign of resistance. And then in 1920, he was the democratic candidate for vice president. That ticket lost of course.Andrew Keen: And just to remind ourselves, this was before he became disabled through polio, is that correct?Adam Hochschild: That's right. That happened in the early 20s and it completely changed his life and I think quite deepened him as a person. He was a very ambitious social climbing young politician before then but I think he became something deeper. Also the political parties at the time were divided each party between right and left wings or war mongering and pacifist wings. And when the Congress voted on the war, there were six senators who voted against going to war and 50 members of the House of Representatives. And those senators and representatives came from both parties. We think of the Republican Party as being more conservative, but it had some staunch liberals in it. The most outspoken voice against the war in the Senate was Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, who was a Republican.Andrew Keen: I know you write about La Follette in American Midnight, but couldn't one, Adam, couldn't won before the war and against domestic repression. You wrote an interesting piece recently for the New York Review of Books about the Scopes trial. William Jennings Bryan, of course, was involved in that. He was the defeated Democratic candidate, what in about three or four presidential elections in the past. In the early 20th century. What was Bryan's position on this? He had been against the war, is that correct? But I'm guessing he would have been quite critical of some of the domestic repression.Adam Hochschild: You know, I should know the answer to that, Andrew, but I don't. He certainly was against going to war. He had started out in Wilson's first term as Wilson's secretary of state and then resigned in protest against the military buildup and what he saw as a drift to war, and I give him great credit for that. I don't recall his speaking out against the repression after it began, once the US entered the war, but I could be wrong on that. It was not something that I researched. There were just so few voices speaking out. I think I would remember if he had been one of them.Andrew Keen: Adam, again, I'm thinking out loud here, so please correct me if this is a dumb question. What would it be fair to say that one of the things that distinguished the United States from the European powers during the First World War in this period it remained an incredibly insular provincial place barely involved in international politics with a population many of them were migrants themselves would come from Europe but nonetheless cut off from the world. And much of that accounted for the anti-immigrant, anti-foreign hysteria. That exists in many countries, but perhaps it was a little bit more pronounced in the America of the early 20th century, and perhaps in some ways in the early 21st century.Adam Hochschild: Well, we remain a pretty insular place in many ways. A few years ago, I remember seeing the statistic in the New York Times, I have not checked to see whether it's still the case, but I suspect it is that half the members of the United States Congress do not have passports. And we are more cut off from the world than people living in most of the countries of Europe, for example. And I think that does account for some of the tremendous feeling against immigrants and refugees. Although, of course, this is something that is common, not just in Europe, but in many countries all over the world. And I fear it's going to get all the stronger as climate change generates more and more refugees from the center of the earth going to places farther north or farther south where they can get away from parts of the world that have become almost unlivable because of climate change.Andrew Keen: I wonder Democratic Congress people perhaps aren't leaving the country because they fear they won't be let back in. What were the concrete consequences of all this? You write in your book about a young lawyer, J. Edgar Hoover, of course, who made his name in this period. He was very much involved in the Palmer Raids. He worked, I think his first job was for Palmer. How do you see this structurally? Of course, many historians, biographers of Hoover have seen this as the beginning of some sort of American security state. Is that over-reading it, exaggerating what happened in this period?Adam Hochschild: Well, security state may be too dignified a word for the hysteria that reigned in the country at that time. One of the things we've long had in the United States is a hysteria, paranoia directed at immigrants who are coming from what seems to be a new and threatening part of the world. In the mid-19th century, for example, we had the Know-Nothing Party, as it was called, who were violently opposed to Catholic immigrants coming from Ireland. Now, they were people of Anglo-Saxon descent, pretty much, who felt that these Irish Catholics were a tremendous threat to the America that they knew. There was much violence. There were people killed in riots against Catholic immigrants. There were Catholic merchants who had their stores burned and so on.Then it began to shift. The Irish sort of became acceptable, but by the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century the immigrants coming from Europe were now coming primarily from southern and eastern Europe. In other words, Italians, Sicilians, Poles, and Jews. And they became the target of the anti-immigrant crusaders with much hysteria directed against them. It was further inflamed at that time by the Eugenics movement, which was something very strong, where people believed that there was a Nordic race that was somehow superior to everybody else, that the Mediterraneans were inferior people, and that the Africans were so far down the scale, barely worth talking about. And this culminated in 1924 with the passage of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act that year, which basically slammed the door completely on immigrants coming from Asia and slowed to an absolute trickle those coming from Europe for the next 40 years or so.Andrew Keen: It wasn't until the mid-60s that immigration changed, which is often overlooked. Some people, even on the left, suggest that it was a mistake to radically reform the Immigration Act because we would have inevitably found ourselves back in this situation. What do you think about that, Adam?Adam Hochschild: Well, I think a country has the right to regulate to some degree its immigration, but there always will be immigration in this world. I mean, my ancestors all came from other countries. The Jewish side of my family, I'm half Jewish, were lucky to get out of Europe in plenty of time. Some relatives who stayed there were not lucky and perished in the Holocaust. So who am I to say that somebody fleeing a repressive regime in El Salvador or somewhere else doesn't have the right to come here? I think we should be pretty tolerant, especially if people fleeing countries where they really risk death for one reason or another. But there is always gonna be this strong anti-immigrant feeling because unscrupulous politicians like Donald Trump, and he has many predecessors in this country, can point to immigrants and blame them for the economic misfortunes that many Americans are experiencing for reasons that don't have anything to do with immigration.Andrew Keen: Fast forward Adam to today. You were involved in an interesting conversation on the Nation about the role of universities in the resistance. What do you make of this first hundred days, I was going to say hundred years that would be a Freudian error, a hundred days of the Trump regime, the role, of big law, big universities, newspapers, media outlets? In this emerging opposition, are you chilled or encouraged?Adam Hochschild: Well, I hope it's a hundred days and not a hundred years. I am moderately encouraged. I was certainly deeply disappointed at the outset to see all of those tech titans go to Washington, kiss the ring, contribute to Trump's inauguration festivities, be there in the front row. Very depressing spectacle, which kind of reminds one of how all the big German industrialists fell into line so quickly behind Hitler. And I'm particularly depressed to see the changes in the media, both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post becoming much more tame when it came to endorsing.Andrew Keen: One of the reasons for that, Adam, of course, is that you're a long-time professor at the journalism school at UC Berkeley, so you've been on the front lines.Adam Hochschild: So I really care about a lively press that has free expression. And we also have a huge part of the media like Fox News and One American Network and other outlets that are just pouring forth a constant fire hose of lies and falsehood.Andrew Keen: And you're being kind of calling it a fire hose. I think we could come up with other terms for it. Anyway, a sewage pipe, but that's another issue.Adam Hochschild: But I'm encouraged when I see media organizations that take a stand. There are places like the New York Times, like CNN, like MSNBC, like the major TV networks, which you can read or watch and really find an honest picture of what's going on. And I think that's a tremendously important thing for a country to have. And that you look at the countries that Donald Trump admires, like Putin's Russia, for example, they don't have this. So I value that. I want to keep it. I think that's tremendously important.I was sorry, of course, that so many of those big law firms immediately cave to these ridiculous and unprecedented demands that he made, contributing pro bono work to his causes in return for not getting banned from government buildings. Nothing like that has happened in American history before, and the people in those firms that made those decisions should really be ashamed of themselves. I was glad to see Harvard University, which happens to be my alma mater, be defiant after caving in a little bit on a couple of issues. They finally put their foot down and said no. And I must say, feeling Harvard patriotism is a very rare emotion for me. But this is the first time in 50 years that I've felt some of it.Andrew Keen: You may even give a donation, Adam.Adam Hochschild: And I hope other universities are going to follow its lead, and it looks like they will. But this is pretty unprecedented, a president coming after universities with this determined of ferocity. And he's going after nonprofit organizations as well. There will be many fights there as well, I'm sure we're just waiting to hear about the next wave of attacks which will be on places like the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation and other big nonprofits. So hold on and wait for that and I hope they are as defiant as possible too.Andrew Keen: It's a little bit jarring to hear a wise historian like yourself use the word unprecedented. Is there much else of this given that we're talking historically and the similarities with the period after the first world war, is there anything else unprecedented about Trumpism?Adam Hochschild: I think in a way, we have often had, or not often, but certainly sometimes had presidents in this country who wanted to assume almost dictatorial powers. Richard Nixon certainly is the most recent case before Trump. And he was eventually stopped and forced to leave office. Had that not happened, I think he would have very happily turned himself into a dictator. So we know that there are temptations that come with the desire for absolute power everywhere. But Trump has gotten farther along on this process and has shown less willingness to do things like abide by court orders. The way that he puts pressure on Republican members of Congress.To me, one of the most startling, disappointing, remarkable, and shocking things about these first hundred days is how very few Republican members to the House or Senate have dared to defy Trump on anything. At most, these ridiculous set of appointees that he muscled through the Senate. At most, they got three Republican votes against them. They couldn't muster the fourth necessary vote. And in the House, only one or two Republicans have voted against Trump on anything. And of course, he has threatened to have Elon Musk fund primaries against any member of Congress who does defy him. And I can't help but think that these folks must also be afraid of physical violence because Trump has let all the January 6th people out of jail and the way vigilantes like that operate is they first go after the traitors on their own side then they come for the rest of us just as in the first real burst of violence in Hitler's Germany was the night of the long knives against another faction of the Nazi Party. Then they started coming for the Jews.Andrew Keen: Finally, Adam, your wife, Arlie, is another very distinguished writer.Adam Hochschild: I've got a better picture of her than that one though.Andrew Keen: Well, I got some very nice photos. This one is perhaps a little, well she's thinking Adam. Everyone knows Arlie from her hugely successful work, "Strangers in their Own Land." She has a new book out, "Stolen Pride, Lost Shame and the Rise of the Right." I don't want to put words into Arlie's mouth and she certainly wouldn't let me do that, Adam, but would it be fair to say that her reading, certainly of recent American history, is trying to bring people back together. She talks about the lessons she learned from her therapist brother. And in some ways, I see her as a kind of marriage counselor in America. Given what's happening today in America with Trump, is this still an opportunity? This thing is going to end and it will end in some ways rather badly and perhaps bloodily one way or the other. But is this still a way to bring people, to bring Americans back together? Can America be reunited? What can we learn from American Midnight? I mean, one of the more encouraging stories I remember, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't it Coolidge or Harding who invited Debs when he left prison to the White House? So American history might be in some ways violent, but it's also made up of chapters of forgiveness.Adam Hochschild: That's true. I mean, that Debs-Harding example is a wonderful one. Here is Debs sent to prison by Woodrow Wilson for a 10-year term. And Debs, by the way, had been in jail before for his leadership of a railway strike when he was a railway workers union organizer. Labor organizing was a very dangerous profession in those days. But Debs was a fairly gentle man, deeply committed to nonviolence. About a year into, a little less than a year into his term, Warren Harding, Woodrow Wilson's successor, pardoned Debs, let him out of prison, invited him to visit the White House on his way home. And they had a half hour's chat. And when he left the building, Debs told reporters, "I've run for the White house five times, but this is the first time I've actually gotten here." Harding privately told a friend. This was revealed only after his death, that he said, "Debs was right about that war. We never should have gotten involved in it."So yeah, there can be reconciliation. There can be talk across these great differences that we have, and I think there are a number of organizations that are working on that specific project, getting people—Andrew Keen: We've done many of those shows. I'm sure you're familiar with the organization Braver Angels, which seems to be a very good group.Adam Hochschild: So I think it can be done. I really think it could be done and it has to be done and it's important for those of us who are deeply worried about Trump, as you and I are, to understand the grievances and the losses and the suffering that has made Trump's backers feel that here is somebody who can get them out of the pickle that they're in. We have to understand that, and the Democratic Party has to come up with promising alternatives for them, which it really has not done. It didn't really offer one in this last election. And the party itself is in complete disarray right now, I fear.Andrew Keen: I think perhaps Arlie should run for president. She would certainly do a better job than Kamala Harris in explaining it. And of course they're both from Berkeley. Finally, Adam, you're very familiar with the history of Africa, Southern Africa, your family I think was originally from there. Might we need after all this, when hopefully the smoke clears, might we need a Mandela style truth and reconciliation committee to make sense of what's happening?Adam Hochschild: My family's actually not from there, but they were in business there.Andrew Keen: Right, they were in the mining business, weren't they?Adam Hochschild: That's right. Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Well, I don't think it would be on quite the same model as South Africa's. But I certainly think we need to find some way of talking across the differences that we have. Coming from the left side of that divide I just feel all too often when I'm talking to people who feel as I do about the world that there is a kind of contempt or disinterest in Trump's backers. These are people that I want to understand, that we need to understand. We need to understand them in order to hear what their real grievances are and to develop alternative policies that are going to give them a real alternative to vote for. Unless we can do that, we're going to have Trump and his like for a long time, I fear.Andrew Keen: Wise words, Adam. I hope in the next 500 episodes of this show, things will improve. We'll get you back on the show, keep doing your important work, and I'm very excited to learn more about your new project, which we'll come to in the next few months or certainly years. Thank you so much.Adam Hochschild: OK, thank you, Andrew. Good being with you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Guest Bio:  Dave Snowden divides his time between two roles: founder & Chief Scientific Officer of Cognitive Edge and the founder and Director of the Centre for Applied Complexity at the University of Wales.  Known for creating the sense-making framework, Cynefin, Dave's work is international in nature and covers government and industry looking at complex issues relating to strategy, organisational decision making and decision making.  He has pioneered a science-based approach to organisations drawing on anthropology, neuroscience and complex adaptive systems theory.  He is a popular and passionate keynote speaker on a range of subjects, and is well known for his pragmatic cynicism and iconoclastic style. He holds positions as extra-ordinary Professor at the Universities of Pretoria and Stellenbosch and visiting Professor at Bangor University in Wales respectively.  He has held similar positions at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Canberra University, the University of Warwick and The University of Surrey.  He held the position of senior fellow at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies at Nanyang University and the Civil Service College in Singapore during a sabbatical period in Nanyang. His paper with Boone on Leadership was the cover article for the Harvard Business Review in November 2007 and also won the Academy of Management aware for the best practitioner paper in the same year.  He has previously won a special award from the Academy for originality in his work on knowledge management. He is a editorial board member of several academic and practitioner journals in the field of knowledge management and is an Editor in Chief of E:CO.  In 2006 he was Director of the EPSRC (UK) research programme on emergence and in 2007 was appointed to an NSF (US) review panel on complexity science research. He previously worked for IBM where he was a Director of the Institution for Knowledge Management and founded the Cynefin Centre for Organisational Complexity; during that period he was selected by IBM as one of six on-demand thinkers for a world-wide advertising campaign. Prior to that he worked in a range of strategic and management roles in the service sector. His company Cognitive Edge exists to integrate academic thinking with practice in organisations throughout the world and operates on a network model working with Academics, Government, Commercial Organisations, NGOs and Independent Consultants.  He is also the main designer of the SenseMaker® software suite, originally developed in the field of counter terrorism and now being actively deployed in both Government and Industry to handle issues of impact measurement, customer/employee insight, narrative based knowledge management, strategic foresight and risk management. The Centre for Applied Complexity was established to look at whole of citizen engagement in government and is running active programmes in Wales and elsewhere in areas such as social inclusion, self-organising communities and nudge economics together with a broad range of programmes in health.  The Centre will establish Wales as a centre of excellence for the integration of academic and practitioner work in creating a science-based approach to understanding society.   Social Media and Website LinkedIn: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/dave-snowden-2a93b Twitter: @snowded Website: Cognitive Edge https://www.cognitive-edge.com/   Books/ Resources: Book: Cynefin - Weaving Sense-Making into the Fabric of Our World by Dave Snowden and Friends https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cynefin-Weaving-Sense-Making-Fabric-World/dp/1735379905 Book: Hope Without Optimism by Terry Eagleton https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hope-Without-Optimism-Terry-Eagleton/dp/0300248679/ Book: Theology of Hope by Jurgen Moltmann https://www.amazon.co.uk/Theology-Hope-Classics-Jurgen-Moltmann/dp/0334028787 Poem: ‘Mending Wall' by Robert Frost https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44266/mending-wall Video: Dave Snowden on ‘Rewilding Agile' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrgaPDqet4c Article reference to ‘Rewilding Agile' by Dave Snowden https://cynefin.io/index.php/User:Snowded Field Guide to Managing Complexity (and Chaos) In Times of Crisis https://cynefin.io/index.php/Field_guide_to_managing_complexity_(and_chaos)_in_times_of_crisis Field Guide to Managing Complexity (and Chaos) In Times of Crisis (2) https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/managing-complexity-and-chaos-times-crisis-field-guide-decision-makers-inspired-cynefin-framework Cynefin Wiki https://cynefin.io/wiki/Main_Page   Interview Transcript Ula Ojiaku:  Dave, thank you for making the time for this conversation. I read in your, your latest book - the book, Cynefin: Weaving Sense Making into the Fabric of Our World, which was released, I believe, in celebration of the twenty first year of the framework. And you mentioned that in your childhood, you had multidisciplinary upbringing which involved lots of reading. Could you tell us a bit more about that? Dave Snowden:  I think it wasn't uncommon in those days. I mean, if you did… I mean, I did science A levels and mathematical A levels. But the assumption was you would read every novel that the academic English class were reading. In fact, it was just unimaginable (that) you wouldn't know the basics of history. So, if you couldn't survive that in the sixth form common room, and the basics of science were known by most of the arts people as well. So that that was common, right. And we had to debate every week anyway. So, every week, you went up to the front of the class and you were given a card, and you'd have the subject and which side you are on, and you had to speak for seven minutes without preparation. And we did that every week from the age of 11 to 18. And that was a wonderful discipline because it meant you read everything. But also, my mother was… both my parents were the first from working class communities to go to university. And they got there by scholarship or sheer hard work against the opposition of their families. My mother went to university in Germany just after the war, which was extremely brave of her -  you know, as a South Wales working class girl. So, you weren't allowed not to be educated, it was considered the unforgivable sin. Ula Ojiaku:   Wow. Did it mean that she had to learn German, because (she was) studying in Germany…? Dave Snowden:  She well, she got A levels in languages. So, she went to university to study German and she actually ended up as a German teacher, German and French. So, she had that sort of background. Yeah. Ula Ojiaku:  And was that what influenced you? Because you also mentioned in the book that you won a £60 prize? Dave Snowden:  Oh, no, that was just fun. So, my mum was very politically active. We're a South Wales labor. Well, I know if I can read but we were labor. And so, she was a local Councilor. She was always politically active. There's a picture of me on Bertrand Russell's knee and her as a baby on a CND march. So it was that sort of background. And she was campaigning for comprehensive education, and had a ferocious fight with Aiden Williams, I think, who was the Director of Education, it was really nasty. I mean, I got threatened on my 11 Plus, he got really nasty. And then so when (I was) in the sixth form, I won the prize in his memory, which caused endless amusement in the whole county. All right. I think I probably won it for that. But that was for contributions beyond academic. So, I was leading lots of stuff in the community and stuff like that. But I had £60. And the assumption was, you go and buy one massive book. And I didn't, I got Dad to drive me to Liverpool - went into the big bookshop there and just came out with I mean, books for two and six pence. So, you can imagine how many books I could get for £60. And I just took everything I could find on philosophy and history and introductory science and stuff like that and just consumed it. Ula Ojiaku:  Wow, it seemed like you already knew what you wanted even before winning the prize money, you seem to have had a wish list... Dave Snowden:  I mean, actually interesting, and the big things in the EU field guide on (managing) complexity which was just issued. You need to build…, You need to stop saying, ‘this is the problem, we will find the solution' to saying, ‘how do I build capability, that can solve problems we haven't yet anticipated?' And I think that's part of the problem in education. Because my children didn't have that benefit. They had a modular education. Yeah, we did a set of exams at 16 and a set of exams that 18 and between those periods, we could explore it (i.e. options) and we had to hold everything in our minds for those two periods, right? For my children, it was do a module, pass a test, get a mark, move on, forget it move on. So, it's very compartmentalized, yeah? And it's also quite instrumentalist. We, I think we were given an education as much in how to learn and have had to find things out. And the debating tradition was that; you didn't know what you're going to get hit with. So, you read everything, and you thought about it, and you learn to think on your feet. And I think that that sort of a broad switch, it started to happen in the 80s, along with a lot of other bad things in management. And this is when systems thinking started to dominate. And we moved to an engineering metaphor. And you can see it in cybernetics and everything else, it's an attempt to define everything as a machine. And of course, machines are designed for a purpose, whereas ecosystems evolve for resilience. And I think that's kind of like where I, my generation were and it's certainly what we're trying to bring back in now in sort of in terms of practice. Ula Ojiaku:  I have an engineering background and a computer science background. These days, I'm developing a newfound love for philosophy, psychology, law and, you know, intersect, how do all these concepts intersect? Because as human beings we're complex, we're not machines where you put the program in and you expect it to come out the same, you know, it's not going to be the same for every human being. What do you think about that? Dave Snowden:  Yeah. And I think, you know, we know more on this as well. So, we know the role of art in human evolution is being closely linked to innovation. So, art comes before language. So, abstraction allows you to make novel connections. So, if you focus entirely on STEM education, you're damaging the human capacity to innovate. And we're, you know, as creatures, we're curious. You know. And I mean, we got this whole concept of our aporia, which is key to connecting that, which is creating a state of deliberate confusion, or a state of paradox. And the essence of a paradox is you can't resolve it. So, you're forced to think differently. So, the famous case on this is the liar's paradox, alright? I mean, “I always lie”. That just means I lied. So, if that means I was telling the truth. So, you've got to think differently about the problem. I mean, you've seen those paradoxes do the same thing. So that, that deliberate act of creating confusion so people can see novelty is key. Yeah. Umm and if you don't find… finding ways to do that, so when we looked at it, we looked at linguistic aporia, aesthetic aporia and physical aporia. So, I got some of the… one of the defining moments of insight on Cynefin was looking at Caravaggio`s paintings in Naples. When I realized I've been looking for the idea of the liminality. And that was, and then it all came together, right? So those are the trigger points requiring a more composite way of learning. I think it's also multiculturalism, to be honest. I mean, I, when I left university, I worked on the World Council of Churches come, you know program to combat racism. Ula Ojiaku:  Yes, I'd like to know more about that. That's one of my questions… Dave Snowden:  My mother was a good atheist, but she made me read the Bible on the basis, I wouldn't understand European literature otherwise, and the penetration guys, I became a Catholic so… Now, I mean, that that was fascinating, because I mean, I worked on Aboriginal land rights in Northern Australia, for example. And that was when I saw an activist who was literally murdered in front of me by a security guard. And we went to the police. And they said, it's only an Abo. And I still remember having fights in Geneva, because South Africa was a tribal conflict with a racial overlay. I mean, Africa, and its Matabele Zulu, arrived in South Africa together and wiped out the native population. And if you don't understand that, you don't understand the Matabele betrayal. You don't understand what happened. It doesn't justify apartheid. And one of the reasons there was a partial reconciliation, is it actually was a tribal conflict. And the ritual actually managed that. Whereas in Australia, in comparison was actually genocide. Yeah, it wasn't prejudice, it was genocide. I mean, until 1970s, there, were still taking half -breed children forcibly away from their parents, inter-marrying them in homes, to breed them back to white. And those are, I think, yeah, a big market. I argued this in the UK, I said, one of the things we should actually have is bring back national service. I couldn't get the Labor Party to adopt it. I said, ‘A: Because it would undermine the Conservatives, because they're the ones who talk about that sort of stuff. But we should allow it to be overseas.' So, if you put two years into working in communities, which are poorer than yours, round about that 18 to 21-year-old bracket, then we'll pay for your education. If you don't, you'll pay fees. Because you proved you want to give to society. And that would have been… I think, it would have meant we'd have had a generation of graduates who understood the world because that was part of the objective. I mean, I did that I worked on worked in South Africa, on the banks of Zimbabwe on the audits of the refugee camps around that fight. And in Sao Paulo, in the slums, some of the work of priests. You can't come back from that and not be changed. And I think it's that key formative period, we need to give people. Ula Ojiaku:  True and like you said, at that age, you know, when you're young and impressionable, it helps with what broadening your worldview to know that the world is bigger than your father's … compound (backyard)… Dave Snowden:  That's the worst problem in Agile, because what, you've got a whole class of, mainly white males and misogynism in Agile is really bad. It's one of the worst areas for misogyny still left, right, in terms of where it works. Ula Ojiaku:  I'm happy you are the one saying it not me… Dave Snowden:  Well, no, I mean, it is it's quite appalling. And so, what you've actually got is, is largely a bunch of white male game players who spent their entire time on computers. Yeah, when you take and run seriously after puberty, and that's kind of like a dominant culture. And that's actually quite dangerous, because it lacks, it lacks cultural diversity, it lacks ethnic diversity, it lacks educational diversity. And I wrote an article for ITIL, recently, which has been published, which said, no engineers should be allowed out, without training in ethics. Because the implications of what software engineers do now are huge. And the problem we've got, and this is a really significant, it's a big data problem as well. And you see it with a behavioral economic economist and the nudge theory guys - all of whom grab these large-scale data manipulations is that they're amoral, they're not immoral, they're amoral. And that's actually always more scary. It's this sort of deep level instrumentalism about the numbers; the numbers tell me what I need to say. Ula Ojiaku:  And also, I mean, just building on what you've said, there are instances, for example, in artificial intelligence is really based on a sample set from a select group, and it doesn't necessarily recognize things that are called ‘outliers'. You know, other races… Dave Snowden:  I mean, I've worked in that in all my life now back 20, 25 years ago. John Poindexter and I were on a stage in a conference in Washington. This was sort of early days of our work on counter terrorism. And somebody asked about black box AI and I said, nobody's talking about the training data sets. And I've worked in AI from the early days, all right, and the training data sets matter and nobody bothered. They just assumed… and you get people publishing books which say correlation is causation, which is deeply worrying, right? And I think Google is starting to acknowledge that, but it's actually very late. And the biases which… we were looking at a software tool the other day, it said it can, it can predict 85% of future events around culture. Well, it can only do that by constraining how executive see culture, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And then the recruitment algorithms will only recruit people who match that cultural expectation and outliers will be eliminated. There's an HBO film coming up shortly on Myers Briggs. Now, Myers Briggs is known to be a pseudo-science. It has no basis whatsoever in any clinical work, and even Jung denied it, even though it's meant to be based on his work. But it's beautiful for HR departments because it allows them to put people into little categories. And critically it abrogates, judgment, and that's what happened with systems thinking in the 80s 90s is everything became spreadsheets and algorithms. So, HR departments would produce… instead of managers making decisions based on judgment, HR departments would force them into profile curves, to allocate resources. Actually, if you had a high performing team who were punished, because the assumption was teams would not have more than… Ula Ojiaku:  Bell curve... Dave Snowden:  …10 percent high performance in it. All right. Ula Ojiaku:  Yeah. Dave Snowden:  And this sort of nonsense has been running in the 80s, 90s and it coincided with… three things came together. One was the popularization of systems thinking. And unfortunately, it got popularized around things like process reengineering and learning organization. So that was a hard end. And Sanghi's pious can the sort of the, the soft end of it, right? But both of them were highly directional. It was kind of like leaders decide everything follows. Yeah. And that coincided with the huge growth of computing - the ability to handle large volumes of information. And all of those sorts of things came together in this sort of perfect storm, and we lost a lot of humanity in the process. Ula Ojiaku:  Do you think there's hope for us to regain the humanity in the process? Because it seems like the tide is turning from, I mean, there is still an emphasis, in my view, on systems thinking, however, there is the growing realization that we have, you know, knowledge workers and people… Dave Snowden:  Coming to the end of its park cycle, I see that all right. I can see it with the amount of cybernetics fanboys, and they are all boys who jump on me every time I say something about complexity, right? So, I think they're feeling threatened. And the field guide is significant, because it's a government, you know, government can like publication around effectively taken an ecosystems approach, not a cybernetic approach. And there's a book published by a good friend of mine called Terry Eagleton, who's… I don't think he's written a bad book. And he's written about 30, or 40. I mean, the guy just produces his stuff. It's called “Hope without Optimism”. And I think, hope is… I mean, Moltman just also published an update of his Theology of Hope, which is worth reading, even if you're not religious. But hope is one of those key concepts, right, you should… to lose hope is a sin. But hope is not the same thing as optimism. In fact, pessimistic people who hope actually are probably the ones who make a difference, because they're not naive, right? And this is my objection to the likes of Sharma Ga Sengi, and the like, is they just gather people together to talk about how things should be. And of course, everything should be what, you know, white MIT, educated males think the world should be like. I mean, it's very culturally imperialist in that sort of sense. And then nobody changes because anybody can come together in the workshop and agree how things should be. It's when you make a difference in the field that it counts, you've got to create a micro difference. This is hyper localization, you got to create lots and lots of micro differences, which will stimulate the systems, the system will change. I think, three things that come together, one is COVID. The other is global warming. And the other is, and I prefer to call it the epistemic justice movement, though, that kind of like fits in with Black Lives Matter. But epistemic justice doesn't just affect people who are female or black. I mean, if you come to the UK and see the language about the Welsh and the Irish, or the jokes made about the Welsh in BBC, right? The way we use language can designate people in different ways and I think that's a big movement, though. And it's certainly something we develop software for. So, I think those three come together, and I think the old models aren't going to be sustainable. I mean, the cost is going to be terrible. I mean, the cost to COVID is already bad. And we're not getting this thing as long COVID, it's permanent COVID. And people need to start getting used to that. And I think that's, that's going to change things. So, for example, in the village I live in Wiltshire. Somebody's now opened an artisan bakery in their garage and it's brilliant. And everybody's popping around there twice a week and just buying the bread and having a chat on the way; socially-distanced with masks, of course. And talking of people, that sort of thing is happening a lot. COVID has forced people into local areas and forced people to realise the vulnerability of supply chains. So, you can see changes happening there. The whole Trump phenomenon, right, and the Boris murmuring in the UK is ongoing. It's just as bad as the Trump phenomenon. It's the institutionalization of corruption as a high level. Right? Those sorts of things trigger change, right? Not without cost, change never comes without cost, but it just needs enough… It needs local action, not international action. I think that's the key principle. To get a lot of people to accept things like the Paris Accord on climate change, and you've got to be prepared to make sacrifices. And it's too distant a time at the moment, it has to become a local issue for the international initiatives to actually work and we're seeing that now. I mean… Ula Ojiaku:  It sounds like, sorry to interrupt - it sounds like what you're saying is, for the local action, for change to happen, it has to start with us as individuals… Dave Snowden:  The disposition… No, not with individuals. That's actually very North American, the North European way of thinking right. The fundamental kind of basic identity structure of humans is actually clans, not individuals. Ula Ojiaku:  Clans... Dave Snowden:  Yeah. Extended families, clans; it's an ambiguous word. We actually evolved for those. And you need it at that level, because that's a high level of social interaction and social dependency. And it's like, for example, right? I'm dyslexic. Right? Yeah. If I don't see if, if the spelling checker doesn't pick up a spelling mistake, I won't see it. And I read a whole page at a time. I do not read it sentence by sentence. All right. And I can't understand why people haven't seen the connections I make, because they're obvious, right? Equally, there's a high degree of partial autism in the Agile community, because that goes with mathematical ability and thing, and that this so-called education deficiencies, and the attempt to define an ideal individual is a mistake, because we evolved to have these differences. Ula Ojiaku:  Yes. Dave Snowden:  Yeah. And the differences understood that the right level of interaction can change things. So, I think the unit is clan, right for extended family, or extended, extended interdependence. Ula Ojiaku:  Extended interdependence… Dave Snowden:  We're seeing that in the village. I mean, yeah, this is classic British atomistic knit, and none of our relatives live anywhere near us. But the independence in the village is increasing with COVID. And therefore, people are finding relationships and things they can do together. Now, once that builds to a critical mass, and it does actually happen exponentially, then bigger initiatives are possible. And this is some of the stuff we were hoping to do in the US shortly on post-election reconciliation. And the work we've been doing in Malmo, in refugees and elsewhere in the world, right, is you change the nature of localized interaction with national visibility, so that you can measure the dispositional state of the system. And then you can nudge the system when it's ready to change, because then the energy cost of change is low. But that requires real time feedback loops in distributed human sensor networks, which is a key issue in the field guide. And the key thing that comes back to your original question on AI, is, the internet at the moment is an unbuffered feedback loop. Yeah, where you don't know the source of the data, and you can't control the source of the data. And any network like that, and this is just apriori science factor, right will always become perverted. Ula Ojiaku:  And what do you mean by term apriori? Dave Snowden:  Oh, before the facts, you don't need to, we don't need to wait for evidence. It's like in an agile, you can look at something like SAFe® which case claims to scale agile and just look at it you say it's apriori wrong (to) a scale a complex system. So, it's wrong. All right. End of argument right. Now let's talk about the details, right. So yeah, so that's, you know, that's coming back. The hyper localization thing is absolutely key on that, right? And the same is true to be honest in software development. A lot of our work now is to understand the unarticulated needs of users. And then shift technology in to actually meet those unarticulated needs. And that requires a complex approach to architecture, in which people and technology are objects with defined interactions around scaffolding structures, so that applications can emerge in resilience, right? And that's actually how local communities evolve as well. So, we've now got the theoretical constructs and a lot of the practical methods to actually… And I've got a series of blog posts - which I've got to get back to writing - called Rewilding Agile. And rewilding isn't returning to the original state, it's restoring balance. So, if you increase the number of human actors as your primary sources, and I mean human actors, not as people sitting on (in front of) computer screens who can be faked or mimicked, yeah? … and entirely working on text, which is about 10%, of what we know, dangerous, it might become 80% of what we know and then you need to panic. Right? So, you know, by changing those interactions, increasing the human agency in the system, that's how you come to, that's how you deal with fake news. It's not by writing better algorithms, because then it becomes a war with the guys faking the news, and you're always gonna lose. Ula Ojiaku:  So, what do you consider yourself, a person of faith? Dave Snowden:  Yeah. Ula Ojiaku:  Why? Dave Snowden:  Oh, faith is like hope and charity. I mean, they're the great virtues… I didn't tell you I got into a lot in trouble in the 70s. Dave Snowden:  I wrote an essay that said Catholicism, Marxism and Hinduism were ontologically identical and should be combined and we're different from Protestantism and capitalism, which are also ontologically identical (and) it can be combined. Ula Ojiaku:  Is this available in the public domain? Dave Snowden:  I doubt it. I think it actually got me onto a heresy trial at one point, but that but I would still say that. Ula Ojiaku:  That's amazing. Can we then move to the framework that Cynefin framework, how did it evolve into what we know it as today? Dave Snowden:  I'll do a high-level summary, but I wrote it up at length in the book and I didn't know I was writing for the book. The book was a surprise that they put together for me. I thought that was just writing an extended blog post. It started when I was working in IBM is it originates from the work of Max Borrasso was my mentor for years who tragically died early. But he was looking at abstraction, codification and diffusion. We did a fair amount of work together, I took two of those aspects and started to look at informal and formal communities in IBM, and its innovation. And some of the early articles on Cynefin, certainly the early ones with the five domains come from that period. And at that time, we had access labels. Yeah. And then then complexity theory came into it. So, it shifted into being a complexity framework. And it stayed … The five domains were fairly constant for a fairly long period of time, they changed their names a bit. The central domain I knew was important, but didn't have as much prominence as it does now. And then I introduced liminality, partly driven by agile people, actually, because they could they couldn't get the concept there were dynamics and domains. So, they used to say things like, ‘look, Scrum is a dynamic. It's a way of shifting complex to complicated' and people say ‘no, the scrum guide said it's about complex.' And you think, ‘oh, God, Stacey has a lot to answer for' but… Ula Ojiaku: Who`s Stacey? Dave Snowden:  Ralph Stacey. So, he was the guy originally picked up by Ken when he wrote the Scrum Guide… Ula Ojiaku:  Right. Okay. Dave Snowden:  Stacey believes everything's complex, which is just wrong, right? So, either way, Cynefin evolved with the liminal aspects. And then the last resolution last year, which is… kind of completes Cynefin to be honest, there's some refinements… was when we realized that the central domain was confused, or operatic. And that was the point where you started. So, you didn't start by putting things into the domain, you started in the operatic. And then you moved aspects of things into the different domains. So that was really important. And it got picked up in Agile, ironically, by the XP community. So, I mean, I was in IT most of my life, I was one of the founders of the DSDM Consortium, and then moved sideways from that, and was working in counterterrorism and other areas, always you're working with technology, but not in the Agile movement. Cynefin is actually about the same age as Agile, it started at the same time. And the XP community in London invited me in, and I still think Agile would have been better if it had been built on XP, not Scrum. But it wouldn't have scaled with XP, I mean, without Scrum it would never have scaled it. And then it got picked up. And I think one of the reasons it got picked up over Stacey is, it said order is possible. It didn't say everything is complex. And virtually every Agile method I know of value actually focuses on making complex, complicated. Ula Ojiaku:  Yes. Dave Snowden:  And that's its power. What they're… what is insufficient of, and this is where we've been working is what I call pre-Scrum techniques. Techniques, which define what should go into that process. Right, because all of the Agile methods still tend to be a very strong manufacturing metaphor - manufacturing ideas. So, they assume somebody will tell them what they have to produce. And that actually is a bad way of thinking about IT. Technology needs to co-evolve. And users can't articulate what they want, because they don't know what technology can do. Ula Ojiaku:  True. But are you saying… because in Agile fundamentally, it's really about making sure there's alignment as well that people are working on the right thing per time, but you're not telling them how to do it? Dave Snowden:  Well, yes and no - all right. I mean, it depends what you're doing. I mean, some Agile processes, yes. But if you go through the sort of safe brain remain processes, very little variety within it, right? And self-organization happens within the context of a user executive and retrospectives. Right, so that's its power. And, but if you look at it, it took a really good technique called time-boxing, and it reduced it to a two-week sprint. Now, that's one aspect of time boxing. I mean, I've got a whole series of blog posts next week on this, because time boxing is a hugely valuable technique. It says there's minimal deliverable project, and maximum deliverable product and a minimal level of resource and a maximum level of resource. And the team commits to deliver on the date. Ula Ojiaku:  To accurate quality… to a quality standard. Dave Snowden:  Yeah, so basically, you know that the worst case, you'll get the minimum product at the maximum cost, but you know, you'll get it on that date. So, you can deal with it, alright. And that's another technique we've neglected. We're doing things which force high levels of mutation and requirements over 24 hours, before they get put into a Scrum process. Because if you just take what users want, you know, there's been insufficient co-evolution with the technology capability. And so, by the time you deliver it, the users will probably realize they should have asked for something different anyway. Ula Ojiaku:  So, does this tie in with the pre-Scrum techniques you mentioned earlier? If so, can you articulate that? Dave Snowden:  So, is to say different methods in different places. And that's again, my opposition to things like SAFe, to a lesser extent LeSS, and so on, right, is they try and put everything into one bloody big flow diagram. Yeah. And that's messy. All right? Well, it's a recipe, not a chef. What the chef does is they put different ingredients together in different combinations. So, there's modularity of knowledge, but it's not forced into a linear process. So, our work… and we just got an open space and open source and our methods deliberately, right, in terms of the way it works, is I can take Scrum, and I can reduce it to its lowest coherent components, like a sprint or retrospective. I can combine those components with components for another method. So, I can create Scrum as an assembly of components, I can take those components compared with other components. And that way, you get novelty. So, we're then developing components which sit before traditional stuff. Like for example, triple eight, right? This was an old DSDM method. So, you ran a JAD sessions and Scrum has forgotten about JAD. JAD is a really…  joint application design… is a really good set of techniques - they're all outstanding. You throw users together with coders for two days, and you force out some prototypes. Yeah, that latching on its own would, would transform agile, bringing that back in spades, right? We did is we do an eight-hour JAD session say, in London, and we pass it on to a team in Mumbai. But we don't tell them what the users ask for. They just get the prototype. And they can do whatever they want with it for eight hours. And then they hand it over to a team in San Francisco, who can do whatever they want with it in eight hours. And it comes back. And every time I've run this, the user said, ‘God, I wouldn't have thought of that, can I please, have it?' So, what you're doing is a limited life cycle -  you get the thing roughly defined, then you allow it to mutate without control, and then you look at the results and decide what you want to do. And that's an example of pre-scrum technique, that is a lot more economical than systems and analysts and user executives and storyboards. And all those sorts of things. Yeah. Ula Ojiaku:  Well, I see what you mean, because it seems like the, you know, the JAD - the joint application design technique allows for emergent design, and you shift the decision making closer to the people who are at the forefront. And to an extent my understanding of, you know, Scrum … I mean, some agile frameworks - that's also what they promote… Dave Snowden:  Oh, they don't really don't. alright. They picked up Design Thinking which is quite interesting at the moment. If you if you look at Agile and Design Thinking. They're both at the end of their life cycles. Ula Ojiaku:  Why do you say that? Dave Snowden:  Because they're being commodified. The way you know, something is coming to the end of its life cycle is when it becomes highly commodified. So, if you look at it, look at what they are doing the moment, the Double Diamond is now a series of courses with certificates. And I mean, Agile started with bloody certificates, which is why it's always been slightly diverse in the way it works. I mean, this idea that you go on a three-day course and get a certificate, you read some slides every year and pay some money and get another certificate is fundamentally corrupt. But most of the Agile business is built on it, right? I mean, I've got three sets of methods after my name. But they all came from yearlong or longer courses certified by university not from tearing apart a course. Yeah, or satisfying a peer group within a very narrow cultural or technical definition of competence. So, I think yeah, and you can see that with Design Thinking. So, it's expert ideation, expert ethnography. And it still falls into that way of doing things. Yeah. And you can see it, people that are obsessed with running workshops that they facilitate. And that's the problem. I mean, the work we're doing on citizen engagement is actually… has no bloody facilitators in it. As all the evidence is that the people who turn up are culturally biased about their representative based opinions. And the same is true if you want to look at unarticulated needs, you can't afford to have the systems analysts finding them because they see them from their perspective. And this is one of one science, right? You did not see what you do not expect to see. We know that, alright? So, you're not going to see outliers. And so, the minute you have an expert doing something, it's really good - where you know, the bounds of the expertise, cover all the possibilities, and it's really dangerous. Well, that's not the case. Ula Ojiaku:  So, could you tell me a bit more about the unfacilitated sessions you mentioned earlier? Dave Snowden:  They're definitely not sessions, so we didn't like what were triggers at moments. Ula Ojiaku:  Okay. Dave Snowden:  So, defining roles. So, for example, one of the things I would do and have done in IT, is put together, young, naive, recently graduated programmer with older experienced tester or software architect. So, somebody without any… Ula Ojiaku:  Prejudice or pre-conceived idea... Dave Snowden:  … preferably with a sort of grandparent age group between them as well. I call it, the grandparents syndrome - grandparents say things to their grandchildren they won't tell their children and vice versa. If you maximize the age gap, there's actually freer information flow because there's no threat in the process. And then we put together with users trained to talk to IT people. So, in a month's time, I'll publish that as a training course. So, training users to talk to IT people is more economical than trying to train IT people to understand users. Ula Ojiaku:  To wrap up then, based on what you said, you know, about Cynefin, and you know, the wonderful ideas behind Cynefin. How can leaders in organizations in any organization apply these and in how they make sense of the world and, you know, take decisions? Dave Snowden:  Well, if there's actually a sensible way forward now, so we've just published the field guide on managing complexity.  Ula Ojiaku:  Okay. Dave Snowden:  And that is actually, it's a sort of ‘Chef's guide'. It has four stages: assess, adapt, exert, transcend, and within that it has things you could do. So, it's not a list of qualities, it's a list of practical things you should go and do tomorrow, and those things we're building at the moment with a lot of partners, because we won't try and control this; this needs to be open. Here's an assessment process that people will go through to decide where they are. So that's going to be available next week on our website. Ula Ojiaku:  Oh, fantastic! Dave Snowden:  For the initial registration.  Other than that, and there's a whole body of stuff on how to use Cynefin. And as I said, we just open source on the methods. So, the Wiki is open source. These… from my point of view, we're now at the stage where the market is going to expand very quickly. And to be honest, I, you know, I've always said traditionally use cash waiver as an example of this. The reason that Agile scaled around Scrum is he didn't make it an elite activity, which XP was. I love the XP guys, but they can't communicate with ordinary mortals. Yeah. It takes you about 10 minutes to tune into the main point, and even you know the field, right. And he (Jeff Sutherland) made the Scrum Guide open source. And that way it's great, right. And I think that that's something which people just don't get strategic with. They, in early stages, you should keep things behind firewalls. When the market is ready to expand, you take the firewalls away fast. Because I mean, getting behind firewalls initially to maintain coherence so they don't get diluted too quickly, or what I call “hawks being made into pigeons”. Yeah. But the minute the market is starting to expand, that probably means you've defined it so you release the firewall so the ideas spread very quickly, and you accept the degree of diversity on it. So that's the reason we put the Wiki. Ula Ojiaku:  Right. So, are there any books that you would recommend, for anyone who wants to learn more about what you've talked about so far. Dave Snowden:  You would normally produce the theory book, then the field book, but we did it the other way around. So, Mary and I are working on three to five books, which will back up the Field Guide. Ula Ojiaku:  Is it Mary Boone? Dave Snowden:  Mary Boone. She knows how to write to the American managers, which I don't, right… without losing integrity. So that's coming, right. If you go onto the website, I've listed all the books I read. I don't think… there are some very, very good books around complexity, but they're deeply specialized, they're academic. Gerard's book is just absolutely brilliant but it's difficult to understand if you don't have a philosophy degree. And there are some awfully tripe books around complexity - nearly all of the popular books I've seen, I wouldn't recommend. Yeah. Small Groups of Complex Adaptive Systems is probably quite a good one that was published about 20 years ago. Yeah, but that we got a book list on the website. So, I would look at that. Ula Ojiaku:  Okay. Thank you so much for that. Do you have any ask of the audience and how can they get to you? Dave Snowden:  We've open-sourced the Wiki, you know, to create a critical mass, I was really pleased we have 200 people volunteered to help populate it. So, we get the all the methods in the field guide them. And they're actively working at that at the moment, right, and on a call with them later. And to be honest, I've done 18-hour days, the last two weeks, but 8 hours of each of those days has been talking to the methods with a group of people Academy 5, that's actually given me a lot of energy, because it's huge. So, get involved, I think it's the best way… you best understand complexity by getting the principles and then practicing it. And the key thing I'll leave us with is the metaphor. I mentioned it a few times - a recipe book user has a recipe, and they follow it. And if they don't have the right ingredients, and if they don't have the right equipment, they can't operate. Or they say it's not ‘true Agile'. A chef understands the theory of cooking and has got served in apprenticeship. So, their fingers know how to do things. And that's… we need… a downside.. more chefs, which is the combination of theory and practice. And the word empirical is hugely corrupted in the Agile movement. You know, basically saying, ‘this worked for me' or ‘it worked for me the last three times' is the most dangerous way of moving forward. Ula Ojiaku:  Because things change and what worked yesterday might not work Dave Snowden:  And you won't be aware of what worked or didn't work and so on. Ula Ojiaku:  And there's some bias in that. Wouldn't you say? Dave Snowden:  We've got an attentional blindness if you've got Ula Ojiaku:  Great. And Dave, where can people find you? Are you on social media? Dave Snowden:  Cognitive. Yeah, social media is @snowded. Yeah. LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter. Two websites – the Cognitive Edge website, which is where I blog, and there's a new Cynefin Center website now, which is a not-for-profit arm. Ula Ojiaku:  Okay. All these would be in the show notes. Thank you so much for your time, Dave. It's been a pleasure speaking with you. Dave Snowden:  Okay. Thanks a lot.

In the early 20th century, the New York Times dubbed French philosopher Henri Bergson as "the most dangerous man in the world." Bergson scared a lot of people in how he brought philosophy to the masses but he also won critical acclaim, receiving the Nobel Prize in Literature and France's highest honor, the Grand-Croix de la Legion d'honneur. Surprisingly, no English language biography exists of him. Until now. This week, Dr. Emily Herring joins in to talk about Bergson's rise to fame, his influence on 20th century thought, and the mysteries behind why he died in relative obscurity. About our guest:Dr. Emily Herring received her PhD from the University of Leeds and is now working as a freelance writer and editor. She is the author of the first biography of Henri Bergson in English, Herald of a Restless World. How Henri Bergson Brought Philosophy to the People (2024 Basic Books). 

Siegfried Sassoon was born on 8 September 1886 in Kent. His father was part of a Jewish merchant family, originally from Iran and India, and his mother part of the artistic Thorneycroft family. Sassoon studied at Cambridge University but left without a degree. He then lived the life of a country gentleman, hunting and playing cricket while also publishing small volumes of poetry.In May 1915, Sassoon was commissioned into the Royal Welsh Fusiliers and went to France. He impressed many with his bravery in the front line and was given the nickname 'Mad Jack' for his near-suicidal exploits. He was decorated twice. His brother Hamo was killed in November 1915 at Gallipoli.In the summer of 1916, Sassoon was sent to England to recover from fever. He went back to the front, but was wounded in April 1917 and returned home. Meetings with several prominent pacifists, including Bertrand Russell, had reinforced his growing disillusionment with the war and in June 1917 he wrote a letter that was published in the Times in which he said that the war was being deliberately and unnecessarily prolonged by the government. As a decorated war hero and published poet, this caused public outrage. It was only his friend and fellow poet, Robert Graves, who prevented him from being court-martialled by convincing the authorities that Sassoon had shell-shock. He was sent to Craiglockhart War Hospital in Edinburgh for treatment. Here he met, and greatly influenced, Wilfred Owen. Both men returned to the front where Owen was killed in 1918. Sassoon was posted to Palestine and then returned to France, where he was again wounded, spending the remainder of the war in England. Many of his war poems were published in 'The Old Huntsman' (1917) and 'Counter-Attack' (1918).After the war Sassoon spent a brief period as literary editor of the Daily Herald before going to the United States, travelling the length and breadth of the country on a speaking tour. He then started writing the near-autobiographical novel 'Memoirs of a Fox-hunting Man' (1928). It was an immediate success, and was followed by others including 'Memoirs of an Infantry Officer' (1930) and 'Sherston's Progress' (1936). Sassoon had a number of homosexual affairs but in 1933 surprised many of his friends by marrying Hester Gatty. They had a son, George, but the marriage broke down after World War Two.He continued to write both prose and poetry. In 1957, he was received into the Catholic church. He died on 1 September 1967.-bio via BBC This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit dailypoempod.substack.com/subscribe

En 1955, le philosophe britannique Bertrand Russel rédige, avec Albert Einstein, un manifeste contre la prolifération des armes nucléaires. Ce est signé par tous les grands scientifiques de l'époque, dont le français Frédéric Joliot-Curie. La semaine prochaine, dans Au cœur de l'Histoire, découvrez les grandes étapes de la course à l'armement nucléaire durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale et comment, après Hiroshima, la crainte d'un nouvel usage de la bombe s'est installée.

durée : 01:38:43 - Les Nuits de France Culture - par : Albane Penaranda, Mathias Le Gargasson, Antoine Dhulster - Plus jamais ça. Vraiment ? Dans ce dernier épisode de la série "Le monde concentrationnaire" diffusée en 1965, déportés, écrivains et philosophes, tels François Mauriac et Bertrand Russell, posent la question de la possible réémergence d'un phénomène similaire à celui des camps de concentration. - réalisation : Massimo Bellini, Vincent Abouchar - invités : Jean-Pierre Faye Écrivain et philosophe; Jean-Marie Domenach; Edgar Morin Philosophe et sociologue; François Mauriac; Bertrand Russell Prix Nobel de littérature en 1950

It had to happen eventually: this week The Studies Show is all about philosophy. As we look at science in general, how do we decide what those studies are actually showing? Tom and Stuart take a look at the Big Two of philosophy of science: Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, with their respective theories of falsificationism and paradigm shifts. Both are theories that almost everyone interested in science has heard of—but both make far more extreme claims than you might think.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, the best place to go online for fact-rich, data-dense articles on science and technology, and how they've made the world a better place—or how they might do so in the future. To find all their essays, all for free, go to worksinprogress.co.Show notes* Tom's new book, Everything is Predictable: How Bayes' Remarkable Theorem Explains the World* Wagenmakers's 2020 study asking scientists how they think about scientific claims* David Hume's 1748 Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the problem of induction * Bertrand Russell's 1946 book History of Western Philosophy* Popper's 1959 book The Logic of Scientific Discovery* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Popper* Kuhn's 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Kuhn* 2019 Scott Alexander review of the book* Michael Strevens's 2020 book The Knowledge Machine* Daniel Lakens's Coursera course on “improving your statistical inferences”CreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

Herald of a Restless World: How Henri Bergson Brought Philosophy to the People (Basic Books, 2024) is the first English-language biography of Henri Bergson, the philosopher who defined individual creativity and transformed twentieth century thought. At the dawn of the twentieth century, Henri Bergson became the most famous philosopher on earth. Where prior thinkers sketched out a predictable universe, he asserted the transformative power of consciousness and creativity. An international celebrity, he made headlines around the world debating luminaries like Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein about free will and time. The vision of creative evolution and freedom he presented was so disruptive that the New York Times branded him "the most dangerous man in the world." In the first English-language biography of Bergson, Emily Herring traces how his celebration of the time-bending uniqueness of individual experience struck a chord with those shaken by modern technological and social change. Bergson captivated a society in flux like no other. Long after he faded from public view, his insights into memory, time, joy and creativity continue to shape our perceptions to this day. Herald of a Restless World is an electrifying portrait of a singular intellect. Emily Herring is a writer based in Paris. She studied philosophy at the Sorbonne and received her PhD in the history and philosophy of science from the University of Leeds. Her work has appeared in the TLS and Aeon. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. 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

Herald of a Restless World: How Henri Bergson Brought Philosophy to the People (Basic Books, 2024) is the first English-language biography of Henri Bergson, the philosopher who defined individual creativity and transformed twentieth century thought. At the dawn of the twentieth century, Henri Bergson became the most famous philosopher on earth. Where prior thinkers sketched out a predictable universe, he asserted the transformative power of consciousness and creativity. An international celebrity, he made headlines around the world debating luminaries like Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein about free will and time. The vision of creative evolution and freedom he presented was so disruptive that the New York Times branded him "the most dangerous man in the world." In the first English-language biography of Bergson, Emily Herring traces how his celebration of the time-bending uniqueness of individual experience struck a chord with those shaken by modern technological and social change. Bergson captivated a society in flux like no other. Long after he faded from public view, his insights into memory, time, joy and creativity continue to shape our perceptions to this day. Herald of a Restless World is an electrifying portrait of a singular intellect. Emily Herring is a writer based in Paris. She studied philosophy at the Sorbonne and received her PhD in the history and philosophy of science from the University of Leeds. Her work has appeared in the TLS and Aeon. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

Herald of a Restless World: How Henri Bergson Brought Philosophy to the People (Basic Books, 2024) is the first English-language biography of Henri Bergson, the philosopher who defined individual creativity and transformed twentieth century thought. At the dawn of the twentieth century, Henri Bergson became the most famous philosopher on earth. Where prior thinkers sketched out a predictable universe, he asserted the transformative power of consciousness and creativity. An international celebrity, he made headlines around the world debating luminaries like Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein about free will and time. The vision of creative evolution and freedom he presented was so disruptive that the New York Times branded him "the most dangerous man in the world." In the first English-language biography of Bergson, Emily Herring traces how his celebration of the time-bending uniqueness of individual experience struck a chord with those shaken by modern technological and social change. Bergson captivated a society in flux like no other. Long after he faded from public view, his insights into memory, time, joy and creativity continue to shape our perceptions to this day. Herald of a Restless World is an electrifying portrait of a singular intellect. Emily Herring is a writer based in Paris. She studied philosophy at the Sorbonne and received her PhD in the history and philosophy of science from the University of Leeds. Her work has appeared in the TLS and Aeon. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Herald of a Restless World: How Henri Bergson Brought Philosophy to the People (Basic Books, 2024) is the first English-language biography of Henri Bergson, the philosopher who defined individual creativity and transformed twentieth century thought. At the dawn of the twentieth century, Henri Bergson became the most famous philosopher on earth. Where prior thinkers sketched out a predictable universe, he asserted the transformative power of consciousness and creativity. An international celebrity, he made headlines around the world debating luminaries like Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein about free will and time. The vision of creative evolution and freedom he presented was so disruptive that the New York Times branded him "the most dangerous man in the world." In the first English-language biography of Bergson, Emily Herring traces how his celebration of the time-bending uniqueness of individual experience struck a chord with those shaken by modern technological and social change. Bergson captivated a society in flux like no other. Long after he faded from public view, his insights into memory, time, joy and creativity continue to shape our perceptions to this day. Herald of a Restless World is an electrifying portrait of a singular intellect. Emily Herring is a writer based in Paris. She studied philosophy at the Sorbonne and received her PhD in the history and philosophy of science from the University of Leeds. Her work has appeared in the TLS and Aeon. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

Herald of a Restless World: How Henri Bergson Brought Philosophy to the People (Basic Books, 2024) is the first English-language biography of Henri Bergson, the philosopher who defined individual creativity and transformed twentieth century thought. At the dawn of the twentieth century, Henri Bergson became the most famous philosopher on earth. Where prior thinkers sketched out a predictable universe, he asserted the transformative power of consciousness and creativity. An international celebrity, he made headlines around the world debating luminaries like Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein about free will and time. The vision of creative evolution and freedom he presented was so disruptive that the New York Times branded him "the most dangerous man in the world." In the first English-language biography of Bergson, Emily Herring traces how his celebration of the time-bending uniqueness of individual experience struck a chord with those shaken by modern technological and social change. Bergson captivated a society in flux like no other. Long after he faded from public view, his insights into memory, time, joy and creativity continue to shape our perceptions to this day. Herald of a Restless World is an electrifying portrait of a singular intellect. Emily Herring is a writer based in Paris. She studied philosophy at the Sorbonne and received her PhD in the history and philosophy of science from the University of Leeds. Her work has appeared in the TLS and Aeon. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

The title of this week's episode is a shout out to philosopher Bertrand Russell, who wrote a book by the same name: Why I am not a Christian. This week I talk about religion as an addiction, responsible use of religion, how religion often programs people to avoid accountability and double down on things they know are not true, the problem with the Bible and other religious books, and lots more. *Of all the many things people complained about in this episode, there is one error that is worth fixing: the goats I claim Jesus threw off a cliff for no reason were actually pigs. See Mark 5.Support the show

--{ "Truth: Discard as Autumn Sheds the Leaf, The Resinous Glue of Disbelief"}-- Please remember to Order and Donate, and also Download Free Audios - Writings of Those who Plan Society, The Exoteric and Esoteric behind it - Bertrand Russell, "The Scientific Outlook" - Selection and Training of the Governing Class - Specialized Breeding for Specific Traits and Roles. Tuition Cuts, Student Riots in Britain - Public Follow the "Stars" - Politically-Correct-Speak - "Offensive" Christmas Trees etc. - Merger of Nations into Trading Blocs under UN - Blood Screening for Retrovirus. Video Games Designed by Military to Desensitize to Killing - Addictive Games to Train Military Recruits. Hospital Wards to Close and Treatment Refused under Latest National Health Service Cuts - Faith-Based Social Services, Communitarianism - Wall Street Cons, Betting on Losses and Deaths.

"If you had the faith of a mustard seed you could say to that mountain, 'be cast into the sea,' and it would be done for you," Jesus said three different times in the Gospels. Across my life that is one of the more terrifying phrases Jesus ever uttered, and that's why I take more time than in most of my shows to address the particularities. In the literary and historical context what did Jesus mean? What was he addressing? What was he saying about himself inside of those contexts? Why did he say such loud things? I also address the common pastoral take-away from these passages: our having enough faith. How much faith is enough? What is faith? What usually happens among Christians with application of this "faith to move mountains" phrase? In the show's cultural reflection I talk, again, about transhumanism. This time about how transhumanism is making inroads into culture and why some unspeakable eventualities lay on the threshold of history for us.

În al 5-lea episod din seria “Discuțiilor filosofice în parc” m-am reîntâlnit după doi ani cu Eric, Șerban și Cristian, de data aceasta în Cluj, luna mai 2024. Am vorbit cam despre tot ce se putea vorbi, unde mai în glumă, unde mai în serios. ▶LINKURI RELEVANTE:
 – Videoul original: https://youtu.be/KSMGD-5CzXM?si=n1Prv-lrTWwz7K1T – Discuțiile precedente: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCmg2Owhe6s&list=PLLnaYpeWGNO8VNp5GgTZe0Pn636-WJgtW&index=1&t=0s ▶DISCORD:
 – Comunitatea amatorilor de filosofie și literatură: https://discord.gg/meditatii 

 ▶DIALOGURI FILOSOFICE:
 – Română: https://soundcloud.com/meditatii/sets/dialoguri-pe-discord
 – Engleză: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLnaYpeWGNO8IdPaNYNkbJjNJeXrNHSaV 
 ▶PODCAST INFO:
 – Website: https://podcastmeditatii.com
 – Newsletter: https://podcastmeditatii.com/aboneaza
 – YouTube: https://youtube.com/c/meditatii
 – Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/meditatii/id1434369028
 – Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1tBwmTZQHKaoXkDQjOWihm
 – RSS: https://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:373963613/sounds.rss 

 ▶SUSȚINE-MĂ:
 – Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/meditatii
 – PayPal: https://paypal.me/meditatii 

 ▶TWITCH:
 – LIVE: https://www.twitch.tv/meditatii
 – Rezumate: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK204s-jdiStZ5FoUm63Nig 

 ▶SOCIAL MEDIA:
 – Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/meditatii.podcast
 – TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@meditatii.podcast – Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/meditatii.podcast
 – Goodreads: https://goodreads.com/avasilachi
 – Telegram (jurnal): https://t.me/andreivasilachi
 – Telegram (chat): https://t.me/podcastmeditatii
 
 ▶EMAIL: andrei@podcastmeditatii.com

 ▶CRONOLOGIE:
 0:00 – Intro 1:13 – Nietzsche, Amurgul idolilor și disprețul față de Socrate 5:46 – Heidegger și Nazismul 8:17 – Mitologia și contradicțiile naziste 9:44 – Nietzsche, Wagner și esteticul 12:54 – Eterna reîntoarcere și viața ca mit 14:16 – Planeta Moldova și Mitoș Micleușanu 16:29 – Eric: “eu nu cred în creier” 17:25 – Platon, Republica și modelul tripartit al sufletului 19:47 – Cristian, „matca transcendentală” și Geneza 22:00 – Andrei: „băi, existența e absurdă” 22:59 – Kierkegaard: Frică și cutremur 23:31 – Noua ordine mondială 24:38 – Satul ideal al lui Cristian 25:14 – Dante: Divina Comedie 28:27 – Palazzo Pitti și arta barocă 29:18 – Artificialul vs. Naturalul; intenția în artă 38:44 – Șerban se alătură 38:58 – „În [ultimii] doi ani, care-i credința care v-ați schimbat-o?” 43:22 – Andrei: „eu mă văd ca un romantic târziu” 43:58 – Șerban: „eu arăt a Fiodor Karamazov... și atât” 44:14 – Frații Karamazov 45:36 – „Fac Tarkovski” 47:46 – Eric și Platonismul 49:00 – Lumea e făcută din valori sau lucruri? 52:01 – Frederick Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell (1948) 56:43 – Hemingway: Bâtrânul și marea 58:51 – Sinuciderea lui Hemingway 1:00:15 – De ce scriitorii de azi scriu mai rău ca înainte? 1:00:43 – Frumusețea și fantezia 1:10:37 – Proust: În căutarea timpului pierdut 1:16:15 – André Gide 1:16:42 – Româna și limbile străine 1:18:18 – ASMR cu covrigi 1:19:15 – Cultura de astăzi e sterilă? 1:26:46 – Intenția artistului contează? 1:38:21 – Ce este o operă de artă? 1:45:53 – Diferența dintre artă și propagandă 1:48:17 – Eureka lui Cristian 1:48:47 – Șerban: “Act juridic consensual. Act juridic consenzual” 1:49:19 – Schimbarea sistemului de valori 1:51:37 – Cristian: “abandonul valorilor manifestat în simbolul gunoiului” 1:53:24 – Artistul care nu mai poate crea 1:55:45 – Abundența, piatra filosofală și alchimia artistică 1:58:27 – Ce este un artist adevărat? 2:07:10 – Trebuie să fim fideli intenției autorului? 2:12:20 – L'Adorazione dei Magi: pictura nefinisată a lui Leonardo da Vinci 2:16:32 – În altă ordine de idei 2:16:58 – Am epuizat toate ideile; Sam Harris 2:17:53 – Filosoful din Linella 2:19:09 – Outro

Ep. 141 – Bloodlines of the Illuminati – Part 11: The Russells by Episode Synopsis: Is the Russell family just a common name that pops up in history, or has the Russell bloodline actually been complicit in contributing to every sector of the Satanic Control Matrix? We talk about this and much more, including: What is former President Bill Clinton's connection to the Russells? In what ways did Bill Clinton's first 100 days of presidency fulfill the occult rituals to “Force the Spring” How have the Russells impacted the secret fraternity of the Order of the Skull and Bones? What are some dark secrets of the founding of the Jehovah's Witnesses? How did Bertrand Russell assist the Illuminati agenda? To what purpose did the Russells found the Pilgrim Society?  Dan Duval's Freedom From Illuminati Bloodlines Prayer Original Air Date November 27th, 2024 Show Hosts Jason Spears & Christopher Dean Our Patreon Consider joining our Patreon Squad and becoming a Tier Operator to help support the show and get access to exclusive content like: Links and Resources Studio Notes A monthly Zoom call with Jason and Christopher  And More… ORP Apparel Merch Store Connect With Us LetsTalk@ORPpodcast.com Facebook Instagram

Episode Synopsis:Is the Russell family just a common name that pops up in history, or has the Russell bloodline actually been complicit in contributing to every sector of the Satanic Control Matrix?We talk about this and much more, including:What is former President Bill Clinton's connection to the Russells?In what ways did Bill Clinton's first 100 days of presidency fulfill the occult rituals to “Force the Spring?” How have the Russells impacted the secret fraternity of the Order of the Skull and Bones?What are some dark secrets of the founding of the Jehovah's Witnesses?How did Bertrand Russell assist the Illuminati agenda?To what purpose did the Russells found the Pilgrim Society?Original Air DateNovember 27th, 2024Show HostsJason Spears & Christopher DeanOur PatreonConsider joining our Patreon Squad and becoming a Tier Operator to help support the show and get access to exclusive content like:Links and ResourcesStudio NotesA monthly Zoom call with Jason and Christopher And More…ORP ApparelMerch StoreConnect With UsLetsTalk@ORPpodcast.comFacebookInstagram

Corn bread! Gravy! Pecan pie!Our next-stop-Thanksgiving attitude might annoy some of you but as Bertrand Russell once said: "girl, you do you".We're doing us this week, which means a classic Thanksgiving film, Wicked's newest fan-girl, and a terrifying letter through the letter-box.The last few weeks have been glorious, email-wise, so don't let us down now! fuckoff@firecrotchandnormcore.com Sara's Eurostar ticket nearly broke plus Jones Road of course: patreon.com/theyliketowatch Edited by Annabel Port Richardson. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sean Illing speaks with poet and historian Jennifer Michael Hecht, whose book The Wonder Paradox asks: If we don't have God or religion, what — if anything — do we lose? They discuss how religion accesses meaning — through things like prayer, ceremony, and ritual — and Jennifer speaks on the ways that poetry can play similar roles in a secular way. They also discuss some of the "tricks" that poets use, share favorite poems, and explore what it would mean to "live the questions" — and even learn to love them — without having the answers. Host: Sean Illing (@seanilling), host, The Gray Area Guest: Jennifer Michael Hecht (@Freudeinstein), poet, historian; author References:  The Wonder Paradox: Embracing the Weirdness of Existence and the Poetry of Our Lives by Jennifer Michael Hecht (FSG; 2023) Doubt: A History by Jennifer Michael Hecht (HarperOne; 2004) Rainer Maria Rilke, from a 1903 letter to Franz Kappus, published in Letters to a Young Poet (pub. 1929) Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman (1855) "Why do parrots live so long?" by Charles Q. Choi (LiveScience; May 23, 2022) "The survival of poetry depends on the failure of language," from The Tree of Meaning: Language, Mind, and Ecology by Robert Bringhurst (Counterpoint; 2009) "Traveler, There Is No Road" ("Caminante, no hay camino") by Antonio Machado (1917) "A Free Man's Worship" by Bertrand Russell (1903) Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority by Emmanuel Levinas (1961)   Support The Gray Area by becoming a Vox member: https://www.vox.com/support-now Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices