Podcasts about Bolshevism

This week Chris talks to Jason and Matthew about their new podcast: Unbreakable Union. This ambitious project will span six seasons with one decade being covered per season. Check out our episode then listen to the podcast here or on your preferred podcatcher. It should be showing up everywhere in the next few days. https://www.buzzsprout.com/2462690Also, come join our Patreon and get access to our discord! Click below:Send us a message (sorry we can't respond on here). Support the show

3 Hours and 45 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Thomas joined Pete to do a short series on the work of historian and philosopher Ernst Nolte. The Work of Ernst Nolte - Pt. 1 - Addressing the Crisis - w/ Thomas777The Work of Ernst Nolte - Pt. 2 - The Sonderweg Debate - w/ Thomas777The Work of Ernst Nolte - Pt. 3 - Bolshevism - w/ Thomas777The Work of Ernst Nolte - Pt. 4 - Zionism - w/ Thomas777Thomas' SubstackThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Capitalism's defenders love to attack communism by pointing to the atrocities perpetrated by the Stalinist regime in the USSR. Bolshevism—the ideas and methods of Lenin—can only ever result in a totalitarian dictatorship, we're told. As for capitalism, there is no alternative.In reality, a river of blood separates Bolshevism and Stalinism. This presentation will reveal the real traditions of Lenin and his Bolshevik Party, traditions with which the Bolsheviks led the Russian working class to vanquish capitalism on one sixth of the planet. And it will explain how the regime set up by the Russian Revolution—the most democratic regime in history—was hollowed out, replaced by the grotesque caricature of the Stalinist regime.Read More:In Defence of LeninRussia: From Revolution to Counter-Revolution

The interview features Richard Poe discussing his book, "How the British Invented Communism and Blamed it on the Jews," where he delves into the complex historical relationship between Britain, Russia, and the origins of communism. The conversation begins with Poe explaining the impetus for his exploration of this topic, which stems from a growing public interest in the Bolshevik Revolution and the disproportionate emphasis on the Jewish role within communism. He references previous works, particularly by Dr. Stanley Monteith, who discussed the British propaganda efforts that sought to displace blame for the Russian Revolution onto the Jewish population, a narrative Poe argues is historically inaccurate given the British involvement in supporting the Bolsheviks. Poe reveals a personal connection to the Russian Revolution, discussing his grandparents who lived through the turmoil and the familial taboo surrounding their experiences. This background, alongside his thorough research into the British government's covert operations, shapes his perspective on the geopolitical influences surrounding the Russian Revolution. He elaborates that various factions within the British government used propaganda to obfuscate truths about the revolutions, laying the groundwork for a narrative that would ultimately serve British interests. The dialogue shifts as Poe outlines the role of key figures like Leon Trotsky, whom he suggests was a British agent. He discusses Trotsky's arrest in Canada during World War I and the mysterious circumstances surrounding his release, which allowed him to return to Russia and become a leader in the Bolshevik movement. Poe insists that the notion of revolutions being spontaneous uprisings is misleading; instead, he posits that they are usually orchestration from elitist groups with support from foreign intelligence agencies. As the interview progresses, Poe examines key historical events, such as the failures of the Gallipoli campaign, arguing that the British may have deliberately allowed that defeat to prevent Russian access to Constantinople and the Dardanelles Strait. He delves into the historical "Great Game" between Britain and Russia, which involved strategies of manipulation and influence fueling a larger narrative of world power dynamics. Notably, he highlights British Prime Minister Lloyd George's support for the Bolshevik regime as a means to fracture the Russian Empire, demonstrating how this was consistent with British imperial interests. Poe contends that British interventions, like the support for Bolshevism, were historically strategic rather than ideologically motivated. He posits that Britain's need for counterbalancing powers against Germany translated into a willingness to support groups that could destabilize Russia. The conversation further explores how Trotsky's role as a revolutionary leader intersected with covert British interests, ultimately raising questions about the ongoing influence of these historical dynamics on our contemporary understanding of global politics. Throughout the session, Poe expresses his respect for figures like Winston Churchill while critically examining their roles within these geopolitical machinations. He articulates the complex motivations behind military strategies and political alliances during tumultuous periods, drawing parallels to modern interpretations of global rivalries. By the end of the discussion, Poe emphasizes that the legacy of the Bolshevik Revolution and the machinations of British imperialism continue to inform present-day power struggles, leaving open-ended questions about the effectiveness and outcomes of these historical intrigues. In summation, the interview presents a rich tapestry of historical analysis interwoven with personal narratives, offering listeners an accessible examination of how the interrelations between nations and political ideologies have shaped the course of modern history. Poe's arguments challenge conventional narratives and invite a reevaluation of the roles played by various national and ethnic groups in revolutionary contexts. Follow Richard Poe:

In the years following the Russian Revolution, a popular resistance movement sprang up in Ukraine that drew its inspiration from a man named Nestor Makhno. Makhno went on to organize a seven-million-strong anarchist polity amidst the chaos and brutality of the Russian Civil War. Charlie Allison describes Makhno's appeal, his political beliefs, and his rejection of Bolshevism. (Encore presentation.) Charlie Allison, No Harmless Power: The Life and Times of the Ukrainian Anarchist Nestor Makhno PM Press, 2023 (Image on main page by Oleh Kushch.) The post Ukrainian Anarchist appeared first on KPFA.

A recent survey of 10,000 Americans found that 20% obtain their news from influencers, the types of people who are paid by companies, governments, or operate out of influencer-farms. Public information gathering may be shifting ever further away from mainstream news, but the influence of a single picture still holds immense power. A recent image of a woman saluting like a Nazi while chanting offensive statements has convinced millions that the group she was photographed within, a pro-Palestinian protest, were also Nazis. Turns out the woman, Mai Abdulhadi, is actually the Jewish owner of two Jewish kosher cafes within a Jewish hospital. Another incident occurred in New York where a man, Michael Coleman, who ran the financial department at a Ronald McDonald House, used black electric tape to put swastikas on Trump signs. This is part of a larger pattern which includes, according to the Times of Israel, 79% of Jews voting for Democrats, while Trump was left with the smallest number of those votes in over two decades despite the $100-million contribution from Mariam Adelson and his all pro-Israel cabinet. What does this mean or imply? Based on Talmudic studies one will find promotion of multiple genders, sex with children, murder of gentiles, defamation of Christ, and more, all things the political left seems to support, not to mention illegal immigration. The reasoning can be given in one word, Bolshevism, which killed millions of God-supporting religious adherents in Russia. No-one is safe from this wickedness, its censorship, psychopathy, and anti-human ideology. -FREE ARCHIVE (w. ads)SUBSCRIPTION ARCHIVEX / TWITTER FACEBOOKWEBSITEPAYPALCashApp: $rdgable EMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com / TSTRadio@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tst-radio--5328407/support.

This is part two of a discussion based on a paper Chris wrote about the concept of "German Socialism" from which groups like the NSDAP, the National Bolsheviks, Conservative Revolutionaries, and Black Front draw the basis for their ideologies. Mosse, George Lachmann. The Crisis of German Ideology. 1964. Reprint, New York: Schocken, 1981. King, John. “Writing and Rewriting the First World War: Ernst Jünger and the Crisis of the Conservative Imagination, 1914-25.” St. John's College, 1999. Kedar, Asaf. “National Socialism Before Nazism: Friedrich Naumann and Theodor Fritsch, 1890-1914,” PhD diss., (University of California, Berkeley, 2010). Krebs, Gerhard. “Moeller van Den Bruck: Inventor of the ‘Third Reich.'” American Political Science Review 35, no. 6 (December 1941), 1088-1089. Stachura, Peter D. Gregor Strasser and the Rise of Nazism (RLE Nazi Germany & Holocaust). Routledge, 2014. Stern, Fritz. The Politics of Cultural Despair : A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology. 1961. Reprint, Berkeley: University Of California Press, 1974. Tourlamain, Guy. Völkisch” Writers and National Socialism : A Study of Right-Wing Political Culture in Germany, 1890-1960. Oxford Et Autres: Peter Lang, 2014. Waite, Robert G L. Vanguard of Nazism : The Free Corps Movement in Postwar Germany 1918-1923. New York: W.W. Norton, 1969. Ward, James J. “Pipe Dreams or Revolutionary Politics? The Group of Social Revolutionary Nationalists in the Weimar Republic.” Journal of Contemporary History 15, no. 3 (July 1980): 513–32. Woods, Roger. The Conservative Revolution in the Weimar Republic. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire : New York: Macmillan Press ; St. Martin's Press, 1996, 62. Ley, Robert. 1920. “The Program of the NSDAP.” The 25 Points 1920: An Early Nazi Program, February. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/25points.asp. Paetel, Karl O. The National Bolshevist Manifesto. 1933. Reprint, Coppell Tx: Red Flame Press, 2021. Strasser, Otto. Germany Tomorrow. Translated by Eden and Ceder Paul. 1932. Reprint, London: Jonathan Cape, 1940.Send us a textSupport the show

‘Compelling and meticulously researched, the riveting life of a maverick Scottish spy.' Charles Cumming Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart, a Scottish diplomat, spy and writer, led a life filled with adventure and intrigue. While his involvement in the famed Lockhart Plot of 1918 is often cited, there is much more to uncover about Robert Bruce Lockhart's life. Grab Rogue Agent here: https://geni.us/gk3Qv1 Join fellow Spy Book Enthusiasts in our Online Community: https://www.spybrary.com/community Professor James Crossland, author of the first ever biography on Lockhart, Rogue Agent: From Secret Plots to Psychological Warfare, the Untold Story of Robert Bruce Lockhart, sheds light on the man behind the myth, exploring his motivations, his complexities, and his lasting impact on the world of espionage. James Crossland is a Professor of International History at Liverpool John Moores University. He has worked in both the United Kingdom and Australia, combining his passion for writing with an interest in the history of conflict, terrorism, psychological warfare and intelligence. He authored the first history of Britain's humanitarian response to the Second World War, "Britain and the International Committee of the Red Cross, 1939-1945", the story of the men and women who tried to bring rules to modern warfare, "War, Law and Humanity: the Campaign to Control Warfare, 1853-1914" and, most recently, the history of terrorism in the late nineteenth century, "The Rise of Devils: Fear and the Origins of Modern Terrorism". James' latest book is a passion project over a decade in the making - "Rogue Agent: From Secret Operations to Psychological Warfare, the Untold Story of Robert Bruce Lockhart". This is the first biography of the man who led a plot to destroy Bolshevism in Russia in 1918 and ran Britain's secret psychological warfare campaign against the Nazis during the Second World War, all whilst becoming a best-selling author and one of the most-well connected political agents in Europe.

First of all, if you are listening to a version with bad audio, don't worry,  I reuploaded a version with good audio and you can probably just refresh your podcasting app to get the newer version. This is a discussion based on a paper Chris wrote about the concept of "German Socialism" from which groups like the NSDAP, the National Bolsheviks, Conservative Revolutionaries, and Black Front draw the basis for their ideologies. Mosse, George Lachmann. The Crisis of German Ideology. 1964. Reprint, New York: Schocken, 1981. King, John. “Writing and Rewriting the First World War: Ernst Jünger and the Crisis of the Conservative Imagination, 1914-25.” St. John's College, 1999. Kedar, Asaf. “National Socialism Before Nazism: Friedrich Naumann and Theodor Fritsch, 1890-1914,” PhD diss., (University of California, Berkeley, 2010). Krebs, Gerhard. “Moeller van Den Bruck: Inventor of the ‘Third Reich.'” American Political Science Review 35, no. 6 (December 1941), 1088-1089. Stachura, Peter D. Gregor Strasser and the Rise of Nazism (RLE Nazi Germany & Holocaust). Routledge, 2014. Stern, Fritz. The Politics of Cultural Despair : A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology. 1961. Reprint, Berkeley: University Of California Press, 1974. Tourlamain, Guy. Völkisch” Writers and National Socialism : A Study of Right-Wing Political Culture in Germany, 1890-1960. Oxford Et Autres: Peter Lang, 2014. Waite, Robert G L. Vanguard of Nazism : The Free Corps Movement in Postwar Germany 1918-1923. New York: W.W. Norton, 1969. Ward, James J. “Pipe Dreams or Revolutionary Politics? The Group of Social Revolutionary Nationalists in the Weimar Republic.” Journal of Contemporary History 15, no. 3 (July 1980): 513–32. Woods, Roger. The Conservative Revolution in the Weimar Republic. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire : New York: Macmillan Press ; St. Martin's Press, 1996, 62. Ley, Robert. 1920. “The Program of the NSDAP.” The 25 Points 1920: An Early Nazi Program, February. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/25points.asp. Paetel, Karl O. The National Bolshevist Manifesto. 1933. Reprint, Coppell Tx: Red Flame Press, 2021. Strasser, Otto. Germany Tomorrow. Translated by Eden and Ceder Paul. 1932. Reprint, London: Jonathan Cape, 1940.Send us a textSupport the show

3 Hours and 45 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Thomas joined Pete to do a short series on the work of historian and philosopher Ernst Nolte. The Work of Ernst Nolte - Pt. 1 - Addressing the Crisis - w/ Thomas777The Work of Ernst Nolte - Pt. 2 - The Sonderweg Debate - w/ Thomas777The Work of Ernst Nolte - Pt. 3 - Bolshevism - w/ Thomas777The Work of Ernst Nolte - Pt. 4 - Zionism - w/ Thomas777Thomas' SubstackThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Welcome to Right On Radio, hosted by Jeff. In this episode, Jeff delves into the phenomenon known as Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) and introduces the concept of 'Independence' as a solution to media-induced biases. He highlights the distinction between democracy and a constitutional republic, emphasizing the importance of independent thinking. Jeff covers a range of topics, including historic inflation, illegal immigration, corporate corruption, and the threat of World War III. He also discusses the upcoming presidential debate, Trump's policies, and the illusion of a uniparty system in American politics. The episode features notable clips from Trump and controversial figures like Nick Puentes, shedding light on the media's role in shaping public perception. Additionally, Jeff explores historical perspectives on Bolshevism, Winston Churchill, and the creation of Israel, linking these events to current global tensions. The episode concludes with a fascinating discussion on reptilian beings and inner earth theories, tying together various elements of political and spiritual intrigue. Tune in for a thought-provoking journey through history, politics, and the quest for truth. Prayerfully consider supporting Right on Radio. Click Here for all links, Right on Community ROC, Podcast web links, Freebies, Products (healing mushrooms, EMP Protection) Social media, courses and more... https://linktr.ee/RightonRadio Live Right in the Real World! We talk God and Politics, Faith Based Broadcast News, views, Opinions and Attitudes We are Your News Now. Keep the Faith

Heartland's Tim Benson is joined by Nick Lloyd, Professor of Modern Warfare at King's College London, to discuss his new book, The Eastern Front: A History of the Great War, 1914-1918. They chat about the scale of the conflict, how the most radical aspect of the struggle in the east was that the violence was not confined to combatants, and how the repercussions of the war in the east, including the fall of three great empires and the rise of Bolshevism, were much more profound than the war in the west.Get the book here: https://wwnorton.com/books/9781324092711Show Notes:Financial Times: Margaret MacMillan – “The Eastern Front by Nick Lloyd — truth bombs”https://www.ft.com/content/8e29eba7-a91a-40a6-a5e5-47369a7c70ebLiterary Review: Jonathan Boff – “Graveyard of Empires”https://literaryreview.co.uk/graveyard-of-empiresThe Spectator: Tessa Dunlop – “The horrors of the Eastern Front”https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-horrors-of-the-eastern-front/The Telegraph: Simon Heffer – “How the carnage on the Eastern Front transformed the First World War”https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/non-fiction/review-eastern-front-nick-lloyd/The Times: Dominic Sandbrook – “The Eastern Front by Nick Lloyd review: a fresh take on the First World War” https://www.thetimes.com/culture/article/the-eastern-front-a-history-of-the-first-world-war-nick-lloyd-review-fm2z0kkznTimes Literary Supplement: Hew Strachan – “Suicide of empires”https://www.the-tls.co.uk/history/twentieth-century-onwards-history/the-eastern-front-nick-lloyd-book-review-hew-strachanThe Wall Street Journal: William Anthony Hay – “‘The Eastern Front' Review: The Battle Far From the Trenches”https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/books/the-eastern-front-review-the-battle-far-from-the-trenches-e09b3580

Heartland's Tim Benson is joined by Nick Lloyd, Professor of Modern Warfare at King's College London, to discuss his new book, The Eastern Front: A History of the Great War, 1914-1918. They chat about the scale of the conflict, how the most radical aspect of the struggle in the east was that the violence was not confined to combatants, and how the repercussions of the war in the east, including the fall of three great empires and the rise of Bolshevism, were much more profound than the war in the west.Get the book here: https://wwnorton.com/books/9781324092711Show Notes:Financial Times: Margaret MacMillan – “The Eastern Front by Nick Lloyd — truth bombs”https://www.ft.com/content/8e29eba7-a91a-40a6-a5e5-47369a7c70ebLiterary Review: Jonathan Boff – “Graveyard of Empires”https://literaryreview.co.uk/graveyard-of-empiresThe Spectator: Tessa Dunlop – “The horrors of the Eastern Front”https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-horrors-of-the-eastern-front/The Telegraph: Simon Heffer – “How the carnage on the Eastern Front transformed the First World War”https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/non-fiction/review-eastern-front-nick-lloyd/The Times: Dominic Sandbrook – “The Eastern Front by Nick Lloyd review: a fresh take on the First World War”https://www.thetimes.com/culture/article/the-eastern-front-a-history-of-the-first-world-war-nick-lloyd-review-fm2z0kkznTimes Literary Supplement: Hew Strachan – “Suicide of empires”https://www.the-tls.co.uk/history/twentieth-century-onwards-history/the-eastern-front-nick-lloyd-book-review-hew-strachanThe Wall Street Journal: William Anthony Hay – “‘The Eastern Front' Review: The Battle Far From the Trenches”https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/books/the-eastern-front-review-the-battle-far-from-the-trenches-e09b3580

Get ready for a game-changing episode of Connecting the Dots! Dr. Wilmer Leon and Caleb Maupin dive into the seismic shifts happening worldwide—where the U.S. is no longer the sole superpower and what that means for our future. They explore a growing movement challenging America's global influence and break down what the 2024 election could mean for the future of U.S. politics. If you care about where our country is headed, this is a must-listen. Don't miss out on insights that could change how you see the world!     Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links to find @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube!   Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey!   Wilmer Leon (00:00:00): As we are living through a pivotal moment in world history, the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world, anti-imperialism is at the core of this global movement as the US is at the center of this global shift. How did anti imperialism take hold in the us? Let's find out Announcer (00:00:27): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:00:35): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon and I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which these events take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historical context in which they take place. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode. The issue before us, the issues before us, are the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world. How is this happening and what does it mean? As well as the developing 2024 US presidential political landscape to help me work through these issues. Let's turn to my guest. He's an author, independent journalist, political analyst and reporter for RT, and his latest book is entitled “Out of the Movement to the Masses, Anti-Imperialist Organizing in America”. And he's also the author of Kamala Harris and The Future of America, an essay in Three Parts. He is Caleb Maupin, my brother. Welcome back! Caleb Maupin (00:01:53): Sure. Glad to be here. Wilmer Leon (00:01:55): So first of all, your thoughts on my introduction, is that a hyperbole or is that a fairly accurate description of the dynamics that we find ourselves dealing with? Caleb Maupin (00:02:13): Trying to stop the rise of a multipolar world would be a lot like trying to stop the sun from rising in the morning, maybe trying to stop gravity. That's the way the world is moving. But our leaders are committed to trying to keep the world centered around Wall Street and London and they are going to fail. The question is how much of a cost in terms of human lives, in terms of the economy, in terms of political repression, are we going to have to endure before they come to the terms of reality, which is that we're going to have a world where there are other centers of power and countries trade with each other on a different basis. So I would agree with you, Wilmer Leon (00:02:54): And so as we look at this changing dynamic from the unipolar to the multipolar, we've got China, we have Russia, we have India. There are a number of countries that over the years have been targets of American sanctions, regimes and all other types of pressure from the United States. With all of that or from all of that, we now have the rise of the BRICS nations, we've got Brazil, we've got Russia, we've got India, we've got China, we've got South Africa, and now what about how many, I've lost track now about 15 or 17 other countries that have joined this organization, this economic organization, which also seems to be an anti imperialist organization. Caleb Maupin (00:03:49): Sure. I mean, if you understand imperialism in the economic sense, imperialism is a system rather than a policy, right? Kind of layman's terms imperialism is when one country is mean to another country or attacks another country. But we're referring specifically to imperialism as an economic system when the world is centered around financial institutions, trusts, cartels and syndicates centered in the Western countries that dominate the world through the export of capital, sending their corporations all over the world to dominate the economies of developing countries, to hold back economic development, to keep countries as captive markets and spheres of influence. That process whereby countries are prevented from lifting themselves up, from electrifying, from building modern education systems, developing modern industries, developing their own economies, and just kind of used to dump the excess commodities of Western countries and have their economy dominated by a foreign country and a foreign monopolies and big corporations from another country from the west. (00:04:55): That process refers to, that's what I mean when I say imperialism. I'm referring to a global economic setup, and that economic setup is on its way out. And that's been pretty clear and a lot has gone on, went on in the 20th century to kind of erode imperialism. And in the 21st century, imperialism continues to be in the decline, and there is this new economy rising around the world, centered around the two U superpowers, Russia and China. They are kind of at the center, the linchpin of a global network of countries, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba. But then there's even other countries that are willing to trade and are kind of on the one hand friendly to the United States, but on the other hand are happy to work with Russia or China if they give them a better deal. The shape of global politics is changing, the world is changing, and this is just something we need to embrace. The world is not going to be centered around the West as it was for so long during the age of colonialism and sense. Wilmer Leon (00:05:54): In fact, what we're finding out is that on the 27th and the 28th of August, Moscow is hosting the sixth annual, the sixth International Municipal BRICS Forum. And what might surprise a lot of people is there are delegations from 126 countries that are expected to take part, more than 5,000 participants from 500 cities around the world. This isn't getting very much attention or coverage here in the western media, but folks need to understand, as we talked about the shift from the unipolar to the multipolar, this is a perfect example of that shift isn't happening, that shift HAS happened. Caleb Maupin (00:06:45): Sure. When I was at the Valdi Discussion Club in Sochi, Russia in the mountains near the city, I saw Ael Togi, the head of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, and he pointed out that in the Eurasian subcontinent and outside of the Western countries, this is like a golden era. The amount of electrification that's going on, the amount of roads and railways that are being constructed, I mean, there is a whole exploding new economy happening in the world. And I saw that when I was at the Yalta Economic Forum in Crimea in 2018, and other people have seen it when they go to the Vladi Stock Economic Forum in the Russian Far East. People have seen it with the Belt and Road Initiative and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that China is building. There is this whole new economy in the world now that is focused on development and growth, building power plants, building schools, building universities, building hospitals, and it's a really, really big part of the global economy. And our leaders are being very foolish by trying to just barricade it and blockade it and oppose it because they're locking the United States out of that economic growth. When somebody's growing economically, they have more money to spend, they have more products they can buy, and we could be benefiting from this new economy that's rising, but instead, our Western leaders are committed to maintaining their monopoly at all costs. And so we are getting locked out of an explosion of growth. It's just a very, very mistaken approach. Wilmer Leon (00:08:18): And I want to, with that intro shift to shift to your book out of the movement to the masses, anti-imperialist organizing in America, because as I said in the intro, one of the major elements I believe of this shift from the unipolar to the multipolar is anti imperialism. And you write in the second paragraph of your introduction, what made the Communist party USA important was that it was the first anti-imperialist organization to take hold in the country. There were certainly anti-war organizations such as Mark Twain's, anti-Imperialist League. There had been pacifists and socialists like Eugene Debs, who opposed War on a Class basis, but the Communist party of USA was founded on the ideological breakthroughs of the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia specifically the teachings of Vladimir Lenin. So I wanted to use this book out of the Movement to the Masses, which is a textbook, and wanted to start the conversation with what motivated you to write this book and what motivated you to write this as a textbook? Caleb Maupin (00:09:33): Well, it's important to understand that I think the ultimate interest of we the American people is in a society free from imperialism. I don't think that helping ExxonMobil and BP and Shell and Chevron dominate the global oil markets really benefits American working people in the long run. There might be some short-term bonuses, but those things are fading and that there is a long Wilmer Leon (00:09:57): Short-term bonuses such as, Caleb Maupin (00:09:59): Well, we've had a higher standard of living at least in the past, but that standard of living is in decline, and the future of the United States is not in this decaying western financial system. It's in a new order where we're trading with countries on the basis of win-win cooperation. And the reason I wrote the textbook is because I wanted people to be aware of the fact that there has been a strong anti-imperialist movement in this country, and that we can learn from these struggles of the past and these organizations that existed and what they achieved as we figure out in our time how we can build an anti-imperialist movement to rescue our country from the nightmare of the emerging low wage police state and the drive toward World War iii. And I mean, really, you don't have anti imperialism as we understand it, right? You don't have the rise of Russia and China. (00:10:50): You don't have the bricks. You don't have any of that without the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. That was a pivotal moment. That was a country that broke out of the Western imperialist system during World War I and started on an independent course of development. And it came out of the Bolshevik started out as part of the Marxist movement. Marxism was the ideology of the labor movement, right? The worker versus the employer. But there was a division in the labor movement increasingly between wealthy labor union bosses and higher paid skilled trade jobs that increasingly became supporters of empire and supporters of their country, colonizing countries in Africa and countries in Asia, et cetera. And the lower levels of the labor movement of more oppressed workers, the American Federation of Labor, the A FL was the big labor federation in the United States. And the people who started it, like Samuel Goer's, they were socialists or Marxists, but they were not anti-imperialist. (00:11:55): And by the time World War I came along, the A FL was a union that largely was for whites only. Most of the unions that were part of it banned black people from joining, banned people not born in the United States from joining, banned people who did not speak English as their first language from joining. And they were big supporters of World War I when it happened. And there was a divide in the labor movement and Marxism that had been the ideology of the labor movement got very much divided. And you had parties like the British Labor Party, the ruling party of Britain today. It originated as a Marxist party of labor organizers, but it became a pro imperialist party. Well, Bolshevism and the people who took power in Russia, the Bolsheviks, they were a breakaway from the Marxist movement that had developed this new theory of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism. (00:12:48): And they said, we're not just fighting against regular capitalism. We're fighting against the monopolistic capitalism of Britain and France and Germany and America, and that means that we support nations, right? Originally, Marxists and the labor movement said, there are no nations workers of the world unite. It's just the workers versus the bosses. No borderers in our struggle. Well, Lenin says, actually, we do support nations in their fight against imperialism. And after the Bolsheviks took power in Russia, one of the first things they did is they called a conference in Baku in Azerbaijan. And at that conference, they invited all kinds of people from all over the world and they said, we will support you as long as you're fighting imperialism. And one of the people that came to that conference and was given military support by the Bolsheviks was the Amir of Afghanistan. And the Amir of Afghanistan was a conservative monarchist. (00:13:40): He was not a Marxist, not a socialist of any stripe. He was a conservative monarchist, a very conservative Muslim, but the Bolshevik said, you're fighting imperialism and so and so, we support you. And he gave them support. And many people around the world were inspired by the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist message that the Bolsheviks had, which was kind of a breakaway from the standard Marxist movement. The understanding was we're not just fighting capitalism, we're fighting against imperialism, and we support nations and colonized people of all different classes, workers, capitalists, whoever who are struggling against imperialism. That is the basis of this new movement that we are trying to build. And the Communist Party of the United States was the incarnation of that movement, and that's why it was embraced by many different sections of the population, most especially the black community in America, because they viewed black people as a colonized people, an oppressed nation within US borders. Marcus Garvey had been leading the black nationalist movement in the United States, the Back to African movement, and many black people saw African-Americans as a colonized people within the US borders. And the Communist Party agreed with that, and that was a winning point that they had with many people in the United States. And the Communist Party was supportive of anyone around the world who was struggling against British American or French imperialism. Wilmer Leon (00:15:04): And as we look at that history and we bring it forward to the current moment and the Russia phobia that we find ourselves subjected to, I submit, and please if I'm wrong, correct me that one of the things that's at the crux of this Russia phobia is the fact that America is an imperialist nation and a neo-colonial power, and Russia has the Soviet Union and then into Russia has been anti-colonialism, which is one of the reasons why we find now Russia gaining so much traction with countries on the continent of Africa. Caleb Maupin (00:15:53): Well, I got to tell you, just a few weeks after the special military operation in Russia began a couple of years ago, I was in New York City with Tanner, 15 of my friends, and we were marching around with American flags and Russian flags chanting, Russia is not our enemy, Russia is not our enemy. And we chanted this in Union Square, and then we went up to Grand Central Station, we marched around Grand Central Station chanting that, and while we were doing that, we got thumbs up from a lot of different people. Now, many people did not agree with us, but the people who did give us thumbs up, many of them were people that were not from the United States. New York City is a big international center. You have the United Nations that's there. You have Wall Street that's there. And I would say the majority of the people who gave us thumbs up and gave us support were from the continent of Africa. (00:16:40): They were people from West Africa, from Nigeria. They were people from South Africa. And that the economy of Africa is very tied in with the Russian economy, and Russia provides fertilizer to many countries. Russia has partnerships with many countries to help them develop their state run mining industries or their state run oil and natural gas industries. So support for Russia on the African continent is widespread. Now, this doesn't match the narrative of liberals. Liberals would have us believe that Russia is a white supremacist country, and that's why they rigged the elections in 2016 to get white supremacist. Donald Trump elected, and that just does not match reality. The Soviet Union, which modern Russia is built on the foundations of the Soviet Union, was the best friend of anti-colonial and liberation movements on the African continent, and those relationships still exist. When I was in Russia, I sat down with people from various African countries. (00:17:43): I sat down with people from Namibia. Well, the ruling party of Namibia is the Southwest People's Organization, which was a Soviet aligned, Soviet funded organization that fought for Namibia to become independent. The ruling party of South Africa, the African National Congress was armed and funded by the Soviet Union. If you go to Ghana, the man who created modern Ghana was Kwame Nkrumah, who was a big friend of the Soviet Union and was called himself an African socialist and developed his own interpretation of the Marxist philosophy that was specific to the African continent. I mean, there was Julius Nire, there was Gaddafi who built Libya into the most prosperous country on the African continent. There are just so many examples of how Russia is intimately tied in with the struggle against colonialism on the African continent with the struggle of African countries to pursue their own course of development. (00:18:43): And that is rooted in the foundation of the Bolshevik Revolution. And the Bolshevik ideology, which I will emphasize was a break with the standard Marxist view. Marx himself, he believed that the first communist revolution would happen in Germany, and it would be the European countries that had the communist revolution first because they were the most advanced. And it was Lenin who came along and said, well, actually, that's wrong. The center of revolutionary energy is going to be in the colonized and oppressed countries of the world. And the working class in the imperialist homeland is largely being bought off, and it's going to be the division between what we now some academics talk about the global north and the global south. It's going to be that division that brings socialism into the world. And that is kind of the defining aspect of what Lenin taught. And as much as the global anti-imperialist movement is not explicitly Marxist Leninist in the Soviet sense, they don't exactly follow that Soviet ideology. That understanding of imperialism and what happened in the 20th century with the Soviet Union, with later the Chinese Revolution, the Vietnamese revolution, the Cuban Revolution, all of that laid the basis for what exists today. And that understanding is important, and that's why I wrote this textbook. Wilmer Leon (00:19:55): And to your point about all of these myths and stories and fictions about Russia being involved in our election and all of this other foolishness, mark Zuckerberg just wrote a letter to Jim Jordan saying that he apologizes for having purged stories from Facebook regarding the Hunter Biden laptop and some of the other stories, because he has now come to understand that that whole narrative was not Russian propaganda as the FBI had told him, he now has come to understand that those stories are true. And I bring that up just as one data point to demonstrate how so much of this rhetoric that we've been hearing, so much of this propaganda that we've been hearing about China being involved in our elections and Russia being involved in our elections, and Iran, mark Zuckerberg, the head of Facebook, just sent a letter to Jim Jordan laying all this out, that it was bs. It was a fiction created by the FBI, Caleb Moin. Caleb Maupin (00:21:14): Well, we've been through this before, right after the Russian Revolution, just a few years later in London, in Britain, there was a scandal called the Enovia of letter. And the British people were told, oh my goodness, the Russians are meddling in our elections. They're trying to get the Labor Party to win the election. And Lloyd George, who was the conservative military leader, was playing up the idea that the Labor Party was being funded and supported by Russia, and they held up this piece of paper they said was the smoking gun. It was the proof, the Enovia letter, this letter supposedly from the Russian government official of Enovia to the Labor Party. Well, it was later proven to be a complete hoax. It was fake, right? But that was happening back in the 1920s. And we've been through this over and over and over again. When Henry Wallace ran for president, he was the vice president under Roosevelt, and then when Truman was president, he ran against the Democrats as they became a pro-war party, the party that was leading us into the Korean War, et cetera. (00:22:12): He ran as an independent candidate in 1948, and they acclaimed his campaign was a big Russian conspiracy, and it was a communist conspiracy. There's a whole history of this and the FBI, if you look at the number of investigations they've done into supposed Russian influence in American elections, it's endless, but it's always a hoax, right? American elections happen because of events in America, not because of Russia. However, there is no question that many people in the United States do want peace, and they do want peace with the Soviet Union or with modern Russia, and they may vote for candidates who they think are more likely to bring about that peace, but that's not a conspiracy. That's doing what you're supposed to be able to do in a democracy expressing yourself at the ballot box. And what they're really worried about is Americans thinking wrong. They're really worried about not having a monopoly over the information that we receive. They're really worried about us questioning what we're told and not marching in lockstep behind their agenda of war and dividing the world into blocks and isolating certain countries. And this story has happened over and over and over again in American politics. We've been through it so many times. Wilmer Leon (00:23:25): Final point on this, I don't want to get back to the book. As you just said, events happen in American elections due to America. Well, all of this chicken little, the sky is falling and the world is interfering in our elections. Well, there was a story in the New York Times about what, three months ago, about APAC spending $100 million to unseat what they consider to be left-leaning Democrats, whose position on Israel was not consistent with the Zionist ideology. I'm going to say that again. This was in the New York Times. I'm not making this up. This is an anti-Semitic dialogue. It was in New York Times APAC spending $100 million on primary campaigns to remove Democrats that they consider to be anti-Israeli. What happened in New York with Jamal Bowman? That's what happened in Missouri with, what's her name? I think she's in St. Louis, the Congresswoman. I'm drawing a blank on her. Anyway, and they were successful in a number of campaigns. So we're running around chasing ghosts, chasing Russian ghosts, and Chinese ghosts when the real culprits are telling you right upfront in the New York Times what it is they're doing and why it is they're doing it. With that being said, you can either respond to that or how did you organize your textbook and why is it organized in the manner in which it is? Caleb Maupin (00:25:16): Well, I went over like case studies of three different anti-imperialist movements or organizations in the United States. I started with probably the most successful, which was the Communist Party of the United States, which at one point had a huge amount of influence During the Roosevelt administration, they entered an alliance with Roosevelt, and in the late 1930s, the Communist party controlled two of the city council seats in New York City. They had a very close ally in the US Congress representing Harlem named Veto Mark Antonio. They also had a member of Congress in Minnesota who was their friend and ally and read their newspaper into the congressional record. They had meetings at the White House with President Roosevelt. On multiple occasions, members of the Communist Party or the Young Communist League were brought to the White House to meet with Roosevelt, and they led the CIO, the Congress of Industrial Organizations, which was a new labor federation they had created as an alternative to the American Federation of Labor. (00:26:14): And they were a very influential group in the labor movement among intellectuals in Hollywood. And they put forward an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist message, and their successes are worth studying. There were certainly mistakes that were made, and they were very brutally crushed by the FBI in the aftermath of the Second World War with the rise of McCarthyism. But there were studying then from there, I talked about the Workers' World Party, which was a Marxist Leninist political party that really came into prominence in the late sixties and really kind of peaked in its influence during the 1980s. And they were a party that took inspiration, not just from the Soviet Union, but from the wave of anti-colonial movements that emerged. They were sympathetic to Libya and Gaddafi. They were sympathetic to North Korea and others, and they did a lot of very important anti-war organizing, building anti-war coalitions. They were very close to Ramsey Clark, the former US Attorney General who left the Lyndon Johnson administration and became an international lawyer and an opponent of the International Criminal Court in his final years and such. (00:27:17): And then I talked about the new communist movement of the 1970s, which was a number of different organizations that emerged during the 1970s that were trying to take inspiration from China. They wanted to take guidance from the Chinese revolution. China had argued that the Soviet Union had kind of abandoned the global anti-colonial, anti-imperialist struggle. They felt it was holding back revolutionary forces, but China was at that point presenting itself as a bastion of anti imperialism. And so there were a number of new political parties formed during the 1970s that modeled themselves on China. And all three of these case studies, all three of these groups made big mistakes, but also had big successes. The most successful was the Communist Party prior to it being crushed by the FBI during the McCarthy period. All of them had big successes and were able to do big important things, and I studied all of them. (00:28:08): And then from there, the fourth chapter talked about divisions in the ruling class, and why is it that we see, at this point, we're seeing a big all-out fight between Donald Trump and those who oppose him. And when you talk about the Watergate scandal and you talk about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, what was really going on behind closed doors? And then in the final chapter, I tried to kind of take from all of that what we could take and what we could learn when trying to build a movement in our time. One thing I made a point of doing in the book is that every chapter is accompanied by a number of original texts from the period discussed. I have a number of texts from the Communist Party, from the Workers' World Party, from the new communist movement of the 1970s, so that we can hear from the horse's mouth, so to speak, what these people were preaching and what they believed as they were building their organizations. Wilmer Leon (00:29:01): So how does this history, how relevant is this history you just mentioned Donald Trump? How relevant is this history to where we find ourselves today with our politics? Caleb Maupin (00:29:15): I would argue it's extremely relevant. And if you look at Roosevelt and who opposed him, and if you look at the Kennedy assassination, and if you look at the Watergate scandal, there has always been a divide among the American elite between what you can call the Eastern establishment, the ultra rich, the ultra monopolies, the Rockefellers, the DuPonts, the Carnegies that are now at this point aligned with Silicon Valley, the tech monopolies, bill Gates and Jeff Bezos and others. There's always been a divide between these entrenched ultra monopolies and a lot of lower level rich people who are not part of the club and feel that those entrenched monopolies are kind of rigging things against 'em. And I quote, there's a very good text called the Anglo-American Establishment by Carol Quigley that talks about this divide. I think he was one of the first people to talk about it. (00:30:06): But then from there, you also have a great book by Carl Oglesby called The Yankee and Cowboy War that talks about this and specifically applies that analysis to what went on with the Watergate scandal, with the assassination of JFK and the political crisis in the 1960s and seventies. And I would argue that in our time, this is the fight that kind of defines things when we talk about trying to build a movement against colonialism and imperialism in the United States, these lower level capitalists would gain if America had paved roads, if America had a stronger economy, and if we were doing business with the countries around the world that are growing right now in alliance with China, right? If we were trading with them and some of that wealth was flowing into our economy, we would be benefiting. However, it is the ultra monopolies that are very much tied in with the intelligence apparatus, the people who brought us, Henry Kissinger, the people who brought us z, big new Brozinsky. (00:31:01): They are determined to keep the United States at the top and keep Western imperialist this financial system at the top of the world at all costs, even if that means kind of playing a long geopolitical game and if it means dramatically decreasing the standard of living and kind of collapsing the domestic economy of the United States. And so when Trump talks about America first and his supporters rail against globalists, this is really what they're getting at is the lower levels of capital are fighting against the Eastern establishment. And that creates an opening for those of us who want to build an anti-imperialist movement in this country to intervene. And I talk about that, and unfortunately, it seems like really since the 1970s and since kind of the end of the 1960s and seventies, political upsurge, much of the left has kind of just deteriorated into being the foot soldiers of that Eastern establishment. (00:31:56): They see those lower level capitalists as being the most hawkish and warlike as being the most anti-union and the most authoritarian. So they think, okay, we're going to align with the Eastern establishment against them. And I argue that that's not the correct approach because right now it is those lower level capitalists who feel threatened, and it is among them that you found support for Julian Assange that you find interest in being friendly with Russia and with China and anti-establishment sentiment, you find opposition to the tech monopolies and their censorship. And that really we're in a period where those of us who are anti-imperialist need to pivot into trying to build an anti-monopoly coalition. And that's what the Communist Party talked about at the end of the Second War as the Cold War got going, as they were being crushed by the FBI, they said their goal was to build an anti-monopoly coalition to unite with the working class, the small business owners, even some of the wealthy against the big monopolies in their drive for war. (00:32:54): And I would argue that's what we should be aiming to do in our time, is build an anti-monopoly coalition. And that's what I've pulled from that textbook and from that history going over what has been done and what has been successful and that the Communist Party really gained from having an alliance with Roosevelt that was very strategic on their part. And I would argue that similar alliances are necessary, but the main thing is that there needs to be a network of people that are committed to building anti-imperialist politics in America. We need a network of people who can work together, who can rely on each other and can effectively carry out anti-imperialist operations. And there are examples of this. I'm about to go to Florida to support the Yahoo movement, the Yahoo movement, the African People Socialist party. They are an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist organization, and they're doing it. And if you go to St. Louis, Missouri, and if you go to St. Petersburg, Florida, Wilmer Leon (00:33:50): Who, Cory Bush, I'm sorry, her name you said St. Louis, Cory Bush, sorry, is the other congresswoman that was defeated by the, sorry, I had to get it out. Go ahead. Okay. Caleb Maupin (00:34:01): But you'll see the huge community centers that they've built, the farmer's markets that they've built, I mean, they have built a base among the African-American community in these two cities where they are providing services to people while teaching an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist ideology. Now, I don't necessarily agree with their entire approach on everything, but I see why they're being targeted because they are laying the foundations of building a broader anti-imperialist movement. And what they are doing is a great model to look at. They are building a base among the population. The title of the book is Out of the Movement to the Masses. I've been going to anti-war protests, and I've been going to socialist and communist spaces, and very rarely did I ever encounter the African People's Socialist Party, but they were organizing where it counted not in these kind of obscure academic bohemian spaces. (00:34:54): They were organizing in communities and they were providing real services, and they were building community centers and having classes for pregnant mothers and having organic farmer's markets. And they were doing things among the masses of people, not among the, so-called movements of people that like to read books about communism or whatever. And that is why they're being targeted, because they are actually building the kind of movement that needs to be done. They're doing what the Communist Party did during the 1930s. They're doing what the new communist movement of the 1970s attempted to do and was pretty unsuccessful because of global circumstances, et cetera. They are doing what needs to be done to build a real anticolonial movement. And that's kind of what I'm in the text is we have to have a reevaluation and we have to figure out how we can reach the bulk of the American people and not confine ourselves to kind of left academic and intellectual spaces. Wilmer Leon (00:35:50): Is it too simplistic to, when you look at this battle between the elites, is it too simplistic to categorize it as the financials versus the industrialists? Caleb Maupin (00:36:01): Yes. It's a little bit too simplistic because there is a lot of financialization, a lot of the lower levels Wilmer Leon (00:36:07): Of capital. Caleb Maupin (00:36:09): Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's not exactly right, but you're pointing to a certain trend that there is one faction that favors economic growth because economic growth will mean more money for them. There's another faction that is not concerned about economic growth so much as they're concerned about maintaining their monopoly. And in order to maintain their monopoly, they need to slow down growth around the world, and they're actually pushing degrowth or slow growth economics. So that's probably the primary divide is pro-growth and anti-growth, right? You would think that every businessman would be pro-growth, but the ultra monopolies that are heavily involved in finance at this point, they're blatantly talking about degrowth as a way to stay at the top. Wilmer Leon (00:36:51): In fact, one of the ways that they maintain their position is through consolidation. One of the ways that the banks control their monopoly is by buying smaller banks and bringing the or. So that's just one example. Caleb Maupin (00:37:10): Sure, sure. I mean, we live in a time where at the end of the day, the issue is technology is that it is human labor that creates all wealth, right? It is only human labor that creates value at the end of the day, and it is the value that workers create that lays the basis for the profits that capitalists can make, et cetera. And we are in a period where the technological revolution is reducing the role of workers at the assembly line. There's a lot of jobs that are no longer in existence because of technological advancement. And in a rational society that would be great. But in our society where profits are in command, that's leading to an economic crisis. Great example is self-driving cars, self-driving cars should be a great thing. It should be great that this job called driving this chore, this human labor of driving cars is no longer necessary. (00:38:02): But if they introduce self-driving cars, you would immediately in this country have millions of truck drivers unemployed, millions of Uber drivers unemployed, millions of traffic court employees unemployed. You would have riots in the streets. And Andrew Yang talked about how if self-driving cars came to the United States, we would have a society-wide crisis of unemployment and chaos like we never seen. How is that rational? Why should technological advancement lead to greater poverty? And that is the problem that we are facing. Human creativity and brilliance has outstripped the narrow limits production organized to make profit. We need a rationally planned economy so that economic growth can continue and technological advancement leads to greater prosperity for all Wilmer Leon (00:38:46): That sounds like China. Caleb Maupin (00:38:47): Yeah. And China, by controlling their economy and by having the state assigned credit based on their five-year plans and having state controlled tech corporations that are in line with the Communist party's vision, they're able to continue having growth despite having technological advancement. And that's ultimately what we need to have. And that is what Marx wrote about. One of the writers I quote extensively from is a brilliant thinker from the new communist movement named Nelson Peery and his autobiography, black Radical, which is very good, talks about his involvement in the Communist Party and then getting kicked out of the Communist Party and FBI infiltration of the Communist Party and then starting the Communist Labor Party during the 1970s. But also his very important book that he published before he died, I believe in 2004, called The Future Is Up To Us, which really gets into this contradiction of technology leading to impoverishment. (00:39:42): And he's saying this like during the Bush administration before ai, before any of what we're saying now he's laying out how this is going to lead to a big economic crisis that's going to necessitate a new economic system. Nelson Period is a brilliant thinker who had this kind of understanding. I also draw from Fred Goldstein, from Sam Marcy from some of the other writers who said the same thing. But this has always been kind of the understanding is that technological advancement should not lead to impoverishment, it should lead to greater prosperity. I often quote, there's an old story called the coal miner's riddle, the coal miner. He's sitting in his house with his son. The son says, father, why is it so cold in the house? And he says, because I can't afford to buy any coal. And he says, well, why can't we afford to buy any coal? (00:40:30): And he says, because I lost my job at the coal mine. I was laid off. And he says, father, why were you laid off from the coal mine? Why did you lose your job? He says, because there is too much coal. That's capitalism, but that's not rational. It's poverty created by abundance. I keep hearing our politicians talk about a housing shortage. Have you heard this? A housing shortage in America, there's no housing shortage. I live in New York City, there's four empty apartments for every homeless person. There's millions of empty housing, there's no housing shortage in America. There's a shortage of affordable housing black, because the national economic system, Wilmer Leon (00:41:06): BlackRock bought up a lot of the housing stock and instead of putting those houses back on the market, they held those homes off the market and then put 'em out for rent. So in many instances, it's not a matter of oh, $25,000 credit to those first time home buyers allegedly to lower the price of housing or to make housing more affordable. No, all that's going to do is raise the price of houses by $25,000. What you need to do is get that housing stock that BlackRock has as bought up and put that on the market, make that available. Because if you look at the Econ 1 0 1 supply and demand, you put more houses on the market, chances are the price of houses is going to decline. Caleb Maupin (00:42:02): Absolutely. Absolutely. When we talk about imperialism and we talk about anti-imperialist movements, one great example is the situation with Yemen, right? Yemen right now, this is one of the poorest countries in the world, and right now, this country that has a big movement called the Houthis or Anah, they're shaking the world. But if you go and listen or read the sermons or the founder of the Houthis movement, Hussein Al Houthis, what he's fighting for is economic development because he points out that Yemen is one of the poorest countries in the world, but yet it has a huge amount of oil. It has a huge amount of arable land to grow food, but the people there are very, very poor. And the Houthis movement that is now at this point, stopping ships in the Mediterranean and standing with the Palestinians and sending drones to the Indian Ocean and just shaking the world. (00:42:56): That was a movement of very, very poor people in one of the poorest countries in the world that demanding to take control of their natural resources and take control of their economy. My understanding of imperialism and such very much had a lot to do with the fact that in 2015, I participated in a humanitarian mission attempting to deliver medical aid to Yemen after the upsurge of 2015 when the Houthis movement and their revolutionary committee took power, I went on a ship from the Islamic Republic of Iran with the Red Crescent Society, and we tried to deliver medical aid to Yemen, and we were blocked in doing so. And reading about this anti-colonial movement that was formed in Yemen, a very religious Shia Muslim movement, demanding economic development, demanding, taking control of their resources, reading about that was very inspiring in the aim of building an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movement in the United States. (00:43:54): Now to see what the Houthis are doing as they're blocking ships to support the Palestinians as they're withstanding us attack, this is a movement of impoverished people fighting for their economic development and fighting to build a new country. This is a mass anti-colonial movement that is worth studying. And the fact that they align themselves with Russia and China, they're not blocking ships from Russia, they're not blocking ships from China. They are blocking ships from Israel and any country that trades with them, that shows you that this global anti-imperialist movement that is about mobilizing millions of people to fight for their rights, this global movement has a real strength. Wilmer Leon (00:44:34): Let's shift now to the 2024 presidential election. We've come out of the Republican Convention, we've now come out of the Democratic Convention and the Democratic Party convention, and Donald Trump was shocked when Joe Biden stepped down, Kamala Harris stepped in. That has changed the dynamic, at least in terms of the dialogue, and we're starting to see some shift in the numbers. Your thoughts on where we are now with this landscape. Caleb Maupin (00:45:09): I think that Kamala Harris is a completely manufactured candidate. She was created by the people who brought us the Hillary Clinton State Department when it was made clear that Hillary Clinton couldn't run for president once again in 2020, all of Hillary Clinton's financial backers put their money behind Kamala Harris. She was not popular with the American people, but yet powerful forces twisted Joe Biden's arm and put her on the ticket as vp. She has not been popular or successful as vp, but she is the candidate that the forces that are committed to regime change and all out efforts to oppose Russia and China at all costs. She is the one that they have invested the most in supporting. And I don't think she's going to win. I think that Trump will win the upcoming election. And that doesn't mean everything about Trump is good or I endorsed Donald Trump. (00:46:03): I'm just telling you that I think Trump is going to win. But I also believe that there are very powerful forces that see Kamala Harris as their best bet at getting what they want, which is more regime change wars, more destabilization around the world. I did write a book in 2020 about Kamala Harris four years ago, and I thought it was very odd that right after she got the Democratic nomination, this book that had been on sale for four years on Amazon suddenly got removed from Amazon. And for seven days my book was banned from Amazon and then restored with no explanation seven days later. I thought that was very, very odd. It raised a lot of eyebrows, but it also points to the amount of power the tech monopolies really have. It seems like everything was being done to support Kamala Harris. What I also thought was interesting is that in my book, I talked about Tulsi Gabbard and how Tulsi Gabbard kind of represents forces in the Pentagon that are really worried about another Arab Spring and what Kamala Harris and the Hillary Clinton State Department forces people like Samantha Power, people like Anne-Marie Slaughter, what they might engineer if they come back to office. (00:47:11): My book highlighted Tulsi Gabbard as being kind of a faction that is opposed to Kamala Harris. And the very same day that my book was pulled from Amazon, Tulsi Gabbard was added to the Quiet Sky's terrorism watch list by the American government. When she tried to board a plane, she found out she was accused of being a terrorist. And I thought that was interesting as well. And it just kind of points to, and there was all kinds of weird stuff going on in terms of social media and Google searches that was being manipulated around that time. But the book that I wrote about Kamala Harris and who has backed her and the ties that she has getting pulled from Amazon, it was interesting to see the timing, Wilmer Leon (00:47:52): The position of the Democratic Party as it relates to Gaza. And I was at the DNCI was also at the RNC conventions, but there were protestors in Chicago demanding a change in the US policy as it relates to the genocide in Gaza. Then you had uncommitted delegates that were able to have a sit-in at the DNC right outside the front door of the entrance to the United Center, demanding that a pro-Palestinian spokesperson be added to the speaker's list. And none of that was agreed to. In fact, it was basically dismissed summarily. So your thoughts on the dangers that the Democrats are playing with taking that position as it relates to the general election? Caleb Maupin (00:48:55): Well, if the Democrats are going to win this election, they're going to need lots of votes in Minnesota, lots of votes in Wisconsin and lots of votes in Michigan. And what do all three of those states have in common? Those swing states, Wilmer Leon (00:49:06): Large Arab populations. Caleb Maupin (00:49:08): That's right. Lots of Muslim Americans, lots of Arab Americans, and with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris giving a blank check to Israel to do what they're doing. I think it's very unlikely to see those folks lining up to vote for them. Now, Kamala Harris has made some noise about this or that, but she's basically the president already. If she was going to do something, she could do it right now. I mean, she's the vice president, but Joe Biden doesn't seem to be as actively involved in the political running of the country as some people might expect. That said, I will say that Donald Trump, I mean his position on Israel Palestine, I mean, is pretty reprehensible, and he continues to play up the idea that Kamala Harris and the Democrats are somehow anti-Israel, which they are not. What I think is interesting though, and I noticed that it seems like anti-Israel voices in the Trump camp, they may not be on the front stage, but they do have a lot of influence. (00:50:03): And I'm not saying all these people are doing what they're doing for necessarily good reasons, but I noticed when Elon Musk was interviewing Donald Trump in the chat, it just exploded. And all over Twitter, it exploded. The phrase, no war on Iran that came from Nick Fuentes. Now, Nick Fuentes is somebody that I don't agree with on many, many things and find a lot of his views and just his presentation style to kind of reprehensible and gross, but he, for his own reasons says no war with Iran. I also noticed that Candace Owens, who is a conservative and was very pro-Israel at one point, she was not pro-Israel enough. Now she's kind of moved for interesting reasons that are very different than anything I would say. She's moved into an anti-Israel direction and she has also got a lot of people in the Trump camp who listen to her and she is making noise, no war in Iran and urging Trump supporters not to support Israel. And this points to the fact that opposition to Israel, I think is much more widespread in both parties than anyone wants to recognize. (00:51:07): It's an element of the emperor has no clothes. Both parties pretend that everyone in their camp just supports Israel. But anyone who talks to a typical Democrat, you were at the Republican Convention and the Democrat Convention, and you could probably confirm that opposition to what Israel is doing is boiling beneath the surface, amid both political parties and amid all sections of this country. And that there is a lot of growing outrage about the influence and power of Israel and American politics, even among people who might support Israel otherwise, but just don't appreciate the arrogance and grip that they seem to have over policymaking. Wilmer Leon (00:51:46): And some people just help me understand why, but some people just have a problem with genocide. It's a bit os there are growing groups, Republicans for Harris, and there are those who are positing that this is because she's a stooge of the elite and this represents how she who's truly backing her. What about the argument that many of those in those types of organizations see her as an opportunity to reclaim the Republican party by getting rid of Donald Trump? And it's almost a any port in the storm kind of mentality, they see her as the stalking horse. If they can back her, if she can defeat Trump, they then can, the old school, the traditional Republicans can regain control of their party. What say you Caleb Opin? Caleb Maupin (00:52:58): Well, I would say that the Bush era Republican party is gone. It's never coming back. And Donald Trump is a symptom of that. And that's very clear. And that Donald Trump's recent embracing of Tulsi Gabbard and RFK, that indicates that Donald Trump is taking his campaign in an anti-establishment direction. Now, that doesn't mean that he's going to necessarily do good things as president. That just means that he's increasingly realizing that his appeal is to people that are opposed to the establishment. And I think that means the establishment is going to fight him a lot harder. There's no question about that. And that there are your regular traditional neo-conservative Republicans, my country, right or wrong, if you don't like it here, move to some other country, support the military, support the wars, support America dominating the world, and showing the world about our great American way of life. (00:53:51): Those folks are increasingly finding the Republican party to not be their home. And this is all very interesting. I noticed in Kamala Harris's DNC speech, she attacked the Republicans for denigrating America. And that made me smile because it reminded me of what I always heard about the far left, right? It was the far left. They hate America. They're always saying things are bad. Why are you always running down our country? And a lot of things that Kamala Harris said in her speech almost sounded like Neoconservatism. She attacked Donald Trump for meeting with Kim Jong-Un. She said he was cozying up to tyrants and being friendly with tyrants. And it seemed to me like there was very much the Republican Party, I believe over time is going to become more of a catchall populist, anti-establishment party, whereas the Democratic party is more and more becoming the party of the establishment of the way things are supposed to be. I think that what I would call the late Cold War normal in American politics is being flipped. It used to be the Republican party was the party of the establishment, and the Democrats were the party of opposition. Not very sincere opposition in many cases, but they were the party of, if you didn't agree with what you're supposed to think necessarily, if you're a little more critical, you become a Democrat. Well, Wilmer Leon (00:55:05): If you were proc civil rights, if you were pro-environment, if you were anti-war, that's where you went. Caleb Maupin (00:55:12): Yeah. And I think it's being flipped. And that doesn't mean that Republicans and the MAGA base that are talking a certain way are sincere at all. That just means who they're appealing to. The Republican party has an anti-establishment appeal more and more every day. The Democratic party has a ProE establishment appeal. And I think this Republicans for Harris is a great example of that. Wilmer Leon (00:55:32): So as we move now, spiraling towards November 5th, you've already said you believe that Donald Trump is going to win the election. One of the things that I find very, very telling, and I check it every day when you go to the Harris website, there's still no policy positions stated. There's no policy tab. In fact, when I asked that question a couple of times at the DNCC, I was told, oh, you don't understand. She hasn't had time. There hasn't been. I said, wait a minute. She ran for president four years ago. So she had to have, we hope she had established some policy positions as a candidate. She was the vice president going on four years now, we hope during those four years she could have figured out some policy and it's now been almost a month. You can't tell me that she couldn't pick up the phone and call a bunch of people in the room and say, Hey, I need policies on education, on defense, on the economy, on these five positions. I need policy in 10 days. Go get it done. Caleb Opin. Caleb Maupin (00:57:00): Well, I think there are three possible outcomes for the election. In my mind, probably the worst case scenario would be Kamala Harris winning. And I think that would be followed by a number of, there'd be chaos in the streets. A lot of Trump supporters will not accept it as a legitimate election. And I expect there will then be a big crackdown on dissent, and I expect there'll be a lot of provocations, et cetera. And that will be used by the establishment to crack down on dissent. Wilmer Leon (00:57:26): Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. And people need to understand the crackdown on dissent has already started by looking what's being done to who's being platformed from social media sites. Look at what's happening to folks who are getting arrested, the guy that started Instagram and all of these folks, the three Scott Ritter, your book taken off of taking all of these things are data points to support your position that the crackdown on descent has already started? Caleb Maupin (00:58:02): No, I mean the Biden administration has already indicted. Sue me, Terry, who was the top advisor to Obama and Bush on South Korea. And I mean the fact that she's been indicted as a foreign agent of South Korea just because South Korea wants to have mattered negotiations with North Korea. I mean, it looks like blatant retaliation. Wilmer Leon (00:58:22): And South Korea is an ally. Caleb Maupin (00:58:23): Yeah, their closest friend in Washington dc Sumi Terry has now been accused of being a foreign agent. She's facing decades in prison. I mean, this is craziness. This is a top CIA person who's been a top advisor on career matters. So that would be kind of what I think the worst case scenario would be. The most likely scenario is that I think Donald Trump will win. But all the negative things about Trumpism will amplify. I think the pro-Israel stuff, the pro-police stuff, the anti-immigrant stuff will amplify Wilmer Leon (00:58:55): Project 2025. Caleb Maupin (00:58:56): Yeah, the government will try to, the powers that be will try to ride the wave of Trumpism to push forward their own agenda, which is not good But I do think there is a third possible scenario, which is a real long shot. It's a real long shot, which is that Donald Trump takes office in a completely defensive position. And under those circumstances, he may be compelled to do a lot of good things because he's just at odds with the establishment and needs popular support. So much so we shall have to see. But those are my three predictions. But in all of those circumstances on anti-imperialist organization, a network of people that are committed to anti imperialism and building a new America beyond the rule of bankers and war profiteers is going to be vitally important. And at the end of the day, what really matters is not so much who is in office, it's what the balance of forces is in the country and around the world, and what kind of movement exists, what kind organizations. (00:59:58): There are people that are involved in the political process and to change the world and taking responsibility for the future of their country. And I wrote the book as a textbook for the Center for Political Innovation. My organization as we try to do just that, as we try to build a network of people who can rely on each other and build an anti-imperialist movement in the United States to support the Hru three, to study these ideas to be out there. That is one thing we aim to do. If Donald Trump wins the election, one thing that we aim to do is and intend to get that picture of Donald Trump shaking hands with Kim Jong-un and get it everywhere and say that this election is a mandate that the peace talks on the Korean Peninsula should continue. And that could be a way to nudge the discourse toward a more peace oriented wing of Trumpism. (01:00:46): That's one thing that we intend to do. We have other operations that we intend to carry out with the aim of nudging the country in an anti-colonial direction. One thing that I think is very important is Alaska, right? Alaska is right there close to Russia and there's the bearing Strait that separates Russia and Alaska and Abraham Lincoln had the idea of building a bridge to connect Alaska to Russia. And a lot of great people have had the idea of doing that since. And I think popularizing the idea of building a world land bridge to connect Alaska to Russia and pivot the US economy toward trading with the Russian Far East and with the Korean Peninsula and with China that could nudge the world and a direction of Multipolarity pivot away from Western Europe and towards the World Land Bridge and the bearing Strait and all of that. (01:01:36): So there are various things that we can do to try and influence discourse, but I must say the explosion is coming, right? I mean, you can feel it rumbling in the ground. The avalanche is going to pour, the volcano is going to go off. It's only a matter of time. Those of us who study these ideas and understand things, we have the job not of making the explosion come, but rather of trying to guide it in the right direction. The conditions in this country are getting worse. Americans are angry at the establishment. Things are going to change. But what we hope to do is guide that change and point it in a good direction toward a better world. And that's all we can really hope to do. I quote Mao the leader of the Chinese Revolution. He said The masses are the real heroes and at the end of the day, it will be the masses of the American people and their millions who determine what the future of this country will be. I think they are going to awaken and take action. The question is only what type of action will that be? And I think guys like you and I have a role to play in shaping what kind of action they might take when they do awaken. Wilmer Leon (01:02:39): Well, thank you for putting me in that group. And if we are able to build a bridge across the bearing strait between Alaska and Russia, I'm sure Sarah Palin will be the first one. Should be operating the toll booth. My brother. Alright, my brother Kayla mopping. Man, thank you so much for being my guest. Thank you so much for joining the show today. Caleb Maupin (01:03:05): Sure thing. Always a pleasure Wilmer Leon (01:03:07): Folks. Thank you so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Woman Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, follow us on social media. The Patreon account is very, very important. That helps to support the effort. You can find all the links below in the show description and remember that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge talk without analysis is just chatter. And we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I'm out Announcer (01:03:50): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.    

In this conversation at the Review of Democracy, András Bozóki – author of the new collection Töréspontok. Tanulmányok az autokrácia kialakulásáról (Breaking Points. Studies on the Formation of Autocracy) – reflects on what has made the anti-democratic turn in Hungary so effective and discusses what has surprised him the most about the evolution of the Orbán regime; comments on the regime's attempted remaking of Hungarian elite groups and its uses of ideology to legitimate its rule; evaluates his thesis on the Orbán regime being an “externally constrained hybrid regime” in light of more recent developments; and assesses the role of his own generation, the 1989ers, in the longer arc of history.   András Bozóki is Professor at the Department of Political Science at the Central European University and a research affiliate of the CEU Democracy Institute. His main fields of research include democratization, de-democratization, political regimes, ideologies, Central European politics, and the role of intellectuals.   Töréspontok. Tanulmányok az autokrácia kialakulásáról (Breaking Points. Studies on the Formation of Autocracy) has been published by Gondolat Kiadó.   Ferenc Laczó: You have just released a large and exciting collection in Hungarian under the title Töréspontok. Tanulmányok az autokrácia kialakulásáról, which might be translated as Breaking Points. Studies on the Formation of Autocracy. This new volume of some 500 pages collects sixteen important articles that you have authored or co-authored since 2013 and presents them in a largely chronological fashion. The Orbán regime has clearly been a central concern of yours. How this regime has emerged, how it operates, how it may be classified, and what can be said about its international embeddedness—these are all questions that are repeatedly raised and considered on these pages. You have evidently been studying a moving target since the early 2010s. I wanted to start our conversation there: How has your understanding of the Orbán regime evolved over the years? What was foreseeable to you already back in the early 2010s about where this regime would be heading, and what came rather as a surprise to you in more recent years? András Bozóki: There was already a de-consolidation of democracy, in the form of increasing political polarization, between 2006 and 2010. However, according to all international democracy-measuring institutes, Hungary was still a liberal democracy up until 2010, despite all the troubles. People were disappointed with the government of the time; they found it ineffective, and they wanted a more decisive turn towards what was supposed to be a more democratic system. It was interesting to see that, while Viktor Orbán started his de-democratization project quite early on, it was propagated as making the system more democratic. Forget about the rule of law and all these legal nuances, or what the Constitutional Court defends, or the ombudsman, all these legal brakes on the regime. Let the people govern, let the will of the people rule without any brakes. Autocratization was sold as democratization. As a political scientist I was surprised by three phenomena in the process of de-democratization: weak popular identification with democracy, the effectiveness of political propaganda, and, third, the radical change in Hungarian foreign policy.  As someone who used to be a member of Fidesz at the change of the regime, but left it early, I had no illusions about Orbán. My surprise is not so much about his behavior as a leader, but about the passive behavior of Hungarian society. I did not expect that the democratic backsliding process would go so swiftly, and without much social resistance, I would say. That was a major disappointment: that people didn't see the existent democracy as something worth fighting for, worth defending. They said that democracy is just about a multiparty system and nothing more. It is not about the spirit of the people, it is only about weak institutions and corrupt party machineries. They didn't want to defend that system. It was easy, retrospectively speaking, for Orbán to change the regime because the social resistance was surprisingly weak. My second surprise concerns the effectiveness of propaganda. I did not believe that propaganda after the 1950s can again be used for direct political purposes in Hungary, that a country which survived Communism can go back to daily propaganda. But that happened in 2015 with the migration crisis and the 2016 referendum afterwards. It was just intolerable. In the late Communist period, the regime was not propagandistic at all. They had neither ideology, nor propaganda; it was just based on traditional mentalities. It was striking to see that propaganda can again be effective, together with the manipulation of social media, and make citizens change their opinion concerning foreign migrants. Before 2015, there was no Islamophobia in Hungary at all, unlike some traditional anti-Semitism. However, the Orbán regime propagated Islamophobia and mixed it up with anti-Roma sentiments. And, finally, I did not expect Orbán to become a pro-Putin politician. I mean, I do not have to tell you that back in the 19th century, the Russian army destroyed the Hungarian Revolution and struggle for freedom; then, during the Second World War, they came to Hungary, and there are now accounts about their activity beyond the fronts, like not only killing people, but raping hundreds of thousands of women; then crushing the Hungarian Revolution in 1956; and stationing troops in Hungary for decades. Hungary was not as anti-communist a country as Poland, but there were strong anti-Soviet sentiments. “Russians, go home” was a leading slogan of the 1956 Revolution. That Orbán could change this and make Fidesz supporters pro-Russian, anti-EU, pro-war—that was something truly unexpected. They may now present themselves as the “party of peace,” but they actually support Russia's war against Ukraine and have some invisible but easily detectable relationship with Putin such as economic and political collaboration. That has been genuinely surprising. Orbán currently holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU and is working on the deconstruction of the Union. The Trojan horse has arrived. FL: Several pieces included in this new collection address the regime debate that has been raging concerning Orbán's rule. As part of that, you discuss its illiberal and antidemocratic features, and critique the widely used concept of ‘illiberal democracy' in particular. You write about ‘electoral autocracy' instead, and some years ago even formulated the thesis of a ‘liberal autocracy.' Which key conclusions would you draw today from those regime debates? What might be key points of consensus among scholars despite their different emphases and terminological choices? AB: The first few years after 2010 were a shock. What should we call this regime? It was the constitutional lawyers, plus economist János Kornai, who claimed that the regime is moving fast towards autocracy. It was the constitutional lawyers—Gábor Halmai, Kim Lane Scheppele, Imre Vörös, and others—who claimed that there was an unconstitutional putsch when the new constitution started to be used for anti-constitutional purposes, when it was used to change the legal system and undermine the rule of law by 2013. In contrast, political scientists were rather quiet in those early years. They said: Let's wait for the elections in 2014 to see whether these early warnings have been well-substantiated or not. Political scientists started to speak about electoral autocracy, or hybrid regimes, only after 2014, when the constitutional lawyers were already sounding the alarm that this was the end of the rule of law. Political scientists responded basically by saying, “Fine, but the rule of law is just one side of the story. What about free elections and the will of the people?” But, as it turned out, we could not consider the 2014 elections honest elections. It was free, but unfair. And that opened the way to the regime debates, which dominated the mid-2010s in Hungarian political science. There were several interesting approaches, such as the concepts of ‘mafia state', neo-Bolshevism, re-feudalization, prebendalism, illiberal democratic capitalism, plebiscitary leader democracy, transmuted fascism, party-state, post-fascism, populist electoral autocracy and the likes. Also a distinction has been made between regime and rendszer – ‘regime' and ‘system', though the meaning of the Hungarian distinction does not translate well into English – or concerning the practices of the political formula vis-à-vis the formalities of institutional order. There were a lot of different approaches. At this point Orbán proudly came up with the notion of ‘illiberal democracy.' In English, ‘illiberal' sounds pretty derogatory. I do not think Orbán felt that it was that way. He wanted to state that “We want to keep democracy but make a break with liberalism.” But illiberal democracy means something else: it is not a democracy but a sort of hybrid regime. Still, not only Orbán but some political scientists in Hungary also wanted to argue that ‘illiberal democracy' is just a form of democracy: there is a Western liberal democracy and there is a non-Western democracy which might be illiberal but is equally legitimate. I did not like those attempts. I did not think they were scholarly. I realized that being in the EU, there is a stronger defense of the rule of law from European Union institutions than from domestic elements. When people were prevented from initiating a referendum in Hungary in early 2016, I clearly felt that this meant the end of any sort of democracy. But maybe there is a new form of autocracy which keeps some sort of remnants of liberalism due to the constraints of the European Union. So, I was venturing with the concept of ‘liberal autocracy' around the time. It is not my invention, Fareed Zakaria and Larry Diamond were debating it back around the turn of the millennium. Hong Kong was called a liberal autocracy, even the ideal type of a liberal autocracy when human rights were respected, but there was no democracy because the government was not elected by the people—though Diamond thought that having a liberal autocracy was illusionary. Around 2015, I met Dániel Hegedűs, a younger colleague of mine. As an expert of EU politics, he pointed out the dubious role of the EU toward Hungary. We realized that the unparalleled specificity of this regime is indeed that it is located within the EU, and we have to focus on the interplay between Hungary and the European Union. Since EU legislation has domestic impact in Hungary, we cannot fully separate these two entities: following the principle of subsidiarity, some parts of sovereignty are given up by each Member State. So let us see what the consequences of EU membership are. Concerning Hungary, we came up with the proposition of an externally constrained – but also supported and legitimized – hybrid regime. There was a huge debate about the latter notion too, whether ‘hybrid regime' makes sense or not. It is a bit too broad of a category, but it was suitable for covering those years when Hungary was no longer a democracy, but not yet an autocracy. We can still use it today: if the Hungarian state is an electoral autocracy, it is still part of the hybrid regime category on the authoritarian end of the spectrum. Our article gained remarkable international attention and it came to be seen as our statement. In the years since 2018, these regime debates have slowly lost significance and lost their importance. Everything has been said, I think. The new consensus may be that nobody calls Hungary a modern democracy anymore. People realize that there was de-democratization, democratic erosion, backsliding – whatever you want to call it. More recently, academics have been talking about autocratization, not democratic backsliding, which can be a backsliding within democracy whereas autocratization trespasses the line between democracy and autocracy. I should add that this volume just collects some of the articles I wrote at different moments in time between 2013 and 2023. I see how naïve I was at certain points. I tried to correct myself later and was correcting myself again after that. Of course, I did not want to change what I wrote ten years ago, so this collection also shows how my thinking has changed. The lesson I learned from the debate on the nature of the regime is that a purely political science approach and the use of purely political science concepts are not enough to understand the Orbán regime. You need to have historical and sociological knowledge, and an interdisciplinary approach is needed. In Embedded Autocracy: Hungary in the European Union, the book I have just co-authored with Zoltán Fleck, we combine political science concepts with sociological approaches to conclude that the Orbán regime might be an electoral autocracy politically speaking, however it can be called an embedded autocracy from the social point of view. FL: The collection focuses extensively on how Hungary's antidemocratic turn has unfolded in the early twenty-first century. The decline of democracy in the country has been conspicuous, making Hungary a rather notorious case even in global comparison. What do you view as critical junctures during this process of de-democratization? And what might explain the overall effectiveness of such an anti-democratic turn in Hungary? AB: On the one hand, it was a smooth change. On the other, there were some critical junctures, some breaking points. I think that, as I said, many people did not value democracy, or better to say, they had different understandings of democracy. I think that the twenty years between 1990 and 2010 were a shining moment in the history of Hungary – in a history stretching over a thousand years, we had two decades of liberal democracy, and I feel fortunate to have been part of this story. Having said that, part of the answer is that this democracy was not without problems. To put it this way, the government lost credibility right after 2006 and they lost the 2008 referendum. People really wanted a change of government, or maybe an early election which the government refused to hold. They just did not feel the danger; they felt that there was just a normal crisi

In The People of the Ruins (originally published in 1920), Edward Shanks imagines England in the not-so-distant future as a neo mediaeval society whose inhabitants have forgotten how to build or operate machinery. Jeremy Tuft is a physics instructor and former artillery officer who is cryogenically frozen in his laboratory only to emerge after a century and a half to a disquieting new era. Though at first Tuft is disconcerted by the failure of his own era's smug doctrine of Progress, he eventually decides that he prefers the post civilised life. But, when the northern English and Welsh tribes invade, Tuft must set about reinventing weapons of mass destruction. One of the most critically acclaimed and popular postwar stories of its day, The People of the Ruins captured a feeling that was common among those who had fought and survived the Great War: haunted by trauma and guilt, its protagonist feels out of time and out of place, unsure of what is real or unreal. Shanks implies in this seminal work, as Dr. Paul March-Russell explains in the book's introduction, that the political system was already corrupt before the story began, and that Bolshevism and anarchism—and the resulting civil wars—merely accelerated the world's inevitable decline. A satire of Wellsian techno-utopian novels, The People of the Ruins is a bold, entertaining, and moving postapocalyptic novel contemporary readers won't soon forget. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In The People of the Ruins (originally published in 1920), Edward Shanks imagines England in the not-so-distant future as a neo mediaeval society whose inhabitants have forgotten how to build or operate machinery. Jeremy Tuft is a physics instructor and former artillery officer who is cryogenically frozen in his laboratory only to emerge after a century and a half to a disquieting new era. Though at first Tuft is disconcerted by the failure of his own era's smug doctrine of Progress, he eventually decides that he prefers the post civilised life. But, when the northern English and Welsh tribes invade, Tuft must set about reinventing weapons of mass destruction. One of the most critically acclaimed and popular postwar stories of its day, The People of the Ruins captured a feeling that was common among those who had fought and survived the Great War: haunted by trauma and guilt, its protagonist feels out of time and out of place, unsure of what is real or unreal. Shanks implies in this seminal work, as Dr. Paul March-Russell explains in the book's introduction, that the political system was already corrupt before the story began, and that Bolshevism and anarchism—and the resulting civil wars—merely accelerated the world's inevitable decline. A satire of Wellsian techno-utopian novels, The People of the Ruins is a bold, entertaining, and moving postapocalyptic novel contemporary readers won't soon forget. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-fiction

In The People of the Ruins (originally published in 1920), Edward Shanks imagines England in the not-so-distant future as a neo mediaeval society whose inhabitants have forgotten how to build or operate machinery. Jeremy Tuft is a physics instructor and former artillery officer who is cryogenically frozen in his laboratory only to emerge after a century and a half to a disquieting new era. Though at first Tuft is disconcerted by the failure of his own era's smug doctrine of Progress, he eventually decides that he prefers the post civilised life. But, when the northern English and Welsh tribes invade, Tuft must set about reinventing weapons of mass destruction. One of the most critically acclaimed and popular postwar stories of its day, The People of the Ruins captured a feeling that was common among those who had fought and survived the Great War: haunted by trauma and guilt, its protagonist feels out of time and out of place, unsure of what is real or unreal. Shanks implies in this seminal work, as Dr. Paul March-Russell explains in the book's introduction, that the political system was already corrupt before the story began, and that Bolshevism and anarchism—and the resulting civil wars—merely accelerated the world's inevitable decline. A satire of Wellsian techno-utopian novels, The People of the Ruins is a bold, entertaining, and moving postapocalyptic novel contemporary readers won't soon forget. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

In The People of the Ruins (originally published in 1920), Edward Shanks imagines England in the not-so-distant future as a neo mediaeval society whose inhabitants have forgotten how to build or operate machinery. Jeremy Tuft is a physics instructor and former artillery officer who is cryogenically frozen in his laboratory only to emerge after a century and a half to a disquieting new era. Though at first Tuft is disconcerted by the failure of his own era's smug doctrine of Progress, he eventually decides that he prefers the post civilised life. But, when the northern English and Welsh tribes invade, Tuft must set about reinventing weapons of mass destruction. One of the most critically acclaimed and popular postwar stories of its day, The People of the Ruins captured a feeling that was common among those who had fought and survived the Great War: haunted by trauma and guilt, its protagonist feels out of time and out of place, unsure of what is real or unreal. Shanks implies in this seminal work, as Dr. Paul March-Russell explains in the book's introduction, that the political system was already corrupt before the story began, and that Bolshevism and anarchism—and the resulting civil wars—merely accelerated the world's inevitable decline. A satire of Wellsian techno-utopian novels, The People of the Ruins is a bold, entertaining, and moving postapocalyptic novel contemporary readers won't soon forget. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literature

In The People of the Ruins (originally published in 1920), Edward Shanks imagines England in the not-so-distant future as a neo mediaeval society whose inhabitants have forgotten how to build or operate machinery. Jeremy Tuft is a physics instructor and former artillery officer who is cryogenically frozen in his laboratory only to emerge after a century and a half to a disquieting new era. Though at first Tuft is disconcerted by the failure of his own era's smug doctrine of Progress, he eventually decides that he prefers the post civilised life. But, when the northern English and Welsh tribes invade, Tuft must set about reinventing weapons of mass destruction. One of the most critically acclaimed and popular postwar stories of its day, The People of the Ruins captured a feeling that was common among those who had fought and survived the Great War: haunted by trauma and guilt, its protagonist feels out of time and out of place, unsure of what is real or unreal. Shanks implies in this seminal work, as Dr. Paul March-Russell explains in the book's introduction, that the political system was already corrupt before the story began, and that Bolshevism and anarchism—and the resulting civil wars—merely accelerated the world's inevitable decline. A satire of Wellsian techno-utopian novels, The People of the Ruins is a bold, entertaining, and moving postapocalyptic novel contemporary readers won't soon forget. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

In The People of the Ruins (originally published in 1920), Edward Shanks imagines England in the not-so-distant future as a neo mediaeval society whose inhabitants have forgotten how to build or operate machinery. Jeremy Tuft is a physics instructor and former artillery officer who is cryogenically frozen in his laboratory only to emerge after a century and a half to a disquieting new era. Though at first Tuft is disconcerted by the failure of his own era's smug doctrine of Progress, he eventually decides that he prefers the post civilised life. But, when the northern English and Welsh tribes invade, Tuft must set about reinventing weapons of mass destruction. One of the most critically acclaimed and popular postwar stories of its day, The People of the Ruins captured a feeling that was common among those who had fought and survived the Great War: haunted by trauma and guilt, its protagonist feels out of time and out of place, unsure of what is real or unreal. Shanks implies in this seminal work, as Dr. Paul March-Russell explains in the book's introduction, that the political system was already corrupt before the story began, and that Bolshevism and anarchism—and the resulting civil wars—merely accelerated the world's inevitable decline. A satire of Wellsian techno-utopian novels, The People of the Ruins is a bold, entertaining, and moving postapocalyptic novel contemporary readers won't soon forget. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

In The People of the Ruins (originally published in 1920), Edward Shanks imagines England in the not-so-distant future as a neo mediaeval society whose inhabitants have forgotten how to build or operate machinery. Jeremy Tuft is a physics instructor and former artillery officer who is cryogenically frozen in his laboratory only to emerge after a century and a half to a disquieting new era. Though at first Tuft is disconcerted by the failure of his own era's smug doctrine of Progress, he eventually decides that he prefers the post civilised life. But, when the northern English and Welsh tribes invade, Tuft must set about reinventing weapons of mass destruction. One of the most critically acclaimed and popular postwar stories of its day, The People of the Ruins captured a feeling that was common among those who had fought and survived the Great War: haunted by trauma and guilt, its protagonist feels out of time and out of place, unsure of what is real or unreal. Shanks implies in this seminal work, as Dr. Paul March-Russell explains in the book's introduction, that the political system was already corrupt before the story began, and that Bolshevism and anarchism—and the resulting civil wars—merely accelerated the world's inevitable decline. A satire of Wellsian techno-utopian novels, The People of the Ruins is a bold, entertaining, and moving postapocalyptic novel contemporary readers won't soon forget. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The People of the Ruins (originally published in 1920), Edward Shanks imagines England in the not-so-distant future as a neo mediaeval society whose inhabitants have forgotten how to build or operate machinery. Jeremy Tuft is a physics instructor and former artillery officer who is cryogenically frozen in his laboratory only to emerge after a century and a half to a disquieting new era. Though at first Tuft is disconcerted by the failure of his own era's smug doctrine of Progress, he eventually decides that he prefers the post civilised life. But, when the northern English and Welsh tribes invade, Tuft must set about reinventing weapons of mass destruction. One of the most critically acclaimed and popular postwar stories of its day, The People of the Ruins captured a feeling that was common among those who had fought and survived the Great War: haunted by trauma and guilt, its protagonist feels out of time and out of place, unsure of what is real or unreal. Shanks implies in this seminal work, as Dr. Paul March-Russell explains in the book's introduction, that the political system was already corrupt before the story began, and that Bolshevism and anarchism—and the resulting civil wars—merely accelerated the world's inevitable decline. A satire of Wellsian techno-utopian novels, The People of the Ruins is a bold, entertaining, and moving postapocalyptic novel contemporary readers won't soon forget. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

In The People of the Ruins (originally published in 1920), Edward Shanks imagines England in the not-so-distant future as a neo mediaeval society whose inhabitants have forgotten how to build or operate machinery. Jeremy Tuft is a physics instructor and former artillery officer who is cryogenically frozen in his laboratory only to emerge after a century and a half to a disquieting new era. Though at first Tuft is disconcerted by the failure of his own era's smug doctrine of Progress, he eventually decides that he prefers the post civilised life. But, when the northern English and Welsh tribes invade, Tuft must set about reinventing weapons of mass destruction. One of the most critically acclaimed and popular postwar stories of its day, The People of the Ruins captured a feeling that was common among those who had fought and survived the Great War: haunted by trauma and guilt, its protagonist feels out of time and out of place, unsure of what is real or unreal. Shanks implies in this seminal work, as Dr. Paul March-Russell explains in the book's introduction, that the political system was already corrupt before the story began, and that Bolshevism and anarchism—and the resulting civil wars—merely accelerated the world's inevitable decline. A satire of Wellsian techno-utopian novels, The People of the Ruins is a bold, entertaining, and moving postapocalyptic novel contemporary readers won't soon forget. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies

In the years following the Russian Revolution, a popular resistance movement sprang up in Ukraine that drew its inspiration from a man named Nestor Makhno. Makhno went on to organize a seven-million-strong anarchist polity amidst the chaos and brutality of the Russian Civil War. Charlie Allison describes Makhno's appeal, his political beliefs, and his rejection of Bolshevism. Charlie Allison, No Harmless Power: The Life and Times of the Ukrainian Anarchist Nestor Makhno PM Press, 2023 (Image on main page by Oleh Kushch.) The post Ukrainian Anarchist appeared first on KPFA.

On this episode we discuss how Baku oil shaped Bolshevism, Sovietization, and the structuring of the Soviet state between 1920-1929 in the South Caucasus. Our guest is Sara Brinegar, historian and author of the book Power and the Politics of Oil in the Soviet South Caucasus: Periphery Unbound 1920-1929. Book description and author bio below: The book shows how the politics of oil intersected with the establishment of Soviet power in the Caucasus; it reveals how the Soviets cooperated and negotiated with the local elite, rather than merely subsuming them. More broadly, Power and the Politics of Oil in the Soviet South Caucasus demonstrates not only how the Bolsheviks understood and exploited oil, but how the needs of the industry shaped Bolshevik policy.Brinegar reflects on the huge geopolitical importance of oil at the end of World War I and the Russian Civil War. She discusses how the reserves sitting idle in the oil fields of Baku, the capital of the newly independent Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, and the center of the fallen empire's oil reserves were no exception to this. With the Soviet leadership in Moscow intent on capturing the fields in the first few months of 1920, this book examines the Soviet project to rebuild Baku's oil industry in the aftermath of these wars and the political significance of oil in the formation of the Soviet Union. Sara Brinegar is historian of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She held a two¬-year faculty fellowship at Yale University's European Studies Council and was previously a Digital Pedagogy Fellow at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. She is an independent scholar with a full-time non-academic job and is based in the Washington, D.C. area. 

Last time we spoke about the rise of the Spirit Soldier movement. As a result of the hardship brought upon the common people of China during China's Warlord Era a new group known as the Spirit Soldiers rose up. Motivated by grievances against warlord abuses and foreign influences, the Spirit Soldier emerged as a grassroots movement seeking to overthrow the oppressive regime. They believed in summoning divine beings or becoming possessed by them to aid their cause, reminiscent of the Yihetuan. Despite lacking centralized organization and firearms, they managed to seize control of several counties in regions like Hubei and Sichuan. However, they simply were no match for Warlord armies who were better trained, better organized and certainly better armed. While in small groups the Spirit armies managed just fine, but when they assembled 100,000 strong, they were ultimately crushed. Despite this the last Spirit rebellion would occur in 1959.   #101 The Mongolian Revolution of 1921   Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. Oh yes we are not done with Mongolia. As a quick refresher, a few episodes back we talked about what is known as the Occupation of Mongolia. Quite a few things were going on all at once in the late 1910's. The Russian Empire collapsed and now was stuck in a civil war with the Reds vs the Whites. The Republic of China likewise collapsed into the Warlord Era. Mongolia stuck between these two former empires, attempted to gain independence, but swiftly fell into conflict with radicals from both. As a result of the Russian white General Grigori Semyonov trying to force a new pan Mongolia state, Duan Qirui exploited the situation to forcibly invade Mongolia. Duan Qirui had been taking a lot of heat for pushing China to declare war on Germany and getting caught taking secret loans from the Empire of Japan. Everyone in China was calling for Duan to reduce or eliminate his Anhui Army, but the situation in Mongolia gave him the perfect excuse to use it, thus in his mind legitimizing its existence. Duan Qirui dispatched General Xu Shuzheng with the “northwest frontier army” to protect Mongolia from a supposed Red army invasion. In the face of overwhelming military forces, the Mongolians submitted to Xu and were absolutely humiliated and subjugated. And thus Mongolia lived happily ever after. No, not at all. Between 1919-1920 a few Mongolian nobles came together to form two groups, the first was called “Konsulyn denj / the Consular Hill” the second “Zuun khuree / the East Urga” groups. The first group was the brainchild of Dogsomyn Bodoo, a prominent Mongolian politician. Bodoo had worked as a Mongolian language teacher at a Russian-Mongolian school for translators. He spoke Mongolian, Tibetan, Mandarin and Manchu. Because of his work he came into contact with Bolshevism through Russian acquaintances. After the occupation of Mongolia by Duan Qirui's forces, he formed the secret Consular Hill group as a means of resistance. Doboo's Consular Hill soon saw Khorloogiin Choibalsan join. Choibalsan also worked at the Russian Mongolian translator school and shared a Yurt with Doboo. Doboo was a mentor to Choibalsan whom worked primarily as a Russian interpreter at the Russian consulate. Because of the nature of his work, Choibalsan spent a lot of time with the Soviets. Not to give too much away, but later on Choibalsan would become known as “the Stalin of Mongolia”. A Russo-Mongolian printing officer typesetter named Mikhail Kucherenko, a Bolshevik in Urga, visited Bodoo and Choibalsan, talking to them about things related to Mongolian independence and actively resisted the Chinese. The East Urga group were founded by Soliin Danzan an official of the Ministry of Finance and Dansranbilegiin Dogsom , an official in the Ministry of the Army. Danzan had once been a horse thief, but managed to climb the ladder towards being a customs officer or the ministry of finance. Dogs had worked as a scribe for district and provincial assemblies before taking a job at the ministry of finance and Army later on. Another founding member was Damdin Sukhbaatar who grew up around Russians and spoke Russian. He joined the New Mongolia Army in 1911 after the independence movement and rose through the ranks seeing deployment on Mongolia's eastern border. After his death he would be referred to as “the Lenin of Mongolia”. The beginning of the East Urga group saw radicals within the lower house of the Mongolian parliament, such as Danzan and Dogsom met secretly trying to figure a way of getting rid of Xu Shuzheng and the Chinese dominance over their nation. The groups formed a plot to seize the mongolian army's arsenal and assassinate Xu Shuzheng, but the arsenal was too well guarded and Xu departed the region before they could pull it off. Within Urga were many Russian refugees, Red and White alike. They established a Municipal Duma, and some of the Bolshevik minded ones learned of the secret Consular Hill and East Urga groups. In March of 1920, the Duma was sending one of their members, Sorokovikov to Irkutsk, but before he did so, they thought it a good idea for him to learn about these secret groups and what they were up to. Sorokovikov met with representatives of both groups before traveling to Irkutsk. When he returned to Urga in June of that year, he met with the representatives again with promises the USSR would provide any assistance needed to the Mongolian workers. He then extended them invitations to send their groups representatives to Russia to discuss matters further.  As you can imagine, both these groups got pretty excited. Until this point the two groups did not brush shoulders much, they were in fact quite different. The Consular Hill group were progressive socialists while the East Urga group were more nationalistic. While they seemed to be at odds, the Soviet invitation had brought them together and in doing so they decided to merge on June 25th to form the Mongolian People's Party. It was then agreed Danzan and Choibalsan would act as the delegates that would go to Russia. Both men arrived in Verkhneudinsk, the new capital of the Pro-Soviet Far Eastern Republic. They met with Boris Shumyatsky, the acting head of the government. Shumyatsky kind of gave them the cold shoulder as they hounded his government for military assistance to fight off the Chinese. Shumyatsky advised them they should go back home, and get members of their party over in Urga to send a coded message with the stamped seal of the Bogd Khan to formally request such a thing. They did just that and now 5 delegates returned to Verkhneudinsk with it, but Shumyatsky told them he had no real authority to make such a decision and that they needed to go to Irkutsk. So yeah it was one of those cases where a guy you thought was a head honcho, was really not haha. The Mongolian delegates then went to Irkutsk in August where they met with the head of what would soon become the Far Eastern Secretariat of the Communist International aka the Comintern. They explained they required military assistance, soon handing over a list of requests. They wanted military instructors, over 10,000 rifles, some artillery pieces, machine guns and of course funding they could use to recruit soldiers. The head told them….to drag a letter and this time to make sure the name of the party was included in it, not in the name of the Bogd Khan. They were also to list their objectives and requests. Now as funny as this all sounds, not to dox myself, but when I got my first big boy job as they say, I had to learn how to write formal letters to the government, funding requests, partnership things, etc etc, and I can feel for these guys in that sense. They all seemed to have little experience in such matters and yes, some officials were clearing just messing with them, sending them left and right, but some guys were trying to show them how to work an existing process, random rant sorry. Once they finished this new letter they were told it might be considered by the Siberian REvolutionary Committee in Omsk, the buck keeps passing. At this point the mongolians divided themselves into three groups: Delegates Danzan, Losol and Dendev went to Omsk to deliver the new letter; Bodoo and Dogsom went back to Urga to grow the party and begin recruiting a army; and Sukhbaater and Choibalsan went to Irkutsk to serve as liaisons there. Before they all departed, the drafted a new revolutionary message. It dictated the Mongolian nobility would be divested of their hereditary powers. The new system of government would be democratic with a limited monarch run by the Bogd Khaan. Several more meeting with the soviets at Omsk occurred only for the Mongolians to be sold yet again they had to go somewhere else, this time it was Moscow. Thus Danzan led a team of delegates to go to Moscow in September. For a month they discussed matters, but something huge was cooking up in the meantime. Here comes a man named Roman von Ungern-Sternberg. He was born in Graz Austria in January of 1886 to a noble family, descending from present day Estonia. Ungern-Sternberg's first language was German, but he also spoke English, French, Russian and Estonian. Within his family tree he had Hungarian roots and he would claim to be a descendant of Batu Khan, the grandson of Genghis Khan. Why is it, all of these “great men figures” always have to come up with a “I am descended from x” haha. He moved to Reval, the capital of Estonia. It's said as a child he was a ferocious bully and a psychopath who would torture animals. Apparently at the age of 12 he strangled his cousins owl, now thats messed up. Now Ungern-Sternberg was very proud of his ancient aristocratic background…though whether any of it was real who knows. He wrote extensively things like “for centuries my family never took orders from the working classes and it was outrageous that dirty workers who've never had any servants of their own, but still think they can command! They should have absolutely no say in the ruling of the vast Russian Empire". He was proud of his Germanic origin, but also identified with the Russian empire…and with Ghenghis khan, so yeah. When asked about his family's military history in the Russian empire he would proud boast “72 family members were killed in the wartime!”. He believed many of the fallen monarchies of Europe could be restored with the help of the cavalry peoples of the Steppe, such as the Mongols.  Ungern-Sternberg of course was attracted to military service and during the Russo-Japanese War he joined the fighting. Its unsure whether he made it to Manchuria to see actual fighting, but he was awarded a Russo-Japanese War Medal in 1913. During the first Russian Revolution of 1905, Estonian peasants ravaged the country trying to murder nobles. Ungern-Sternberg recalled "the peasants that worked on my family's land were rough, untutored, wild and constantly angry, hating everybody and everything without understanding why". After the failed revolution he continued his military career and picked up an interest in Buddhism. Later in life while in Mongolia he would become a Buddhist, but never really relinquished his Lutheran faith. While in Mongolia Ungern-Sternberg became obsessed with the idea that he was the in-incarnation of Genghis Khan. When he graduated from a military academy he demanded a station amongst the Cossacks in Asia. He was appointed an officer in Eastern Siberia where he served under the 1st Argunsky and later the 1st Amursky Cossack regiments. From there he fell in love with the lifestyle of the nomadic Mongol peoples. He was a hell of a drunk and loved to pick fights. There were theories he had been hit so many times to the head during fights, it was believed he had brain damage and was insane as a result. In 1913 he asked to be transferred to the reserves, because he wanted time and space to achieve a new goal, he sought to assist the Mongols in their struggle for independence from China. Russian officials heard rumors he sought to do this and they actively thwarted him as best as they could. He went to the town of Khovd in western Mongolia where he served as an unofficial officer in a Gossack guard detachment for the Russian consulate.  When WW1 broke out, Ungern-Sternberg joined the 34th regiment of Cossack troops stationed in the Galicia frontier. He would take part in the first Russian offensive against Prussia and earned a reputation as an extremely brave but also very reckless and mentally unstable officer. Men who came to know him said he looked happiest atop a horse leading a charge, showing no signs of fear with a wicked smile on his face. He received multiple citations such as the st george of the 4th grade; st vladimir of the 4th grade, st anna of the 3rd and 4th grades and st Stanislas of the 3rd grade. These decorations however were offset by the amount of disciplinary actions issued against him and he would eventually be discharged from one of his commands for attacking another officer in a drunken brawl. He went to prison and was court martialed.  After he got out of prison in January of 1917, he transferred over to the Caucasian theater to fight the Ottomans. Then the Russian revolution began, ending the Russian empire and of course ending the Romanov monarchy, quite the bitter blow to the monarchist Ungern-Sternberg. While still in the Caucasus, Ungern-Sternberg ran into a Cossack Captain, an old friend we met a few podcasts ago, Captain Grigory Semyonov. Working with Semyonov the two organized a volunteer Assyrian Christian unit in modern day Iran. The Assyrian genocide had led to thousands of Assyrians fleeing over to the Russians. Semyonov and Ungern-Sternberg Assyrian force was able to win some small victories over Turkish forces, but in the grand scheme of the theater it did not amount to much. The experience of forging such a group however led them to think about doing the same thing with Buryat troops in Siberia.  At the outbreak of the Russian civil war, Semyonov and Ungern-Sternberg declared themselves Romanov loyalists, joing the White Movement. They both vowed the defeat the Red Army and late into 1917, they as part of a combined group of 5 Cossacks managed to disarm 1500 Red soldiers at a Far Eastern Railway station in China near the Russian border. They took up a position there, preparing for a military expedition into the Transbaikal region, recruiting men into a Special Manchrian regiment. The White army managed to defeat the Red Army along the Far Eastern Railway territory. Semyonov eventually appointed Ungern-Sternberg to be the commander of a force at Dauria, a railway station at the strategic point southeast of Lake Baikal. Despite being part of the white movement, Semyonov and Ungern-Sternberg were quite rebellious. Semyonov for example refused to recognize the authority of Admiral Alexander Kolchak, the prominent white leader in Siberia. Semyonov fancied acting on his own and received support from the Japanese. Ungern-Sternberg, a subornidate to Semyonov also acted independently. Ungern-Sternberg also had his own reasons not to comply fully with Kolchak. Kolchak had promised after a White victory, he would reconvene the Consitutional Assembly, disband the Bolsheviks completely and then decide the future for Russia, that being whether it adopts the monarchy back or goes a different path. Ungern-Sternberg believed god had chosen Russia to be run by a monarchy and that its restoration came first.  Ungern-Sternberg performed successful military campains in Dauria and Hailar, earning the rank of Major-General, promtping Semyonov to enturst him with forming his own military unit to fight the communists. Both men gradually recruited Buryats and Mongols for the task, but they also were growing wary of another. Ungern-Sternberg was unhappy with Semyonov who he deemed to be corrupt, he also took issue with the mans love interest in a Jewish cabert singer, he was after all a rampant anti-semite. Ungern-Sternberg founded the volunteer based Asiatic Cavalry Division in Dauria, alongside a fortress. It is said at this fortress he would torture his red enemies and it was full of their bones.  As we mentioned in a previous episode, the Anhui Clique dispatched General Xu Shuzheng to occupy outer mongolia. However after the first Anhui-Zhili war, the Anhui clique was severely reduced and General Xu Shuzheng's forces in Mongolia were as well. This effectively left the Mongolian protectorate without their protectors. Chaos reigned as Chahar Mongols from Inner Mongolia began to fight with Khalkhas Mongols from Outer Mongolia. Seeing the disunity, Ungern-Sternberg saw a grand opportunity and made plans to take control of Mongolia. He began networking and married the Manchurian princess Ji at Harbin. Princess Ji was a relative of Genreal Zhang Kuiwu, the coammander of Chinese troops in the western part of the Chinese Manchurian railway as well as the govenror of Hailar. He also tried to arrange a meeting between Semyonov and Zhang Zuolin, Eventually Kolchak's white army was defeated by the Red Army and subsequently the Japanese pulled their expeditionary forces out of the Transbaikal region. This put Semyonov in a bad situation as he was unable to cope with the brunt of the impending Red forces, thus he planned to pull back into Manchuria. Ungern-Sternberg had a different idea however. He took his Asiatic Cavalry Division, roughly 1500 men at the time, consisting mostly of Russians, but there was also Cossacks, Buryats, Chinese and a few Japanese, with few machine guns and 4 artillery pieces. He broke his ties to Semyonov and took his division into Outer Mongolia in October of 1920. They gradually advanced to Urga where they ran into Chinees occupying forces. Ungern-Sternberg attempted to negotiate with the Chinese, demadning they disarm, but they rejected his terms. In late October and early November, Ungern-Sternbergs forces assaulted Urga, suffering two disasterous defeats. After this they assailed the Setsen-Khan aimag, a district north of the Kherlen River, ruld by Prince Setsen Khan. During his time in Mongolia Ungern-Sternberg befriended some Mongol forces seeking independence from the Chinese occupation, the most influential leader amongst them being Bogd Khan. Bogd Khan secretly made a pact with Unger-Sternberg, seeking his aid to expel the Chinese from Mongolia. Ungern-Sternberg went to work reorganizing his army. Apparently he had taken a liking to a Lt and gave the man full command over the medical division. During a withdrawal, the Lt raped multiple nurses in the medical division, many of whom were married to other officers, ordered settlements they ran by to be looted and ordered all the wounded the be poisoned because they were a nuisance. Ungern-Sternberg had the man flogged and burned at the stake. So yeah.  During the Chinese occupation of Outer Mongolia, they had initiated strict regulations over Buddhist services and imprisoned anyone whom they considered sought independence, including Russians. While Ungern-Sternberg had 1500 well trained troops, the Chinese had roughly 7000 still in Outer Mongolia. The Chinese enjoyed an advantage in more men, more machine guns, more artillery and they already had fortified Urga. On February 2nd, Ungern-Sternberg assaulted the front line of Urga again. His forces led by Captain Rezzukhin managed to capture a front-line fortificaiton near the Small and Big Madachan villages, due southeast of Urga. Ungern-Sternberg's forces also managed to rescue Bogd Khan who was under house arrests, transporting him to the Manjushri Monastery. Ungern-Sternberg then took a page out of Genghis Khan's note book, ordering his troops to light a large number of campfires in the hills surrounding Urga, trying to scare the Chinese into thinking they were more numerous. On February 4th, they attacked Chinese barracks east of Urga, captured them. Ungern-Sternberg then divided his force in two with the first attacking the Chinese trade settlement “Maimaicheng” and the secnd the Consular Settlement. Ungern-Sternbergs men used exlosives and improvised battering rams to blow open the gates to Maimaicheng. Upon storming the settlement, the battle turned into a melee of sabres, seeing both sides hack each other in a slaughter. Ungern-Sternbergs men took Maimaicheng, and soon joined up with the other force to attack the COnsulder Settlement. The Chinese launched a counter attack, forcing Ungern-Sternbergs men northeast somewhat, but then he counter attacked sending them back to Urga. By the night of the 4th, Urga would fall to the invaders. The Chinese civilian and military officials simply fled for their lives in 11 cars, abandoning the soldiers. The Chinese troops followed suite aftwards heading north, massacring all Mongolian civilians they came across, heading over the Russian border. The Red Russians resided in Urga fled alongside them. The Chinese suffered apparently 1500 men, while Ungern-Sternberg recorded only 60 casualties for his force. Ungern-Sternbergs troops were welcomed with open arms as liberators. The populace of Urga hated their tyrannical Chinese overlords and believed the Russians were their salvation. Then the Russian began plundering the Chinese run stores and hunted down Russian Jews still in the city. Ungern-Sternberg personally ordered the execution of all Jews in the city unless they had special notes handed out by him sparing their lives. It is estimated roughly 50 Jews were killed by Ungern-Sternbergs men in Mongolia. Urga's Jewish community was annihilated. After a few days, Ungern-Sternberg had set up a quasi secret police force led by Colonel Leonid Sipalov who hunted Red Russians. Meanwhile Ungern-Sternberg's army seized the Chinese fortified base at Choi due south of Urga. During the attack the Russians number 900, the Chinese garrison roughly 1500. After taking the fort, the Russians returned to Urga as Ungern-Sternberg dispatched expeditionary groups to find Chinese strength. They came across a abandoned Chinese fort at Zamyn-Uud, taking it without resistance. Most of the Chinese troops left in Mongolia withdrew north to Kyakhta where they were trying find a way to get around the Urga region to escape back to China. Ungern-Sternberg and his men assumed they were trying to reorganize to recapture Urga so he dispatched forces to assail them. Chinese forces were advancing through the area of Talyn Ulaaankhad Hill when Ungern-Sternberg initiated a battle. The battle saw nearly 1000 Chinese, 100 Mongols and various amounts of Russians, Buryats and others killed. The Chinese forces routed during the battle, fleeing south until they got over the Chinese border. After this action, the Chinese effectively had departed Outer Mongolia. On February 22nd february of 1921, Ungern-Sternberg, Mongolian prince and Lamas, held a ceremony to restore the Bogd Khan to the throne. To reward their savior, Bogd Khan granted Ungern-Sternberg a high title, that of “darkhan khoshoi chin wang” in the degree of Khan. Once Semyonov heard of what Ungern-Sternberg had achieved, he likewise promoted him to Lt-General. On that same day, Mongolia proclaimed itself independent as a monarchy under the Bogd Khan, now the 8th Bogd Gegen Jebtsundamba Khutuktu. According to the eye witness account of the polish explorer Kamil Gizycki and polish writer Ferdynand Antoni Ossendowski, Ungern-Sternberg went to work ordering Urga's streets thoroughly cleaned, promoted religious tolerance, I would imagine for all excluding Jews and attempted some economic reforms.  The writer Ossendowski had previously served in Kolchaks government, but after its fall sought refugee in Mongolia. He became friends with Ungern-Sternberg, probably looking for a good story, I mean this maniac does make for a good story, hell I am covering him after all ahah. Ossendowski would write pieces of his experience in Mongolia in his book “Beasts, Men and Gods”. A soldier within Ungern-Sternbergs army, named Dmitri Alioshin wrote a novel as well of his experience titled Asian Odyssey and here is a passage about his description of Ungern-Sternberg and his closest followers beliefs. “The whole world is rotten. Greed, hatred and cruelty are in the saddle. We intend to organize a new empire; a new civilization. It will be called the Middle Asiatic Buddhist Empire, carved out of Mongolia, Manchuria and Eastern Siberia. Communication has already been established for that purpose with Djan-Zo-Lin, the war lord of Manchuria, and with Hutukhta, the Living Buddha of Mongolia. Here in these historic plains we will organize an army as powerful as that of Genghis Khan. Then we will move, as that great man did, and smash the whole of Europe. The world must die so that a new and better world may come forth, reincarnated on a higher plane.” Within that passage there was mention of Hutukhta, he was the dominant Buddha of Mongolia at the time. Hutukhta did not share Ungern-Sternbergs dream of restoring Monarchies all across the world and he understood the mans army could not hope to defend them from Soviet or Chinese invaders. In April of 1921, Hutukhta wrote to Beijing asking if the Chinese government was interesting in resuming their protectorship.  In the meantime Ungern-Sternberg began looking for funds. He approached several Chinese warlords, such as Zhang Zuolin, but all rejected him. He also continued his tyrannical treatment never against Mongolians, but against Russians within Mongolia. Its estimated his secret police force killed 846 people, with roughly 120 being in Urga. Ungern-Sternbergs men were not at all happy about the brutality he inflicted upon their fellow Russians. Yet Ungern-Sternbergs days of psychopathic fun were soon to come to an end. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. Poor Mongolia was stuck between two crumbling empires, who both became engulfed in violent civil wars. The spill over from their wars saw Mongolia become a protectorate to the Chinese, nearly a satellite communist state to the USSR and now was independent, but really at the mercy of the White army of Ungern-Sternberg. The psychopath was having a field day, but it was about to come to an end. 

Last time we spoke about the invasion of Outer Mongolia and the First Anhui-Zhili War. During the Xinhai Revolution, Outer Mongolia declared independence from the Qing Dynasty. Conflict arose between Mongolian nobles and Chinese authorities, leading to the formation of a provisional government under Jebtsundamba Khutuktu. Then the Russian civil war led to Russian encroachment of both red and white forces. Russian influence grew, particularly through Grigory Semyonov's attempt to establish a pan-Mongolian state. Duan Qirui seized the opportunity to invade Mongolia under the guise it was to thwart Bolshevism. While he did this to save face, it actually resulted in further conflict, this time with the Fengtian Clique. Wu Peifu and Zhang Zuolin combined their cliques to face Duan Qirui winning a very unexpected victory over the Anhui Clique. Duan Qirui resigned from all his posts in disgrace and now the Anhui Clique was a shadow of its former self.   #99 The First Guangdong-Guangxi War   Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. We just covered the first major war in the north, the first Anhui-Zhili War. Out of all the books and even the very few youtube videos I have seen trying to cover China's Warlord Era, typically they do First Anhui-Zhili War, then follow this up with the first Zhili-Fengtian war, second zhili-fengtian war, rarely the anti-fengtian war then suddenly everything jumps south into the Northern Expedition. The reality of China's Warlord era however, is that there really is not chronological series of events. For those statician's out there, its more like a horrifying ANOVA study, if you get the reference, we both share a certain pain haha. Multiple military wars and political wars were raging across China and they all affected other peoples and events, causing this nightmare of incoherency. For this series I am going to try my best to do it in a chronological order, and stating that we are jumping south today.  Back to Yuan Shikai, in 1915 when he was planning to proclaim himself Emperor Walrus over a new dynasty, as we saw multiple provinces declared independence, some even actively rebelled. One of these provinces was Guangxi where Viceroy Lu Rongting declared an open rebellion against Yuan Shikai. Lu Rongting had been appointed governor over Guangxi after the second revolution. Yet after Cai E and Tang Jiyao unleashed the National Protection War, Lu immediately bandwagoned. Some historians suggest Lu Rongting did this because he felt Yuan Shikai was overlooking him and actively preventing him from expanding his sphere of influence into Guangdong. After the death of Yuan Shikai, the new president, Li Yuanhong appointed Lu Rongting as the governor of Guangdong, but this certainly did not sit well with Long Jiguang. Long Jiguang was the current governor of Guangdong and a supporter of Duan Qirui and the Anhui Clique. He was secretly working inline with the Anhui Clique, obeying the Beiyang government, undermining the National Protection movement in the south. When his colleagues such as Liang Qichao, Wang Chonghui and Tang Shaoyi found out they were the ones who asked president Li Yuanghong to get rid of him. Long Jiguang stated he was unwilling to resign his post, and this prompted Lu Rongting to dispatch Mo Rongxin, Ma Ji and Tan Haoming to lead a Guangxi based army to invade Guangdong to get rid of its pesky rebellious governor, or I guess better said anti-rebellious governor.  Now rewinding a bit, when Zhang Xun forced Li Yuanhong to dissolve parliament, Guangdong and Guangxi both declared independence, I think for the 4th time? Hard to keep track of how many times southern provinces declare independence to be honest. When Zhang Xun restored the Manchu monarchy, this prompted Dr Sun Yat-Sen to sail south from Shanghai to Guangzhou to start a rebellion movement, because Mr. Sun is gunna do Mr. Sun stuff. Dr Sun Yat-Sen planned to rely on the power of southwestern provinces to rebel against this new tyrannical monarchy. Then in a matter of days, Zhang Xun's great restoration failed and Duan Qirui became the de facto leader over Beijing with his Anhui Clique dominating the scene in north china. Dr Sun Yat-Sen had planned for a political war, but Duan Qirui dissolved all means of doing so, now the only options were militarily.  On August 25th, a meeting was held in Guangzhou where Dr Sun Yat-Sen announced he was going to launch a Northern Expedition with himself as Generalissimo. A new military government, or I guess you can call it a Junta was formed and Lu Rongting and Tang Jiyao were both appointed Marshals within it. Many armies were mobilized in Hunan, Guangdong, Yunnan and Guangxi. Respective cliques within these provinces all mobilized for their own reasons. One of these armies was commanded by Long Jiguang, though much of his military strength had been depleted during the second revolution. All he had left was 20 battalions, roughly 5000 men. There were several local militia styled armies, such as the “Fu Army” led by Li Fulin or the second Mixed Brigade of Huang Mingtang, but even with these added, Long Jiguang could not hope to face what was coming his way. The armies in Guangxi and Yunnan were better organized, better equipped and more numerous at this time. After the Junta had been created, the Beiyang government took it as a threat obviously and began to put into motion plans to destroy it. At first the governor of Chaomei, Mo Qingyu was sent with military forces to disband the Junta. He was decisively defeated by a coalition army commanded by Chen Bingkun, Shen Hognying, Lin Hu and Dr Sun Yat-Sen. After this Dr Sun Yat-Sen appointed Chen Jiongming to be the commander in chief of the Fujian and Guangdong Army. Then Dr Sun Yat-Sen, through his ally Zhu Qinglan managed to transfer command of the 20th battalion of the Guangdong Army to Chen Jiongming. Chen Jiongming took these troops and immediately attacked the Fujian governor Li Houji, occupying Longyan, Zhangzhou, Tingzhou and other areas along the Fujian, Guangdong border area. After doing this he proclaimed himself a defender of the area and began taxing the populace, being a warlord 101 basically. He established an independence base area in the eastern part of Guangdong and the southern part of Fujian, which was not cooperating with the Old Guangxi Clique.  Now back to Lu Rongting. Lu Rongting was running out of allies. He had backed Duan Qirui, who was forced to give up his posts, and now Feng Guozhang and his Zhili clique were the big dogs in Beijing. Lu Rongting was unsure how to proceed, so he began publicly supporting Dr Sun Yat-Sen and the Guangzhou government. Lu Rongting then tried to dismantle the Guangzhou government through a reconciliation effort with the Beiyang government. Lu Rongting was basically turning everyone against Dr Sun Yat-Sen growing the Old Guangxi Cliques influence. Dr Sun Yat-Sen could see the paint on the wall, so he resigned from his position in May of 1918. An election was quickly held seeing Cen Chunxuan, another Old Guangxi member become president over the Guangzhou government, but in reality, Lu Rongting was pulling the strings. In the meantime, Chen Jiongming over in his area was also doing something similar by trying to negotiate a peace with Beijing. In 1918, Chen Jiongming was appointed by the Guangzhou government as the governor of Fujian province in October. Chen Jiongming set up simple government agencies, actively maintained the social order dominated by local gentry, and vigorously built Zhangzhou's urban infrastructure, reclaimed wasteland, and developed modern education and industry. During the period of protecting the law, merchants gathered in Zhangzhou and the market flourished. While he made Zhangzhou a sort of central government station, overall he was quite the anarchist in how he sought things to be done. By December, Chen Jiongming resigned stating publicly "My governorship over Fujian is in vain because we cannot feed the hungry, clothe the cold, and defend our army in battle. Fujian should be governed by Fujianese”  In December of 1919, Dr Sun Yat-Sen saw Guangdong was building an army and stating publicly  "Today's urgent task of saving the country is to pacify the Gui thieves first and unify the southwest" Dr Sun Yat-Sen planned to return to Guangdong to attack the Old Guangxi Clique forces. Heordered Chen Jiongming several times to send troops to help drive away the Old Guangxi Cliques,  however, in his words "Chen Jiongming made no reply despite repeated calls to urge her to return to Guangdong." Zhu Zhixin, was dispatched 3 times to Zhangzhou with orders of Dr Sun Yat-sen to urge Chen Jiongming to mobilize. He wrote back to Dr Sun Yat-Sen: "Chen Jiongming's forces have exhausted all their strength and are as tired as ever. At this time, the relationship has been hurt, and it is useless to mobilize." Reading between the lines of these sorts of statements and messages, Chen Jiongming clearly had issues with Dr Sun Yat-Sens politics and did not want to get involved at the time. Thus until July of 1920 the Old Guangxi Clique was continuing to negotiate with the Zhili Clique officials controlling the Beiyang government. They agreed to help expel Duan Qirui and his Anhui goons, if the Old Guangxi clique guys would help expel Dr Sun Yat-Sen's followers in Guangdong. On July 14th however, the first Anhui-Zhili war broke out. Li Houji the governor of Fujian at the time, expressed a desire to support the Anhui clique's military and requested Guangdong forces depart southern Fujian. On July 15th, figures in the fractured Chinese navy such as Xu Shaozhen and Li Qian who supported Dr Sun Yat-Sen organized thousands of troops to fight the Old Guangxi clique. Xu Shaozhen became commander in chief and led the forces to attack Guangzhou from 5 different directions. On August 11th, the Old Guangxi clique mobilized their forces, thus beginning the Guangdong-Guangxi War or the first Yue-Gui War. The Old Guangxi Clique had roughly 70,000 troops, but they were by no means a unified force. There were the combined forces of Guizhou Warlords, Yunnan Warlords and Zhejiang Warlords. The Guizhou forces were led by Liu Zhilu, the Zhejiang forces were led by Lu Gongwang and the Yunnan forces were led by Fang Sengtao. The Guizhou would attack Guangdong with the Zhejiang army on their right and the Yunnanese to their left. Guangdong meanwhile would have roughly 25,000 troops led surprising by Chen Jiongming who had a change of heart, he was also aided by Xu Chongzhi and Hong Zhaolin. Chen Jiongming on the 12th of August had suddenly sworn an oath at the Zhangzhou park condemning Mo Rongxin, here is the statement “Ever since Mo Rongxin and others seized control of Guangdong, they have harmed our people in every possible way. The will of the people will be destroyed, the people killed, and expelled...to the extent that they condone the robbers and beggars' soldiers and harass Yan Lu, which is even more difficult to describe. The pain our people suffered from the loss of their provinces was a hundred times greater than the pain suffered by Korea, Annan, and Poland. They are naturally thieves, and seeking money and killing people is their usual skill. Recently, the bandits stationed in Hunan and Guangxi moved into Fujian to oppress our army. Their only intention is to hate the Cantonese people and act as if they are an enemy country... The Cantonese army today is fighting for the hometown and the country, and all its factions and other issues are unknown. It is to swear an oath with tears and to tell each other sincerely. My fellow countrymen, please take this opportunity to learn from me! All officers and men of the Guangdong army kowtowed together”. Chen Jiongming would also go on to accuse Mo Rongxin of "The Gui regards Guangdong as a conquered territory... Now that we are facing heavy troops, it is really unbearable. Although I am weak, I am willing to fight to the death" On August 16th the main bulk of the Old Guangxi clique forces had not yet reached the Guangdong-Fujian border, thus Chen Jiongming set up his headquarters at Zhang Ji Villages, leaving 20 battalions behind in Zhangzhou as a reserve. Chen Jiongming then took personal commander of the central forces, dispatched armies led by Li Bingrong, Deng Benyin, Luo Shaoxiong, Xiong Lue, amongst other officers to attack Raoping and Chao'an from the direction of Pinghe. After this they would break through Fengshun and Zijin, coordinating with a left and right wing. Meanwhile the left wing of Hong Zhaolin and Liang Hongkai led forces from Yunxiao and Zhao'an to attack Chenghai and Shantou while Xu Chongzhi commanding the right wing attacked Jioaling and Shantou from Shanghang. In all around 82 battalions were engaging two major fronts.  The eastern part of Guangdong had been under Guizhou warlord rule for over 4 years when suddenly Chen Jiongming called “the Cantonese people to govern Guangdong and implement democratic politics”. The people there rallied to him, and this would have a profound effect on the war there. The left Guangdong army that departed Zhao'an quickly crossed the border where they defeated troops under Liu Zhilu, the commander of a major Guangxi army. After defeated him they stormed the garrisons at Chaomei, Huanggang, Chenghai and were approaching Shantou. On the 19th, Yu Yingyang, the commander of an artillery battalion under Liu Zhilu had already seized Shantou and declared independence and his desire to defect to the Guangdong army. Honestly this is how most battles worked in the warlord era, subordinate officers looking to dodge a real battle by switching sides, typically selling out their bosses in the process. This prompted Liu Zhilu to flee for Guangzhou. The next day, Deng Keng led the left Guangdong army to capture Shantou and soon they were pursuing the Guizhou forces towards Jieyang and Chaoyang.  Meanwhile the right Guangdong army crossed the border from Yongding to attack Dabu Sanheba. Dabu Sanheba fell on the 16th, and it was followed the next day by Jiaoling. On the 18th an entire day of fighting was seen near Meixian where forces under Liu Daqing, commander of a Guangxi army and the governor of Huizhou were defeated. Meixian was captured on the 19th and Xingning on the 20th. After this the forward Guangxi army had collapsed allowing the Guangdong army to redirect itself towards Longchun and Heyuan. The army in Zhejiang watched the situation, but kept out of it while the Yunnan forces simply began a withdrawal as it seemed clear the Guangdong forces were likely to win. Again, the Guangdong forces were outnumbered perhaps 3 to 1, but these types of battles and lesser wars were won and done by perspectives.  Ye Ju was leading a central thrust for the Guangdong forces, quickly taking Chao'an and Raoping. As he advanced towards Gaopo and Fengshun, there he encountered real resistance. 6 to 7000 men under the Guizhou clique General Zhuo Guiting stood firm, fighting Ye Ju for two days. Then the left wing of the Guangdong army captured Shantou and the right wing the upper reaches of the Dongjiang river, prompting General Zhuo Guiting to order a retreat. As his men fled, the reached the vicinity of Shigongshen where they were intercepted by Yang Kunru leading another Guangdong army who assailed them a long way.On the 26th the Chaomei area in eastern Guangdong was captured. On the same day, Dr Sun Yat Sen proclaimed "The Guangdong army attacked the thieves and recovered Chao and Mei in a few days. The speed of arriving here really broke the courage of the Gui thieves." This caused a panic in Lu Rongting who deployed troops from Guangxi to reinforce the front. The Guangxi army mobilized the first army of Ma Ji, 2nd army of Lin Hu, elements of the 3rd army of Shen Hongying, the 1st Brigade Marine Corps of Li Genyuang and other brigades to the front lines which were now at Heyuan, Boluo and Huiyang. The Guangdong forces continued their march seeing the right wing take Laolong on September 2nd. The battle along the front line was brutal and lost until October. Wei Bangping and Li Fulin representing the Guangzhou government attempted peace talks with the Guangdong forces, as the situation was looking increasingly bad for the Old Guangxi clique. The Old Guangxi clique dispatched police forces to crack down on newspapers, banning numerous publications that were critical of their war efforts. On the 13th of september all newspaper in Guangzhou ceased publications and any newspapers coming over from Hong Kong were confiscated for “publishing false military reports and subverting operations”. Meanwhile, starting in early September the Guangdong forces began working alongside the Cantonese people chanting slogans like “Cantonese people save yourselves, Cantonese people govern Guangdong”.  Heyuan at the frontlines was the gateway to Huizhou. To defend Huizhou, the Guizhou forces had unleashed a month-long bloody battle. To help the war effort, Dr Sun Yat-Sen sent word to Zhu Zhixun over at the Pearl River Estuary, to mobilize the troops garrisoning the Human Fortress to rebel against the Guangxi menace. On September 16th, Zhu Zhixin managed to instigate a small rebellion. The commander of the Human Fortress garrison, Qiu Weinan declared independence from Guangxi, and during the mayhem that soon ensued he was killed by a stray bullet. Despite this, the Guangdong army had won a series of victories, managing to launch a province wide war to expel the Guangxi menace. Civilian forces were uprising against them, in late september Wei Bangping, the director of Police forces for Guangdong and Li Fulin the garrison commander of Guanghui who also happened to be a former Old Guangxi clique member, covertly moved troops from Xiangshen, Foshan and other places to the south bank of the pearl river in Guangzhou. There they declared the independence of Henan on the 26th. All the inland riverway warships and railway lines were taken and soon a letter was sent to Mo Rongxin urging him to quote "Return the power of governing Guangdong Province to the Cantonese people, and lead his troops back to Guangxi to avoid military disasters." Then Wei Bangping and Li Fulin led forces into Sanshui taking control over the vital Guangsan Road, effectively cutting off the Guizhou Army's supply line going from Xijiang to Guangzhou. This was a heavy blow to the Guizhou Army's rear and ability to continue the war effort. During this same time, Huang Mingtang the commander in chief of the 4th army seized Leizhou; Zheng Runqi the deputy commander under Wei Bangpings 5th Army raised a new force in Xiangshan and Chen Dechun the superintendent of Qingxiang and deputy commander of the 2nd army declared independence at Wuyi. From here Taishan, Xinhui, Kaiping, Enping, and Chixi fell under civilian army control. Qujiang, Yingde, and Qingyuan in Beijiang, Gaoyao, Xingxing and other counties in Xijiang, and Qinlian and Qiongya in the south all declared independence one after another. Within the dire circumstances, Mo Rongxin convened a meeting of over 30 representatives from the Guangzhou Chamber of commerce, the Provincial Council and the Public security association on October 2nd. The representatives proposed Mo Rongxin step down so Tang Yanguang could take his position and for the war to end as quickly as possible. On October 14th of 1920, all officers of the Guangzhou Navy held a closed door meeting in Haungpu Park where they unanimously opposed a new effort brought forward by Lin Baoyi, the commander in Chief of their navy to unify the northern and southern navies. On the 19th workers of the Guangdong-Hankou railway then launched a general strike, armed with pistols and explosives which they used against the Guizhou Army forces trying to use railway lines. Over 30 schools in Guangzhou then formed a mass meeting about the entire debacle and what they should do. The principals of the schools proclaimed "if Mr. Mo doesnt leave Guangdong, classes will not be held in each school."  Back on the frontlines, on October the 16th the Guangdong right army finally captured Heyuan, opening the way to Huizhou. Simultaneously the central and left Guangdong armies captured Yong'an, Xiangpu, Lantang, Hengli and Sanduozhu effectively pressing the battle towards Huizhou. Now Huizhou is surrounded by mountains and rivers, making it quite easy to defend. Mo Rongxin concentrated the strength of his 40th Battalion there. At this point the commander of the 2nd army, Xu Chongzhi fell ill, prompting Chen Jiongming to replace him with a man named Chiang Kai-Shek. Chiang Kai-shek joined up in the middle army to begin a siege of Huizhou. The Guangdong forces would captured Huizhou by the 22nd. The very next day, Chen Jiongming held a meeting within the city and the commanders decided to march upon Zengcheng, Shillong and Dongguan in three directions. After this they would attack Guangzhou to finish the campaign.  During this crisis the populations of Bao'an, Sanshui and other nearby cities began an uprising, lashing out against the Guizhou army. As Dr Sun Yat-Sen recalled "The strong people raised their flags and responded, while the old and weak people welcomed them. This is quite the charm of the Revolution of 1911." Within Guangzhou, civilians launched waves of worker strikes, school strikes and general strikes. Mo Rongxin had run out of forces to fall upon, it was all falling apart. On the 24th, Lu Rongting, acting in the name of the president of the Guangzhou government declared the dissolution of the government and the independence of Guangdong and Guangxi. The president of the Guangzhou government, Cen Chunxuan fled for Shanghai. On the 25th of October, Shilon was taken, the next day Dongguan fell and finally seeing the situation was over, Mo Rongxin canceled the supposed Guangdong independence movement. On the 27th Zengcheng fell as Mo Rongxin had the Guangzhou Arsenal blown up and the governors seal was given to Tang Tingguang as he fled the city. Yang Yongtai, the governor of Guangdong province resigned via a telegram, handing his governor seal to Wei Bangping. On the 28th, Jiongming deployed forces to Guangzhou and around the areas of Shougouling and Baiyun to try and catch fleeing enemies. The three Guangdong armies gathered around Guangzhou, launching a general offensive together on the 29th. Mo Rongxin after fleecing after department he could fled with 10,000 remaining loyal troops west as Guangzhou was finally captured. On the 30th, Wang Jingwei and Liao Zhongkai sent telegrams to Dr Sun Yat-Sen stating they were going to appoint Chen Jiongming as the governor of Guangdong; to remove Lin Baoyi as commander in chief of the navy and replace him with Tang Yanguang. On November 1st, Chen Jiongming became the governor of Guangdong and remained the commander in chief of the Guangdong Army. On november 2nd, Chen Jiongming liberated the Guangzhou-Kowloon Railway, denying its use to Cen Chunxuan and Mo Rongxin. The same day, Xu Chongzhi paraded through Guangzhou to raise morale for the citizenry, newspapers reported "the citizens rejoiced and rushed to set off cannons. Looking at all the situations, there was a sign of great joy." On the 6th, Tang Tingguang handed the governor seal to Chen Jiongming and sent a telegram dismissing the governor of Guangdong. On the 10th, Chen Jiongming was officially elected governor over Guangdong. Yet the enemy was still not fully defeated. The Guizhou army was retreating along the Xijiang River, where they performed a scorched earth policy, burning and looting every town they came by along the river. They also set up outposts along the Xijiang and Beijing rivers to prevent the Guangdong army from following. To rid the province of the nuisance, Chen Jiongming reorganized the entire Guangdong Army into 5 armies. The 1st army was personally commanded by Chen Jiongming who also acted as commander in chief; the 2nd army went back to Xu Chongzhi, the 3rd to Hong Zhaolin, the 4th to Li Fulin and the 5th to Wei Bangping. After resupplying, the Guangdong army marched west into two large groups to pursue the enemy to Guangxi. When the Guangdong forces entered Guangzhou, the Guizhou army first retreated to Zhaoqing. Because Wei Bangping and Li Fulin seized control over the Guangsan route, the Guangxi Army could only retreat from the Guangdong-Han Road. While under attack, the Guizhou Army divided its self into two groupsl one led by Ma Ji and Shen Hongying who retreated north along the Yua-Han road, the other led by Lin Hu and Han Caifeng headed further south. The Guangdong army pursued their enemy over both land and river, seizing Zhaoqing on the 15th. By the 21st, Lu Rongting ordered all forces still in Guangdong to return swiftly into Guangxi. This effectively was the end of the Guangdong-Guangxi war. On November 28th, Dr Sun Yat-sen returned to Guangzhou from Shanghai via Hong Kong and announced the reorganization of the military government. Overall what would be the first Guangdong-Guangxi war had ended the old Guangxi Clique. The Old Guangxi clique was not down for the count, but they had severely lost face. Guangxi province was not the most developed one in China, it made it very difficult to raise funds to keep the army going. Lu Rongtings ability to control and influence the Old Guangxi Clique began to dwindle. It would only force him and others to perform an identical war against Guangdong in 1921, in desperation to maintain their power. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. In the grand scheme of things, it was another drop in the bucket, yet it was extremely representative of the regular ongoing of China's warlord era. Wherever you looked from 1918-1928, regional warlords fought petty wars to control strategic regions, simply to further exert their own power. For the Old Guangxi Clique it was a bitter lesson, not that they learnt from it though.

Here's a quick draw episode with some thoughts on shoehorning Bolshevism into video game lore, followed by some talking points on the recent H.R. 6090 Thought Police Bill.

65 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Thomas continues a short series on the work of historian and philosopher Ernst Nolte. Here, Thomas talks about the threat of Bolshevism to the world's existence.Thomas' SubstackThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777VIP Summit 3-Truth To Freedom - Autonomy w/ Richard GroveSupport Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Sir Basil Thomson (1861–1939) was a British colonial administrator and prison governor, born in Oxford. He hailed from an esteemed background, with his father, William Thomson, serving as the provost of The Queen's College in Oxford before later becoming the Archbishop of York. Basil Thomson received his education at New College, Oxford, where he crossed paths with Montague John Druitt, a figure later implicated in the Jack the Ripper case. Despite starting his career in colonial service, Thomson's resignation was prompted by his wife's ailing health in 1893. This marked a significant turning point, leading him to transition into a new role as a writer, drawing inspiration from his experiences in the South Sea Islands. In June 1913, Thomson assumed the pivotal role of Assistant Commissioner "C" (Crime) within London's Metropolitan Police, ascending to head the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) at New Scotland Yard. With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, Thomson's leadership became instrumental in apprehending spies and addressing the challenges posed by Indian and Irish nationalists. Despite his successes, Thomson's tenure was not without controversy, notably facing accusations of anti-Semitism due to his views associating Jews with Bolshevism. Additionally, his involvement in high-profile cases such as that of Mata Hari further solidified his reputation as a formidable figure in law enforcement. Thomson's literary pursuits included the publication of "Mr Pepper, Investigator" in 1925, a collection of humorous detective stories. Among these tales, "The Vanishing of Mrs. Fraser" stands out as a celebrated work that left a lasting impact on mystery fiction. Thomson's storytelling prowess and wit shine through in these narratives, showcasing his ability to captivate readers with engaging plots and memorable characters. "Mr Pepper, Investigator" serves as a testament to Thomson's multifaceted talents, demonstrating his versatility both as a law enforcement professional and as a writer in the realm of detective fiction. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How can territory and peoples be organized? After the dissolution of empires, was the nation-state the only way to unite people politically, culturally, and economically?  In Post-Imperial Possibilities: Eurasia, Eurafrica, Afroasia (Princeton UP, 2023), historians Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper examine three large-scale, transcontinental projects aimed at bringing together peoples of different regions to mitigate imperial legacies of inequality. Eurasia, Eurafrica, and Afroasia—in theory if not in practice—offered alternative routes out of empire. The theory of Eurasianism was developed after the collapse of imperial Russia by exiled intellectuals alienated by both Western imperialism and communism. Eurafrica began as a design for collaborative European exploitation of Africa but was transformed in the 1940s and 1950s into a project to include France's African territories in plans for European integration. The Afroasian movement wanted to replace the vertical relationship of colonizer and colonized with a horizontal relationship among former colonial territories that could challenge both the communist and capitalist worlds. Both Eurafrica and Afroasia floundered, victims of old and new vested interests. But Eurasia revived in the 1990s, when Russian intellectuals turned the theory's attack on Western hegemony into a recipe for the restoration of Russian imperial power. While both the system of purportedly sovereign states and the concentrated might of large economic and political institutions continue to frustrate projects to overcome inequities in welfare and power, Burbank and Cooper‘s study of political imagination explores wide-ranging concepts of social affiliation and obligation that emerged after empire and the reasons for their unlike destinies. This is Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper second major scholarly collaboration. They previously co-authored Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference (Princeton University Press, 2010). Frederick Cooper is Professor Emeritus of History at New York University. His research has focused on 20th-century Africa, empires, colonization and decolonization, and citizenship. Among his books are Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History (2005); Citizenship between Empire and Nation: Remaking France and French Africa, 1945-1960 (2014); Africa in the World: Capitalism, Empire, Nation-State (2014); Citizenship, Inequality, and Difference: Historical Perspectives (2018); and Africa since 1940: The Past of the Present (2nd ed., 2019). Jane Burbank is Professor Emerita, New York University. Her areas of research are Russian political culture, law, and empire. Her works include Intelligentsia and Revolution: Russian Views of Bolshevism, 1917-1922 (1986); Russian Peasants Go to Court: Legal Culture in the Countryside, 1905-1917 (2004); Imperial Russia: New Histories for the Empire, edited with David L. Ransel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998); Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700-1930, edited with Mark von Hagen and Anatolyi Remnev (2007). 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

How can territory and peoples be organized? After the dissolution of empires, was the nation-state the only way to unite people politically, culturally, and economically?  In Post-Imperial Possibilities: Eurasia, Eurafrica, Afroasia (Princeton UP, 2023), historians Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper examine three large-scale, transcontinental projects aimed at bringing together peoples of different regions to mitigate imperial legacies of inequality. Eurasia, Eurafrica, and Afroasia—in theory if not in practice—offered alternative routes out of empire. The theory of Eurasianism was developed after the collapse of imperial Russia by exiled intellectuals alienated by both Western imperialism and communism. Eurafrica began as a design for collaborative European exploitation of Africa but was transformed in the 1940s and 1950s into a project to include France's African territories in plans for European integration. The Afroasian movement wanted to replace the vertical relationship of colonizer and colonized with a horizontal relationship among former colonial territories that could challenge both the communist and capitalist worlds. Both Eurafrica and Afroasia floundered, victims of old and new vested interests. But Eurasia revived in the 1990s, when Russian intellectuals turned the theory's attack on Western hegemony into a recipe for the restoration of Russian imperial power. While both the system of purportedly sovereign states and the concentrated might of large economic and political institutions continue to frustrate projects to overcome inequities in welfare and power, Burbank and Cooper‘s study of political imagination explores wide-ranging concepts of social affiliation and obligation that emerged after empire and the reasons for their unlike destinies. This is Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper second major scholarly collaboration. They previously co-authored Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference (Princeton University Press, 2010). Frederick Cooper is Professor Emeritus of History at New York University. His research has focused on 20th-century Africa, empires, colonization and decolonization, and citizenship. Among his books are Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History (2005); Citizenship between Empire and Nation: Remaking France and French Africa, 1945-1960 (2014); Africa in the World: Capitalism, Empire, Nation-State (2014); Citizenship, Inequality, and Difference: Historical Perspectives (2018); and Africa since 1940: The Past of the Present (2nd ed., 2019). Jane Burbank is Professor Emerita, New York University. Her areas of research are Russian political culture, law, and empire. Her works include Intelligentsia and Revolution: Russian Views of Bolshevism, 1917-1922 (1986); Russian Peasants Go to Court: Legal Culture in the Countryside, 1905-1917 (2004); Imperial Russia: New Histories for the Empire, edited with David L. Ransel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998); Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700-1930, edited with Mark von Hagen and Anatolyi Remnev (2007). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

How can territory and peoples be organized? After the dissolution of empires, was the nation-state the only way to unite people politically, culturally, and economically?  In Post-Imperial Possibilities: Eurasia, Eurafrica, Afroasia (Princeton UP, 2023), historians Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper examine three large-scale, transcontinental projects aimed at bringing together peoples of different regions to mitigate imperial legacies of inequality. Eurasia, Eurafrica, and Afroasia—in theory if not in practice—offered alternative routes out of empire. The theory of Eurasianism was developed after the collapse of imperial Russia by exiled intellectuals alienated by both Western imperialism and communism. Eurafrica began as a design for collaborative European exploitation of Africa but was transformed in the 1940s and 1950s into a project to include France's African territories in plans for European integration. The Afroasian movement wanted to replace the vertical relationship of colonizer and colonized with a horizontal relationship among former colonial territories that could challenge both the communist and capitalist worlds. Both Eurafrica and Afroasia floundered, victims of old and new vested interests. But Eurasia revived in the 1990s, when Russian intellectuals turned the theory's attack on Western hegemony into a recipe for the restoration of Russian imperial power. While both the system of purportedly sovereign states and the concentrated might of large economic and political institutions continue to frustrate projects to overcome inequities in welfare and power, Burbank and Cooper‘s study of political imagination explores wide-ranging concepts of social affiliation and obligation that emerged after empire and the reasons for their unlike destinies. This is Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper second major scholarly collaboration. They previously co-authored Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference (Princeton University Press, 2010). Frederick Cooper is Professor Emeritus of History at New York University. His research has focused on 20th-century Africa, empires, colonization and decolonization, and citizenship. Among his books are Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History (2005); Citizenship between Empire and Nation: Remaking France and French Africa, 1945-1960 (2014); Africa in the World: Capitalism, Empire, Nation-State (2014); Citizenship, Inequality, and Difference: Historical Perspectives (2018); and Africa since 1940: The Past of the Present (2nd ed., 2019). Jane Burbank is Professor Emerita, New York University. Her areas of research are Russian political culture, law, and empire. Her works include Intelligentsia and Revolution: Russian Views of Bolshevism, 1917-1922 (1986); Russian Peasants Go to Court: Legal Culture in the Countryside, 1905-1917 (2004); Imperial Russia: New Histories for the Empire, edited with David L. Ransel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998); Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700-1930, edited with Mark von Hagen and Anatolyi Remnev (2007). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

How can territory and peoples be organized? After the dissolution of empires, was the nation-state the only way to unite people politically, culturally, and economically?  In Post-Imperial Possibilities: Eurasia, Eurafrica, Afroasia (Princeton UP, 2023), historians Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper examine three large-scale, transcontinental projects aimed at bringing together peoples of different regions to mitigate imperial legacies of inequality. Eurasia, Eurafrica, and Afroasia—in theory if not in practice—offered alternative routes out of empire. The theory of Eurasianism was developed after the collapse of imperial Russia by exiled intellectuals alienated by both Western imperialism and communism. Eurafrica began as a design for collaborative European exploitation of Africa but was transformed in the 1940s and 1950s into a project to include France's African territories in plans for European integration. The Afroasian movement wanted to replace the vertical relationship of colonizer and colonized with a horizontal relationship among former colonial territories that could challenge both the communist and capitalist worlds. Both Eurafrica and Afroasia floundered, victims of old and new vested interests. But Eurasia revived in the 1990s, when Russian intellectuals turned the theory's attack on Western hegemony into a recipe for the restoration of Russian imperial power. While both the system of purportedly sovereign states and the concentrated might of large economic and political institutions continue to frustrate projects to overcome inequities in welfare and power, Burbank and Cooper‘s study of political imagination explores wide-ranging concepts of social affiliation and obligation that emerged after empire and the reasons for their unlike destinies. This is Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper second major scholarly collaboration. They previously co-authored Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference (Princeton University Press, 2010). Frederick Cooper is Professor Emeritus of History at New York University. His research has focused on 20th-century Africa, empires, colonization and decolonization, and citizenship. Among his books are Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History (2005); Citizenship between Empire and Nation: Remaking France and French Africa, 1945-1960 (2014); Africa in the World: Capitalism, Empire, Nation-State (2014); Citizenship, Inequality, and Difference: Historical Perspectives (2018); and Africa since 1940: The Past of the Present (2nd ed., 2019). Jane Burbank is Professor Emerita, New York University. Her areas of research are Russian political culture, law, and empire. Her works include Intelligentsia and Revolution: Russian Views of Bolshevism, 1917-1922 (1986); Russian Peasants Go to Court: Legal Culture in the Countryside, 1905-1917 (2004); Imperial Russia: New Histories for the Empire, edited with David L. Ransel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998); Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700-1930, edited with Mark von Hagen and Anatolyi Remnev (2007). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

How can territory and peoples be organized? After the dissolution of empires, was the nation-state the only way to unite people politically, culturally, and economically?  In Post-Imperial Possibilities: Eurasia, Eurafrica, Afroasia (Princeton UP, 2023), historians Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper examine three large-scale, transcontinental projects aimed at bringing together peoples of different regions to mitigate imperial legacies of inequality. Eurasia, Eurafrica, and Afroasia—in theory if not in practice—offered alternative routes out of empire. The theory of Eurasianism was developed after the collapse of imperial Russia by exiled intellectuals alienated by both Western imperialism and communism. Eurafrica began as a design for collaborative European exploitation of Africa but was transformed in the 1940s and 1950s into a project to include France's African territories in plans for European integration. The Afroasian movement wanted to replace the vertical relationship of colonizer and colonized with a horizontal relationship among former colonial territories that could challenge both the communist and capitalist worlds. Both Eurafrica and Afroasia floundered, victims of old and new vested interests. But Eurasia revived in the 1990s, when Russian intellectuals turned the theory's attack on Western hegemony into a recipe for the restoration of Russian imperial power. While both the system of purportedly sovereign states and the concentrated might of large economic and political institutions continue to frustrate projects to overcome inequities in welfare and power, Burbank and Cooper‘s study of political imagination explores wide-ranging concepts of social affiliation and obligation that emerged after empire and the reasons for their unlike destinies. This is Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper second major scholarly collaboration. They previously co-authored Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference (Princeton University Press, 2010). Frederick Cooper is Professor Emeritus of History at New York University. His research has focused on 20th-century Africa, empires, colonization and decolonization, and citizenship. Among his books are Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History (2005); Citizenship between Empire and Nation: Remaking France and French Africa, 1945-1960 (2014); Africa in the World: Capitalism, Empire, Nation-State (2014); Citizenship, Inequality, and Difference: Historical Perspectives (2018); and Africa since 1940: The Past of the Present (2nd ed., 2019). Jane Burbank is Professor Emerita, New York University. Her areas of research are Russian political culture, law, and empire. Her works include Intelligentsia and Revolution: Russian Views of Bolshevism, 1917-1922 (1986); Russian Peasants Go to Court: Legal Culture in the Countryside, 1905-1917 (2004); Imperial Russia: New Histories for the Empire, edited with David L. Ransel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998); Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700-1930, edited with Mark von Hagen and Anatolyi Remnev (2007). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-studies

How can territory and peoples be organized? After the dissolution of empires, was the nation-state the only way to unite people politically, culturally, and economically?  In Post-Imperial Possibilities: Eurasia, Eurafrica, Afroasia (Princeton UP, 2023), historians Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper examine three large-scale, transcontinental projects aimed at bringing together peoples of different regions to mitigate imperial legacies of inequality. Eurasia, Eurafrica, and Afroasia—in theory if not in practice—offered alternative routes out of empire. The theory of Eurasianism was developed after the collapse of imperial Russia by exiled intellectuals alienated by both Western imperialism and communism. Eurafrica began as a design for collaborative European exploitation of Africa but was transformed in the 1940s and 1950s into a project to include France's African territories in plans for European integration. The Afroasian movement wanted to replace the vertical relationship of colonizer and colonized with a horizontal relationship among former colonial territories that could challenge both the communist and capitalist worlds. Both Eurafrica and Afroasia floundered, victims of old and new vested interests. But Eurasia revived in the 1990s, when Russian intellectuals turned the theory's attack on Western hegemony into a recipe for the restoration of Russian imperial power. While both the system of purportedly sovereign states and the concentrated might of large economic and political institutions continue to frustrate projects to overcome inequities in welfare and power, Burbank and Cooper‘s study of political imagination explores wide-ranging concepts of social affiliation and obligation that emerged after empire and the reasons for their unlike destinies. This is Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper second major scholarly collaboration. They previously co-authored Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference (Princeton University Press, 2010). Frederick Cooper is Professor Emeritus of History at New York University. His research has focused on 20th-century Africa, empires, colonization and decolonization, and citizenship. Among his books are Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History (2005); Citizenship between Empire and Nation: Remaking France and French Africa, 1945-1960 (2014); Africa in the World: Capitalism, Empire, Nation-State (2014); Citizenship, Inequality, and Difference: Historical Perspectives (2018); and Africa since 1940: The Past of the Present (2nd ed., 2019). Jane Burbank is Professor Emerita, New York University. Her areas of research are Russian political culture, law, and empire. Her works include Intelligentsia and Revolution: Russian Views of Bolshevism, 1917-1922 (1986); Russian Peasants Go to Court: Legal Culture in the Countryside, 1905-1917 (2004); Imperial Russia: New Histories for the Empire, edited with David L. Ransel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998); Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700-1930, edited with Mark von Hagen and Anatolyi Remnev (2007). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

How can territory and peoples be organized? After the dissolution of empires, was the nation-state the only way to unite people politically, culturally, and economically?  In Post-Imperial Possibilities: Eurasia, Eurafrica, Afroasia (Princeton UP, 2023), historians Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper examine three large-scale, transcontinental projects aimed at bringing together peoples of different regions to mitigate imperial legacies of inequality. Eurasia, Eurafrica, and Afroasia—in theory if not in practice—offered alternative routes out of empire. The theory of Eurasianism was developed after the collapse of imperial Russia by exiled intellectuals alienated by both Western imperialism and communism. Eurafrica began as a design for collaborative European exploitation of Africa but was transformed in the 1940s and 1950s into a project to include France's African territories in plans for European integration. The Afroasian movement wanted to replace the vertical relationship of colonizer and colonized with a horizontal relationship among former colonial territories that could challenge both the communist and capitalist worlds. Both Eurafrica and Afroasia floundered, victims of old and new vested interests. But Eurasia revived in the 1990s, when Russian intellectuals turned the theory's attack on Western hegemony into a recipe for the restoration of Russian imperial power. While both the system of purportedly sovereign states and the concentrated might of large economic and political institutions continue to frustrate projects to overcome inequities in welfare and power, Burbank and Cooper‘s study of political imagination explores wide-ranging concepts of social affiliation and obligation that emerged after empire and the reasons for their unlike destinies. This is Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper second major scholarly collaboration. They previously co-authored Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference (Princeton University Press, 2010). Frederick Cooper is Professor Emeritus of History at New York University. His research has focused on 20th-century Africa, empires, colonization and decolonization, and citizenship. Among his books are Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History (2005); Citizenship between Empire and Nation: Remaking France and French Africa, 1945-1960 (2014); Africa in the World: Capitalism, Empire, Nation-State (2014); Citizenship, Inequality, and Difference: Historical Perspectives (2018); and Africa since 1940: The Past of the Present (2nd ed., 2019). Jane Burbank is Professor Emerita, New York University. Her areas of research are Russian political culture, law, and empire. Her works include Intelligentsia and Revolution: Russian Views of Bolshevism, 1917-1922 (1986); Russian Peasants Go to Court: Legal Culture in the Countryside, 1905-1917 (2004); Imperial Russia: New Histories for the Empire, edited with David L. Ransel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998); Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700-1930, edited with Mark von Hagen and Anatolyi Remnev (2007). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

How can territory and peoples be organized? After the dissolution of empires, was the nation-state the only way to unite people politically, culturally, and economically?  In Post-Imperial Possibilities: Eurasia, Eurafrica, Afroasia (Princeton UP, 2023), historians Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper examine three large-scale, transcontinental projects aimed at bringing together peoples of different regions to mitigate imperial legacies of inequality. Eurasia, Eurafrica, and Afroasia—in theory if not in practice—offered alternative routes out of empire. The theory of Eurasianism was developed after the collapse of imperial Russia by exiled intellectuals alienated by both Western imperialism and communism. Eurafrica began as a design for collaborative European exploitation of Africa but was transformed in the 1940s and 1950s into a project to include France's African territories in plans for European integration. The Afroasian movement wanted to replace the vertical relationship of colonizer and colonized with a horizontal relationship among former colonial territories that could challenge both the communist and capitalist worlds. Both Eurafrica and Afroasia floundered, victims of old and new vested interests. But Eurasia revived in the 1990s, when Russian intellectuals turned the theory's attack on Western hegemony into a recipe for the restoration of Russian imperial power. While both the system of purportedly sovereign states and the concentrated might of large economic and political institutions continue to frustrate projects to overcome inequities in welfare and power, Burbank and Cooper‘s study of political imagination explores wide-ranging concepts of social affiliation and obligation that emerged after empire and the reasons for their unlike destinies. This is Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper second major scholarly collaboration. They previously co-authored Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference (Princeton University Press, 2010). Frederick Cooper is Professor Emeritus of History at New York University. His research has focused on 20th-century Africa, empires, colonization and decolonization, and citizenship. Among his books are Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History (2005); Citizenship between Empire and Nation: Remaking France and French Africa, 1945-1960 (2014); Africa in the World: Capitalism, Empire, Nation-State (2014); Citizenship, Inequality, and Difference: Historical Perspectives (2018); and Africa since 1940: The Past of the Present (2nd ed., 2019). Jane Burbank is Professor Emerita, New York University. Her areas of research are Russian political culture, law, and empire. Her works include Intelligentsia and Revolution: Russian Views of Bolshevism, 1917-1922 (1986); Russian Peasants Go to Court: Legal Culture in the Countryside, 1905-1917 (2004); Imperial Russia: New Histories for the Empire, edited with David L. Ransel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998); Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700-1930, edited with Mark von Hagen and Anatolyi Remnev (2007).

Today marks the 100th anniversary of the death of Vladimir Lenin. A couple months ago we had the pleasure of speaking with Paul Le Blanc, the author of a new book entitled Lenin: Responding to Catastrophe, Forging Revolution.  Paul Le Blanc is an activist dating all the way back to Students for a Democratic Society or SDS in the 1960's. He is also an acclaimed historian who teaches at La Roche University in Pennsylvania. He is the author of too many books to name, but several on Lenin, Trotsky, CLR James, Rosa Luxemburg and other revolutionaries and movements. We talk to Le Blanc about Lenin's flexibility, his understanding of Marxism as not a dogma, but a guide to action, his belief that ordinary people could and must change the world, and his childhood. We also get into the concept of the United Front, Lenin's experiences working with individuals who did not share his ideology, his understanding of dialectics, and his fierce commitment to struggle and to constant learning from struggle. Paul shares some thoughts on Lenin's analysis of imperialism, his concept of revolutionary defeatism, and the question of authoritarianism, bureaucratization, and democracy through examples in Lenin's life and leadership as well as what he advocated on these issues at the end of his life. We close with some thoughts from Le Blanc on today and the type of approach he thinks organizations and parties need to undertake in today's world in order to change it once again before it's too late. We deeply appreciate Paul Le Blanc for taking the time to talk to us about his book which is available now from Pluto Press.  We would like to thank Aidan Elias who did the lion's share of the production work on this episode.  If you appreciate the work that we do, the best way to support the show, to stay updated on our study groups, follow any writings Josh or I may publish, and keep track of our work on both YouTube and our audio podcast feed is to become a patron of the show. You can join that for as little as $1 a month or $10.80 per year at patreon.com/millennialsarekillingcapitalism. We have a new study group that will be announced this week, so keep an eye out for that.

On this episode, cyber expert Gavin Wilde joined us to talk all things cyberwarfare. He defined the term and its distinction from information warfare; shared the reasons why he believes studying Russia is important for this complex, actively developing, and hard-to-measure battlefront; and touched on the differences between the US and Russian military cyber and information operations and structures. Follow Gavin on Twitter/X @gavinbwilde. Thanks for listening! PRODUCER'S NOTE: This episode was recorded on December 2, 2023 during the ASEEES Convention at the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown. Join us in Austin, TX for the 2024 #Connexions Conference, March 18-20, 2024, where we will be focusing on information warfare, cybersecurity, and extremism online. For more information visit https://connexions.ai. ABOUT THE GUEST Gavin Wilde is a senior fellow in the Technology and International Affairs Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he applies his expertise on Russia and information warfare to examine the strategic challenges posed by cyber and influence operations, propaganda, and emerging technologies. Prior to joining Carnegie, Wilde served on the National Security Council as director for Russia, Baltic, and Caucasus affairs. In addition to managing country-specific portfolios, he focused on formulating and coordinating foreign malign influence, election security, and cyber policies. Wilde also served in senior analyst and leadership roles at the National Security Agency for over a decade, after several years as a linguist for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The insights he generated for counterintelligence, policymaking, and warfighting consumers included co-authorship of the Intelligence Community assessment of Russian activities targeting the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Wilde is a nonresident fellow at Defense Priorities and an adjunct professor at the Alperovitch Institute for Cybersecurity Studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. He previously assessed geopolitical risk for multinational corporations as a managing consultant at Krebs Stamos Group, a cybersecurity advisory. His commentary has been featured in War on the Rocks, Lawfare, Just Security, Barron's, New Lines Magazine, and elsewhere. Wilde holds a BA in Russian Studies from the University of Utah and graduated with distinction from the National War College with an MS in National Security Strategy. If you have questions, comments, or would like to be a guest on the show, please email slavxradio@utexas.edu and we will be in touch! PRODUCTION CREDITS Host/Assistant Producer: Taylor Helmcamp (@mashamashenka ) Host/Assistant EP: Misha Simanovskyy (@MSimanovskyy) Associate Producer: Cullan Bendig (@cullanwithana) Associate Producer: Sergio Glajar Production Assistant: Faith VanVleet Production Assistant: Eliza Fisher Supervising Producer: Nicholas Pierce SlavX Editorial Director: Sam Parrish Main Theme by Charlie Harper and additional background music by Alex Productions, Broke for Free, Joey Hendrixx, Cruxorium) Executive Producer & Creator: Michelle Daniel (@MSDaniel) www.msdaniel.com DISCLAIMER: Texas Podcast Network is brought to you by The University of Texas at Austin. Podcasts are produced by faculty members and staffers at UT Austin who work with University Communications to craft content that adheres to journalistic best practices. The University of Texas at Austin offers these podcasts at no charge. Podcasts appearing on the network and this webpage represent the views of the hosts, not of The University of Texas at Austin. https://files.fireside.fm/file/fireside-uploads/images/9/9a59b135-7876-4254-b600-3839b3aa3ab1/P1EKcswq.png Special Guest: Gavin Wilde.

"This fascinating volume is a major contribution to our understanding of the Russian Revolution, from World War I to consolidation of the Bolshevik regime. The seven myths include the exaggeration of Rasputin's influence; a purported conspiracy behind the February Revolution; the treasonous Bolshevik dependence on German support; the multiple Anastasia pretenders to the royal inheritance; the antisemitic claims about 'Judeo-Bolsheviks'; distortions about America's intervention in the civil war; and the 'inevitability' of Bolshevism. In each case the authors analyze the facts, uncover the origins of the myth, and trace its later perseverance (even in contemporary Russia). To assist readers, the volume includes three reference guides (people, terms, dates), nine maps, and twenty-nine illustrations. The result is immensely valuable for undergraduate courses in Russian history." —Gregory L. Freeze, Raymond Ginger Professor of History, Brandeis University. Jonathan Daly is Professor of History, University of Illinois Chicago. Leonid Trofimov is Senior Lecturer in History, Bentley University. Polina Popova is a Ph.D. Candidate at UIC (History department) and an adjunct lecturer at Columbia College Chicago teaching Russian and Soviet History 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

"This fascinating volume is a major contribution to our understanding of the Russian Revolution, from World War I to consolidation of the Bolshevik regime. The seven myths include the exaggeration of Rasputin's influence; a purported conspiracy behind the February Revolution; the treasonous Bolshevik dependence on German support; the multiple Anastasia pretenders to the royal inheritance; the antisemitic claims about 'Judeo-Bolsheviks'; distortions about America's intervention in the civil war; and the 'inevitability' of Bolshevism. In each case the authors analyze the facts, uncover the origins of the myth, and trace its later perseverance (even in contemporary Russia). To assist readers, the volume includes three reference guides (people, terms, dates), nine maps, and twenty-nine illustrations. The result is immensely valuable for undergraduate courses in Russian history." —Gregory L. Freeze, Raymond Ginger Professor of History, Brandeis University. Jonathan Daly is Professor of History, University of Illinois Chicago. Leonid Trofimov is Senior Lecturer in History, Bentley University. Polina Popova is a Ph.D. Candidate at UIC (History department) and an adjunct lecturer at Columbia College Chicago teaching Russian and Soviet History Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

I cover recent examples of bolshevik tactics and how pervasive they are in government institutions, including among politicians, schools, the media and the medical industry, but also how willfully accepted it is and how the hypocrisy can't be more obvious.  I also cover a few updated jab studies and how Florida has a chance to be a trend setter in the elimination of the covid jabs.   Dangerous Info Podcast:  https://rumble.com/v40fl1e-125-school-board-chaos-special-edition-ft.-truth-for-oxford-dr.-sean-brooks.html The Lobby:  https://www.bitchute.com/video/WKrrQO0cCMk3/

This open forum emerged when many mainline rightwing and leftwing began debating the 20th century wars while opposing the Quigley - Sutton thesis, which I defend. The full 4 hout open chat is available to paid subs to my site.

The cultural roots of fascism swirled around Britain at the turn of the 20th century, as medieval nostalgia, an obsession with hygiene, anti-semitism, and concern for the environment grew in the wake of modern development. In the 1920s, Britain faced similarly tough conditions to the European countries where fascism did take hold; major economic difficulties, unpopular governments, and intense fears of Bolshevism. But did fascism ever really find an audience in Britain? Listen to the first episode of our series on British fascism, as Tom and Dominic discuss fascism in Britain before the emergence of Oswald Mosley… *The Rest Is History Live Tour 2023*: Tom and Dominic are back on tour this autumn! See them live in London, New Zealand, and Australia! Buy your tickets here: restishistorypod.com Twitter:  @TheRestHistory @holland_tom @dcsandbrook Producer: Theo Young-Smith Executive Producers: Jack Davenport + Tony Pastor Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On today's episode, we review the conditions that gave rise to Russian Marxism, Lenin and Bolshevism. https://www.patreon.com/brohistory #289 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode Summary This week on Live Like the World is Dying, Riley talks to Margaret about building DIY spaces, how to plan events, and how to build a culture around your events of inclusivity and solidarity. Guest Info The Pansy Collective can be found on Instagram @PansyColletive. Host Info Margaret can be found on twitter @magpiekilljoy or instagram at @margaretkilljoy. Publisher Info This show is published by Strangers in A Tangled Wilderness. We can be found at www.tangledwilderness.org, or on Twitter @TangledWild and Instagram @Tangled_Wilderness. You can support the show on Patreon at www.patreon.com/strangersinatangledwilderness. Transcript Live Like the World is Dying: Riley on DIY Spaces **Margaret ** 00:15 Hello and welcome to Live Like the World is Dying, your podcast for what feels like the end times. I'm your host, Margaret Killjoy. I have just found out that my co-host, Inmn, has a voice that's similar enough to mine that people don't know which one of us is hosting. So, you can tell it's me because I am charming and perfect...Shit, so is Inmn...Okay, so that's not really what matters here. What matters here is that today, we are going to be talking about--a lot of people have written in and been like, "But I don't have community. You talk about community preparedness all the time." And obviously, subculture isn't the only type of community, but it's one of them. And we're going to talk about subculture. And we're gonna talk about DIY subculture. And we're gonna talk about fucking doing shit yourself. And we're gonna talk to someone who has a lot of experience of doing that at the intersection of marginalizations and not just reproducing cis white hetero stuff. So, this podcast is a proud member of the Channel Zero Network of anarchist podcasts and here's a jingle from another show on the network. Doo doo doo doo doo. Doo. [Singing a simple melody with words] **Margaret ** 01:34 And we're back. Okay, so if you could introduce yourself with your name, your pronouns, and then why you think I've brought you on this podcast. **Riley ** 02:06 Hey Y'all. Yeah, my name is Riley. He/him pronouns. You brought me on this podcast because we're friends. And also because we've played some shows together and done some things together. And I'd like to think that we have some shared affinity and maybe even that we are in community together. So yeah, yeah. I think that's kind of why I'm here. **Margaret ** 02:36 Okay. Well, you have experience...When I was like, trying to think I was like, "Who do I know who has experience building DIY scenes and like punk scenes and musical "subgenric" scenes. That's definitely a word. Don't look it up. Do you have experience doing that? What's your experience doing that? **Riley ** 03:00 Yeah, you know, I do have some experience doing it. You said "a lot." I would say "limited." But, I organize with a collective here in Asheville, North Carolina called Pansy Collective. We call ourselves the "benefit booking collective" because a lot of what we do is book DIY shows to raise money for either trans people's surgical, or medical, or just living expenses, and also for grassroots projects that don't get funding any other way. Yeah, so we book shows, we throw parties, we also organize popular education and workshops and kind of use the concept of DIY community in a punk way to push people further to the left. **Margaret ** 03:56 I, I really liked that. I think...I don't know if it was the first time I met you, or just the first time I saw you play, was coming on 10 years ago now. And you were playing this playing this show. And the thing that just like really immediately struck me was how much it felt like...When I first got into when I was like a teenager, I didn't give a shit about punk because...I don't know, the punk on the radio was fine, but it just...Like I liked Sisters of Mercy instead. Well, at the time I probably like Marilyn Manson instead, but we'll pretend like I only ever listened to Sisters of Mercy. And then when I like fell into anarchism and I started going to these like basement shows in Baltimore and there was this shared sense of like urgency to change the world, and that this is a thing that we are doing collectively and a thing we're doing from direct action, even if it just meant that the five foot tall singer was screaming, "I'm going to break a 40 on the motherfucking Nazis face!" or whatever, right? You know, it's like, you like believed her, right? Cuz she was telling the truth. Like, she probably got arrested for that. Well, yeah. And like, a 17 year old from that scene caught 27 felonies for beating up Nazis like two months later...and beat all the charges. She beat all the charges. And so this is what struck me, is that when I went and saw you play, it was like one of the times I really felt that again. And it felt like there was like something there. And I'm wondering if you want to talk about like...well, I guess like punk and about what draws you to it, what keeps you there, and what you're excited about DIY scenes for? Or any of that shit. **Riley ** 05:43 Yeah, I mean, I can't pretend like punk music wasn't a facet of what radicalized me, right? And, I think exposure to--I mean, I wasn't a punk when I was in high school. And I was into riot girl feminism, specifically, was like a really point--and I feel like almost embarrassed to talk about it now, but let's own that for a second, right? **Margaret ** 06:10 Yeah, whatever.    **Riley ** 06:11 Or, what brought me into that was also another facet of radicalization, which was seeking resources for being sexually assaulted at a young age, right? So I'm like, getting politicized through finding feminism and having these kinds of first moments of...You know, I grew up in real rural North Carolina. There's not scenes where I'm from, right? There's not even punks where I'm from. And kind of ideas of resistance, even ideas of bodily autonomy, and that what may be happening to you isn't your fault, and that maybe it's okay to be queer, you know, like, these were like, really groundbreaking ideas as a teenager. And so I'm finding these bands that are kind of espousing these ideologies, and carrying energy that I had no outlet for--or maybe just had really unhealthy outlets for--before I started listening to punk heavily. And then, really moving to Asheville as soon as I turned 18 because in this area, the queer and trans people from rural spots are told, "If you want to go somewhere to find where the other gay people are, go to Asheville." And so I just listened to that and went where I could. And I mean, I had some really pivotal moments, both good and bad, you know, and I'm in really this kind of naive idea that like, "Oh, you know, I'm coming into this from a feminist lens, so punks must be not misogynists, right?" [Margaret laughs] And then I learned that that wasn't true really quickly because I started having shitty experiences in mosh pits and, you know, getting groped, and my friends getting groped, and, you know, just having, I mean, just unsafe experiences that also really, you know, pissed me off because it felt so not...like this is inherently against the ethos of what this genre is in my mind because, you know, I know this is what this is, like not even knowing that there's just a whole slew of apolitical [punks]--or people who, you know,  who're here for different reasons--you know, but it really...I saw a space that was missing. And it wasn't just me, it was, you know, an entire group of young-really-fucking-pissed-off-with-a-lot-of-trauma-and-something-to-prove-about-it queers who enacted a little bit of a takeover in, I don't know, like the early 2010s. And so, the punk scene in Asheville shifted from really...I mean, dude centric, to suddenly there's like, it's just like, these young mad queers who are wearing pink pink studs. And this is like, a few years before G.L.O.S.S came out but I feel like that era just really, yeah, there was a takeover that we both participated in. **Margaret ** 09:24 I kind of...I kind of watched it, but I really appreciated it and I...Yeah, okay. So I guess one of the things that people mention to me a lot when I, you know, when I talk about individual and community preparedness, right, all the time, and usually people are alienated by one of those two words. And either people are like individual community preparedness is just preppers doing nonsense. And then, or, community preparedness doesn't resonate with people literally because a lot of people don't have community. We live in this very isolated and isolating culture, right? And so one of the things that people say, you know, the reason that I...I was driving and I was like thinking about this problem, I was thinking about how people write this to me and I'm always just like, "I don't know, just fix it." And I'm like, that's not a useful answer to provide to people. And I was like, who do I know who perpetuates a subcultural space--that's funny. Usually, when we say "perpetuate," you mean something bad. But like, in this case, you know, "makes continue" is actually sometimes a very good word, if it's a good thing being perpetuated. [And I was like, who do I know who perpetuates a subcultural space and] Makes the subcultural space happen and happen on a DIY level. And so I was really excited to talk to you about it. But, so, the core of my question is like, you talked about how there's not really scenes where you're from? So what do you do? I mean, I guess in this case, the answer is you move to Asheville and then take over the scene, but that's not a bad... **Riley ** 10:53 Yeah. If in places where there's not...I mean, there's a particular context here because it's a small town, but it has a long standing history of punk activity, right? But thinking about the community I'm from, which I'm going to be moving back to pretty soon because I can't afford to stay in the town that I'm in. So, you know, I think about starting small and finding who is around and building with them because deep...Yeah, the way that artists, like rural artists, and the kind of freaky performers that live out in the woods, the way that they move in this area is by finding finding the, you know, the few people around them that they can build with and going from there, even if it's just one, even if it's just one person, or connecting to the internet. But, yeah, I mean, the way that we kind of worked to hit that mark and strive to support everyone is, one, by just casting a wide net. And that's, you know, thinking about how a lot of times, to find, whether it's just connecting with other queer people in a rural area, I mean, you gotta travel far. And so casting a wide net to people who maybe are outside of the friend groups, or maybe are outside of the social networks, and really specifying what your actual affinity is. Like, I see you at shows all the time, but what do we actually have in common? And build from there.  **Margaret ** 12:33 I like that because, actually, one of the next questions I wanted to ask you is about how I know other people who are not interested in punk because they feel like punk is like cool kids, right? And they're not cool. So, they clearly don't belong. And, that's...I'd love to be like, "Oh, it's just not true. Punks are all totally welcoming." And like, you know, you just described a bunch of experiences of punks not being welcoming. My first...The one punk in my high school got really mad. He decided I was becoming a leftist, which actually wasn't true at the time. I was a nothingist. Not in a cool way. I was just a kid. But, he like pulled me aside and he was like, "You have to listen to this." And he put like punk music on my headphones. But it was right-wing punk. And the only thing I remember is--I haven't actually bothered to look up a band that says this--but it's "Down on your..." I remember this very clearly. I was like 16 at the time and it's, "Down on your knees with a gun to your head. You're better off dead than fucking red." And so it's like Nazi punk shit, right? He wasn't a skinhead. He had a big mohawk and like...And I was like, "Man, this was not interested in me at all. Like, what the fuck?" But okay, so punk isn't always welcoming to people. But how do we make it more welcoming to people? Two questions: One, if you're already in the scene, how do you make it more welcoming to people, and two, if you're listening to this, and you're like, a 16 year old or a 35 year old or a 73 year old, and you're like, "This has interested me, but I don't feel...I don't know whether this is the kind of space I can get into." Like, how do you get into it? Or how do you help people get into it? Kind of a tangential question, sorry. **Riley ** 14:07 I think about...I don't want to say, "Just be fucking nice to people," but maybe maybe part of it is like be fucking nice to people. And don't reenact the high school lunch table drama-trauma of whatever everyone is holding. Yeah, I think about getting kind of like cornered by these kind of like gatekeepy dudes when I first moved here like, you know, it's kind of this typical like, "Oh, do you know this band, do you know that band? Do you even know what you know..." I remember this guy.  **Margaret ** 14:48 [Laughing] People really did that to you?  **Riley ** 14:50 At a show that I booked! Being like, "Do you even know what a mosh pit is?"  **Margaret ** 14:55 [Incredulously] No, what's that?  **Riley ** 14:58 No, no, I don't. Sorry. [dry] I actually said, "Is it like this?" and then punched him...Right in the Pensacola. But yeah, I mean, if you're in a position of power, in a position of, you know, some sort of...Like, maybe you know the people around you and you're seeing people that don't, or...Yeah, just engaging people and, you know, making a point to make people feel welcome is a really easy start. And if you're feeling unsure, I...Yeah, I don't know what to say. Because I don't...I think that attending shows and going out to social things, especially in this day and age, is such a small, small sliver of what DIY community feels like now. And so I'm also pushing back on the bounds of what even counts as a DIY event anymore? I'm like, how about that? How about that workshop? Or how about the trans woman's picnic? Or how about... yeah, the firestorm book club, I'm thinking about so many other spaces that count in my mind under this DIY punk ethos umbrella. **Margaret ** 16:23 That makes a lot of sense to me, especially as someone who doesn't...My write up about the anarchist bookfair I just attended and played was, "This is great. Why do shows start so late? Some of us are old. Why are there kids on my lawn? Why did I have to walk uphill both ways to get here?" But, what you're saying about like just like being nice to people, it's funny how that sounds like an easy answer, but it's like actually the easy answer. And it's actually not that hard. Like, I think about...I've spent a lot of time in like nerd spaces subculturally. Like, I've spent a lot of time at like nerd conventions of various types, right? And like, one of the things that is a cultural norm that people are trying to normalize at science fiction conventions and shit is that if you're like standing in a circle of people and you see someone standing at the periphery of the circle, to open up the circle, and so that that person is now standing in the circle. And even if they don't say anything, they're now standing in the circle the same as everyone else, right? And, you know, and you don't have like necessarily as literal of a thing, because like science fiction conventions, there's literally people standing around in circles all weekend. Like, yes, it's kind of... **Riley ** 17:40 Like, I mean, people have a lot of drama on the other side of it about taking people, taking strangers in, you know. Who is this stranger in the wilderness? You know, I'm thinking about how people have been like, you know, "Who is that new person standing over there looking like they're trying to account for something," you know? "That person's a cop, probably!" you know? Or like people start doing all of this in your head speculation and I feel like, you know what's a really good way to try to figure out if someone is a cop or not? Go up and say, "Hi." Go up and have a little conversation. It's really easy to tell really quickly versus just mean mugging the shit out of somebody, you know? You'll never find out anything that way. But yeah, I think people have a lot of trauma on both sides. Like, I don't know that person. It's like, put yourself out there.  Or don't. You also don't have to talk to anybody at the show. [Laughing] **Margaret ** 18:41 Yeah, that's true, too. Okay, so you're talking about like what DIY feels like now and how it's different, right? And, I really appreciate that as, you know, as someone who like...I'll go to shows forever. And I'll ideally, play shows forever, but it's not as much what I'm interested in engaging in. And so with Pansy Collective, do you put on a lot of different types of stuff? Or do you just feel like the larger community that you're part of like you put on lots of stuff? Like, what are some of the things that people could be doing? **Riley ** 19:11 Yeah, I mean, we...I will say that My only interest these days is booking benefits. And my only interest is, you know...Back in pre lockdown times, we would set up shows for bands that are rolling through town, we would organize a fest specifically for rural queer and trans independent artists of all different, you know, way different genres. And nowadays, most of what we do is just trying to fund our struggling community anarchist projects by booking parties. And it's all over the place. I mean, we recently did a cake sitting benefit where we had someone bake 20 cakes and people sat on them and it raised a bunch of money for the book fair. You know, just like it varies from random, gay, pervy dance parties to punk shows to workshop series. We give the people what they want. But, it's kind of like it's either a gay dance party or a punk show, is kind of what it boils down to. **Margaret ** 20:25 I think I've been to a like--I don't know if it was you all that put it on, seems like it would have been--like a wrestling competition? **Riley ** 20:34 Yes, the lube wrestling competition. That was a fun one. That was definitely a pre-lockdown party for sure. But yeah. I mean, something I think about too with booking benefits is you want to hit a good like...So I think about what it takes to book a benefit that is both accessible to our community, who is broke as fuck, and also will raise money for whatever projects. And I mean, the projects that we've been funding lately have been the queer powered prison books project here in Asheville that sends free books to incarcerated queer and trans people.  **Margaret ** 21:18 Is that Tranzmission?  **Riley ** 21:19 Yeah, Tranzmission Prison Project, **Margaret ** 21:21 Which people can look up and support if they would like. It's been around for decades at this point and often has been one of the only projects doing this work at a time when it's incredibly essential. Anyway... **Riley ** 21:35 Yeah, they get so many letters in and really just rely on community support to get the books out to people. So yeah, we've been supporting projects like that. And I think about what it takes to, you know, kind of hit this mark of like, okay, we want this event to be accessible to everyone and we also want to make sure that we raise enough money to support the project and pay artists well, right? Because at a certain point, we realized that if we want to book the artists that we want to book, they need support getting...You know, like, booking especially--and we kind of learned this lesson through co-organizing with some Black trans performers and promoters from Richmond in 2019--like, if you want to book Black and brown artists, you need to pay people well because at the end of the day, if you're just asking artists to donate their time and labor to perform a benefit then only the people who have the privilege and access to be able to donate that time and labor end up being able to perform, and those people are, by and large, white people. So yeah, we really shifted our values to like, just because we're booking a benefit doesn't mean that artists aren't going to get paid well. Everyone. And on top of that, hitting the mark to make sure that, you know, the community project gets a little something too, it's a hard mark to hit. But, you know, I think about going back to that lube wrestling event, which was truly iconic, and you know, charging five bucks at the door and five bucks to enter and making everything always, "If you don't have the money to donate it, don't worry about it." **Margaret ** 23:29 I think...This is really interesting to me. One thing that's changed a lot from like early aughts anarchism, which is as far back as I can speak to personally, was, you know, this culture of, like now we pay people. Like now it's like not bad to get paid for the work that you do. And in retrospect, it almost seems odd, like the whole thing is we come out of this like working class movement, you know? But, I also understand why we had this like, volunteerism thing, right, you know? But, I also...I'm glad we moved out of it. But one of the things that's so interesting to me about like benefits, right, is that it really points out, it highlights to me that there's two points to benefit. One is to raise money. But the other is--well, there's three points. You're raising money. You're raising awareness about the issue. And you're also building community and you're tying the community to activism directly. And when I think about how to fund a project, like the Empire Records model has never been accurate. Like you're never just like, "Oh, we got to save the struggling, small business run by a white guy. But, we are gonna do it, and we're gonna throw a party, and now it's saved because we raised so much money." And that is not the right attitude about benefits. But instead, because I think if I'm like, man, if I really want to fund a project...Well, historically--and I would never recommend this. Anarchists usually do crime in order to fund projects--but, usually people just go out and like are either like get yucky tech jobs, and then just like one person is going to throw down as much money as like the next 50 people who come to the benefit. And that's great. And that's good. And that is a good thing to do and people who have access to work to get a bunch of money should put those resources into the movement, but it doesn't build community the way that a benefit does. And to me these seem like they go really well together. **Riley ** 25:28 I think so too. Yeah, I think it's...you know, it serves the purpose of, yes, us getting together. And I'm really thinking in this kind of specific queer and trans lens. Like us just getting together is a radical act. And also, to push that a little bit further, we're getting together to support people that are behind bars, that we're trying to break down this barrier and break down these walls, and part of how we can do that and kind of, you know, disintegrate the myth that there's any difference between our queer and trans siblings on the inside versus us is by just naming it every chance we get, and normalizing that conversation and really bringing it to the table because there probably are people in the room present who maybe haven't decarceralized their ideologies, or maybe just haven't had a chance to think about it. And I don't think that, I don't know, college classrooms or, you know, on the internet are the only places that we can kind of have these conversations or draw this awareness, you know? **Margaret ** 26:37 Because there's also podcasts. **Riley ** 26:38 There's also podcasts. Or, just listening to me drunk ramble at you at a party. I don't know. I'm sure that I've single handedly turned at least two people onto our side that way. **Margaret ** 26:56 That rules. And if they all turned two people on by drunk ramblin to them at a bar then... **Riley ** 27:00 Keep going! **Margaret ** 27:01 Fuck yeah.  **Riley ** 27:06 I mean, and also I think about, you know, as a promoter, I feel like I need to qualify after saying that I'm drunk rambling at people, that setting up a fucking table with a bunch of harm reduction supplies and just leaving it, setting up a bunch of free shit at a show and just leaving it. If you're thinking about like I want to way to radicalized the party spaces in my town without having to lean in too far, or don't want to be there the whole time, show up with a bunch of zines, and Narcan, and condoms, and leave them on a table and scoot.  **Margaret ** 27:45 No, see, this makes sense to me. And it also is like, as someone who's like fairly...I don't think I'm anti-social, especially since anti-social implies, like, against people hanging out having fun. Although at various points I have been against people having fun. That's how I got the name Killjoy. Right. But, you know, as someone who doesn't go to parties as my like, hobby, right, tabeling is perfect. Tabling is...like going to the space and being like, "I have a purpose. There's a reason I'm here." And, you know, if you're someone who's listening, and you're like worried about how to be...yeah, how to be contributing, like especially if...A lot of people I think struggle to be just an attendee, right? And so yeah, if you set up a little harm reduction distro, or a zine distro, or a combination of the two, or whatever else, you can set up and leave, or you can set it up and hang out and be like, "No, it's cool. I'm supposed to be here. I'm sitting behind a table. That's why I'm not dancing. Everyone thinks I'm not dancing, because I don't like dancing, but it's actually because I'm stuck. behind a table." **Riley ** 28:49 I have an important job to do.   **Margaret ** 28:50 Yeah, totally. I would definitely be dancing and enjoying dancing, but I'm stuck behind this table. If anyone identifies with that. **Riley ** 29:00 Exactly. I just I want to push like, one no-fun-insurrecto listening to this to go to like one dance party and have a couple conversations with people. And I want to have...I want to challenge one listener who's constantly at the dance parties to like, I don't know, go to a gun range or listen to this podcast or something. Yeah. **Margaret ** 29:20 And actually, because you talked about how like punk rock radicalized you, right? And sometimes when I talk to people and people are a little bit dismissive of that, you know, or usually about their own stories. I've never heard anyone be dismissive of other people getting radicalized that way. But you know, it's like people are like, "Oh, like Green Day got me in," or whatever, you know? And I'm like, well, one, Green Day--I don't know if they still do, but they throw...like when the AK Press ware house burned down, they threw a benefit and this is well after they were famous as fuck--but, I think that actually there's like something to the fact that subculture carries the flame when larger social movements have gone away. I actually think that this happened in the 1940s. Sorry, everything I do now has to tie into history because it's what I do, is read history books all day. But, like, there's like this dead period in anarchism and actually most leftist stuff that isn't like purely Bolshevism or whatever, right? After World War II, a lot of us died. And the people carrying the flame were like art movements, and anarcho pacifists in New York City, and Jewish anarchists, who were primarily focusing on the cultural things that they were reproducing in their own culture. And, I think that the same is also true of the like 80s and 90s, that punk and other subcultures carried the flame, not just of anarchism but a whole lot of radical ideas through this very dead period. Obviously, a ton of shit was happening. But overall, there wasn't as much radicalism in the United States as there is more recently. So, I think subculture's a brilliant way to get people in. Yeah, I don't know. **Riley ** 31:05 Yeah, and the internet, I think, has really played a big role in this too because we think about aesthetics, and social media, and how...Yeah, I think about how Covid and the internet usage in the cultures that kind of arose when everyone was, you know, really not able to get together. Punk aesthetics has maybe been like a unifying point. And that that can be a point of radicalization too. It's like, okay, we're getting together for this. And like, if it's the right people engaging, right, it's like, we're coming together for this need to belong, and kind of unifying around a common interest, a common hobby, a common sound, whatever it may be, right? And it's bringing that, you know, the ethics, and the core values, and the core tenets back up and kind of, you know, passing along, if we're carrying the torch, we're also passing it along, right?  **Margaret ** 32:00 Setting people on fire, you mean? [Joking] Okay, so, what does it look like to throw a benefit? Just like, run me through it. I want to throw a benefit. What do I do? **Riley ** 32:15 Yeah, first thing you need to do is identify when and what the goal is. So if you, you know, you say, we have this action going down. We want to do this thing. It's going to take this much money. It's going to be on this date, so we need to have a thing say that's gonna happen a month away. We're gonna book thing. I mean, I would encourage people to not start planning an event within one month of when they plan on executing whatever event it may be. Find a location. Things that I encourage people to consider are just general access of that location. If it's a bar? Or is it going to be an all ages type thing? If it is a DIY space, what does the accessibility of that space look like? Think about physical accessibility, whether or not there will be like an open outdoor space or if it will be enclosed. Whether or not you're going to ask people to wear masks at the space, just kind of general accessibility concerns. Once you have your location locked down. And, you know, there's other things that maybe you'd consider. Maybe you have a connection with somebody who has a space. Maybe it's someone's basement. There's a...Maybe it's under a bridge somewhere. I mean, you can do anything anywhere. Whatever it takes. And the more DIY you want to go, and by that, I mean, like, if you want to say throw a party under a bridge, identify your people that are going to help you because you cannot do that on your own, right? And so if you...say you and I are now just throwing a party under a bridge, that's what we decided on.  Identify what you need and that's going to look like... **Margaret ** 34:13 So we need a generator...  **Riley ** 34:15 Find your people who are going to perform. What is this going to look like? Is it going to be...Are we throwing a goth rave and Nomadic Warmachine's is going to play? Great. Okay, so now we communicate with our artists in the totally professional and respectful way. **Margaret ** 34:32 Promised him that it starts at 7pm and is over by 1am. **Riley ** 34:36 Yes, yes. Or you don't and you don't hold to that at all. [Joking] Yeah, communicate well with your artists. Figure out what their rate may be. And then, once that is secured, then you have your artists, you have your location, you have your date. You need to make your promotional materials and you need to secure your speakers, PA, fog machine...I don't know, whatever you decide that you need. And I mean, I really encourage people to do whatever they want. So, get your lube and giant pools for your lube wrestling party. Whatever it is. But, I don't know, Asheville loves a gimmick. So, we're always throwing a gimmick in there. You know, I also like...Encourage people to figure out what the people around them like. But yeah, so we're at the point now where we have our artists, and our location, and our venue, and we have a flyer, and we have a PA secured. And then, you just put the word out there. I love to hit the streets with a staple gun. And I think that that is a perfectly fine thing to do. And social media is great as well. We promote online, and we promote in the streets, and we pass out handbills at other events. And that's my three main modes of promoting. Maybe you have a listserv in your community that you can let people know. Maybe you can ask the performers to promote it on their networks as well. Maybe your friends with one of the performers with a podcast who can mention it on her podcast. It's about reaching out. I mean, always, always communal over individual when it comes to doing anything, I guess, but doing this as well. You know, reach out to all of your networks and make it less about who it is and more about what it is and what brings us together. And then you do it. And, I mean, unfortunately, we have to take safe...pretty serious safety considerations into the parties that we throw because of threats of violence in the past. Yeah, Margaret and I have both been doxxed after various things that have happened in Asheville that were just fun little events. And so yeah, maybe there's...and again, this is like where I go to collectives and the people you know and the people you trust because we aren't cop callers. And if something were to go down at one of our shows, we put pretty intentional consideration into safety planning, having a medic there in case someone, you know, breaks their leg at lube wrestling, or if, you know, if something really hits the fan, just having having safety plans in place feels important too. What is the evacuation plan if the cops bust up your under the bridge rave? And how can you make sure that everyone is accounted for and that, you know, the marginalized people present are not just left to, you know...that people have each other's backs. And building that culture does start, I think, with the people who are hosting the event. **Margaret ** 38:07 No, that makes a lot of sense to me. Every part of that. And one of the...to the not leaving people behind thing, one of the things that I think actually really behooves experienced...People have experience in the streets and have experience with conflict with police. I have a pretty strong sense of self preservation. And I tend to know the best exit at any given point. And I'm pretty good at getting out of situations. What actually behooves me in crises is to use the fact that I have that experience to not be the first one out. But instead, to help the people who don't have that experience to get out. The more experienced people should be the people who are taking a higher level of risk. The organizers should be the people taking a higher level of risk. The organizers will be more in the know. They'll be more aware of when police are coming, you know, blah, blah, blah. And it's a time to be brave. Most, you know, obviously most DIY shows and stuff have nothing of the sort, you know, like but no, I really like.... **Riley ** 39:16 Yeah, I'm just thinking about a time, I'm thinking about a time that some gay college kids here in Asheville threw a house party and some random dude that was a neighbor wandered up on the party and he was being weird. So, he got asked to leave. So he came back with a gun and he fired off a round into the ground, but he was obliterated wasted. And, I mean people people handled it...They responded quickly and handled it as well as they could. But, you know, after that happened, some anarchist homies came through and did porch sitting on their porch for a couple of weeks, but also sat down with them like, "Hey, let's let's make some safety planning for if this happens in the future," and that actually brought like probably 15 or 20 people that I would have never thought they would show any interest in community safety work, you know? And this goes back to just discounting people or not being maybe kind of people like, consider the Yes.... **Margaret ** 40:24 These like apolitical party kids... **Riley ** 40:27 These a political party kids could be on our team with one...It takes not...you know, it's maybe they already are, you know? And that was a really powerful experience because I think...We felt very grateful on both sides. And there was no, there wasn't really a both sides, which we all really kind of knew each other. But, you know, there was a divide. Oh, those kids aren't really with our shit. Oh, those people aren't really, you know? And it was a really unifying moment. Like, yeah, now these party college kids are really down with the struggle and will show up to do porch sitting for others if they need it, you know? And it sucks that it takes a near tragedy for that to happen. But, what came out of it was we safety plan for everything now. You know what I'm saying? Like, we're running scenarios like it's...you know? I mean, because that's what makes me feel like at the actual event, I can relax, because I know, "Well, if something goes down, we have a plan for it." And actually, I mean, the queer and trans events are not getting any safer, not because of anything we're doing but because of increased violence. So, I don't know what...I'm not gonna stop being with my people. So, at the very least, I can increase safety for them. And for myself. And you can do it for me, like, it's not just... Yeah, we work together for that. **Margaret ** 41:59 No, I love it. And the ethos of, "We keep us safe," we just have to like actually mean it and we have to actually think about what it involves. No, this ties in so well to one of the things that I talk about a lot on the show where I'm like, one of the reasons I have a go bag is because I live in the woods and wildfire is a thing that exists. And so I prepare for that. And now I don't worry about it all the time. And what you're talking about, like yeah, I was recently at the Asheville Anarchist Book Fair--I don't think this is a surprise to anyone. I'm not doxxing myself by saying this, I did a talk, played a show. It was very fun. You all did a great job. Yeah. And, I didn't worry incredibly about my safety because of that, because I knew that there were people there doing security. I knew that they were not power hungry type people. If anyone listening is like thinking about doing community defense, that's amazing and beautiful and essential, and takes a certain mindset, and it takes a certain calmness, and it takes a certain...the kind of person who is not looking to exert power over other people. You know? Anyone who thinks in their heart is a petty tyrant, you should be the person to distribute condoms for free and instead, which is also essential. And now don't go up to everyone who's distributing condoms and decide that they're a petty tyrant. Unless they're not letting you have condoms. Unless they're like, "You don't need a condom, you're not getting laid," then you should be opposed to them. **Riley ** 43:32 Flip the table. **Margaret ** 43:34 That's right. Fuck your safer sex. We live danger...[Joking tone] I don't...No, that's like...I really like how much this immediately ties into all the preparedness stuff, because this is what community preparedness is, is building culture, building community. Because the other thing, the way you're talking about this, this is community organizing. [Riley makes an affirmative sound] And like people, I think sometimes think of subcultural spaces, whether it's queer dance parties or punk shows or raves or whatever, as being outside of...people think subculture is distinct from culture, but there is no culture. There's no mainstream culture. You ever talk to a normal person. They're not normal. Like, they may dress as normal as they want, but everyone's got something. You're like, you're talking to someone and then they're like, "And the aliens..." and you're like, "Huh." **Riley ** 44:29 I thought you were into a thing by the way you dress, but you're into a thing.  **Margaret ** 44:34 Exactly. And like, we just have a myriad of intersecting subcultures and we shouldn't be...I don't know. I think that building subculture and especially intersecting subcultures, and like...Like I love that at the book fair, there was a lot of different genres and there was a lot of different things happening. It wasn't just punk, right? And I love punk, but not as much as I love goth, and you, you know, like, I don't know, those weren't the only two genres. I'm just...Yeah. **Riley ** 45:07 Yeah, we had a really great time. And I am thinking more about this safety and what the role of, you know, I think about what my asks are as a promoter of people who are willing to show up to do some role of safety at our events. And I'm back at it again, be nice to people. Like that is one of my main asks over and over again, like, the main energy, I mean...it's a really...And I can usually from talking to someone for a few minutes, gauge to some level, what their ability to do deescalate a situation is. And just like you said, if someone is coming in hot with something to prove, it's like, "No, you're going to be serving beans and rice because that is not the energy we need," you know? And that is...I just have to honor the de-escalation training and the safety trainings that I've received that taught me that, you know, we don't need to reproduce militancy, or ugly masculinity, or yeah...There is no aspect of that, that keeps us safe. And I have been able to do more with my gay voice, and my demeanor, and my just looking someone in the eyes and smiling at them and asking them and like, you know, trying to build points of affinity to de-escalate a situation have been able to accomplish more that way than I've ever been able to accomplish by like, trying to get buck with somebody and trying to like...I'm doing something on a camera that people can't see... **Margaret ** 46:55 Just imagine, just imagine. Riley. Fist up. Head side-to-side. Shoulders also side-to-side... **Riley ** 47:03 It looks like I'm doing a bird mating dance. **Margaret ** 47:09 Well, no, and I, I like that too. Because it's like, it's also like, because most of it is that and then sometimes a bunch of people sit on your porch all week with guns. And while doing that, are not not macho, are communicating, are friendly, are friendly with neighbors, aren't walking around with long guns. I mean, obviously, there are situations in this world where that is necessary. But that's not usually what we're talking about. You know, usually we're talking about people who have specific training that is, especially in medical and like keeping people safe, but also includes like, concealed carry and all of these things. You know, that is a...Whenever non Americans listen to some of the stuff that I talk about, people are like, "Well, fuck, y'all are in trouble." And I'm like "Yeah, we're in trouble!" **Riley ** 47:58 We really are. **Margaret ** 48:02 It's the "I'm in danger," meme, but it's like, but it's okay. Like, that's the other thing that you're talking about being like...you know, you don't go to a movie and you're like, "Why are they showing us the fire movie, the fire exit movie." I guess they don't do this anymore. When I was a kid, you would go to the movie and it would show you like, "Please note the nearest exits." You know, it doesn't mean that the fucking movie theaters gonna burn down. It means that it might and you should know what to do. You know? And, so like bad things happen. Still, probably driving to and from things is more dangerous than doing things like that is...I remember I was reading about like wolf attacks, and like bear attacks, and shit, well camping, and everything was like, "Yeah, you know what the most dangerous part of camping is? Driving to the camping spot."  And I say that not because it's like, everything's safe, but rather we clearly do accept danger. That is part of living. **Riley ** 49:13 Yeah, I just want the danger to be like getting consensually kicked in the face during one of your friends sets in a pit and not like someone throwing punches and calling you slurs outside. **Margaret ** 49:26 Totally. And if I want...if that happens, everyone to know that the plan is to beat that person into the ground and no one talked to the police about what happened.  **Riley ** 49:37 We saw nothing.  **Margaret ** 49:37 We all talked to lawyers instead.  **Riley ** 49:40 Exactly.  **Margaret ** 49:42 No, no. Okay. I like this. This has me excited. Every now and then I'm like...most of the time, I'm happy that I live in the woods and don't do anything. And sometimes. I'm like, wait, sometimes I miss the fact that I did all of these things and I will do these things again. Okay, so you hinted at it a bunch of different times and you talked about different ways to be inclusive, including accessibility of the space for people of different mobility needs, accessibility of letting people know what the Covid risk is, and even like letting people know what the accessibility is, right? Like, own up to it if your space is not wheelchair accessible. And actually, hopefully, by owning up to it, you're kind of like slowly pressuring yourself...Tell me if I'm going about this wrong, but in my mind that you like then kind of slowly pressure yourself to be like, "Oh, I really hate saying that it's not wheelchair accessible, maybe we should..." **Riley ** 50:30 Right, like, maybe I should find a wheelchair accessible place. Even, because that's something I've really processed. I have to give it to a local group DIYabled to really push for accessible spaces within the DIY community here in Asheville. Because I really assessed it with this person, her name is Priya, who kind of runs that group. Like, I want to find these spaces that are accessible, but it's, you know, it's...We live in the mountains. There are...a lot of them just aren't. And, you know, I feel, you know, all this guilt about that. And she's like, "No, like, disabled people greatly appreciate you just saying it. Like, no shame, no shade, like, just let people know so they're not haulin ass all the way out there to find out when they get there, or having to ask first." Like, yes, it does put that pressure on. And even if you aren't like, I really want to find them accessible space, and the space just simply isn't accessible, naming it is increasing access because it's not forcing someone to travel to a place that they can't actually get into, you know? So, no shade at all, if you can't find that kind of space, but... **Margaret ** 51:47 And that makes sense. And then like one of the things that I think about...I'm someone who, you know, I'm very Covid careful, let's say. And, like, I really appreciate when places are like honest about like, you know, "Hey, masking is going to be encouraged," or, "Hey, masking..." Like, like, the thing that would make me sad is if you go to a space that's like, "Masking required," and then like the organizers aren't wearing masks and no one's wearing masks. I'd rather you just didn't put that on the flyer at that point, right? Because then you can make...I can make my own decisions around that. And, you know, I'll...And so like putting on the flyer, like, "Outside space is available," you know, or whatever, right? Like, no, that's interesting. And so, okay, so I'm wondering what other inclusivity, not just accessibility, but like inclusivity things are. Like you mentioned, for example, about paying people. Like that helps remove barriers of access, you know, for Black and brown folks and for people who suffer from class oppression as well. What are some of the other hot tips for inclusivity with Riley? [Said like it's the name of a talk show segment] **Riley ** 53:04 Let me think about that for a second, because I think that at the end of the day, it just boils down to like who is...Maybe it doesn't boil down to who is organizing, but um...Yeah, I wonder like, who is the event actually for and what is the goal? What is the goal? You know, because I think about, you know, how different Pansy Collective might look if the intention was to book queer artists but we weren't in ourselves queer. Or, if I was just like a punk promoter who was like, "I want to make my shows better," but wasn't actually gay. I don't know if it would feel differently. So I'm just like, actually, maybe part of it is...us? We got to be the ones doing it. **Margaret ** 54:05 You mean, like, doing it ourselves like it is in the name? **Riley ** 54:09 It's almost as if we're doing it ourselves. They should call that something do **Margaret ** 54:15 DO. We'll call it DO. [Both are laughing at the dry joke] **Riley ** 54:18 I actually do remember at some point writing something about Pansy Collective and I like closed it off on this line that I was so proud of that was like, "We call it DIY, but really it's DIT, doing it together." And that rings fucking true. I mean, it's a little doing it together... **Margaret ** 54:41 That's a little ditty [Makes "Eh, eh" noises to affirm it's a joke]  **Riley ** 54:43 Yeah, exactly. I think about taking the ego out of it. Or I'm like...Yeah, revisiting the...From a promoter aspect, the thing that I really hate to see from promoters, and the thing that we were able to kind of try our best to circumvent as a collective, was this, you know, we don't want it to be about like who it is that's doing the thing, you know? And for a long time, we try really hard to make the face behind who Pansy Collective was anonymous, for safety reasons, because I don't know, I've named this a little bit already, but at the time in 2016 and 17 when we started organizing together, the block was really hot. And white supremacists were told to start keeping an eye on Asheville. And so there was a lot of attention on what we were doing. So, we tried to stay anonymous, partially for safety reasons, but partially because it felt less like...yeah, like a cool kid club, ego stroked. You know, this is me doing this. And instead it's like, "No, this is, this is a collective and this is this collective is you, and it's me, and it's everyone, and it doesn't matter who it is, because it's about the thing. It's not about who's booking it. I think about that approach from a promoter standpoint as a way to circumvent the "cool kid shit" that makes spaces feel really unwelcoming. Because if you're not in it then you're not welcome. And it's like, well, yeah, if it's nothing to be in then we're all here together. And we're all on the same level. **Margaret ** 56:34 No, that's interesting. So what brought you to move away from that? **Riley ** 56:36 Um, I don't think that...Well, I got less scared of...I got less..After getting doxxed, I got less scared, I guess, because it's...You know, it's just like, "Oh, y'all aren't gonna fucking bust a grape. Like what?" You know, and like this the...our biggest fear happened. And then we... **Margaret ** 57:04 And then nothing happened.  **Riley ** 57:05 And then we took a concealed carry class together. I mean, I don't know. Can I say that? Can I name that we did that? **Margaret ** 57:11 I'm out about…I've talked about how after getting doxxed, I got my concealed carry. Yeah. **Riley ** 57:15 Yeah. And so like, I mean, I was with Margaret on that. I mean, it was probably like 20 or 30 of us, and big props to the person that helped organize getting us all together for that. But yeah, I mean, we really responded like, alright, like, if y'all wanna fuck with us, we're gonna up our defense and keep rolling, and we did and it's fine. And so I got less scared because I'm like, "They don't want any smoke with us." Like, what, you know, blast our dead names. Do whatever. I don't give a shit. We're really not...We've really been putting up with this shit for our whole lives. So it's not that big of a deal. **Margaret ** 57:59 Like when they're like, "Oh, we're gonna tell your parents that you're a queer anarchists." And I'm like, "Oh, they know." **Riley ** 58:05 They know. They already hate me for it. Don't worry. **Margaret ** 58:10 That's either happened in a good way or bad way already for everyone. **Riley ** 58:16 Yeah, no, exactly. It's like I'm sorry that you lost your job for being a Nazi--No, I'm not--but it doesn't really work, like what you're gonna tell my leftist coffee shop job that I'm part of antifa? That got me a raise actually. **Margaret ** 58:30 Yeah, and even like, you know, one of the people who was doxxed who worked at a coffee shop didn't even have a good relationship with the owners of the coffee shop, and the coffee shop was like, "What? That sucks fuck them." You know? Like no one's like mad. Yeah, it's not samie-samie. They think it samie-samie, but they live in a weird bubble where antifa is bad and everyone is aware that Nazis are bad.  **Riley ** 58:55 Everyone knows that Nazis are bad. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, that is very well said. So I mean, I still feel..like you know, I still feel like it's important that at whatever event I'm really impressed by organizers, not even just at an event in the streets too, you know. I mean, it's very off putting, and you can tell very quickly if somebody is--my partner calls it "All up in the videos dancin."  **Margaret ** 59:27 Like people who are clout chasing? **Riley ** 59:29 Yeah. Are you here to, you know, are you here to make a difference? Or are you here to be seen as a good person? You know, and that doesn't run as deep at a party because it's like we're all here to do something. It doesn't matter. But yeah, playing a role, whether it's running sound, doing security, handing some artists some money, working behind the table, whatever. Taking the ego out of it makes the event more accessible for everyone, including you. **Margaret ** 1:00:03 Yeah. No, that makes sense to me. **Riley ** 1:00:06 I mean that for artists too. Like, I don't want to book people who are more about themselves than about the community they're playing with. **Margaret ** 1:00:16 Yeah, totally. Because then it's like, I want to celebrate people within my community doing something amazing. But not in this way that makes me think that they're amazing and I'm not, right? When we put people on stages--I mean, obviously, sometimes stages are useful for literal accessibility, actually, so that everyone can see and things like that--but when we elevate people metaphorically, like, this is what I like about punk, the thing that really got me about punk and why I started liking the music more was the sense of like, someone from our crowd has emerged and shown and been, you know, and it could be about their name, it can be about the thing that they've done, and then they come back into the crowd, and then they are of us, and they're coming from us. And I really like that because then we can celebrate what makes us each individual and exceptional, but not in a way that says that these people are better than us, you know? **Riley ** 1:01:16 Yeah, definitely. And I mean, that's why I also never want it to get any bigger than it is, right, right? You know, I love when punk projects keep it to a certain size, you know, I don't want to be working with large venues, I don't want to be working with tens of thousands of dollars. I don't want to be working with green rooms. And yeah, there's just...I am of a particular...I don't even know what it is. I just want to do all that, you know? I feel more comfortable in somebody's hot basement or in a shitty dive bar or under a bridge, I guess? **Margaret ** 1:02:00 No, it makes sense. I think of like...I think of it as like, are there ways where if we get...because I think Chumbawamba rules, right? They did their sell out thing, they got a ton of money, they financed all of these projects, and it was always a compromise. And it like, wasn't an easy thing, right? And then they like blew their, you know, celebrity and like went back to doing DIY shit. And like, that's fucking great. And like, so I think that like...I think we sort of need both. I actually do think we need the stadium stuff. Because if the stadium stuff is also like, financing us? But it's not building the DIY culture. It's kind of like the tech bro who gives tons of money, rules and is great and is amazing, and it is a sacrifice that someone is making to spend all their time working if they are capable of producing...like someone who's capable of getting a lot of money by working I actually think it's like a really good idea for them to do that so they get a bunch of money and give it to things you know? **Riley ** 1:02:00 Yeah. I'm not mad at that at all.  **Margaret ** 1:02:02 Yeah. I think it's funny. I think Chumbawamba would have...like I think people would have been so much less mad at them if it had happened now instead of...or maybe I just say this because now I get paid to podcast? [laughing] I don't know, maybe I have a bias here... **Riley ** 1:03:21 Maybe you get knocked down, but then you get back up again. Maybe it's that. **Margaret ** 1:03:24 I know. Never gonna keep me down. Well, okay, so is there any like standout question that I didn't ask you that I probably should have or do you have any like final words or? **Riley ** 1:03:40 No, I...Let me think about that for a second. I don't know. I think I just want people to get out there and do it. Yeah, start that project. Put yourself out there. Share it with us. Come through Asheville. We'll book you.  **Margaret ** 1:04:05 Hell yeah. Yeah, the secret is to really begin. Do the thing that you want to do. That's what's so great about DIY is that it actually doesn't matter if it sucks. Like, just do it. And then if you don't like it, do it better next time. And if you do like it, and no one else likes it, just keep doing it. Fuck it. Whatever. Eventually the people who think what you're doing is cool will show up. I never thought there would be a goth night at an anarchist bookfair but I've been in a lot of goth bands and finally I got to play an anarchist bookfair so it all works out. Okay, well how can people either find you or your projects? **Riley ** 1:04:44 Y'all can check out Pansy Collective on Instagram. It's Pansy.Collective. Um, that's kind of it. Thank you, Margaret. **Margaret ** 1:04:52 Yeah, thank you so much. **Margaret ** 1:05:00 Thank you so much for listening. If you enjoyed this podcast, you should go out and start a band or start booking benefits or go to an event and make friends with people or don't make friends with people or don't be a cool kid at the thing if you're already in the in-crowd. Or, you can financially support us because we don't pay--at the moment we don't pay the hosts which is fine--but we do pay the transcriptionist and the audio editor because they're doing the like completely thankless work. And so, thanks, by the way, both the transcriptionist and audio editor who have to hear me say this. You can support us by supporting us on Patreon. It's patreon.com/strangersinatangledwilderness. We send out a zine every month to our backers at $10 or more. We have another podcast called Strangers in a Tangled Wilderness where we do a free audio version and an interview with the person who has recorded the zine or who wrote the zine...Put the verbs in the right order on your own time. And in particular, we would like to thank Carson, Lord Harken, Trixter, Princess Miranda, BenBen, anonymous--that's a good choice--Funder, Jans, Oxalice, Janice & O'dell, Paige, Aly, Paparouna, Milicia, Boise Mutual Aid, theo, Hunter, Shawn, S.J., Paige, Mikki, Nicole, David, Dana, Chelsea, Cat J., Staro, Jenipher, Eleanor, Kirk, Sam, Chris, Michaiah, and Hoss the dog. Thank you Hoss the dog and everyone be as well as you can and we'll talk to you soon. Find out more at https://live-like-the-world-is-dying.pinecast.co

On this week's Sunday Special of Human Events Daily, Jack Posobiec is joined by Gavin Wax and Viva Frei to discuss the rise of American Bolshevism and its implications for political opposition, dissident media, and Christian persecution. Our expert guests will delve into the tactics and strategies employed by the Bolshevik movement and how it has been adapted to modern-day America. We'll examine the targeting of political opposition and the militant arm of American Bolshevism, which includes the militant trans movement. Our panel will also discuss the attack on dissident media and the implications for free speech and democracy. Finally, we'll explore the persecution of Christians at the hands of the American Bolshevists and the potential impact on religious freedom. All this and more ahead on Human Events Daily!Here's your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiec Save up to 65% on MyPillow products by going to MyPillow.com/POSO and use code POSO 

Episode 2638: It Is Time For Subpoenas; American Bolshevism