POPULARITY
Categories
98 episodes with Contrary
44 episodes with Contrary
39 episodes with Contrary
40 episodes with Contrary
19 episodes with Contrary
16 episodes with Contrary
12 episodes with Contrary
18 episodes with Contrary
15 episodes with Contrary
32 episodes with Contrary
12 episodes with Contrary
23 episodes with Contrary
7 episodes with Contrary
20 episodes with Contrary
9 episodes with Contrary
6 episodes with Contrary
15 episodes with Contrary
28 episodes with Contrary
9 episodes with Contrary
15 episodes with Contrary
10 episodes with Contrary
7 episodes with Contrary
10 episodes with Contrary
7 episodes with Contrary
8 episodes with Contrary
12 episodes with Contrary
6 episodes with Contrary
6 episodes with Contrary
9 episodes with Contrary
7 episodes with Contrary
7 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
9 episodes with Contrary
10 episodes with Contrary
6 episodes with Contrary
12 episodes with Contrary
6 episodes with Contrary
10 episodes with Contrary
29 episodes with Contrary
8 episodes with Contrary
7 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
6 episodes with Contrary
10 episodes with Contrary
6 episodes with Contrary
8 episodes with Contrary
8 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
6 episodes with Contrary
5 episodes with Contrary
5 episodes with Contrary
18 episodes with Contrary
16 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
7 episodes with Contrary
16 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
7 episodes with Contrary
7 episodes with Contrary
8 episodes with Contrary
9 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
8 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
6 episodes with Contrary
9 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
7 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
11 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
6 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
5 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
5 episodes with Contrary
6 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
5 episodes with Contrary
7 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
2 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
8 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
6 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
2 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
7 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
6 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
6 episodes with Contrary
5 episodes with Contrary
5 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
5 episodes with Contrary
2 episodes with Contrary
5 episodes with Contrary
5 episodes with Contrary
6 episodes with Contrary
5 episodes with Contrary
5 episodes with Contrary
6 episodes with Contrary
6 episodes with Contrary
5 episodes with Contrary
5 episodes with Contrary
5 episodes with Contrary
2 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
2 episodes with Contrary
2 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
2 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
2 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
2 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
5 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
9 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
4 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
2 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
3 episodes with Contrary
Send us a textEver wondered how to turn financial expertise into a thriving remote business that creates both freedom and wealth? Sherrel T. Martin, founder and CEO of Nitrum Financial Solutions, pulls back the curtain on building a successful virtual bookkeeping practice that serves entrepreneurs while allowing her to be present for her family.Contrary to popular belief, Sherrel reveals that bookkeeping success hinges more on problem-solving abilities than mathematical prowess. "Math is the smallest part," she explains, dispelling the myth that you need complex calculation skills to excel in this field. What truly matters is understanding compliance, creating systems, and helping clients navigate financial decisions with confidence.The conversation takes a fascinating turn as Sherrel shares her methodology for helping business owners actually pay themselves consistently—a struggle for many entrepreneurs. Through implementing cash management systems based on the "Profit First" approach, she's transformed how clients view their money, leading to greater personal and business wealth. Her mission goes beyond accurate books; she's passionate about creating a financial legacy for herself and those she serves.For aspiring bookkeepers, Sherrel offers practical wisdom on avoiding common pitfalls: pricing services appropriately (hint: bundle packages instead of hourly billing), finding your industry niche, and being intentional about client selection. Her candid admission about leaving her corporate job too quickly resonates with anyone contemplating their own entrepreneurial leap.Whether you're considering a bookkeeping business or simply want to better understand your company's finances, this episode delivers actionable insights on creating profitability, maintaining proper financial boundaries, and building a business that serves your life rather than consuming it. Discover why "pricing for profit" might be the mindset shift that transforms your financial future.
Hello Youtube Members, Patreons and Pacific War week by week listeners. Yes this was intended to be an exclusive episode to join the 29 others over on my Youtube Membership and Patreon, but since we are drawing to the end of the Pacific War week by week series, I felt compelled to make some special episodes to answer some of the bigger questions. Why did Japan, or better said, why did Emperor Hirohito decide to finally surrender? It seems obvious on the face of it, but there is actually a lot more to it than bombs or Soviet invasions. I guess you can call this episode a teaser or a shameless plug for going over to my Youtube Membership or Patreon. There's honestly a lot of interesting subjects such as ‘why was the japanese army so brutal”, “Hirohito's war time responsibility”, “the 4 part Kanji Ishiwara series”. Thus if you liked this one please show some love and check out my other stuff on my Youtube Membership or over at www.patreon.com/pacificwarchannel. Stating all of that lets just jump right into it. We first need to start off briefly looking at Emperor Hirohito. Upon taking the throne, Emperor Hirohito in 1926 Hirohito inherited a financial crisis and a military that was increasingly seizing control of governmental policies. From the beginning, despite what many of you older audience members may have been told, Hirohito intensely followed all military decisions. Hirohito chose when to act and when not to. When the Kwantung Army assassinated Zhang Zuolin, he indulged their insubordination. This emboldened them to invade Manchuria in 1931, whereupon Hirohito was furious and demanded they be reigned in. Attempts were made, but they were heavily undermined by radicals. Hirohito could have put his foot down, but he chose not to. On September 22nd, at 4:20pm Hirohito said to the IJA Chief of General staff, Kanaya Hanzo “although this time it couldn't be helped, the army had to be more careful in the future”. Thus Hirohito again acquiesced to the military, despite wanting them to stop or at least localize the conflict. The military had disregarded his wishes, they should have been severely punished. Why did Hirohito not take a firmer stance? Again for older audience members you may have heard, “hirohito was a hostage at the whim of his own military”. This narrative made it seem he was some sort of hostage emperor, but this is not the case at all. In fact Hirohito was instrumental in many military decisions from 1931-1945. The reason this, I will call it “myth” , went on was because after Japan's surrender, the US basically rewrote the Japanese constitution and covered up the Emperor's involvement in all the nasty stuff, to maintain control over Japan. Yeah it sounds a bit conspiracy esque, but I assure you it was indeed the case. This narrative held firm all the way until Hirohito's death, when finally meeting notes and personal accounts from those close to him came out, illuminating a lot. Though to this day, many records are still red -tapped. The reason Hirohito did not stamp his foot down has to do with the Kokutai. The Kokutai So before I carry on, I have to explain what exactly is the Kokutai. The Kokutai, loosely translated as "national essence," refers to the qualities that distinguish the Japanese identity. However, this concept is remarkably vague and poorly defined; even Japanese historians acknowledge this ambiguity. In contrast to Kokutai is seitai, or "form of government." While the Kokutai embodies the eternal and immutable aspects of Japanese polity—rooted in history, traditions, and customs centered around the Emperor—Japan's seitai has evolved significantly throughout its extensive history. For instance, shoguns governed for over 700 years until 1868, when the Meiji Restoration reinstated direct imperial rule. Nevertheless, Emperor Meiji's direct authority came to an end with the adoption of the Meiji Constitution in 1889, which established a constitutional monarchy, introducing significant complexities into the governance system. Article 4 of the constitution declares: “The Emperor is the head of the Empire, combining in Himself the rights of sovereignty, uniting the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, although subject to the consent of the Imperial Diet.” Under this framework, the Emperor alone possessed the power to appoint or dismiss ministers of state, declare war, negotiate peace, conclude treaties, direct national administration, and command the army and navy. A glaring flaw in this arrangement is the inherent ambiguity of the Meiji Constitution. While it established a democratic parliament, it simultaneously afforded the Emperor absolute authority to usurp it. The document failed to clearly define the relationships between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and its language was intentionally vague. Most critically, the military—the army and navy—were not directly accountable to the civilian government. So with the kokutai, the Emperor is a divine figure who embodies the state's sovereignty. It was not necessarily the Emperor's job to surrender on behalf of the official government of Japan, but he most certainly could do so, given the Japanese people still remained faithful to the kokutai. Now Hirohito did not live an ordinary life. According to the imperial custom, Japanese royals were raised apart from their parents, at the age of 3 he was placed in the care of the Kwamura family who vowed to raise him to be unselfish, persevering in the face of difficulties, respectful of the views of others and immune to fear. One thing that was absolutely indoctrinated into him was to defend the kokutai. It became his top mission as a monarch, it was the only mission in many ways. At the very core of how he saw the world and how he acted, it was always to protect the kokutai. So when the Japanese military began these insubordinate acts, Hirohito's primary concern was to the kokutai, ie: anything that threatened his imperial authority and the imperial institution itself. Although the military usurped his authority, the operations had been successful. Hirohito was not at all opposed to seeing his empire expand. He understood the value of manchuria, he was fully onboard with the military plans to eventually seize control over it, but these radicals were accelerating things to quickly for everyone's liking. He turned a blind eye, dished light punishments and carried on. However the local conflict escalated. It traveled to Shanghai by 1932 and here Hirohito took action. He understood Shanghai was full of western powers. Nations like Britain and America could place economic sanctions on Japan if things were allowed to get out of hand here. So he ordered General Yoshinori Shirakawa to bring the Shanghai expedition to a close. During this period, two factions emerged within the Japanese military: the Kodoha, or “Imperial Way,” and the Toseiha, or “Control” faction. The Kodoha was founded by General Sadao Araki and his protégé, Jinzaburo Masaki. Their primary objective was a Shōwa Restoration aimed at purging Japan of corrupt politicians and businessmen, especially those associated with the zaibatsu. Composed mainly of young army officers, the Kodoha espoused a romanticized and radical interpretation of Bushido, idealizing pre-industrial Japan, which Araki believed had been tainted by Western influences. To achieve their goals, they resorted to assassinations and planned a coup d'état. In response, the Toseiha faction was formed, initially led by Lt. General Tetsuzan Nagata and later by Hideki Tojo. Like the Kodoha, the Toseiha sought a Shōwa Restoration but adopted a more moderate and conservative approach. They recognized the importance of preserving traditional values while integrating Western ideals, advocating for a balanced perspective. The Toseiha promoted pragmatic military strategies to navigate the complexities of modern warfare. Although they acknowledged the existence of corrupt politicians and zaibatsu, they preferred to work within the existing political system, anticipating that future total wars would necessitate a strengthened industrial and military capacity. Their ranks primarily included promising graduates from the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) Academy, Army Staff College, and select naval members. The most significant distinction between the two factions was that the Toseiha explicitly rejected the use of a coup d'état in pursuit of their goals. Between 1932-1936 radical officers, mostly of the Kodoha faction assassinated politicians and military leaders trying to usher in a showa restoration. You might be led to believe this was in the interest of Hirohito, you would be mistaken. Hirohito did not want a military dictatorship at the whim of the cult of the emperor. Ironic to say, given how WW2 turns out mind you. This really would have been a hostage situation. Hirohito wanted to maintain the exact ambiguous situation that was Showa Era Japan pre 1945. He saw this as the most ideal structure to defend the kokutai, because blame could not be placed solely upon his shoulders. He always maintained a get out of jail free card one could say. The February 26 incident of 1936, was the climax of the Kodoha faction. They performed a mutiny trying to usher in a SHowa restoration. They assumed when their messenger came to the emperor he would join them and take direct rule. Instead Hirohito was furious. His first thought was the mutineers were trying to enlist his brother Chichibu to overthrow him. He dragged his brother who was a fraternizer amongst the kodoha members mind you, into a meeting, demanding he never associate with them again nor attempt to challenge him. Then Hirohito furious demanded the mutineers be dealt with. At one point he even threatened to lead the imperial guards to put them down. The coup failed, the kodoha faction was destroyed. Ironically the toseiha faction were the ones to do it and thus they became the defacto ruling clique. The military, especially the kwantung army did not stop with their insubordination. On July 8th of 1937 the Kwangtung army performed the Marco Polo Bridge incident, ushering in the second sino-japanese war. This was one of many false flag operations they had pulled off over the years. Upon being told about this Hirohito's first response was whether the USSR would invade Manchukuo over the matter. This is what he said to Prime Minister Konoe and army minister Sugiyama “What will you do if the Soviets attack us from the rear?” he asked the prince. Kan'in answered, “I believe the army will rise to the occasion.” The emperor repeated his question: “That's no more than army dogma. What will you actually do in the unlikely event that Soviet [forces] attack?” The prince said only, “We will have no choice.” His Majesty seemed very dissatisfied. Hirohito furious demanded to know what contingency plans existed and his advisors told him before he gave his red seal of approval to invade northern china. Henceforth he micromanaged a lot of the military decisions going forward and he oversaw the forming and dissolving of numerous cabinets and positions when things went his way or did not in the military and political scene. Emperor Hirohito was presented with several opportunities to cause cease-fires or peace settlements during the war years. One of the best possible moments to end it all came during the attack on Nanking when Chiang Kai-sheks military were in disarray. On July 11 of 1938, the commander of the 19th division fought a border clash with the USSR known to us in the west as the battle of Lake Khasan. It was a costly defeat for Japan and in the diary of Harada Kumao he noted Hirohito scolded Army minister Itagaki “Hereafter not a single soldier is to be moved without my permission.” When it looked like the USSR would not press for a counter attack across the border, Hirohito gave the order for offensives in China to recommence, again an example of him deciding when to lay down the hammer. By 1939 the US began threatening sanctions for what Japan was doing in China. Hirohito complained to his chief aide de camp Hata Shunroku on August 5th “It could be a great blow to scrap metal and oil”. Hirohito was livid and scolded many of his top officials and forced the appointment of General Abe to prime minister and demanded of him “to cooperate with the US and Britain and preserve internal order”. Fast forward a bit, with war raging in Europe Hirohito, on June 19th of 1940 Hirohito asked if chief of staff Prince Kan'in and Army Minister Hata “At a time when peace will soon come in the European situation, will there be a deployment of troops to the Netherlands Indies and French Indochina?” This question highlighted Hirohito's belief at that time that Germany was close to achieving victory, which led him to gradually consider deploying troops to French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies since neither of those parent nations was in a position to protect their territories and vital resources. Regarding the war in China, the Japanese aimed to stop the flow of materials entering China from places like Hong Kong. Hirohito received reports indicating that Britain would not agree to block the shipment of materials into China via Hong Kong. The military recognized that an invasion of Hong Kong might be necessary, which would mean declaring war on Britain. When this was communicated to him, Hirohito responded, “If that occurs, I'm sure America will enforce an embargo, don't you think?” In response, Kido, the lord of the privy seal, reassured him by stating, “The nation must be fully prepared to resist, proceeding with caution and avoiding being drawn into events instigated by foreign interests.” Hirohito went through countless meetings, but eventually signed order number 458 authorizing the invasion of French Indochina, knowing full well the consequences. The US,UK and Netherlands began embargoes of oil, rubber and iron. In the words of Admiral Takagai “As time passes and this situation continues, our empire will either be totally defeated or forced to fight a hopeless war. Therefore we should pursue war and diplomacy together. If there is no prospect of securing our final line of national survival by diplomatic negotiations, we must be resolved to fight.” Hirohito understood the predicament full well, that each day Japan was wasting its oil reserves, if they were to strike it had to be quickly. On October 13th Hirohito told his closest advisor Koichi Kido “In the present situation there seems to be little hope for the Japan–U.S. negotiations. If hostilities erupt this time, I think I may have to issue a declaration of war.” The reason I am bringing up all this stuff is to solidify, Hirohito had agency, he was micromanaging and forming decisions. After the war broke out with the west, Hirohito did have the ability to stamp his foot down. Of course there could have been wild repercussions, his military could have usurped him with Chichibu, it was definitely possible. But you need to keep this mind set, as far as why Hirohito acts or doesn't, its always to protect the Kokutai. Thus one of the levers for peace, solely rested on Hirohito's perception if the kokutai could be retained or not. From the outset of the Pacific War, Hirohito believed Germany was going to defeat the USSR. In line with his military leaders, they all believed Japan had to seize everything they could in the asia-pacific and thwart off the US until a negotiated peace could be met. Hirohito committed himself to overseeing the war, determined to achieve victory at any cost. He was a very cautious leader, he meticulously analyzed each campaign, anticipating potential setbacks and crafting worst-case scenario predictions. He maintained a skeptical view of the reports from his senior officials and was often harshly critical of high commanders. While he did not frequently visit the front lines like other commanders in chief, Hirohito wielded significant influence over theater operations, shaping both planning and execution whenever he deemed necessary. Similar to his approach during the war in China, he issued the highest military orders from the Imperial Headquarters, conducted audited conferences, and made decisions communicated under his name. He regularly welcomed generals and admirals to the imperial palace for detailed briefings on the battlefront and visited various military bases, battleships, and army and naval headquarters. His inspections encompassed military schools and other significant military institutions, adding to his comprehensive involvement in the war effort. Now the war went extremely well for Japan until the battle of Midway. This was as major setback, but Japan retained the initiative. Then the Guadalcanal campaign saw Japan lose the initiative to the Americans. Upon receiving the initial report of the Ichiki detachment's destruction, Hirohito remarked, “I am sure it [Guadalcanal] can be held.” Despite the numerous reports detailing the devastating effects of tropical diseases and starvation on his troops, he persistently demanded greater efforts from them. Hirohito exerted continuous pressure on his naval and land commanders to retake the island. On September 15th, November 5th, and November 11th, he requested additional Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) troops and aircraft to be allocated to the cause. General Sugiyama expressed concerns about dispatching more IJA pilots due to their inexperience in transoceanic combat, preferring to reinforce the North China Army for an attack on Chongqing instead. Hirohito pressed the issue again, but Sugiyama responded that the IJA had diverted its air resources to New Guinea and Rabaul. Undeterred by the objections from senior commanders, Hirohito persisted in his demands. By late November, it became evident that Guadalcanal was a lost cause. At an Imperial Headquarters conference on December 31st, 1942, the chiefs of staff proposed canceling the attempts to recapture Guadalcanal. Hirohito sanctioned this decision but stated, “It is unacceptable to just give up on capturing Guadalcanal. We must launch an offensive elsewhere.” He insisted on this point, leading to the selection of new strategic targets in the Solomons, north of New Georgia, and in the Stanley Range on New Guinea. Hirohito even threatened to withhold authorization for withdrawing troops from Guadalcanal until a new plan was established. He later opposed the withdrawal from Munda Airfield, as it contradicted the newly defined defensive line. As the defensive perimeter in the central and northern Solomons began to crumble, Hirohito continued to insist that the navy engage in decisive battles to regain the initiative, allowing for the transport of supplies to the many soldiers trapped on various islands. When he learned of the navy's failure to reinforce Lae on March 3rd, he asked, “Then why didn't you change plans immediately and land at Madan? This is a failure, but it can teach us a good lesson and become a source of future success. Do this for me so I can have peace of mind for a while.” The phrase “Do this for me” would come to be his signature rallying cry. After Guadal canal, it was loss after loss for Japan. By February of 1944, Hirohito forced Sugiyama to resign so Hideki Tojo could take his position as chief of the general staff, note Tojo was prime minister and army minister at this point. Hirohito worked alongside Tojo to plan some last ditch efforts to change the war situation. The most significant one was Operation Ichi-Go. As much damage as they did to China with that, Chiang Kai-Shek's government survived. Hirohito watched as island by island fell to the Americans. When the Americans were poised to take Saipan he warned Tojo “If we ever lose Saipan, repeated air attacks on Tokyo will follow. No matter what it takes, we have to hold there.” Saipan fell, so Hirohito stopped supporting Tojo and allowed his rivals to take down his cabinet by june 18th of 1944. Hirohito remained resolute in his determination to wrest victory from the Allies. On October 18th, the Imperial Headquarters ordered a decisive naval engagement, leading to the Battle of Leyte Gulf. After the war, Hirohito publicly stated, "Contrary to the views of the Army and Navy General Staffs, I consented to the showdown battle at Leyte, believing that if we launched an attack and America hesitated, we might find an opportunity to negotiate." Leyte Gulf didnt work. The military began the kamikaze program. On new years day of 1945 Hirohito inspected the special last meal rations given to departing kamikaze units. Iwo Jima fell. Okinawa remained, and Hirohito lashed out “Is it because we failed to sink enemy transports that we've let the enemy get ashore? Isn't there any way to defend Okinawa from the landing enemy forces?” On the second day of Okinawa's invasion Hirohito ordered a counter landing by the 32nd army and urged the navy to counterattack in every way possible. It was a horrible failure, it cost the lives of up to 120,000 Japanese combatants, 170,000 noncombatants. The Americans lost 12,500 killed and 33,000 wounded. An absolute bloodbath. The Surrender time Now we come to the time period where Japan seriously began looking for ways to surrender. In Europe Germany was heading to its defeat and Japan knew this. As for Japan, their army in Burma had been annihilated. Their forces in China were faring better after Operation Ichi-go, having opened up a land corridor along the main railway from Beiping to Wuhan and from throughout Guangdong but still stuck in a deadlock stalemate, facing a guerrilla war that was costing them 64% of their military expenditures. They deeply feared once the Soviets finished up with Germany, they would undoubtedly turn east against Manchuria. With the Soviets attacking from the north, the US would attack from the south, perhaps landing in Shanghai and the home islands. The Kamikaze tactics were proving formidable, but not nearly enough. By 1945, 43% of the IJA were now stationed in Japan, Korea and Formosa, bracing for the final stand. Former prime minister Reijiro Wakatsuki came out of retirement in may of 1945, having heard Germany collapsed, to urge Hirohito and the Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki to open negotiations with the US as soon as possible. However he also said “the enemy must first be made to see the disadvantages of continuing the war”. To this Hirohito's chief counselor Makino Nobuaki said that “the ultimate priority is to develop an advantageous war situation.” Advisor admiral Kesiuke Okada said Japan should wait for “a moment favorable for us,” then make peace. Advisors Kiichiro Hiranuma and Koki Hirota advised the emperor to fight on until the end. Now I want to bring in a key player to the surrender decision, that of Prince Konoe. Konoe was very close to Hirohito and understood the emperors mentality, especially how he viewed things in relation to the kokutai. The senior statesman Prince Konoe had been consulting with Hirohito for over 18 months at this point trying to convey the message that if the war continued it would threaten the kokutai. Many months prior, he confided in the emperor's brother, Prince Takamatsu, that the army was suffering from “a cancer” in the form of the Toseiha faction. However, he noted that “Kido and others” did not share his perspective, while “his Majesty is relatively unconcerned with ideological issues.” For the past four years, he continued, the emperor had been advised and still believed that “the true extremists are the Kodoha faction.” In reality, the greater threat to the kokutai arose from the Toseiha faction. Konoe further asserted that if the war escalated, they would attempt to alter the kokutai. Konoe speculated that whether the threat originated from communists within the nation, primarily referring to left-wing radicals in the Toseiha faction, or from the “Anglo-American enemy,” both would seek to preserve the emperor while pushing towards the country's communization.In his written report to the emperor on February 14, which Kido listened to attentively, Konoe elaborated on his conspiracy theory. He asserted that the Soviet Union regarded Japan as its primary threat in East Asia. The Soviets had allied with the Chinese Communists, the largest and most formidable Communist party in Asia, and were collaborating with the United States and Britain to drive Japan out of China. He warned that they would enter the war when the opportunity arose. Defeat, he cautioned the emperor, was inevitable if the conflict persisted. However, he emphasized that a far greater fear was the potential destruction of the kokutai. The ongoing war was eroding the domestic status quo, unleashing forces that threatened Japan and its imperial institution from within as much as from external adversaries. The real danger lay in the emperor's and Kido's trust in the generals of the Toseiha faction, who were unintentionally facilitating the communization of Japan. Konoe implored for a swift peace settlement before a Communist revolution emerged, making the preservation of the kokutai impossible. Hirohito agreed with Konoe but stated “ To end the war would be “very difficult unless we make one more military gain.” Konoe allegedly replied, “Is that possible? It must happen soon. If we have to wait much longer, . . . [a mere battle victory] will mean nothing.” Hirohito replied “If we hold out long enough in this war, we may be able to win, but what worries me is whether the nation will be able to endure it until then.” On February 15th of 1945, Hirohito's intelligence warned the Soviet Union would likely abrogate its Neutrality Pact with Japan. Even Tojo conceded there was a 50/50 chance the USSR would invade Manchuria. In March, the US began B-29 incendiary bombing raids over Tokyo, turning 40% of the capital into ash. On March 18th, Hirohito with some aides drove around the capital to witness the devastation. The civilians looked exhausted and bewildered to Hirohito. Factory production was collapsing, absenteeism was rising, instances of lese majeste were running rampant. For the next 5 months imperial family members and senior statesmen all began speaking to Hirohito about the “crises of the kokutai”. The threat Konoe had warned about for months was becoming the main talking point. It seemed like the Japanese people within the countryside and urban areas remained steadfast in the resolve to obey their leaders, work and sacrifice for their nation, but for how long would they feel so? It was only after the battle for Okinawa was lost and 60 Japanese cities had been leveled by American incendiary bombs that Hirohito openly indicated he wanted to negotiate a surrender. Kido's diary reveals the first clear indication that the emperor might be urged to consider an early peace on June 8, 1945, when Kido drafted his “Draft Plan for Controlling the Crisis Situation.” This marked a pivotal moment. It followed the unintentional bombing of the Imperial Palace, the complete loss of hope for saving Okinawa, and coincided with the day the Supreme War Leadership Council adopted the “Basic Policy for the Future Direction of the War.” With the fighting in Europe concluded, Japan found itself entirely isolated. Kido's plan, although vague, proposed seeking the Soviet Union's assistance as an intermediary to help Japan gain leverage in negotiations with its adversaries. By drafting this plan, Kido signaled the end of his long alliance with the military hard-liners. Hirohito's acceptance of it indicated his readiness for an early peace. Hirohito was moved to an underground bunker in the mountains of Matsushiro in Nagano prefecture where upon those around him noted he fell into a deep depression. On June 22nd Hirohito informed the Supreme War Leadership Council he wanted them to open diplomatic maneuvers to end the war. In early July Soviet Ambassador Jacob Malik broke off inconclusive talks with Hirota. Hirohito stepped in immediately and ordered a new special envoy be sent to Moscow. However Hirohito nor the Suzuki government had concrete plans on how to mediate a surrender through the Soviets. The only things they did prioritize was a guarantee of the emperors political position and retainment of the imperial system, ie the kokutai. This was taken into consideration rather than ending the war as quickly as possible to save the lives of millions. From April 8, 1945, until Japan's capitulation, the Suzuki government's chief war policy was “Ketsugo,” an advanced iteration of the “Shosango” (Victory Number 3) plan for defending the homeland. The hallmark of this strategy was a heavy reliance on suicide tactics, including deploying a massive number of kamikaze “special attack” planes, human torpedoes launched from submarines, dynamite-stuffed “crash boats” powered by truck engines, human rocket bombs carried by aircraft, and suicide assaults by specially trained ground units. While preparations for Operation Ketsu progressed, the Imperial Diet convened on June 9 to pass a Wartime Emergency Measures Law, along with five additional measures aimed at mobilizing the entire nation for this final battle. On the same day, the emperor, who had yet to initiate efforts to end the war, issued another imperial rescript in conjunction with the Diet's convocation, instructing the nation to “smash the inordinate ambitions of the enemy nations” and “achieve the goals of the war.” Concurrently, the controlled press launched a daily die-for-the-emperor campaign to foster gratitude for the imperial benevolence and, from around mid-July onward, initiated a campaign to “protect the kokutai.” The Americans countered with their own propaganda aimed at breaking Japan's will to fight. B-29 bombers dropped millions of leaflets written in Japanese, announcing the next scheduled targets for bombing raids and urging surrender, while using the emperor to challenge the militarists. Leaflets bearing the chrysanthemum crest criticized the “military cliques” for “forcing the entire nation to commit suicide” and called on “everyone” to “exercise their constitutional right to make direct appeals [for peace] to the Emperor.” They asserted that “even the powerful military cliques cannot stop the mighty march for peace of the Emperor and the people.” One notable batch of seven million leaflets conveyed the terms of the “joint declaration” issued by the United States, Great Britain, and China. “Today we come not to bomb you,” they stated. “We are dropping this leaflet to inform you of the response from the United States government to your government's request for conditions of surrender.... Whether the war stops immediately depends on your government. You will understand how to end the war if you read these two official notifications.” Amid pressures from imperial edicts to continue preparations for a final battle and focus solely on victory, the Japanese people were also subjected to an intense American psychological warfare campaign in addition to aerial bombardment. During late July and August, prefectural governors, police chiefs, and officers of the “special higher police” submitted reports to the Home Ministry detailing the rapidly deteriorating national morale. Now on the other side, Roosevelt made it known back in January of 1943 at the Casablanca conference, the allies would only accept unconditional surrender. By 1945, the allies understood the predicament this left Japan with. On May 8th of 1945, Truman added “Japan's surrender would not mean the extermination or enslavement of the Japanese people” trying to indicate a non vindictive spirit. However the Kokutai question always remained ambiguous. State Department Joseph Grew, the former ambassador to Japan, began arguing to Truman they needed to make public a clear definition of the terms to persuade Japan to surrender. As he argued to Truman: Emperor Hirohito was seen as the key figure in Japan's surrender, likened to a "queen bee in a hive... surrounded by the attentions of the hive." Throughout the war, he was characterized in various ways—as a “puppet” of the militarists, a constitutional monarch, and a pacifist. Grew had immense faith in the influence exerted by what he referred to as the “moderates” surrounding the Japanese throne. However many of Grew's colleagues argued the future existence of the monarchy was intolerable as it was akin to fascism. Many wanted to punish the emperor. Truman was in a tug of war. The Potsdam declaration issued on July 26th of 1945 came in the form of a ultimatum aiming to quicken japans surrender. Truman clarified the terms for the unconditional surrender at the end of its terms: "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." Zero mention of the emperor. Grew had argued to add “this may include a constitutional monarchy under the present dynasty.” But it was deleted from the article. The status of the emperor was not guaranteed, the kokutai was thus up in the air. The next day, the Suzuki cabinet rejected the terms. The Japanese leadership and Hirohito were still banking and awaiting Soviet replies to their terms. Lets talk about the Soviet talks now Back on July 12th ambassador Naotake Satō sent this message to the Soviets: “His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland”. However the Soviets had made commitments to their allies, promising in fact to invade Japan to aid them. As for the Soviets their primary objective was to ensure unrestricted access to the Pacific Ocean. The year-round ice-free areas of the Soviet Pacific coastline, particularly Vladivostok, could be blockaded by air and sea from Sakhalin Island and the Kurile Islands. Securing these territories to guarantee free access to the Soya Strait was their main goal. Secondary objectives included acquiring leases for the Chinese Eastern Railway, the Southern Manchuria Railway, as well as gaining control over Dairen and Port Arthur. To achieve these aims, Stalin and Molotov prolonged negotiations with the Japanese, creating a false sense of hope for a Soviet-mediated peace. Simultaneously, in their discussions with the United States and Britain, the Soviets insisted on strict adherence to the Cairo Declaration, which had been reaffirmed at the Yalta Conference. This declaration stipulated that the Allies would not accept a separate or conditional peace with Japan; thus, the Japanese would need to surrender unconditionally to all the Allies. The Soviets aimed to prolong the war by opposing any efforts to dilute this requirement. This approach would provide the Soviets with the necessary time to complete the transfer of their troops from the Western Front to the Far East and to conquer Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, northern Korea, South Sakhalin, the Kuriles, and potentially Hokkaidō, starting with an assault on Rumoi. AUGUST 1945 Thus we come to at last the critical point, August of 1945. The Americans prepared for the deployment of atomic bombs and for an invasion of southern Kyushu, known as Operation Olympic, scheduled to commence on November 1. At 8:15 A.M. on August 6, a single B-29 bomber, the Enola Gay dropped little boy, devastating much of the undefended city of Hiroshima, instantly killing an estimated 100,000 to 140,000 people and leading to the deaths of possibly another 100,000 over the next five years. At the epicenter of the explosion, “a light appeared 3,000 times brighter than the sun,” creating a fireball that emitted thermal radiation capable of “instantly scorching humans, trees, and houses.” As the air heated and rushed upward, cold air surged in to ignite a firestorm. Hours later, a whirlwind escalated the flames to their peak until more than eight square miles were virtually reduced to cinders. Subsequently, black, muddy rain filled with radioactive fallout began to fall. Two days later, using Japan's rejection of the Potsdam Declaration as a pretext, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. Then on August 9, the United States dropped a second atomic bomb on Nagasaki, resulting in the immediate deaths of approximately 35,000 to 40,000 people and injuring more than 60,000. Meanwhile, in Tokyo, during the critical period between the Potsdam Declaration and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Emperor Hirohito remained silent about accepting the Potsdam terms. However, on July 25 and 31, he explicitly conveyed to Kido that the imperial regalia must be defended at all costs. The three sacred objects—a mirror, a curved jewel, and a sword—symbolized the legitimacy of his rule through the northern court and were integral to his identity as the divine sovereign. Hirohito's focus was on protecting these symbols of office, as he insisted on having them brought to the palace. This fixation on maintaining his symbols occurred during a pivotal moment when the pressing issue was whether to accept immediate capitulation. Reflecting on this, he was unprepared to seize the opportunity to end the war himself. Prime Minister Suzuki, following his initial rejection of the Potsdam ultimatum, also saw no need for further action. His Cabinet Advisory Council, which included the president of Asano Cement, the founder of the Nissan consortium, the vice president of the Bank of Japan, and other representatives from the nation's leading business interests that had profited significantly from the war, convened on the morning of August 3. They recommended accepting the Potsdam terms, arguing that the United States would permit Japan to retain its non-military industries and continue participating in world trade. Here are some reactions to the two bombs and invasion of Manchuria. Yonai Mitsumasa said to admiral Takagi Sokichi, on August 12, that “I think the term is perhaps inappropriate, but the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war are, in a sense, gifts from the gods [tenyu, also “heaven-sent blessings”]. This way we don't have to say that we quit the war because of domestic circumstances. I've long been advocating control of our crisis, but neither from fear of an enemy attack nor because of the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war. The main reason is my anxiety over the domestic situation. So, it is rather fortunate that we can now control matters without revealing the domestic situation”. Konoe's characterized the Soviet involvement in the war as “a godsend for controlling the army,”. Kido viewed of both the atomic bombings and the Soviet entry into the conflict as “useful” elements for ensuring a smooth transition. A nascent power struggle was unfolding, rendering the potential death toll—whether one hundred thousand or two hundred thousand—immaterial to those involved, as long as their desired outcome was achieved: an end to the war that would leave the monarchy intact and capable of managing the discontent that defeat would inevitably provoke. Throughout the final acts of this wartime drama, the Japanese “moderates” found it easier to capitulate to external pressures than to take decisive action on their own to conclude the war. Another illuminating looks at Japan's elite's perspective on surrender terms was the document titled “Essentials of Peace Negotiations” (wahei kosho no yoryo). Drafted by Konoe and his adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Sakai Koji, after Konoe had reluctantly accepted a mission to Moscow, this document, stipulated the preservation of the emperor system, along with most of the imperial prerogatives, as the absolute minimum condition for peace. It defined the “original” or “essential homeland” as including the southern half of the Kurile Islands but showed a willingness to concede all overseas territories to the enemy, including Okinawa and the American-occupied Bonin Islands, as well as the southern half of Sakhalin. The “Essentials” also accepted complete disarmament for an unspecified period, thereby compromising on the issues of demobilizing and disarming the armed forces. More significantly, an “explanation” attached to the “Essentials” emphasized that “the main aim is to secure the imperial line and maintain the political role of the emperor.” Why Japan surrendered We come to it atleast after a long podcast. Why did Japan ultimately surrender? The twin psychological shocks of the first atomic bomb and the Soviet entry into the war, combined with Kido's and the emperor's concern over escalating public criticism of the throne and its occupant, fueled an almost paranoid fear that, sooner or later, the populace would react violently against their leaders if the war persisted much longer. These factors ultimately led Hirohito to accept, in principle, the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. At the first meeting of the six member constituents of the Supreme War Leadership Council, held from 10:30 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. on August 9, Army Minister Anami Korechika, Chiefs of Staff Umezu Yoshijiro, representing the army, and Yonai, representing the navy, along with Tōgō, from the Foreign Ministry, were expected to discuss the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. Instead, the conversation revolved around whether to attempt a conditional surrender—specifically, should they insist on one condition, the preservation of the kokutai, or four? After Suzuki addressed the assembly regarding the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and the Soviet attack, Yonai, as recounted by Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda, was the first to speak, framing the issue in terms of four conditions. “Let's start to talk, Do we accept the Potsdam Declaration with no conditions? If not, and we wish to insist on attaching hopes and conditions, we may do so this way. First, preservation of the kokutai; then for the rest, the main items in the Potsdam Declaration: treatment of war criminals, method of disarmament, and the matter of sending in an army of occupation.” Thus, the participants identified what they perceived to be the ambiguous points within the Potsdam Declaration and used them as the foundation for their discussions. The army insisted on four conditions: First, the preservation of the kokutai, which they considered distinct from the Potsdam Declaration itself. The other conditions proposed were, second, that the Imperial Headquarters assume responsibility for disarmament and demobilization; third, a prohibition on occupation; and fourth, the delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government. The army equated the kokutai with the emperor's right of supreme command. Their self-serving desire for autonomous war crimes trials was based on the belief that the Allies would use such trials to politically indict the military. Consequently, army leaders aimed to preempt the activities of any international tribunal by conducting their own trials—similar to the approach taken by the uninvaded and unrepentant Germans after World War I. Supporting the military's views during cabinet meetings that day were three civilian members of the Suzuki cabinet: Justice Minister Matsuzaka Hiromasa, Home Minister Yasui Toji, and Minister of Health Okada Tadahiko. At the imperial conference that night, which extended into the early hours of the tenth, Foreign Minister Tōgō's interpretation of the “preservation of the kokutai” referred solely to the safeguarding of the Imperial House or dynasty, rather than the continuation of Hirohito's reign. Hiranuma, another advocate for the single condition, interpreted the kokutai as the “emperor's sovereign right to rule the state [not] deriving from national law. Even if the entire nation is sacrificed to the war, we must preserve both the kokutai and the security of the imperial house.” This discrepancy illustrated that there was no completely unified understanding of what the kokutai entailed; the debate over one condition versus four represented conflicting visions for the future of the Japanese state and masked the competition for political power that was already unfolding. It remains doubtful whether the emperor and Kido initially sided with Tōgō against the four conditions proposed by the senior military leaders. A more likely inference is that both men retained sympathies for the hardliners, both military and civilian, who preferred to continue the futile war rather than surrender immediately and unconditionally. This may explain why, on August 9, Konoe had Hosokawa Morisada approach Navy General Headquarters to urge the emperor's brother, Prince Takamatsu, to pressure Hirohito (through Kido) to accept the Potsdam terms. Later that afternoon, Konoe enlisted the help of diplomat Shigemitsu Mamoru to persuade Kido to reconsider his stance on the four conditions. Ultimately, at the urging of Takamatsu and Shigemitsu, Kido did shift to support Tōgō's position. At the end of the war, as at its beginning and throughout every stage of its progression, Emperor Hirohito played a highly active role in supporting the actions carried out in his name. From the very beginning of the Asia-Pacific war, the emperor played a significant role in the unfolding events around him. Prior to the Battle of Okinawa, he consistently advocated for a decisive victory. Afterward, he acknowledged the necessity of pursuing an early peace, although he did not favor an immediate cessation of hostilities. Instead, he wavered, steering Japan toward ongoing warfare rather than direct negotiations with the Allies. When the final crisis fully unfolded, the only option left was unconditional surrender. Even then, he continued to procrastinate until the atomic bomb was dropped and the Soviets launched their attack. The wartime emperor ideology that once sustained morale made it exceedingly difficult for Japan's leaders to accept the act of surrender. Aware of their objective defeat, yet indifferent to the suffering the war inflicted on their own people—as well as on the populations of Asia, the Pacific, and the West whose lives they had disrupted—the emperor and his military leaders sought a means to lose without appearing to lose. They aimed to mitigate domestic criticism following surrender while preserving their power structure. Blinded by their fixation on the fate of the imperial house and committed to an overly optimistic diplomacy toward the Soviet Union, Japan's leaders missed several opportunities to end their lost war. Would Japan's leaders have surrendered more promptly if the Truman administration had “clarified” the status of the emperor before the cataclysmic double shocks of the atomic bomb and the Soviet entry into the war? Probably not. However, it is likely they would have surrendered to prevent the kokutai from being destroyed from within. The evidence suggests that the first atomic bomb and the Soviet declaration of war led Hirohito, Kido, and other members of the court to believe that continuing the war would inevitably result in that destruction. They recognized that the populace was war-weary and despondent, with rising hostility toward the military and the government, accompanied by increasing criticism of the emperor himself. More specifically, Kido and Hirohito were privy to Home Ministry reports, which contained information from governors and police chiefs nationwide. These reports indicated that citizens were beginning to label the emperor as an incompetent leader responsible for the deteriorating war situation. This is the third variable, never spoken about. Many first look at the atomic bombs. Bigger brain people turn to the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria. But hardly anyone reads about how the collapse of Japan's social fabric, scared the shit out of the Emperor and his closest advisors. You can't have a kokutai, without a populace that worshiped you. When the emperor expressed in February, “What worries me is whether the nation [could] endure” long enough to achieve victory, he was not merely voicing concern for the suffering of his subjects; rather, he feared that such suffering could lead to social upheaval—in short, revolution. At that time, he referred to the ordinary, war-related hardships of food shortages, air raids, devastated cities, destruction of homes, and the omnipresent grief from the loss of loved ones. The atomic bomb escalated death, pain, and suffering to unimaginably higher levels, intensifying the threat from within. After the bombings of Japan and two atomic bombs, Hirohito was in a dark way, given a golden get out of jail free card. Hirohito could now save his suffering people from further anguish by surrendering, allowing him to deflect responsibility for leading them into misery while adopting an air of benevolence and care. Indeed, Hirohito did care—though not primarily for the Japanese people, but rather for the survival of his own imperial house and throne. After the bombing of Hiroshima, Hirohito delayed for a full two days before instructing Kido, shortly before 10 A.M. on August 9, to “quickly control the situation” because “the Soviet [Union]” had declared war. Kido immediately communicated with Prime Minister Suzuki, who began arrangements for an Imperial Conference scheduled for later that night. Following the seidan of August 10, Chief Cabinet Secretary Sakomizu took charge of drafting the “Imperial Rescript Ending the War” based on Hirohito's directives. Assisted by two scholars of the Chinese classics, Kawada Mizuho and Yasuoka Masahiro, Sakomizu worked tirelessly for over three days before submitting a version of the rescript to the Suzuki cabinet. After six hours of contentious discussion on the night of August 14, the cabinet modified and approved the document. Hirohito promptly signed it, and Shimomura and Kido persuaded him to record a suitably opaque final version for broadcast to the nation. On the night of August 14, the Suzuki government notified the United States and other Allied nations that it had accepted both the Potsdam Declaration and the Byrnes letter of August 11. Accelerating the emperor's actions during this climactic moment of the unconditional surrender drama was the American psychological warfare campaign. When a leaflet dropped from B-29 bombers came into Kido's possession on the night of August 13 or the morning of the fourteenth, he conferred with the emperor and explained the gravity of the situation. The latest enemy leaflets were informing the Japanese people of the government's notification of surrender under one condition, along with the full text of Byrnes's response. If this continued, it would undermine the imperial government's reliance on secrecy to obscure the true nature of the lost war and the reasons for the prolonged surrender delay. Given Kido's and the emperor's concerns about rising signs of defeatism, including criticism of the throne, immediate action was necessary to prevent the populace from acting on their own initiative. Thus, the second seidan was convened. At noon on August 15, the Japanese people gathered around their radio receivers and heard, for the first time, the high-pitched voice of their emperor telling them: “After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in Our Empire today, We have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure. We have ordered Our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that Our Empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration. To strive for the common prosperity and happiness of all nations as well as the security and well-being of Our subjects is the solemn obligation which has been handed down by Our Imperial Ancestors and which lies close to Our heart. Indeed, We declared war on America and Britain out of Our sincere desire to ensure Japan's self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from Our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement. But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone—the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people—the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers... The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable”. Clearly Hirohito sought to justify his decision to surrender by citing the dropping of the atomic bombs. He wanted to become the saviour of the Japanese people. Hirohito wanted to obfuscate the issue of accountability, to prevent expressions of strife and anger and to strengthen domestic unity around himself, to protect and raise the kokutai. Interestingly, the surrender declaration to the civilian population was not the same one sent to the military. On August 17th Hirohito issued a second “rescript to soldiers and sailors” throughout the asia-pacific. “ Now that the Soviet Union has entered the war against us, to continue . . . under the present conditions at home and abroad would only recklessly incur even more damage to ourselves and result in endangering the very foundation of the empire's existence. Therefore, even though enormous fighting spirit still exists in the Imperial Navy and Army, I am going to make peace with the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union, as well as with Chungking, in order to maintain our glorious national polity”. The lesser-known August 17 rescript to the army and navy specified Soviet participation as the sole reason for surrender, while maintaining the kokutai as the primary aim. Dissembling until the end—and even beyond—it was noted that the emperor presented two different justifications for his delayed surrender. Both statements were likely true. Months later Hirohito's said this about his decision to surrender “The main motive behind my decision at that time was that if we . . . did not act, the Japanese race would perish and I would be unable to protect my loyal subjects [sekishi—literally, “children”]. Second, Kido agreed with me on the matter of defending the kokutai. If the enemy landed near Ise Bay, both Ise and Atsuta Shrines would immediately come under their control. There would be no time to transfer the sacred treasures [regalia] of the imperial family and no hope of protecting them. Under these circumstances, protection of the kokutai would be difficult. For these reasons, I thought at the time that I must make peace even at the sacrifice of myself.” There exists this sort of childish argument today whether it was the atomic bombs or the Soviet Invasion that caused Japan to surrender. However, this overlooks as I think I've explained in 9000 words jeez, the influence of the kokutai. Defending the kokutai was Hirohito's number one priority. The Soviets threatened it. Communism threatened it. What Japan perceived to be “democracy” threatened it. American victory threatened it. And the destruction of Japan's social fabric threatened it. I love this one piece of history, that I have only come across in one book, that being the main one I am using here. On August 12th, Hirohito came to the imperial family to tell them he had made the decision to surrender. His uncle Prince Yasuhiko Asaka asked him whether the war would be continued if the kokutai could not be preserved. Hirohito replied “of course”.
In this episode, Eli continues his walkthrough of the study questions in the book "The Impossibility of the Contrary" by Greg Bahnsen. He specifically covers chapter 4.
Вопреки – парадокс Божьего всевластия / Contrary – The Paradox of God's SovereigntyДаниил 1:1-21Даниил 2I. Вопреки логике / Contrary to LogicII. Вопреки чувствам / Contrary to FeelingsIII. Вопреки страху / Contrary to FearIV. Вопреки законам / Contrary to LawsV. Вопреки ожиданиям / Contrary to Expectations
The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – An oligarchy is a political system ruled by a few. Contrary to popular belief, legally, the US is a republic, not a democracy. However, more and more we are being governed not by Congress, but by a small group in black robes known as federal judges. If the elected branches of government cannot do anything unless the courts approve, then we are no...
The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – An oligarchy is a political system ruled by a few. Contrary to popular belief, legally, the US is a republic, not a democracy. However, more and more we are being governed not by Congress, but by a small group in black robes known as federal judges. If the elected branches of government cannot do anything unless the courts approve, then we are no...
Send us a textBreaking through the invisible barriers holding your business back requires recognizing the habits that secretly sabotage your success. In this powerful five-minute session, I share the five critical habits that stunted my own business growth for years – and how you can avoid making the same mistakes.Perfectionism might seem like a virtue, but it's actually a growth killer. I spent too long polishing products in isolation when I should have been gathering real client feedback to guide improvements. Similarly, failing to document systems forced me to constantly reinvent processes instead of building on previous work. The documentation doesn't need to be fancy – simple notes or templates can transform your efficiency and make delegation possible.As your business grows, opportunities multiply. Without clear criteria for what deserves your attention, saying "yes" becomes a default response that spreads you too thin. I learned that understanding your core values and mission provides the framework for strategic decisions about where to invest your time. Equally important is embracing difficult conversations rather than avoiding them. Contrary to what many fear, challenging discussions don't destroy relationships – they strengthen them by building trust and demonstrating commitment to honest communication.Perhaps most critically, what you don't measure, you can't improve. I discovered that consistently tracking key performance indicators – from sales calls to conversion rates – naturally drives improvement simply through awareness. This principle applies universally: monitor your weight and it tends to normalize; track your sales activities and they typically increase.Ready to break free from these limiting patterns? Start by identifying which of these habits is most holding you back right now. Even small changes in these five areas can unlock remarkable growth potential in your business. Which habit will you transform first? To Reach Jordan:Email: Jordan@Edwards.Consulting Youtube:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9ejFXH1_BjdnxG4J8u93Zw Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jordan.edwards.7503 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jordanfedwards/ Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordanedwards5/ Hope you find value in this. If so please provide a 5-star and drop a review.Complimentary Edwards Consulting Session: https://calendly.com/jordan-edwardsconsulting/30min
In this week's episode, Ryan, Chris, and Courtney dive into the paradox of modern investing: why are so many investors chasing assets like Gold, Bitcoin, and Nvidia, which offer little to no income—while ignoring the historical power of dividend-paying stocks? We unpack a revealing JP Morgan study showing that concludes 55% of the S&P 500's total return since 1987 came from re-invested dividends. Contrary to popular belief, high-flying tech stocks haven't been the primary engine of long-term market returns. In fact, the best-performing U.S. stock over the past 40 years, Altria Group (ticker: MO), formerly known as Philip Morris, is an old-school producer and marketer of tobacco products. From 1985–2025, Altria stock returned an incredible 2,033,839%, a $1,000 invested in 1985 would be worth over $20 million today! Even more remarkably, over 80% of that return can be attributed to dividend reinvestment. But here's the twist—dividend paying value stocks have been underperforming their growth stock counterparts over the past decade, driven by themes like AI, have dramatically outperformed. Is this just a temporary anomaly? Will markets revert to the mean? Are dividend stocks about to make a comeback? Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway is betting big on income-rich sectors like healthcare and energy instead of chasing the current hype around the Magnificent 7. With many high-yielding stocks trading at steep discounts to the tech-heavy S&P 500, is now the time to lean into income? We give you the “Payne Perspective.” We also tackle the recent signs of weakness in the labor market—and what it really reveals about the underlying health of the economy. Are Wall Street economists missing the mark yet again? The stock market is hitting all-time highs, economic growth is accelerating, and corporate profits are trending upward, all forward-looking indicators that point to a continued expansion. So, do we truly need more rate cuts? Or is the Federal Reserve simply spiking the punch bowl—risking an overheated economy and inflated asset prices? We break it all down and share exactly what we think.
Send us a textWhy does grief feel like an ache that lives in both the heart and the body? The answer lies not just in emotions, but in the brain's wiring.When you love someone, your neural pathways literally rewire to include them in your inner world. Their presence becomes part of your identity, part of your daily map of safety and belonging. When they're gone, your brain faces a profound conflict: one part knows they've passed, while another—shaped by years of attachment—still expects them to be there.This is why grief creates such a powerful neurological crisis, showing up as emotional and physical turmoil. You may catch yourself:Thinking you saw them in a crowdFeeling your heart race at the sound of their nameSaying “a part of me is missing” and truly meaning itThese aren't illusions. Nobel Prize–winning research shows that your brain's object-trace cells can continue firing days after someone is gone. You're grieving not just the person—but who you were with them.Contrary to popular belief, time alone doesn't heal grief. Healing happens through living again—through repatterning, creating new experiences, and allowing your nervous system to update. Along the way, you'll face many emotions: sadness, yearning, anger, guilt, even panic. And grief isn't limited to death—it arises in the loss of relationships, health, identity, or career.If you've felt stuck in prolonged grief, know this: you're not broken. You're simply learning how to update a love that once had a face but now lives inside you.✨ Inside this episode:Why grief is both an emotional and neurological processThe role of object-trace cells in attachment and lossWhy intrusive thoughts and yearnings are part of healing, not signs of weaknessWhy repatterning—not just time—is essential for moving forwardA guided meditation to visualize emotions as leaves in a stream, grounding you in peaceThe people we love change us permanently—their imprint remains in how we think, speak, and dream. With compassion and daily presence, you can take one step at a time, one breath at a time, toward healing.You don't have to walk this journey alone.Support the show
In this eye-opening episode, we dive into stunning new data from Gallup and the U.S. General Social Survey that reveals a surprising truth about America's birth rate crisis. Contrary to popular belief, it's not conservatives who are having fewer children—they are maintaining above-replacement fertility rates. The decline in births is almost entirely driven by liberal men and women having fewer or no kids. We break down what the polls say about happiness, priorities, and life satisfaction: Married women with children report being 2.5 times happier than women who aren't married or childless. Conservative men (particularly Trump voters) rank having children as their #1 priority and marriage as #4, while liberal men and women rank them far lower. Liberal women often prioritize career and financial independence over family, which aligns with the falling birth rate among left-leaning households. The episode also explores the cultural and psychological divide between conservatives and liberals when it comes to family creation, relationships, and personal fulfillment. We discuss why the data suggests that America's future demographic landscape could be shaped by these stark differences in values and priorities. Listeners will learn: How political affiliation correlates with family planning and happiness. Why conservative households continue to thrive in family creation. The surprising links between mental health, political ideology, and life satisfaction. Insights on how cultural messages about career and timing can impact long-term happiness. This episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in family trends, cultural shifts, and what really drives happiness in America.
The ten plagues in Exodus are a prototype of what God is going to do at the end of time. Each plague has a specific meaning and there are several parallels to events in the book of Revelation. Contrary to popular belief, God did not send these plagues to be cruel, He sent them to show the Egyptians that He is Lord over all the earth, and also to introduce Himself to the Hebrews who did not yet know Him. VF-2507 Watch, Listen and Learn 24x7 at PastorMelissaScott.com Pastor Melissa Scott teaches from Faith Center in Glendale. Call 1-800-338-3030 24x7 to leave a message for Pastor Scott. You may make reservations to attend a live service, leave a prayer request or make a commitment. Pastor Scott appreciates messages and reads them often during live broadcasts. Follow @Pastor_Scott on Twitter and visit her official Facebook page @Pastor.M.Scott. Download Pastor Scott's "Understand the Bible" app for iPhone, iPad and iPod at the Apple App Store and for Android devices in the Google Store. Pastor Scott can also be seen 24x7 on Roku and Amazon Fire on the "Understand the Bible?" channel. ©2025 Pastor Melissa Scott, Ph.D., All Rights Reserved
Hey there! Send us a message. Who else should we be talking to? What topics are important? Use FanMail to connect! Let us know!The CopDoc Podcast - Season 9 - Episode 160What if police departments made decisions based on solid evidence rather than gut feelings? Dr. David Weisburd, a dual faculty member at George Mason University and Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has spent decades proving that scientific approaches can revolutionize policing.From his unexpected start evaluating one of America's first community policing programs in 1984, Weisburd discovered something remarkable: crime isn't random. His groundbreaking "law of crime concentration" demonstrates that approximately 5% of streets produce about 50% of crime in cities worldwide. This discovery challenged conventional wisdom and launched the hotspot policing movement that continues to transform law enforcement today.Contrary to what many might assume, Weisburd's research in high-crime neighborhoods reveals that residents overwhelmingly want more police presence, not less. When surveyed, only 6-7% of people living in these areas wanted fewer officers. What they actually desire isn't the absence of police but officers who treat them with respect and dignity—a finding that led Weisburd to conduct successful experiments combining focused policing with procedural justice training.Despite these advances, Weisburd argues that policing research remains drastically underfunded compared to fields like medicine. While the NIH receives around $45 billion annually, criminal justice research gets merely $200 million. This disparity explains why we lack what Weisburd calls a "cookbook" for police—practical, evidence-based guidance for officers working in different contexts and communities.Throughout our conversation, Weisburd shares stories from his international work, the challenges of conducting research during times of conflict in Israel, and his vision for a National Institute of Policing that would elevate law enforcement science to the level it deserves. Whether you're a police professional, researcher, or concerned citizen, this episode offers rare insight into how evidence-based approaches can build safer, more just communities.Listen now to understand why police science deserves billions, not millions, and how research can help departments navigate today's complex challenges with greater effectiveness and legitimacy.Contact us: copdoc.podcast@gmail.com Website: www.copdocpodcast.comIf you'd like to arrange for facilitated training, or consulting, or talk about steps you might take to improve your leadership and help in your quest for promotion, contact Steve at stephen.morreale@gmail.com
It's one small step for Stephen; one giant leap for Benkind!About Time:www.linktree.com/AboutTimeCast
Contrary to some popular teaching, God has chosen that everyone be invited to the Gospel message. He wants none to perish and everyone to believe (2 Peter 3:9).
Conversation on the Positive Aging Community platform, host Steve Gurney sat down with George Jerjian, an author, speaker, and thought leader specializing in life's transitions. Jerjian, whose latest book is Odyssey of an Elder, shared his personal journey from a life-altering health scare to embracing retirement as a profound opportunity for growth. The discussion delved into themes of identity, purpose, gratitude, and adventure, offering valuable lessons for anyone approaching or navigating later life stages.A Wake-Up Call: From Diagnosis to DiscoveryJerjian's transformative path began in 2007 when he was diagnosed with a bone tumor and given just six months to live. Contrary to expectations, the experience didn't fill him with fear of death itself but rather concern for his teenage daughters. Miraculously, the tumor proved non-cancerous, but the brush with mortality reshaped his priorities. "Time is the most important thing," Jerjian emphasized, prompting him to semi-retire after a successful career.However, after 18 months of leisure, boredom and resentment set in. In 2016, seeking clarity, Jerjian embarked on a 30-day silent retreat inspired by Ignatian spiritual exercises—a rigorous program of introspection, often drawing from Catholic and Buddhist traditions. Isolated from external distractions like news, TV, or books, he conducted a deep "audit" of his life, reflecting on past homes and experiences. This revealed a key insight: "None of the good things could have happened without the preceding bad things." Crises, he realized, are turning points rather than endpoints.This epiphany led to his first book, Spirit of Gratitude: Crises are Opportunities, where he profiled 12 stories illustrating how challenges foster growth. Jerjian challenged the cultural view of retirement as a "problem," arguing it's a fork in the road where one's work-tied identity must evolve. He also highlighted how physical spaces, like homes, can anchor identity, urging listeners to declutter—both materially and emotionally—to make room for new beginnings.The DARE Method: A Framework for ReinventionCentral to Jerjian's philosophy is his DARE method, an acronym standing for Discover, Assimilate, Rewire, and Expand. He described it as a courageous approach to unretiring and crafting a fulfilling next chapter:Discover: Understand retirement's history and essence—it's not just financial planning but life planning. Jerjian referenced ancient thinkers like Cicero, who viewed old age as life's "crown," countering modern society's dismissal of elders as obsolete.Assimilate: Absorb new knowledge about the mind, particularly the subconscious. Willpower alone fails; the subconscious often sabotages goals. Jerjian stressed that we are not our thoughts but observers of them, advocating for releasing unhelpful ones.Rewire: Rewrite limiting stories from childhood, family, or society. By "recording over" old narratives, individuals can foster positive change.Expand: Counterintuitively, retirement should involve growth, not contraction. Gratitude plays a scientific role here, connecting thinking and thanking to open doors for more abundance. Jerjian advocated shifting from consumerism's dissatisfaction to a service-oriented mindset, inspired by Samurai ethos.Jerjian ties this to broader societal benefits, noting that serving others alleviates personal troubles and infuses life with nobility.
Send us a textThe silence around menopause and sexuality in midlife is finally breaking. Sex therapist Brooke Bralove returns to the podcast for a candid, informative conversation about what women really experience during perimenopause and menopause—and why suffering should never be the default option.Brooke reveals that even as medical understanding evolves, many healthcare providers remain woefully undereducated about treating menopausal symptoms. Most OBGYNs receive just hours of training on menopause management throughout their entire medical education. This knowledge gap leaves countless women struggling with hot flashes, painful sex, mood swings, joint pain, and fatigue without proper support or treatment.The conversation dives deep into how hormone replacement therapy (HRT) has been misunderstood and unfairly maligned. Contrary to outdated beliefs, many forms of HRT are safe and effective for managing symptoms that significantly impact quality of life. Brooke encourages listeners to seek out menopause-educated providers who understand current research rather than accepting outdated "it's just part of aging" dismissals.Beyond the physical aspects, we explore how menopause affects relationships and sexual satisfaction. Many couples who've been together for decades have never had honest conversations about their sexual needs. Brooke offers practical strategies for breaking through shame and initiating these difficult discussions, including "walk and talk" conversations and sexual activity lists that help partners express preferences without direct confrontation.For women experiencing painful intercourse—a common menopausal symptom—the message is clear: stop. Expanding our definition of sex beyond penetration becomes increasingly important as bodies change. As Brooke puts it, "Women in their 40s and 50s are very empowered and want more pleasure. They know they can have it."Want to learn more about navigating menopause and enhancing intimacy in midlife? Visit About Brooke Bralove | Bethesda, MD or follow @brookebralove_psychotherapy on social media for resources that can help you reclaim pleasure and well-being during this transformative life stage. This podcast is meant to be a resource for the general public, as well as fellow therapists/psychologists. It is NOT meant to replace the meaningful work of individual or family therapy. Please seek professional help in your area if you are struggling. #breakthestigma #makewordsmatter #thingsyoulearnintherapy #thingsyoulearnintherapypodcastIf you or someone you know is struggling with mental health concerns, please contact 988 or seek a treatment provider in your area.If you are a therapist or psychologist and want to be a guest on the show, please complete this form to apply: https://forms.gle/ooy8QirpgL2JSLhP6Feel free to share your thoughts at www.makewordsmatterforgood.com or email me at Beth@makewordsmatterforgood.comSupport the showSupport the showwww.bethtrammell.com
Discover the truth about when, why, and if a narcissist regrets losing you. In this narc Con podcast, we break down the psychological patterns, emotional triggers, and power dynamics behind narcissistic relationships and loss of primary supply sources. Learn the times that a narcissist may be experiencing regret, and why their version of “regret” is very different from genuine remorse or a normal human beings idea of deep regret. Contrary to popular belief Narcissists Do indeed regret losing you at different junctures following discard or the ending of a relationship, but not for the reasons you may think!#podcastonnarcissists #narcissistregret narcissist
Are you worried that real estate investors are skewing the housing market? In this episode of On the Market, host Dave Meyer and guest expert Rick Sharga dive into the complexities behind investor activities in the housing realm. Discover how investor behavior has shaped the current market landscape, influencing housing prices and inventory. Contrary to some beliefs, small investors play a critical role by fueling market liquidity rather than causing housing prices to spike. Listen in as they unravel how mortgage rates, housing market forecasts, and affordability trends will unfold over the next couple of years. As we tread through this transitional period, the housing market could remain lukewarm for a while longer. Are we on the verge of a 'great stall' or just a balanced market correction? Tune in to find out! Links from the Show Join the Future of Real Estate Investing with Fundrise Join BiggerPockets for FREE Find an Investor-Friendly Agent in Your Area Find Investor-Friendly Lenders Property Manager Finder Dave's BiggerPockets Profile Check out more resources from this show on BiggerPockets.com and https://www.biggerpockets.com/blog/on-the-market-353 Interested in learning more about today's sponsors or becoming a BiggerPockets partner yourself? Email advertise@biggerpockets.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
On Wednesday, Orchard Robotics announced that it raised a $22 million Series A funding led by Quiet Capital and Shine Capital, and with participation from returning investors, including General Catalyst and Contrary. Although the idea of using computer vision for specialty crops isn't new, Wu says that the largest farms in the U.S. still rely on manual sampling to make critical decisions about farm operations. Also, French AI startup Mistral AI is finalizing a €2 billion investment at a post-money valuation of $14 billion, reports Bloomberg, positioning the company as one of Europe's most valuable tech startups. The two-year-old OpenAI rival, founded by former DeepMind and Meta researchers, develops open source language models and Le Chat, its AI chatbot built for European audiences. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Contrary to the rumors on social media, President Trump is alive and spending his time blaming artificial intelligence and landscaping contractors when things go wrong at the White House. The Emmy-winning host of “Last Week Tonight” confesses to his obsession with “The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City” and offers Stephen Colbert a crash course in the series' lore. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices
//The Wire//2300Z September 3, 2025////ROUTINE////BLUF: WHITE HOUSE SHARES DETAILS OF NARCO-VESSEL STRIKE AS TENSIONS REMAIN HIGH THROUGHOUT THE REGION.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE------International Events-Caribbean Sea: The Pentagon released amplifying details regarding yesterdays sinking of a suspected narco-vessel in the waters off the coast of Venezuela. 11x people were on board the vessel, which was struck with a missile. The Pentagon has stated that the individuals onboard were positively identified as narcotics traffickers.-HomeFront-Mississippi: Details have come to light regarding an incident that took place over the weekend in the town of Oxford. The Oxford Police Department criminally charged the owner of Booth's Barbecue for holding an event at their legally-operated business within the town. The restaurant held a weekend event that resulted in parking issues around the town, and resulted in general congestion due to the large crowds. During the events of the day, one individual produced a firearm and began shooting at another individual, in what is suspected as being a gang dispute.Following this shooting, the owners of the restaurant were cited for "inadequate security" and failing to have a "safety plan", in addition to other charges.-----END TEARLINE-----Analyst Comments: As a reminder, the verbiage being used to refer to those killed in the strike off the coast of Venezuela reflects the previous efforts to classify Tren de Aragua as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, so all of these individuals are referred to as "terrorists" and not drug traffickers. Contrary to popular belief, this classification does not often result in vibes or essays but rather the application of Rules of Engagement in accordance with the UCMJ and the guidance set forth by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) in Joint Publication 3-60.As far as the paperwork goes, Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro himself is listed as the leader of this "terrorist organization", which is largely contradictory as TdA has opposed Maduro in the past, with most of the gang being rounded up and thrown in Venezuelan prisons. The details of the strike itself are also interesting as it's not very common to see eleven people onboard a vessel that is primarily conducting drug trafficking operations.Nevertheless, the strike itself is mostly tactically irrelevant but serves two very important functions: To send a very strong message to Maduro, and also to gauge public sentiment within the United States to determine if the American people will accept future operations.Here at home, there is always the possibility that this escalation will result in threats within the homeland; the thousands of different gangs, criminal syndicates, and those sympathetic to cartel operations are probably not too pleased with the recent developments in South America. On the other hand, it must be noted that Central American gangs and criminal enterprises have very different motivations than what many may be familiar with from the past 40 years of fighting counterinsurgencies in the Middle East...most nefarious groups in Central and South America are financially-motivated, not ideologically-motivated. It is possible that knee-jerk protests/demonstrations will be the result from protesters, but most of this will not really be relevant when it comes to risk. The real concerns to watch out for are how cartel traffickers respond to this development: some cells/groups may go further underground and lay low for a while, but others may become emboldened and attempt to stand and fight. If larger and more influential cartels/groups decide that fighting back in a more kinetic manner is the option that is in their best interest, the situation may become very kinetic rather quickly.Analyst: S2A1Research: https://publish.obsidian.md/s2underground//END REPO
David McNally's Slavery and Capitalism: A New Marxist History (U California Press, 2025)presents the first systematic Marxist account of the capitalist character of Atlantic slavery. McNally argues that enslaved labour within the plantation system constituted capitalist commodity production, and crucially, reframes the resistance of enslaved people as profound labour struggles. He posits a "social conception of freedom", contrasting it with the liberal individualist view, asserting that for enslaved people, freedom was communal and collective, as no individual could break the structures of slavery alone. The book revives a "forgotten critical Marxist tradition" that consistently upheld the capitalist nature of New World slavery, drawing on three crucial thinkers: C.L.R. James, who argued that the collective labour of enslaved sugar cane workers on Haitian plantations was "closer to a modern proletariat than any group of workers in the world at the time". W.E.B. Du Bois, who described the overthrow of slavery in the U.S. Civil War as a "general strike of the slaves," recognizing their withdrawal of labour as commodity producers. Sylvia Wynter, who referred to this "new world enslaved class" as the "plantation proletariat," seeing them as "the most thoroughly modern social class". At the heart of McNally's analysis is the concept of the "chattel proletariat," which he describes as the "pivot point" of his analysis. This concept challenges the idea that the proletariat must mean "free workers". He demonstrates that enslaved people were economically bonded to capital, much like "free" labourers are bonded by economic necessity, with both forms of labour exploited for surplus value. Contrary to common belief, enslaved workers on Atlantic plantations "regularly used the strike weapon," engaging in collective acts like mass strikes (e.g., Toussaint Louverture's call, Bussa's rebellion, the 1831 Jamaica strikes, and Du Bois's "general strike"). These actions lead McNally to assert they were "among the foremost innovators in mass strikes" and should be recognized as part of the proletariat, necessitating a rewriting of modern labour history. McNally incorporates the insights of Marxist feminists and social reproduction theorists, emphasizing the "life-making" aspect of the chattel proletariat. He highlights that enslaved Black women not only produced commodities but also performed the essential, gendered labour of reproducing human existence. He also stresses the "necessity of theory" in historical analysis, arguing that empirical approaches alone cannot grasp "collective social processes" without a broader theoretical framework of commodity and social relationships. This book represents a significant confrontation with racial capitalism, weaving together McNally's long-standing interests in political economy and anti-racist commitments. 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
The human brain is so unbelievably complex that we barely understand its most basic functions. According to the British neuroscientist Daniel Yon, our brains - which some speculate are the most mysteriously complicated things in the universe - might even have minds of their own. In his latest book, A Trick of the Mind, Yon argues that our brains quite literally create our own realities. So is all reality entirely subjective, then? Not quite. Yon describes the brain as functioning like a scientist, constantly generating predictive models based on past experiences to interpret ambiguous sensory data. Rather than passively receiving information, we actively construct our perceptions through these mental frameworks. This isn't pure subjectivity, though—it's what he calls a "duet" between external stimuli and internal predictions. Our brains need these biases and preconceptions to make any sense of the world's overwhelming complexity. Without them, we'd be lost in what Yon calls "chaotic, volatile, unstable mystery." It all sounds like something out of a particularly fabulistic Jorge Luis Borges short story. Maybe it is. 1. Your brain acts like a scientist, not a camera The brain doesn't passively receive reality—it actively generates theories and predictions about the world based on past experiences. We're constantly creating models to interpret ambiguous sensory data, making perception an active construction rather than passive reception.2. Some biases are actually rational necessities Contrary to behavioral economics' focus on "irrational" biases, Yon argues that preconceptions and biases are often essential for making sense of an ambiguous world. Without these mental frameworks, we'd be overwhelmed by raw sensory data—lost in "chaotic, volatile, unstable mystery."3. We're "prisoners of our own pasts" Our brains use past experiences to predict and interpret the present, creating a self-perpetuating cycle. This explains why changing entrenched thought patterns is so difficult—we literally perceive the world through filters created by our history, both personal and cultural.4. Knowledge-seeking has the same neural currency as basic survival drives The brain treats new information and understanding with the same reward systems it uses for food or water. This explains why humans pursue knowledge even at personal risk (like students studying philosophy under Communist surveillance)—our "wanderlust" is biologically encoded.5. Mental health differences reflect alternative predictive models, not deficits Depression, anxiety, and neurodivergent conditions can be understood as different ways the brain models reality rather than as illnesses or deficits. In unpredictable environments, anxiety might be a perfectly rational response to perceived instability.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe
David McNally's Slavery and Capitalism: A New Marxist History (U California Press, 2025)presents the first systematic Marxist account of the capitalist character of Atlantic slavery. McNally argues that enslaved labour within the plantation system constituted capitalist commodity production, and crucially, reframes the resistance of enslaved people as profound labour struggles. He posits a "social conception of freedom", contrasting it with the liberal individualist view, asserting that for enslaved people, freedom was communal and collective, as no individual could break the structures of slavery alone. The book revives a "forgotten critical Marxist tradition" that consistently upheld the capitalist nature of New World slavery, drawing on three crucial thinkers: C.L.R. James, who argued that the collective labour of enslaved sugar cane workers on Haitian plantations was "closer to a modern proletariat than any group of workers in the world at the time". W.E.B. Du Bois, who described the overthrow of slavery in the U.S. Civil War as a "general strike of the slaves," recognizing their withdrawal of labour as commodity producers. Sylvia Wynter, who referred to this "new world enslaved class" as the "plantation proletariat," seeing them as "the most thoroughly modern social class". At the heart of McNally's analysis is the concept of the "chattel proletariat," which he describes as the "pivot point" of his analysis. This concept challenges the idea that the proletariat must mean "free workers". He demonstrates that enslaved people were economically bonded to capital, much like "free" labourers are bonded by economic necessity, with both forms of labour exploited for surplus value. Contrary to common belief, enslaved workers on Atlantic plantations "regularly used the strike weapon," engaging in collective acts like mass strikes (e.g., Toussaint Louverture's call, Bussa's rebellion, the 1831 Jamaica strikes, and Du Bois's "general strike"). These actions lead McNally to assert they were "among the foremost innovators in mass strikes" and should be recognized as part of the proletariat, necessitating a rewriting of modern labour history. McNally incorporates the insights of Marxist feminists and social reproduction theorists, emphasizing the "life-making" aspect of the chattel proletariat. He highlights that enslaved Black women not only produced commodities but also performed the essential, gendered labour of reproducing human existence. He also stresses the "necessity of theory" in historical analysis, arguing that empirical approaches alone cannot grasp "collective social processes" without a broader theoretical framework of commodity and social relationships. This book represents a significant confrontation with racial capitalism, weaving together McNally's long-standing interests in political economy and anti-racist commitments. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory
David McNally's Slavery and Capitalism: A New Marxist History (U California Press, 2025)presents the first systematic Marxist account of the capitalist character of Atlantic slavery. McNally argues that enslaved labour within the plantation system constituted capitalist commodity production, and crucially, reframes the resistance of enslaved people as profound labour struggles. He posits a "social conception of freedom", contrasting it with the liberal individualist view, asserting that for enslaved people, freedom was communal and collective, as no individual could break the structures of slavery alone. The book revives a "forgotten critical Marxist tradition" that consistently upheld the capitalist nature of New World slavery, drawing on three crucial thinkers: C.L.R. James, who argued that the collective labour of enslaved sugar cane workers on Haitian plantations was "closer to a modern proletariat than any group of workers in the world at the time". W.E.B. Du Bois, who described the overthrow of slavery in the U.S. Civil War as a "general strike of the slaves," recognizing their withdrawal of labour as commodity producers. Sylvia Wynter, who referred to this "new world enslaved class" as the "plantation proletariat," seeing them as "the most thoroughly modern social class". At the heart of McNally's analysis is the concept of the "chattel proletariat," which he describes as the "pivot point" of his analysis. This concept challenges the idea that the proletariat must mean "free workers". He demonstrates that enslaved people were economically bonded to capital, much like "free" labourers are bonded by economic necessity, with both forms of labour exploited for surplus value. Contrary to common belief, enslaved workers on Atlantic plantations "regularly used the strike weapon," engaging in collective acts like mass strikes (e.g., Toussaint Louverture's call, Bussa's rebellion, the 1831 Jamaica strikes, and Du Bois's "general strike"). These actions lead McNally to assert they were "among the foremost innovators in mass strikes" and should be recognized as part of the proletariat, necessitating a rewriting of modern labour history. McNally incorporates the insights of Marxist feminists and social reproduction theorists, emphasizing the "life-making" aspect of the chattel proletariat. He highlights that enslaved Black women not only produced commodities but also performed the essential, gendered labour of reproducing human existence. He also stresses the "necessity of theory" in historical analysis, arguing that empirical approaches alone cannot grasp "collective social processes" without a broader theoretical framework of commodity and social relationships. This book represents a significant confrontation with racial capitalism, weaving together McNally's long-standing interests in political economy and anti-racist commitments. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/south-asian-studies
David McNally's Slavery and Capitalism: A New Marxist History (U California Press, 2025)presents the first systematic Marxist account of the capitalist character of Atlantic slavery. McNally argues that enslaved labour within the plantation system constituted capitalist commodity production, and crucially, reframes the resistance of enslaved people as profound labour struggles. He posits a "social conception of freedom", contrasting it with the liberal individualist view, asserting that for enslaved people, freedom was communal and collective, as no individual could break the structures of slavery alone. The book revives a "forgotten critical Marxist tradition" that consistently upheld the capitalist nature of New World slavery, drawing on three crucial thinkers: C.L.R. James, who argued that the collective labour of enslaved sugar cane workers on Haitian plantations was "closer to a modern proletariat than any group of workers in the world at the time". W.E.B. Du Bois, who described the overthrow of slavery in the U.S. Civil War as a "general strike of the slaves," recognizing their withdrawal of labour as commodity producers. Sylvia Wynter, who referred to this "new world enslaved class" as the "plantation proletariat," seeing them as "the most thoroughly modern social class". At the heart of McNally's analysis is the concept of the "chattel proletariat," which he describes as the "pivot point" of his analysis. This concept challenges the idea that the proletariat must mean "free workers". He demonstrates that enslaved people were economically bonded to capital, much like "free" labourers are bonded by economic necessity, with both forms of labour exploited for surplus value. Contrary to common belief, enslaved workers on Atlantic plantations "regularly used the strike weapon," engaging in collective acts like mass strikes (e.g., Toussaint Louverture's call, Bussa's rebellion, the 1831 Jamaica strikes, and Du Bois's "general strike"). These actions lead McNally to assert they were "among the foremost innovators in mass strikes" and should be recognized as part of the proletariat, necessitating a rewriting of modern labour history. McNally incorporates the insights of Marxist feminists and social reproduction theorists, emphasizing the "life-making" aspect of the chattel proletariat. He highlights that enslaved Black women not only produced commodities but also performed the essential, gendered labour of reproducing human existence. He also stresses the "necessity of theory" in historical analysis, arguing that empirical approaches alone cannot grasp "collective social processes" without a broader theoretical framework of commodity and social relationships. This book represents a significant confrontation with racial capitalism, weaving together McNally's long-standing interests in political economy and anti-racist commitments. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Want to reach out to us? Want to leave a comment or review? Want to give us a suggestion or berate Anthony? Send us a text by clicking this link!The intersection of faith and self-protection creates complex questions for many Catholics, especially in light of recent church shootings like the one at Annunciation Parish. Drawing from Church history, papal teachings, and the Catechism, we unpack the surprising truth: the Catholic Church has consistently upheld not just the right but often the duty of self-defense.Contrary to modern assumptions, Catholics throughout history routinely carried weapons at Mass—from swords in medieval times to firearms in frontier churches. Pope Saint John Paul II's powerful words in Evangelium Vitae affirm that "legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life." We explore how this teaching aligns with Scripture, particularly 1 Timothy 5:8, which places responsibility on men to protect their families as a fundamental expression of faith.Beyond theology, we discuss practical considerations for parish security teams: controlling access points, training in de-escalation techniques, emergency medical preparedness, and the careful selection of appropriate equipment. For individuals, we address choosing reliable firearms, proper training, and navigating parish politics when establishing security measures.The Church's wisdom offers a balanced approach that respects both the sacredness of life and the obligation to defend it. As Catholics navigate these waters, we're called to thoughtful preparation rather than fearful reaction—recognizing that protecting those in our care is a profound expression of love in an increasingly unpredictable world.What responsibility do you bear for those in your care, and how might you fulfill this duty with both prudence and courage?Support the show"Protect Catholic Kids" Shirt Fundraiser for Victims of Annunciation Shooting: https://avoiding-babylon-shop.fourthwall.com/collections/protect-catholic-kids ********************************************************Please subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKsxnv80ByFV4OGvt_kImjQ?sub_confirmation=1https://www.avoidingbabylon.comMerchandise: https://avoiding-babylon-shop.fourthwall.comLocals Community: https://avoidingbabylon.locals.comFull Premium/Locals Shows on Audio Podcast: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1987412/subscribeRSS Feed for Podcast Apps: https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/1987412.rssRumble: https://rumble.com/c/AvoidingBabylon
Ever feel like you're spinning your wheels in business, trying everything but seeing little return? The culprit might not be your strategy—it could be a lack of consistency. Contrary to popular belief, business success rarely comes from dramatic leaps or occasional bursts of activity. The real magic happens through small, consistent actions that gradually compound into significant results. In this episode, I break down why consistency creates confidence and how this powerful connection can transform your business outcomes.I share my personal journey with consistent email marketing—how what once took hours now takes just 10 minutes weekly, while delivering stronger audience relationships and steady sales. This illustrates a crucial truth: confidence isn't something you're born with or that magically appears before taking action. Rather, it's earned through the evidence you build by consistently showing up. Every time you follow through on a commitment to your audience or yourself, you strengthen your self-trust and business foundation.Think about fitness: would you rather exercise for 20 minutes three times weekly or endure a grueling three-hour workout every two months? The same principle applies to your business. Regular, manageable actions create sustainable momentum without the burnout cycle of intense pushes followed by inaction. Plus, these consistent efforts compound over time, multiplying their impact—but only if you're tracking the right metrics to see what's actually driving sales.Ready to build consistency into your business? Join our Insiders membership where "Consistency is Queen" is our focus this month. As a podcast listener, you'll receive $20 off monthly, gaining access to three training topics monthly plus group coaching calls to provide the accountability and support you need to turn small, consistent actions into remarkable business results.Support the show
Contrary to what you might hear on this episode this is number 407. Mama McGroin joins us for a little stand-up comedy to try out some new material. The Hidden Herf is well received by the panel. Local Spotlight – McGroin Manor Controversy Corner – How's the weather where you are?
https://thecommunists.org/2025/07/01/news/history/stalins-library-geoffrey-roberts-resume-book-review-pt3/ Stalin's library shows that his geopolitical outlook was global. As a Bolshevik internationalist he paid attention to revolutionary struggles all over the world. Contrary to the myths peddled by Khrushchev and Trotsky and repeated endlessly by anticommunist historians, Josef Stalin was a selfless, modest and devoted revolutionary, and a lifelong student of Marxist-Leninist science. Subscribe! Donate! Join us in building a bright future for humanity! www.thecommunists.org www.lalkar.org www.redyouth.org Telegram: t.me/thecommunists Twitter: twitter.com/cpgbml Soundcloud: @proletarianradio Rumble: rumble.com/c/theCommunists Odysee: odysee.com/@proletariantv:2 Facebook: www.facebook.com/cpgbml Online Shop: https://shop.thecommunists.org/ Education Program: Each one teach one! www.londonworker.org/education-programme/ Join the struggle www.thecommunists.org/join/ Donate: www.thecommunists.org/donate/
Listen to Zooming In at The UnPopulist in your favorite podcast app: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts | RSS | YouTubeLandry Ayres: Welcome back to Zooming In at The UnPopulist. I'm Landry Ayres.We find ourselves in a deeply troubling moment for American democracy, grappling with the stark realities of a political landscape increasingly defined by fear, performative cruelty, and a conscious assault on established norms and institutions.This special live recording from ISMA's “Liberalism for the 21st Century” conference features host Aaron Ross Powell, as well as longtime observer of the militarization of police and author of the Substack, The Watch, Radley Balko, and co-founder and former contributor of The Bulwark, Charlie Sykes, author now of the Substack To the Contrary. They explore the mechanisms of this assault, how a manufactured crisis of fear is being weaponized by law enforcement, and the profound implications for civil liberties and the rule of law in America.The discussion is insightful, if unsettling.A transcript of today's podcast appears below. It has been edited for flow and clarity.Aaron Ross Powell: Welcome to a special live recording of The UnPopulist's Zooming In podcast here at the “Liberalism for the 21st Century” conference in Washington, D.C. I am Aaron Powell and I'm delighted to be joined by Radley Balko and Charlie Sykes to talk about the situation we find ourselves in.To me, the most striking image of Trump's campaign, months before he was reelected, was from the RNC. Before that, there was the weird one of him in the construction vest. But the most terrifying image was the one depicting the “Mass Deportation Now!” signs and the sneering and cruel faces celebrating the culture that they were wallowing in. Those faces made me think, as I was looking at them, of the faces in photographs during the Civil Rights Movement of police officers about to inflict violence, turn on firehoses, let dogs loose, and so on. And it felt like what we are seeing now.The “Mass Deportation Now!” images characterize not just the policies of Trump 2.0, but the attitude that they're trying to inflict upon the country. It feels like a rolling back of what we achieved in the 1960s from the Civil Rights Movement—it feels like we're in a retreat from that. This is a conscious attempt to roll that back. So I wanted to talk about that.Radley, I'll start with you. We're sitting in D.C. right now as National Guard troops and members of all sorts of agencies are patrolling the streets. Is this surprising to you—the pace at which these nominally public servants, who are supposed to serve and protect, have embraced this role of violence and fear and chaos?Radley Balko: I'm surprised at how quickly it's happened. I've been talking to people about this day for the last 20 years. I've been warning about the gradual militarization of our police, which is something that has happened in conjunction with the drug war and then the war on terror over 40 or 50 years.That debate was always about, “How militarized should our police be? How do we balance safety, and giving police officers what they need to protect public safety, with civil liberties and constitutional rights?” The fear was always that another Sept. 11 type event would cause what we're seeing now—that there would be a threat, a threat that everybody acknowledges as a threat, that would cause an administration, states, mayors, to crack down on civil liberties. But it would at least be a threat that everyone recognizes as a threat. We would be debating about how to react to it.When it comes to what's playing out today, there's no threat. This is all manufactured. This is all made up.Your juxtaposition of those two images—the clownish image of Trump in the construction vest and the other one depicting this genuinely terrifying anger and glee a lot of his followers get from watching grandmothers be raided and handcuffed and dragged out of their homes—show the clownishness and incompetence of this administration juxtaposed with the actual threat and danger, the hate and vitriol, that we see from his followers.We always hear that story about Ben Franklin after the Constitutional Convention: a woman comes up to him and says, “So, what is it, Mr. Franklin, do we have a republic or a monarchy?” And he says, “A republic, if you can keep it.” That phrase, of course, has been echoed throughout the ages. If Franklin were alive today, he would say, “You know, when I said that, I was worried about a Caracalla or a Sulla or a Caesar.” Instead it's like, this guy, the guy that has to win every handshake, that's who you're going to roll over for?I saw a lot of libertarian-ish people making this point before the election—that Trump's not a threat, he's a clown, he's incompetent, he's not dangerous. And you know what? He may be incompetent, but he's put people around him this time who do know what they're doing and who are genuinely evil.So, on some level, this was the worst case scenario that I never really articulated over the years when I've talked about police militarization. This is actual military acting as police, not police acting as the military. But here we are and they're threatening to spread it around the country to every blue city they can find.Powell: He's a clown, he's rightfully an object of ridicule, he doesn't know anything, he's riddled with pathologies that are obvious to everyone except him. And yet it's not just that he won, but that he effectively turned, not all of the American right, but certainly a large chunk of it into a personality cult. Charlie, given that he seems to be a singularly uninspiring personality, what happened?Charlie Sykes: Well, he's inspiring to his followers.Let me break down the question into two parts.I was in Milwaukee during the Republican Convention, when they were holding up the “Mass Deportation” signs—which was rather extraordinary, if you think about it, that they would actually put that in writing and cheer it. It's something that they'd been talking about for 10 years, but you could see that they were ramping it up.But you put your finger on this culture of performative cruelty and brutality that they have embraced. Trump has made no secret of that. It's one of the aspects of his appeal. For many, many years he's been saying that his idea of law and order is to have cops who will break heads and inflict harm. He's talked about putting razor blades on the top of the wall that Mexico was going to pay for. He's told stories about atrocities. One of his standard stories—that I think the media just stopped even quoting—was about Gen. “Black Jack” Pershing in World War I taking Muslim terrorists and shooting them with bullets that had been dipped in pig's blood. Totally b******t—he made the whole thing up. But it was an indication of a kind of bloodlust. He's talked about extrajudicial killings. He has expressed his admiration for strongmen like Duterte in the Philippines who have done this. He's talked about having drug courts that would have trials and executions the same day. So this is not a secret.What is really remarkable is the extent to which he's communicated that to his base. I mean, there are Americans who legitimately have concerns about immigration and about the border. But what he's also tapped into is this really visceral hatred of the other and the desire to inflict pain and suffering on them. I think that that is one of the ugliest aspects of his presence in our politics, and we saw that with the “Mass Deportation Now!” signs.Now, the second part is how he is implementing all of this with his raw police state, his masked brute squads sent into the city streets. And, again, he's made no secret of wanting to put active military troops into the streets of American cities. He was blocked from doing that in Trump 1.0, but obviously this is something that he's thought about and wants to do. And one of the most disturbing parts about this is the embrace of these kinds of tactics and this culture by law enforcement itself. Radley's written a lot about this. Donald Trump has gone out of his way, not only to defend war criminals, but also to defend police officers who've been accused of brutality. So he's basically put up a bat signal to law enforcement that: The gloves are off. We're coming in. There's a new sheriff in town.What's happening in Washington, D.C. is just a trial run. He's going to do this in New York. He's going to do this in Chicago. He's going to do this in one blue city after another. And the question is, “Will Americans just accept armed troops in their streets as normal?”Now, let me give a cautionary note here: Let's not gaslight Americans that there's not actually a crime problem. I think Democrats are falling into a kind of trap because there are legitimate concerns about public safety. So the argument shouldn't be: There's no crime problem. The argument should be: This is exactly the wrong way to go about dealing with it. Having mass, brute squads on the street is one step toward really running roughshod over a lot of different rights—due process rights and other constitutional rights—that most Americans are going to be reluctant to give up. But we're going to find out, because all of this is being tested right now.Balko: I'd like to jump in on the crime point. I mean, crime is down in D.C. D.C. does have a comparatively high crime rate for a city of its size. There's no question. It's always been that way here. But the idea that there's something happening right now that merits this response is what I meant when I called it a manufactured crisis.I think it's important to point out that, like you said, he's always wanted to do this. This is just the reason that he's managed to put his finger on and thinks is going to resonate.“I've been talking to people about this day for the last 20 years. I've been warning about the gradual militarization of our police, which is something that has happened in conjunction with the drug war and then the war on terror over 40 or 50 years. That debate was always about, ‘How militarized should our police be? How do we balance safety, and giving police officers what they need to protect public safety, with civil liberties and constitutional rights?' The fear was always that another Sept. 11 type event would cause what we're seeing now—that there would be a threat, that everybody acknowledges as a threat, that would cause an administration, states, mayors, to crack down on civil liberties. But there would at least be a threat that everyone recognizes as a threat. We'd be debating about how to react to it. When it comes to what's playing out today, there's no threat. This is all manufactured. This is all made up.” — Radley BalkoI do think we need to talk about crime and about what works and what doesn't. But I think it's important to acknowledge that “crime” is just the reason that he's found right now. This is something that he's been planning to do forever. Like Kristi Noem said, it is basically about deposing the leadership in these cities. In Los Angeles, she said that their goal was to “liberate” it from the socialist elected leaders.Sykes: I agree with you completely about that. I'm just saying that there is a danger of putting too much emphasis on the idea that there is not a crime problem—because in Chicago, there's a crime problem, in New York, there's a crime problem. People feel it. And, I mean, didn't Democrats learn a lesson in 2024 when there was inflation and they said, “Oh no, no, no, there's not really inflation here. Let me show you a chart. You can't think that the cost of living is a problem because here are some statistics that I have for you. There's not really a problem at the border—if you think there's a problem of immigration, a problem at the border, here, I have a chart showing you that there isn't a problem.” Well, you can't.If the public honestly thinks that there is a problem at the border, that there's a problem with inflation, and that there's a problem with crime, it's politically problematic to deny it because as David Frum wrote presciently in The Atlantic several years ago: If liberals will not enforce the border—you could add in, “or keep the city streets safe”—the public will turn to the fascists. If they think you will solve this problem and you're pretending it does not exist or you're trying to minimize it, they'll turn to the fascists.Balko: I don't want to belabor this, but I just think it's dangerous to concede the point when the premise itself is wrong.So, Trump made crime an issue in 2016, right? Recall the American Carnage inauguration speech. When Trump took office in Jan. 2017, he inherited the lowest murder rate of any president in the last 50 years. And yet he ran on crime. I think that it's important to push back and say, “Wait a minute, no, Obama did not cause a massive spike in crime. There was a tiny uptick in 2015, but that was only because 2014 was basically the safest year in recent memory.”Trump is also the first president in 30 years to leave office with a higher murder rate than when he entered it. You know, I don't think that presidents have a huge effect on crime, but Trump certainly does.So, I agree with you that we can't say crime isn't a problem, but we can also point out that crime went up under Trump and that what he's doing will make things worse.Sykes: I think these are all legitimate points to make. It's just that, Trump has this reptilian instinct to go for vulnerabilities. And one of the vulnerabilities of the progressive left is the problem of governance. If there is a perception that these urban centers are badly governed, that they are overrun with homeless encampments and crime and carjacking, then the public will see what he's doing as a solution.By the way, I'm making this argument because I think that we can't overstate how dangerous and demagogic what he's doing is. But I'm saying that this is going to be a huge fight. He's going to go into Chicago where crime is just demonstrably a problem, and where I think the mayor has an approval rating of about 12 to 16%, and he's going to say, “I am here with the cavalry.”There's got to be a better answer for this. There's got to be a way to focus on the real threat to the constitutional order that he is posing, as opposed to arguing on his ground and saying, “No, no, don't pay attention to crime, inflation, the border.”And, again, I'm making this argument because this is one that I think the country really has to win. Otherwise we are going to see militarization and an actual police state.Powell: Let me see if I can pull together some of the threads from the conversation so far, because I think there's a nexus, or something that needs to be diagnosed, to see the way through.When you [Charlie] were mentioning the bullets covered in pig's blood, what occurred to me was ... I was a kid at the height of '80s action movies. And that's the kind of thing that the bad guys did in '80s action movies. That's the kind of thing that justified the muscular American blowing them up or otherwise dispatching them.There's been a turn, now, in that we're seeing behavior from Americans that they would have at one point said, “This isn't who we are.” The Christianity that many Americans hold to, this is not the way that Jesus tells them to act. There's been a shift in our willingness to embrace this sort of thing, and it's behavior that I would have expected to horrify basically everyone watching it happening.And it is—his approval readings are declining rapidly. It is horrifying a lot of people—but fewer than I would have hoped. One of you mentioned that, on the one hand, there's the cruelty, but there's also the fear—and those are feeding into each other. And what I wonder is, yes, there's crime, but at the same time, if your media consumption habits are those of a committed Trump supporter, you are being told constantly to be afraid that everybody outside your door, except for the people who you recognize, or maybe the people who share your skin color or speak with the same accent you do, is a threat to you and your family.I see this with members of my own family who are Trump supporters. They are just terrified. “I can't ride the subway. It's too scary to ride the subway.” Or, “I go out in D.C. and I see youths doing the kinds of things youths do, and now I don't feel safe having my family there.” We don't have a war. We don't have a crisis. But we've told a huge portion of the country, “You should be afraid of every last thing except your immediate family and that guy who now rules the country.” And the crime rates are part of it. It's like, “You should be scared of every single one of these cities.”Sykes: It's a story. One of the speakers today was talking about the power of stories, that demagogues will tell a story. And a story of fear and anger is a very, very powerful story that you can't counteract with statistics. You need to counteract it with other stories.“This culture of performative cruelty and brutality is one of the aspects of his appeal. For many years he's been saying that his idea of law and order is to have cops who will break heads and inflict harm. He's talked about putting razor blades on the top of the wall that Mexico was going to pay for. He's told stories about atrocities. He would tell the story about Gen. ‘Black Jack' Pershing in World War I taking Muslim terrorists and shooting them with bullets that had been dipped in pig's blood. He's talked about extrajudicial killings. He has expressed his admiration for strongmen like Duterte in the Philippines who have done this. He's talked about having drug courts that would have trials and executions the same day. What is really remarkable is the extent to which he's communicated that to his base. He's tapped into this really visceral hatred of the other and the desire to inflict pain and suffering on them. I think that that is one of the ugliest aspects, and we saw that with the ‘Mass Deportation Now!' signs.” — Charlie SykesPart of the problem is that Trump has made that narrative. So, for example, you have members of your family who are Trump supporters. My guess is that they could name the young women who had been raped and murdered by illegal immigrants. Because, I mean, on Fox News, this is happening all the time, right? On Fox News, illegal immigrants are criminals. “Look at the crimes they are committing.” They tell that story in the most graphic way possible, and then turn around and say, “If you oppose what Donald Trump is doing, you are defending these ‘animals'”—as Trump described them.It is deeply dishonest. It is deeply dangerous. But it is potent. And we ought to look at it in the face and recognize how he is going to weaponize those stories and that fear, which is really the story of our era now. We're living in this era of peace, prosperity, general safety—and yet he's created this “American carnage” hellscape story.Balko: Yeah, I also think there's this weird paradox of masculinity in the MAGA movement. It's not about masculinity—it's about projecting masculinity. It's about co-opting aspects of masculinity. And it's like, “We're the manly men. We need men to be men again. And that's why we support men who sexually assault and sexually harass women. And, at the same time, we're all going to genuflect and debase ourselves in front of this 79-year-old man, because he's our leader and we need to let him insult our wives. And we're also scared to take the subway.” I think there were 10 murders last year in the New York city subway. The subway is one of the safest public spaces you'll find anywhere. But you'll regularly see MAGA people go on Fox News and talk about how scared they are of it.I mean, I don't know how persuadable any of MAGA is, but I do think pointing out the sheer cowardliness might resonate. When Markwayne Mullin goes on the Sunday shows and says he doesn't wear a seatbelt anymore because he's afraid he'll get carjacked and he needs to be able to jump out of his car quickly ...Sykes: ... He actually did say that.Balko: Yeah. And, I don't know what the stats are, but it's something like you're 40 or 50 times more likely to die in a car accident than you are in a carjacking. So, you know, he's sealing his own fate, I guess.But I do think that maybe there's something to appealing to their lack of masculinity when they try to push some of these narratives.Sykes: Well, yeah, I do think there are narratives out there.We have National Guard troops here in Washington, D.C.—where were they on Jan. 6th? Why did the president not bring them in then? We had one of the greatest assaults on law enforcement. So we can call b******t on Donald Trump being the “law and order,” “back the blue” president.One of the first things he did when he took office was issue the blanket pardons to all the rioters and seditionists who not only assaulted the Capitol, but specifically the ones who attacked police officers. We can stand up and say, “I don't want to be lectured by the man who gave the Get Out of Jail Free card to the people who tased and bear sprayed police officers in this city. Not to mention,”—before he brings up the whole “defund the police” thing—“the man who right now is dismantling the nation's premier law enforcement agency, the FBI.” Because all of these FBI agents who are being gutted or tasked with hassling homeless people in Washington, D.C., you know what they're not doing? They are not investigating child sex trafficking. They are not engaging in any anti-terrorism activities.So, what you do is call them out, saying, “You are not making this country safer. You are not the ‘law and order' president. You are a convicted felon. You in fact have freed and celebrated people who actually beat cops.” If Barack Obama would have pardoned someone who had attacked police officers, the right would have been utterly incandescent. And yet Donald Trump does it and he's not called out on it.I understand that there are some who are reluctant to say, “Well, no, we're actually the party of law and order. We're actually the party of public safety.” But you hit him right in what I think is a real vulnerability.Balko: One of the guys who literally told Jan. 6 rioters to kill the police is now a respected senior member of the Justice Department, whereas the guy who threw a sandwich at a cop is facing a felony charge. That is Trump's approach to law enforcement.Sykes: I always hate it when people go on TV and say, “This should be a talking point.” But that ought to be a talking point. Don't you think everybody ought to know his name? We have the video of Jared Wise saying, “Kill ‘em! Kill ‘em!” and calling the police Nazis. And he is now a top official in Donald Trump's Justice Department.Powell: This is my concern, though—and this allows me to belabor my Civil Rights Movement point some more. One of the reasons that the anti-civil rights movement, the counter-movement, was as vicious and as ugly as it was is because it was a group of people who felt like they had a status level by virtue of being white, of being men. As they saw things, “If we help minorities and others rise up, that lowers the baseline status that I have.” So they wanted to fight back. It was, “I'm going to keep these people down because it keeps me up.” And when Radley said that they're “projecting masculinity,” I think that's a big part.A big part of the appeal is, “Now I'm seeing guys like me dominating. Now I'm seeing guys who are from my area or share my cultural values or dress like me or are into the same slogans or have the same fantasies of power as I do, or just aren't the coastal elites with their fancy educations and so on, dominating.” And my worry is if that's what's driving a lot of it—that urge to domination coupled with the fear, which I think then allows them to overcome any barriers they have to cruelty—if you marry, “I can have power” and “I'm scared of these people,” that to them justifies their actions in the same way that it does the action movie heroes killing the guys who put the pig's blood on bullets. It becomes justified to inflict cruelty upon those they hate.My worry is if you go after them in that way, it feels like, “Okay, now what you're saying is these guys who look like me, who were dominating, don't actually deserve it.” I don't think that means that we stay away from it, but I think it risks triggering even more of this, “What I want is for it to be my boot on people's necks and I want them to stop putting me down. And I want them to stop telling me that I'm not good, that I'm incompetent, that it's not okay for me to beat my wife” (or whatever it happens to be). Trump is like an avatar for very mediocre men.Sykes: Well, I wouldn't use that as a talking point.Balko: A few years ago, I wrote a piece about a Black police chief who was hired in Little Rock by a mayor who ran on a reform platform and this police chief had a good record. He was in Norman, Okla. before that—he was the first Black chief in Oklahoma. And he was not a progressive by any means, but he was a reformer in that he wanted things to be merit-based and Little Rock has a really strong white police union. I say that because they also have a Black police union, because the Black officers didn't feel like they were represented by the white union.One of the first things that Chief Humphrey did was make the promotional interviews, that you get to move up through the ranks, blind. So you didn't know who you're talking to. If you were white, you didn't know if it was a fellow white person you were interviewing. Most of the people in charge were. The result of removing race from that process was that more Black officers were getting promoted than before. And I wrote about him because he ended up getting chased out of town. They hit him with fake sexual harassment charges; the union claimed he was harassing white women. Basically, they exerted their power and managed to chase him out.But one of the things he told me when I interviewed him was—and other people have said different versions of this—that when your entire life you've been the beneficiary of racial preferences as a white person, as happened in this country for most of its existence, meritocracy looks a lot like racial discrimination. Because things that you got just simply because you were entitled to now you have to earn. And that looks like, “Hey, this Black guy is getting this job over me. And that's not right. Because my dad got that job over the Black guy and his dad got the job over the Black guy.”And I think this backlash that we're seeing against DEI—I'm sure there are parts of this country where DEI was promoting unqualified people just to have diversity, and I do think there's there's value in diversity for diversity's sake—is white people, who have been benefiting from our racial hierarchy system that's been in place since the Founding, were starting to see themselves passed over because we were now moving to a merit-based system and they saw that as discrimination. That's a big part of the backlash.I don't know what the solution is. I don't know that we just re-impose all of the former policies once Trump's out of power, if he's ever out of power. But I do think that there is value in diversity for diversity's sake. Obviously I don't support strict quota systems, but I do think it's important to make that point that addressing historical injustices is critical.We went to the art museum in Nashville the other day and they had a whole exhibit about Interstate I-40 going through Nashville. It was supposed to go through this industrial area where there were no neighborhoods or private homes. And the Tennessee legislature deliberately made it run through the wealthiest Black neighborhood in Nashville and destroyed about 80% of Black wealth in the city. That was 1968—that was not 1868. That's relatively recently that you're destroying a ton of wealth. And you can find that history in every single city.I think a big part of this backlash is not knowing that history—and only knowing what's happening now and experiencing it out of context. For those people, it feels like reverse discrimination.Sykes: So, yes, a lot of this is true. But it's not the whole story. In the state of Wisconsin, overwhelmingly white voters voted for Barack Obama, a Black man, twice in a row before voting for Donald Trump. So we do have that long, deep history of racism, but then also an America that I think was making some progress. I'm just going to put this out as a counterpoint: I think that if people were appealing to the “better angels of their nature,” a lot of these people would not be buying into the cruelty, the brutality, the racism. Instead, we're appealing to their sense of victimization.But let's be honest about it. We moved from a Civil Rights Movement that was morally based on fairness and the immorality of discrimination to one that increasingly was identity politics that morphed into DEI, which was profoundly illiberal. What happened was a lot of the guys we're talking about were thinking not just that they want their boots on people's head, but they're constantly being told that they were bad, that their contributions were not significant. There were invisible tripwires of grievance—what you could say, what you could do, the way you had to behave. In the before times, a lot of the attacks on free speech and the demands for ideological conformity on university campuses were not coming from the illiberal right—they were coming from the illiberal left.And as I'm listening to the speakers at this conference talk about the assault on liberalism, I think one of the questions we have to ask—and maybe this is a little meta—is why it was so brittle. Well, it was brittle because it was caught in a pincer movement by the illiberal left and the illiberal right. My point is that a lot of this reaction is in fact based on racial animus, but there's also a sense that I hear from a lot of folks, a sense of liberation that they feel, that the boot was on their necks and is now being taken off, that they're not having to go to these highly ideological DEI training sessions where they were told how terrible and awful they were all the time. And how, if you believed in a race-blind society, that was a sign you were racist. If white women actually were moved by stories of racism and wept, that was white women's tears. This was heavy handed.“I do think the people who signed off on extraordinary rendition and snatching people off the street and sending them to a literal torture prison in El Salvador, those people need to be criminally charged. But I also think there need to be civil society repercussions. There are so many people in media—pundits, politicians who know better—who have a long record of pointing out how dangerous Trump was and then turned on a dime and started supporting him. I don't wish any physical harm on those people. I don't think any of those people should be put in prison. But I think those people should never be trusted as public intellectuals.” — Radley BalkoSo there was a backlash that was going to be inevitable. What's tragic is the way that it has been co-opted by the people who have really malign motives, who are not acting out of good will—the Stephen Millers who have figured out a way to weaponize this. But that line that goes from the racism of 1957 to the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, to a broad-based civil rights consensus—and, again, there's caveats in all of this—to identity-based politics. Let's be honest about it. That was not without sin. That was not without problems.Balko: So, I agree that there was I guess what you could call an illiberal approach to a mutual exchange of ideas on college campuses. There was a lot of shouting down of conservative speakers. In some cases, there were invitations revoked to valedictory speeches. There was some cutting off of funding for conservative speakers. But I want to make sure we're not delving into false equivalences here. I mean, the boot that you're talking about, Charlie, was a metaphorical boot, and we're talking about a very literal boot now.Sykes: Absolutely. That distinction is a significant one.Balko: So, my preferred way of expressing my disagreement with someone isn't to shout them down. I will say, though, that protest is a form of speech. I think, even to some extent, interrupting speeches that are particularly problematic or extremist is a form of speech. It's not one that I personally would engage in. But the type of censorship we're seeing now is direct. It is government censorship. It is not a violation of the spirit of free expression that we were seeing on college campuses before.Sykes: Oh, it was more than just that kind of violation. You had universities that required people to sign a DEI statement where they had to make ideological commitments in order to get a job. I mean, this was very heavy handed. There were no literal boots, but ... I like Jonathan Rauch's analogy that the illiberalism of the left is still a real problem, but it's like a slow-growing cancer. Right now, what we're facing with the illiberalism of the right is a heart attack. We have to deal with the heart attack right now, but let's not pretend that everyone who objects to some of the things that were happening are doing so because they are just vile, white racists.This is part of the problem. People spent decades accusing others of being racist on flimsy grounds. If you support Mitt Romney, you're a racist. If you support tax cuts, you're a racist. You know what happened? I come from this world and there was a time when to be called a racist was the worst thing you could possibly say about somebody. And it got to the point where, literally, if you were in favor of school choice, you were racist; in favor of tax cuts, you were racist. If you voted for a Republican … John McCain was a racist, George Bush was a racist. So when the real thing came along, guess what people said? They just rolled their eyes, shrugged, and said, “We've heard this before.” I mean, it was crying wolf for decades.And I've had these conversations when I would say, “How can you support someone who is just espousing this raw, vicious racism about Haitians eating dogs?” You know what I would get? “Oh, we've been hearing this for 20 years. Literally everyone I know has been accused of being a racist.”So we need to come back to a consensus. If we're going to restore that liberal consensus, we're going to have to say, “This is acceptable behavior. And this is not acceptable behavior.” But we are not going to use these labels to vilify. The politics of contempt is just not helpful. It is not helpful to tell people, “By the way, I think you're an idiot. I think you're stupid. I think you're racist. Would you like to hear my ideas about taxes now?” It doesn't work. And I think that one of the things that, tragically, Trump has tapped into is the sense that these elites look down on you.So, Aaron, when you say that this is the revolution of mediocre men, not helpful. Now, some of them are mediocre. I certainly agree. I write about mediocre people all the time—but, again, the politics of contempt is not the way to get ourselves out of this.Powell: I think there's a distinction between messaging and diagnosis. And if we're to understand how we got here, or the kinds of beliefs or values that can lead someone ... and I don't mean, you've been a partisan Republican voter for your entire life, and you come from a family of this, and you pulled the lever for Trump, but you're mostly an uninformed voter, which is a lot of people—I mean, the people who are cheering on Stephen Miller, they're in a different category. So it might be that, if you have one of those people in front of you, the message is not to say, “There's a broken set of morals at play here,” or “there's a cramped view of humanity at play here,” because they're not going to hear that in the moment.But if we're to understand how we got here and what we're up against, I think we have to be fairly clear-eyed about the fact that the [Trumpian] values that we've discovered over the last 10, 15 years have much more appeal and purchase among a lot of Americans than I think any of us had really expected or certainly hoped, and then figure out how to address that. And, again, it's not everybody—but it's more than I would like. If those values are central to someone's being, and the way that they view others around them and the way they relate to their fellow man, then I think a lot of the less condemning arguments also won't find purchase because, ultimately, it's not a policy difference. It's a, “I want a crueler world.”Sykes: This is where I think the argument that says, “Let's look at this cruelty. Let's look at this brutality. Let's look at the Stephen Millers” ... believe it or not, I actually think it's potent to say to somebody, “Do you want to be like that? Is that really what you want America to be? You're better than that.” And then, “Let me tell you the story of decency.”The story that we heard earlier today about how neighbors who are Trump voters will be there if your house is burning down or your father dies ... you appeal to that innate decency and say, “Do you really want this cruelty?” This is what's lacking, I think, on the right and in the Republican Party right now: people who say, “Okay, you may want less taxes, smaller government, a crackdown on street crime, less illegal immigration ... but is this who you want to be?” Show them the masked officer who is dragging the grandmother away. I do think that there is the better angel that says, “No, that is really not the American story.” You have to appeal to them as opposed to just condemn them. I'm not sure we're disagreeing, but I actually think that that's potent.Balko: I think there is not only room for ridicule when you're up against an aspiring authoritarian, but a lot of history shows it's often one of the few things that works because they really hate to be disrespected.I agree with Charlie that I don't think it's necessarily productive to make fun of people who have been tricked or who have been lied to, but I also think it's worth pointing out that Trump has contempt for his own supporters. I mean, one of the great ironies of our time is that when Trump would need a boost of self-esteem, he would go hold a rally in a state that, before he ran for president, he would never have been caught dead in. He grifts from his own supporters. His lies about Covid got his own supporters killed at higher rates than people in states that didn't vote for him. But I agree that it doesn't serve much benefit to denigrate people.Sykes: But do ridicule the people who are doing it. I mean, don't get me wrong. South Park is doing God's work right now.Balko: Absolutely.Powell: What, then, is the way forward?“This is part of the problem. People spent decades accusing others of being racist on flimsy grounds. If you support Mitt Romney, you're a racist. If you support tax cuts, you're a racist. You know what happened? I come from this world and there was a time when to be called a racist was the worst thing you could possibly say about somebody. And it got to the point where, literally, if you were in favor of school choice, you were racist; in favor of tax cuts, you were racist. If you you voted for Republican. John McCain was a racist. George Bush was a racist. So when the real thing came along, guess what people said? They just rolled their eyes, shrugged, and said, ‘We've heard this before.' I mean, it was crying wolf for decades.” — Charlie SykesLet's assume that democracy survives this current moment and that we somehow put Trump behind us. We can't go back to the status quo before this. We can't just say, “We're going to go back to the kind of politics we had during the Biden administration.” That seems to be off the table. We need something new. We need a new direction. What does that look like?Sykes: I honestly do not know at this point. And I don't think anybody knows. But I do think that we ought to remember, because we throw around the term “liberal democracy” a lot, that democracies are not necessarily liberal. Democracies are not necessarily kind. And I think we need to go back to things like the rule of law.I think it's going to involve some kind of restoration of balance in society. The damage that's being done now is so deep and some of it is so irreparable that I'm hoping that there will be a backlash against it, that there will be a pendulum swing back towards fundamental decency. And even though we keep talking about democracy a lot, I think we need to start talking about freedom and decency a little bit more.You know, I was listening to the Russian dissident who spoke tonight and he asked us to imagine what it's like trying to create a democratic society in Russia with all of their history and all their institutions. As bad as things are for us, we have a big head start. We still have an infrastructure, compared to what he is up against. We still can restore, I think, that fundamental decency and sense of freedom and equality before the law.Balko: I also don't know exactly what it's going to look like. I will say this: I think one of the big reasons why we are where we are today is that there wasn't a proper reckoning, and no real accountability, after the Civil War and Reconstruction. It's been the same with Jan. 6. There was no real accountability. The Democrats waited too long for impeachment. The DOJ was slow.I do think there have to be repercussions. I'm not saying that we throw everybody in the Trump administration in prison, but I do think the people who signed off on extraordinary rendition and snatching people off the street and sending them to a literal torture prison in El Salvador, those people need to be criminally charged.But I also think there need to be civil society repercussions. There are so many people in media—pundits, politicians who know better—who have a long record of pointing out how dangerous Trump was and then turned on a dime and started supporting him. I don't wish any physical harm on those people. I don't think any of those people should be put in prison. But I think those people should never be trusted as public intellectuals. We shouldn't employ them in that realm. I think they should be able to earn a living. I don't think they should earn our trust.I have zero confidence that that's going to happen. But I can personally say that I have no interest in participating in events like this with those people. I have no interest in giving those people any kind of legitimacy because they tried to take our birthright away from us, which is a free and democratic society—the country that, for all its flaws, has been an exemplary country in the history of humankind. They literally are trying to end that. And I don't think you just get to walk away from that and pretend like it never happened.Sykes: I totally agree.Powell: With that, thank you, Radley. Thank you, Charlie.© The UnPopulist, 2025Follow us on Bluesky, Threads, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and X.We welcome your reactions and replies. Please adhere to our comments policy. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theunpopulist.net
#furtheryourlifestyle #podcastThis Simple Mindset Shift Changes Everything! (Internal Growth) Watch HERE: https://youtu.be/B1XAqQgZK6k| Further Your Lifestyle Podcast | EP 227In episode 227 of the Further Your Lifestyle Podcast, host Chris delves into the concept of limiting beliefs and how they hinder personal and professional growth. Contrary to popular belief, growth is not just an external process but an internal one that requires self-improvement and mindset shift. Chris discusses the importance of setting internal standards, being proactive, and taking ownership of your growth. He addresses common misconceptions such as waiting for the right conditions or external validation to grow, and explains why these beliefs are barriers to true progress. Chris also provides actionable questions to help listeners identify areas in their lives where they need internal alignment for growth. Tune in for insightful discussions on building a solid internal foundation to achieve sustainable success.00:00 Introduction and Episode Overview00:13 Understanding Limiting Beliefs01:19 The Power of Internal Growth02:24 Challenging External Dependencies06:18 Defining Success and Personal Growth07:58 Questions for Self-Reflection11:45 Final Thoughts and EncouragementPodcast Sponsors:Robert PiperHi Voltage BargainsEthan “Rooshock” The BOLO Hunter 2ndHandGuy Vic▬▬▬▬ CONNECT ▬▬▬▬PODCAST: http://podcast.furtheryourlifestyle.com/Podcast Merchhttps://www.furrii.com/collections/podcast-merch► SUBSCRIBE to the podcast on▹ Spotify | https://bit.ly/FYL_Spotify▹ Apple Podcast | https://bit.ly/FYL_Apple▹ Google Podcast | https://bit.ly/FYL_GooglePod► Let's CONNECT on social media:▹ instagram | http://www.instagram.com/furtheryourlifestyle▹ twitter | http://www.twitter.com/furtheryourlife▹ email | hello@furtheryourlifestyle.com► WEBSITE▹ www.furtheryourlifestyle.com» Newsletter: https://artisanal-teacher-7863.ck.page/d2d8345cfbMUSIC:» via https://www.epidemicsound.com/referral/6hfvrvContinue the conversation: @furtheryourlifestyleJoin the Newsletter: check it out
It's become the new orthodoxy: social media is the cause of the epidemic of anxiety amongst adolescents. So the way to fix this is by taking away their smartphones. But according to Pulitzer prize-winning New York Times writer Matt Richtel, things are actually a lot more complicated than blaming everything on digital technology. In fact, we may have got things a bit upside down. In his new book, How We Grow Up, Richtel argues that parents have, ironically, become what he calls "the social media" in their kids' lives. Smartphones enable parents to constantly observe not just their kids' movements but even their thoughts through constant surveillance of grades, texts, and location data. We are, indeed, creating a "surveillance state with our children," he warns - which could be one explanation (amongst many) why today's teens engage in significantly less risky behavior than previous generations. Understanding adolescents might actually require grown-ups to face up to their own parental anxieties. "Love, lead, let go," is Richtel's general advice for parents navigating our brave new world. Adolescence was invented in 1904, he notes, to help young people adapt to the economic complexity of the industrial age. A century later, we all risk becoming adolescents as we struggle to process the rapid change and information overload of our digital age. Everybody needs to learn to grow up. 1. Adolescence is a modern economic invention. Before 1904, there was no period between puberty and adulthood. People hit puberty, entered the workforce, married, and had children quickly. Adolescence emerged because complex economies required time to prepare young people for participation in sophisticated society.2. Parents have become "the original social media." When parents constantly share anxiety at dinner tables about college admissions, economic doom, and life's difficulties, they're flooding their children with the same kind of overwhelming information they criticize social media for providing.3. Technology has created involuntary parental surveillance. Modern tools allow parents to monitor grades, locations, and activities constantly. Richtel argues parents feel "irresponsible" if they don't use these capabilities, creating a surveillance dynamic that previous generations couldn't maintain even if they wanted to.4. Today's teens are actually less risky than previous generations. Contrary to crisis narratives, current adolescents drink less, have less sex, smoke less, and engage in fewer dangerous behaviors than teens in the 1980s and 90s. The anxiety epidemic coincides with decreased risk-taking, not increased recklessness.5. Simply removing phones won't solve the underlying issues. The research on social media's effects is mixed - some users become happier, others more anxious. The real problem may be that attention-grabbing technologies displace activities known to help brain development: sleep, exercise, and in-person community interaction.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe
Abel Police is transforming law enforcement efficiency through AI-powered report generation technology. With $5 million in funding, the company has developed a computer vision and natural language processing platform that automatically generates police reports from body camera footage, reducing officer paperwork time by up to one-third. In this episode of Category Visionaries, we sat down with Daniel Francis, Founder and CEO of Abel Police, to explore how a former data engineer with no policing background identified a massive inefficiency in law enforcement and built technology to address it. Topics Discussed: How a personal experience with domestic violence response times led to the founding of Abel Police The discovery that police officers spend one-third of their time writing reports Abel Police's approach to integrating with existing digital evidence management systems The unique challenges of selling technology to government agencies and police departments The company's evolution from attempting full record management system integration to standalone solutions The regulatory compliance requirements specific to criminal justice information systems (CJIS) GTM Lessons For B2B Founders: Immerse yourself completely in your target customer's world: Daniel spent 32 ride-alongs with police officers across different departments, not just conducting interviews but observing their daily workflows for hours. He describes himself as "chief ride along officer" and emphasizes that he had to "creepily watch them work for hours" to understand their pain points. B2B founders should go beyond traditional customer interviews and embed themselves in their customers' actual work environment to identify problems that aren't immediately obvious through conversation alone. Start with mock data when real data is inaccessible: Unable to access actual body camera footage, Daniel created fake scenarios with friends, filming mock arrests and citations to train their AI models. This creative workaround allowed them to begin product development despite regulatory barriers to accessing real police footage. B2B founders facing data access challenges should find creative ways to simulate their target environment and data types to begin building and testing their solutions. Become an insider to overcome industry skepticism: Daniel secured a position as a "records intern" at Richmond Police Department when they wouldn't initially buy his solution, giving him access to real body camera footage and deeper understanding of police workflows. This inside access became crucial for product development and credibility. B2B founders entering unfamiliar industries should consider temporary or consulting arrangements that allow them to work alongside their target customers and gain credibility within the industry. Give away pilots strategically in government markets: Contrary to Y Combinator's advice to always charge for pilots, Daniel found that offering free trials was essential for police departments due to their complex procurement processes. He explains that "if they have to pay for something, that's a hassle" in government settings, but if they're willing to share their data with you, "they're serious about it." B2B founders selling to government should consider free pilots as a necessary investment to navigate bureaucratic purchasing processes. Build standalone solutions before attempting platform integration: Abel Police initially tried to integrate with every record management system, which significantly delayed their go-to-market timeline. They found success by building a standalone version first, then pursuing integrations. Daniel notes they "would have never sold anything" if they had stuck to their original integration-first approach. B2B founders should prioritize getting a working solution in customers' hands over achieving perfect system integration from day one. Leverage adjacent opportunities from your core market position: Once established with police departments, Abel Police identified additional problems like online citizen reporting and policy/law lookup tools. Their relationship with agencies made them "very open to new solutions" since "there's way more problems than there is solutions" in policing. B2B founders should view their initial market entry as a platform for identifying and addressing related problems within the same customer base. // Sponsors: Front Lines — We help B2B tech companies launch, manage, and grow podcasts that drive demand, awareness, and thought leadership. www.FrontLines.io The Global Talent Co. — We help tech startups find, vet, hire, pay, and retain amazing marketing talent that costs 50-70% less than the US & Europe. www.GlobalTalent.co // Don't Miss: New Podcast Series — How I Hire Senior GTM leaders share the tactical hiring frameworks they use to build winning revenue teams. Hosted by Andy Mowat, who scaled 4 unicorns from $10M to $100M+ ARR and launched Whispered to help executives find their next role. Subscribe here: https://open.spotify.com/show/53yCHlPfLSMFimtv0riPyM
Get ready to dive headfirst into the wild world of Burning Man! We're peeling back the layers on the infamous Orgy Dome and sharing stories of some brave souls who have ventured into this bustling desert oasis. We take a detour to reminisce about the bonds forged in the hallways of high schools across St. Louis. Remember those awkward teen years... They might just hold the key to some of our adult relationships! And speaking of relationships, we'll be breaking down the latest dating trends that are shaking up the scene—think new terms like "shreking" and "hamstering" that will have you scratching your head. Grab your headphones, kick back, and join us for a rollercoaster of laughs, insights, and maybe a few "Aha!" moments with the Rizzuto Show.Show Notes:New vocalist plays it safe in Linkin Park's return to St. Louis after more than a decadeEx-UFC champ Rampage Jackson speaks out after son appears to assault pro wrestler in Sun ValleyMingus Reedus, Norman Reedus' son, charged with assaultThe story behind the St. Louis question: ‘Where did you go to high school?'The new dating term 'Shrekking' sounds innocent. It's not what you think---In this episode, we take a deep dive into the fascinating and chaotic world of Burning Man, specifically focusing on its infamous Orgy Dome. For those unfamiliar, Burning Man is an annual event held in the Nevada desert, where thousands gather to celebrate art, community, and self-expression. The Orgy Dome, a unique feature of this event, is not just a free-for-all; rather, it's a surprisingly organized environment where attendees can explore their desires in a safe and consensual space. Listeners will hear about experiences from those who have ventured into the Orgy Dome, including the rules and etiquette that govern this intriguing space. Contrary to what one might assume, entry requires a level of respect and understanding, with workshops on consent and guidelines in place to ensure that all participants feel safe and comfortable. But our discussion on The Rizzuto Show doesn't stop there. Rizzuto, Moon, Lern, Rafe, and King Scott also explore the cultural significance of high school connections in St. Louis. The question "Where did you go to high school?" serves as a common icebreaker, revealing much about a person's background and social standing. This unique aspect of St. Louis culture highlights how deeply intertwined our lives are with our formative years and the communities we come from. Additionally, the hosts delve into modern dating trends, introducing terms like "Shreking" and "hamstering," which reflect the complexities of contemporary relationships. These terms capture the nuances of dating in today's world, where individuals often find themselves navigating the murky waters of attraction, compatibility, and emotional connection. Join The Rizzuto Show for an engaging and entertaining episode that blends personal anecdotes, cultural commentary, and a touch of humor. Whether you're a Burning Man veteran or just curious about the festival's unique culture, this episode offers insights that resonate beyond the desert and into our everyday lives. Tune in and discover the connections that bind us all, from high school to the Orgy Dome! --- Follow The Rizzuto Show @rizzshow on all your favorite social media, including YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, and more. Connect with The Rizzuto Show online at 1057thepoint.com/rizzSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Contrary to what happens in many other parts of the world and within Trump's GOP, the Democratic Party leadership shuns street protests. In fact, discouraging street politics is part of the it's strategy of punching left. In the latest G&R, we talk about street protests, the corporate Democrats and how political parties and figures have used protest to their advantage in other parts of the world. -----------------------------Outro- "Street Fighting Man" by Carla Olson
This episode is a part 1 of sorts in a multi-part series in which Eli answers the study questions at the end of each of the chapters of the book "The Impossibility of the Contrary" by Greg L. Bahnsen.
Johanna Hager, DCFC, LCPC, FAPA, DCFI, CCFIT, joined Wake Up Tri-Counties to discuss Othmer Method Neurofeedback therapy and the equipment used to assist with talk therapy. About 25 years ago, Sue Othmer, a pioneer in neurofeedback, diverged from the standard practice by allowing the brain to guide its own process, rather than relying on statistical norms. Her approach, now known as the Othmer method, involves adjusting the ‘reward' frequencies based on individual client responses—tracking symptoms like fatigue, headaches, or improvement. This real-time feedback eliminates the need for expensive brain maps and often produces quicker, more comprehensive results. While many found success with this method, it hasn't gained universal acceptance, as most practitioners continue to use traditional neurofeedback assessment strategies. Interest in brain waves has dramatically grown since Hans Berger discovered electrical brain activity in the 1920s. Researchers now focus on how different mental states and brain diseases correlate with these electrical signals. Neurofeedback, an emerging area of biofeedback, allows individuals to target and modify their brain waves directly. By monitoring brain activity through sensors, users receive real-time feedback—often in the form of sounds or visual cues—to train their minds toward healthier patterns. This approach is being investigated as a potential treatment for disorders such as ADHD, anxiety, and epilepsy, offering new hope for non-invasive interventions. A pioneering shift in neurofeedback therapy is drawing attention as researchers embrace infra-low frequency (ILF) techniques. Originating around 12 years ago, Carl Shames and Sue Othmer were at the forefront, experimenting with frequencies lower than ever before, measured in millihertz rather than hertz. Contrary to expectations, these ultra-low frequencies produced quicker and more widespread benefits, with patients often noticing effects immediately after their first session. The Othmer Institute has reported a dramatic reduction in the average number of required sessions. The ILF approach is making neurofeedback more effective and increasingly accessible, offering hope for those seeking affordable brain training options. Researchers at the Othmer Institute have achieved remarkable breakthroughs using ultra-low frequency brain training. By working at frequencies measured in millihertz, between 0.01 and 0.1 Hz, participants reported rapid improvements in just their first session, feeling calm or tired almost immediately. Follow-up accounts after a second session included notable behavioral and cognitive changes. The overall number of sessions required has dropped dramatically, with many individuals experiencing core benefits in just 6-8 visits. This development has not only made neurofeedback faster and more effective but also far more affordable, paving the way for broader, more accessible mental health support. Johanna Hager is a member of the American Psychological Association and a certified trauma specialist. She recently moved into private practice and is working to get her new office fully established. The equipment and software are available at Bee Medic. Find more information on the equipment and software for ILF Neurofeedback here. There are webinars available if you would like to learn more about neurofeedback from Bee Medic. Johanna has been a therapist for about 35 years and has treated people of all ages and psychological needs. Johanna has experienced great success using neurofeedback. Neurofeedback is a tool used in conjunction with talk therapy, which allows the brain to slow down and relax, helping the patient break down the walls to heal. You can call or text 309-489-2195 with any questions or to ask what she still needs for her office. To make an appointment with Johanna Hager, call 309-489-2195 or book online. She has in-person and telehealth appointments, and most insurance is accepted through Alberto Minzer & Associates. Johanna Hager stands out as a leader in psychotherapy, providing hope and healing to those confronting trauma, mood disorders, chronic illness, and significant life changes. With more than three decades of practice, she personalizes every session, ensuring clients feel genuinely understood in a safe, supportive environment. Johanna employs innovative therapies, such as neurofeedback and EMDR, guiding individuals through recovery with empathy and expertise. Beyond the therapy room, she conducted forensic interviews and served as an expert witness, educating courts on trauma's impact throughout the area. Her commitment extends to mental health advocacy and community outreach, reflecting her dedication to nurturing strength and resilience in every client she meets.
By Robert Gardenhire - Colossians 2:16-17 and pertinent background is examined and explained as being a positive admonition to the Gentile church at Colossae. Contrary to the commentaries, they were doing the right thing by observing the Sabbath and Holy Days.
In this episode we look at why we're commanded to flee from lust and what fleeing looks like for us on the practical level. Contrary to the world will tell you fleeing isn't cowardly, it's wise. We're not just running aimlessly, we're running towards something, we're running towards God. We look at the protection and safety we find in Him and why He's the only means of escape that can save us from the enemy and from ourselves!
In this episode, Eli covers the study questions of chapter 3 of the book "The Impossibility of the Contrary" by Greg L. Bahnsen.
The Phillies believe in the rest of their pitching staff to step up and fill the void left by Zack Wheeler's absence. The 94 WIP Morning Show plays a piece of audio from Bryce Harper last night where he confirms that the team believes that their pitchers can stand up to the task. Contrary to that point, Time's Yours callers are not happy with how Jordan Romano has looked out of the bullpen.
Batya Ungar-Sargon, Journalist and Author, calls into the show to talk about the significant developments from the recent summit held on Friday, where President Trump and Vladimir Putin showed willingness to consider security guarantees for Ukraine in exchange for territorial adjustments. Contrary to media reports, Batya emphasizes the importance of Putin's acceptance of Ukraine's security concerns as a major step toward peace. She revisits the dynamics of Ukraine's territorial integrity, Crimea, the Donbas region, and the potential impacts of these negotiations. Both Batya and Sid critique the mainstream media's portrayal of the summit, accuse them of biased reporting, and express skepticism about some European leaders' roles. They debate the capabilities and intentions of Russia and the leadership qualities of both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The episode touches on the broader implications of US involvement, NATO's role, and geopolitical strategies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this powerful discussion, Adam and the crew unpack the hunger for authentic faith among young believers today. Contrary to the narrative that Gen Z is running from God, this generation is seeking Him in His purest form. The conversation challenges us to strip away cultural adaptations of Jesus and instead present the raw, transformative power of the Gospel.A moving story of a young woman who broke down in tears after hearing the simple truth of salvation reminds us of Romans 1:16 — that the Gospel itself is “the power of God for salvation.” Together, the hosts reflect on how we can avoid diluting the message with unnecessary additions and instead boldly proclaim Christ's redemptive work. Inspired by Gen Z's boldness to take the Gospel to school quads and city streets, this episode calls us to cultivate the same passion and authenticity in our own walk with God.--Connect with:Pastor Adam Mesa https://www.instagram.com/amesa/Pastor Sammy https://www.instagram.com/samuelmrod/Chelsie Baham https://www.instagram.com/chelsiebaham/Vivi Diaz https://www.instagram.com/viviiidiaz/Allan Walters https://www.instagram.com/alllanwalters/Christian De La Rosa https://www.instagram.com/christian__delarosa/--Don't forget to stay connected with us:Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4OvpFp9OB9_DgVdVVbXhFgInstagram https://www.instagram.com/beyond.theletter/Tik Tok https://www.tiktok.com/discover/beyond-the-letter--Get Aaron Levy's book, JOHN: 21 Daily Drips of Dialogue: https://a.co/d/7lGB90i--Have a question? Submit it TODAY, by clicking the link below! ***SUBMIT YOUR QUESTION HERE: https://patria.church.ai/form/BeyondtheLetterQA--Get to know the team:@amesa https://www.instagram.com/amesa/@verlonbakerofficial https://www.instagram.com/verlonbakerofficial/@nancysnavas https://www.instagram.com/nancysnavas/@alizee.kayy https://www.instagram.com/alizee.kayy/@andytakesl https://www.instagram.com/andytakesl/
In this episode, we explore the "C" in our English Fluency ABCs series, highlighting essential vocabulary and phrases that start with C. Join me as I break down three practical phrasal verbs, a powerful sentence pattern, and an authentic glimpse into American culture through county fairs - all designed to elevate your English fluency.You'll learn: • How to correctly use the phrasal verbs "call off," "carry on," and "come across" in everyday conversations • The meaning of "comprehensive," "charismatic," and other C-words that will enhance your vocabulary • How to use the sentence pattern "Contrary to [belief/expectation]" to express contrasting ideas confidently • Fascinating insights about American county fairs and their cultural significance • Real-life applications through our integrated story featuring all the lesson componentsPlus, I'll walk you through a complete language adventure story that incorporates all these elements, giving you context for how to use these expressions naturally. Take your English skills to the next level with these practical language building blocks!Resource Available: FluencyPanion Notebook: https://shop.speakenglishwithtiffani.com/products/fluencypanion-your-english-fluency-notebook 365-Day English Study Plan: https://speakenglishwithtiffani.com/365planIf you want to sign up for the free English email newsletter, go to https://speakenglishwithtiffani.com/newsletter
After using a Trump-stand-in during his first administration, South Park has come back from hiatus as vulgar and confrontational as ever, with its aiming firmly fixed on MAGA. Contrary to government sources, the show's enjoying a renewed cultural relevance in its 27th season. Guest: David Mack, contributing writer to Slate. Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Podcast production by Ethan Oberman, Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme, and Rob Gunther. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
After using a Trump-stand-in during his first administration, South Park has come back from hiatus as vulgar and confrontational as ever, with its aiming firmly fixed on MAGA. Contrary to government sources, the show's enjoying a renewed cultural relevance in its 27th season. Guest: David Mack, contributing writer to Slate. Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Podcast production by Ethan Oberman, Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme, and Rob Gunther. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
After using a Trump-stand-in during his first administration, South Park has come back from hiatus as vulgar and confrontational as ever, with its aiming firmly fixed on MAGA. Contrary to government sources, the show's enjoying a renewed cultural relevance in its 27th season. Guest: David Mack, contributing writer to Slate. Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Podcast production by Ethan Oberman, Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme, and Rob Gunther. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
After using a Trump-stand-in during his first administration, South Park has come back from hiatus as vulgar and confrontational as ever, with its aiming firmly fixed on MAGA. Contrary to government sources, the show's enjoying a renewed cultural relevance in its 27th season. Guest: David Mack, contributing writer to Slate. Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Podcast production by Ethan Oberman, Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme, and Rob Gunther. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
