Podcasts about Dissent

https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260130.mp3 Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”). Free Press (1/26/26) This week on CounterSpin: There are reports that people out in the street opposing ICE abductions of their neighbors are chanting, “We're not cold, we're not afraid. Minnesota made us brave.” Around the country, people who never called themselves “political” are moving out of their comfort zone to register their opposition to violent, state-sanctioned power being unleashed on their communities in the service of racist authoritarianism. The spark is the murders by ICE of Keith Porter, Renee Good and Alex Pretti—that's just this year—but the resistance in Minneapolis isn't sprouting from nowhere; it has roots. Corporate news media evince little understanding of the kind of local, neighbor-to-neighbor communication and connection that has existed for decades, and that today is pulling people together across race, gender, age, class, religion lines in Minneapolis. That's just one way elite media remove themselves further every day from the conversations people want to have. But elite reporters could at least use their proximity to power to talk about what the state and corporate forces are doing to try and squelch the growing resistance, including basic rights you'd hope journalists would care about, like that of people to witness actions carried out with their money and in their name. Our guest put together a report on how “DHS Is Expanding Domestic Surveillance While Targeting Efforts to Document and Dissent.” Jenna Ruddock is Advocacy Director at the group Free Press. We hear from her this week on CounterSpin. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260130Ruddock.mp3 Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look at press coverage of the Minneapolis clampdown, and at the lack of recent coverage of Gaza. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260130Banter.mp3

One of the biggest risks people face when trying to understand the economy, investing, or personal finance isn't a lack of information. It's the illusion of being informed—while quietly limiting the sources that shape your thinking. We live in a world where information is everywhere. Podcasts, X threads, YouTube clips, newsletters, reels. But abundance doesn't equal diversity. In fact, the algorithms behind social media are designed to do the opposite: they show you more of what you already agree with. Over time, your worldview narrows—not because you chose it to, but because it was curated for you. I noticed this years ago when I started listening to alternative asset podcasts. At first, it felt refreshing—new ideas, new language, new opportunities outside the mainstream. But after a while, something became obvious. Many of these shows were operating inside an echo chamber. Different hosts. Same conclusions. Same narratives. Same villains. Same heroes. It was as if they were all listening to one another and simply regurgitating the same ideas, reinforcing them in a closed loop until they felt like truth. And to be fair—knowing many of these hosts personally—that's often the business model. Audience reinforcement is rewarded. Dissent is not. Ever since then, I've made a conscious effort to study people I don't naturally agree with. Not because I want to adopt their views—but because I want to stress-test my own. This matters more now than ever because social media accelerates groupthink at scale. When an idea gains traction online, disagreement quickly becomes social friction. It's easier to conform, retweet, and nod along than to pause and ask, “What if this is wrong?” I once had a conversation with Robert Kiyosaki where he told me he actually gets worried when everyone in the room agrees about the economy. When viewpoints converge too neatly, it's usually a sign that critical thinking has been replaced by consensus comfort—and that's exactly where blindsides are born. If your goal is to get closer to the truth, you must seek out opinions that challenge your own. That includes people you disagree with—especially people you disagree with. Truth doesn't emerge from unanimity. It emerges from tension. And that applies to me as well. Daon't let me—or anyone else—be your sole source of information. No matter how much you trust someone, outsourcing your thinking is always a risk. I can tell you from personal experience that in economics and personal finance, narrow perspectives lead to surprises you only recognize in hindsight. Those are the moments people regret most—not because they lacked intelligence, but because they lacked perspective. Financial education is critical. But a real curriculum doesn't just confirm what you already believe. It exposes you to competing frameworks, conflicting data, and uncomfortable questions—and forces you to think for yourself. That's how you build conviction that actually holds up when the world changes. This week's episode of Wealth Formula Podcast examines this groupthink problem on a broader scale throughout society with an author who wrote a bestseller on our inherent appetite for misinformation. It's a fascinating conversation that will surely get you thinking about the way you view the world. Transcript Disclaimer: This transcript was generated by AI and may not be 100% accurate. If you notice any errors or corrections, please email us at phil@wealthformula.com.  You can imagine people who are conflict avoidant, probably not so likely to post online, as opposed to people who are conflict approaching who love a fight, right? If that’s, if those are the folks who are more likely to post, that’s gonna shape our information space in really, really important ways. Welcome everybody. This is Buck Joffrey with the Wealth Formula Podcast. Coming to you from Montecito, California today. Uh, wanna remind you before we begin, there is a website associated with this podcast called wealthformula.com. That’s where you go if you wanna get more involved with, uh, the show, with the community, uh, specifically, um, if you are interested. There is a sign up there for something called investor club, which if you aren’t a credit investor, you sign up basically, uh, you, uh, get onboarded and then you can see potential deal flow that’s not available to the public. And, uh, lots of things going on in there. Real estate, we’ve had stuff in the aircraft spaced, um, interesting stuff. You should check it out for sure. If you are, uh, enter credit investor. And again, that is wealthformula.com. Just click on investor Club. Now today, let’s talk a little bit of, you know, just let’s talk a little bit about one of the biggest risks that people face when trying to understand the economy of investing personal finance. It’s not lack of information, right? These days, there’s an enormous amount of information. It’s just the illusion of being informed while quietly limiting the sources that shape your thinking in the first place. So we live in this world. I live in this world too, where information is everywhere. You got podcasts, you got X, you got YouTube newsletters, reels, random emails. Abundance of information doesn’t really equal diversity. In fact, the algorithms behind social media are designed to do the opposite. They just show you more of what you already agree with, and that is a little bit of a problem because over time your worldview really starts to narrow. And not because you chose to narrow it necessarily, but because it was curated for you. You know, I noticed this myself, uh, several years ago when I started listening to podcasts like my own. Even before I started my podcast. And what happens is that you get, initially you get kind of interested ’cause the stuff resonates with you. You get some ideas, you get new language, new opportunities outside the mainstream. But after a while you start to realize, or I start to realize that, you know, these shows were sort of operating inside of an echo chamber. They’re saying the same thing, different house, same conclusions, same narratives, villain. Same heroes, you know, it was as, again, it was as if they were all listening to one another and, and simply regurgitating the same ideas and reinforcing them, uh, in a, in a closed loop. Um, and when you do that, it starts to feel like truth. And to be fair, knowing many of these hosts personally, that is kind of the business model. You know, audience reinforcement is rewarded, descent is not so ever since then. You know, I’ve actually made a conscious effort to study people. I don’t, uh, naturally agree with. I actually don’t listen to any other personal finance podcasts, uh, that are sort of in this alternative space because I already know kind of what our narratives are. I wanna know what others think. I wanna, uh, I, it’s not necessarily that I’m looking to adopt their views, but because I wanna kind of, you know, challenge my own and this matters more now than ever. Again, because of social media. How that accelerates group think at scale. You know, when an idea gains traction online, um, you know, disagreement quickly becomes social friction. Now I think the thing to do is, you know, always be questioning yourself and asking the question really, what if I’m wrong? What if this narrative is wrong? And it reminds me actually once, uh, you know, I’ve had a chance to spend a little time with Robert Kiyosaki. Period, uh, different, different times, and I still. Kind of consider him a mentor. And I remember being at a table with him, a bunch of people talking about, you know, where the, where the economy was, what’s going on. And he looked at me and he says, this is what gets me nervous. I said, what, what gets you nervous? And he says, everyone here, everyone here, even people who normally disagree with one another, are agreeing with each other. Uh, the point is that when some of these, you know, viewpoints converge too neatly. Uh, it’s usually a sign, uh, that, you know, that critical thinking has kind of been replaced, and that’s exactly where you start to get blindside and where, you know, there’s a danger there that there’s something that no one’s, no one else has really even mentioning anymore. So if your goal is to get closer to the truth, you actually have to seek out opinions that challenge your own, and that includes. People you disagree with, especially people you disagree with. Because you know, truth doesn’t really emerge from unanimous thought. It emerges from sort of that tension and challenging, and that applies to me as well. You know, if I’m the only personal finance podcast you listen to, you probably shouldn’t be because I have, you know, made my own conclusions based on what I’m thinking and what I’m listening to. I try to get people. Um, you know, from different spaces talking about stuff, but the reality is that, you know, everyone’s biased. I’m biased too. So, um, you know, I can tell you from personal experience, uh, that in economics and in personal finance, the problem is that when you have these narrow perspectives, um, they often lead to. To prizes. Uh, you can’t, you know, they only recognize in hindsight, and those, uh, those are the moments that most people, I think, regret more than anything. Not because they lacked intelligence necessarily, but they lacked perspective, right? Listen, financial education is critical and we, we know that that’s the point of doing the show in the first place, but, you know, any real curriculum is, isn’t there, just to confirm what you already believe. I, I, if you, it should expose some competing frameworks. And, you know, different questions or different takes on things and, and that’s how you know, if you listen to those and you listen to those arguments, that’s how you can really build conviction that you can stand behind. And even if you’re wrong, you say, yeah, you know, I heard the other argument too. I didn’t buy it, but I guess I was wrong. Believe me, I’ve been wrong, uh, more than once myself. So the reason I bring that all up is because this week’s, uh, episode of Wealth Formula podcast really examines. Greater than just the idea of, you know, personal finance and macro economics and that type of thinking, but a greater problem, which is group think in general on a broader scale throughout society. And my, uh, my guest is a, a woman who wrote a best seller on this topic. It’s fascinating stuff. I think it’ll get you think. Make sure to listen in and we’ll have that interview right after these messages. Wealth Formula banking is an ingenious concept powered by whole life insurance, but instead of acting just as a safety net, the strategy supercharges your investments. First, you create a personal financial reservoir that grows at a compounding interest rate much higher than any bank savings account. As your money accumulates, you borrow from your own. Bank to invest in other cash flowing investments. Here’s the key. Even though you’ve borrowed money at a simple interest rate, your insurance company keeps paying you compound interest on that money even though you’ve borrowed it. At result, you make money in two places at the same time. That’s why your investments get supercharged. This isn’t a new technique. It’s a refined strategy used by some of the wealthiest families in history, and it uses century old rock solid insurance companies as its backbone. Turbocharge your investments. Visit Wealth formula banking.com. Again, that’s wealthformulabanking.com. Welcome back to the show everyone. Uh, today my guest on Wealth Formula podcast is Professor Dana Young, who’s a professor of communication and political science at the University of Delaware, where her research explores how media psychology and identity shape belief systems she’s the author of Wrong, how media politics and Identity drive our appetite for misinformation and examines why people clinging to false narratives, and how understanding identity can improve persuasion. Our work helps decode the emotional and cognitive forces behind how we process risk, truth, and decision making. Welcome, professor Young. Great. Thanks so much for having me. Thanks for that intro. Someone has done their homework. I like that. Well, I try to, uh, well, let’s start with this. You know, one of the central arguments, uh, that you have is that people often believe things, not because they’re true, but because those beliefs serve as an identity function. Interesting concept, which I can kind of see in, uh, when you watch TV these days, can you, can you talk a little bit about that? Sure. And, and realize this is not happening at a conscious level. This isn’t something that we are thinking about. We’re not thinking, I wanna believe things that are untrue, but make me feel like I’m a part of my team. It doesn’t work that way. It is the, the truth, value of the things that we perceive is contingent on how those beliefs serve our team. Mm-hmm. So if there are things that our team believes. Those are the things that sort of historically, based on evolutionary psychology, those are the belief systems that would’ve made us probably really good members of our, of our tribe. Mm-hmm. That would’ve, um, if we had embraced those beliefs that would have. Give an indication to the shared members of our team that we are a good team member and therefore they should protect us. They should protect me, I will protect them. There’s a reciprocity there. So that belief sharing with our teammates is something that historically has served us well. And when it comes to survival, we really prioritize our social motivations above all else, because that is such a huge predictor of what allows us to survive and thrive. Is being a part of a community. And so, yeah. So the empirical validity of those claims is a little bit beside the point. The obvious, uh, the, the things that I think about there, I guess the, the sort of analogy there is like, you know, being a a, like I’m a big football fan, right? So I’ve been a big fan of the Minnesota Vikings for my entire life, although I’ve not lived there in from, you know, three quarters of my life. I grew up as a kid and that was my team. People come in, right? People go out. They’re people who, you know, were never there at the beginning, but I still root for them. Yeah. Yeah. And I still believe in them. And so, yeah, it, it reminds me of the sort of a, uh, you know, this tribal thing you’re talking about. The other place you see it, uh, is, is in politics. Uh, you know, when I, when I think about like, the way the parties have changed without getting political at all here. The, the, there’s some very, very significant changes that have happened in the ideologies, uh, or maybe not in the ideologies, but in the actuality of these parties and what they believe. They’ve changed so much in the last 30 or 40 years, yet the same people believed, uh, or identify as those party members. Is that kind of what you’re getting at? Yes, and, and because I’m a political scientist and political communication scholar, a lot of my interest in this area was born out of my concerns about our political, the political moment that we’re in, and how we really lack. A shared reality that’s necessary for democratic governance. Um, we, and we are seeing that literally there are dozens of examples every single day of different perceptions of reality across the left and the right. And so, so that was sort of why I tried to understand this, um, in the first place. But the. What you can glean from these theoretical dynamics, um, extend far beyond politics, right? To, as you were saying, and everything from economics to health, to the environment. Um, but because the shift that I think has been most impactful in this area regarding political identity is that in the United States, the. How the parties, what the parties are made up of, who the parties are made up of has changed dramatically over the last half century. And so rather than being these sort of loose coalitions of interest groups that would kind of come together and perhaps share a platform on specific policies, the way that the parties have shifted, especially sort of after the Civil Rights Movement made it that. Individuals began to identify with political parties based on like fundamental characteristics of who they are. Things like race, religion, geography, and, and fundamental aspects of culture. And so you have two political parties that actually look very different from one another in their racial and ethnic and religious and geographic sort of composition that is not good for democracy. Because we actually do not want our political parties to map onto such primal aspects of identity. ’cause it creates sectarianism and opens the door for dehumanization and violence, all kinds of bad stuff. But it also really tends to fuel some of these identity-based processes that we’re talking about because when you look around and everyone on your, in your political party. Lives like you do. They look like you do they worship like you do? They have the same hobbies as you. They drive the same kind of car. You know, those kinds of things. Like there’s a lot of that overlap that really makes your political identity take on a life of its own, and that life is increasingly. Um, unrelated to policy and more about kind of culture and aesthetics. So all of these caricatures that we think about of the left and the right, the, there’s. Stereotypes for a reason. They exist for a reason and they are so exaggerated through as a result of this political party shift over time. And, um, uh, as I talk about in the book, these differences are also exploited by our media environment. It’s really good for targeting and target marketing to have these kinds of divisions, uh, not great for democracy. Um, but they, these identities become further exacerbated. The more media we consume that tends to play into these identities. Yeah. It, it’s interesting to me, I think sometimes when you, when you think about what people believe mm-hmm. And then, you know, and then. Identifying those beliefs with like a, a political party or something like that. It’s interesting to think of the actual identification of the party coming first. Yeah. And then the beliefs following. Based on the identification. So that’s almost like religion, right? Exactly. Exactly. Right. And that’s a lot of the, the metaphors that we’ve been drawing from in political science. A lot of political scientists have been writing about this, really drawing upon the sociology of religiosity and how it operates because it, it, you’ll notice there’s another similarity too, that people will. Have this large identity as like a Catholic, right? Like I was raised Catholic. It’s, it’s part of who I am. Now. Do I believe everything that they say at church? No, but my identity as a Catholic is still very big. I, I, I will let it drive certain things, but I’m gonna write off other things as like. Not as important as my overarching identity. In the same way that we will find people who have a Democrat or Republican identity, and they live like a Democrat. They live like a Republican. However, when it comes to their actual policy positions. They don’t necessarily agree with their party platform. And that actually is where I get a little more optimistic because even though these caricatures seem so distinct when you drill down to actual policy positions, Americans have a lot in common. Those divides are not as giant as we think they are. I’m curious in terms of understanding the United States versus other countries, um, we, we seem to have a certain polarity which. It’s relatively new. I would say that, you know, even compared to, um, being a kid in, in the eighties, um, feeling like, you know, there was these two parties, but they seemed to get along pretty well. Mm-hmm. And for the most part, they were both kind of near the center. Yeah. And, um, but there’s this, there’s a much bigger division now. Um. What, I guess what drives the, the changes and when you look at different countries, like if you can compare and contrast like Sure. Are there certain specific variables Yes. That about our culture that that makes us who we are. Yes. Yeah. So that first question, um, I, I think that what’s really important is that when you think about how our political parties used to operate, um, in the aftermath of the Civil War, the two parties. We’re kind of in agreement when it came to racial issues in a way that was not good for African Americans in this country. Once the great migration happened and you had blacks from, from former slave states moving north and west, there was real pressure on leaders in those cities to advance or civil rights. Platforms, civil rights legislation, and to advance the rights of African Americans. That really put pressure on the parties in such a way that then it was the Democratic Party who became the party of championing civil rights. Then there was a response from the Republican party that was framed in terms, right, in terms of. State’s rights. That really drove the sorting of different kinds of people into the parties. It’s also fascinating to look at how religiosity and religion. Play a role here because during this very moment under the Nixon administration, there were efforts to revoke the tax exempt status of certain Christian schools that were sort of defacto segregated schools that were in violation of the policy at the time, which was to integrate those, the school system well. Those Christian parents were very unhappy with this, you know, revoking their tax exempt status. And there was a man named Paul Wyrick who came in and said, you know what, this is a moment to really bring together these two issues regarding race and religion. And he mobilized and created a grassroots movement out of this effort to sort of like protect our schools. And that actually became the conservative group, the Heritage Foundation. So that, that bringing together sort of the, the project of evangelical Christianity with this sort of move in opposition to integration that has a long history in our country. To your second piece though, about why the United States is, is. Special. Um, one, we have our, our history of slavery is not fundamentally unique, right? There are many countries that also practice slavery. I think the role that slavery already p played in the founding of our nation was important to keep in mind in terms of how the, the issue of race played into these shifts across political parties. And two, probably the biggest thing of all is that we have a. Two party system in countries that are dealing with some of these same pressures related to race and ethnicity, immigration, right? Where you see some of this polarization happening on ideology and a lot of those places they have multi-party systems. Which play a real amazing role at buffering some of these dynamics. So it’s not black or white, yes or no left, left or right. Uh, so we are uniquely positioned to have a hell of a time with polarization. When I, um, uh, I, you already sort of referenced, um, media. Mm-hmm. Um, you know, like when you think about polarization or you think about like. Re um, sort of constantly, um, emphasizing the things that you already suggest that you believe, uh, social media in particular is, I mean, is just pounding away at that, right? Yeah. I mean, sure. I just think about like my own feed, the things that I Yeah. You know, respond to or the things that I, you know, show affirmative, uh, reactions to the next thing. You know, like on x, you know, on Twitter, which I’ve been in. You know, doing more of, that’s all I get. Right? Sure. And it’s interesting because the next thing you know, you feel like. Everybody agrees with you. Sure, sure. And you’re like, oh, this is, this is amazing. I’m so Right. Right. No one has, right. No one believes the opposite of me. Right. Yeah. And it feels amazing. What role is that playing? Uh, I guess in, in your view? Social media dynamics are, are really fascinating because let’s, let’s realize, talk for a second about why it is that a lot of the content that we’re exposed to on social media is so divisive and identity evoking. Um. The reason that that happens is because the algorithms really just want us to be more and more engaged, obviously, because the only way that they’re able to, to micro target us with ads, et cetera, is by making use of the data points, the breadcrumbs that we have left behind. The only time that we leave those data points that we leave those breadcrumbs is when we do things. So if we’re just lurkers, we are not serving them at all. If we’re just hanging out looking at stuff, if we are actively liking or doing an angry thing, or writing or sharing, that’s what they need. So the algorithm is going to prioritize the content that is sort of outrage inducing, especially because negative emotions are exceptionally sticky. And there’s been some amazing work by um, uh, Jay Van Beil and his team who studied the sort of virality of different kinds of content online. And they found that the kind of content that is especially suited to virality is content that is both moral. Emotional that makes claims about what ought to be and what ought not to be, but is also like really emotionally and effectively evocative. And the kinds of content that tends to check those boxes is the content that is identity activated. Us versus them. They are doing this awful thing to us. Our way of life is under threat. Um, they are the bad guys. We are the good guys. So that’s how that happens, right? So that’s the kind of content that tends to be privileged across these platforms. That’s a piece of the puzzle. Another piece of the puzzle is that the kinds of people who tend to produce the most content online. Are weird, uh, as someone who posts online, uh, I, I just offended myself, but that’s fine. Um, the people who post a lot online tend to be more ideologically extreme. They also tend to have certain kinds of personality traits that maybe aren’t great is some of my work is looking at the, the trait of conflict orientation. You can imagine people who are conflict avoidant. Probably not so likely to post online as opposed to people who are conflict approaching who love a fight, right? If that’s, if those are the folks who are more likely to post, that’s gonna shape our information space in really, really important ways. Well then you get responses that are much more aggressive too, right? Like sure. In either direction. Sure. Something that’s kind of lukewarm. No one really cares to respond to it. Right. That’s exactly right. And then, and then those, those particular posts are rewarded by the media companies themselves because they’re getting all sorts of attention rising the top and those influencers who getting paid for that. So yeah, I mean, that’s the thing that really, that’s where I, I, I get to the point sometimes with this work where I, I’ve, I do feel a bit demoralized because I don’t necessarily see. Where there are really empowered agents to who can work within the system, we have to try to dismantle the incentive structure. So you know, if there are entrepreneurs out there who can think about ways to incentivize different kinds of content, I applaud that kind of development there. There are some, of course, who, who do the sort of, um. Positivity posts, you know, posts for good and viral videos about people help helping other people, and there is some indication that those also, they’re people love those. Those do go viral, but they don’t have the immediacy of the outrage, I guess, that when you think about, you know. The implications of this is really just, you know, I guess polarization, maybe some misinformation. Even misinformation is difficult because Sure. You don’t even actually know what is real information anymore. You don’t have like, sure. You know, when I was a, again, going back to being a kid in the eighties, it’s like you had one set of. Set of facts, you know? That’s right. But now that’s, there’s lots of different sets of facts, and in reality it’s hard to know what’s real. You just, you know, you just, you, you believe something and the next thing you know, something comes out and it, boy, that wasn’t real at all. Um, yeah. And, and let’s just, I’ll pause you for a second because, you know, as someone who studies misinformation, I, I have been through quite a journey with how I’ve thought about digital technologies, right? Yeah. Whereas. When I first started in this field 20, 25 years ago, I really lamented the fact that there were these voices on high at the news organizations who got to gatekeeper. They were the ones who decided what was true and what was not. And because of the way that they produced the news, that tended to reinforce certain kinds of official narratives. You know, there were times when conspiracies were exposed later on, when we learned that Wow. They did not tell us the truth, right? So early on I thought, oh wow, digital technologies are gonna be revolutionary, citizen journalists and iPhones. Mm-hmm. And in 2011, we saw the Arab Spring and we watched all these, these, you know, dictatorships. Topple. And then we saw the real tide shift with misinformation, with and disinformation deliberate efforts to exploit those. The lack of gatekeepers to exploit the, the lack of professional, quote unquote truth tellers, and really just make hay of our information space. And now sometimes it’s amazing, right? Because sometimes. The official account is not true, and other times the official account not only is true, but belief in the official account is necessary for us to sort of make progress as a society, right? So. The trouble is we don’t know which time is which. Well, well that, that’s, that’s what I was gonna say. I mean, I, I used to actually kind of in my own rein, have this narrative that, you know, certain sources were true and certain not, but even, yeah. You know, even after, you know, things that happened during COVID, for example. Yeah. Um, um, you know, the Wuhan Laboratories and, and things like that, that, you know, everybody looked at as a. A conspiracy theory and all this stuff, right? A tinfoil hat theory, a tinfoil hat, and you brought it up and you were crazy and everybody, you know, and, and the next thing you know, that’s the truth. That’s what happened. Yeah. So it, I think you’d even take people, um, it, it makes people who, uh, believe in the system, not believe in the system anymore. And, and I think that’s kind of where a lot of people are headed. That’s where the huge danger is. Yeah. And, and I think one area of research that is so. That is empowering and is hopeful. I have a, a doctoral student who is doing her dissertation on this. It’s a, it’s a concept called intellectual humility, which is just the extent to which we acknowledge that our beliefs and our perceptions of the world could be wrong. And what happens is when you operate in an intellectually humble way when you have beliefs, but you also are open to the fact that new information could come in at any moment, that could tell you that the things that you thought were true are not true. When you live that way, you tend to. Be closer to empirical truth than the people who are intellectually arrogant because the people who are intellectually arrogant, they’re so sure they’re right and they’re never looking to update their views. Yeah. You know, curiously on that too, like what, what does a research show about like highly educated or quote unquote intelligent people? Are they just as vulnerable? Are they more vulnerable? Because of this. And you know, in some ways I would think they’re almost more vulnerable. Yeah. And, and I think that it depends. So when we look at individual level factors and how they interact with susceptibility to MIS and disinformation, all of these different, so there’ll be psychological traits that interact with education level, that interact with what kinds of things you then are exposed to. So it is complicated. It’s complicated. So it tends to be the case that people who are. Perhaps more educated are more likely to seek out information from more like legacy journalistic sources. Yeah, yeah. Right. Yeah. Right. So, and on average, those sources tend to have more things that are empirically true than if you’re just sort of like looking on the internet for whatever you can find. Um, in fact, there’s also some research that shows that the people who report, um, quote unquote doing their own research. They are statistically more likely to believe misinformation, which actually makes sense because when you think you’re doing your own research, you’re actually doing what we call selecting on the dependent variable, which is you are looking for the information that confirms what you think is true. That is just what we tend to do. Unless you’re doing a controlled experiment. Yeah. You’re not actually looking for information that contradicts your beliefs. So, you know, we do this, this is, uh, a lot of times, um, you know, we talk about, uh, personal finance and mm-hmm. And macroeconomics and stuff. How does this translate over to like, beliefs about. Economy, the, you know, ’cause these are, these are important things that, again, there is incredibly different, uh, views on. Sure. You know, um, an example now, uh, an example is that everyone, you know, whether, whatever you believe the pol policy or not, that, that, that, that tariffs were going to drive inflation, a hundred percent inflation was gonna skyrocket. The last CPI number comes under like under three right? 2.7%. Yeah. Like what, what, tell me how this all applies to that kind of news, that information. Yeah, so, so I, I’m going to make a, a couple points that I think will, will get to your question. Yeah. Because, you know, a, a lot of what I have landed on is this role of social identity, right? In shaping belief systems and. One thing that I’m sure you’re familiar with is that when the party in the White House switches overnight from Democrat to Republican, people’s perception of how the economy is doing as a function of political party flips over. So when the White House went from Biden to Trump in January, 2025, overnight, Republicans went from thinking the economy was in the trash to thinking the economy was doing excellent, and Democrats did the opposite. So is that an actual empirical observation of the world, or is that an expression of their. Perception that their team is in charge. Therefore, things must be better. Or now my team is no longer in charge, so now things must be worse. Right. That’s the big one. We see that. You know, I’m. Every election back to who, however long this has been tracked, we see this. Um, another thing that I think is interesting is in terms of people’s perceptions of whether or not the economy is good or bad, that is very much shaped by who we’re talking to and what information we’re exposed to. So this, this in invites a whole host of questions about how should elites talk about. Economic health, right? You had under Biden, Biden trying to tell people, the economy is doing really well, the economy is doing great. Look at all these metrics. The economy is doing great. And so you have Democrats saying, oh yeah, the economy is doing well, and Republicans saying, I am looking at how much things cost. I am looking at, you know, various things in my bank account. I’m gonna say the economy is not doing well. I also think that Biden is not a great president, so I tend to think that things aren’t going well when the other party’s in charge. And then you look now under Trump. Trump is in a bit of a pickle, right? Because he is saying the economy is doing well. He’s saying, look at these metrics, look at these numbers, and you have this sort of. Viral perception among people that we are in a stagnant economy. I even heard my 15-year-old, we were at Costco and we got, you know, their pizza slices are like $2. We got pizza slices and she said, well. You can get a whole dinner for $8 in this economy, Rick. I was like, what? Economy? But, but those perceptions are so, and it, it’s also very, very difficult to figure out where did that perception come from? Yeah, yeah. How do we isolate the source of that perception that this economy is, is not good. Yeah. Well then certainly like behaviors follow, right. And yeah. So I guess, yeah. I guess that’s like, I mean, I’m sure that’s a completely different thing. Like, I mean, how do, how do these, you know, different perceptions. Party based perceptions Sure. Ultimately influence the economy because of the way people think of the economy. Exactly. Right. And how, how do mm-hmm. When it comes to what have tariffs done, right? Mm-hmm. Like I’m not an economist. I do not know what tariffs have done. My understanding from my media exposure is that there are, on some certain kinds of items, prices have gone up a bit, but that some of the other. Like at the grocery store, for example, some of the price increases that we see there are not the result of tariffs. So then what are they the result of when it comes to how we attribute responsibility and blame, that is also very much shaped by our social identity. So if it helps me to think my grapes are expensive because of Donald Trump, then that’s what I’m going to think. Give us your sort of final thought here. Mm-hmm. Just in terms of, you know, what’s, what’s the learning. Here and how can we apply this to our own thinking? So, so I, I like to leave things on, on a kind of positive note because there is a lot to be concerned about in such a fractured information space. Um. One of the things that has been bringing me some, some hope that I think we could carry with us into how we think about what it is that people yearn for, what it is that people want. Even in this, this very splintered environment, I am convinced that even though all of our technology is creating atomized spaces for us to become our most exaggerated version of our self. I think what we really crave as human beings are shared experiences, opportunities for us to share experiences together, whether that be media content that we then want to talk about, whether those be events. There is a reason why football is still such a successful, um. Kind of entertainment. Right? And there’s also a reason why when there are cultural stories that allow us to all talk about them, like the couple at the cold play concert that was outed or whatever, there are reasons why those moments just catch fire. And I think it is because despite the fact that our technology platforms are trying to give us. Atomized, individualized, discreet spaces. At the end of the day, we really do want to share things with one another. Good stuff. Uh, professor Young, uh, uh, Dana Young, it, the book again is Wrong. How Media, politics and Identity Drive Our Appetite for Misinformation. Thank you so much for being on Wealth Formula Podcast. Great. Thanks so much. It was fun. We’ll be right back. You make a lot of money, but are still worried about retirement. Maybe you didn’t start earning until your thirties. Now you’re trying to catch up. Meanwhile, you’ve got a mortgage, a private school to pay for, and you feel like you’re getting further and further behind. Now, good news, if you need to catch up on retirement, check out a program put out by some of the oldest and most prestigious life insurance companies in the world. It’s called Wealth Accelerator, and it can help you amplify your returns quickly, protect your money from creditors, and provide financial protection to your family if something happens to you. The concepts here are used by some of the wealthiest families in the world, and there’s no reason why they can’t be used by you. Check it out for yourself by going to wealthformulabanking.com. Welcome back to the show everyone. Hope you enjoyed it. Again, just make sure that you are getting multiple sources of information. Whether that comes to, you know, this show really is about personal finance and macroeconomics and only politics and all that is not what I’m into, but the point is. That, uh, when it comes to, uh, when it comes to anything including personal finance and microeconomics, make sure you have multiple sources of information. Listen to the arguments and, uh, you know, make a decision that you can live with, whether you’re right or wrong. That’s it for me this week on Wealth Formula Podcast. This is Buck Joffrey signing up. If you wanna learn more, you can now get free access to our in-depth personal finance course featuring industry leaders like Tom Wheel Wright and Ken McElroy. Visit wealthformularoadmap.com.

Amazing Video: https://bit.ly/4t2Y4s9 It's another landmark ruling year for SCOTUS in the making! Can a President impose tariffs on any country, for any amount, and for any reason without Congressional approval? Is it fair that trans girls (formerly boys) be allowed to play in collegiate girls sports against biologically born girls? We are joined by longtime guest, DAVID GROVER, a 5-time NYC “Super Lawyer” awardee. In his 4th, annual Court review with us, David helps us understand some of the top cases of the term so far and what all this may mean for our democracy. Join the debate at scandalsheetpod.com@gmail.com. David's amazing firm is Grover and Fensterstock. You can reach him at 1-866-99-LAWYER (866-995-2993), https://gfpc.us/ or email to DGrover@GroverFen.com. Mention this podcast for additional discounts. Anuradha can be found at her Instagram accounts: @anuradhaduz_food and @artist_anuradhachhibber. And find us on Patreon at patreon.com/ScandalSheet. You'll love the bonus content for our supporters! Please reach out to us at scandalsheetpod.com@gmail.com to tell us how we are doing or ask questions. Find us on TikTok, Facebook, or on X at @scandal_sheet. We'd love to hear from you!

Malcolm Hoenlein and Thaddeus McCotter discuss Iran's ongoing executions and mass murders. The segment details the regime's brutal crackdown on dissent, highlighting the systematic use of capital punishment against protesters and minorities as Tehran intensifies domestic repression amid international isolation and internal unrest.

Last week, all eyes were on Davos as President Trump unfurled his deranged desire to buy or take Greenland from Denmark—just weeks after the United States kidnapped Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and Trump asserted the so-called "Donroe Doctrine." To help us understand what the Trump administration is doing in the Western hemisphere, we talked to the Progressive International's David Adler and Matt Kirkagaard, who take us from the Monroe Doctrine to what Trump had done both in his first term and in the first year of his second term in Venezuela and other Latin American countries before abducting Maduro. We then try to grasp what the Trump administration is up to with Greenland, all the while trying to offer a better explanation of the forces shaping Trump's foreign policy than the elusive search for a coherent theory of "Trumpism."  Sources:Patrick Iber, "The Trump Doctrine," Dissent, Jan 5, 2026Alexandra Stevenson, "Trump Is Making a Power Play in Latin America. China Is Already There," New York Times, Jan 9, 2026David Adler, Vanessa Romero Rocha, Michael Galant, "The Fourth Transformation: The political economy of Claudia Sheinbaum's popularity," Phenomenal World, Apr 3, 2025. ...and don't forget to subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon for access to all of our bonus episodes!

A Deep Dive into Trump, Political Theater, and Government Chaos | Political RehabHosts Matt and Matt delve into the Trump prosecutor's testimony, Doge's sensitive data, and Democratic drama. This episode kicks off with the weekly 'Trump Dump,' exploring the latest antics of Donald Trump and his administration's moves, including lavish gifts and questionable praise from world leaders. The discussion transitions to the GOP's dilemma with Trump's actions and mindsets, juxtaposing it with Ronald Reagan's vision for America. The episode tackles the troubling implications of government oversight and surveillance, specifically focusing on recent DOJ actions and their impact on American privacy. Wrapping up, 'Hot off the Presses' covers the latest articles by the hosts touching on urgent political issues ranging from Trump's cognitive capacity to the divided state of the GOP. Finally, a look at the legal rights of stingless bees provides this week's dose of hope. #Trump #Politics #Conservatives #GOP #Elections #GovernmentSurveillance #Reagan #PoliticalDrama #Doge #LegalRights #StinglessBees00:00 Introduction: Political Chaos and Exploitation00:28 Welcome to Political Rehab00:45 Trump Dump: Weekly Trump Rant01:10 Trump's Parade of Flattery and Gifts04:07 Trump's Temper Tantrum Over Greenland05:26 Davos Conference and Global Trust Issues08:31 Jack Smith's Testimony and GOP's Dilemma11:47 Trump's Corruption and Wealth Accumulation14:56 Government Surveillance Concerns18:03 Federal Spending Review in Democratic States19:40 Trump's View on Dissent and Loyalty20:10 Greenland and Trump's Exploitation Tactics21:20 Reagan vs. Trump: A Comparative Analysis25:42 Trump's Mental Capacity and the 25th Amendment32:38 January 6th and the Aftermath35:37 Bipartisanship in Congress36:57 Legal Rights for Stingless Bees

On today's show, Alex and Calvin sit down with the co-authors of a viral op-ed in The Chronicle of Higher Education regarding the controversial restructuring of the English Department at Carnegie Mellon University: Dr. Sheila Liming (Associate Professor of Writing & Publishing, Champlain College) and Catherine Evans (doctoral candidate in Literary and Cultural Studies, Carnegie Mellon University). This article is particularly significant for Calvin and Alex, who also earned their PhDs in Rhetoric from the CMU English Department and had many cherished mentors and colleagues in the Literary and Cultural Studies (LCS) program. In the article, entitled "A Coup at Carnegie Mellon?," Sheila and Catherine examine the administrative pivot at CMU from LCS to a new degree in Computational Cultural Studies (CCS). Specifically, the authors analyze and interrogate the institutional rhetoric of innovation - a buzzword that puts a positive spin on undemocratic changes, such as dissolving or downsizing university programs, staff, and/or faculty.In our conversation, we talk with Catherine and Sheila about how values like "interdisciplinarity" and "innovation" are paradoxically being used to hollow out the humanities at Carnegie Mellon as they privilege a more narrow set of research priorities. They take us through the major findings in their article regarding the opaque administrative process that "froze out" faculty and student input, effectively replacing a program centered on the critique of power with one focused primarily on training with computational tools. We also discuss the broader implications of the "AI hype" cycle in higher education, the validity of arguments regarding job market prospects for humanities graduates, and the vital importance of studying literature and culture for their own sake - rather than as case studies for purportedly "neutral" data-driven methodologies.Sheila and Catherine's co-authored article: Liming, S., & Evans, C. A. (2025). A Coup at Carnegie Mellon? The Chronicle of Higher Education.Works & Concepts Referenced in this Episode: England, J. & Purcell, R. (2020). Higher Ed's Toothless Response to the Killing of George Floyd. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Gitelman, L. (2008). Always already new: Media, history, and the data of culture. MIT Press.Kirschenbaum, M. (2025). The U.S. of A.I. (Public lecture, Princeton University). Williams, J. J. (2016). Innovation for What? Dissent.An accessible transcript of this episode can be found here (via Descript)

SEGMENT 7: IRAN EXECUTIONS AND TRUMP'S PROMISE OF HELP Guest: Jonathan Schanzer (Washington, DC) Schanzer reports on the surge of executions inside Iran as the regime cracks down on dissent. Discussion covers Trump's remarks signaling support for the Iranian people, the brutal nature of the regime's repression, recent execution numbers, and whether American policy shifts could aid those suffering under Tehran's authoritarian rule.

In this episode of Minter Dialogue, Sarah McLaughlin discusses her new book "Authoritarians in the Academy" and the crucial topic of free speech on university campuses. With Minter Dial, she explores how foreign governments influence campus censorship, the complexity of cultural versus legal definitions of free expression, and why defending speech—even unpopular opinions—is vital for democracy.

Doctors Mark and Sam Bailey recount how questioning the COVID narrative in New Zealand led to debanking, asset seizures, secret bankruptcy rulings, and six-figure fines—punishment not for harming patients, but for dissent.Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

Doctors Mark and Sam Bailey recount how questioning the COVID narrative in New Zealand led to debanking, asset seizures, secret bankruptcy rulings, and six-figure fines—punishment not for harming patients, but for dissent.Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

Welcome to episode 322 of Growers Daily! We cover: a year-round cover crop conundrum, we are embracing the "progress" dissenters throughout history, And it's feedback friday.  We are a Non-Profit! 

and imaginative alternatives to the bleak offerings of capitalism, green or not.Thea Riofrancos is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Providence College, a Strategic Co-Director of the Climate and Community Institute, and a fellow at the Transnational Institute. Her research focuses on resource extraction, renewable energy, climate change, the global lithium sector, green technologies, social movements, and the Latin American left. She is the author of Extraction: The Frontiers of Green Capitalism (W.W. Norton, 2025) and Resource Radicals: From Petro-Nationalism to Post-Extractivism in Ecuador (Duke University Press, 2020), and the coauthor of A Planet to Win: Why We Need a Green New Deal (Verso Books, 2019). Her publications have appeared in scholarly journals such as Global Environmental Politics, World Politics, and Perspectives on Politics, as well as in media outlets including The New York Times, Financial Times, Foreign Policy, n+1, Dissent, and more. 

Guest: Elizabeth Peek. This segment addresses political dissent in Minnesota following a tragedy involving an ICEagent. Peek argues that liberal activists are nationalizing the incident to demonize law enforcement. She views this as partisan positioning for the midterms, intended as a weapon to be used against President Trump.1945 JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

Your daily news in under three minutes. At Al Jazeera Podcasts, we want to hear from you, our listeners. So, please head to https://www.aljazeera.com/survey and tell us your thoughts about this show and other Al Jazeera podcasts. It only takes a few minutes! Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube

DISSENT, EXECUTION, AND THE SHADOW OF IMPERIALISM Colleague Professor Gary J. Bass. Judge Radhabinod Pal of India issued a massive 1,200-page dissent, arguing the tribunal was illegitimate and driven by the racism of colonial powers. Pal viewed Japanese actions as defense against Western encroachment and, controversially, questioned evidence of the Nanjing atrocities. Despite dissents from French, Dutch, and Indian judges, the executions proceeded in December 1948, with Tojo chanting "Banzai" (Long live the Emperor) on the gallows. The US Supreme Court refused to intervene, issuing a narrow ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over an international tribunal, allowing the executions to occur despite the judicial discord. NUMBER 71931 TOKYO

A fresh roster of Agents is plucked from their lives to attend to the whims of a nameless government entity.Support The Work at: https://ko-fi.com/sorryhoneyWant to advertise with us? See our Sponsor Kit and Rate Card.Visit Us At: https://sorryhoney.captivate.fm/Join our Discord to tell us all the things we did wrong: https://discord.gg/y6XchFnkQUFollow us on Twitter for additional content: https://twitter.com/SorryHoneyCastLikewise, Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sorryhoneycast/Published by arrangement with the Delta Green Partnership. The intellectual property known as Delta Green is a trademark and copyright owned by the Delta Green Partnership, who has licensed its use here. Illustrations by Dennis Detwiller are reproduced by permission. The contents of this podcast are © GiggleDome Productions, LLC, excepting those elements that are components of Delta Green intellectual property.

A Russian dissident living in exile finds her US bank accounts closed after being labeled an extremist by the Kremlin. Nicholas Anthony interviews Anna Chekhovich of the Anti-Corruption Foundation about her experience being debanked. Together, they unpack how sanctions, anti-money laundering rules, and financial surveillance systems enable authoritarian governments to silence critics beyond their borders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

BREAKING DOWN the SCOTUS National Guard DISSENT!

The rift between Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene reflects Trump's long-standing pattern of transactional loyalty rather than any real ideological dispute. Greene rose to prominence as one of Trump's most aggressive defenders, amplifying his attacks on institutions, critics, and even fellow Republicans, and she was rewarded with praise and proximity when her loyalty was absolute. That changed once she began voicing frustration over how Trump and his allies were handling fallout from the Epstein revelations and the broader demand from the base for transparency. Rather than engaging with the substance of those concerns, Trump reverted to form—treating any deviation as betrayal and signaling, implicitly or explicitly, that Greene was expendable the moment she became inconvenient.Trump's response underscored a core weakness in his leadership style: he demands unwavering fealty while offering none in return. Greene, once celebrated as a MAGA firebrand, quickly found herself subjected to the same scorched-earth tactics Trump has used against countless former allies, revealing that loyalty in Trump's orbit is conditional and revocable at a whim. The episode highlights Trump's instinct to deflect pressure by turning on allies instead of confronting uncomfortable facts, particularly when those facts threaten his personal narrative or his circle of friendsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The rift between Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene reflects Trump's long-standing pattern of transactional loyalty rather than any real ideological dispute. Greene rose to prominence as one of Trump's most aggressive defenders, amplifying his attacks on institutions, critics, and even fellow Republicans, and she was rewarded with praise and proximity when her loyalty was absolute. That changed once she began voicing frustration over how Trump and his allies were handling fallout from the Epstein revelations and the broader demand from the base for transparency. Rather than engaging with the substance of those concerns, Trump reverted to form—treating any deviation as betrayal and signaling, implicitly or explicitly, that Greene was expendable the moment she became inconvenient.Trump's response underscored a core weakness in his leadership style: he demands unwavering fealty while offering none in return. Greene, once celebrated as a MAGA firebrand, quickly found herself subjected to the same scorched-earth tactics Trump has used against countless former allies, revealing that loyalty in Trump's orbit is conditional and revocable at a whim. The episode highlights Trump's instinct to deflect pressure by turning on allies instead of confronting uncomfortable facts, particularly when those facts threaten his personal narrative or his circle of friendsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

A 2-1 Second Amendment decision out of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has just concluded that “We The People,” as envisioned by the Founders in our US Constitution, includes ILLEGAL INVADERS of our nation. This conclusion was unnecessary to the central legal question in this case—whether the illegal in the case was properly found guilty of being in unlawful possession of firearms, consistent with a federal statute that makes it unlawful for illegals to have guns—and so the unnecessarily far-reaching conclusion that illegals fall within the scope of “we the people” seems likely intended purely to poison the well on far broader politically contentious issues, such as birthright citizenship. This suspicion is not lessened when one realizes that the two-judge majority that concluded illegals fall within the scope of “we the people” were both appointed by Obama. In contrast, the single dissent goes to great lengths to explain why “we the people” must necessary exclude those who have invaded our nation unlawfully—and that judge was appointed by Trump. 

The rift between Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene reflects Trump's long-standing pattern of transactional loyalty rather than any real ideological dispute. Greene rose to prominence as one of Trump's most aggressive defenders, amplifying his attacks on institutions, critics, and even fellow Republicans, and she was rewarded with praise and proximity when her loyalty was absolute. That changed once she began voicing frustration over how Trump and his allies were handling fallout from the Epstein revelations and the broader demand from the base for transparency. Rather than engaging with the substance of those concerns, Trump reverted to form—treating any deviation as betrayal and signaling, implicitly or explicitly, that Greene was expendable the moment she became inconvenient.Trump's response underscored a core weakness in his leadership style: he demands unwavering fealty while offering none in return. Greene, once celebrated as a MAGA firebrand, quickly found herself subjected to the same scorched-earth tactics Trump has used against countless former allies, revealing that loyalty in Trump's orbit is conditional and revocable at a whim. The episode highlights Trump's instinct to deflect pressure by turning on allies instead of confronting uncomfortable facts, particularly when those facts threaten his personal narrative or his circle of friendsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

We're living through the collapse of an order that once claimed to be the end of history.Global liberalism — the system that promised prosperity, openness, and permanent progress — is no longer governing societies. It's managing decline.In his manifesto, Pilkington argues that liberalism didn't fail because it was betrayed, but because it succeeded too completely. It shed its limits, abandoned politics for technocracy, and replaced democratic consent with moral administration. Markets inflated while real economies hollowed out. Elites detached. Dissent was moralized, not answered.What remains is a system that is simultaneously more coercive and less legitimate — unable to reform, yet desperate to persist.This isn't a prediction of revolution. It's a diagnosis of fragmentation, paralysis, and the slow return of history. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Continuing our rewatch of The Clone Wars we have made it to Season 4's The Umbara Arc, which includes Episodes 7-10: Ep 7. Darkness on Umbara, Ep 8. The General, Ep 9. Plan of Dissent, and Ep 10. Carnage of Krell.  Talkin' Tauntauns is a Star Wars discussion podcast hosted by Jim Lehane and Nicole H. Quinn. From reviews of the latest shows and books, to breaking news and thoughtful interviews, join us as we dive into all things from a galaxy far, far away. Find us on the socials for more Star Wars conversation:Find the show on Instagram at TalkinTauntauns, Threads at TalkinTauntauns, Bluesky at TalkinTauntauns,or at our website TalkinTauntauns.com. Find Jim on IG @Dinojim, on Bluesky, or on his website at dinojim.com. Find Nicole on IG @NicoleHQuinn, Bluesky, or on her website at herviewcreative.com You can get in touch with us via our website (TalkinTauntauns.com) or email us at Contact@TalkinTauntauns.com. Talkin' Tauntauns can be found on iTunes, Spotify, Pandora, iHeartRadio, or anywhere else you listen to podcasts. If you enjoy the show, be sure to subscribe, leave us a review, and tell your friends!

A Trump directive, NSPM-7, reframes “anti-fascism” itself as a national security threat. Issued after the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the memo goes beyond condemning specific crimes. It collapses ideology, protest, and violence into a single category—casting beliefs labeled “anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-Christian” as inherently suspect. SPONSOR: AURA Frames: Exclusive $35 off Carver Mat at https://on.auraframes.com/FIVEMIN. Promo Code FIVEMIN Independent media has never been more important. Please support this channel by subscribing here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g?sub_confirmation=1 Join this channel with a membership for exclusive early access and bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g/join Buy Anthony's microphone: https://kellards.com/products/electro-voice-re20-broadcast-announcer-microphone-black-bundle-with-mic-shockmount-broadcast-arm Buy Anthony's black t'shirt: https://www.uniqlo.com/us/en/products/E455365-000/00?colorDisplayCode=09 Five Minute News is an Evergreen Podcast, covering politics, inequality, health and climate - delivering independent, unbiased and essential news for the US and across the world. Visit us online at http://www.fiveminute.news Follow us on Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/fiveminutenews.bsky.social Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/fiveminnews Support us on Patreon http://www.patreon.com/fiveminutenews You can subscribe to Five Minute News with your preferred podcast app, ask your smart speaker, or enable Five Minute News as your Amazon Alexa Flash Briefing skill. CONTENT DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed on this channel are those of the guests and authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Anthony Davis or Five Minute News LLC. Any content provided by our hosts, guests or authors are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything, in line with the First Amendment right to free and protected speech. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Spotlight on Silence - December 18, 2025This episode examines a growing pattern of political pressure in Armenia, where journalists, lawyers, activists, and clergy are targeted through criminal prosecutions, selective justice, and coordinated propaganda. Drawing on recent cases and legal analysis, the discussion focuses on how laws such as Article 236 are used to constrain speech, protest, and independent institutions.Topics:Criminalization of Speech and Dissent in ArmeniaLegal Pressure on Lawyers, Journalists, and ClergySelective Justice and Coordinated PropagandaArticle 236 and the Policing of ProtestArmenian Center for Political Rights (ACPR) Reports:2025-10-17 Statement on case of Aleksander Kochubaev: https://bit.ly/4j7thWK 2025-10-27 Statement on case of Ruben Mkhitaryan: https://bit.ly/4aopzFR 2025-11-14 Statement on case of Antifake: http://bit.ly/48YZOtr2025-12-06 Injustice in Armenia - Part I: https://bit.ly/4qAzhtNGuest: Rafael IshkhanyanHosts:Hovik ManucharyanAsbed BedrossianEpisode 497 | Recorded: December 13, 2025SHOW NOTES: https://podcasts.groong.org/497VIDEO: https://youtu.be/-aRS_GqoCjE#SpotlightOnSilence #ArmeniaJustice #PoliticalPrisoners #FreedomOfSpeech #RuleOfLaw #HumanRights #GroongSubscribe and follow us everywhere you are: linktr.ee/groong

A rare split is opening inside the Federal Reserve. Sonu Varghese, VP, Global Macro Strategist, and Ryan Detrick, Chief Market Strategist at Carson Wealth, dig into what that tension really means as growth projections move higher and rate cuts keep coming. They break down the widening gap between market expectations and the Fed's own outlook, the mixed signals coming from the latest dot plot, and what dissenting votes reveal about how policymakers are reading inflation and a softening labor market. At the same time, they look to the areas gaining strength, including cyclicals, global markets, commodities and the latest AI rotation, to understand how a divided Fed is shaping positioning as investors look ahead to 2026.Key Takeaways:• The Fed is diverging internally: The dot plots and dissents show widening disagreement on how aggressively to cut• Markets are pricing a different path: Traders expect more easing than the Fed, especially beyond 2026• Growth projections are rising: The Fed now sees stronger 2025–2026 GDP despite ongoing cuts• Labor-market signals are weakening: Falling quits and slowing hiring increase pressure on policymakers• Cyclical strength continues: Industrials, materials, and developed international markets are pushing the rally forwardJump to:0:00 - Cold Open, Holidays, And Setup2:45 - AI Leadership Rotates And Market Breadth8:50 - Cyclicals Lead, Global Rally Builds14:40 - Europe, Developed Markets, And Industrials20:55 - IPOs, Sentiment, And Bull Market Signals27:00 - The Fed Cuts: Dots, Dissent, And Markets35:20 -Neutral Rate, Long-Run Inflation, And 202641:50 - Press Conference Takeaways And Labor Risks48:10 - Gold Breakout And Commodities Pulse53:30 - Labor Market: JOLTS, Quits, And WagesConnect with Ryan:• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryandetrick/• X: https://x.com/RyanDetrickConnect with Sonu:• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sonu-varghese-phd/• X: https://x.com/sonusvarghese?lang=enQuestions about the show? We'd love to hear from you! factsvsfeelings@carsongroup.com

David Rovics is an activist musician who composes songs that educate about historical events, provide political analysis about current events, and raise up people from social movements. His solidarity with Palestinian liberation is deep, spanning his entire musical career. Recently, his entire 50-album catalog on YouTube Music was deleted. Clearing the FOG speaks with Rovics about the retaliation he has faced, some of his recent songs, how platforms like Spotify and YouTube are impacting the music industry, his artificial intelligence band, Ai Tsuno, and calls to boycott Spotify. For more information, visit PopularResistance.org.

David Rovics is an activist musician who composes songs that educate about historical events, provide political analysis about current events, and raise up people from social movements. His solidarity with Palestinian liberation is deep, spanning his entire musical career. Recently, his entire 50-album catalog on YouTube Music was deleted. Clearing the FOG speaks with Rovics about the retaliation he has faced, some of his recent songs, how platforms like Spotify and YouTube are impacting the music industry, his artificial intelligence band, Ai Tsuno, and calls to boycott Spotify. For more information, visit PopularResistance.org.

Why the Court's majority is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020)(part 9 in a series) about the faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act --This continues to be a real hoot. Part 9: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We continue discussing the Republican dissenting opinion of Justice Alito (joined by Thomas) from his Roman numeral I.B through his II.C, stopping at but not commencing his II.D. We'll have one more episode of Alito's dissent (joined by Thomas) and and then one further one on Kavanaugh's dissent, so two more episodes on this Supreme Court case. Part 9. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

A bidding war is taking place in Hollywood. Why is Warner Bros Discovery in demand? Major changes are coming in how the government approaches financial regulation and stability. How will these changes impact our financial system? Finally, the Fed had its final meeting of the year. What insight did they give on interest rate policy for 2026?

Hello!This is a good episode of the show and about something we've been thinking about for a while: What is the role of organized religion going forward and will we see a return to the church as the cruelty of politics, technology, and the general malaise of modern life start to overwhelm us? Our guest, Matt Sitman, has thought a ton of about this. He's the co-host of Know Your Enemy and on the editorial board of Dissent. He's written and thought about religion for a long time, including a big story in the New Republic from 2021 about the religious left and a very moving plea from 2017 in Dissent. We talked about a lot: the Catholic church and its right wing converts, the alienation of tech, Tyler's theory about whether AI was the antichrist, the need for community, and the question of how we build a moral framework in a time when everyone's just on their f*****g phones all the time. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit goodbye.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of America's Founding Series, Professor Nick Giordano uncovers the remarkable and little-known story of Luther Martin, the fiery Anti-Federalist who fiercely opposed the rise of big government and warned that centralized power would one day overwhelm the states and the people. From his blistering four-hour speech at the Constitutional Convention to his battle for a Bill of Rights and his dramatic defense of Aaron Burr, Martin's forgotten fight for limited government reads like a prophecy for America today. This gripping narrative reveals why his warnings matter more than ever and how his dissent shaped the very foundations of our Republic. Episode Highlights The Four-Hour Speech That Changed Everything: How Luther Martin confronted Madison, Hamilton, and the Virginia Plan and forced the Great Compromise. A Forgotten Warning Come True: Martin's predictions about centralized power, federal overreach, and the administrative state that mirror America's challenges today. The Bulldog of Liberty: From the Constitutional Convention to the Aaron Burr treason trial, the dramatic story of a patriot who refused to be silenced.

It's Hump Day on the Majority Report On today's program: Aftyn Behn outperforms expectations in the special election for Tennessee's 7th Congressional District, a result that could signal trouble for the GOP heading into the 2026 midterms. Jessica Burbank, a contributor to Drop Site News, joins Sam and Emma to discuss Flock Safety—a Peter Thiel–funded, AI-powered surveillance company that is building an unregulated nationwide monitoring network in potential violation of the Fourth Amendment. Checkout Jessica's piece for Drop Site News and accompanying documentary on YouTube. K. Sabeel Rahman, professor of law at Cornell University, joins the program to discuss his piece in Dissent magazine, "The Case for a Third Reconstruction". In the Fun Half: Trump convenes a chaotic Cabinet meeting; one he slept through for the most part, waking only to unleash racist attacks on Somali refugees. Meanwhile, Hegseth keeps trying to pass responsibility for his war crimes to Admiral Bradley. Peter Thiel's guru, Curtis Yarvin shares his nazi "origin story" Sam and Emma take a look at the Trailer for "The Voice of Hind Rajab", a docudrama that follows the Red Crescent response to the killing of the five-year-old Palestinian girl. Hillary Clinton blames TikTok for ruining Israel's reputation. All that and more. The Congress switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: SHOPIFY: Sign up for a $1/month trial period at shopify.com/majority WILDGRAIN: Get $30 off your first box + free Croissants in every box. Go to Wildgrain.com/MAJORITY to start your subscription. ZBIOTICS: Go to https://zbiotics.com/MAJORITY and use MAJORITY at checkout for 15% off any first-time orders of ZBiotics probiotics NAKED WINES: To get 6 bottles of wine for $39.99, head to NakedWines.com/MAJORITY and use code MAJORITY for both the code AND PASSWORD. SUNSET LAKE: Use coupon code "Left Is Best" (all one word) for 20% off of your entire order at SunsetLakeCBD.com  Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech On Instagram: @MrBryanVokey Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com  

Chas & John Barron & Lachy discuss Chas' Favourite Footage of 2025, Tricia McLaughlin's Upside-Down World and The Noel + Liam Gallaghers of US Politics WARNING: This episode of PEP may contain explicit language.   Timestamps: 0:00 - Introducing: The Final PEPmas Special 2:04 - Lackey in the USA 11:00 - John Barron QandA 1:37:28 - Unleashed: Chicago + Immigration 3:05:19 - Final Gratefuls   SHOW LINKS: *Chat with the PEPpers on the Discord Server: https://discord.com/invite/WxDD2PPvaW   HOMEWORK: *John Mulaney's Horse in a Hospital routine: https://bitly.cx/ANDch *That New Yorker Article about people being deported to African countries: https://bitly.cx/4TmSy   THE (UPDATED) DR DAVE BOOK CLUB MASTERLIST: Richard Yates - Revolutionary Road  (Mentioned 1:48:45, Ep 240) Michael Lewis - Who Is Government? (Mentioned 2:19:59, Ep 235) Orlando Whitfield - All That Glitters (Mentioned 2:34:37, Ep 232) John Lyons - Balcony Over Jerusalem (Mentioned 2:45:26, Ep 231) Yukio Mishima - Spring Snow (Mentioned 2:35:12, Ep 227) John Steinbeck - Cannery Row (Mentioned 02:39, Ep 226) David Simon & Ed Burns - The Corner: A Year in the Life of an Inner-City Neighborhood (Mentioned 2:21:40, Ep 225) William Appleman Williams - The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (Mentioned 2:11:23, Ep 222) Mahmood Mamdani - Good Muslim, Bad Muslim (Mentioned 2:07:14, Ep 220) Carlo Rovelli - The Order Of Time (Mentioned 06:36, Ep 220) Carlo Rovelli - Reality Is Not What It Seems (Mentioned 06:36, Ep 220) Ryszard Kapuściński - Shah of Shahs (Mentioned 2:21:27, Ep 217) Ervand Abrahamian - Khomeinism (Mentioned 2:23:19, Ep 217) Anthony Seldon - Truss at 10 (Mentioned 1:36:09, Ep 215) Steven Teles - The Conservative Legal Movement (Mentioned 2:12:12, Ep 215) Amin Maalouf - The Crusades Through Arab Eyes (Mentioned 4:32, Ep 214) Geoffrey Blainey - The Causes Of War (Mentioned 43:49, Ep 198) Margaret Levi - Of Rule And Revenue (Mentioned 1:11:16, Ep 195) Margaret Levi - Consent, Dissent, and Patriotism (Mentioned 1:11:16, Ep 195) Sayaka Murata - Convenience Store Woman (Mentioned 2:14, Ep 194) Sid Meier - Sid Meier's Memoir! (Mentioned 16:30, Ep 178) David Simon & Ed Burns - The Corner (Mentioned 8:40, Ep 178) Maurice O. Wallace - King's Vibrato (Mentioned 14:26, Ep 164) Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky - Manufacturing Consent - (Mentioned 32:12, Ep 164) Robert Plunket - My Search For Warren Harding (Mentioned 1:49:12, Ep 158) Ian Lambot & Greg Girard - City of Darkness Revisited (Mentioned 39:25, Ep 157) Max Chafkin - The Contrarian (Mentioned 32:18, Ep 155) Claire Conner - Wrapped In The Flag (Mentioned 31:42, Ep 155) Rita Abrahamsen, Mike Williams et al - Global Right (Mentioned 31:12, Ep 155) Philip Gorski and Samuel Perry - The Flag And The Cross (Mentioned 30:49, Ep 155) Cynthia Miller-Idriss - Hate In The Homeland (Mentioned 30:10, Ep 155) Cory Doctorow & Rebecca Giblin - Chokepoint Capitalism (Mentioned 34:55, Ep 150) Elizabeth Ingleson - Made In China (Mentioned 31:50, Ep 150) John Corrigan - Religious Intolerance, America, and the World (Mentioned 1:16:18, Ep 141) Gérard Prunier - From Genocide to Continental War (Mentioned 48:18, Ep 141) Liu Cixin, - The Three Body Trilogy (Mentioned 1:11:04, Ep 136) Tilman Allert - The Hitler Salute (Mentioned 22:03, Ep 134) Philip Roth - Nemesis (Mentioned 1:56, Ep 133) Joshua Cohen - The Netanyahus Zeke Faux - Number Go Up Michael Paul Rogin - The Intellectuals and McCarthy Cathy Kramer - The Politics of Resentment Naomi Klein - Doppelganger Maria Bamford - Sure, I'll Join Your Cult Wendy Brown - States Of Injury Corey Robin. - The Reactionary Mind Patricia Lockwood - No One Is Talking About This David Cay Johnston - The Making of Donald Trump Jane Mayer - Dark Money Harry Frankfurt - On Bullshit Stephen King - The Dead Zone Elle Hardy - Beyond Belief Federico Finchelstein - From Fascism to Populism in History Robert Jervis - Why Intelligence Fails Alex Haley and Malcolm X - The Autobiography of Malcolm X Jonathan Haidt - The Righteous Mind David Graeber - Debt: The First 5000 Years Jerry L. Mashaw - Creating The American Administrative Constitution Brian Balogh - A Government Out of Sight Paul Connerton - How Societies Remember Paul Connerton - How Modernity Forgets Catherine Green and Sarah Catherine Gilbert - Vaxxers John Zaller - The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion Matthew Karp - This Vast Southern Empire Robert Fatton - The Guise of Exceptionalism Anatol Lievin - Climate Change and the Nation State: The Realist Case James Alfred Aho - The Politics of Righteousness The substack that Dr Dave apparently plagiarises liberally from! https://luke.substack.com/ James Beverley - God's Man in the White House Jane Chi Hyun Park - Yellow Future Matthias Gardell - In The Name of Elijah Muhammad Gosta Esping-Andersen - The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism Suzanne Mettler - The Submerged State Brendon O'Connor - Anti-Americanism and American Exceptionalism James Morone - Hellfire Nation Nathan Kalmoe - With Ballots and Bullets Winnifred Fallers Sullivan - The Impossibility of Religious Freedom Mary L. Trump - Too Much And Never Enough Richard Cooke - Tired of Winning Jon Ronson - So You've Been Publicly Shamed Rodney Tiffen, Ross Gittins, Anika Gauja, David Smith, Brendon O'Connor - How America Compares Tony Horwitz - Confederates In the Attic Ghassan Hage - White Nation George Lakoff - Women, Fire and Dangerous Things George Lakoff - Metaphors We Live By Michelle Alexander - The New Jim Crow Alex S. Vitale - The End of Policing Dave Cullen - Parkland: Birth of a Movement Thomas Sugrue - The Origins of the Urban Crisis Rick Pearlstein - The Invisible Bridge Rick Pearlstein - Before the Storm Rick Pearlstein - Nixonland Brian Doherty - Radicals for Capitalism Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken, Stanley Schachter - When Prophecy Fails Nancy L. Rosenblum & Russell Muirhead - A Lot Of People Are Saying Benjamin Moffitt - The Global Rise of Populism Jon Krakauer - Missoula   THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!

NDP Leadership hopeful Yves Engler gives an update on his campaign, and discusses the implications of his recent criminal trial in Montreal.The arguments laid out by the Crown in his case, if successful, will reverberate throughout movements, particularly those who encourage followers to inundate state officials with emails. A guilty verdict also holds the potential to provide police officers with a level of anonymity that would make holding them accountable even more difficult.While defending himself against these charges, Yves' is also in the middle of a heated contention for nomination. Its been almost a month since he's submitted his vetting papers to an expectant committee, but no decision has been made. However, he does describe a string of incidents that may serve as writing on the wall.Hear what he thinks his chances are at being found not-guilty, and of passing the NDP vetting test...Hosted by: Jessa McLeanRelated Episodes: Yves Engler: Next Leader of the NDP? (July 2025) Journalist, author, and activist Yves Engler talks about his recent announcement to run for leader of Canada's NDP;Weaponizing the Law for Israel (July 2024) Martin Lukacs from The Breach discusses his investigations into Toronto Police's Project Resolute and the secretive committee tasked with cracking down on Palestinian solidarity activism. Inside the NDP PlaylistMore Resources: NDPSocialists.ca: Yves Engler Denied Access to Convention with ONDP Leader Hangs OnThe Maple: Two Charges Against Pro-Palestine Activist Yves Engler DroppedWhy I'm running for leadership of NDP - Yves EnglerBe sure to check out our Substack for more even more content...which is ALL FREE - but made possible by the generous sponsorships of our Patrons. If you would like to support our work through monthly contributions: PatreonFollow us on Instagram or on Bluesky

As the US ramps up military pressure on Venezuela, the Maduro government is tightening its grip at home. Families of political prisoners describe disappearances, torture and a justice system that forces detainees to accept state-appointed lawyers. Also, Hong Kong officials have announced that more than 150 people are now confirmed dead after last week's massive fire that gutted several high-rise apartment buildings in the Tai Po district. And, a discussion about the status of peace talks for Ukraine. Plus, a radiation-eating fungus found at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.Listen to today's Music Heard on Air. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

AP correspondent Karen Chammas reports on the investigation into the cause of a fire at a building complex in Hong Kong.

2025 PEPMAS SPECIAL PART 2: PEP with Chas & Beau Glass & Melina Wicks (Ep 242-2, 30 November) Chas & Beau Glass & Melina Wicks discuss Sweet Summer Melina, The Drug Version Of Kevin Bacon, and That's Not An Indictment That's A Piece Of Paper! WARNING: This episode of PEP may contain explicit language.   Timestamps:  0:00 - Introducing: PEPmas Part 2 1:28 - Correspondence (PEPstival Absentees, MRI) 4:05 - Introducing: Beau Glass 6:43 - The Comey Dismissal 38:23 - The Texas Redistricting Massacre 1:00:17 - Stats Nugget (LAW!) 1:03:30 - More Redistricting  1:07:26 - Introducing: Melina Wicks 1:11:23 - MTG's Resignation 2:19:30 - Unleashed: Venezuela 2:44:26 - Unleashed: The "Defying Orders" Video 3:25:36 - Goodbye   SHOW LINKS: *Chat with the PEPpers on the Discord Server: https://discord.com/invite/WxDD2PPvaW THE (UPDATED) DR DAVE BOOK CLUB MASTERLIST: Richard Yates - Revolutionary Road  (Mentioned 1:48:45, Ep 240) Michael Lewis - Who Is Government? (Mentioned 2:19:59, Ep 235) Orlando Whitfield - All That Glitters (Mentioned 2:34:37, Ep 232) John Lyons - Balcony Over Jerusalem (Mentioned 2:45:26, Ep 231) Yukio Mishima - Spring Snow (Mentioned 2:35:12, Ep 227) John Steinbeck - Cannery Row (Mentioned 02:39, Ep 226) David Simon & Ed Burns - The Corner: A Year in the Life of an Inner-City Neighborhood (Mentioned 2:21:40, Ep 225) William Appleman Williams - The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (Mentioned 2:11:23, Ep 222) Mahmood Mamdani - Good Muslim, Bad Muslim (Mentioned 2:07:14, Ep 220) Carlo Rovelli - The Order Of Time (Mentioned 06:36, Ep 220) Carlo Rovelli - Reality Is Not What It Seems (Mentioned 06:36, Ep 220) Ryszard Kapuściński - Shah of Shahs (Mentioned 2:21:27, Ep 217) Ervand Abrahamian - Khomeinism (Mentioned 2:23:19, Ep 217) Anthony Seldon - Truss at 10 (Mentioned 1:36:09, Ep 215) Steven Teles - The Conservative Legal Movement (Mentioned 2:12:12, Ep 215) Amin Maalouf - The Crusades Through Arab Eyes (Mentioned 4:32, Ep 214) Geoffrey Blainey - The Causes Of War (Mentioned 43:49, Ep 198) Margaret Levi - Of Rule And Revenue (Mentioned 1:11:16, Ep 195) Margaret Levi - Consent, Dissent, and Patriotism (Mentioned 1:11:16, Ep 195) Sayaka Murata - Convenience Store Woman (Mentioned 2:14, Ep 194) Sid Meier - Sid Meier's Memoir! (Mentioned 16:30, Ep 178) David Simon & Ed Burns - The Corner (Mentioned 8:40, Ep 178) Maurice O. Wallace - King's Vibrato (Mentioned 14:26, Ep 164) Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky - Manufacturing Consent - (Mentioned 32:12, Ep 164) Robert Plunket - My Search For Warren Harding (Mentioned 1:49:12, Ep 158) Ian Lambot & Greg Girard - City of Darkness Revisited (Mentioned 39:25, Ep 157) Max Chafkin - The Contrarian (Mentioned 32:18, Ep 155) Claire Conner - Wrapped In The Flag (Mentioned 31:42, Ep 155) Rita Abrahamsen, Mike Williams et al - Global Right (Mentioned 31:12, Ep 155) Philip Gorski and Samuel Perry - The Flag And The Cross (Mentioned 30:49, Ep 155) Cynthia Miller-Idriss - Hate In The Homeland (Mentioned 30:10, Ep 155) Cory Doctorow & Rebecca Giblin - Chokepoint Capitalism (Mentioned 34:55, Ep 150) Elizabeth Ingleson - Made In China (Mentioned 31:50, Ep 150) John Corrigan - Religious Intolerance, America, and the World (Mentioned 1:16:18, Ep 141) Gérard Prunier - From Genocide to Continental War (Mentioned 48:18, Ep 141) Liu Cixin, - The Three Body Trilogy (Mentioned 1:11:04, Ep 136) Tilman Allert - The Hitler Salute (Mentioned 22:03, Ep 134) Philip Roth - Nemesis (Mentioned 1:56, Ep 133) Joshua Cohen - The Netanyahus Zeke Faux - Number Go Up Michael Paul Rogin - The Intellectuals and McCarthy Cathy Kramer - The Politics of Resentment Naomi Klein - Doppelganger Maria Bamford - Sure, I'll Join Your Cult Wendy Brown - States Of Injury Corey Robin. - The Reactionary Mind Patricia Lockwood - No One Is Talking About This David Cay Johnston - The Making of Donald Trump Jane Mayer - Dark Money Harry Frankfurt - On Bullshit Stephen King - The Dead Zone Elle Hardy - Beyond Belief Federico Finchelstein - From Fascism to Populism in History Robert Jervis - Why Intelligence Fails Alex Haley and Malcolm X - The Autobiography of Malcolm X Jonathan Haidt - The Righteous Mind David Graeber - Debt: The First 5000 Years Jerry L. Mashaw - Creating The American Administrative Constitution Brian Balogh - A Government Out of Sight Paul Connerton - How Societies Remember Paul Connerton - How Modernity Forgets Catherine Green and Sarah Catherine Gilbert - Vaxxers John Zaller - The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion Matthew Karp - This Vast Southern Empire Robert Fatton - The Guise of Exceptionalism Anatol Lievin - Climate Change and the Nation State: The Realist Case James Alfred Aho - The Politics of Righteousness The substack that Dr Dave apparently plagiarises liberally from! https://luke.substack.com/ James Beverley - God's Man in the White House Jane Chi Hyun Park - Yellow Future Matthias Gardell - In The Name of Elijah Muhammad Gosta Esping-Andersen - The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism Suzanne Mettler - The Submerged State Brendon O'Connor - Anti-Americanism and American Exceptionalism James Morone - Hellfire Nation Nathan Kalmoe - With Ballots and Bullets Winnifred Fallers Sullivan - The Impossibility of Religious Freedom Mary L. Trump - Too Much And Never Enough Richard Cooke - Tired of Winning Jon Ronson - So You've Been Publicly Shamed Rodney Tiffen, Ross Gittins, Anika Gauja, David Smith, Brendon O'Connor - How America Compares Tony Horwitz - Confederates In the Attic Ghassan Hage - White Nation George Lakoff - Women, Fire and Dangerous Things George Lakoff - Metaphors We Live By Michelle Alexander - The New Jim Crow Alex S. Vitale - The End of Policing Dave Cullen - Parkland: Birth of a Movement Thomas Sugrue - The Origins of the Urban Crisis Rick Pearlstein - The Invisible Bridge Rick Pearlstein - Before the Storm Rick Pearlstein - Nixonland Brian Doherty - Radicals for Capitalism Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken, Stanley Schachter - When Prophecy Fails Nancy L. Rosenblum & Russell Muirhead - A Lot Of People Are Saying Benjamin Moffitt - The Global Rise of Populism Jon Krakauer - Missoula THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!  

       Indian Judge Rabhabinod Pal wrote a massive dissent, arguing the court lacked legitimacy due to the dominance of imperial powers. Pal, who focused heavily on racism and colonialism, questioned the evidence of Japanese atrocities at Nanjing. During the 1948 executions, army defendants chanted "Banzai" (Long live the Emperor). The US Supreme Court upheld the military commissions by narrowly refusing jurisdiction.

Sarah Isgur and David French react to Judge Jerry Smith's unconventional dissent in the legal challenge against the Texas GOP redistricting effort. Also: James Comey may catch a break after U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan's presentation before the grand jury exposed amateurish errors. The Agenda:—Sudafed as an enemy—Judge Jerry Smith's dissent—Redistricting challenges in Texas—Comey's case and grand jury proceedings Advisory Opinions is a production of ⁠The Dispatch⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—⁠click here⁠. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member ⁠by clicking here⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ever feel like just when you're making progress everything falls apart?In this episode of the Bible Book Club Podcast, we unpack Nehemiah chapters 5 and 6 to discover how to battle opposition with integrity and discernment. You'll learn how Nehemiah confronted internal conflict leading by example through personal sacrifice. We'll also explore the enemy's primary tactics—temptation, lies, and personal attacks—and how Nehemiah used God's Word as his filter to recognize spiritual traps and stay focused on his calling.Episode Highlights:How to combat internal conflict by living with integrity and confronting injusticeThe "Discern and Dissent" strategy for recognizing and resisting opposition's distractionsPractical ways to avoid wasting time on drama and lies by staying rooted in ScriptureWhether you're facing ridicule, threats, or attacks on your credibility, this episode offers biblical wisdom from Nehemiah for overcoming opposition without losing heart. Discover how knowing God's Word gives you the discernment to stay focused on what matters most.Show Notes:BlogWe love feedback, but can't reply without your email address. Message us your thoughts and contact info! Contact Bible Book ClubDonate or pick up merch here Like, comment, or message us through Bible Book Club's InstagramLike or comment on Susan's Facebook or InstagramLeave us an Apple reviewContact us through our website formThanks for listening and happy podcasting!

The House returns to vote on a bipartisan bill that could end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history and send thousands of federal workers back to their jobs. Democrats face internal backlash after several senators broke ranks to support the deal, raising questions about the impact ahead of next year's midterm elections. And COP30 opens in Brazil with a stark warning on global emissions, new data shows fossil fuels are at record highs, and the world is still far from meeting its climate goals.Want more comprehensive analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.Today's episode of Up First was edited by Kelsey Snell, Megan Pratz, Neela Banerjee, Mohamad ElBardicy, and Alice Woelfle.It was produced by Ziad Buchh, Nia Dumas and Lindsay Totty.We get engineering support from Stacey Abbott. And our technical director is Carleigh Strange.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

My guest today is evolutionary biologist Carole Hooven. If you've followed her story, you know she was effectively pushed out of Harvard for articulating a basic biological fact—and doing it politely. We talk through her research on hormones, rough-and-tumble play, aggression, and libido; what puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones actually do; why sports can't be reorganized around “hormone levels”; and how elite institutions reacted to her saying things they all once taught. This is a conversation about evidence, not slogans—and about the cost of speaking plainly. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Russia and China's UN Cyber Crime Treaty: Redefining Crime to Authorize Persecution of Dissent. Ivana Stradner (Foundation for Defense of Democracies) discusses the UN cyber crime treaty drafted largely by Russia and China, which is likely to be approved by the General Assembly and would replace the Budapest Convention of 2001. The treaty's terms would dangerously allow Russia and China to persecute citizens for what is understood as dissent and pursue other countries for commenting upon them. Stradner notes the treaty emphasizes "all power to the state, not to the individual," serving the goals of digital sovereignty and authorizing authoritarian countries to regulate information security. The United States must reject ratification. Stradner emphasizes that powerful offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, not UN treaties, are what deter Russia and China from cyber attacks against the West.

PLA Dissent Rumors and General Zhang Youxia's Loyalty Strategy. John Batchelor and General Blaine Holt discuss the rumor mill regarding the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and potential dissent against Xi Jinping. Specifically, rumors suggest General Zhang Youxia, a top uniformed PLA leader, is unhappy with changes in the country's direction. Holt notes that this information is currently under the "fog of diplomacy, fog of war." However, based on his research, Zhang Youxia has successfully ensured commanders of elite units, including the 82nd around Beijing, are loyal to the PLA itself, rather than solely the Chinese Communist Party. This strategy has helped stabilize the military situation. Holt suggests that average Chinese soldiers facing economic issues might see a morale boost if they believe their top general could lead efforts to "right the ship." 1906 PEKING

Even since before October 7, 2023, American Jews have found themselves grappling with what it means to speak out against Israel and the rifts in their communities over their political views. And despite a new ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, the division among Jews in the U.S. about Zionism and anti-Zionism could go on for years to come. In this episode, we revisit our conversations with some people experiencing that division first hand, and we dive deep into the long history of Jewish criticism of Israel with Marjorie Feld, professor of history at Babson College, and author of Threshold of Dissent, A History of American Jewish Critics of Zionism.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy