Podcasts about Edmund Burke

Minu isiklikule elukäigule on viimasel viiel aastal kõige käegakatsutavamat mõju avaldanud inglise kirjaniku Paul Kingsnorthi silmiavav essee „The Cross and the Machine“ [1]. Kuivõrd mul õnnestus koroonaaja kõige süngematel kuudel säilitada terve mõistus – nii nagu mina sellest aru saan – suures osas tänu Kingsnorthilt saadud intellektuaalsele ja spirituaalsele toetusele, olen temast hiljuti omajagu juttu teinud. 2022. aasta augustis intervjueerisin ma teda Tähenduse teejuhtide 22. numbri tarvis („Stsientism ja seks“ [2]), sama aasta sügisel vestlesime Kingsnorthi kahest esseest „What Progress Wants“ [3] ja „Exodus“ vastavalt Mikael Raihhelgauzi ja Andres Reimanni (TT#167) ning Aleksander Eeri Laupmaa ja Kaarel Otsaga (TT#170). 2024. aasta mais osales Paul Kingsnorth meie kutsel Tallinnas toimunud Aldous Huxleyle pühendatud rahvusvahelisel konverentsil. Tema Tallinna kõne „Huxley and the Machine“ [5] on Edmund Burke'i Seltsi videokanali kaugelt kõige vaadatum video. „Minu arvates on iga kultuuri südamikus troon. Keegi istub sellel troonil. Meie omal istus pikalt Kristus. Nüüd on ta läinud. Troon ei jää aga tühjaks, sinna tuleb keegi asemele, sellest pole pääsu... Kui te ütlete, et te ei usu Jumalasse ja kogu sellesse niinimetatud üleloomulikku värki, siis olgu nii. Sellisel juhul istub teie troonil Masin ja te ehitate oma enda jumalat,“ ütles Kingsnorth kõnealusel konverentsil [6].264. saates viisin ma jutu Kingsnorthile vestluse viimases viiendikus (97. minut), kui palusin stuudiokülalistel kommenteerida mulle „Stsientismist ja seksist“ meelde jäänud mõtet, et praegune ajastu pole mitte postkristlik, vaid, vastupidi, väga kristlik. „Praegune atmosfäär on üha puritaanlikum. Tuleb öelda õigeid asju ja kui keegi seda ei tee, siis peab ta avalikult vabandama jne. Selles kõiges puudub kristlik võime andestada – see ongi põhiprobleem. Meie ümber toimuv meenutab järjest enam Inglise kodusõda, usupuhastust ja Kolmekümneaastast sõda,“ ütles Kingsnorth meie intervjuus. „Ma arvan, et see väide on suures pildis tõene,“ vastas Varro Vooglaid. „Euroopa suurim traagika seisneb minu arvates praegu selles, et olukorras, kus see on enda kristlikust identiteedist lahti öelnud, on peaaegu paratamatu, et tühja koha täidab riigikultus ja sellest võrsuv totalitarism.“ Kingsnorth kasutab siinkohal laia tähendusväljaga metafoori „Masin“ – ta mõistab selle all lugu, milles me elame. „See on lugu revolutsioonist, mille lõppeesmärgiks on minu arusaamist mööda looduse asendamine tehnoloogiaga ja maailma ümberehitamine inimese näo järgi. Me tahame ellu viia oma kõige vanema unistuse: muutuda jumalateks.“Ahto Lobjakas oli pannud näpu meie mehaanilise elutunnetusele juba paarkümmend minutit varem (76. minut): „Meil valitseb masinlik riigi ja ühiskonna kontseptsioon.“ See hakkas tema sõnul koos rahvuslusega kuju võtma 19. sajandi alguse Napoleoni sõdades. „Saksamaal olid [Johann Gottlieb, H.] Fichte ja teised inimesed, kelle ideid loeti kehvas saksa keeles Tšehhi-, Eesti- ja Liivimaal, kus hakati seejärel ehitama saksa ainetel väiksemaid rahvusi.“ Tulemuseks on Ahto hinnangul masinlikule maailmatajule rajatud ühiskonna- ja riigimudel: „Ühiskond peab koosnema ühesugustest, kergesti vahetatavatest osakestest ning olema vajadusel kiiresti mobiliseeritav.“ Piirjuhtumiks on siin teadagi sõda, olgu see siis parajasti batsilli või Putiniga.Kingsnorthi sõnul valmistub seesama masinlik mudel meid nüüd nahka pistma. „Järele on jäänud veel üks küsimus: kas me laseme tal seda teha,“ kirjutab Kingsnorth essee „What Progress Wants“ lõpulauses.Head uudistamist!Hardo––––––––––––––[1] https://www.paulkingsnorth.net/cross[2] https://teejuhid.postimees.ee/7587055/intervjuu-hardo-pajula-intervjuu-paul-kingsnorthiga-stsientism-ja-seks[3] https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com/p/what-progress-wants[4] https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com/p/exodus[5] https://youtu.be/yy_iTsCleGA?si=QHxxdALIqV0GWpNc&t=3[6] https://youtu.be/AygzBvFDyzA?si=7RZMCvZtJVUnngSw&t=1 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For good or ill, the post World War II era built by the Baby Boomers seems to be rapidly coming to an end.  But what will replace it?  What might be done to prevent global conflicts and bloodshed as the old order begins to break down?  And what should younger conservatives seek to conserve in this era of chaotic change?  Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is Director of Research at the Danube Institute, Calum Nicholson to share how the Anglosphere often misunderstands the way the rest of the world thinks and how that might help us better prepare for what's ahead. About Calum Nicholson From the University of Cambridge bio With a background in social anthropology and human geography, Dr Calum T. M. Nicholson has conducted original research that reconsiders how we understand the societal implications of climate change, notably in the context of its relationship to human migration and international development. A former development consultant and Parliamentary researcher, at PACE Dr Nicholson teaches courses on international development, international migration, and the politics of climate change. Dr Nicholson also teaches a well-received course on the political, cultural, and historical significance of social media. He is currently Director of Research at the Danube Institute, and was formerly Director of the Climate Policy Institute. His new book is entitled Climate Migration: critical perspectives for law, policy, and research.   Introducing Conservative Cagematches Ever since Leo Strauss published his magnum opus Natural Right and History, which ends by heavily implying Edmund Burke opened the door for the evils of historicism in the modern world, a great fissure in conservative nerddom erupted between those who align with either titan. Were Strauss' criticism of Burke warranted? Did Burke disavow natural rights and pave the way for the evils of authoritarianism, fascism, Marxism, and progressivism to come? Does a careful, esoteric reading of Natural Right and History reveal the Strauss secret family chili recipe? On Wednesday, March 4 at 6PM EST / 5PM CST, Saving Elephants will assemble an all-star panel to answer these questions and more. Representing Edmund Burke: Greg Collins of Yale University and Lauren Hall of the Rochester Institute of Technology Representing Leo Strauss: Steve Hayward of Pepperdine and the international woman of mystery, Lucretia of the University of Arizona You can watch the livestream on YouTube or Facebook  

Season premiere! Join us as we begin discussing Russell Kirk's 1953 The Conservative Mind, reading Kirk's discussion of the history of conservatism from Edmund Burke to T.S. Eliot. In this first episode, we break down Kirk's goal in writing the book, his six canons of conservatism, and the four major claims of its opponents. Follow us on X! Give us your opinions here!

What if you could focus on just 7 core areas and know your kids are getting what they truly need? Meredith Curtis discovered the Seven R's during one of the hardest seasons of her life—caring for dying parents while homeschooling five children. This framework helped her "major on the majors and minor on the minors," and it will transform your homeschool too.In this episode, you'll discover:✅Why relationships are the foundation that makes all other learning possible—and what happens when they're broken✅The secret to raising kids who actually love to read (hint: it's not assigning book reports)✅How to teach writing so your kids can communicate clearly, graciously, and persuasively for any audience✅Why math mastery matters more than moving through a curriculum—and what to do when kids fall behind✅The difference between Googling answers and true research skills your kids will need for lifeReady to simplify and focus? The Seven R's will help you cut through curriculum overwhelm and build confident, capable lifelong learners.Resources Mentioned:Get your FREE Basic Pass to Life Skills Leadership Summit 2026 to give you confidence that your kids will be ready for adult life: The Seven R's of Homeschooling by Meredith Curtis - Practical guide to majoring on the majors and minoring on the minorsWho Dun It? Literature & Writing by Meredith Curtis - Teach high schoolers to write their own cozy mysteryHIS Story of the 20th Century by Meredith Curtis Meredith Curtis, pastor's wife, mom to 5 homeschool graduates, and Grand-Merey to 8 angels, loves to read cozy mysteries, travel, hit the beach, and meet new people. She is always learning because the world is just full of mysteries and beauty! Meredith loves to encourage families in their homeschooling adventure because her own was such a blessing. She is a curriculum creator and author of Jesus, Fill My Heart & Home Bible Study and Who Dun It Murder Mystery Literature & Writing. Find Meredith at PowerlineProd.com, along with her online store and blog.You can also follow Meredith on Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, and on the Finish Well Podcast.Show Notes:Kerry: Hey everyone, Kerry Beck here with Life Skills Leadership Summit where we are going to be talking about an extremely important topic that is tools of learning because I think all of you want your kids to be able to learn as an adult and not be dependent on a teacher or on you. And that's what Meredith Curtis is here to talk to us about. So, welcome Meredith. Thanks for being here.Meredith: Oh, thank you for having me. I'm really excited about this year's conference and I love this topic we're talking about. I either call it tools of learning or the seven Rs and they're just so helpful in staying focused and making the majors the majors and the minors the minors.Kerry: That's a great way to put it. We're going to dive into her seven Rs and how it can apply to your homeschool. But before we do that, could you just tell our listeners a little bit about you?Meredith: Yes, I would love to. So, my name is Meredith Curtis and I am a pastor's wife. I'm the mother of five homeschool graduates and I have eight grandchildren that are perfect angels and I feed them too much sugar.I love spending time with my grandchildren. I love to travel. I love to read. I love Jesus. That's probably the most important thing. And I'm a writer and a speaker.Kerry, I love creating curriculum. I love teaching. I love creating curriculum. I love writing Bible studies, studying the Bible. Probably one of my favorite things is I wrote a curriculum called Who Done It? It's my most popular book, and it basically is a high school English class that teaches teens how to write their own cozy mystery.And I actually started writing a cozy mystery series. I have three books in it so far—Tea Time Trouble, Pumpkin Patch Peril, and Old-Fashioned Christmas Murder.Kerry: Okay, y'all. She has two interviews and we've talked about the cozy mysteries in the last one. So, y'all go listen to that. But I was just fascinated. I knew she taught the kids, but now she's written three of her own mystery books. And so, I just think that is so exciting as well. Plus, her husband, does he have four books out now?Meredith: He does. Well, he actually has a fifth book that's not fiction. It's called Forging Godly Men, and it's about mentoring godly men.Kerry: The other ones are novels. So he's got the four novels plus the one on raising our boys to be godly men. Today we're going to talk about writing, but let's back up. I know you either call it the tools of learning or the seven Rs. How did you discover these tools of learning?How the 7 Rs Were Born from CrisisMeredith: Okay. So, I was in my early 40s and I had a four-year-old, five-year-old, six-year-old. My oldest was already graduating from high school, starting college. And so I had this wide range of five children.And my parents got really sick, Kerry. They were so sick and they live four hours away. So I was constantly taking a trip down to South Florida. I live in Central Florida and I would drive that 4 hours and stay with them a few days and then come home.I had to leave one of the older kids in charge of one or two of the younger ones and bring another older one with me with the younger one. And it was just very challenging. And of course, I was heartbroken because my parents were very sick.So during that time, I had to just ask the Lord, "What is the most important thing for my kids to get done?" Because they're going to be doing school apart from me. And the other one, we're going to be in the hospital or we're going to be in doctor's offices or we're going to be taking care of my parents. And I need to be able to at a glance know that they're getting it. So I really need help, Lord.And that is, you know, this is kind of birthed from that. You think about the three Rs, reading, writing, arithmetic. So, this is kind of what I felt like I discovered as a homeschool mom, that these were the tools of learning, the majors, and that if some of the other stuff fell by the wayside, these tools that I kept focusing on were going to allow them to learn anything at all that they needed.It was a really sad season in my life and my mom ended up passing away. My father moved close to us and then two years later he passed away. So it was a very hard season but out of that the Lord taught me not just life lessons but homeschooling lessons. God always brings good things out of very sad things.Kerry: I'm so sorry for your loss. And yet I see it because you got to take care of the majors and let go of things. And there are seasons in homeschooling, seasons in our lives that you may not go to every activity or every art lesson or whatever. You've got to just take care of the majors.Relationships: The Foundation of EverythingKerry: I know that you and I, there's one thing in particular even beyond academics and that's relationships. So why would you say relationships are so foundational to everything else?Meredith: Well, I think that life is basically number one thing relationship. God says he wants to have a relationship with us. In Revelation, he stands at the door and knocks and if anyone hears his voice, he comes in and eats with them. And you only eat with people you like. You know what I mean? Like that's relationship.So I think we have a relational God. He created people to be relational. And learning, I think when learning is birthed out of strong relationships, it is so different because I love Jesus. So I want to learn because I want to glorify him. I want to know what did he create and how does things work.When I became a Christian at 16, learning was a whole new thing for me. It just fascinated me. What is God doing in history? What is he doing here? And so I think when relationships are strong, that's the vertical relationship, but my relationship with my children, if my children know how much I love them, how much I respect them, how much I want their life to be blessed and fulfilled, they're going to be motivated to learn, not just for me, but with me.I think we learn as a family. I didn't know everything when I started homeschooling. I loved learning along the way. And every time we went back through US geography, I learned more.In contrast to that, when relationships are bad and there's yelling, there's always going to be fighting in a home, especially if you have more than one child. But how you resolve it can be resolved in a way that they can be closer afterward.But if there is constant bickering, if your children don't feel like you're for them, if you don't have a high opinion of your children, you're frustrated with them, learning doesn't really take place well. They might be learning, but so often in those situations, I see kids memorizing facts for a test, but they don't enjoy learning.I have just had some of my middle school classes that I teach online. These kids, they're not shy yet, you know, like some of the high schoolers are shy, but they're just—I love learning. And I think they have a family, a home that's happy, that they feel loved by their family and it always bears it out when they talk about their parents, they talk about their siblings, it's positive.So, I think relationships set the atmosphere, but also all the studies I've ever read, the most confident people know that they're loved. And when our children know that they're loved, it gives them a confidence that they can learn anything.Kerry: So good. And really, relationships are what's going to last forever and ever. I mean, even beyond this earth. And so we want to build those good relationships.Plus sometimes, you know, later in life, your kids, their siblings, they may need their siblings to be there for them. And we need to build that relationship and that security so that when they take that risk to go learn something that they're not really sure if they know how to go learn it, then they still feel safe in doing that.The Seven Rs ExplainedKerry: I know you've got these seven Rs. Can you just sort of rattle them off real quickly for us so people sort of have an understanding of what we're talking about?Meredith: Okay. So it would be relationships, reading, rhetoric—it's really communication and thinking—and then writing, research, arithmetic, and right living.Kerry: We're going to dive into some of these. And you mentioned rhetoric and that's a term that's sometimes thrown around. I believe that a couple hundred years ago, everyone really understood that because it was just part of education. And in the 20th century, we have really gotten away from that term. So tell us just a little bit about what that is and why that would be a tool of learning for our kids.Rhetoric: Learning to Think and CommunicateMeredith: Okay. So rhetoric is basically communicating in a way to inform or persuade. Cicero wrote about rhetoric, Aristotle wrote about rhetoric and people still read those. They're not really difficult reading, but some high school kids would enjoy reading those two men. Aristotle was Greek, Cicero was Roman.And it's basically being able to think through things and being able to communicate. So it would cover everything from greeting people and having casual conversations with them, saying, "Oh, Kerry, how are you today?" things like that. And then it would go all the way to watching the news and saying, "Okay, is this logical? Does this make sense? Does this jive with this over here?"And then being able to communicate in conversations, even as far as speaking, eventually reading aloud, all those things to communicate clearly and concisely and graciously.We have some really dynamic speakers in our day, Kerry, that are so ungracious. And sometimes I listen, I'm like, I agree with everything you say, but I wish you would be nicer or you wouldn't use bad language. And so, all of that is involved in rhetoric—the thinking and then what we allow to come through our mouth.Kerry: That is so good. And we need to teach our kids how to communicate instead of just regurgitate a bunch of facts which tends to be sort of our school system. And I could go off and tell y'all stories but we're not going to.Reading: From Struggle to SuccessKerry: I sort of jumped straight to rhetoric and I overlooked reading. Because you sort of have to be able to read. I mean, you can communicate like this, but we need to be able to read to then be able to make decisions and think through and think critically to then communicate. So, can you tell us just a little bit about raising our kids to be able to read and not hate it, maybe actually enjoy it a little bit?Meredith: Yes. Yes. And so, I mean, I could do a whole workshop on this, so I'm going to be really quick, but basically, teach your kids to read. I taught with phonics. I thought it was very simple. But teach them to read and then once they can read, give them everything possible that they can read that's easy and makes them feel successful.In everything when you're homeschooling, you want to lead children from success to success to success, a challenge, then more success, success, success, so that they're mostly feeling confident and then sometimes challenged.And so with reading, they read all these easy readers and then you start introducing classic literature like Charlotte's Web and Stuart Little and then you just keep going with classic literature.The reason I say classic literature is because a lot of the writing even for adults in our culture is at about a third grade level if you went a hundred years ago. So, if we want our children to value freedom, they're going to have to read things by John Locke. They're going to have to read things by Edmund Burke, and they're going to need to be able to read at a stronger level.So, when you keep giving children classic books, the stories are amazing. It's going to build their vocabulary. It's going to help their reading, and they're eventually going to be interested. They hear about a topic, they'll think, "Oh, I'll pick up that book and read it."The way I really made sure that my children enjoyed reading, that was my goal for them to enjoy reading. So I never assigned books until they were in high school.What I did is I had a bookshelf and it had about six shelves and I filled it. They could read anything they wanted from that bookshelf and they just had to tell me the book they read and I would write it down and I would say did you like it or who was your favorite character or what was your favorite thing about it.I never had them—I taught them how to write a book report and they wrote like two or three but that wasn't my goal because I wanted them to love to read and I wanted them to meet friends in make-believe places, in real places and say I want to go back, I want to read that again. So that was my goal.My son was my hardest and he just hated to read and he loved math but he didn't like reading. And so I remember he got saved in like middle school and he came to me. He's like, "Mom, I didn't read any of those books I told you that I read." And so this summer I'm going to read them all because now I want to live for God.But in high school, by the time he graduated from high school, his favorite book was The Count of Monte Cristo, which is like a thousand-page book. So eventually he learned to read. I never gave up on him. But I always tried to find things that he would like, series that he would like. He loved biographies and I got him a lot of biographies. I got him like all these war books about, you know, this bomber, this plane.My goal the whole time was I want my children to love to read and to be able to read anything they want.And I just want to add this. If you have a child with a learning disability, don't just limit them to listening to audio books for the rest of their life. Maybe they need to listen to every other book audio because the reading assignments are too much. But if they're going to do audio, have them read along with the book and follow with the book because that is going to help them to become a stronger reader.There's also a lot of tools for kids with learning disabilities. Don't give up on reading. I've met like 11th graders and they're like, "I don't read. I just listen to audiobooks" and I'm like, "Oh, I'm going to challenge you to read."I had one student like that. And he said, "Okay, I'm going to read this book." And we were reading Plymouth Plantation by William Bradford. He didn't get the modern translation. He got the one from the 1600s.And I said, "Honey, this was the worst book that you will ever read in your life. And if you got through that, you can read anything." And he loved to read after that, but his mom had told him he couldn't. He had a learning disability. And so he had a lot of drive to be able to read like the other kids in our homeschool co-op.I think reading opens the door. You have to read emails, you have to read texts, but reading is just such an open door to adventure. So, I love reading. I'm a very big fan. My parents were both big fans of reading, too.Kerry: Well, and I think your story plays out. I know for me, you've got to get if you have a child that doesn't like to read, continue to search for something of their interest. And you just have to be patient and give them grace. Give yourself grace.My son did not—I mean he could read, he could read a book and he would do it but did he enjoy it? No. And now he's 31 years old and once he got out of college, he loves to read. We exchange titles but like that was 15 years of time just waiting and you're thinking oh next month they're going to love to read.Look, God takes time to work with me so be patient and give yourself years. For my son, it was 12 years.Kerry: And we're like, okay, our kids are grown. Take it from someone that's already been there, not someone that's in the same level as you are.Writing: From Speaking to the PageKerry: So we have reading, we've got rhetoric. Then the next thing, what do you see as any kind of secret to writing effectively?Meredith: Well, I think if you can communicate an idea, then it's easier to write it. So if you can speak, it's easier to write.So what I would often do with my children is—number one, if I was asking them to write a paragraph, we would read paragraphs together. See how this is a topic sentence and how these sentences—or let's read this essay. This is so interesting.First of all, I think for writing, you have to be able to read the kind of writing that you're going to write. Children just don't naturally know how to write an essay. And if you give them the directions, but you don't give them an example, they still don't know what to do.I would always have my children talk to me. Tell me what you want to write about. And then we would just talk and oh that's a great idea. And you know, kind of helping them think through. I had a pattern for teaching writing.I spent a couple of years on sentences because a good sentence makes or breaks a paper. And I still, you know, I teach high school kids and I have some of them who can't write good sentences. So we spent a lot of time writing sentences.First they were so young they would dictate to me and I would write it and then soon they could write their own and then we wrote paragraphs and we wrote all kinds of different paragraphs and we always enclosed our writing in a letter to grandparents because that teaches children early on.Okay, so you're writing this paragraph for grandma, then you're going to write it differently than this paragraph that you're writing for Aunt Julie because she's interested in horses whereas grandma is interested in books and knitting. It teaches them to think in terms of an audience which is really important when you write.So then from paragraphs we would actually move to reports, essays and things like that in middle school. So we did a lot of basic writing and then whenever they wanted to write stories, I'd say, "Oh yeah, write the story." And if they couldn't write well, they could dictate to me and I would type it on the computer.Then in high school, we did all the analyzing literature, writing a research paper. We wrote a novel one year. And fiction is very different than writing non-fiction. So I think my kids wrote every kind of essay, every kind of report. But I tried to make it really fun.And one thing I also did in high school was I'd say, "Okay, here's a paper from two years ago. I'd like you to turn it into a blog post." And they really enjoyed that. But blogging is a completely different kind of writing than writing an essay.We always shared our writing with other people because I wanted them to have in their mind an audience. Whenever I teach homeschool co-op classes, I always have the kids read their papers out loud and that allows them to have an audience.So I say when you're writing this paper, look around the room. This is your audience and you're going to read it out loud to them and you want to write something they'll enjoy. So when I grade their writing papers, I always look for readability. Is it enjoyable to read? Is it written for the audience?And three of my children went into writing. So one became an editor at a magazine and she writes—now she has her own business. She writes. My other daughter taught writing and literature at the local university and now she's a stay-at-home mom. And my youngest daughter has written a screenplay and short stories and stuff like that.Now my daughter Juliana who works for Verizon says she hates writing but she's actually a very good writer. She just doesn't like it.Kerry: That is so good. You know you said something that I know we did a lot in the beginning years. It is easier for kids to speak sentences than to write their first few sentences. So if they speak it as a sentence, I would type up—Hunter would be talking to me about snakes or whatever we read about and we would type it, then the next day he would copy it or edit it.The other thing is giving your kids a reason to write and getting a grade is not a real life reason to write. You've got to have an audience. And if there's an audience, that alone can motivate some kids to actually do a better job because they feel like they're writing to a person. And if you're just writing for a grade, that's sort of dull sometimes.Arithmetic: Consistency and MasteryKerry: We've got writing, then we have arithmetic. And I know there's some moms that have some fear. I was a math minor and by the time my kids got in high school I was like what did I learn in my math minor years? I loved math in high school but by then I didn't really care for math as much. So what kind of tips can you give them because we do need our kids to be able to use math skills?Meredith: I think my number one tip for math would be do math every day and put a time limit on it so it doesn't feel like, oh my goodness, I'm going to be here two hours to finish this lesson. But I think consistency is the most important thing with math.And be confident. Don't be afraid to hire a tutor for math or to put your kids in a co-op class for math because if mom hates math then it's hard for kids to like math. And I have a friend named Leanne and she did so much tutoring in our church for co-op kids because their moms just hated math.I was like you—when my son took calculus I said honey, no idea. I don't know. But so I would say make sure that they're scoring 90% or higher on their tests and they know why they got the problems wrong.And here's why. The early years they learn so many foundational things. And a lot of times when I'm helping kids who have trouble with pre-algebra, with algebra, with algebra 2 or geometry, it goes all the way back to fractions and decimals and multiplying and dividing.One child was really struggling with math. So I just repeated a grade. I just repeated a whole grade in a different curriculum. And she ended up joining this engineering club called Math Counts in middle school and went all the way to state. So she wasn't dumb. She just needed more repetition.I hear people say, "Well, why should they do repetition?" Well, I would say that math is learning to get the problems right over and over and over again until you're solid.I always started with math because I feel like it kind of gets all the neurons charged and working—like sort of the workout for the brain. But again, I would just do it every day. It's better to do a half hour of math every day than do like a slug session for three hours because you're behind.If kids get behind in math, they get behind in math and that means we do some math over the summer. That was kind of how I looked at it. But I was a real stickler with math and as a result the kids did well with math. But it wasn't necessarily anyone's favorite except for Jimmy my son.Kerry: Well you know I think you hit on another good point—mastery. I was a public school teacher and we did have a minimum but nowadays it didn't matter if you know it or not. You just keep moving those kids through the school. What's the point?If those kids do not understand single-digit division, they're not going to understand long division. So, work on it. And, you know, you can find some fun activities to make it all work. There's lots of hands-on. I do believe mastery in math because it is sequential and it keeps building on it like you said with geometry.Meredith: That's a good point. Math is one of the few things that is sequential. Everything else you could learn, you know, American Revolution and then ancient history. It doesn't matter. But math is sequential. And so if they don't learn the basics, they're always going to struggle.Research: Beyond "Hey Google"Kerry: Okay. So after arithmetic, next we have got research. So how is that a tool? How would you encourage moms?Meredith: Okay. Well, I think right now if you say research, people just look things up on Google.Kerry: I know that's true. Or you know what? My grandkids wouldn't look it on Google. I'm not going to do it because I've got a little Google machine. They just go, "Hey, Google." And then they'd ask whatever that question is and let it speak to them and they don't even have to read it. They'll just listen.Meredith: I always think, what if an enemy of the US just shut down our internet for a week? It would be like, oh my goodness.But I think it's important for kids to know how to find things in books, like how to read a textbook to find the table of contents and how to go find the subject you're looking for. How to use directories, how to use an atlas, how to use maps. They could use Google Maps, but how did they find stuff on Google Maps?And then just being able to go to different kinds of research books like a dictionary, a thesaurus, an encyclopedia, and then actually to research—to look things up and to find different books about it and research a topic and especially in research to read about opposing viewpoints.I think that's very important to read about this viewpoint and this viewpoint that are completely polar opposites. I think that's an important part of research because there's been a main point in our school system for years and it's been like almost brainwashing kids but we don't want to do the same thing.We want to make sure that our children know both sides of the issue and then where we stand and why we stand where we stand logically, not just based on emotion.I think that's an important part of research. It kind of ties in with rhetoric. Also everything is research from looking up a recipe and finding the best recipe to researching for a research paper.And so, you know, one of the things about research is trying out different things until you find what's best. Trying out different exercises till you find the one that works the best or you enjoy the most. So, research is really a lifelong thing.Kerry: Even if you are saying, "Hey, Google."Meredith: Yes. They're like, "Oh, Gigi, that's okay. We'll go find—here. Come here." And they take me over to their little machine and ask it a question. Sometimes they understand, the girls, sometimes they don't.Kerry: That is so good. And I like that idea of research is all different things. It's not just writing a research paper. My kids actually every year in high school had to write one research paper. And we just really—the requirements in ninth grade were different than the 12th grade because hopefully they were growing in their research skills as well. And they do have to write so many research papers in college. So that was probably really helpful for them.Now we got AI. So y'all go listen to the AI talks that we have in this summit because we're going to show you—no, you can't just go get AI to write your research paper. So we got a few little speakers on that. Y'all probably need to go listen.Meredith: Oh, I need to listen to it because someone mentioned it and I was like, "My children in my classes would never use AI."Right Living: The Closing BookendKerry: The last one we started with relationships, which I think is super important. We got a lot of academic things. Right living—and that's the last one. But I don't think it's the least. So, tell us a little bit about that and why you put that there.Meredith: Well, I put it last because it's kind of a sandwich of the academics. Relationship and then right living because right living is weaving through everything.And you teach children to be polite, to be obedient, to work hard, not just with their chores, but with their schoolwork. And so it just makes sense.And also there's something about living right even before children give their hearts to Christ. When you live the right way in a way that's moral, you feel better. You don't have like a lot of guilt. You don't have a lot of shame because you've done the right thing. You've worked hard. You've done what you need to do.So, I feel like it's a confidence booster as well to have right living be part of a focus, but it makes teaching easier when you're focused on training children to have manners, to have virtue. It makes it easier to get school done because it's just part of their character to—okay, this is kind of my job. I'm going to do it well.Kerry: That's so good. And I was thinking I didn't mean to steal your thunder by saying what I said, but relationships, right living—that's the most important. And I got the academics in the middle.Meredith: Exactly. Yeah. It's like a sandwich. And so it's a reminder—I think when you start with right living, you can become legalistic, you can become harsh. But if you start with relationships and sandwich it with right living, I think it helps you have a really good balance between the two.The 7 Rs ResourceKerry: That is so good. Hey, I know you've got a really good resource about these seven Rs that could help our homeschoolers. Could you tell people a little bit about that?Meredith: So, this is called The Seven Rs of Homeschooling. And you can tell all my books have a little Florida flair. A lot of them do. But it goes through each of the seven Rs I mentioned—how to teach them, practical resources.It was again birthed out of that season where it was a necessity for me to major on the majors and minor on the minors. And so it's not like oh this is my theory from my Ivy League tower but this is where we had to live. And it really helped me kind of refocus.And it ended up putting writing assignments and speaking, conversational—that's how we ended up putting book clubs in our literature classes and history classes because I found out how important conversation was. We just would have conversations all the way down to my parents' house.So I really recommend The Seven Rs. It's an easy read and it goes through each one and how it's a benefit and how you can in practical ways—it talks about if you have some issues with reading with your kids and how to go step by step.It's written for elementary, middle, and high school. So, you can pick it up when they're still in high school and just sort of give an overview of your children. If you pull your kids out of high school, out of a public school, and you bring them home, one of the things you want to do is you want to kind of evaluate where they're at in these—not with a test, but with just observing what are they able to do, what are they confident in, what do they still need more help. So, this is another good tool for that.Kerry: That is awesome. So, wherever you're listening to this, look below and we will have a link that you can click on and go grab a copy of this excellent resource because I mean this will give you practical tips to be able to implement these seven Rs and evaluate where your kids are.Meredith, thank you so much for being here. I am going to put a little note on there saying I'm sorry for the darkness on parts of the video, but I know we were in the late of the day and the sun's going down and we couldn't get the light to work. But you know what? The content here is excellent. So, thank y'all for just listening as well. And thank you for being here, Meredith. I appreciate it.Meredith: Thank you for having me. I always love being here. Thank you.Kerry: All right. And I'm Kerry Beck with Life Skills Leadership Summit. We'll talk to you next time.Ready to major on the majors in your homeschool? Grab Meredith Curtis's book The 7 Rs of Homeschooling and discover practical, battle-tested strategies for raising lifelong learners. Visit lifeskillsleadershipsummit.com for the for a free Basic Pass to this year's summit and build confidence in teaching life skills and leadership!

On the eve of the American Revolution, parliamentarian Edmund Burke is reported as having coined the term “the fourth estate” to describe the power of the press in holding the three legitimate estates (Clergy and Houses of Lords and Commons) to account for the uses and abuses of their power. By 1891, author and essayist Oscar Wilde was lamenting that the fourth estate already seemed to have swallowed up the other three, which had become entirely incompetent and incoherent. He claimed that the people were now “dominated by journalism.” (Wilde's conclusions about government were self-serving and misguided, but this observation seems to have been spot on.) Now, in the twenty-first century we've turned to what some call “the fifth estate,” the unofficial, decentralized vox populi (voice of the people), amplified by the internet and social media. To be sure, it often sounds less like one voice and more the clamor and distortion of a not-yet abandoned Babel.  Ok, so there's a little history lesson for you. But what does it have to do with our series? Everything, I think. On the eve of exile, Micah, too, raised his voice to speak for those who were being neglected by the official advocates of human flourishing. The kings' courts, the priesthood, and even the official prophetic class had abandoned truth and justice in favor of comfort. Micah was in some ways acting as a fourth estate, yet as we saw in his opening, this message was not a news broadcast or even a grassroots social media movement. This was not the vox populi, but the vox Dei – the very voice of God.  This week we will hear God's judgment on those who fail to use their positions to respond to the cries of the poor and powerless. We'll also see how Jesus, as always, ultimately fulfills this call and response from both ends. And I'm glad we've been reading through 1 Corinthians in the Soul Room, because it's a perfect word for how the body of Christ can take on this mantle and cry out with His voice to the wilderness noise in which we find ourselves today. 

On the eve of the American Revolution, parliamentarian Edmund Burke is reported as having coined the term “the fourth estate” to describe the power of the press in holding the three legitimate estates (Clergy and Houses of Lords and Commons) to account for the uses and abuses of their power. By 1891, author and essayist Oscar Wilde was lamenting that the fourth estate already seemed to have swallowed up the other three, which had become entirely incompetent and incoherent. He claimed that the people were now “dominated by journalism.” (Wilde's conclusions about government were self-serving and misguided, but this observation seems to have been spot on.) Now, in the twenty-first century we've turned to what some call “the fifth estate,” the unofficial, decentralized vox populi (voice of the people), amplified by the internet and social media. To be sure, it often sounds less like one voice and more the clamor and distortion of a not-yet abandoned Babel.  Ok, so there's a little history lesson for you. But what does it have to do with our series? Everything, I think. On the eve of exile, Micah, too, raised his voice to speak for those who were being neglected by the official advocates of human flourishing. The kings' courts, the priesthood, and even the official prophetic class had abandoned truth and justice in favor of comfort. Micah was in some ways acting as a fourth estate, yet as we saw in his opening, this message was not a news broadcast or even a grassroots social media movement. This was not the vox populi, but the vox Dei – the very voice of God.  This week we will hear God's judgment on those who fail to use their positions to respond to the cries of the poor and powerless. We'll also see how Jesus, as always, ultimately fulfills this call and response from both ends. And I'm glad we've been reading through 1 Corinthians in the Soul Room, because it's a perfect word for how the body of Christ can take on this mantle and cry out with His voice to the wilderness noise in which we find ourselves today. 

In a world of exhaustive binary thinking sometimes complexity offers relief.  Lauren Hall joins the show to offer her alternative living in 4D she calls "radical moderation".  In the latter half of the conversation Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis happily takes Lauren up on her offer to geek out on Edmund Burke.   About Lauren Hall Excerpts from laurenkhall.com   Lauren Hall is an author and professor helping people combat overwhelm in an age of extremes. Her writing rejects binary and black-and-white thinking to help people lead more balanced lives, build stronger relationships, and restore individual and civic well-being.   Hall is a 2024 Pluralism Fellow with the Mercatus Center's Program on Pluralism and Civil Exchange and serves on the Board of Advisors for the Prohuman Foundation. Her Substack and speaking spread the message of radical moderation to new audiences via public writing, speaking, and podcast interviews.   Hall has presented her work on radical moderation at conferences including the Heterodox Academy Conference, the State Policy Network Conference, the Mercatus Center's Pluralism Summit, and various political science and related conferences and has a range of talks and podcast interviews available on radical moderation and other topics.   In her "real" job, she is a Professor of Political Science and Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) and author of the books Family and the Politics of Moderation (Baylor U. Press, 2014) and The Medicalization of Birth and Death (Johns Hopkins U. Press, 2019).   Hall has a PhD in Political Science from Northern Illinois University (2007) and a BA in Philosophy from Binghamton University (2002).   Introducing Conservative Cagematches One of the most invigorating and interesting aspects of conservative history is how often luminaries on the Right disagreed and fought one another.  From Strauss' take down on Burke to Frank Meyer defending his fusionist views from the likes of Brent Bozell and Murray Rothbard to Harry Jaffa fighting just about everyone, the Right has gained vitality and endurance through the process of disagreeing well (and sometimes not so well).   In that same spirit, Saving Elephants will soon launch a new venture: Conservative Cagematches.  These livestream events will feature experts and acolytes from differing schools of thought on the Right to engage in their differences.  We're working now to put together the first panel for an Edmund Burke vs. Leo Strauss debate and can't wait to share the august line-up we have so far.  More to come soon!  

Political Tribalism with Lauren HallPolitical scientist Lauren Hall joins Michael Liebowitz for a wide-ranging discussion on political tribalism—how identity, loyalty, and moral signalling have displaced judgment, moderation, and principled disagreement in modern politics.Lauren Hall brings a rare combination of scholarly depth and cultural clarity to the conversation. Drawing on the classical liberal tradition and her work on family, moderation, and the moral limits of politics, she examines how tribal thinking corrodes institutions, distorts public debate, and turns politics into a substitute for meaning. The discussion explores why societies fracture when politics becomes a moral identity—and what intellectual resources exist for restoring restraint, pluralism, and seriousness to public life.This episode is a thoughtful examination of ideas over slogans, and persuasion over power—an essential listen for anyone concerned with the health of liberal society.Disclaimer:The views expressed by Lauren Hall are her own, and not necessarily reflective of her employer or anyone with whom she works.About Lauren HallLauren Hall is Professor and Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at the Rochester Institute of Technology, College of Liberal Arts. She is the author of The Medicalization of Birth and Death (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2019) and Family and the Politics of Moderation (Baylor University Press, 2014), and co-editor of a volume on the political philosophy of Chantal Delsol.Her scholarship engages deeply with the classical liberal tradition, including extensive writing on Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, and Montesquieu.About Michael Liebowitz – Host of The Rational EgoistMichael Liebowitz is the host of The Rational Egoist podcast, a philosopher, author, and political activist committed to the principles of reason, individualism, and rational self-interest. Deeply influenced by the philosophy of Ayn Rand, Michael uses his platform to challenge cultural dogma, expose moral contradictions, and defend the values that make human flourishing possible.His journey from a 25-year prison sentence to becoming a respected voice in the libertarian and Objectivist communities is a testament to the transformative power of philosophy. Today, Michael speaks, writes, and debates passionately in defence of individual rights and intellectual clarity.He is the co-author of two compelling books that examine the failures of the correctional system and the redemptive power of moral conviction:Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crimehttps://www.amazon.com.au/Down-Rabbit-Hole-Corrections-Encourages/dp/197448064XView from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Libertyhttps://books2read.com/u/4jN6xjAbout Xenia Ioannou – Producer of The Rational EgoistXenia Ioannou is the producer of The Rational Egoist, responsible for overseeing the publishing, presentation, and promotion of each episode to ensure a consistent standard of clarity, professionalism, and intellectual rigour.She is the CEO of Alexa Real Estate, a property manager and entrepreneur, and serves on the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Centre Australia, where she contributes to the organisation's strategic direction and public engagement with ideas centred on reason, individual rights, and human freedom.Xenia also leads Capitalism and Coffee – An Objectivist Meetup in Adelaide, creating a forum for thoughtful discussion on philosophy and its application to everyday life, culture, and current issues.Join Capitalism and Coffee here:https://www.meetup.com/adelaide-ayn-rand-meetup/Follow Xenia's essays on reason, independence, and purposeful living at her Substack:https://substack.com/@xeniaioannou?utm_source=user-menuBecause freedom is worth thinking about — and talking about.#TheRationalEgoist #LaurenHall #PoliticalTribalism #ClassicalLiberalism #Reason #IndividualRights #FreeThought #IntellectualHonesty #MichaelLiebowitz #XeniaIoannou

WESTCHESTER AND THE AMERICANIZATION OF JUDAISM Colleague Josh Hammer. Growing up in a secular Jewish environment, dropping out of Hebrew school, and the later discovery of conservatism and Edmund Burke leading to religious observance. NUMBER 21936 RAMALLAH

Meet Daniel Betts, a husband, father, defense attorney, and conservative Texan who is running to represent the state's 21st Congressional District. With more than 15 years of legal experience, Daniel has built his career defending constitutional rights and pushing back against government overreach, both in and out of the courtroom. Daniel sits down to share the personal and professional journey that led him into public service — from his early career as a chemist, which shaped his fact-driven approach to policy, to his work as a defense attorney focused on due process and accountability. He explains why issues like border security, public safety, evidence-based mental health treatment, and combating synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and meth are central to his campaign. In this episode, you will learn: Why Daniel is running for Congress in Texas's 21st District. How his legal background shapes his approach to government accountability. Why family, faith, and community should be foundations for public service. The importance of public safety, border security, and protecting constitutional rights. From defending individual liberties to strengthening communities across the Texas Hill Country, Daniel outlines a campaign grounded in facts, family, and service — and a vision for keeping Texas strong, free, and prepared for the future. Want to find out more about his efforts? Visit his website now!

Edmund Burke is the founder of cultural and political conservatism. Dostoevsky, Aristophanes and T.S. Eliot also share in a similar spirit. They all warn against dismissing the past! .... Check out my new book! It's called: The Last Human: How Technology is Changing What it Means to be Humanhttps://www.amazon.com/Last-Human-Technology-Changing-Means/dp/1069510831/

We tried an experiment this week—livestreaming the taping of this week's episode on Steve's 'Political Questions" Substack.  We think is was a success even though Steve's camera froze up several times along the way. John Yoo hosts this first episode of the year, which is devoted entirely to understanding and critiquing "post-liberalism," currently one of the hottest new things going on the right today. (John makes reference to one of our live clashes with a leading post-liberal, which Steve wrote up here.)Attacks on the classical liberalism of the American Founding are not new from the left—Marx hated John Locke perhaps above all others except perhaps Adam Smith—and there have always been conservative critics of Lockean liberalism, starting with Edmund Burke back in the 1790, but also like Leo Strauss whose famous short phrase was that materialism Lockeanism would devolve into "a joyless quest for joy." This is an urgent and relevant question as we move toward the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence mid-year, and while we expect the 1619 Project left will be out in force attacking the Declaration for the usual stupid reasons, we'll also have to content with some on the right attacking it for reasons that may have a more plausible basis, but which we think are confused—when they are not wrong.This is merely the first episode of the podcast this year that will be devoted to various aspects and controveries about the founding that will surely erupt over the next six months.  Strap in!

På engelska används uttrycken “musician's musician” och “comic's comic” för att beskriva någon som är högt respekterad bland sina likar. En musiker som andra musiker beundrar, eller den komiker som kanske inte är kändast, men andra komiker älskar. Dagens gäst är lite av politikens motsvarighet. Kanske inte så känd för den breda allmänheten, men däremot för oss som på olika sätt jobbar med eller skriver om politik. Simon Westberg är en sån där person man går till om man behöver förstå något på djupet, särskilt om allt som rör idéutveckling och ideologi. Sedan oktober i år är han statssekreterare hos energi- och näringsminister Ebba Busch, och är nu aktuell med boken Västerlandets motståndsrörelse – Konservatismen - från Edmund Burke till Roger Scruton (Svensk Tidskrift 2025). Det är en bok jag önskar jag hade fått läsa för 20 år sedan, när jag läste statsvetenskap på universitetet. I sin bok har Westberg formulerat vad konservatismen faktiskt vill försvara. Den börjar inte i nostalgi utan i en människosyn: att vi är blandningar av gott och ont, oförmögna att skapa paradiset på jorden, men fullt kapabla att förstöra väldigt mycket om vi tror att vi kan börja om i ”år noll”.I boken beskriver han konservatismen som ett motstånd mot just den tanken, mot den revolution som går ut på att kasta ut allt det gamla för att föda det nya. Det är ett försvar av den västerländska legeringen av Aten, Rom och Jerusalem: det filosofiska sanningssökandet, rättsstatens ordning och den kristna människosynen.Och vi landar i frågan om vi verkligen lever i en konservativ tid, eller bara – som Simon Westberg uttrycker det – lyckades vinna i ruinerna av vår egen förlust.Här kan du köpa boken.Oberoende endast tack vare erVi är nu över 25 000 prenumeranter här – och antalet växer stadigt. Rak höger med Ivar Arpi och Under all kritik ligger båda konsekvent på topp-20 bland nyhetspoddar i Sverige. Det är helt och hållet er förtjänst – tack för det!Skillnaden mot de flesta andra på topplistan är tydlig: medan de har public service-miljarder eller stora tidningshus med presstöd och annonsintäkter i ryggen, så har vi bara er. Konkurrensen är snedvriden, men ni har visat att det går att bygga något nytt. Vi är helt självständiga – tack vare er.Som ni märkt har vi nu tagit nästa steg med en videosatsning, som kommer ge ännu mer innehåll för betalande prenumeranter framöver. Redan i dag får du flera poddavsnitt i veckan – ofta med video – och minst en text, ibland fler.Vill du vara med och bygga vidare? Bli betalande prenumerant redan i dag och få 30 procents rabatt!Den som vill stötta oss på andra sätt än genom en prenumeration får gärna göra det med Swish, Plusgiro, Bankgiro, Paypal eller Donorbox.Swishnummer: 123-027 60 89Plusgiro: 198 08 62-5Bankgiro: 5808-1837Utgivaren ansvarar inte för kommentarsfältet. (Myndigheten för press, radio och tv (MPRT) vill att jag skriver ovanstående för att visa att det inte är jag, utan den som kommenterar, som ansvarar för innehållet i det som skrivs i kommentarsfältet.) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.enrakhoger.se/subscribe

Economist William Easterly makes his debut on The Remnant to talk with middle-aged nobody Jonah Goldberg about free trade, USAID, human agency, colonialism, and Chinese liberalization. Shownotes:—Easterly's website—Violent Saviors: The West's Conquest of the Rest—Easterly's recent paper touching on Lee Kuan Yew—Excerpts from Edmund Burke's speech on India—Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics is Destroying American Democracy The Remnant 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 Jonah's G-File newsletters—⁠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

There are four faces on the Saving Elephants' Mount Rushmore of great conservatives: Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, Thomas Sowell, and William F. Buckley.  While the first three have each had fully episodes dedicated to their life and works, William F. Buckley has yet to be explored at length.  And with Buckley's posthumous 100th birthday happening later this month, now is the perfect time to reflect on his long and remarkable life.   Sam Tanehaus' decades-in-the-making biography of Buckley was published earlier this year and he joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to cover a multitude of ground in sketching out a life well lived.  Sam discusses who Buckley was as a personal friend, his impact on the conservative movement, his flirtation with radicalism and maturing into his role as conservative gatekeeper, and many of the colorful characters Buckley interacted with throughout his life.  Sam also addresses some of the criticisms of his book, Buckley: The Life and the Revolution That Changed America.   About Sam Tanehaus Sam Tanenhaus, the former editor of The New York Times Book Review, is the author of the national bestsellers Whittaker Chambers: A Biography (winner of the Los Angeles Times Book Prize and a finalist for both the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize) and The Death of Conservatism. His feature articles and essays have appeared in The Atlantic, The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, and Vanity Fair.   Buckley Turns 100 Come join the Saving Elephants livestream on November 23 at 8PM EST as we celebrate the life and legacy of William F. Buckley on the eve of his posthumous 100th birthday.  Your questions and comments welcome during this live event.

In this episode, Cole Smead is joined by author James Grant to discuss his book, “Friends Until the End: Edmund Burke and Charles Fox in the Age of Revolution.” The book details the remarkable lives and friendship of British politicians Edmund Burke and Charles Fox, who often united in the pursuit of political causes, despite having wildly different lifestyles and backgrounds. Cole and James' conversation also touches on their perspectives on today's economy.

In this video I talk about how and why leftist Afrikaner Elites have turned on their own people. I discuss the main assumptions that underpin their arguments and provide a critique on their philosophy with reference to Edmund Burke and Patrick Deneen.   You can support Lex Libertas here - https://www.lexlibertas.org.za/support-us

“If we command our wealth, we shall be rich and free. If our wealth commands us, we are poor indeed.” - Edmund BurkeIt's a familiar thought: If I just had a little more money, life would be better. We've all been there—believing that one more raise, one more purchase, one more upgrade will finally bring contentment. But as many have discovered, that thought rarely delivers what it promises.The question “Can money buy happiness?” isn't new, and neither is the answer. From philosophers to billionaires to biblical writers, the conclusion is the same: wealth can make life comfortable, but it cannot make life complete.Why Money Can't Deliver What It PromisesWe don't know how much Edmund Burke studied Scripture, but his words echo a timeless truth. Paul warned Timothy, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils” (1 Timothy 6:10). When we expect money to solve our problems or satisfy our hearts, disappointment always follows.Financial author Ron Blue explores this in his book, Generous Living: Finding Contentment Through Giving, pointing out a deep disconnect between what we believe and how we behave. Most of us would agree that “money can't buy happiness,” yet nearly every message in our culture insists that it can. The world doesn't just tempt us to spend more—it trains us to depend on more.Advertising drives this message home. Every commercial suggests that joy is only one purchase away. The right car, the latest phone, the perfect vacation—each one whispers that happiness is for sale. But when our hearts attach to things that fade, anxiety soon takes root. Instead of owning our possessions, our possessions begin to own us.John D. Rockefeller, worth billions in today's dollars, once admitted, “I have made many millions, but they have brought me no happiness.” Henry Ford echoed the same sentiment: “I was happier when I was doing a mechanic's job.” And long before them, King Solomon—the wealthiest man of his day—wrote, “He who loves money will not be satisfied with money; this also is vanity” (Ecclesiastes 5:10).Three men, three eras, one truth: money can't satisfy the soul.Two Myths About WealthRon Blue identifies two common lies about money:More money brings more freedom and satisfaction. In reality, more money brings more complexity. As Ron Blue also notes in his book, “Since there are always unlimited ways to spend limited dollars, it doesn't matter whether you make $20,000 or $200,000—you will always have choices to make.” With greater wealth comes greater responsibility and potential stress.More money removes fear and worry. The opposite is often true. The more we have, the more we have to lose. Market downturns and unexpected crises reveal that our sense of security is fragile when it's built on wealth.In those moments, God invites us to a deeper trust—not in our accounts or assets, but in His character. His provision is measured not by our portfolios but by His promises.So how do we break free from financial fear? It begins with a shift in perspective: realizing it's not your money. You're a steward, not an owner. Everything you have belongs to God.Philippians 4:19 assures us, “And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.” God promises provision, not luxury. He gives enough for His purpose in your life, not necessarily for every preference.Our role is faithfulness—to manage His resources wisely, give generously, and hold loosely what He entrusts to us. Enjoy His gifts, but never expect them to give you peace or identity. Those belong to God alone.Finding Joy That LastsPsalm 37:3–5 gives us the pathway to contentment: “Trust in the Lord, and do good… Delight yourself in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart.”When we delight in God, He reshapes our desires. We stop chasing what fades and start finding joy in what lasts. True wealth isn't measured by net worth but by contentment.So, can money buy happiness? Not the kind that endures. It can buy comfort and convenience—but not peace, purpose, or joy. Those come only from trusting the One who provides.When your hope rests in Christ and not your paycheck, you'll experience what Edmund Burke described centuries ago: true freedom that never fades.On Today's Program, Rob Answers Listener Questions:I'm 30 and trying to be proactive about my financial future. Should I consider getting long-term care insurance this early, or wait until later in life? And would adding annuities make sense at my age?I'm a veteran with a VA loan at 6.75%, and I keep getting offers to refinance through a VA IRRRL. I've only been in my home for about a year, but as a single mom, lowering my payment would really help. Should I go ahead and refinance now, or wait?My employer offers both a traditional 401(k) and a Roth option. If I switch to contributing to the Roth, will my employer match still go there, and would it also be tax-free when I withdraw it?I recently replaced my old truck with a 2023 model, and the seller is offering an extended warranty for $4,000. It sounds comprehensive, but I've read many negative reviews about these plans. Are extended warranties on vehicles generally worth it?Resources Mentioned:Faithful Steward: FaithFi's New Quarterly Magazine (Become a FaithFi Partner)Generous Living: Finding Contentment Through Giving by Ron Blue with Jodie BerndtWisdom Over Wealth: 12 Lessons from Ecclesiastes on MoneyLook At The Sparrows: A 21-Day Devotional on Financial Fear and AnxietyRich Toward God: A Study on the Parable of the Rich FoolFind a Certified Kingdom Advisor (CKA)FaithFi App Remember, you can call in to ask your questions every workday at (800) 525-7000. Faith & Finance is also available on Moody Radio Network and American Family Radio. You can also visit FaithFi.com to connect with our online community and partner with us as we help more people live as faithful stewards of God's resources. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Taller de Filosofía "Estética de lo sublime".Presencial o a distancia.Comenzamos en noviembre (2025)."Todo lo que es de algún modo terrible es una fuente de lo sublime; esto es, produce la emoción más fuerte que la mente es capaz de sentir."Edmund Burke

Christian College Sex Comedy: Part 11 Weekend Drama In 30 parts, By FinalStand. Listen to the podcast at Explicit Novels.             We make the friends we have, not the ones we want, because they are people, not tools                       "Hi, I'm Rio," my buddy muttered darkly as she followed me inside, "I'm the girl standing next to the guy you just mugged." Allison went pounding up the stairs and I was left to a chorus of 'Hi, Zane', and we even got a few 'Hey, Metal Girl' greetings (Rio had all fourteen of her piercings back in). Right as Leigh, dressed in super-tight jeans and a pink bra, and Allison came down the stairs, Tawny came from the direction of the kitchen. "Zane," Leigh and Tawny said one right after the other, but Tawny's carried the greater weight. "Zane, we need to talk," Tawny demanded. Rio growled menacingly. "I apologize. Hello, Rio." There was a hush in the room and even Leigh looked contrite. "Zane, Kappa Sigma does not condone violence of any kind. If you ever thought we wanted you fighting our battles for us, you were sorely mistaken," Tawny explained. "Are we clear?" "Okay, I understand, but, how did you know? I didn't tell anyone anything about what was said," I wondered. "You should have never put your neck out for these Sorority bitches," Rio snapped. "Hang on, Rio. I did what I did for my own reasons, not for them," I calmed my friend. Rio was clearly not making friends but Tawny held up her hands for peace. "You didn't even tell her, your best friend, did you?" Tawny smiled with surprised satisfaction. "Christina knows, but that is understandable and she's told no one except me." I looked at her for some explanation. "It seems two co-eds from the University thought you might be in trouble and followed you. They covered your exit from the building, the argument, and the fight that followed," Tawny grinned. "They posted it on their site. By 10:00 this morning, everyone knew." "Except for us idiots with limited internet access," groaned Rio. "My fellow Kappa Sigma presidents wanted to make sure everyone knew that we had nothing to do with your actions," she completed. "That being said," she stepped up and hugged me, "Thank you." I received a round of applause from the gathered sisters. "Fine. Would someone tell me what my idiot friend did?" Rio griped. "Rio," Leigh snickered as she snuck to my side and wrapped an arm around me, "those three assholes called the Kappa Sigma House a bunch of whores and then told him they were going to rape Chastity and Hope, then come and rape Paris and me when they were done." And that's when Rio hit me. "Moron, why couldn't you tell the police this? They don't put you in jail for defending women under imminent threat," Rio snapped. "I think that was the point," Tawny sighed at Rio. "He didn't want to drag us into what was essentially his choice; just like he kept Chastity and Hope out of things." "Because he's a dumb-shit," Rio declared. "Rio," Tawny groaned, "be happy Zane has personality to spare, because you work really hard at having no other friends. I put up with your crap because Zane thinks the world of you and he's not been wrong about a person yet." "Wow, Tawny, I'm so touched," Rio sneered sarcastically. Before anything else could happen I grabbed Rio by her nipple chain and elevated it rapidly. "Ow, ow, ow, whimpered Rio. "That hurts!" "It supposed to," I glowered. "You are acting crazy. The Kappa Sigs are being nice and all you are doing is burning through the weekend time I've devoted to you." I let go and her hands flew up to her offended flesh. "You had better kiss them and make them better," Rio glared at me while cupping her nipples. "I promise," I pledged. "Fine. Tawny, all you Kappa Sigs, I apologize for being, unfriendly," Rio ground out. "Okay," Tawny allowed. "Now, Zane, what brings you here tonight?" "Zane came here to see me," Leigh grinned, as she started tugging me toward the stairs. "Leigh," Paris questioned, "don't you have a date tonight?" Leigh looked guilty. "Zane, why are you here?" Tawny asked again. "Actually, I need help with my English term paper. I'm doing it on Edmund Burke and I was hoping to use the UV library," I told her. "Of course," Tawny nodded. "I'll get the pledges to figure what books and archival material we have on Burke and I'm sure we can find a few volunteers to check out what you need." "Thanks, Tawny. And on that note, I do really have to get going. I promised Aunt Jill we'd help with dinner," I smiled. Tawny grinned in response and waved me away. A series of 'bye's followed, after which Rio and I made our way back home. "So, are you upset that I didn't tell you what happened?" I inquired. "Nah," Rio shrugged. "I imagine you were trying to avoid the beating I would have given you had I found out this morning." "Thank you for understanding," I commented. "No problem; you are my bro," she snorted. "Do you still want me to work over your nipples?" I asked. "Is the Pope Catholic?" Rio smirked. Passing the Night in Confusion I sat at one end of the sofa, Rio stretched out with her head in my lap as we digested our dinners. Jill sat on the chair closest to me, watching TV but stealing an overprotective glance my way from time to time. My aunt and I had a serious argument earlier about where Rio would sleep. She had insisted that Rio sleep in the guest room Barbie Lynn had used last weekend. I had held adamant to the fact that it didn't matter where we put her, Rio would end up in bed with me. I swore on the Bible that I wouldn't have sex with her if Jill relented and let Rio stay in my bed over the weekend instead. I won out through persistence and because I went down on my knees and begged. To add to the weirdness, Rio was downright affectionate. No, she was not feeling me up or attempting to arouse me; she snuggled against me and would occasionally rub my knee while I stroked her hair, ear, and jawline gently. At 10:00 we agreed to call it a day. Rio was kind enough to only shed her jeans once we were in my room. Rio draped an arm over my stomach and her thigh over my thigh as we drifted off to sleep. It was wonderful contact because the sexual elements were submerged to keep the moment uncomplicated. It was so special that I was disappointed when I woke up hours later with Rio lying on top of my body and my cock had, of course, responded. Damn it. "Zane, there is someone at the window," she whispered to me. It then occurred to me that Rio had been crawling over me to get to my window, which was over a trellis. It was the route Leigh had used last week too. We both scooted off the bed and went to the window. It was Paris, not Leigh. "Zane, Leigh needs you," Paris pleaded softly once we opened the window for her to get in. "Let me get dressed," I responded quietly, this being necessary because I sleep in the nude. "I'm coming too," Rio hissed. We quickly got on some jeans and I put on a shirt before we snuck through the house and out the front door. Bare-footed, we crossed over to the Kappa Sigma house and up to Leigh and Paris' room. Leigh was curled up on her bed, a pillow hugged to her chest and her back to the door. Paris stepped aside and let me in. I padded up to Leigh's bed and sat beside her. Paris and Rio fidgeted by the door a bit before migrating toward Paris' bed where they could keep an eye on us. "You don't need to be here," Leigh mumbled. She'd been crying. "I heard a rumor that you needed someone to talk to," I teased her. She didn't comment for a bit. "Zane, I'm sorry," she sobbed. "About what?" I asked as I moved her so she was facing me on her side. "The video; I didn't think about how badly it could impact your life, what people would think of you," she muttered. "Don't worry about it; I'll cope," I assured her. "I'm not sure I can," she simpered. "Tell me what happened," I encouraged. "There was this guy on campus I knew since last semester. Tuesday he asked me out. We went out on a date but he forgot his wallet so I paid for dinner, and we went back to his apartment to get it before heading out to a club," she told me. "The thing was, he had two friends over and while he went to his room to get his wallet, they began talking about me, about you and me. I wanted to bolt but he convinced me to stay and have a drink. When I tried to leave they got physical, and only when I started screaming did they let me get out of there," she related. "Who is he?" I asked calmly. "No," Leigh sighed, "I don't want you to hurt him. It is my fault for not thinking that everyone would see me as a slut." "You are not a slut and anyone who thinks so is an insecure ass and not worth your time. That video was a single snapshot of your life; it doesn't define you," I stated. "But all those girls now treat you, she murmured. "If they treat me like crap, I move on. Listen Leigh, don't let a few people who could never look past your cup size ruin what was a good time for you, Paris, and I. We don't need them because we still have each other; right?" I insisted. Leigh snuggled into me and sighed away some of her tension. "Can you stay awhile?" Leigh asked softly. "You have to ask Rio; this is her weekend after all," I reminded Leigh. "Sure, he can stay," grumbled Rio playfully, "but scoot over; I'm joining you two." I was on the outside, Leigh was tight up against me, her head pressed into my neck, and Rio was against the wall, her front pressed into Leigh's back and her arm over both of us. "Zane, what am I going to do on Monday? What are they going to say now?" Leigh whispered. "Laugh; laugh against the darkness, because while we can laugh, we cannot be defeated," I told her. "When someone asks about it, tell them he was such a disappointment you left." "I was going to say, call him a psycho-rapist scumbag," Rio snarled, "but if you feel nice, listen to what Zane said." Leigh gave a weary snicker. "Thanks, Paris," she called over to her roommate. "You are welcome, Sister," Paris responded. I set Leigh's alarm for four in the morning and settled in for a short night's rest. When the buzzing woke the three of us up, I rolled out of bed, Rio climbed out over Leigh, and we kissed Leigh goodbye. On the way down the stairs we stumbled across Tawny sitting by the pool. "Hey, Zane, Rio," she said. "Good morning, Tawny," I responded. Rio was silent. "Zane, if she had given you his name, would you have gone and kicked his ass?" she questioned. "No; that wouldn't have done Leigh any good. I'd have found another way to get at him, but I'd have taken my time," I replied. "I'd like to think I occasionally learn something." "Thank you, Zane, for the answer and coming to help Leigh; you too, Rio," Tawny smirked. "You know me," Rio chuckled, "I'll never pass up a chance to grab some of that cheap Sorority tail." "Rio, you have a good friend in Zane; don't lose him," Tawny advised her. "I know; I'm getting a dog collar and leash for Christmas so I can keep him in line," Rio beamed to Tawny. Tawny chuckled and shook her head in amusement. "Just for that, you get to sleep on the floor for the rest of the morning," I grumbled to Rio. "You try that, Jungle-Boy," Rio snapped playfully as we made our way to the property line. "I'm going to staple-gun your bra to the floor," I explained. "I'm not wearing a bra," Rio snorted. "Yeah, wrestling you into one is going to be half the fun," I teased her. Rio laughed and took off running. We were still snickering over events when we snuck back into my room. Aunt Jill was curled up on my side of the bed asleep in her nightgown. Rio looked at me questioningly and all I could do was shrug. I walked over to the bell and knelt beside Jill. "Zane, I came in to check on you and you two were gone," she yawned. "Leigh had a bad date and Paris asked me to go over and have a talk with her," I related. "Did you, have sex with her?" Jill asked as he propped herself up on one elbow. Her breasts nearly spilled out of the partially buttoned top. I tried not to ogle. "No," Rio interjected. "He held her hand and let her rest her head on his shoulder until she fell asleep. Trust me; I kept an eye on them the entire time." "Yes," I confirmed Rio's statement, "she had been treated shabbily and needed to talk to a guy." "Zane, do you really want to be sneaking into young women's bedrooms well past midnight?" Jill inquired, somewhat exasperated. My initial answer would be 'Yes', but that certainly wouldn't be the correct one for right now. "Jill, it would have been unchristian to have ignored a neighbor's request for aid," I suggested. "After all, it was Leigh that saw to it that I didn't totally screw up your new clothes collection." Jill digested that bit of news with conflicted emotions. "Let's go to bed," I yawned. Jill stared at me, so I stepped over her and collapsed on the bed. Rio winked at me and walked around to the far side of the bed, wiggled out of her jeans and climbed in on her side of the bed. I was still in my jeans mainly because I didn't have underwear on. "Night, Aunt Jill," I muttered before dropping off. It was inevitable that bedroom dynamics would push me to the edge of the bed. Rio has the habit of wrapping herself around her bed partner while she sleeps, it is a body-heat issue. It seems that Jill does the same thing, so as the skyline went from night to grey, the heat of their combined bodies woke me up. For a moment I thought I was the only one awake but I felt Rio's hand run along my thigh to my crotch. She moved her hand up and down over it for a few moments when I felt her head tilt and her look at me. Our eyes locked and a wicked glint came into her eyes. Her hand wandered over my hip to Jill's thigh that was resting there. I incrementally shook my head but Rio flexed her eyebrows in amusement, refusing my warning. Instead, she inched Jill's gown up and began tracing a finger along its length. Jill stirred but fell silent in a moment. "Don't!" I hissed. Rio gave me a toothy grin in response. I couldn't move my arm that was pinned by Jill but I could maneuver the one next to Rio. I wiggled my arm between her legs and she ground against me, trying to press me too tight to get free. Upping her game, Rio reached up and scooped up Jill's right breast. Jill stirred and we both froze. "Stop it!" I hissed. "Her nipple is so hard in my hand," she taunted me. Jill shifted, causing her gown to shift up to her hips when her leg moved, and dropping her hand on my abdomen while pressing her groin against my wrist. When she went still, Rio went back to massaging her breast. First came the moans, then Jill's hips gently pumped against me, and finally her eyes sleepily opened. Rio and I had shut our eyes barely a second ago but it seemed enough to make her believe we were still asleep. It took her another second to figure out where Rio's hand was, then another to figure out that pressure between her legs was my wrist and hand. She stiffened and held her breath. Slowly she started to untangle herself but I felt Rio's hand flex. "Ah," Jill gasped. Her hand flattened against my stomach and her body trembled. Jill kept very still for several moments and I figured she'd take the opportunity to slip out of bed and let me settle down for some more sleep. She did move; her head rose and I'm sure she was looking over me and Rio for signs of life. She slowly put her head back down and moved her hand around in slow circles on my stomach. Jill kissed my shoulder softly but I elected to stir anyway, causing her to feign sleep as well. Rio couldn't let things go, though. She gave Jill's breast a squeeze, then another, followed by a low moan on my friend's part. I really needed to kick Rio. Jill began to rub her crotch along my arm while flitting her hand down to the zipper on my jeans. Reflexively my hand stroked her thigh just below the panty line. For over a minute Jill kept her tempo against me slow but steady. "Zane?" groaned Rio, pretending to just be awakened. Jill slowly withdrew. Rio gave Jill's breast one last feel. "That's not Zane," Rio whispered for dramatic effect, then louder, "Jill?" "Oh, what? Huh?" Jill stammered. "Umm, is that your hand?" "Oh," Rio mused, then gave yet another squeeze, "Whoops; that would be me. Sorry." "I, what are you doing?" Jill whispered. "I was having this sweet dream," Rio grinned back. "I, you, my," Jill questioned. I took that moment to stir and open my eyes. "What's going on?" I yawned. "Nothing," Jill declared abruptly. "I should get up and make breakfast." "Jill, it is still dark outside," I smiled. "Let's go back to bed." "I'll go to my bed, Zane. You get back to sleep and I'll wake you at 7:00," Jill assured me. She backed out of bed and quickly made for the door. "You are going to pay for this," I grumbled to Rio. She rolled onto her stomach. "That's right, Big Daddy, spank my bottom and call me a bad girl," she giggled. "Oh, God!" I groaned to the ceiling. "You are incorrigible." "If it is any consolation, I wuv you," Rio batted her eyelashes. I swatted her panty-covered bottom; she giggled and I willed myself back to sleep. Saturday with Rio and so much more. The First Game The first soccer game of the season was against Braydon College in Maryland. They were a very exclusive private co-ed college but were large enough to have both a women's and men's team. Today was Christina's second match-up against Braydon. Last year they had beaten her and she was holding a grudge, or so the scuttleass said. As the half-time break rolled around, the teams had managed a 1-1 tie. Three Braydon players in their black shirts and burgundy shorts crossed the field and were intercepted by Christina, in white and gold, on the sidelines. A brief discussion ensued, then Christina looked over her shoulder and up into the stands close to where I was sitting with Rio. Iona was at my dorm, taking care of things. Faith came up the stands to me with a quizzical look and motioned me to come with her. "What's up, Faith?" I asked, as I stood up and followed her to the field. Rio followed along. "Some of the Braydon players wanted to see you," Faith explained. "Who do you know at Braydon?" "Not a clue," I shrugged. "I'd never even heard of the place until I saw the team's schedule." As we walked up, several more FFU players had gathered around the Braydon trio. "I am Kinu Yamada, Captain of the Braydon Women's Soccer team and Kappa Sigma President," the leader turned and greeted me. "You, look better in other attire." "They field test this stuff to be the ultimate in female repellent," I grinned, referring to my school uniform. "Now, is there something I can do for you? I'm afraid I don't know who you are." "Well, Braydon's Kappa Sigmas are in a contest with several other houses for that Spring Break weekend with you and I wanted to see what we were getting into," Kinu grinned. "Weekend?" Christina and I said simultaneously. "I recall the original offer being one night and Brianna Kincaid of Colorado State being the one I was pledged to," I added. "We decided to up the ante for the purpose of a contest," Kinu stated. "What contest, Ms. Yamada?" Christina inquired with a guarded tone. "The House with the best G P A and athletic record gets to send three sisters to share the weekend with Zane Braxton," Kinu explained. "He agreed to this?" Christina questioned. "He did not," I corrected. "Unless Briana releases me from my obligation, I can't do any of that stuff. She is the one I'm indebted to." "She has done so for the sake of her sisterhood," Kinu informed me. "Are you still up for the challenge?" "I'll do it for the sake of Lancaster's Kappa Sigma House, but I'll leave the final decision up to Christina, leader of our faction here at Freedom Fellowship," I declared. Christina appeared to think it over a bit before finally nodding her head. "FFU owes Tawny Flores and the rest of the local house a debt and if Zane is willing to pay it off for us, we'll support your contest and his decision, though it will take place at FFU's Spring Break location." "I'll let everyone know," Kinu grinned before turning and crossing back to their side of the field. "Christina, where is our Spring Break location?" I whispered to her. "I haven't a clue, Zane. Christian school girls don't do Spring Break," she replied. "I'll come up with something." I wished her luck and headed up into the stands. "Barely a B-cup, but did you catch the ass on that sweet slice of Asian cuisine?" Rio panted. "I wouldn't know; those were the most intense brown eyes I've ever seen. That's a woman who knows what she wants and will cut a bloody swath to get it," I observed. "So, you didn't notice her breast size?" Rio teased. "I didn't say that, she's a 32 B, but she has large areoles and nipples as thick as my pinkie," I told her. "How do you know that shit?" Rio gawked. "Mom took me lingerie shopping when I was younger and I picked up on how the saleswomen did their jobs," I replied. "Your Mom took you lingerie shopping? My Mom could barely tell me how to use a tampon," Rio griped. "Mom told me that the only thing worse than buying a woman lingerie for her birthday was buying it in the wrong size," I related. "You buy those things on your birthday for your lady to look sexy in, for you to enjoy." "Your Mom sounds pretty neat," Rio mused. "Mom had a way of tricking you into thinking she was your friend, not your Mother, then she'd sneak this lesson in on you; like lingerie shopping, or not getting a pet you couldn't devote the time to," I told her. "She'd have loved you." "Hardy, har, har," Rio snorted. "Seriously, you're similar enough to have gotten along, but not so much that it would be creepy," I explained. "She didn't take crap from anyone; not my Dad, my Granddad, or even her old man. She'd never abandon a friend either." "I'm not like that, Zane," Rio muttered sadly. "If you've left someone, it was because they weren't your friend, Rio," I assured her. "You are such an idiot," she grumbled, but she did put her hand in mine. "Let's fuck tonight." "Nope; we promised Jill we wouldn't, and besides, next time I nail you I want you on all fours, with me pounding your cunt raw while yanking your head back with a big handful of your hair," I envisioned for us. "Would you like that?" "Damn straight," Rio licked her lips. "Well, tough, next time we get together I'm going to make long, passionate love to you," I grinned. "I prefer option A," she prodded me. "I know, but that's only because you've never had option B," I countered. "Zane, sometimes a girl wants to be treated like a cheap slut," Rio instructed. "Has someone ever spent a whole night devoted to nothing less than having sex with you?" I asked. "Yes, of course," Rio grumbled. "I'm freaking Cleopatra. I've got guys lining up the block." "Well, damn; I guess we are back to bending you over and slamming you like a cheap slut," I teased. "I see I'm too much of a woman for you," she sneered with amusement. "That's a challenge I'm willing to take up, Rio. If you think you can stand up to whatever I can think up for you, I'm willing to prove you wrong," I grinned. "I'll make it fun; I'll bring Mercy and have her be a piece of furniture," Rio suggested. "I still don't know how that happened," I said, in reference to Rio's relationship to Mercy. "I'm not sure either," Rio confessed. "Maybe being such a pervert myself, I bring out perversions in those around me. Only Iona seems immune." "Oh, it looks like Rhaine, Joy, Mercy, and I are going to have a round two," I remembered. "Oh, I want part of that," Rio brightened up, "I am going to fuck Rhaine so hard she won't walk straight for a week. You let her off too easy last time." "No," I shook my finger. "I'm not sure how this is going to play out so if you want Rhaine, you are going to have to seduce her all on your own." "Crapola," Rio bitched. "I'll have to settle for corrupting Felicity first but I'll get Rhaine one day, mark my words." Our attention was drawn back to the game when Opal scored our second goal of the day, propelling us to the lead. Apparently, the battle had become quite brutal while Rio and I had been talking. There was nothing like woman-on-woman combat to keep Rio's attention and for the rest of the second half we watched the game with interest. In the end, FFU pulled it out 4-3, but that was only because both goalies put in heroic performances. No one charged the field after the final seconds slipped away because apparently they frown on that in the United States, but I still made my way down to congratulate my fellow students. In the gentle press of bodies I came across Opal who spun on me, jumped into my arms and took my breath away with a kiss. Since this was not the norm for FFU student interaction, I did my best to look embarrassed while keeping Opal pressed up against me. "Congrats on the win," I smiled. "We get to keep you," Opal exulted. Huh? "Christina told us that if we lost, we had to give you to Braydon for the rest of the day and night, but we showed them, didn't we?" "Yes, right, you sure did," I stuttered. A few more teammates stopped by and gave me a slap on the back, or ass, while I hung onto Opal, but I had to disentangle myself because I still wanted to have a word with Christina. I hadn't traveled ten more feet when Kinu appeared before me. "Sorry," she told me with a smile. "Sorry, for losing?" I questioned. Her ponytail had become ragged during the game so I pushed some strands out of her face and hooked them behind her ear, which only made her smile broader. "No. I'm sorry we won't have another chance at you until Regionals," she grinned lasciviously. "There is something I don't get; you are a co-ed school. I'm the only guy on this campus, which explains some of my charm, but you look like you could have any guy on your campus you want, so what's up with this contest?" I inquired. "I don't know," she chuckled, "but it could be that you fuck like a stallion and a girl feels like a million bucks when you are done. You know, something like that." She reached out and ran her fingers down my chest to the top of my pants. "One thing; get a fake ID because I know any girl who gets you is going to want to take you to a few clubs, you need to look 21." "Yeah," Rio snorted, "because Zane doesn't have enough problems with the law already." "Excuse me," Christina said right after that, putting her hand on Kinu's. "I believe any confusion concerning Zane has been rectified." "For now," Kinu allowed, looking from my eyes to Christina's. "See you at Regionals." Kinu turned and with a flip of her long ponytail made her way to the far side of the field. "You wagered Zane!" Rio squawked to Christina, "After all the crap you give him?" "We won so we don't have to worry about what Kinu would have made him do," the Queen answered. "Shower up," I saluted Christina, "and congratulations on the win. I know you were looking forward to it." "We look forward to winning every game," Christina grinned. "So do I; maybe we can celebrate later at the Solarium," I suggested. "We have to take the Braydon team out to a late lunch, then the post-game meeting with the Coach, but maybe later," Christina allowed. She turned and sauntered away and I was more than willing to watch that ass move beneath those shorts. "She is so going to kill you when she finds out," Rio whispered in my ear. "She'll forgive me, but it may take some time," I explained. "When she sided with me, she accepted a certain degree of ruthlessness on my part." "You think you are being ruthless?" Rio sneered. "When you have everything else in life, what you value most is trust, Rio," I stated. "Now let's go see how my room is getting along." Dana Gorman was righteously pissed when she came storming up to my dorm 'room'. A dozen students rapidly made themselves scarce as word of her imminent arrival was made known. "I don't know how you did this, Zane, but I'm putting a stop to this right now," she snapped. "What? Everything I'm doing, I have permission for," I grinned, and I was pretty happy she didn't knock my teeth out of my head when she rounded on me. "That's bullshit! You forged my signature on those entry permits," she snarled. "Nope. You signed them, though it is most likely you thought you were signing something else at the time," I confessed. "This isn't some kind of game," she countered. "All of this stuff is going back to wherever you bought it from." "Hauling things away will be on your dime," I said. "You and the Chancellor did give me permission to fix my place up and that is what I've done. You will note that all my contractors are women, per school regulations." "And all this furniture? When did we give permission to have all of this put in?" Gorman countered. "You may not like it but I'm not doing anything illegal," I pointed out. "It doesn't mean I can't tear it all down," she growled. "Dana, you and the other facility promised me this space. Go ahead and tear it all down. I'll just find another way to do it," I promised. "You are an insufferable little prick," she hissed. "Yeah, I can be," I agreed, "but at least I haven't done all of this for my sole benefit. I made it for the whole freshman class." Dana looked around the room. "It is not like I need the whole floor for myself, after all." "What have you done?" she grumbled. "I've made a place for the freshman class to hang out. Since it is my dorm room, they are safe from upper classmen," I reminded her. Gorman glared at me, then went back to soaking up the surroundings. "Wide-Screen TVs, drink dispensers, what is that?" Dana observed. "Umm, our hot tub," I grinned nervously. "And that, the coach continued. "Those would be the showers and the sauna," I answered. "Zane, have you lost your God-damn mind?" Dana seethed. "We are not going to let you keep any of that stuff." "Well, it is 4:00 o'clock now and the installers are either finished or almost finished, so I guess you can try to find someone willing to take it down tomorrow but that's going to cost an arm and a leg," I mused. Dana rounded on me and stuck her finger in my face. "Zane, I, gurr," she growled. "Aargh!" she howled, then stormed off back downstairs. Iona came skulking up to my side. "Did we pull it off?" she whispered. "Yeah, yeah, I think we did," I responded. Cordelia and Paige came right up behind her. "So, can we hook up the satellite dishes now?" Cordelia asked. "I don't think she'll be back tonight so I'd appreciate it if you got it done before dark," I told her. "One thousand channels coming up," Cordelia smirked, "and I have to say, this is going to be my second favorite place to hang out." "I don't know, Cordelia," Paige said in a considerate tone, "what can help you deal better with a hard day of coding than a sauna and a V-8?" "Was that all you are interested in?" Iona questioned. "I was curious why I found you crawling under the covers of Zane's bed." The albino Paige blushed furiously. "The sensation is far superior when you do it naked, Paige," I stated with a gleam in my eye. "Feel free to come by sometime and try it out." Instead of responding, Paige stalked off to fix up the telecommunications gear. Cordelia snickered and followed after her. "Where is Rio?" Iona wondered. "She went hunting for Mercy, but she needs to get back in the next half hour if I'm going to make it back to Jill's by five," I informed her. The plan had been one part deception and one part splitting of resources. We had let the powers that be know the move was being made Sunday when it was really happening today. With the first game of the season, we had campus security looking at the game and not at us. We had the proper forms for what we were accomplishing that baffled the few security types we had to deal with. By the time Coach Gorman broke free from the team, it was essentially too late to stop us. Monday would bring what Monday would bring, but today we had our victory. Besides, we had the new door in place and that would make any operations by the administration against my digs much harder. My contractors informed me they would have everything up and running by 9:00 tonight. Rio was the first to arrive but Christina and company arrived with the three Kappa Sigmas from Braydon, almost all of them expecting to see a single room. Christina was once more pissed with me and I knew that attitude would get worse before it got better. "Christina, and ladies, please come with me to my room. I have an important situation to discuss," I pleaded. Catching sight of Brandi, I flagged her over. "Brandi, could you show our guests from Braydon around while I take care of a piece of personal business?" "Kinu, Kappa Sigmas from Braydon, I'll be with you in a minute and apologize for the delay," I told them with a nod of the head before heading off to my room and activating the rooms 'cut off' switch. Rio and Iona came with me, along with Christina, Hope, Chastity, Heaven, and Faith. "You told the Seniors that you were doing this on Sunday and I made plans for us to help you, Zane," Christina rounded on me. "I apologize for the deception, but it was necessary to finding out something important; namely, who was spying on you," I informed everyone in the room but Rio. I hadn't even told Iona the whole truth. "What was the purpose of this deception, Zane, this lie?" Christina questioned me harshly. "Someone in this room betrayed Heaven's secret and a few other pieces of information that have been floating around a very small circle of people, things like me moving in today," I began. "Oh, and Iona doesn't know the secret, so Iona, I hope you understand that certain things are not for me to share with you, but I trust you enough to have you here with me now." "So that's why you told Hope and I your little secret about today," Chastity stated coldly. "You were testing us. I'm not sure I like that." Hope looked even less pleased. "Yes and no; I actually was only testing Hope. I already knew you weren't the one," I replied to Chastity. Again, Hope didn't seem all that happy. "But I didn't get raided today so it wasn't either of you. For obvious reasons, Christina isn't spying on herself, and it would be a cold day in Hell before Heaven would betray Christina, so, Faith, you have been working with the Chancellor against us," I laid it out. Faith gasped fearfully. "Faith has been with me since sophomore year," Christina defended her friend, "which is a sight longer than I've known you." "Two things: it had to be someone who knew that secret, and only the people in this room, one police officer, and the Chancellor know. The cop didn't betray us and Rio didn't know until after the threat," I clarified. "If you have another explanation of the facts, please let me know," I confronted Christina. "Face it, the Chancellor knew you would be a force at this University late in your freshmen year, so she chose someone to get close to you, to keep an eye on you so she could manipulate you when the time came." Christina refused to believe me but I noted Heaven, Hope, and Chastity were all staring at Faith. "It's not so," Faith declared. "Oh, I guess you want to see all the logs of your communications with the Chancellor, then, eh, Faith?" I goaded her. "You weren't as careful as you thought." "Oh, God," Faith whispered. "No, " "Damn it, Faith," Christina rumbled, "that was the most obvious trick in the book. He had no other evidence against you. He fooled you. After all, he didn't even know it was you until late this morning." She placed a hand on Heaven's shoulder because Heaven was about to lose it. "I'd thank you, Zane," Christina said in a suddenly weary voice, "but what I really want to do is punch your lights out." "What do we do about Faith?" Chastity questioned. "Nothing," I butted in. "This doesn't involve you," Hope grumbled. "I beg to differ," I said, "I like all of you and it pisses me off that you are suffering, but this isn't Faith's fault; it is the Chancellor's. If you dump on Faith, she will know we've discovered Faith's role. If we do nothing, we can now feed information to her, but only what we want her to know." "Butt out, Zane," Heaven responded coldly. "No. If you fight yesterday's battles, we get our asses kicked. There is no profit in it for us," I kept hammering away. "She was our friend and she betrayed us," Chastity fired away. "You wouldn't understand." "What? Oh, hell no!" I snapped. "I had to sit there and take her threats about Heaven with a smile on my face, and then I had to crack a joke about it when I knew she was capable of breaking Heaven's heart. Don't you dare tell me I am not invested in this fight. She comes after me, that's fine, but when she comes after my friend, she must pay." "I may not have been with you for the past three years but don't you dare tell me I'm not invested in this fight; that's insulting," I growled. "Zane is right," Christina declared decisively. "We will act normal the rest of the day and tonight, we five will decide what to do next. Yes, Faith, I'm including you. We were once friends, after all." That last bit stung Faith a bitter blow. Christina took Heaven by the hand and led her out of my room with Faith trailing along. Hope regarded me with narrowed eyes and an icy anger. "Hope," Chastity intervened, "he trusted you with the right answer. He trusted you with his plans." "He had us set up Christina ,  and Faith," Hope seethed back. "And if he didn't? Would one of us have hunted Faith down, revealed the traitor? Hope," Chastity explained, "we couldn't do this, turn on one of our own, so we kind of left that burden on Zane, so I don't feel right hating him for trying to keep us safe, again." Hope stormed out of the room. Chastity gave me a helpless shrug then followed. "I'm stunned," muttered Iona once they were gone. "We had a traitor in our midst?" "Zane's not a total idiot," Rio joked. "I'm stunned too," I stated. "By what?" Iona asked. "Didn't this go according to your plan, whatever that was?" "No, I am stunned Rio kept her mouth shut the entire time," I grinned. Rio punched me in the arm. For me, that helped break the unbearable tension I was feeling right then. "I see your point," Iona smiled shyly. "Ow," Iona peeped, as Rio punched her too. There was still work to be done and Rio and I only had an hour to spare before heading back to Jill's. It was still wonderful to see freshmen take a look around and seeing 'their' space coming together. I even caught Kinu and company taking pictures of the place. "This will look nice on your web page," Kinu told me. "Web page?" I questioned, then pinned Iona in place with a glance. "Please, tell me about my web page." "It has all your background information, plus tons of photographs and videos of you here on campus as well as you back at your house, or the Kappa Sigma House," "Yay me," I cheered sarcastically. "There's this really nice one of you out in the woods," Kinu gave me a sly grin. "It was really, intriguing how you picked out each sister despite their masks. I can appreciate a man with an eye for detail." "Thanks, but a little more privacy in my life wouldn't suck," I groaned. "Cheer up, Zane," Kinu tipped my chin down close to her lips, "you have a fan club." "I don't pursue women to create a fan base; I do it because women are the best thing in the world, bar none," I told her. "That is why it is going to be such a pleasure owning you this spring," Kinu smiled. "Now, don't forget that ID." With that, she turned and walked away. Both of the women with her ran their hands across my stomach before following Kinu away. "Zane, I don't like the sound of that," Iona mumbled. "They treat you like a piece of meat." "It is his piece of meat they are interested in, those Sorority sluts," Rio snickered. "Well, I wish I could go to Spring Break so I could look after you," Iona sighed. "Of course, you and Rio are going with me," I looked amused. "Who else is going to protect me from doing something stupid?" "Certainly not me," chirped Rio. "Doing-Stupid-Shit is my middle name." "That explains so much about you," Iona quipped to Rio. "I don't think my parents will let me go anyway." "Lie to them," Rio responded. "No, tell them it is a learning experience and that about a dozen girls, and me, will be watching over you," I told her, "Your parents trust you and for good reason." "Will I be able to spend some time with you while I'm there?" Iona asked me. "Sure. Let me know what you want to do," I hugged her. "I hope it is Florida," Iona smiled. "I want to go to Disney World again. It was so much fun the other three times my family went." "For the love of God!" gasped Rio, "Tranquilize me first." I chuckled, Rio scowled, and we set off to do a little more work before the day was done. Breaking Down Walls, Mending Fences It was five minutes until 8:00 in the evening when the doorbell rang. Jill virtually catapulted herself from the chair she'd been fidgeting in and raced to answer it. "Hunting time," Rio grinned with predatory glee, and I found myself praying that Felicity left wearing something more than a confused, yet dreamy, smile on her face. Jill welcomed Mrs. Rochelle Wellington, the Mayor's wife, and Felicity Tolliver, fianc to Rochelle's youngest son, into our house. Rio and I stood as they entered the room. Felicity had an open and friendly expression on her face while Rochelle was much more guarded and unsure. "Hey ladies, thank you for coming by tonight," I greeted them. "Mrs. Wellington, I've been making extra notes on last meetings discussions I'd like to go over with you," I said with my most disarming smile. "Felicity, we've done this incredible renovation project at school, we students, and I'd like to show you all we've accomplished so you can, ya know, give us some pointers as to what to do next," Rio beamed with a frivolity that I found personally terrifying. "Okay," Felicity grinned back at Rio. "Let's see what you have." I kind of felt sorry for Felicity; she wasn't taking Rio too seriously and had no idea of the carnivore that lurked just beneath the younger woman's exterior. Rochelle Wellington was far more cautious. "Greetings, Zane. I am happy to help the newest member of my committee adjust," Rochelle told me. I quickly cracked open my laptop and moved aside so that Rochelle could join me as I went over this and that from the last meeting. "Felicity and Jill, why don't we go check out some of the rooms Jill's already done and see what we can come up with," Rio suggested. Jill seemed a little nervous so Felicity stepped in. "I'd love to see what Ms. Braxton has done with her home. I always admired this old house, but Lance wanted something on the north side of town," Felicity sighed. "I tried to make things very homey," Jill informed them. "I didn't have much to work with. My late husband and I didn't have many possessions." "I think you did a fine job, Jill," Rio poured it on. "Zane considers this his home and looks forward to coming here on the weekends." That seemed to perk things up. "But why are you here, Rio? Are you Zane's, girlfriend?" Felicity wondered. "Oh, no," Rio laughed. "My family is in Arizona and Zane knows I'm alone here, so he and Jill have taken me under their wing and made me feel like a daughter, and a sister." How Jill stopped herself from choking at the, exaggeration was putting it kindly, was beyond me. It did show me that Rio could be personable and manipulative if she so desired. The three women headed off to the dining room, leaving me with Rochelle. "Why don't we move to the kitchen?" I suggested to her. "Working over the coffee table isn't good for our backs." "Oh," she clearly studied me, "okay, if you think that's best." We moved to the bar in the kitchen and I behaved myself for all of five minutes. I started bringing up her ideas that had been somewhat ill-received and showed her what work I had done on them. "I'm not sure how much of this matters," she sighed. "I don't think I have the votes." "Don't give up. After all, I have the tie-breaking vote now," I reminded her. "Oh, I hadn't considered you a voting member but I suppose you are right. I admit, I didn't see you hanging around all that long, being a young man and all," she explained. "Why would I not want to stay? I had fun," I countered. "I would imagine a young man would have better things to do than hang out with a bunch of old ladies," she said. "If I find a bunch of old ladies, I'll let you know," I grinned. "Besides, I had some friends go over some of the suggestions you put forth and they created some 3-D images for you to present next Wednesday," I related, as I began opening the first program. "Oh, my," Rochelle murmured. As she got the hang of things, she maneuvered through the presentations and rotated the pictures. "Are you hot?" I inquired. "Can I get you something to drink?" "That would be nice," she agreed. "Do you have tomato or orange juice?" "We have that, and we have beer and Scotch too," I grinned. "Oh, please," she moaned, "I could use a good Scotch. It has been a long week." While I prepared a double Scotch for her and a beer for myself, Rochelle took off her jacket and laid it on the bar. I handed her the glass when I returned. "That's smooth," she commented after a sip. "I don't like this," she pointed to a feature on the screen. "How do I alter it?" I reached around her, pressing my body onto her side and back gently. "Here you go, do this and this." I highlighted the keys she needed to use to get the desired effects. I could tell she was distracted, both physically and intellectually. Rochelle hesitantly moved some features around for a few seconds so I chose to back off for a minute. "I want to do this," she requested, "without changing, " "Oh, okay. Let's try this," I answered, while wrapping her in my arms once more. This time I held the embrace longer, and when I withdrew, my hand rested on her far shoulder. "This is really good work, Zane," Rochelle turned her head to complement me only to find my face a few inches away. She gulped and looked at me with a certain level of confliction. "Really, it was this small group of girls at school who did the real work. Isn't that always the case, women doing all the real work so some guy can get the credit?" I teased her. "Why, why did they do this for you?" she stammered. "They go to our church, of course," I smiled. "What did you think I did, seduce them?" "I, no, definitely not," Rochelle blushed, and turned back to the screen. "You are such a nice boy." "I wouldn't go that far, Mrs. Wellington. I am afraid I'm begging forgiveness most Sunday mornings," I joked. "Oh, come on now," she mused, "what do you have to talk to Jesus about?" "Impure thoughts," I confessed. "Well, you go to an all-girls school," she said. "I'm sure that gives you ample opportunity." "What makes you think I'm not being tempted right now?" I suggested. "Oh, I guess you could be," she replied quietly. "I'm glad we got that out of the way," I sighed. "What? Got what out of the way?" she asked. "It's hard to tell a lady that she's attractive without it being taken the wrong way," I lied. I had every intention of her taking this the 'wrong' way. "It is that I've always found you very beautiful but was unsure how you would take it." "I'm a married woman," she declared, but severely lacked conviction. "Absolutely, and we both understand the limitations of our relationship because of that," I continued. "Limitations?" she questioned. "Well, I can do this," I kissed her on the neck below the ear, "and we both know that it is only something between friends." "Ah, good," she moaned. "I mean, it is good we understand our boundaries." I went back to kissing her neck, then went up to her ear. Rochelle remained patiently still under my passion for a long time. "I want to take another look at this diagram," she suddenly said. She didn't pull away, though, instead, working away steadily on the keyboard while I let my lips play along her exposed flesh and my hands roamed her shoulders. She kept a steady patter of conversation going as I deviated farther and farther from her shoulders, around her back, to the sides of her breasts. "Your top button," I whispered to her. "Button, she murmured. She looked to my eyes, then followed them down to her cleavage. I saw the mental struggle going on inside her, lust versus a loveless marriage. I imagine she convinced herself this was all harmless fun because her trembling hands undid not only the first button, but the second one as well. "Beautiful," I complimented her quietly. "You are very beautiful, Rochelle." She didn't say anything but she sat up straighter and stuck out her chest with more confidence. My left hand edged around the side of her breast and took that orb into my hand and began massaging it, exciting her nipple through her satin blouse and silk bra. My right hand followed a similar path, but at the base of the breast I roamed down along the fleshy roll of her stomach to her belt, rubbing along and kneading the pliant tissue. She was slightly embarrassed

Ao analisarmos a natureza da liderança eclesiástica e da governança denominacional, frequentemente nos deparamos com a tensão entre conservar e reformar. Essa tensão atravessa séculos e persiste como uma das questões mais urgentes do cristianismo institucional. No caso da Igreja Adventista do Sétimo Dia (IASD), que carrega tanto uma herança profética quanto uma estrutura representativa mundial, o desafio torna-se ainda mais sensível. O pensamento de Edmund Burke, pensador conservador do século XVIII, oferece uma lente significativa para explorar essa tensão — embora exija, ao mesmo tempo, uma crítica robusta, sobretudo quando seus princípios são absolutizados como paradigma universal.

Recorded October 15th 2025. The Trinity Long Room Hub is delighted to welcome author and historian William Dalrymple to present the 2025 Edmund Burke Lecture, entitled 'The Anarchy: The East India Company, Corporate Violence, and the Pillage of an Empire', which is supported by a generous endowment in honour of Padraic Fallon by his family. About William Dalrymple William Dalrymple is one of Britain's great historians and the bestselling author of the Wolfson Prize-winning White Mughals, The Last Mughal, which won the Duff Cooper Prize, and the Hemingway and Kapuściński award-winning Return of a King. His book, The Anarchy, was long-listed for the Baillie Gifford Prize 2019, and shortlisted for the Duke of Wellington Medal for Military History, the Tata Book of the Year (Non-fiction) and the Historical Writers Association Book Award 2020. It was a Finalist for the Cundill Prize for History and won the 2020 Arthur Ross Bronze Medal from the US Council on Foreign Relations. His latest book, The Golden Road, is a revolutionary new history of the diffusion of Indian art, religions, technology, astronomy, music, dance, literature, mathematics and mythology, along a Golden Road that stretched from the Red Sea to the Pacific. A frequent broadcaster, he has written and presented three television series, one of which won the Grierson Award for Best Documentary Series at BAFTA. He is the co-host of the Empire podcast, which explores the intricate stories of revolutions, imperial wars, and the people who built and lost empires. He has also won the Thomas Cook Travel Book Award, The Sunday Times Young British Writer of the Year Award, the Foreign Correspondent of the Year at the FPA Media Awards, and been awarded five honorary doctorates. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, the Royal Asiatic Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and has held visiting fellowships at Princeton, Brown and Oxford. He writes regularly for the New York Review of Books, the New Yorker, and the Guardian. In 2018, he was presented with the prestigious President's Medal by the British Academy for his outstanding literary achievement and for co-founding the Jaipur Literature Festival. He was named one of the world's top 50 thinkers for 2020 by Prospect. Learn more at www.tcd.ie/trinitylongroomhub

Jonah Goldberg ruminates on the indictment of John Bolton, G.K. Chesterton's beef with Edmund Burke, and the POLITICO report on the Young Republicans. Show Notes:—Wednesday's G-File—Nick Catoggio on the Young Republicans—The fight over National Guard deployment The Remnant 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 Jonah's G-File newsletters—⁠⁠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

If ever there was proof that opposites attract, it was the friendship between the personally and politically conservative Edmund Burke and the liberal-leaning libertine Charles Fox, who formed a united front in 18-century British politics for a quarter of a century. Biographer James Grant joins David M. Rubenstein to demonstrate how, despite their many differences, Fox and Burke remained friends and political allies through the American Revolution and the dramatic impeachment of East India Company governor-general Warren Hastings, but ultimately fell out, both personally and professionally, over the French Revolution.Recorded on August 21, 2025

After powering through some rank punditry, Jonah Goldberg displays his intellectual prowess by tackling G.K. Chesterton's take on Edmund Burke, outlining mankind's three great revolutions, and dissecting our notion of “identity crisis.” Show Notes:—Friday's Dispatch Podcast—Chesterton on Burke—Jonah's Remnant with Allen Guelzo—Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics is Destroying American Democracy—“The Hedgehog and the Fox” The Remnant 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 Jonah's G-File newsletters—⁠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

Lawyers vs. Engineers. Infrastructure in America, China and Europe. Edmund Burke and the Revolutionary War.

Edmund Burke: And DEI. Gregory Collins, Civitas Institute https://www.civitasinstitute.org/research/diversity-real-and-imposed 1648 CROMWELL

Edmund Burke: And DEI. Gregory Collins, Civitas Institute. CONTINUED. https://www.civitasinstitute.org/research/diversity-real-and-imposed 1798 GILLRAY

Andresa Boni e Luiz Felipe Pondé percorrem as raízes filosóficas, as transformações políticas e os paradoxos da política de direita — da ideologia de Edmund Burke e as origens conservadoras no século XVIII até as versões que marcaram o século XX, passando pelas democracias liberais e pelas experiências totalitárias.Vamos acompanhar a análise com olhar crítico sobre as múltiplas faces da direita, chegando até a atualidade com o movimento chamado de Nova Direita. O programa distingue tradições de centro-direita, das correntes de extrema-direita, e chega até a atualidade explicando o movimento chamado de nova direita.O programa amplia a discussão e lança luz sobre os contornos de um debate onde convicções legítimas e discursos extremados frequentemente se confundem.Assista ao Linhas Cruzadas, todas as quintas às 22h na TV Cultura.#TVCultura #LuizFelipePondé #AndresaBoni #LinhasCruzadas #Direita #Política

AEI Senior Fellow Yuval Levin rejoins the pod to discuss the enemies of continuity. He and Adaam debate the definition of conservatism and whether it's the Annihilist urge that dominates the contemporary left or something else entirely. Oh, and if that's not nerdy enough for you, they also go on a semi-Burkean detour to adjudicate whether beauty in art is related to truth (because someone had to!).On the agenda:-Cultural continuity and the modern conservative [00:10]-The hubris of knowledge [10:19]-Who are the enemies of continuity [17:54]-Solipsism as morality [26:28]-Rousseau and the new Jacobins [31:23]-Redemptive destruction [39:00]-Is despair anti-conservative? [48:54]-Beauty [53:31]Also:-Our previous chat with Yuval Levin about Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine-Adaam on the Jacobin temptation-Yuval on American renewal-Ken Goshen on why contemporary art sucksUncertain Things is hosted and produced by Adaam James Levin-Areddy and Vanessa M. Quirk. For more doomsday thoughts, subscribe to: http://uncertain.substack.com. Get full access to Uncertain Things at uncertain.substack.com/subscribe

Send us a textWarning Very Explicit Biblical Content.  Listener discretion required. Not suitable for Children or vulnerable adults.It's Time to Speak UpLet me end with one final observation — and I believe it comes straight from the last verse of this dark, sobering chapter. It says: “Consider it, confer on it, then speak up.” That's the call.So when is it time to speak?Let me give you some biblical guidance — a few situations where God's people must raise their voices.1. Speak Up When There's InjusticeThat's the heart of this passage. A woman was brutally abused and killed, and the question is raised: What will Israel do about it?What will you do?If you see injustice — in your community, in your workplace, in your neighbourhood — you don't sit back. You say something.God's people are called to stand for justice — not just pray about it, but speak into it.2. Speak Up When People Are in DangerThe men of Gibeah weren't just wicked. They were dangerous. Do you think what happened that night would be the last time they acted like that?And so it's time to speak up — to prevent further harm.If you have a friend drinking themselves into despair… If someone you know is spiraling in addiction… If someone is caught in a destructive relationship or lifestyle… Love says something. Silence is not kindness. Sometimes silence is complicity.So yes — for their good, for their soul — say something.3. Speak Up About JesusMost importantly: speak up about the only true hope — Jesus Christ.The solution to the mess we're in isn't better laws. It's not moral behavior. It's spiritual transformation.That's why we need to speak.People need the Lord. That's not cliché — it's reality. He's the only one who can rescue this culture, this country, and any human soul from the cliff it's racing toward.So yes, speak up. And don't worry about the labels.Today, if you say anything unpopular, you're called a bigot. A phobe. A hater.This isn't on it andut hate. It's about holiness. It's about a God in heaven who wrote this Book — and who still speaks through it.If this Book is true, then we must speak. If it's not, then anything goes.But I believe it's true. And I believe it's time to speak.Closing WordsYou've heard it before. But it bears repeating. Edmund Burke once said:“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”So, brothers and sisters in Christ — Consider it. Confer on tie and speak up.That's what this passage is calling us to do.Support the showTo listen to my monthly church history podcast, subscribe at; https://thehistoryofthechristianchurch.buzzsprout.com For an ad-free version of my podcasts plus the opportunity to enjoy hours of exclusive content and two bonus episodes a month whilst also helping keep the Bible Project Daily Podcast free for listeners everywhere support me at;|PatreonSupport me to continue making great content for listeners everywhere.https://thebibleproject.buzzsprout.com

After last week's thrashing after leaving John and Lucretia with the car key to the podcast. Steve threatened to return this week like George Washington leading the troops to squash the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 (which, people who know their history will recall, was a total rout for the rebels), but since he is still in Ireland—the birthplace of Edmund Burke—the virtues of moderation, prudence, prescription, and magnanimity took over, sparing John and Lucretia from a verbal gullitoine blow. (How's that for a triple-historial-referencing!)But that doesn't mean there wasn't still some warfare, though we turned out bellicosity mostly toward Iran, and went through some arguments about why the U.S. ought to end the matter by taking out Forden, and why we should ignore the media-driven attempt to drive a wedge in MAGA world over the issue.From there, we have a lot to say about the Skirmetti decision, including savoring the deepening civil war inside the Democratic Party between its implacable identity politics wing and those Democrats who still have a lick of political sense.And finally, we end with a 3WHH-inspired limerick. That doesn't involve Nantucket.

Full video and PowerPoint: https://www.patreon.com/posts/129440128?pr=true&forSale=trueEdmund Burke's conservative principles, as articulated in his seminal work Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), emphasize the preservation of societal order through tradition, hierarchy, and organic social bonds over radical innovation and egalitarian abstraction. Burke championed the value of inherited institutions—such as the monarchy, peerage, and established church—arguing that they embody the wisdom of generations and foster stability by aligning with human nature and historical experience. He rejected the revolutionary fervor of his time, particularly the French Revolution's pursuit of abstract liberty and equality, which he saw as destabilizing and disconnected from practical realities. Instead, Burke advocated for "ordered liberty," where freedom is tempered by duty, social gradation, and reverence for the past, ensuring that societal change respects existing structures and customs. His belief in the sanctity of property, the necessity of religion as a moral and social anchor, and the importance of local attachments over universal ideals laid the foundation for modern conservative thought, prioritizing continuity and community over disruptive individualism.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/conversations-that-matter8971/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In this week's episode, the last of Season 6,  Patrick and Greg pull back the curtain and reveal how the Quantitude sausage is actually made. Their motivation is to share their own joys and challenges in making a podcast in the hope that others might consider doing this themselves, whether it be for simple self-satisfaction or for using it as a free speech platform in a time when other avenues of communication are feeling increasingly compromised. Along the way they also discuss baring your soul, being 20 minutes away, losing money, Guglielmo Marconi, palak paneer, Taylor Swift, Machiavelli's bad rap, Quincy Jones, hostage negotiations, two blind squirrels, our Innies, for love of the game, Jiffy (in moderation), Blood Meridian, and Edmund Burke.Stay in contact with Quantitude! Web page: quantitudepod.org TwitterX: @quantitudepod YouTube: @quantitudepod Merch: redbubble.com

So why did Harris lose in 2024? For one very big reason, according to the progressive essayist Bill Deresiewicz: “because she represented the exhausted Democratic establishment”. This rotting establishment, Deresiewicz believes, is symbolized by both the collective denial of Biden's mental decline and by Harris' pathetically rudderless Presidential campaign. But there's a much more troubling problem with the Democratic party, he argues. It has become “the party of institutionalized liberalism, which is itself exhausted”. So how to reinvent American liberalism in the 2020's? How to make the left once again, in Deresiewicz words, “the locus of openness, playfulness, productive contention, experiment, excess, risk, shock, camp, mirth, mischief, irony and curiosity"? That's the question for all progressives in our MAGA/Woke age. 5 Key Takeaways * Deresiewicz believes the Democratic establishment and aligned media engaged in a "tacit cover-up" of Biden's condition and other major issues like crime, border policies, and pandemic missteps rather than addressing them honestly.* The liberal movement that began in the 1960s has become "exhausted" and the Democratic Party is now an uneasy alliance of establishment elites and working-class voters whose interests don't align well.* Progressive institutions suffer from a repressive intolerance characterized by "an unearned sense of moral superiority" and a fear of vitality that leads to excessive rules, bureaucracy, and speech codes.* While young conservatives are creating new movements with energy and creativity, the progressive establishment stifles innovation by purging anyone who "violates the code" or criticizes their side.* Rebuilding the left requires creating conditions for new ideas by ending censoriousness, embracing true courage that risks something real, and potentially building new institutions rather than trying to reform existing ones. Full Transcript Andrew Keen: Hello, everyone. It's the old question on this show, Keen on America, how to make sense of this bewildering, frustrating, exciting country in the wake, particularly of the last election. A couple of years ago, we had the CNN journalist who I rather like and admire, Jake Tapper, on the show. Arguing in a piece of fiction that he thinks, to make sense of America, we need to return to the 1970s. He had a thriller out a couple of years ago called All the Demons Are Here. But I wonder if Tapper's changed his mind on this. His latest book, which is a sensation, which he co-wrote with Alex Thompson, is Original Sin, President Biden's Decline, its Cover-up and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again. Tapper, I think, tells the truth about Biden, as the New York Times notes. It's a damning portrait of an enfeebled Biden protected by his inner circle. I would extend that, rather than his inner circle protected by an elite, perhaps a coastal elite of Democrats, unable or unwilling to come to terms with the fact that Biden was way, way past his shelf life. My guest today, William Deresiewicz—always get his last name wrong—it must be...William Deresiewicz: No, that was good. You got it.Andrew Keen: Probably because I'm anti-semitic. He has a new piece out called "Post-Election" which addresses much of the rottenness of the American progressive establishment in 2025. Bill, congratulations on the piece.William Deresiewicz: Thank you.Andrew Keen: Have you had a chance to look at this Tapper book or have you read about Original Sin?William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I read that piece. I read the piece that's on the screen and I've heard some people talking about it. And I mean, as you said, it's not just his inner circle. I don't want to blame Tapper. Tapper did the work. But one immediate reaction to the debate debacle was, where have the journalists been? For example, just to unfairly call one person out, but they're just so full of themselves, the New Yorker dripping with self-congratulations, especially in its centennial year, its boundless appetite for self-celebration—to quote something one of my students once said about Yale—they've got a guy named Evan Osnos, who's one of their regulars on their political...Andrew Keen: Yeah, and he's been on the show, Evan, and in fact, I rather like his, I was going to say his husband, his father, Peter Osnos, who's a very heavy-hitting ex-publisher. But anyway, go on. And Evan's quite a nice guy, personally.William Deresiewicz: I'm sure he's a nice guy, but the fact is he's not only a New Yorker journalist, but he wrote a book about Biden, which means that he's presumably theoretically well-sourced within Biden world. He didn't say anything. I mean, did he not know or did he know?Andrew Keen: Yeah, I agree. I mean you just don't want to ask, right? You don't know. But you're a journalist, so you're supposed to know. You're supposed to ask. So I'm sure you're right on Osnos. I mean, he was on the show, but all journalists are progressives, or at least all the journalists at the Times and the New Yorker and the Atlantic. And there seemed to be, as Jake Tapper is suggesting in this new book, and he was part of the cover-up, there seemed to be a cover-up on the part of the entire professional American journalist establishment, high-end establishment, to ignore the fact that the guy running for president or the president himself clearly had no idea of what was going on around him. It's just astonishing, isn't it? I mean, hindsight's always easy, of course, 2020 in retrospect, but it was obvious at the time. I made it clear whenever I spoke about Biden, that here was a guy clearly way out of his depth, that he shouldn't have been president, maybe shouldn't have been president in the first place, but whatever you think about his ideas, he clearly was way beyond his shelf date, a year or two into the presidency.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, but here's the thing, and it's one of the things I say in the post-election piece, but I'm certainly not the only person to say this. There was an at least tacit cover-up of Biden, of his condition, but the whole thing was a cover-up, meaning every major issue that the 2024 election was about—crime, at the border, woke excess, affordability. The whole strategy of not just the Democrats, but this media establishment that's aligned with them is to just pretend that it wasn't happening, to explain it away. And we can also throw in pandemic policy, right? Which people were still thinking about and all the missteps in pandemic policy. The strategy was effectively a cover-up. We're not gonna talk about it, or we're gonna gaslight you, or we're gonna make excuses. So is it a surprise that people don't trust these establishment institutions anymore? I mean, I don't trust them anymore and I want to trust them.Andrew Keen: Were there journalists? I mean, there were a handful of journalists telling the truth about Biden. Progressives, people on the left rather than conservatives.William Deresiewicz: Ezra Klein started to talk about it, I remember that. So yes, there were a handful, but it wasn't enough. And you know, I don't say this to take away from Ezra Klein what I just gave him with my right hand, take away with my left, but he was also the guy, as soon as the Kamala succession was effected, who was talking about how Kamala in recent months has been going from strength to strength and hasn't put a foot wrong and isn't she fantastic. So all credit to him for telling the truth about Biden, but it seems to me that he immediately pivoted to—I mean, I'm sure he thought he was telling the truth about Harris, but I didn't believe that for one second.Andrew Keen: Well, meanwhile, the lies about Harris or the mythology of Harris, the false—I mean, all mythology, I guess, is false—about Harris building again. Headline in Newsweek that Harris would beat Donald Trump if an election was held again. I mean I would probably beat—I would beat Trump if an election was held again, I can't even run for president. So anyone could beat Trump, given the situation. David Plouffe suggested that—I think he's quoted in the Tapper book—that Biden totally fucked us, but it suggests that somehow Harris was a coherent progressive candidate, which she wasn't.William Deresiewicz: She wasn't. First of all, I hadn't seen this poll that she would beat Trump. I mean, it's a meaningless poll, because...Andrew Keen: You could beat him, Bill, and no one can even pronounce your last name.William Deresiewicz: Nobody could say what would actually happen if there were a real election. It's easy enough to have a hypothetical poll. People often look much better in these kinds of hypothetical polls where there's no actual election than they do when it's time for an election. I mean, I think everyone except maybe David Plouffe understands that Harris should never have been a candidate—not just after Biden dropped out way too late, but ever, right? I mean the real problem with Biden running again is that he essentially saddled us with Harris. Instead of having a real primary campaign where we could have at least entertained the possibility of some competent people—you know, there are lots of governors. I mean, I'm a little, and maybe we'll get to this, I'm little skeptical that any normal democratic politician is going to end up looking good. But at least we do have a whole bunch of what seem to be competent governors, people with executive experience. And we never had a chance to entertain any of those people because this democratic establishment just keeps telling us who we're going to vote for. I mean, it's now three elections in a row—they forced Hillary on us, and then Biden. I'm not going to say they forced Biden on us although elements of it did. It probably was a good thing because he won and he may have been the only one who could have won. And then Harris—it's like reductio ad absurdum. These candidates they keep handing us keep getting worse and worse.Andrew Keen: But it's more than being worse. I mean, whatever one can say about Harris, she couldn't explain why she wanted to be president, which seems to me a disqualifier if you're running for president. The point, the broader point, which I think you bring out very well in the piece you write, and you and I are very much on the same page here, so I'm not going to criticize you in your post-election—William Deresiewicz: You can criticize me, Andrew, I love—Andrew Keen: I know I can criticize you, and I will, but not in this particular area—is that these people are the establishment. They're protecting a globalized world, they're the coast. I mean, in some ways, certainly the Bannonite analysis is right, and it's not surprising that they're borrowing from Lenin and the left is borrowing from Edmund Burke.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I mean I think, and I think this is the real problem. I mean, part of what I say in the piece is that it just seems, maybe this is too organicist, but there just seems to be an exhaustion that the liberal impulse that started, you know, around the time I was born in 1964, and I cite the Dylan movie just because it's a picture of that time where you get a sense of the energy on the left, the dawning of all this exciting—Andrew Keen: You know that movie—and we've done a show on that movie—itself was critical I guess in a way of Dylan for not being political.William Deresiewicz: Well, but even leaving that aside, just the reminder you get of what that time felt like. That seems in the movie relatively accurate, that this new youth culture, the rights revolution, the counterculture, a new kind of impulse of liberalism and progressivism that was very powerful and strong and carried us through the 60s and 70s and then became the establishment and has just become completely exhausted now. So I just feel like it's just gotten to the end of its possibility. Gotten to the end of its life cycle, but also in a less sort of mystical way. And I think this is a structural problem that the Democrats have not been able to address for a long time, and I don't see how they're going to address it. The party is now the party, as you just said, of the establishment, uneasily wedded to a mainly non-white sort of working class, lower class, maybe somewhat middle class. So it's sort of this kind of hybrid beast, the two halves of which don't really fit together. The educated upper middle class, the professional managerial class that you and I are part of, and then sort of the average Black Latino female, white female voter who doesn't share the interests of that class. So what are you gonna do about that? How's that gonna work?Andrew Keen: And the thing that you've always given a lot of thought to, and it certainly comes out in this piece, is the intolerance of the Democratic Party. But it's an intolerance—it's not a sort of, and I don't like this word, it's not the fascist intolerance of the MAGA movement or of Trump. It's a repressive intolerance, it's this idea that we're always right and if you disagree with us, then there must be something wrong with you.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, right. It's this, at this point, completely unearned sense of moral superiority and intellectual superiority, which are not really very clearly distinguished in their mind, I think. And you know, they just reek of it and people hate it and it's understandable that they hate it. I mean, it's Hillary in a word. It's Hillary in a word and again, I'm wary of treading on this kind of ground, but I do think there's an element of—I mean, obviously Trump and his whole camp is very masculinist in a very repulsive way, but there is also a way to be maternalist in a repulsive way. It's this kind of maternal control. I think of it as the sushi mom voice where we're gonna explain to you in a calm way why you should listen to us and why we're going to control every move you make. And it's this fear—I mean what my piece is really about is this sort of quasi-Nietzschean argument for energy and vitality that's lacking on the left. And I think it's lacking because the left fears it. It fears sort of the chaos of the life force. So it just wants to shackle it in all of these rules and bureaucracy and speech codes and consent codes. It just feels lifeless. And I think everybody feels that.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and it's the inability to imagine you can be wrong. It's the moral greediness of some people, at least, who think of themselves on the left. Some people might be listening to this, thinking it's just these two old white guys who think themselves as progressives but are actually really conservative. And all this idea of nature is itself chilling, that it's a kind of anti-feminism.William Deresiewicz: Well, that's b******t. I mean, let me have a chance to respond. I mean I plead guilty to being an old white man—Andrew Keen: I mean you can't argue with that one.William Deresiewicz: I'm not arguing with it. But the whole point rests on this notion of positionality, like I'm an older white man, therefore I think this or I believe that, which I think is b******t to begin with because, you know, down the street there's another older white guy who believes the exact opposite of me, so what's the argument here? But leaving that aside, and whether I am or am not a progressive—okay, my ideal politician is Bernie Sanders, so I'll just leave it at that. The point is, I mean, one point is that feminism hasn't always been like this. Second wave feminism that started in the late sixties, when I was a little kid—there was a censorious aspect to it, but there was also this tremendous vitality. I mean I think of somebody like Andrea Dworkin—this is like, "f**k you" feminism. This is like, "I'm not only not gonna shave my legs, I'm gonna shave my armpits and I don't give a s**t what you think." And then the next generation when I was a young man was the Mary Gates, Camille Paglia, sex-positive power feminism which also had a different kind of vitality. So I don't think feminism has to be the feminism of the women's studies departments and of Hillary Clinton with "you can't say this" and "if you want to have sex with me you have to follow these 10 rules." I don't think anybody likes that.Andrew Keen: The deplorables!William Deresiewicz: Yes, yes, yes. Like I said, I don't just think that the enemies don't like it, and I don't really care what they think. I think the people on our side don't like it. Nobody is having fun on our side. It's boring. No one's having sex from what they tell me. The young—it just feels dead. And I think when there's no vitality, you also have no creative vitality. And I think the intellectual cul-de-sac that the left seems to be stuck in, where there are no new ideas, is related to that.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and I think the more I think about it, I think you're right, it's a generational war. All the action seems to be coming from old people, whether it's the Pelosis and the Bidens, or it's people like Richard Reeves making a fortune off books about worrying about young men or Jonathan Haidt writing about the anxious generation. Where are, to quote David Bowie, the young Americans? Why aren't they—I mean, Bill, you're in a way guilty of this. You made your name with your book, Excellent Sheep about the miseducation...William Deresiewicz: Yeah, so what am I guilty of exactly?Andrew Keen: I'm not saying you're all, but aren't you and Reeves and Haidt, you're all involved in this weird kind of generational war.William Deresiewicz: OK, let's pump the brakes here for a second. Where the young people are—I mean, obviously most people, even young people today, still vote for Democrats. But the young who seem to be exploring new things and having energy and excitement are on the right. And there was a piece—I'm gonna forget the name of the piece and the author—Daniel Oppenheimer had her on the podcast. I think it appeared in The Point. Young woman. Fairly recent college graduate, went to a convention of young republicans, I don't know what they call themselves, and also to democrats or liberals in quick succession and wrote a really good piece about it. I don't think she had ever written anything before or published anything before, but it got a lot of attention because she talked about the youthful vitality at this conservative gathering. And then she goes to the liberals and they're all gray-haired men like us. The one person who had anything interesting to say was Francis Fukuyama, who's in his 80s. She's making the point—this is the point—it's not a generational war, because there are young people on the right side of the spectrum who are doing interesting things. I mean, I don't like what they're doing, because I'm not a rightist, but they're interesting, they're different, they're new, there's excitement there, there's creativity there.Andrew Keen: But could one argue, Bill, that all these labels are meaningless and that whatever they're doing—I'm sure they're having more sex than young progressives, they're having more fun, they're able to make jokes, they are able, for better or worse, to change the system. Does it really matter whether they claim to be MAGA people or leftists? They're the ones who are driving change in the country.William Deresiewicz: Yes, they're the ones who are driving change in the country. The counter-cultural energy that was on the left in the sixties and seventies is now on the right. And it does matter because they are operating in the political sphere, have an effect in the political sphere, and they're unmistakably on the right. I mean, there are all these new weird species on the right—the trads and the neo-pagans and the alt-right and very sort of anti-capitalist conservatives or at least anti-corporate conservatives and all kinds of things that you would never have imagined five years ago. And again, it's not that I like these things. It's that they're new, there's ferment there. So stuff is coming out that is going to drive, is already driving the culture and therefore the politics forward. And as somebody who, yes, is progressive, it is endlessly frustrating to me that we have lost this kind of initiative, momentum, energy, creativity, to what used to be the stodgy old right. Now we're the stodgy old left.Andrew Keen: What do you want to go back to? I mean you brought up Dylan earlier. Do you just want to resurrect...William Deresiewicz: No, I don't.Andrew Keen: You know another one who comes to mind is another sort of bundle of contradictions, Bruce Springsteen. He recently talked about the corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous nature of Trump. I mean Springsteen's a billionaire. He even acknowledged that he mythologized his own working-class status. He's never spent more than an hour in a factory. He's never had a job. So aren't all the pigeons coming back to roost here? The fraud of men like Springsteen are merely being exposed and young people recognize it.William Deresiewicz: Well, I don't know about Springsteen in particular...Andrew Keen: Well, he's a big deal.William Deresiewicz: No, I know he's a big deal, and I love Springsteen. I listened to him on repeat when I was young, and I actually didn't know that he'd never worked in a factory, and I quite frankly don't care because he's an artist, and he made great art out of those experiences, whether they were his or not. But to address the real issue here, he is an old guy. It sounds like he's just—I mean, I'm sure he's sincere about it and I would agree with him about Trump. But to have people like Springsteen or Robert De Niro or George Clooney...Andrew Keen: Here it is.William Deresiewicz: Okay, yes, it's all to the point that these are old guys. So you asked me, do I want to go back? The whole point is I don't want to go back. I want to go forward. I'm not going to be the one to bring us forward because I'm older. And also, I don't think I was ever that kind of creative spirit, but I want to know why there isn't sort of youthful creativity given the fact that most young people do still vote for Democrats, but there's no youthful creativity on the left. Is it just that the—I want to be surprised is the point. I'm not calling for X, Y, or Z. I'm saying astonish me, right? Like Diaghilev said to Cocteau. Astonish me the way you did in the 60s and 70s. Show me something new. And I worry that it simply isn't possible on the left now, precisely because it's so locked down in this kind of establishment, censorious mode that there's no room for a new idea to come from anywhere.Andrew Keen: As it happens, you published this essay in Salmagundi—and that predates, if not even be pre-counterculture. How many years old is it? I think it started in '64. Yeah, so alongside your piece is an interesting piece from Adam Phillips about influence and anxiety. And he quotes Montaigne from "On Experience": "There is always room for a successor, even for ourselves, and a different way to proceed." Is the problem, Bill, that we haven't, we're not willing to leave the stage? I mean, Nancy Pelosi is a good example of this. Biden's a good example. In this Salmagundi piece, there's an essay from Martin Jay, who's 81 years old. I was a grad student in Berkeley in the 80s. Even at that point, he seemed old. Why are these people not able to leave the stage?William Deresiewicz: I am not going to necessarily sign on to that argument, and not just because I'm getting older. Biden...Andrew Keen: How old are you, by the way?William Deresiewicz: I'm 61. So you mentioned Pelosi. I would have been happy for Pelosi to remain in her position for as long as she wanted, because she was effective. It's not about how old you are. Although it can be, obviously as you get older you can become less effective like Joe Biden. I think there's room for the old and the young together if the old are saying valuable things and if the young are saying valuable things. It's not like there's a shortage of young voices on the left now. They're just not interesting voices. I mean, the one that comes immediately to mind that I'm more interested in is Ritchie Torres, who's this congressman who's a genuinely working-class Black congressman from the Bronx, unlike AOC, who grew up the daughter of an architect in Northern Westchester and went to a fancy private university, Boston University. So Ritchie Torres is not a doctrinaire leftist Democrat. And he seems to speak from a real self. Like he isn't just talking about boilerplate. I just feel like there isn't a lot of room for the Ritchie Torres. I think the system that produces democratic candidates militates against people like Ritchie Torres. And that's what I am talking about.Andrew Keen: In the essay, you write about Andy Mills, who was one of the pioneers of the New York Times podcast. He got thrown out of The New York Times for various offenses. It's one of the problems with the left—they've, rather like the Stalinists in the 1930s, purged all the energy out of themselves. Anyone of any originality has been thrown out for one reason or another.William Deresiewicz: Well, because it's always the same reason, because they violate the code. I mean, yes, this is one of the main problems. And to go back to where we started with the journalists, it seems like the rationale for the cover-up, all the cover-ups was, "we can't say anything bad about our side. We can't point out any of the flaws because that's going to help the bad guys." So if anybody breaks ranks, we're going to cancel them. We're going to purge them. I mean, any idiot understands that that's a very short-term strategy. You need the possibility of self-criticism and self-difference. I mean that's the thing—you asked me about old people leaving the stage, but the quotation from Montaigne said, "there's always room for a successor, even ourselves." So this is about the possibility of continuous self-reinvention. Whatever you want to say about Dylan, some people like him, some don't, he's done that. Bowie's done that. This was sort of our idea, like you're constantly reinventing yourself, but this is what we don't have.Andrew Keen: Yeah, actually, I read the quote the wrong way, that we need to reinvent ourselves. Bowie is a very good example if one acknowledges, and Dylan of course, one's own fundamental plasticity. And that's another problem with the progressive movement—they don't think of the human condition as a plastic one.William Deresiewicz: That's interesting. I mean, in one respect, I think they think of it as too plastic, right? This is sort of the blank slate fallacy that we can make—there's no such thing as human nature and we can reshape it as we wish. But at the same time, they've created a situation, and this really is what Excellent Sheep is about, where they're turning out the same human product over and over.Andrew Keen: But in that sense, then, the excellent sheep you write about at Yale, they've all ended up now as neo-liberal, neo-conservative, so they're just rebelling...William Deresiewicz: No, they haven't. No, they are the backbone of this soggy liberal progressive establishment. A lot of them are. I mean, why is, you know, even Wall Street and Silicon Valley sort of by preference liberal? It's because they're full of these kinds of elite college graduates who have been trained to be liberal.Andrew Keen: So what are we to make of the Musk-Thiel, particularly the Musk phenomenon? I mean, certainly Thiel, very much influenced by Rand, who herself, of course, was about as deeply Nietzschean as you can get. Why isn't Thiel and Musk just a model of the virility, the vitality of the early 21st century? You might not like what they say, but they're full of vitality.William Deresiewicz: It's interesting, there's a place in my piece where I say that the liberal can't accept the idea that a bad person can do great things. And one of my examples was Elon Musk. And the other one—Andrew Keen: Zuckerberg.William Deresiewicz: But Musk is not in the piece, because I wrote the piece before the inauguration and they asked me to change it because of what Musk was doing. And even I was beginning to get a little queasy just because the association with Musk is now different. It's now DOGE. But Musk, who I've always hated, I've never liked the guy, even when liberals loved him for making electric cars. He is an example, at least the pre-DOGE Musk, of a horrible human being with incredible vitality who's done great things, whether you like it or not. And I want—I mean, this is the energy that I want to harness for our team.Andrew Keen: I actually mostly agreed with your piece, but I didn't agree with that because I think most progressives believe that actually, the Zuckerbergs and the Musks, by doing, by being so successful, by becoming multi-billionaires, are morally a bit dodgy. I mean, I don't know where you get that.William Deresiewicz: That's exactly the point. But I think what they do is when they don't like somebody, they just negate the idea that they're great. "Well, he's just not really doing anything that great." You disagree.Andrew Keen: So what about ideas, Bill? Where is there room to rebuild the left? I take your points, and I don't think many people would actually disagree with you. Where does the left, if there's such a term anymore, need to go out on a limb, break some eggs, offend some people, but nonetheless rebuild itself? It's not going back to Bernie Sanders and some sort of nostalgic New Deal.William Deresiewicz: No, no, I agree. So this is, this may be unsatisfying, but this is what I'm saying. If there were specific new ideas that I thought the left should embrace, I would have said so. What I'm seeing is the left needs, to begin with, to create the conditions from which new ideas can come. So I mean, we've been talking about a lot of it. The censoriousness needs to go.I would also say—actually, I talk about this also—you know, maybe you would consider yourself part of, I don't know. There's this whole sort of heterodox realm of people who did dare to violate the progressive pieties and say, "maybe the pandemic response isn't going so well; maybe the Black Lives Matter protests did have a lot of violence"—maybe all the things, right? And they were all driven out from 2020 and so forth. A lot of them were people who started on the left and would even still describe themselves as liberal, would never vote for a Republican. So these people are out there. They're just, they don't have a voice within the Democratic camp because the orthodoxy continues to be enforced.So that's what I'm saying. You've got to start with the structural conditions. And one of them may be that we need to get—I don't even know that these institutions can reform themselves, whether it's the Times or the New Yorker or the Ivy League. And it may be that we need to build new institutions, which is also something that's happening. I mean, it's something that's happening in the realm of publishing and journalism on Substack. But again, they're still marginalized because that liberal establishment does not—it's not that old people don't wanna give up power, it's that the established people don't want to give up the power. I mean Harris is, you know, she's like my age. So the establishment as embodied by the Times, the New Yorker, the Ivy League, foundations, the think tanks, the Democratic Party establishment—they don't want to move aside. But it's so obviously clear at this point that they are not the solution. They're not the solutions.Andrew Keen: What about the so-called resistance? I mean, a lot of people were deeply disappointed by the response of law firms, maybe even universities, the democratic party as we noted is pretty much irrelevant. Is it possible for the left to rebuild itself by a kind of self-sacrifice, by lawyers who say "I don't care what you think of me, I'm simply against you" and to work together, or university presidents who will take massive pay cuts and take on MAGA/Trump world?William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I mean, I don't know if this is going to be the solution to the left rebuilding itself, but I think it has to happen, not just because it has to happen for policy reasons, but I mean you need to start by finding your courage again. I'm not going to say your testicles because that's gendered, but you need to start—I mean the law firms, maybe that's a little, people have said, well, it's different because they're in a competitive business with each other, but why did the university—I mean I'm a Columbia alumnus. I could not believe that Columbia immediately caved.It occurs to me as we're talking that these are people, university presidents who have learned cowardice. This is how they got to be where they got and how they keep their jobs. They've learned to yield in the face of the demands of students, the demands of alumni, the demands of donors, maybe the demands of faculty. They don't know how to be courageous anymore. And as much as I have lots of reasons, including personal ones, to hate Harvard University, good for them. Somebody finally stood up, and I was really glad to see that. So yeah, I think this would be one good way to start.Andrew Keen: Courage, in other words, is the beginning.William Deresiewicz: Courage is the beginning.Andrew Keen: But not a courage that takes itself too seriously.William Deresiewicz: I mean, you know, sure. I mean I don't really care how seriously—not the self-referential courage. Real courage, which means you're really risking losing something. That's what it means.Andrew Keen: And how can you and I then manifest this courage?William Deresiewicz: You know, you made me listen to Jocelyn Benson.Andrew Keen: Oh, yeah, I forgot and I actually I have to admit I saw that on the email and then I forgot who Jocelyn Benson is, which is probably reflects the fact that she didn't say very much.William Deresiewicz: For those of you who don't know what we're talking about, she's the Secretary of State of Michigan. She's running for governor.Andrew Keen: Oh yeah, and she was absolutely diabolical. She was on the show, I thought.William Deresiewicz: She wrote a book called Purposeful Warrior, and the whole interview was just this salad of cliches. Purpose, warrior, grit, authenticity. And part of, I mentioned her partly because she talked about courage in a way that was complete nonsense.Andrew Keen: Real courage, yeah, real courage. I remember her now. Yeah, yeah.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, she got made into a martyr because she got threatened after the 2020 election.Andrew Keen: Well, lots to think about, Bill. Very good conversation, as always. I think we need to get rid of old white men like you and I, but what do I know?William Deresiewicz: I mean, I am going to keep a death grip on my position, which is no good whatsoever.Andrew Keen: As I half-joked, Bill, maybe you should have called the piece "Post-Erection." If you can't get an erection, then you certainly shouldn't be in public office. That would have meant that Joe Biden would have had to have retired immediately.William Deresiewicz: I'm looking forward to seeing the test you devise to determine whether people meet your criterion.Andrew Keen: Yeah, maybe it will be a public one. Bread and circuses, bread and elections. We shall see, Bill, I'm not even going to do your last name because I got it right once. I'm never going to say it again. Bill, congratulations on the piece "Post-Election," not "Post-Erection," and we will talk again. This story is going to run and run. We will talk again in the not too distant future. Thank you so much.William Deresiewicz: That's good.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Pioneer's Mary Connaughton interview Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law professor emerita and former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See. Ambassador Glendon reflects on her formative education, mentors, and how law and faith have shaped her worldview. She discusses her admiration for Western Civilization's intellectual and spiritual heritage—especially Cicero, Edmund Burke, and […]

In this episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Pioneer’s Mary Connaughton interview Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law professor emerita and former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See. Ambassador Glendon reflects on her formative education, mentors, and how law and faith have shaped her worldview. She discusses her admiration for Western Civilization's intellectual and spiritual heritage—especially Cicero, Edmund Burke, and […]

In this episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Pioneer’s Mary Connaughton interview Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law professor emerita and former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See. Ambassador Glendon reflects on her formative education, mentors, and how law and faith have shaped her worldview. She discusses her admiration for Western Civilization's intellectual and spiritual heritage—especially Cicero, Edmund Burke, and […]

In this episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Pioneer's Mary Connaughton interview Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law professor emerita and former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See. Ambassador Glendon reflects on her formative education, mentors, and how law and faith have shaped her worldview. She discusses her admiration for Western Civilization's intellectual and spiritual heritage—especially Cicero, Edmund Burke, and the harmony of Catholicism with reason. Ambassador Glendon offers insights from her memoir In the Courts of Three Popes, recounting her service under Popes St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis. She explores Vatican diplomacy, the Church's governance, the Vatican Bank, and key challenges facing the Church today, including the upcoming papal conclave. In closing, she reads a passage from her book, In the Courts of Three Popes.

On this May Day edition of Parallax Views w/ J.G. Michael, political theorist Matt McManus joins us to unpack The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism, his groundbreaking new book. We explore: Liberal Socialism Defined: Why liberal rights and socialist economics aren't mutually exclusive—and how methodological collectivism and normative individualism unite them. Historical Roots: From Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine's radical democracy to John Stuart Mill's social liberalism, contrasted with Edmund Burke and Ludwig von Mises. Core Principles: A developmental ethic over mere inquiry, economic democracy within a liberal framework, and, for some, extending democratic values into the family. Key Influences: John Rawls's Theory of Justice, Samuel Moyn's critique of Cold War liberalism and the relationship between Samuel Moyn's book LIBERALISM AGAINST ITSELF: COLD WAR INTELLECTUALS AND THE MAKING OF OUR TIMES and Matt's book, and a speculative look at Richard Rorty's pragmatic liberalism in relation to Liberal Socialism. Global & Anti-Colonial Critiques: Addressing charges of Eurocentrism and imperialist bias by anti-colonial and Global South critiques of Liberal Socialism. Critiques from the Left & Right: Responses to neoliberal, libertarian, and Marxist-Leninist objections, and why caricaturing Marx misses his nuanced view of liberal institutions. If you're interested in the crossroads of political philosophy, the future of democratic socialism, and reclaiming a tradition of freedom and equality, tune in to this deep dive with Matt McManus.

So what, exactly, was “The Enlightenment”? According to the Princeton historian David A. Bell, it was an intellectual movement roughly spanning the early 18th century through to the French Revolution. In his Spring 2025 Liberties Quarterly piece “The Enlightenment, Then and Now”, Bell charts the Enlightenment as a complex intellectual movement centered in Paris but with hubs across Europe and America. He highlights key figures like Montesquieu, Voltaire, Kant, and Franklin, discussing their contributions to concepts of religious tolerance, free speech, and rationality. In our conversation, Bell addresses criticisms of the Enlightenment, including its complicated relationship with colonialism and slavery, while arguing that its principles of freedom and reason remain relevant today. 5 Key Takeaways* The Enlightenment emerged in the early 18th century (around 1720s) and was characterized by intellectual inquiry, skepticism toward religion, and a growing sense among thinkers that they were living in an "enlightened century."* While Paris was the central hub, the Enlightenment had multiple centers including Scotland, Germany, and America, with thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, and Franklin contributing to its development.* The Enlightenment introduced the concept of "society" as a sphere of human existence separate from religion and politics, forming the basis of modern social sciences.* The movement had a complex relationship with colonialism and slavery - many Enlightenment thinkers criticized slavery, but some of their ideas about human progress were later used to justify imperialism.* According to Bell, rather than trying to "return to the Enlightenment," modern society should selectively adopt and adapt its valuable principles of free speech, religious tolerance, and education to create our "own Enlightenment."David Avrom Bell is a historian of early modern and modern Europe at Princeton University. His most recent book, published in 2020 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, is Men on Horseback: The Power of Charisma in the Age of Revolution. Described in the Journal of Modern History as an "instant classic," it is available in paperback from Picador, in French translation from Fayard, and in Italian translation from Viella. A study of how new forms of political charisma arose in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the book shows that charismatic authoritarianism is as modern a political form as liberal democracy, and shares many of the same origins. Based on exhaustive research in original sources, the book includes case studies of the careers of George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Toussaint Louverture and Simon Bolivar. The book's Introduction can be read here. An online conversation about the book with Annette Gordon-Reed, hosted by the Cullman Center of the New York Public Library, can be viewed here. Links to material about the book, including reviews in The New York Review of Books, The Guardian, Harper's, The New Republic, The Nation, Le Monde, The Los Angeles Review of Books and other venues can be found here. Bell is also the author of six previous books. He has published academic articles in both English and French and contributes regularly to general interest publications on a variety of subjects, ranging from modern warfare, to contemporary French politics, to the impact of digital technology on learning and scholarship, and of course French history. A list of his publications from 2023 and 2024 can be found here. His Substack newsletter can be found here. His writings have been translated into French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Hebrew, Swedish, Polish, Russian, German, Croatian, Italian, Turkish and Japanese. At the History Department at Princeton University, he holds the Sidney and Ruth Lapidus Chair in the Era of North Atlantic Revolutions, and offers courses on early modern Europe, on military history, and on the early modern French empire. Previously, he spent fourteen years at Johns Hopkins University, including three as Dean of Faculty in its School of Arts and Sciences. From 2020 to 2024 he served as Director of the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies at Princeton. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a corresponding fellow of the British Academy. Bell's new project is a history of the Enlightenment. A preliminary article from the project was published in early 2022 by Modern Intellectual History. Another is now out in French History.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, in these supposedly dark times, the E word comes up a lot, the Enlightenment. Are we at the end of the Enlightenment or the beginning? Was there even an Enlightenment? My guest today, David Bell, a professor of history, very distinguished professor of history at Princeton University, has an interesting piece in the spring issue of It is One of our, our favorite quarterlies here on Keen on America, Bell's piece is The Enlightenment Then and Now, and David is joining us from the home of the Enlightenment, perhaps Paris in France, where he's on sabbatical hard life. David being an academic these days, isn't it?David Bell: Very difficult. I'm having to suffer the Parisian bread and croissant. It's terrible.Andrew Keen: Yeah. Well, I won't keep you too long. Is Paris then, or France? Is it the home of the Enlightenment? I know there are many Enlightenments, the French, the Scottish, maybe even the English, perhaps even the American.David Bell: It's certainly one of the homes of the Enlightenment, and it's probably the closest that the Enlightened had to a center, absolutely. But as you say, there were Edinburgh, Glasgow, plenty of places in Germany, Philadelphia, all those places have good claims to being centers of the enlightenment as well.Andrew Keen: All the same David, is it like one of those sports games in California where everyone gets a medal?David Bell: Well, they're different metals, right, but I think certainly Paris is where everybody went. I mean, if you look at the figures from the German Enlightenment, from the Scottish Enlightenment from the American Enlightenment they all tended to congregate in Paris and the Parisians didn't tend to go anywhere else unless they were forced to. So that gives you a pretty good sense of where the most important center was.Andrew Keen: So David, before we get to specifics, map out for us, because everyone is perhaps as familiar or comfortable with the history of the Enlightenment, and certainly as you are. When did it happen? What years? And who are the leaders of this thing called the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, that's a big question. And I'm afraid, of course, that if you ask 10 historians, you'll get 10 different answers.Andrew Keen: Well, I'm only asking you, so I only want one answer.David Bell: So I would say that the Enlightenment really gets going around the first couple of decades of the 18th century. And that's when people really start to think that they are actually living in what they start to call an Enlightenment century. There are a lot of reasons for this. They are seeing what we now call the scientific revolution. They're looking at the progress that has been made with that. They are experiencing the changes in the religious sphere, including the end of religious wars, coming with a great deal of skepticism about religion. They are living in a relative period of peace where they're able to speculate much more broadly and daringly than before. But it's really in those first couple of decades that they start thinking of themselves as living in an enlightened century. They start defining themselves as something that would later be called the enlightenment. So I would say that it's, really, really there between maybe the end of the 17th century and 1720s that it really gets started.Andrew Keen: So let's have some names, David, of philosophers, I guess. I mean, if those are the right words. I know that there was a term in French. There is a term called philosoph. Were they the founders, the leaders of the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, there is a... Again, I don't want to descend into academic quibbling here, but there were lots of leaders. Let me give an example, though. So the year 1721 is a remarkable year. So in the year, 1721, two amazing events happened within a couple of months of each other. So in May, Montesquieu, one of the great philosophers by any definition, publishes his novel called Persian Letters. And this is an incredible novel. Still, I think one of greatest novels ever written, and it's very daring. It is the account, it is supposedly a an account written by two Persian travelers to Europe who are writing back to people in Isfahan about what they're seeing. And it is very critical of French society. It is very of religion. It is, as I said, very daring philosophically. It is a product in part of the increasing contact between Europe and the rest of the world that is also very central to the Enlightenment. So that novel comes out. So it's immediately, you know, the police try to suppress it. But they don't have much success because it's incredibly popular and Montesquieu doesn't suffer any particular problems because...Andrew Keen: And the French police have never been the most efficient police force in the world, have they?David Bell: Oh, they could be, but not in this case. And then two months later, after Montesquieu published this novel, there's a German philosopher much less well-known than Montesqiu, than Christian Bolz, who is a professor at the Universität Haller in Prussia, and he gives an oration in Latin, a very typical university oration for the time, about Chinese philosophy, in which he says that the Chinese have sort of proved to the world, particularly through the writings of Confucius and others, that you can have a virtuous society without religion. Obviously very controversial. Statement for the time it actually gets him fired from his job, he has to leave the Kingdom of Prussia within 48 hours on penalty of death, starts an enormous controversy. But here are two events, both of which involving non-European people, involving the way in which Europeans are starting to look out at the rest of the world and starting to imagine Europe as just one part of a larger humanity, and at the same time they are starting to speculate very daringly about whether you can have. You know, what it means to have a society, do you need to have religion in order to have morality in society? Do you need the proper, what kind of government do you need to to have virtuous conduct and a proper society? So all of these things get, you know, really crystallize, I think, around these two incidents as much as anything. So if I had to pick a single date for when the enlightenment starts, I'd probably pick that 1721.Andrew Keen: And when was, David, I thought you were going to tell me about the earthquake in Lisbon, when was that earthquake?David Bell: That earthquake comes quite a bit later. That comes, and now historians should be better with dates than I am. It's in the 1750s, I think it's the late 1750's. Again, this historian is proving he's getting a very bad grade for forgetting the exact date, but it's in 1750. So that's a different kind of event, which sparks off a great deal of commentary, because it's a terrible earthquake. It destroys most of the city of Lisbon, it destroys other cities throughout Portugal, and it leads a lot of the philosophy to philosophers at the time to be speculating very daringly again on whether there is any kind of real purpose to the universe and whether there's any kind divine purpose. Why would such a terrible thing happen? Why would God do such a thing to his followers? And certainly VoltaireAndrew Keen: Yeah, Votav, of course, comes to mind of questioning.David Bell: And Condit, Voltaire's novel Condit gives a very good description of the earthquake in Lisbon and uses that as a centerpiece. Voltair also read other things about the earthquake, a poem about Lisbon earthquake. But in Condit he gives a lasting, very scathing portrait of the Catholic Church in general and then of what happens in Portugal. And so the Lisbon Earthquake is certainly another one of the events, but it happens considerably later. Really in the middle of the end of life.Andrew Keen: So, David, you believe in this idea of the Enlightenment. I take your point that there are more than one Enlightenment in more than one center, but in broad historical terms, the 18th century could be defined at least in Western and Northern Europe as the period of the Enlightenment, would that be a fair generalization?David Bell: I think it's perfectly fair generalization. Of course, there are historians who say that it never happened. There's a conservative British historian, J.C.D. Clark, who published a book last summer, saying that the Enlightenment is a kind of myth, that there was a lot of intellectual activity in Europe, obviously, but that the idea that it formed a coherent Enlightenment was really invented in the 20th century by a bunch of progressive reformers who wanted to claim a kind of venerable and august pedigree for their own reform, liberal reform plans. I think that's an exaggeration. People in the 18th century defined very clearly what was going on, both people who were in favor of it and people who are against it. And while you can, if you look very closely at it, of course it gets a bit fuzzy. Of course it's gets, there's no single, you can't define a single enlightenment project or a single enlightened ideology. But then, I think people would be hard pressed to define any intellectual movement. You know, in perfect, incoherent terms. So the enlightenment is, you know by compared with almost any other intellectual movement certainly existed.Andrew Keen: In terms of a philosophy of the Enlightenment, the German thinker, Immanuel Kant, seems to be often, and when you describe him as the conscience or the brain or a mixture of the conscience and brain of the enlightenment, why is Kant and Kantian thinking so important in the development of the Enlightenment.David Bell: Well, that's a really interesting question. And one reason is because most of the Enlightenment was not very rigorously philosophical. A lot of the major figures of the enlightenment before Kant tended to be writing for a general public. And they often were writing with a very specific agenda. We look at Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau. Now you look at Adam Smith in Scotland. We look David Hume or Adam Ferguson. You look at Benjamin Franklin in the United States. These people wrote in all sorts of different genres. They wrote in, they wrote all sorts of different kinds of books. They have many different purposes and very few of them did a lot of what we would call rigorous academic philosophy. And Kant was different. Kant was very much an academic philosopher. Kant was nothing if not rigorous. He came at the end of the enlightenment by most people's measure. He wrote these very, very difficult, very rigorous, very brilliant works, such as The Creek of Pure Reason. And so, it's certainly been the case that people who wanted to describe the Enlightenment as a philosophy have tended to look to Kant. So for example, there's a great German philosopher and intellectual historian of the early 20th century named Ernst Kassirer, who had to leave Germany because of the Nazis. And he wrote a great book called The Philosophy of the Enlightened. And that leads directly to Immanuel Kant. And of course, Casir himself was a Kantian, identified with Kant. And so he wanted to make Kant, in a sense, the telos, the end point, the culmination, the fulfillment of the Enlightenment. But so I think that's why Kant has such a particularly important position. You're defining it both ways.Andrew Keen: I've always struggled to understand what Kant was trying to say. I'm certainly not alone there. Might it be fair to say that he was trying to transform the universe and certainly traditional Christian notions into the Enlightenment, so the entire universe, the world, God, whatever that means, that they were all somehow according to Kant enlightened.David Bell: Well, I think that I'm certainly no expert on Immanuel Kant. And I would say that he is trying to, I mean, his major philosophical works are trying to put together a system of philosophical thinking which will justify why people have to act morally, why people act rationally, without the need for Christian revelation to bolster them. That's a very, very crude and reductionist way of putting it, but that's essentially at the heart of it. At the same time, Kant was very much aware of his own place in history. So Kant didn't simply write these very difficult, thick, dense philosophical works. He also wrote things that were more like journalism or like tablets. He wrote a famous essay called What is Enlightenment? And in that, he said that the 18th century was the period in which humankind was simply beginning to. Reach a period of enlightenment. And he said, he starts the essay by saying, this is the period when humankind is being released from its self-imposed tutelage. And we are still, and he said we do not yet live in the midst of a completely enlightened century, but we are getting there. We are living in a century that is enlightening.Andrew Keen: So the seeds, the seeds of Hegel and maybe even Marx are incant in that German thinking, that historical thinking.David Bell: In some ways, in some ways of course Hegel very much reacts against Kant and so and then Marx reacts against Hegel. So it's not exactly.Andrew Keen: Well, that's the dialectic, isn't it, David?David Bell: A simple easy path from one to the other, no, but Hegel is unimaginable without Kant of course and Marx is unimagineable without Hegel.Andrew Keen: You note that Kant represents a shift in some ways into the university and the walls of the universities were going up, and that some of the other figures associated with the the Enlightenment and Scottish Enlightenment, human and Smith and the French Enlightenment Voltaire and the others, they were more generalist writers. Should we be nostalgic for the pre-university period in the Enlightenment, or? Did things start getting serious once the heavyweights, the academic heavyweighs like Emmanuel Kant got into this thing?David Bell: I think it depends on where we're talking about. I mean, Adam Smith was a professor at Glasgow in Edinburgh, so Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment was definitely at least partly in the universities. The German Enlightenment took place very heavily in universities. Christian Vodafoy I just mentioned was the most important German philosopher of the 18th century before Kant, and he had positions in university. Even the French university system, for a while, what's interesting about the French University system, particularly the Sorbonne, which was the theology faculty, It was that. Throughout the first half of the 18th century, there were very vigorous, very interesting philosophical debates going on there, in which the people there, particularly even Jesuits there, were very open to a lot of the ideas we now call enlightenment. They were reading John Locke, they were reading Mel Pench, they were read Dekalb. What happened though in the French universities was that as more daring stuff was getting published elsewhere. Church, the Catholic Church, started to say, all right, these philosophers, these philosophies, these are our enemies, these are people we have to get at. And so at that point, anybody who was in the university, who was still in dialog with these people was basically purged. And the universities became much less interesting after that. But to come back to your question, I do think that I am very nostalgic for that period. I think that the Enlightenment was an extraordinary period, because if you look between. In the 17th century, not all, but a great deal of the most interesting intellectual work is happening in the so-called Republic of Letters. It's happening in Latin language. It is happening on a very small circle of RUD, of scholars. By the 19th century following Kant and Hegel and then the birth of the research university in Germany, which is copied everywhere, philosophy and the most advanced thinking goes back into the university. And the 18th century, particularly in France, I will say, is a time when the most advanced thought is being written for a general public. It is being in the form of novels, of dialogs, of stories, of reference works, and it is very, very accessible. The most profound thought of the West has never been as accessible overall as in the 18 century.Andrew Keen: Again, excuse this question, it might seem a bit naive, but there's a lot of pre-Enlightenment work, books, thinking that we read now that's very accessible from Erasmus and Thomas More to Machiavelli. Why weren't characters like, or are characters like Erasmuus, More's Utopia, Machiavell's prints and discourses, why aren't they considered part of the Enlightenment? What's the difference between? Enlightened thinkers or the supposedly enlightened thinkers of the 18th century and thinkers and writers of the 16th and 17th centuries.David Bell: That's a good question, you know, I think you have to, you, you know, again, one has to draw a line somewhere. That's not a very good answer, of course. All these people that you just mentioned are, in one way or another, predecessors to the Enlightenment. And of course, there were lots of people. I don't mean to say that nobody wrote in an accessible way before 1700. Obviously, lots of the people you mentioned did. Although a lot of them originally wrote in Latin, Erasmus, also Thomas More. But I think what makes the Enlightened different is that you have, again, you have a sense. These people have have a sense that they are themselves engaged in a collective project, that it is a collective project of enlightenment, of enlightening the world. They believe that they live in a century of progress. And there are certain principles. They don't agree on everything by any means. The philosophy of enlightenment is like nothing more than ripping each other to shreds, like any decent group of intellectuals. But that said, they generally did believe That people needed to have freedom of speech. They believed that you needed to have toleration of different religions. They believed in education and the need for a broadly educated public that could be as broad as possible. They generally believed in keeping religion out of the public sphere as much as possible, so all those principles came together into a program that we can consider at least a kind of... You know, not that everybody read it at every moment by any means, but there is an identifiable enlightenment program there, and in this case an identifiable enlightenment mindset. One other thing, I think, which is crucial to the Enlightenment, is that it was the attention they started to pay to something that we now take almost entirely for granted, which is the idea of society. The word society is so entirely ubiquitous, we assume it's always been there, and in one sense it has, because the word societas is a Latin word. But until... The 18th century, the word society generally had a much narrower meaning. It referred to, you know, particular institution most often, like when we talk about the society of, you know, the American philosophical society or something like that. And the idea that there exists something called society, which is the general sphere of human existence that is separate from religion and is separate from the political sphere, that's actually something which only really emerged at the end of the 1600s. And it became really the focus of you know, much, if not most, of enlightenment thinking. When you look at someone like Montesquieu and you look something, somebody like Rousseau or Voltaire or Adam Smith, probably above all, they were concerned with understanding how society works, not how government works only, but how society, what social interactions are like beginning of what we would now call social science. So that's yet another thing that distinguishes the enlightened from people like Machiavelli, often people like Thomas More, and people like bonuses.Andrew Keen: You noted earlier that the idea of progress is somehow baked in, in part, and certainly when it comes to Kant, certainly the French Enlightenment, although, of course, Rousseau challenged that. I'm not sure whether Rousseaut, as always, is both in and out of the Enlightenment and he seems to be in and out of everything. How did the Enlightement, though, make sense of itself in the context of antiquity, as it was, of Terms, it was the Renaissance that supposedly discovered or rediscovered antiquity. How did many of the leading Enlightenment thinkers, writers, how did they think of their own society in the context of not just antiquity, but even the idea of a European or Western society?David Bell: Well, there was a great book, one of the great histories of the Enlightenment was written about more than 50 years ago by the Yale professor named Peter Gay, and the first part of that book was called The Modern Paganism. So it was about the, you know, it was very much about the relationship between the Enlightenment and the ancient Greek synonyms. And certainly the writers of the enlightenment felt a great deal of kinship with the ancient Greek synonymous. They felt a common bond, particularly in the posing. Christianity and opposing what they believed the Christian Church had wrought on Europe in suppressing freedom and suppressing free thought and suppassing free inquiry. And so they felt that they were both recovering but also going beyond antiquity at the same time. And of course they were all, I mean everybody at the time, every single major figure of the Enlightenment, their education consisted in large part of what we would now call classics, right? I mean, there was an educational reformer in France in the 1760s who said, you know, our educational system is great if the purpose is to train Roman centurions, if it's to train modern people who are not doing both so well. And it's true. I mean they would spend, certainly, you know in Germany, in much of Europe, in the Netherlands, even in France, I mean people were trained not simply to read Latin, but to write in Latin. In Germany, university courses took part in the Latin language. So there's an enormous, you know, so they're certainly very, very conversant with the Greek and Roman classics, and they identify with them to a very great extent. Someone like Rousseau, I mean, and many others, and what's his first reading? How did he learn to read by reading Plutarch? In translation, but he learns to read reading Plutach. He sees from the beginning by this enormous admiration for the ancients that we get from Bhutan.Andrew Keen: Was Socrates relevant here? Was the Enlightenment somehow replacing Aristotle with Socrates and making him and his spirit of Enlightenment, of asking questions rather than answering questions, the symbol of a new way of thinking?David Bell: I would say to a certain extent, so I mean, much of the Enlightenment criticizes scholasticism, medieval scholastic, very, very sharply, and medieval scholasticism is founded philosophically very heavily upon Aristotle, so to that extent. And the spirit of skepticism that Socrates embodied, the idea of taking nothing for granted and asking questions about everything, including questions of oneself, yes, absolutely. That said, while the great figures of the Red Plato, you know, Socrates was generally I mean, it was not all that present as they come. But certainly have people with people with red play-doh in the entire virus.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Benjamin Franklin earlier, David. Most of the Enlightenment, of course, seems to be centered in France and Scotland, Germany, England. But America, many Europeans went to America then as a, what some people would call a settler colonial society, or certainly an offshoot of the European world. Was the settling of America and the American Revolution Was it the quintessential Enlightenment project?David Bell: Another very good question, and again, it depends a bit on who you talk to. I just mentioned this book by Peter Gay, and the last part of his book is called The Science of Freedom, and it's all about the American Revolution. So certainly a lot of interpreters of the Enlightenment have said that, yes, the American revolution represents in a sense the best possible outcome of the American Revolution, it was the best, possible outcome of the enlightened. Certainly there you look at the founding fathers of the United States and there's a great deal that they took from me like Certainly, they took a great great number of political ideas from Obviously Madison was very much inspired and drafting the edifice of the Constitution by Montesquieu to see himself Was happy to admit in addition most of the founding Fathers of the united states were you know had kind of you know We still had we were still definitely Christians, but we're also but we were also very much influenced by deism were very much against the idea of making the United States a kind of confessional country where Christianity was dominant. They wanted to believe in the enlightenment principles of free speech, religious toleration and so on and so forth. So in all those senses and very much the gun was probably more inspired than Franklin was somebody who was very conversant with the European Enlightenment. He spent a large part of his life in London. Where he was in contact with figures of the Enlightenment. He also, during the American Revolution, of course, he was mostly in France, where he is vetted by some of the surviving fellows and were very much in contact for them as well. So yes, I would say the American revolution is certainly... And then the American revolutionary scene, of course by the Europeans, very much as a kind of offshoot of the enlightenment. So one of the great books of the late Enlightenment is by Condor Say, which he wrote while he was hiding actually in the future evolution of the chariot. It's called a historical sketch of the progress of the human spirit, or the human mind, and you know he writes about the American Revolution as being, basically owing its existence to being like...Andrew Keen: Franklin is of course an example of your pre-academic enlightenment, a generalist, inventor, scientist, entrepreneur, political thinker. What about the role of science and indeed economics in the Enlightenment? David, we're going to talk of course about the Marxist interpretation, perhaps the Marxist interpretation which sees The Enlightenment is just a euphemism, perhaps, for exploitative capitalism. How central was the growth and development of the market, of economics, and innovation, and capitalism in your reading of The Enlightened?David Bell: Well, in my reading, it was very important, but not in the way that the Marxists used to say. So Friedrich Engels once said that the Enlightenment was basically the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie, and there was whole strain of Marxist thinking that followed the assumption that, and then Karl Marx himself argued that the documents like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, which obviously were inspired by the Enlightment, were simply kind of the near, or kind of. Way that the bourgeoisie was able to advance itself ideologically, and I don't think that holds much water, which is very little indication that any particular economic class motivated the Enlightenment or was using the Enlightment in any way. That said, I think it's very difficult to imagine the Enlightement without the social and economic changes that come in with the 18th century. To begin with globalization. If you read the great works of the Enlightenment, it's remarkable just how open they are to talking about humanity in general. So one of Voltaire's largest works, one of his most important works, is something called Essay on Customs and the Spirit of Nations, which is actually History of the World, where he talks learnedly not simply about Europe, but about the Americas, about China, about Africa, about India. Montesquieu writes Persian letters. Christian Volpe writes about Chinese philosophy. You know, Rousseau writes about... You know, the earliest days of humankind talks about Africa. All the great figures of the Enlightenment are writing about the rest of the world, and this is a period in which contacts between Europe and the rest the world are exploding along with international trade. So by the end of the 18th century, there are 4,000 to 5,000 ships a year crossing the Atlantic. It's an enormous number. And that's one context in which the enlightenment takes place. Another is what we call the consumer revolution. So in the 18th century, certainly in the major cities of Western Europe, people of a wide range of social classes, including even artisans, sort of somewhat wealthy artisians, shopkeepers, are suddenly able to buy a much larger range of products than they were before. They're able to choose how to basically furnish their own lives, if you will, how they're gonna dress, what they're going to eat, what they gonna put on the walls of their apartments and so on and so forth. And so they become accustomed to exercising a great deal more personal choice than their ancestors have done. And the Enlightenment really develops in tandem with this. Most of the great works of the Enlightment, they're not really written to, they're treatises, they're like Kant, they're written to persuade you to think in a single way. Really written to make you ask questions yourself, to force you to ponder things. They're written in the form of puzzles and riddles. Voltaire had a great line there, he wrote that the best kind of books are the books that readers write half of themselves as they read, and that's sort of the quintessence of the Enlightenment as far as I'm concerned.Andrew Keen: Yeah, Voltaire might have been comfortable on YouTube or Facebook. David, you mentioned all those ships going from Europe across the Atlantic. Of course, many of those ships were filled with African slaves. You mentioned this in your piece. I mean, this is no secret, of course. You also mentioned a couple of times Montesquieu's Persian letters. To what extent is... The enlightenment then perhaps the birth of Western power, of Western colonialism, of going to Africa, seizing people, selling them in North America, the French, the English, Dutch colonization of the rest of the world. Of course, later more sophisticated Marxist thinkers from the Frankfurt School, you mentioned these in your essay, Odorno and Horkheimer in particular, See the Enlightenment as... A project, if you like, of Western domination. I remember reading many years ago when I was in graduate school, Edward Said, his analysis of books like The Persian Letters, which is a form of cultural Western power. How much of this is simply bound up in the profound, perhaps, injustice of the Western achievement? And of course, some of the justice as well. We haven't talked about Jefferson, but perhaps in Jefferson's life and his thinking and his enlightened principles and his... Life as a slave owner, these contradictions are most self-evident.David Bell: Well, there are certainly contradictions, and there's certainly... I think what's remarkable, if you think about it, is that if you read through works of the Enlightenment, you would be hard-pressed to find a justification for slavery. You do find a lot of critiques of slavery, and I think that's something very important to keep in mind. Obviously, the chattel slavery of Africans in the Americas began well before the Enlightment, it began in 1500. The Enlightenment doesn't have the credit for being the first movement to oppose slavery. That really goes back to various religious groups, especially the Fakers. But that said, you have in France, you had in Britain, in America even, you'd have a lot of figures associated with the Enlightenment who were pretty sure of becoming very forceful opponents of slavery very early. Now, when it comes to imperialism, that's a tricky issue. What I think you'd find in these light bulbs, you'd different sorts of tendencies and different sorts of writings. So there are certainly a lot of writers of the Enlightenment who are deeply opposed to European authorities. One of the most popular works of the late Enlightenment was a collective work edited by the man named the Abbe Rinal, which is called The History of the Two Indies. And that is a book which is deeply, deeply critical of European imperialism. At the same time, at the same of the enlightenment, a lot the works of history written during the Enlightment. Tended, such as Voltaire's essay on customs, which I just mentioned, tend to give a kind of very linear version of history. They suggest that all societies follow the same path, from sort of primitive savagery, hunter-gatherers, through early agriculture, feudal stages, and on into sort of modern commercial society and civilization. And so they're basically saying, okay, we, the Europeans, are the most advanced. People like the Africans and the Native Americans are the least advanced, and so perhaps we're justified in going and quote, bringing our civilization to them, what later generations would call the civilizing missions, or possibly just, you know, going over and exploiting them because we are stronger and we are more, and again, we are the best. And then there's another thing that the Enlightenment did. The Enlightenment tended to destroy an older Christian view of humankind, which in some ways militated against modern racism. Christians believed, of course, that everyone was the same from Adam and Eve, which meant that there was an essential similarity in the world. And the Enlightenment challenged this by challenging the biblical kind of creation. The Enlightenment challenges this. Voltaire, for instance, believed that there had actually been several different human species that had different origins, and that can very easily become a justification for racism. Buffon, one of the most Figures of the French Enlightenment, one of the early naturalists, was crucial for trying to show that in fact nature is not static, that nature is always changing, that species are changing, including human beings. And so again, that allowed people to think in terms of human beings at different stages of evolution, and perhaps this would be a justification for privileging the more advanced humans over the less advanced. In the 18th century itself, most of these things remain potential, rather than really being acted upon. But in the 19th century, figures of writers who would draw upon these things certainly went much further, and these became justifications for slavery, imperialism, and other things. So again, the Enlightenment is the source of a great deal of stuff here, and you can't simply put it into one box or more.Andrew Keen: You mentioned earlier, David, that Concorda wrote one of the later classics of the... Condorcet? Sorry, Condorcets, excuse my French. Condorcès wrote one the later Classics of the Enlightenment when he was hiding from the French Revolution. In your mind, was the revolution itself the natural conclusion, climax? Perhaps anti-climax of the Enlightenment. Certainly, it seems as if a lot of the critiques of the French Revolution, particularly the more conservative ones, Burke comes to mind, suggested that perhaps the principles of in the Enlightment inevitably led to the guillotine, or is that an unfair way of thinking of it?David Bell: Well, there are a lot of people who have thought like that. Edmund Burke already, writing in 1790, in his reflections on the revolution in France, he said that everything which was great in the old regime is being dissolved and, quoting, dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. And then he said about the French that in the groves of their academy at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing but the Gallows. So there, in 1780, he already seemed to be predicting the reign of terror and blaming it. A certain extent from the Enlightenment. That said, I think, you know, again, the French Revolution is incredibly complicated event. I mean, you certainly have, you know, an explosion of what we could call Enlightenment thinking all over the place. In France, it happened in France. What happened there was that you had a, you know, the collapse of an extraordinarily inefficient government and a very, you know, in a very antiquated, paralyzed system of government kind of collapsed, created a kind of political vacuum. Into that vacuum stepped a lot of figures who were definitely readers of the Enlightenment. Oh so um but again the Enlightment had I said I don't think you can call the Enlightement a single thing so to say that the Enlightiment inspired the French Revolution rather than the There you go.Andrew Keen: Although your essay on liberties is the Enlightenment then and now you probably didn't write is always these lazy editors who come up with inaccurate and inaccurate titles. So for you, there is no such thing as the Enlighten.David Bell: No, there is. There is. But still, it's a complex thing. It contains multitudes.Andrew Keen: So it's the Enlightenment rather than the United States.David Bell: Conflicting tendencies, it has contradictions within it. There's enough unity to refer to it as a singular noun, but it doesn't mean that it all went in one single direction.Andrew Keen: But in historical terms, did the failure of the French Revolution, its descent into Robespierre and then Bonaparte, did it mark the end in historical terms a kind of bookend of history? You began in 1720 by 1820. Was the age of the Enlightenment pretty much over?David Bell: I would say yes. I think that, again, one of the things about the French Revolution is that people who are reading these books and they're reading these ideas and they are discussing things really start to act on them in a very different way from what it did before the French revolution. You have a lot of absolute monarchs who are trying to bring certain enlightenment principles to bear in their form of government, but they're not. But it's difficult to talk about a full-fledged attempt to enact a kind of enlightenment program. Certainly a lot of the people in the French Revolution saw themselves as doing that. But as they did it, they ran into reality, I would say. I mean, now Tocqueville, when he writes his old regime in the revolution, talks about how the French philosophes were full of these abstract ideas that were divorced from reality. And while that's an exaggeration, there was a certain truth to them. And as soon as you start having the age of revolutions, as soon you start people having to devise systems of government that will actually last, and as you have people, democratic representative systems that will last, and as they start revising these systems under the pressure of actual events, then you're not simply talking about an intellectual movement anymore, you're talking about something very different. And so I would say that, well, obviously the ideas of the Enlightenment continue to inspire people, the books continue to be read, debated. They lead on to figures like Kant, and as we talked about earlier, Kant leads to Hegel, Hegel leads to Marx in a certain sense. Nonetheless, by the time you're getting into the 19th century, what you have, you know, has connections to the Enlightenment, but can we really still call it the Enlightment? I would sayAndrew Keen: And Tocqueville, of course, found democracy in America. Is democracy itself? I know it's a big question. But is it? Bound up in the Enlightenment. You've written extensively, David, both for liberties and elsewhere on liberalism. Is the promise of democracy, democratic systems, the one born in the American Revolution, promised in the French Revolution, not realized? Are they products of the Enlightment, or is the 19th century and the democratic systems that in the 19th century, is that just a separate historical track?David Bell: Again, I would say there are certain things in the Enlightenment that do lead in that direction. Certainly, I think most figures in the enlightenment in one general sense or another accepted the idea of a kind of general notion of popular sovereignty. It didn't mean that they always felt that this was going to be something that could necessarily be acted upon or implemented in their own day. And they didn't necessarily associate generalized popular sovereignty with what we would now call democracy with people being able to actually govern themselves. Would be certain figures, certainly Diderot and some of his essays, what we saw very much in the social contract, you know, were sketching out, you knows, models for possible democratic system. Condorcet, who actually lived into the French Revolution, wrote one of the most draft constitutions for France, that's one of most democratic documents ever proposed. But of course there were lots of figures in the Enlightenment, Voltaire, and others who actually believed much more in absolute monarchy, who believed that you just, you know, you should have. Freedom of speech and freedom of discussion, out of which the best ideas would emerge, but then you had to give those ideas to the prince who imposed them by poor sicknesses.Andrew Keen: And of course, Rousseau himself, his social contract, some historians have seen that as the foundations of totalitarian, modern totalitarianism. Finally, David, your wonderful essay in Liberties in the spring quarterly 2025 is The Enlightenment, Then and Now. What about now? You work at Princeton, your president has very bravely stood up to the new presidential regime in the United States, in defense of academic intellectual freedom. Does the word and the movement, does it have any relevance in the 2020s, particularly in an age of neo-authoritarianism around the world?David Bell: I think it does. I think we have to be careful about it. I always get a little nervous when people say, well, we should simply go back to the Enlightenment, because the Enlightenments is history. We don't go back the 18th century. I think what we need to do is to recover certain principles, certain ideals from the 18 century, the ones that matter to us, the ones we think are right, and make our own Enlightenment better. I don't think we need be governed by the 18 century. Thomas Paine once said that no generation should necessarily rule over every generation to come, and I think that's probably right. Unfortunately in the United States, we have a constitution which is now essentially unamendable, so we're doomed to live by a constitution largely from the 18th century. But are there many things in the Enlightenment that we should look back to, absolutely?Andrew Keen: Well, David, I am going to free you for your own French Enlightenment. You can go and have some croissant now in your local cafe in Paris. Thank you so much for a very, I excuse the pun, enlightening conversation on the Enlightenment then and now, Essential Essay in Liberties. I'd love to get you back on the show. Talk more history. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

******Support the channel******Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenterPayPal: paypal.me/thedissenterPayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuyPayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9lPayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpzPayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9mPayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ******Follow me on******Website: https://www.thedissenter.net/The Dissenter Goodreads list: https://shorturl.at/7BMoBFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/Twitter: https://x.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Tristan Rogers is a philosopher, author, and teacher. He teaches Logic and Latin at Donum Dei Classical Academy in San Francisco. He completed his Ph.D. at the University of Arizona in 2017. He works in political philosophy, ethics, and ancient philosophy. He is the author of Conservatism, Past and Present: A Philosophical Introduction. In this episode, we focus on Conservatism, Past and Present. We start by discussing philosophical conservatism, and the virtues of gratitude, humility, and justice. We then go through the history of conservatism, and talk about thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Saint Augustine, David Hume, Edmund Burke, attitudes toward the American Revolution and the French Revolution, the 19th century and freedom through authority, the 20th century, Friedrich Hayek, Robert Nozick, Roger Scruton, and the present in Donald Trump and his supporters. We discuss issues surrounding immigration, the family, sexual ethics, responsibilities and rights, and religion. Finally, we talk about the future of conservatism.--A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, BERNARDO SEIXAS, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, PAUL-GEORGE ARNAUD, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ALEX CHAU, AMAURI MARTÍNEZ, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, GEORGE CHORIATIS, VALENTIN STEINMANN, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, LUCY, MANVIR SINGH, PETRA WEIMANN, CAROLA FEEST, MAURO JÚNIOR, 航 豊川, TONY BARRETT, NIKOLAI VISHNEVSKY, STEVEN GANGESTAD, TED FARRIS, AND ROBINROSWELL!A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, NICK GOLDEN, CHRISTINE GLASS, IGOR NIKIFOROVSKI, PER KRAULIS, AND BENJAMIN GELBART!AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, ROSEY, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!

In this episode from 2021, Alex Aragona speaks with Graeme Thompson about the classical liberal tradition in Canada, and what the evolution of that tradition has looked like. References from The Curious Task Episode 94 with Graeme Thompson A collection of the speeches of Wilfred Laurier can be found in an edited edition by Arthur Milnes, available from Amazon here. Macdonald Laurier and the Election of 1891 by Christopher Pennington can be found from Penguin House here. Graeme Thompson's piece “Whatever Happened to Laurier” can be found in the National Post here. Graeme mentions positive and negative liberty by Isaiah Berlin, which is discussed on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here. The works of Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and J.S. Mill can be read for free through the Online Library of Liberty.  

Oliver Goldsmith (born Nov. 10, 1730, Kilkenny West, County Westmeath, Ire.—died April 4, 1774, London) was an Anglo-Irish essayist, poet, novelist, dramatist, and eccentric, made famous by such works as the series of essays The Citizen of the World, or, Letters from a Chinese Philosopher (1762), the poem The Deserted Village (1770), the novel The Vicar of Wakefield (1766), and the play She Stoops to Conquer (1773).Goldsmith was the son of an Anglo-Irish clergyman, the Rev. Charles Goldsmith, curate in charge of Kilkenny West, County Westmeath. At about the time of his birth, the family moved into a substantial house at nearby Lissoy, where Oliver spent his childhood. Much has been recorded concerning his youth, his unhappy years as an undergraduate at Trinity College, Dublin, where he received the B.A. degree in February 1749, and his many misadventures before he left Ireland in the autumn of 1752 to study in the medical school at Edinburgh. His father was now dead, but several of his relations had undertaken to support him in his pursuit of a medical degree. Later on, in London, he came to be known as Dr. Goldsmith—Doctor being the courtesy title for one who held the Bachelor of Medicine—but he took no degree while at Edinburgh nor, so far as anyone knows, during the two-year period when, despite his meagre funds, which were eventually exhausted, he somehow managed to make his way through Europe. The first period of his life ended with his arrival in London, bedraggled and penniless, early in 1756.Goldsmith's rise from total obscurity was a matter of only a few years. He worked as an apothecary's assistant, school usher, physician, and as a hack writer—reviewing, translating, and compiling. Much of his work was for Ralph Griffiths's Monthly Review. It remains amazing that this young Irish vagabond, unknown, uncouth, unlearned, and unreliable, was yet able within a few years to climb from obscurity to mix with aristocrats and the intellectual elite of London. Such a rise was possible because Goldsmith had one quality, soon noticed by booksellers and the public, that his fellow literary hacks did not possess—the gift of a graceful, lively, and readable style. His rise began with the Enquiry into the Present State of Polite Learning in Europe (1759), a minor work. Soon he emerged as an essayist, in The Bee and other periodicals, and above all in his Chinese Letters. These essays were first published in the journal The Public Ledger and were collected as The Citizen of the World in 1762. The same year brought his Life of Richard Nash, of Bath, Esq. Already Goldsmith was acquiring those distinguished and often helpful friends whom he alternately annoyed and amused, shocked and charmed—Samuel Johnson, Sir Joshua Reynolds, Thomas Percy, David Garrick, Edmund Burke, and James Boswell. The obscure drudge of 1759 became in 1764 one of the nine founder-members of the famous Club, a select body, including Reynolds, Johnson, and Burke, which met weekly for supper and talk. Goldsmith could now afford to live more comfortably, but his extravagance continually ran him into debt, and he was forced to undertake more hack work. He thus produced histories of England and of ancient Rome and Greece, biographies, verse anthologies, translations, and works of popular science. These were mainly compilations of works by other authors, which Goldsmith then distilled and enlivened by his own gift for fine writing. Some of these makeshift compilations went on being reprinted well into the 19th century, however.By 1762 Goldsmith had established himself as an essayist with his Citizen of the World, in which he used the device of satirizing Western society through the eyes of an Oriental visitor to London. By 1764 he had won a reputation as a poet with The Traveller, the first work to which he put his name. It embodied both his memories of tramping through Europe and his political ideas. In 1770 he confirmed that reputation with the more famous Deserted Village, which contains charming vignettes of rural life while denouncing the evictions of the country poor at the hands of wealthy landowners. In 1766 Goldsmith revealed himself as a novelist with The Vicar of Wakefield (written in 1762), a portrait of village life whose idealization of the countryside, sentimental moralizing, and melodramatic incidents are underlain by a sharp but good-natured irony. In 1768 Goldsmith turned to the theatre with The Good Natur'd Man, which was followed in 1773 by the much more effective She Stoops to Conquer, which was immediately successful. This play has outlived almost all other English-language comedies from the early 18th to the late 19th century by virtue of its broadly farcical horseplay and vivid, humorous characterizations.During his last decade Goldsmith's conversational encounters with Johnson and others, his foolishness, and his wit were preserved in Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson. Goldsmith eventually became deeply embroiled in mounting debts despite his considerable earnings as an author, though, and after a short illness in the spring of 1774 he died.-bio via Britannica This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit dailypoempod.substack.com/subscribe

In his perpetual quest to mildly trigger his Straussian pals, Josh invites fellow Millennial and Burkean conservative Greg Collins on to discuss how Leo Strauss misconstrued Edmund Burke's political views and lasting impact.  Also discussed are Burke's complex views on natural rights, manners, reform, revolution, social contract theory, classical liberalism, and Rousseau.  Fair warning, dear listener, this one gets nerdy in a hurry!   About Greg Collins From The Kirk Center Dr. Gregory Collins is one of the most celebrated Burke scholars of the rising generation. He is a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science and Program on Ethics, Politics, and Economics at Yale University. He recently received the Buckley Institute's 2024 Lux and Veritas Faculty Prize. His first book, Commerce and Manners in Edmund Burke's Political Economy, examined Edmund Burke's understanding of the connection between markets and morals. Greg has also published articles on Adam Smith, F.A. Hayek, Frederick Douglass, Eric Voegelin, Leo Strauss, and Britain's East India Company. His additional writings and book reviews can be found in Modern Age, Law & Liberty, National Affairs, National Review, and University Bookman.  You can follow Greg on Twitter @GregCollins111   About the Russell Kirk Center's School of Conservative Studies As is noted in the episode, Josh met Greg during a recent virtual course on Burke. In the month of February, the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal hosted two of the nation's foremost Burke scholars, Ian Crowe and Gregory Collins, as they taught a special class on Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. This was a pilot course offered in anticipation of the official launch of the Russell Kirk Center's School of Conservative Studies in the Fall of 2025. For information about the School and future courses, sign up for the Center's e-letter and print newsletter, Permanent Things. https://kirkcenter.org/permanent-things/  

For decades, conservatives have been plagued by an affliction—an almost allergic reaction to power. It's as if the only way to be truly virtuous is to lose, and to lose gracefully. Political wins are viewed with suspicion, as if governing with authority is somehow unseemly, or worse, un-Christian. But what if that mindset is not just wrong—but harmful?Take a look at Donald Trump. Like him or not, he's leading a populist resurgence that is centered not just on rhetoric, but on wielding power—on winning. Recently, he made headlines for appearing to defy a court order that would have prevented the deportation of Venezuelan gang members. Then, he took aim at President Biden's use of an autopen for signing pardons, questioning the validity of those signatures. Predictably, his critics shriek: "Tyranny!" But is it tyranny—or is it the legitimate use of power for the good of the nation?There is a long and deep conservative tradition that supports the responsible use of authority. Edmund Burke warned that power unused is power lost, and that liberty without virtue is the greatest of all evils. Russell Kirk argued that moral order requires strong governance. Sam Francis lambasted the Right for its obsession with losing honorably rather than governing effectively. Even American history is filled with examples of presidents who who defied courts and insisted on doing what they believed was right. Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, even Andrew Jackson understood that sometimes, the law is wrong, and justice demands action. Yet, modern evangelicals often act as if any use of power is suspect, embracing what Francis called the "beautiful loser syndrome"—preferring to be righteous victims rather than victorious defenders of truth and order. But what does Scripture actually say? Joseph wielded power in Egypt to save his people. Nehemiah rebuilt Jerusalem despite opposition. Even Christ declared, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."So today, we ask: Is Trump a tyrant, or is he acting within a legitimate and necessary conservative tradition? And more importantly, why do so many conservatives still believe that surrender is a virtue?This episode is brought to you by our premier sponsors, Armored Republic and Reece Fund, as well as our Patreon members and donors. You can join our Patreon at patreon.com/rightresponseministries or you can donate at rightresponseministries.com/donate.Political power is not everything, but it's not nothing either. And when good men refuse to use it, then evil men will pick it up and destroy societies. It's time for Christians to learn to use political power for good ends again. Let's get into it.*MINISTRY SPONSORS:**Private Family Banking*How to Connect with Private Family Banking:1. FREE 20-MINUTE COURSE HERE: ⁠https://www.canva.com/design/DAF2TQVcA10/WrG1FmoJYp9o9oUcAwKUdA/view⁠2. Send an email inquiry to ⁠chuck@privatefamilybanking.com⁠3. Receive a FREE e-book entitled "How to Build Multi-Generational Wealth Outside of Wall Street and Avoid the Coming Banking Meltdown", by going to ⁠https://www.protectyourmoneynow.net⁠4. Set up a FREE Private Family Banking Discovery call using this ⁠link: https://calendly.com/familybankingnow/30min⁠5. For a Multi-Generational Wealth Planning Guide Book for only $4.99, use this link for my affiliate relationship with "Seven Generations Legacy": ⁠https://themoneyadvantage.idevaffiliate.com/13.html⁠*Reece Fund⁠https://www.reecefund.com/*Dominion: Wealth Strategists* is a full-service financial planning and wealth management firm dedicated to putting more money in the hands of the church. With an education focused approach, they will help you take dominion over your finances.https://reformed.money/

POTUS; "Great Necessities call out great virtues." Edmund Burke. The rise of a hero in POTUS Trump, or not. "He's got to earn it." @ThadMcCotter @theamgreatness 1918 TR with his great-granddaughter, Edith.

Send us a textThe FTGN Merch Store is Live!! Help Support the site with official FTGN Gear!Joe Byerly sits down with Furman Daniel, author of Blood, Mud, and Oil Paint: The Remarkable Year That Made Winston Churchill. Together, they explore a transformative year in Churchill's life—a time of political humiliation, personal reinvention, and the development of five life-changing gifts, including painting, friendship, and a modern perspective on warfare. Furman shares how Churchill's resilience and adaptability during his darkest days laid the foundation for his iconic leadership during World War II.This conversation is packed with timeless insights on failure, perseverance, and finding restoration through personal passions, offering applicable lessons for leaders at all levels:Failure is a springboard for future success.Creative outlets restore energy and focus.Genuine friendships are invaluable during tough times.Presence builds trust and respect as a leader.Confidence balanced with humility fosters growth.Perseverance leads to breakthroughs over time.Stepping back provides clarity and perspective.Lifelong learning is essential for great leadership.And more!Join Joe and Furman for an inspiring discussion on turning setbacks into triumphs and what it means to stay in the fight when the odds are against you.Dr. John Furman Daniel III is an associate professor of political science at Concordia University. He has authored numerous publications on international relations theory, the influence of fiction on foreign policy decision-making, Edmund Burke, Carl von Clausewitz, George Patton, technology diffusion, space colonization and home-field advantage in Major League Baseball. His four books are 21st Century Patton: Strategic Insights for the Modern Era (2016), The First Space War: How Patterns of History and Principles of STEM Will Shape Its Form (2019), Patton: Battling with History (2020) and Blood, Mud and Oil Paint: The Remarkable Year that Made Winston Churchill (2024).A special thanks to this week's sponsors!Veteran-founded Adyton. Step into the next generation of equipment management with Log-E by Adyton. Whether you are doing monthly inventories or preparing for deployment, Log-E is your pocket property book, giving real-time visibility into equipment status and mission readiness. Learn more about how Log-E can revolutionize your property tracking process here!Exray a veteran-owned apparel brand elevating the custom gear experience. Exray provides free design services and creates dedicated web stores for unitsMy favorite coffee is veteran-owned Alpha Coffee and I've been drinking it every morning since 2020! They make 100% premium arabica coffee. Alpha has donated over 22k bags of coffee to deployed units and they offer a 10% discount for military veterans, first responders, nurses, and teachers! Try their coffee today. Once you taste the Alpha difference, you won't want to drink anything else!  Learn more here