Podcasts about eurocrats

Musk, Zuckerberg and Vance have stomped into the EU's canteen, overturned the tables, smashed the glasses, and drawn their pistols. They are scanning a crowd of bewildered Eurocrats and asking menacingly: who really wants a fight over what belongs online? It wasn't meant to be this way. Three years ago the EU agreed a landmark law, the Digital Services Act, or DSA. Hopes were high that hate speech, content that harms minors — as well as fake news and weaponised social media — could be reined in. The biggest platforms would be fined up to 6 percent of global annual turnover if they failed to deal with issues like election interference that amount to a systemic risk. Since then the transatlantic far right has stepped up a campaign to discredit the EU's rules, and often in fanatical terms. Under this new form of McCarthyism, any impediment to online expression is branded as a form of censorship. That is patently absurd. Bans on speech linked to the Nazi period have been in place in parts of Europe for decades. But concerns are growing that the European Commission's ongoing cases against X and Meta under the DSA could become bargaining chips or even get traded away to ease standoffs with the Trump administration. Already the Commission is reportedly lowballing digital markets fines against Silicon Valley giants and talking about simplifying its range of digital regulations — including the DSA. That looks like complying in advance with US intimidation. On the other hand, the Commission could use the Trump administration's bullying tactics to invoke another law — the so-called Anti-Coercion Instrument. That could restrict aspects of Musk's businesses as well as the services of some US digital companies — and it would amount to a more muscular response. In this episode: two prominent MEPs urge the European Commission to hold firm on enforcement of the DSA after their mission to Washington, where they met MAGA hardliners like Congressman Jim Jordan and where they witnessed the kind shocking disdain for Europe echoed most recently in Signal messages shared with The Atlantic. "Everything we are doing in EU is seen as an attempt to be anti-American," says Christel Schaldemose, the Danish social democrat who is a vice president of the European Parliament and an architect of DSA. "That was very, very scary." Christel also is a coordinator on plans to combat foreign influence with a so-called Democracy Shield, which she suggested could allow for suspension of social media in the run up to elections. Sandro Gozi, the Italian liberal who is a former member of French and Italian governments, says the EU must show it has the nerve to impose its laws in the face of U.S. coercion. Sandro says lawmakers would never agree to sacrifice the DSA, which he characterises as "non-negotiable," in exchange for lower tariffs. Sandro also excoriates Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her party for retreating from previous enthusiasm for Ukraine — and for the DSA.Support the show

In a wide-ranging conversation at the White House yesterday evening, Donald Trump was in the mood to talk about everything under the sun – from the speedy success his second administration has had putting fear into the hearts of bureaucrats and Eurocrats, to why he believes there is a path to a balanced budget. He spoke to The Spectator's Ben Domenech for the first magazine interview of his second term, following a major day of international politics with his meeting with prime minister Keir Starmer.

Matt Ehret and Ghost wade through the latest geopolitical temper tantrums, from European elites having full-on meltdowns over their fading power to the U.S. and Russia negotiating peace in ways that would make the establishment clutch their pearls. They break down the Saudi-backed talks that are sending the Eurocrats into fits, the curious financial black hole that is Ukraine, and why the Middle East might be better at diplomacy than the West. Also on deck: The desperate scramble to resuscitate Western hegemony, Trump's latest narrative warfare, and the ever-present specter of World War III...brought to you by the same people who “totally” know what they're doing. Oh, and gold, lots of talk about gold. Because if the globalists keep tanking the economy, you might as well have some shiny metal to show for it.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit public.substack.comVaclav Klaus is an economist who served as president of the Czech Republic from 2003 to 2013. He is a famously outspoken critic of anti-human environmentalism, the European Union, and Wokeism. We interviewed him last Thursday at his institute in Prague to get his thoughts on the recent European elections, the Ukraine war, and threats to Western civilization. I think you will enjoy this conversation as much as we did. We edited the interview for clarity and length.Shellenberger: What is your view of the recent European elections?Klaus: They are not real elections because the European Parliament is not a real parliament. It's not an authentic parliament. There can't be serious elections in Europe because Europe is not an entity that has a people and a similar topic for someone from Finland, Ireland, Cyprus, and Czech Republic.On the other hand, at least in our country, it is a big opinion poll on what is relevant for the future of the European continent. Our government, which is crazy—five political parties in a non-homogeneous coalition—is not unified and practically lost the elections. If we recalculate the European elections into the Czech dimensions, into the Czech parliament, the governing coalition suffered a dramatic decline, which suggests some hope as regards the potential change of the Czech political domestic situation.Nothing will happen in Europe. Europe is a post-democratic entity, and the quasi-elections have practically no role. The European Union will go on, regardless of the election results. Madame von der Leyen will be reappointed as the boss of the European Union, and all the crazy projects that started with the Green Deal will continue.I think the ruling Eurocrats' main message is, to use the American phrase, “Some extremists try to spoil our important work of the last couple of years, but we shall overcome.” That's how they will continue. They will try to suppress all the critical voices. So it's a mixed blessing, and I have mixed feelings about it.Shellenberger: Do you believe that Europe is dying?Klaus: Those are strong terms. For someone like me, there is a strict difference between Europe and the European Union. To mix these two terms together is missing the pointIt was me, as Prime Minister, with all my criticisms, who sent the letter asking for EU membership. My signature is there. But we had no other choice as an ex-Communist country. We didn't have the luxury of being Switzerland, sovereign and independent, for centuries.We were greeted all over Europe as members of the European Union. “Welcome to Europe!” they said. And I always protested: “You should say, ‘Welcome to the European Union.' We have always been in Europe, even in the darkest Communist days. Don't push us.”Europe, as a continent, will not die. The question is how efficiently will European society function? To say it is dying is an overstatement.Shellenberger: How would you evaluate the efforts of right-wing populists in France and Germany to moderate their public image and agendas?Klaus: “Populist” is an unacceptable term in this room, building, and institution. “Populist” has no meaning and no substance. This is just a political label — a wrong, crazy, and dangerous political label. To call the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Le Pen party in France as “populist” is a progressivist attack on rational thinking and political freedom. To use that term is to accept the von der Leyen terminology.Shellenberger: Okay. So, how would you evaluate the efforts by right-wing parties in France and Germany to expand their appeal?Klaus: Those are normal, or practically normal, political parties. They just don't shout “Viva Europe!”The AfD is probably more on the right than Le Pen's party; it is not quite clear. As an academic social scientist, I would use different terminology than they use. To call them populists is wrong.Mr. Macron is not my cup of tea. I am always afraid of his policies. That's one issue. There is a very complicated political structure in France. “Left” and “Right” have always been confused in France. This confusion is more visible in other countries in Europe, but it is always special in France. Shellenberger: We interviewed some of the political leaders of AfD in Germany and were surprised that they wanted to re-migrate even legal immigrants who had arrived in Germany legally. Do you think that's too extreme?Klaus: Extreme is one thing. My interest is whether it's pragmatically possible. In this respect, my answer would probably be no. It can't be done.And I am a fundamental critic of the migration process. I have been a hundred times all over the world, traveling, giving speeches, having state visits. Maybe one thousand times. But I will never migrate. I have never lived abroad. I think that migration is a non-normal state of affairs.When we discuss migration, I immediately try to interrupt the debate. Do you speak about individual migration or mass migration? The difference is crucial. No one would protest against individual migration, which has happened permanently throughout human history. Mass migration is a different phenomenon.In Europe and the United States, mass migration is based on the totally wrong idea of multiculturalism.Shellenberger: Why have European leaders allowed so much migration so quickly?Klaus: I don't want to say that they are stupid.Shellenberger: You don't want to say it because you think it's true? Klaus: On the one hand, they wrongly believe in the idea of multiculturalism. On the other hand, they always find a picture of a two-year-old [migrant] child sitting on a boat.Shellenberger: So it's a kind of pathological altruism?Klaus: It is pathological. I am very much in favor of a multicultural world and monocultural nation-states. The difference is fundamental. It's multiculturalism. It's just the other way around. They want to introduce multiculturalism to individual countries.Shellenberger: Before the European elections, there were many accusations that Russia was giving money to journalists and political leaders through Voice of Europe. What was behind those accusations? Is there any truth to them?Klaus: No. It is a political game. I don't take it seriously.Shellenberger: But it's striking to us that the Czech, Polish, and German intelligence agencies claimed that they had information that Voice of Europe was bribing politicians. Have you ever seen that sort of thing?Klaus: You should add another important entity, the U.S. secret services [intelligence agencies]. I don't know.Shellenberger: Have you ever seen that before? Or is it new for intelligence agencies to make accusations before an election?

Krzysztof Bozak, a Polish Member of Parliament and Deputy Speaker of the Sejm joins Hearts of Oak to outline his political journey, beginning with his participation in a youth movement and the founding of the Confederation of Freedom and Independence Party.  Krzysztof lifts the veil on the Law and Justice Party's EU stance, economic policies, and immigration management.  He tells us of the significance of upholding conservative and nationalist values amidst mainstream narratives.  Krzysztof highlights his role in the Polish Parliament and his openness to collaborating with like-minded international entities. This interview offers deep insights into Polish politics, party distinctions, and the importance of ideological integrity in a changing political landscape. Krzysztof Bosak began his political career as an activist and spokesman for the organisation All-Polish Youth. In 2005, he became one of the youngest Polish MPs in history, elected as a candidate of the League of Polish Families, a conservative party, at the age of 23.  Krzysztof is now the leader of Confederation of Freedom and Independence Party, Member of Parliament and Deputy Speaker of the Sejm. Connect with Krzysztof... X/TWITTER               twitter.com/BosakKrzysztof    (English account)                                    twitter.com/krzysztofbosak Confederation of Freedom and Independence Party         WEBSITE                    konfederacja.pl X/TWITTER                https://konfederacja.pl/ Interview recorded  30.4.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... X/TWITTER                twitter.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE                    heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS                heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA          heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                          heartsofoak.org/shop/ TRANSCRIPT (Hearts of Oak) And I'm delighted to be joined by a member of the Polish Parliament, that is Krzysztof Bozak. Krzysztof, thank you for your time today. (Krzysztof Bosak) Thank you for the invitation and welcome everybody. Great to speak with you. I had the privilege of meeting you back, goodness, 18 months ago, I think, with Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff , a good friend of both of ours. And you are a member of the Polish parliament and I'm looking forward to understanding a little bit about the Polish parliament setup. Each country is different but you are the president of the national movement and you're the leader of the confederation or confederation of Freedom and Independence Party, and you're the Deputy Speaker of the House, which is called the Sejm. And your a husband, father, you're a Christian, and I want to delve into all of those. But Krzysztof, you became a member of the Parliament back in 2005. You were very young back then. Tell me why you got involved in politics. How did that happen and how did you end up standing as a member of parliament and being elected? It's a long story. In fact, this time I was the youngest MP in this term and I started being involved in politics by a youth movement, a Catholic Eurosceptic and Catholic Nationalist youth movement. Since I was in high school. I was 17 or 18 years old when I joined. It was the time of the debate about joining the EU. All mainstream parties, mainstream medias, mainstream bishops, mainstream everything was in favour of joining EU. And a small minority of speakers and social leaders were against defending principles of independence, sovereignty, traditional values, and so on. And I was sure that they are right and I joined this movement, being against joining European Union at that time. I joined a youth movement, then in 2001 a conservative pro-family, pro-life Eurosceptic party was created. It was League of Polish Families. It was kind of coalition of very different right-wing conservative or Eurosceptic or nationalist groups. And four years later I became the youngest MP being elected from my home town and constituency. From the 10th place on the list. So I was not a leader of the list, I was on the 10th place and people elected me from this list as the only MP in this constituency. So it was a very big success and a very big surprise for many people. And it was short term, only two years, because this was a time of big political instability. We had two government changes. It was, let's say, right-wing government, many scandals, and after two years, earlier elections, and my political party didn't succeed. League of Polish Families disappeared from Polish politics. Law and Justice political party took everything, every right-wing voters. We were against, we were competitors of law and justice, competitors from the right. They were centre-right from our perspective. and after that for 12 years I was outside the Parliament involved in social movement and working in right-wing NGOs, in think tanks like Republican Foundation, defending the same values on the social level with my colleagues and people who didn't lose faith in being active and trying to create truly right-wing political movement. We tried many times different attempts to get into the Parliament we have 5% threshold and proportional system so it's quite hard if you do not have support from big business big media or big money and we succeed in 2019 I went back to Parliament this time as a co-leader of of Confederation, Freedom and Independence. It is a coalition now, coalition of three political parties, three political movements. My movement, national movement, still the same values, still the same political tradition. So national conservative Catholic tradition, national democratic tradition of Polish political independence movement, and we created this national movement as a new political party ten years before, in 2013. So for six years we were outside the parliament, and after that we made a coalition with conservative libertarians and traditionalists. So conservative libertarians were created by long-term defender of economic freedom and civil liberties. Janusz Korwin-Mikke, now he's not in his political party, he's pleaded, but he created this political party and now they have a younger leader, Sławomir Manczan from Next Generation, very popular young businessman and tax advisor and also a big defender of economic freedom and conservative values. So this is the second pillar first is national conservative Catholic second is let's say conservative libertarian and the third is citizens movement traditionalist movement of Jagger Brown is a quite popular right-wing movie a documentary movies director an artist and intellectual who who were involved in politics also a few years before, first being on anti-communist and right-wing position, and then shifting more to the right and building the coalition with us. So now we have Confederation as a coalition, or let's say umbrella party, coalition party, for these three different movements and many smaller groups who joined us. And we work collectively, we have collective leadership and we challenge law and justice from the right. We were in opposition during eight years of law and justice government. From our perspective they are not very conservative and they are, I know that sometimes media call them nationalists, but from our perspective they were a typical centre-right political party. And we made an alternative right party for Polish voters and now we even extended the number of voters who support us. So now we have 18 MPs and more than 7% in polls and now we fight to get into the European Parliament. Because for now there are only people from Law and Justice and their allies parties. And we believe that Polish voters deserve to have better representation in European Parliament. Built by truly critical to European Union politicians, not supporters of EU who change only some narrative, but they always vote in favour of you. Well, tell us about the... Because when I, as a Brit, maybe read the newspapers here in the UK, it would have talked to the Law and Justice Party as being an extreme right party. In a similar way, they mock Orbán in Hungary. But I'm curious to see where you fit in, Because when I went over and met with you, I begun to understand the Law and Justice Party were maybe not as wonderful as the West may think. So what makes the Confederation different than the Law and Justice Party? Yeah. It's a very complicated topic, but I think that it's easier to propose some metaphor or some example. So it's quite similar in my opinion like in the United States where you have mainstream Republicans and you have Trump supporters and for example Rand Paul or some people who are more nationalist-oriented. So, in Polish politics, law and justice is like mainstream republicans. They use some words, some phrases, some ideas of conservative or even pro-national right, but they use it intentionally rather for propaganda and they act like centre-right politicians. When they were in government in Poland, they even introduced many policies. We can say that these policies that they developed on social level or in economic policy, these are rather social democratic policy, not conservative or right-wing or not nationalist in any way. So, to go into the details, we criticise them because they supported European integration on the new level. First, many years ago, they supported Lisbon Treaty. They negotiated Lisbon Treaty being in government. Then their president signed the Lisbon Treaty. They made a propaganda with mainstream and center-left and leftists that the Lisbon Treaty is good for Poland. And we believe the opposite, that it was a disaster. Our situation is much worse in the EU under the Lisbon Treaty than before. Then, during the last eight years, they supported the European Green Deal and their Prime Minister accepted the European Green Deal in the European Council. Now farmers oppose, they even criticise in the current electoral campaign. They made a pledge that they will stop the European Green Deal, but they do not say that their prime minister accepted it on the European Council in 2019 then in 2020 their prime minister Morawiecki accepted fit for 55. So they increased the goal of reducing these emissions 15 percent percent more and they introduced many new policies in European union and it is all possible because they are accepted in European council on a 2020 meeting in fact prime minister Morawiecki also proposed us as a polish prime minister in Brazos creating new pan-European taxes it's completely It's completely against our Constitution, it's completely against our values. We believe that our phrase is that we need small taxes and only paid in Poland and they three or five new pan-European taxes and they accepted it and we paid this to Brussels, not to Warsaw and we have no influence on how this will be used, this money. Then they accepted European debt, we strongly opposed any idea of giving this right to Eurocrats in Brussels to introducing their own debt and building their own sources of income by that. And they, of course, accepted. Then they accepted also in 2020 a special pan-European COVID fund called Next Generation EU, even this phrase, next generation EU is evil and of course they accepted it and they made a campaign in Poland that it's a big success of Poland and that we will have billions of euros because of this success of Prime Minister Morawiecki and law and justice. And there was a small minority of their MPs who criticised this but they were silenced in the party and in the media and in fact from the perspective of Polish voters we were the only one independent voice in Parliament. I took part in this debate in Parliament and criticised this next, please check this by some search engines, what is this, next generation EU. This is not only a European debt program. It is paid by European taxes and by European debt for many years, but it's also a new attitude towards European funds. They accepted that we will have funds only under many new political conditions. So now we got some milestones, they call these milestones, and this is the list of tasks, of political tasks, and they program Polish policy by Polish so-called democratic government from Brussels without any base in constitution. We have more than 100 milestones and these are the conditions to get this money. So, we made a new debt. This is not our debt, this is the European debt. And to use this debt, we have conflict with EU for almost 3 or 4 years. And they now lecture us on every issue from this list of 100 milestones. And Prime Minister Morawiecki from the Law and Justice Party in the Polish parliament said that he is not ashamed of this deal because, for example, Italians have more than 400 milestones, tasks. So it's a nightmare from the perspective of somebody who is in favour of Polish independence and sovereign policy and democracy and even democracy in Poland. They made a secret agreement in Polish parliament with leftists to support this, because even in their own political camp, they call it United Right, which is false, because the right in Poland is not united. But they use this phrase united right and theywere afraid that not every MP will support this but because it was so controversial so they made a secret agreement with leftists. They took some leftist agenda in this deal and they made majority with leftists to push it through the parliament. Then they never discussed all this deal and this 100 milestones in parliament. We had never any debate on this issue. In fact, this negotiations were secret also against people in government. Not every member of government knew what they discussed in Brussels. Now we know this only from media. They never introduced this deal in parliament and explained what's going on. Then they accepted very, in my opinion, bad new rule called rule of law conditionality. So now without base in European treaties, Eurocrats in Brussels can lecture us what is rule of law. They can stop money for us. So these were some examples of their EU policy. There are many more, for example, their member of European Committee was in favour of European Green Deal. He even said that it's in line with political agenda on agriculture of law and justice. So they had a big conflict, of course, with EU on this rule of law. And in this conflict they it was completely complete disaster for Polish state because they started this conflict and then they missed everything because they never finished any reform of courts in Poland and they made even leftists stronger in Poland because they tried to make some compromise with Brussels. This compromise was never accepted by Brussels because it was not, let's say, 100% what Brussels wanted. But in fact we have a very big mess in courts and in law about courts and about independence of judiciary. And now after this conflict and these reforms never finished as I said the situation is worse than when it started worse on the sovereignty worse on the justice and the time that you need to wait in the court for the justice. And worse, from the perspective of the power of liberal lobby in judiciary and right-wing people who, trusted law and justice government are in a very bad situation now because they took some positions or some propositions, and now they are nowhere, in the middle of nowhere. It's a very sad story. Then we have economic policy. Their economic policy was, in fact, social democratic. So they raised taxes, they raised debts, they extended public spending. They tried to centralize every policy. They took money from local governments. they put this money to their national budget and they try to influence every policy by their political nominees and they work like, let's say, Maybe not autocratic, but it was a typical one-party government which tried to centralize and control everything. It's the opposite that I understand the pro-national policy or conservative policy. It was, in my opinion, it was elitist and even social democratic when you analyse. For example, they were strongly against home-schooling and against independent schools. They proposed some legislation to ban homes chooling. After some protests of conservatives and leftists united, they stepped back. But after protests in their party and outside and from many directions. But their first goal was to centralize everything under the government rule. And we said that it's stupid because they will not rule for forever and after them the left will come to the government and exactly this is what we have in Poland. Now we have center-left government, liberal and leftists, and the left took Ministry of Education, everything was centralized. And now they try to switch, oppose every institution and every policy that law and justice created. And we said that it will be so. And now we see the consequences of their stupid policy, which was not conservative, not Christian, not supporting any citizens' movement. They believed only in their political party and that's all. This is their philosophy. Then we have a very important issue for us in Poland, let's say, immigration. Law and Justice government was introduced in Poland, open borders policy. They were against illegal immigration and at the same time they opened borders. For biggest immigration, legal immigration in Poland since maybe 300 years. Last time that we have so big immigration was maybe in 16th or 17th century. Now we have millions of legal immigrants in Poland, the majority of them are Ukrainians, but there are also people from different Asian and especially Asian countries. They didn't want immigrants from Africa, but they invited people from Asia. They made, being anti-Russian party, they made a special easier way for Russian citizens to come to Poland, to be a part of our labor market. They opened our market for people from Belarus, from Central Asia, from Caucasus. Now Georgian immigrants are the biggest group when you analyze crimes in Poland, they are in the first place. When you analyse people who smuggle illegal immigrants, Ukrainians are in the first place. We have, it's strange, but there is no official statistics how many immigrants do we have in Poland. Nobody can count them, because these are millions and they opened borders for legal immigration, but they didn't build any administration to control the immigration. So, in fact, the best data that we have is not from the government, but from telecom operators, from big telecom business who can say how many people use different languages on their phones. So this is how we know. Or from banks, because these people from abroad open bank accounts. But it's not all. It's not started with the war in Ukraine. This is what I would like to underline. We had much more than a million Ukrainian people in Poland before the war. They were intentionally invited and government worked also on some agreements with some Asian countries to increase legal immigration to Poland. These were also Muslim countries. During the law and justice government, Muslim population in Poland increased, in my opinion, more than ten times. In fact, to be honest, it is still small, but they started this. So now we have information that a third mosque will be built in Warsaw, and the biggest one, of course, with the money from abroad, because they never, they always criticized any foreign influence, and they never proposed any legislation to stop the influence by money from abroad, for the politics, or for example, to found Islam, or Muslim movement in Poland. Then, when the war in Ukraine started, they opened borders for refugees and in fact not only for refugees but for everybody with Ukrainian passport because they made some legislation. Giving every privilege that Polish citizens have for everybody with Ukrainian passport, even for people who came here from Western Europe. It's strange, but it's true. They made a special amendment, because their first goal was always to encourage as many foreigners to live and work in Poland as it is possible. It has two reasons. First is that they believe in multicultural society. It is a part of, this is some branch of Polish pre-modern tradition, that we had a commonwealth with different nations and some of them are from this tradition and they believe that they can rebuild this commonwealth with different nations in encouraging these nations to build some community, not let's say Polish community, but they call it a Republican community, a new commonwealth of nations. From our perspective, it sounds very similar to globalist agenda, but they say, no, no, no, it's not a multiculturalism by globalists, This is our tradition of Polish multiculturalism. We as a national movement completely do not believe in this concept. We believe it's anachronic, pre-modern, and it didn't work. In fact, we had a commonwealth with different nations, but these nations don't want commonwealth with us. These nations like Belarusians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, all of them wanted independent states. And it's normal, it's normal that every nation want to have their own independent states. So, some of law and justice politicians are people older age with their heads in the clouds, reading historical books and believing in some ideas, for example, from 17th, 16th or 18th century. And in my opinion they don't understand nothing from our times and especially they don't understand that mass immigration is a big threat for the society. In Poland this process started, especially in bigger cities. Warsaw under the Law and Justice government became much closer to London when we analysed the population. There are not many African people, but many people from Asia, as I said, and especially from Russia and Ukraine. The situation is changing very fast. They made a legislation and as I said, they gave every privilege, every policy for Polish citizens. They gave it also to the people with Ukrainian passports. And these are many millions of people who would like to live abroad. We are the only European nation that pays for everything. And, of course, we have nothing in exchange. We have some agenda towards Ukraine, but they did nothing from our agenda, and we gave everything. And this is what we're against because we believe that it's impossible for one country to have two nations on the payroll, and this is how it works now. Then you have also Ukraine and supporting Ukraine agenda. At the beginning of the war we were not against, because we believed that this horrible Russian attack, is a crime and is a threat, but after two years we see that their government gave all that we have to Ukraine and the result is still not clear and other European nations do not act this way. They negotiate some things for them. Americans are also not very fast to give everything what they have. And now, for example, our army do not have enough weapons because they gave new weapons from Polish army to Ukraine. And at the beginning they said that Americans or Germans will give us in change new equipment, all the equipment and the thing, but they didn't. So it's very hard being a Pole and seeing all of that. It's very hard not to be critical to law and justice and their government. In fact, we are not surprised. We know these people for many years. We know that during the debate about joining EU they were in the same camp as leftists, as centrists, progressives and all of them. In fact, they were never national or truly traditionalist or truly conservative right. They are a mix of people of different ideas and their leader of law and justice. It's not easy to understand this, being a foreigner, but to understand the situation you should know that the leader of law and justice Jaroslaw Kaczynski. He always were against Polish nationalist tradition. He is rather from the tradition of Polish patriotic socialism. We had some pre-war tradition from interwar period of Polish, let's say, Polish patriotic socialists and this is their first choice. They do not talk about this last decades because they know that people would like to vote right-wing party, not patriotic left-wing party. But the leader is rather from, let's say, centrist or centre-left patriotic republican tradition, the leader of law and justice. The members of the party are very mixed and very different. I would not say that every MP is bad. There are many probably MPs with good views but they vote bad or act bad being in government. I will give you one more or two more examples. For example, we had a very big debate in Poland about pro-life. Law and justice was always pro-life in declaration but when they got majority they did everything thing not to vote on pro-life bill so two times polish pro-life movement collected more than hundreds of thousands of signatures having majority so-called pro-life majority people had to collect hundreds of thousands of signatures to put citizens bill to parliament and they voted against. They voted against for two times, then we as right-wing MPs, some of their MPs and every MP from Confederation made written request to Constitutional Court and Constitutional Court with some nominees, right-wing nominees from Law and Justice waited few years to analyse this request, but after they analysed this, they made a judgement that it is against Polish constitution to kill unborn babies with some disabilities or health problems. And this is how the situation changed, not by the voting in parliament, And of course, people who are in favour of law and justice say that this was their secret plan to organise this this way. But I do not believe. In my opinion, it was rather by accident. They never wanted. And now their former prime minister Morawiecki said that he is against this sentence of the court, of constitutional court. That they should defend this. Yes. But they said that they are against because they are afraid of public opinion, people who like abortion, they want centrist voters and so on. So they do not defend, they controlled every media in Poland and they didn't defend this issue. Another example, their prime minister supported long-term EU LGBT strategy. Being prime minister voted in favour. Another example, their minister who was responsible for European funds sent a secret letter to local governments that if they want European funds they should cancel Anti-LGBT and pro-family statements. Many local councils made some statements that they are against LGBT propaganda in schools and they support normal family policy. It was then criticized by, of course, progressive media and some LGBT organizations, but there was nothing against citizens' rights. It was nothing against civil liberties or something. It was a declaration that we don't want propaganda in schools or something like that. And we know that they made this letter to local governments. We know that only from LGBT organizations because they published this, being proud that the so-called right-wing government is pushing the pressure with the EU to local governments to be not too much conservative. Yes, so it shows how they work and they say one thing and they do the opposite and it was always like that. We know we know these people for four decades So we are not surprised about normal polish voter don't know all of these facts because you need, hundreds of hours to follow every information and analyse everything to to gather these details and to understand what's going on and if you follow only mainstream media, even mainstream Catholic media in Poland. In progressive mainstream media, you had an attack on law and justice, that these are nationalists, they are xenophobic, they are anti-European, they want to go back to the Middle Ages or something like that. So people said, okay, these are good people, yes, they are very conservative. And if you listen to some right-wing media or Catholic media, They are true conservatives. They fight very hard, tough fights in the EU and so on. And you had nowhere to have the truth about how they rule, how they govern the country. Everybody analyzed only what they said. And their speeches were quite good. I can agree. For example, two days ago, I listened to the speech of their leader and to their convention about EU policy and I could take this and it could be my speech, yes, but it has nothing to do with their government, what they did in Brussels. This is the problem and I think it's a problem in many countries. It's a problem also in Hungary. Orban is also very pragmatic, yes, he's not a nationalist. And there's a problem in Italy with the Meloni government. It's not an independent agenda of independence. And in many other countries. So this is how it works. And this is why we believe that Polish politics deserve a truly right-wing party with truly conservative and truly pro-national and sovereign agenda and people who are against political correctness. This is what gathers us in Confederation. We are against political correctness. We don't want to be influenced in any way by anybody from mainstream. And we are proud that we are anti-mainstream. Of course, I had many debates in mainstream media, so I always go when they ask me and I always discuss. And I believe that my views are not radical or far-right or anything like that. But I don't want to give up my principles and my beliefs. I don't want, I would rather, I would like to be rather outside politics, like being 12 years outside the parliament, than joining this, let's say, fake right political parties and saying good speeches and voting bad things. I don't want that. Well, Krzysztof, thank you for giving us such an overview of Polish politics. And I wish that we had politicians like yourself in the UK with conviction, with beliefs that actually stood on a biblical principle on a lot of these issues. And I just the final thought is as deputy speaker, I mean, that is a that is a prestigious, important position. You must be Donald Tusk's kind of worst nightmare, that you stand for everything he is against. I'm sure it was difficult to actually get in that position, was it? I'm sure there was opposition. I know we only have a few minutes, but I'm just curious to know the opposition from people like Tusk to actually having you, a nationalist, a Christian, in that position. It's a little bit different, in my opinion. To understand the situation, you should know that the main line of political difference, is in Poland between Civic Platform and Donald Tusk as a leader, and Law and Justice and Jarosław Kaczyński as a leader. It's not, on some level of course it's a, let's say, ideological and political different, but they have many things in common. This is our, let's say, talking point, yes, that they are not so different on the level of agenda of political program. When you analyze their EU policy, they could exchange their ministers, and in fact, they're exchanged in these two political parties many members of cabinets. In fact, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki before was an advisor to Donald Tusk. And there are many examples, I will not go into the detail because it's not so important. It is important to understand that it's a, let's say, ambition conflict between Kaczynski and Tusk. It's obvious that they hate each other. It started in 80s in the opposition movement. They have very bad opinion about each other, very bad. This is a true conflict, a true personal conflict. Both of them try to be pragmatic and in fact they are very pragmatic, very. But not on this one issue, not all about them themselves. This is their weak point that they become very emotional. So going back to the situation in the chamber and me as a deputy speaker Donald Tusk and don't care he don't care he hate yaroslav kaczynski and me I'm the guy from the different generation, in my opinion he do not believe in anything he is a pragmatic politician after so many years in politics. He was a liberal, he was a classic liberal in 80s, maybe early 90s. So on the level of defending economic freedom, I think he understands everything what we say. And he's a former classic liberal. Maybe he started on the same positions as Viktor Orban, but during years in politics, he lost belief probably in any principle. And now probably the only thing that he believes is pragmatism and power. Being in power and being pragmatic. This is how I understand him. So, in my opinion, he used left-wing politicians as tools. He gave them the platform, as you say in English, he gave them the platform, he gave them the space, even in government, he gave them a very important part of administration because he doesn't care. Not because he supports these ideas, he doesn't care. In my opinion, he personally believes that these are stupid people with stupid program but he didn't care. So he also didn't care about my views, in my opinion. Of course, some of his members in his political party care a lot and hate very conservative people. This is, let's say, a pro-abortion lobby in his party, very strong now, because his party started as centre-right party. It is interesting that Civic Platform, the party of Donald Tusk, started in 2001, all these three parties that I talked about, so League of Polish Families, Law and Justice and Civic Platform, all these political parties started in 2001 and entered the parliament. League of Polish Families after seven years was kicked out from parliament by voters unfortunately, but Law and Justice and Civic Platform stayed there and both Law and Justice Party and Civic Platform started as centre-right political parties very similar to each other, so similar that some politicians in 2001 didn't know which one to join so it was like a lottery or you had colleagues here so you go there you have colleagues here you go there it was a time of big changes in Polish politics so a civic platform the party of Donald Tusk started as a platform with principles of defending western civilization defending Christian values defending economic freedom defending some some conservative values maybe not everything but some and being pro-EU this was the starting point and after 20 years, they are centre-left political parties with very big pro-abortion, progressive lobby inside, former post-communist politicians, former leftist politicians inside, Green Party inside, because they built a civic coalition, they extended civic platform into civic coalition. And in this coalition, you have people who split it from the post-communist left, you have Green Party, you have some citizens' movement, and It's a central left spectrum. And Donald Tusk is a leader for everybody because now he tried to be pragmatic, not to be too close to any special views, yes? So for me it's completely not a problem. It's a problem with some MPs who are trying to be a little bit offensive or sometimes aggressive but I have my attitude which is always being very calm and polite to everybody no matter what are his views. I try to be polite and with respect to everybody this is I believe that how we should act in democratic politics and in Parliament and it works, because in fact even left-wing MPs or pro-abortion MPs have a good opinion about me as a deputy speaker, because I do not interrupt their speeches, I'm not nasty, counting their time. They could cooperate on this normal level with me, in my opinion, much better than, for example, with deputy speakers from law and justice, they were horrible, they were nasty, they were aggressive. They used their seat to, not to push their agenda, but to push their emotions against other people. So they were, there were attempts to push me from the seat, to kick me from the seat, the left put this request, but nobody voted in favor of this request, because nobody believed that it's a good decision to take this position from me and give it to anybody else. I think it's a result of maybe 20 years of my work in public debate and people know who I am, people know that I have my views, but people even who do not believe in my views, they respect that I didn't change them for many years, that I, in fact, in my opinion, many people from centre-left also respect me, that I didn't join law and justice. Because they have very bad opinion about law and justice, also about how they ruled when you analyse what they did with public money. Yes, this is another story, what they did with public money, how they used this for themselves. Their interests. Not very many bad stories. And we were not involved in all of that. So in my opinion, I have, I am lucky because I have a big respect. Of course, not everybody like me and especially not everybody like my views. But I have no reasons, I have no reason to say that I'm in a bad situation. Well, Krzysztof, I do appreciate your time. I'm so thankful to have you on. I know you've got great demands on your time being in that high profile position and being a high profile figure in the country. So thank you so much for giving us your time to explain to our UK and US audience a little bit about Polish politics. So thank you. Thank you very much for this invitation and this conversation and to finish this conversation with some good accent I would like to invite everybody who are true conservative people to come to Poland to meet us. We are very open to extend our international contacts. What I would like to say is that on the level of personal contacts. If some of you have some contacts with people from law and justice, it's not bad for us. As a normal people, we talk with each other normally in Parliament and outside Parliament. So we are critical to their leadership and to their prime minister, but taking normal MPs, we talk like normal people. And it is possible to have contacts with law and justice, for example, in European Parliament and with us in Poland or when we enter the European Parliament. So I would like to encourage everybody from truly right-wing movement to build contacts with Polish people, with Polish conservative organisations, political parties, editorial houses, NGOs, social movements. We have a big social movement, very many organizations and many good people. And please, come to Poland, have this contact, maybe also some people from the States. I believe that we should support each other. I always put some time and my energy to build this contact, so maybe some of my colleagues from abroad will watch this interview. I hope so. And me personally and our colleagues from Confederation, we are always very open to support every good people with good ideas to defend the principles that we believe, also conservative, traditional, Christian, Pro-freedom, pro-independence, and other good principles. So, this is my word and I believe that despite all these bad tendencies that we see in Western world, in Europe, we should have hope and we should defend good principles and good values, because this is our duty and this is how I believe, this is what we should do. So I have very big respect for every people who work in politics and on social level in countries that are less conservative than Poland, because I know how it feels when your country is going in the wrong direction. I talked with people from different countries and I know how it feels and I have big respect if you do a good job and give hope to your people, to your nations. Exactly. Well, thank you, Krzysztof, for your time. Greatly appreciate it. And I'm sure we will speak soon. Thank you very much.

We begin this episode with Paul Rosenzweig describing major progress in teaching AI models to do text-to-speech conversions. Amazon flagged its new model as having “emergent” capabilities in handling what had been serious problems – things like speaking with emotion, or conveying foreign phrases. The key is the size of the training set, but Amazon was able to spot the point at which more data led to unexpected skills. This leads Paul and me to speculate that training AI models to perform certain tasks eventually leads the model to learn “generalization” of its skills. If so, the more we train AI on a variety of tasks – chat, text to speech, text to video, and the like – the better AI will get at learning new tasks, as generalization becomes part of its core skill set. It's lawyers holding forth on the frontiers of technology, so take it with a grain of salt. Cristin Flynn Goodwin and Paul Stephan join Paul Rosenzweig to provide an update on Volt Typhoon, the Chinese APT that is littering Western networks with the equivalent of logical land mines. Actually, it's not so much an update on Volt Typhoon, which seems to be aggressively pursuing its strategy, as on the hyperventilating Western reaction to Volt Typhoon. There's no doubt that China is playing with fire, and that the United States and other cyber powers should be liberally sowing similar weapons in Chinese networks. But the public measures adopted by the West do not seem likely to effectively defeat or deter China's strategy.  The group is less impressed by the New York Times' claim that China is pursuing a dangerous electoral influence campaign on U.S. social media platforms. The Russians do it better, Paul Stephan says, and even they don't do it well, I argue.  Paul Rosenzweig reviews the House China Committee report alleging a link between U.S. venture capital firms and Chinese human rights abuses. We agree that Silicon Valley VCs have paid too little attention to how their investments could undermine the system on which their billions rest, a state of affairs not likely to last much longer.  Paul Stephan and Cristin bring us up to date on U.S. efforts to disrupt Chinese and Russian hacking operations. We will be eagerly waiting for resolution of the European fight over Facebook's subscription fee and the move by websites to “Pay or Consent” privacy terms fight. I predict that Eurocrats' hypocrisy will be tested by an effort to rule for elite European media sites, which already embrace “Pay or Consent” while ruling against Facebook. Paul Rosenzweig is confident that European hypocrisy is up to the task.  Cristin and I explore the latest White House enthusiasm for software security liability. Paul Stephan explains the flap over a UN cybercrime treaty, which is and should be stalled in Turtle Bay for the next decade or more.   Cristin also covers a detailed new Google TAG report on commercial spyware.  And in quick hits,  House Republicans tried and failed to find common ground on renewal of FISA Section 702 I recommend Goody-2, the ‘World's ‘Most Responsible' AI Chatbot Dechert has settled a wealthy businessman's lawsuit claiming that the law firm hacked his computer Imran Khan is using AI to make impressively realistic speeches about his performance in Pakistani elections The Kids Online Safety Act secured sixty votes in the U.S. Senate, but whether the House will act on the bill remains to be seen Download 492nd Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@gmail.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

We begin this episode with Paul Rosenzweig describing major progress in teaching AI models to do text-to-speech conversions. Amazon flagged its new model as having “emergent” capabilities in handling what had been serious problems – things like speaking with emotion, or conveying foreign phrases. The key is the size of the training set, but Amazon was able to spot the point at which more data led to unexpected skills. This leads Paul and me to speculate that training AI models to perform certain tasks eventually leads the model to learn “generalization” of its skills. If so, the more we train AI on a variety of tasks – chat, text to speech, text to video, and the like – the better AI will get at learning new tasks, as generalization becomes part of its core skill set. It's lawyers holding forth on the frontiers of technology, so take it with a grain of salt. Cristin Flynn Goodwin and Paul Stephan join Paul Rosenzweig to provide an update on Volt Typhoon, the Chinese APT that is littering Western networks with the equivalent of logical land mines. Actually, it's not so much an update on Volt Typhoon, which seems to be aggressively pursuing its strategy, as on the hyperventilating Western reaction to Volt Typhoon. There's no doubt that China is playing with fire, and that the United States and other cyber powers should be liberally sowing similar weapons in Chinese networks. But the public measures adopted by the West do not seem likely to effectively defeat or deter China's strategy.  The group is less impressed by the New York Times' claim that China is pursuing a dangerous electoral influence campaign on U.S. social media platforms. The Russians do it better, Paul Stephan says, and even they don't do it well, I argue.  Paul Rosenzweig reviews the House China Committee report alleging a link between U.S. venture capital firms and Chinese human rights abuses. We agree that Silicon Valley VCs have paid too little attention to how their investments could undermine the system on which their billions rest, a state of affairs not likely to last much longer.  Paul Stephan and Cristin bring us up to date on U.S. efforts to disrupt Chinese and Russian hacking operations. We will be eagerly waiting for resolution of the European fight over Facebook's subscription fee and the move by websites to “Pay or Consent” privacy terms fight. I predict that Eurocrats' hypocrisy will be tested by an effort to rule for elite European media sites, which already embrace “Pay or Consent” while ruling against Facebook. Paul Rosenzweig is confident that European hypocrisy is up to the task.  Cristin and I explore the latest White House enthusiasm for software security liability. Paul Stephan explains the flap over a UN cybercrime treaty, which is and should be stalled in Turtle Bay for the next decade or more.   Cristin also covers a detailed new Google TAG report on commercial spyware.  And in quick hits,  House Republicans tried and failed to find common ground on renewal of FISA Section 702 I recommend Goody-2, the ‘World's ‘Most Responsible' AI Chatbot Dechert has settled a wealthy businessman's lawsuit claiming that the law firm hacked his computer Imran Khan is using AI to make impressively realistic speeches about his performance in Pakistani elections The Kids Online Safety Act secured sixty votes in the U.S. Senate, but whether the House will act on the bill remains to be seen Download 492nd Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@gmail.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

Alien technology (might be fun at parties but probably won't solve anything).  While we're at it, Hostus Maximus Justin Fort revels in the old Party Point ‘Squatch Runs, Justmark's M1A, tales of cohosts like The Jaimz and Dirty Dave, crime versus law and order (and citizens living in an upside-down world that makes the Second Amendment even more important), Uncle Doug's Northstar-powered Caddy versus Dad's Lincoln, and what it means for a tire to actually work in sheddy snowy situations.  There's also a lot of red meat in this episode for Jeep haters, bureaucratic fakers, tire deflators and Eurocrat takers. More more more:  Foghat, Deep Purple, Get Shorty, Dennis Farina and John Travolta, plus Ryan's whiskey, Leslie's Miata and Churchill's quote.

Alien technology (might be fun at parties but probably won't solve anything).  While we're at it, Hostus Maximus Justin Fort revels in the old Party Point ‘Squatch Runs, Justmark's M1A, tales of cohosts like The Jaimz and Dirty Dave, crime versus law and order (and citizens living in an upside-down world that makes the Second Amendment even more important), Uncle Doug's Northstar-powered Caddy versus Dad's Lincoln, and what it means for a tire to actually work in sheddy snowy situations.  There's also a lot of red meat in this episode for Jeep haters, bureaucratic fakers, tire deflators and Eurocrat takers. More more more:  Foghat, Deep Purple, Get Shorty, Dennis Farina and John Travolta, plus Ryan's whiskey, Leslie's Miata and Churchill's quote.

The European Union has long known that the way to France's heart is through its stomach. So, don't touch the Camembert — never, ever. Legislators at the European Parliament made sure it won't happen anytime soon. Tucked in a proposal on streamlining and optimizing waste management throughout the 27-nation bloc, some French cheese producers in recent weeks sniffed out something and turned it into a culinary stink. They claimed that the proposal's wording would make it illegal for the famous cheese to be cradled into its usual wooden packaging for its final weeks of ripening and, eventually, sale. The round box is as essentially Camembert as its unctuous texture and pungent smell. Suddenly, there was a frenzied flutter that something fundamentally French would fall foul of the Brussels bureaucrats — derisively known by many as Eurocrats — who are all too often blamed for flaws real and false. The reasoning was this: If Camembert were forced into something easier to recycle like plastic, the perfect breathing of the cheese through wood might instead produce something sweaty and flabby. Wood, however, is hard to recycle sustainably, and the EU wants to remove it from food packaging as much as possible. Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevicius said ahead of the vote that the EU would make sure that the raw-milk specialized non-industrial Camemberts — those with a controlled designation of origin — will be exempt from any such regulation. The action proved that cheese can be an effective binding agent, as European legislators ranging from free-trade liberals to the far-right made sure that an amendment to allow wooden boxes in case of exceptional circumstances would survive. This article was provided by The Associated Press.

FBI worked with Ukrainian intelligence officials to censor the social media of American citizens. Biden at NATO summit to pander to Eurocrats.

Get full access to Brownstone Insights at brownstone.substack.com/subscribe

Kim Stanley Robinson, SF novelist of renown, has three marvelous trilogies: The Three Californias, Science in the Capital and Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars. But lately it is The Ministry for the Future, his "science fiction nonfiction novel" (Jonathan Lethem) that has politicians, Eurocrats and the rest of us pondering how policy might fight climate change. In this Books in Dark Times conversation from the RTB vaults (you can also read a longer version that appeared as an article in our partner Public Books) Stan and John start out with Stan's emerging from the Grand Canyon into the pandemic moment of late March, 2020. Then they discuss Stan's sense that SF is the realism of the day and his take on “cognitive estrangement.” Finally, they happen upon a shared admiration for the great epic SF poet, Frederick Turner. Small fact connecting him to RTB-land: he completed a literature PhD directed by Frederic Jameson with a dissertation-turned-book on the novels of Phillip K. Dick. Mentioned in the Episode George Stewart, “Earth Abides“ Mary Shelley, “The Last Man“ M. P. Shiel, “The Purple Cloud“ John Clute, Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (on “fantastika”) Frederick Turner, “Genesis” and “Apocalypse“ Ursula Le Guin, “The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia” (1974; KSR praises such works as this for “power of poetry alone”) Darko Suvin, “Metamorphoses of Science Fiction: On the Poetics and History of a Literary Genre ” (1979; on cognitive estrangement) “The door dilated” a quote from Robert A. Heinlein in “Beyond This Horizon” Read the transcript here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Kim Stanley Robinson, SF novelist of renown, has three marvelous trilogies: The Three Californias, Science in the Capital and Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars. But lately it is The Ministry for the Future, his "science fiction nonfiction novel" (Jonathan Lethem) that has politicians, Eurocrats and the rest of us pondering how policy might fight climate change. In this Books in Dark Times conversation from the RTB vaults (you can also read a longer version that appeared as an article in our partner Public Books) Stan and John start out with Stan's emerging from the Grand Canyon into the pandemic moment of late March, 2020. Then they discuss Stan's sense that SF is the realism of the day and his take on “cognitive estrangement.” Finally, they happen upon a shared admiration for the great epic SF poet, Frederick Turner. Small fact connecting him to RTB-land: he completed a literature PhD directed by Frederic Jameson with a dissertation-turned-book on the novels of Phillip K. Dick. Mentioned in the Episode George Stewart, “Earth Abides“ Mary Shelley, “The Last Man“ M. P. Shiel, “The Purple Cloud“ John Clute, Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (on “fantastika”) Frederick Turner, “Genesis” and “Apocalypse“ Ursula Le Guin, “The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia” (1974; KSR praises such works as this for “power of poetry alone”) Darko Suvin, “Metamorphoses of Science Fiction: On the Poetics and History of a Literary Genre ” (1979; on cognitive estrangement) “The door dilated” a quote from Robert A. Heinlein in “Beyond This Horizon” Read the transcript here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-fiction

Kim Stanley Robinson, SF novelist of renown, has three marvelous trilogies: The Three Californias, Science in the Capital and Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars. But lately it is The Ministry for the Future, his "science fiction nonfiction novel" (Jonathan Lethem) that has politicians, Eurocrats and the rest of us pondering how policy might fight climate change. In this Books in Dark Times conversation from the RTB vaults (you can also read a longer version that appeared as an article in our partner Public Books) Stan and John start out with Stan's emerging from the Grand Canyon into the pandemic moment of late March, 2020. Then they discuss Stan's sense that SF is the realism of the day and his take on “cognitive estrangement.” Finally, they happen upon a shared admiration for the great epic SF poet, Frederick Turner. Small fact connecting him to RTB-land: he completed a literature PhD directed by Frederic Jameson with a dissertation-turned-book on the novels of Phillip K. Dick. Mentioned in the Episode George Stewart, “Earth Abides“ Mary Shelley, “The Last Man“ M. P. Shiel, “The Purple Cloud“ John Clute, Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (on “fantastika”) Frederick Turner, “Genesis” and “Apocalypse“ Ursula Le Guin, “The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia” (1974; KSR praises such works as this for “power of poetry alone”) Darko Suvin, “Metamorphoses of Science Fiction: On the Poetics and History of a Literary Genre ” (1979; on cognitive estrangement) “The door dilated” a quote from Robert A. Heinlein in “Beyond This Horizon” Read the transcript here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kim Stanley Robinson, SF novelist of renown, has three marvelous trilogies: The Three Californias, Science in the Capital and Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars. But lately it is The Ministry for the Future, his "science fiction nonfiction novel" (Jonathan Lethem) that has politicians, Eurocrats and the rest of us pondering how policy might fight climate change. In this Books in Dark Times conversation from the RTB vaults (you can also read a longer version that appeared as an article in our partner Public Books) Stan and John start out with Stan's emerging from the Grand Canyon into the pandemic moment of late March, 2020. Then they discuss Stan's sense that SF is the realism of the day and his take on “cognitive estrangement.” Finally, they happen upon a shared admiration for the great epic SF poet, Frederick Turner. Small fact connecting him to RTB-land: he completed a literature PhD directed by Frederic Jameson with a dissertation-turned-book on the novels of Phillip K. Dick. Mentioned in the Episode George Stewart, “Earth Abides“ Mary Shelley, “The Last Man“ M. P. Shiel, “The Purple Cloud“ John Clute, Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (on “fantastika”) Frederick Turner, “Genesis” and “Apocalypse“ Ursula Le Guin, “The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia” (1974; KSR praises such works as this for “power of poetry alone”) Darko Suvin, “Metamorphoses of Science Fiction: On the Poetics and History of a Literary Genre ” (1979; on cognitive estrangement) “The door dilated” a quote from Robert A. Heinlein in “Beyond This Horizon” Read the transcript here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

Kim Stanley Robinson, SF novelist of renown, has three marvelous trilogies: The Three Californias, Science in the Capital and Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars. But lately it is The Ministry for the Future, his "science fiction nonfiction novel" (Jonathan Lethem) that has politicians, Eurocrats and the rest of us pondering how policy might fight climate change. In this Books in Dark Times conversation from the RTB vaults (you can also read a longer version that appeared as an article in our partner Public Books) Stan and John start out with Stan's emerging from the Grand Canyon into the pandemic moment of late March, 2020. Then they discuss Stan's sense that SF is the realism of the day and his take on “cognitive estrangement.” Finally, they happen upon a shared admiration for the great epic SF poet, Frederick Turner. Small fact connecting him to RTB-land: he completed a literature PhD directed by Frederic Jameson with a dissertation-turned-book on the novels of Phillip K. Dick. Mentioned in the Episode George Stewart, “Earth Abides“ Mary Shelley, “The Last Man“ M. P. Shiel, “The Purple Cloud“ John Clute, Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (on “fantastika”) Frederick Turner, “Genesis” and “Apocalypse“ Ursula Le Guin, “The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia” (1974; KSR praises such works as this for “power of poetry alone”) Darko Suvin, “Metamorphoses of Science Fiction: On the Poetics and History of a Literary Genre ” (1979; on cognitive estrangement) “The door dilated” a quote from Robert A. Heinlein in “Beyond This Horizon” Read the transcript here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literature

State media adverts currently running in the US and UK are raising awareness about myocarditis in children. What on Earth could this mean? THE Queen is still dead. Have YOU paid your respects yet? Notice #MAGACommunism trending on Twitter this week? Trump certainly did! But it's just LARPing, surely? Meanwhile in the United States of Europe, Ursula Von Der Leyen has all but crowned herself Queen Europa, decreeing phenomenal new centralized powers for Eurocrats to put 500 million people who...

State media adverts currently running in the US and UK are raising awareness about myocarditis in children. What on Earth could this mean? THE Queen is still dead. Have YOU paid your respects yet? Notice #MAGACommunism trending on Twitter this week? Trump certainly did! But it's just LARPing, surely? Meanwhile in the United States of Europe, Ursula Von Der Leyen has all but crowned herself Queen Europa, decreeing phenomenal new centralized powers for Eurocrats to put 500 million people who...

On this episode of the NTEB Prophecy News Podcast, climate change, or more accurately Gaia, has become the new religion for pagans. It is absolutely tied in at the highest levels of the Vatican, with Pope Francis being more vocal about its promotion than Al Gore, who only pimps it for the money. Climate Change is the willful worship of the creature combined with the intentional ignorance of the Creator. Your King James Bible has a whole lot to say about the coming climate changes that God is about to release, as well as what the end times religion of Antichrist looks like. It looks a whole lot like the agenda being pushed by the climate change police. On this episode of the Prophecy News Podcast, we break down all that and more. Gérald Darmanin, who serves as France's Minister of the Interior, has announced that he aims to create 3,000 posts for new “green police” officials, a move that he has deemed necessary in the face to tackle climate change. News of the potential creation of these new posts in France follows calls from European Union bigwigs for the creation of a bloc-wide “Civil Protection Force” to fight the effects of climate change under the control of Brussels, a move slammed by some as an attempt by Eurocrats to hoard even more power.

Dark Finance: Illiquidity and Authoritarianism at the Margins of Europe (Stanford University Press, 2020) offers one of the first ethnographic accounts of financial expansion and its political impacts in Eastern Europe. Following workers, managers, and investors in the Macedonian construction sector, Fabio Mattioli shows how financialization can empower authoritarian regimes—not by making money accessible to everyone, but by allowing a small group of oligarchs to monopolize access to international credit and promote a cascade of exploitative domestic debt relations. The landscape of failed deals and unrealizable dreams that is captured in this book portrays finance not as a singular, technical process. Instead, Matttioli argues that finance is a set of political and economic relations that entangles citizens, Eurocrats, and workers in tense paradoxes. Mattioli traces the origins of illiquidity in the reorganization of the European project and the postsocialist perversion of socialist financial practices—a dangerous mix that hid the Macedonian regime's weakness behind a façade of urban renewal and, for a decade, made it seem omnipresent and invincible. Dark Finance chronicles how, one bad deal at a time, Macedonia's authoritarian regime rode a wave of financial expansion that deepened its reach into Macedonian society, only to discover that its domination, like all speculative bubbles, was teetering on the verge of collapse. Mathias Fuelling is a doctoral candidate in History at Temple University, working on a political history of Czechoslovakia in the immediate post-WWII years. He can be found on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bucephalus424 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Dark Finance: Illiquidity and Authoritarianism at the Margins of Europe (Stanford University Press, 2020) offers one of the first ethnographic accounts of financial expansion and its political impacts in Eastern Europe. Following workers, managers, and investors in the Macedonian construction sector, Fabio Mattioli shows how financialization can empower authoritarian regimes—not by making money accessible to everyone, but by allowing a small group of oligarchs to monopolize access to international credit and promote a cascade of exploitative domestic debt relations. The landscape of failed deals and unrealizable dreams that is captured in this book portrays finance not as a singular, technical process. Instead, Matttioli argues that finance is a set of political and economic relations that entangles citizens, Eurocrats, and workers in tense paradoxes. Mattioli traces the origins of illiquidity in the reorganization of the European project and the postsocialist perversion of socialist financial practices—a dangerous mix that hid the Macedonian regime's weakness behind a façade of urban renewal and, for a decade, made it seem omnipresent and invincible. Dark Finance chronicles how, one bad deal at a time, Macedonia's authoritarian regime rode a wave of financial expansion that deepened its reach into Macedonian society, only to discover that its domination, like all speculative bubbles, was teetering on the verge of collapse. Mathias Fuelling is a doctoral candidate in History at Temple University, working on a political history of Czechoslovakia in the immediate post-WWII years. He can be found on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bucephalus424 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Dark Finance: Illiquidity and Authoritarianism at the Margins of Europe (Stanford University Press, 2020) offers one of the first ethnographic accounts of financial expansion and its political impacts in Eastern Europe. Following workers, managers, and investors in the Macedonian construction sector, Fabio Mattioli shows how financialization can empower authoritarian regimes—not by making money accessible to everyone, but by allowing a small group of oligarchs to monopolize access to international credit and promote a cascade of exploitative domestic debt relations. The landscape of failed deals and unrealizable dreams that is captured in this book portrays finance not as a singular, technical process. Instead, Matttioli argues that finance is a set of political and economic relations that entangles citizens, Eurocrats, and workers in tense paradoxes. Mattioli traces the origins of illiquidity in the reorganization of the European project and the postsocialist perversion of socialist financial practices—a dangerous mix that hid the Macedonian regime's weakness behind a façade of urban renewal and, for a decade, made it seem omnipresent and invincible. Dark Finance chronicles how, one bad deal at a time, Macedonia's authoritarian regime rode a wave of financial expansion that deepened its reach into Macedonian society, only to discover that its domination, like all speculative bubbles, was teetering on the verge of collapse. Mathias Fuelling is a doctoral candidate in History at Temple University, working on a political history of Czechoslovakia in the immediate post-WWII years. He can be found on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bucephalus424 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

Dark Finance: Illiquidity and Authoritarianism at the Margins of Europe (Stanford University Press, 2020) offers one of the first ethnographic accounts of financial expansion and its political impacts in Eastern Europe. Following workers, managers, and investors in the Macedonian construction sector, Fabio Mattioli shows how financialization can empower authoritarian regimes—not by making money accessible to everyone, but by allowing a small group of oligarchs to monopolize access to international credit and promote a cascade of exploitative domestic debt relations. The landscape of failed deals and unrealizable dreams that is captured in this book portrays finance not as a singular, technical process. Instead, Matttioli argues that finance is a set of political and economic relations that entangles citizens, Eurocrats, and workers in tense paradoxes. Mattioli traces the origins of illiquidity in the reorganization of the European project and the postsocialist perversion of socialist financial practices—a dangerous mix that hid the Macedonian regime's weakness behind a façade of urban renewal and, for a decade, made it seem omnipresent and invincible. Dark Finance chronicles how, one bad deal at a time, Macedonia's authoritarian regime rode a wave of financial expansion that deepened its reach into Macedonian society, only to discover that its domination, like all speculative bubbles, was teetering on the verge of collapse. Mathias Fuelling is a doctoral candidate in History at Temple University, working on a political history of Czechoslovakia in the immediate post-WWII years. He can be found on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bucephalus424 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Dark Finance: Illiquidity and Authoritarianism at the Margins of Europe (Stanford University Press, 2020) offers one of the first ethnographic accounts of financial expansion and its political impacts in Eastern Europe. Following workers, managers, and investors in the Macedonian construction sector, Fabio Mattioli shows how financialization can empower authoritarian regimes—not by making money accessible to everyone, but by allowing a small group of oligarchs to monopolize access to international credit and promote a cascade of exploitative domestic debt relations. The landscape of failed deals and unrealizable dreams that is captured in this book portrays finance not as a singular, technical process. Instead, Matttioli argues that finance is a set of political and economic relations that entangles citizens, Eurocrats, and workers in tense paradoxes. Mattioli traces the origins of illiquidity in the reorganization of the European project and the postsocialist perversion of socialist financial practices—a dangerous mix that hid the Macedonian regime's weakness behind a façade of urban renewal and, for a decade, made it seem omnipresent and invincible. Dark Finance chronicles how, one bad deal at a time, Macedonia's authoritarian regime rode a wave of financial expansion that deepened its reach into Macedonian society, only to discover that its domination, like all speculative bubbles, was teetering on the verge of collapse. Mathias Fuelling is a doctoral candidate in History at Temple University, working on a political history of Czechoslovakia in the immediate post-WWII years. He can be found on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bucephalus424 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

Dark Finance: Illiquidity and Authoritarianism at the Margins of Europe (Stanford University Press, 2020) offers one of the first ethnographic accounts of financial expansion and its political impacts in Eastern Europe. Following workers, managers, and investors in the Macedonian construction sector, Fabio Mattioli shows how financialization can empower authoritarian regimes—not by making money accessible to everyone, but by allowing a small group of oligarchs to monopolize access to international credit and promote a cascade of exploitative domestic debt relations. The landscape of failed deals and unrealizable dreams that is captured in this book portrays finance not as a singular, technical process. Instead, Matttioli argues that finance is a set of political and economic relations that entangles citizens, Eurocrats, and workers in tense paradoxes. Mattioli traces the origins of illiquidity in the reorganization of the European project and the postsocialist perversion of socialist financial practices—a dangerous mix that hid the Macedonian regime's weakness behind a façade of urban renewal and, for a decade, made it seem omnipresent and invincible. Dark Finance chronicles how, one bad deal at a time, Macedonia's authoritarian regime rode a wave of financial expansion that deepened its reach into Macedonian society, only to discover that its domination, like all speculative bubbles, was teetering on the verge of collapse. Mathias Fuelling is a doctoral candidate in History at Temple University, working on a political history of Czechoslovakia in the immediate post-WWII years. He can be found on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bucephalus424 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

Dark Finance: Illiquidity and Authoritarianism at the Margins of Europe (Stanford University Press, 2020) offers one of the first ethnographic accounts of financial expansion and its political impacts in Eastern Europe. Following workers, managers, and investors in the Macedonian construction sector, Fabio Mattioli shows how financialization can empower authoritarian regimes—not by making money accessible to everyone, but by allowing a small group of oligarchs to monopolize access to international credit and promote a cascade of exploitative domestic debt relations. The landscape of failed deals and unrealizable dreams that is captured in this book portrays finance not as a singular, technical process. Instead, Matttioli argues that finance is a set of political and economic relations that entangles citizens, Eurocrats, and workers in tense paradoxes. Mattioli traces the origins of illiquidity in the reorganization of the European project and the postsocialist perversion of socialist financial practices—a dangerous mix that hid the Macedonian regime's weakness behind a façade of urban renewal and, for a decade, made it seem omnipresent and invincible. Dark Finance chronicles how, one bad deal at a time, Macedonia's authoritarian regime rode a wave of financial expansion that deepened its reach into Macedonian society, only to discover that its domination, like all speculative bubbles, was teetering on the verge of collapse. Mathias Fuelling is a doctoral candidate in History at Temple University, working on a political history of Czechoslovakia in the immediate post-WWII years. He can be found on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bucephalus424 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/finance

Dark Finance: Illiquidity and Authoritarianism at the Margins of Europe (Stanford University Press, 2020) offers one of the first ethnographic accounts of financial expansion and its political impacts in Eastern Europe. Following workers, managers, and investors in the Macedonian construction sector, Fabio Mattioli shows how financialization can empower authoritarian regimes—not by making money accessible to everyone, but by allowing a small group of oligarchs to monopolize access to international credit and promote a cascade of exploitative domestic debt relations. The landscape of failed deals and unrealizable dreams that is captured in this book portrays finance not as a singular, technical process. Instead, Matttioli argues that finance is a set of political and economic relations that entangles citizens, Eurocrats, and workers in tense paradoxes. Mattioli traces the origins of illiquidity in the reorganization of the European project and the postsocialist perversion of socialist financial practices—a dangerous mix that hid the Macedonian regime's weakness behind a façade of urban renewal and, for a decade, made it seem omnipresent and invincible. Dark Finance chronicles how, one bad deal at a time, Macedonia's authoritarian regime rode a wave of financial expansion that deepened its reach into Macedonian society, only to discover that its domination, like all speculative bubbles, was teetering on the verge of collapse. Mathias Fuelling is a doctoral candidate in History at Temple University, working on a political history of Czechoslovakia in the immediate post-WWII years. He can be found on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bucephalus424 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There is a double standard at the heart of the European Union's powerful executive body, the European Commission. Women — mostly white women — benefit from affirmative action when applying for jobs. But people of colour seeking advancement do not benefit from special consideration. Commentator and columnist Shada Islam says the Commission's progress on gender makes its foot-dragging on racial diversity less excusable than ever. Sarah Chander, a digital rights advocate and a co-founder of the Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice, discusses the moral panic over critical race theory that's spread to Europe.  This episode was made in partnership with The Brussels Binder under the BBBeyond project.Beethoven Symphony No. 9 in D minor, Op. 125, by Papalin is licensed under CC by 3.0. Visit EU Scream for more episodes. Support the show (https://euscream.com/donate/)

This episode describes what the author learned about CSR in Europe, especially from a policy perspective. In the podcast, Prof. Dr Wayne Visser reads the Chapter 5 from his book, The Quest for Sustainable Business: An Epic Journey in Search of Corporate Responsibility. Chapter 6 is broken into the following sections:- Early policy developments - CSR trends in Europe- European Union strategy on CSR

From a carvery lunch in Howards End to emotional Eurocrats. Thea Lenarduzzi and Lucy Dallas are joined by Norma Clarke to discuss the role in literary creation of food and its increasingly fraught means of production, and Russell Williams reports on the bookshops of Paris during lockdown and reviews the new novel by a totemic figure in French literature, Jean-Philippe Toussaint.The Literature of Food: An introduction from 1830 to present by Nicola HumbleFarm to Form: Modernist literature and ecologies of food in the British Empire by Jessica MartellRead My Plate: The literature of food by Deborah R. GeisThe Cambridge Companion to Literature and Food, edited by J. Michelle CoghlanLes Émotions by Jean-Philippe Toussaint See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Over three million Australians have downloaded the COVIDSafe App but the Australian Government has a terrible record on digital security and privacy. Co-hosts Scott Hargreaves and Chris Berg are joined by IPA Adjunct Fellow Matthew Lesh - now Director of Research at the Adam Smith Institute in London - to discuss this plus the UK's own experience of coronavirus as the Tories struggle to implement Brexit and find a coherent agenda for growth when Big Government holds sway. Plus they look at the forces pushing for and against the survival of the European Union as Eurocrats centralise more power but the struggling Euro threatens to blow up the whole financial system. Books and Culture picks include Albert Camus' The Plague https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plague The TV series Jack Ryan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_(TV_series), and The essay on Nassim Nicholas Taleb by Allan Farrington at Medium, A Tale of Two Talebs https://medium.com/@allenfarrington/a-tale-of-two-talebs-1775dff3302b

If Lucia Kleštincová is passionate about communicating about her EU Careers, Anne-Claire Gathoye is the person who is in charge of the platform making this possible. As a co-manager of programs for the EU Staff Ambassadors and EU Student Ambassadors, she lifts the veil of secrecy of the careers in the EU institutions. Listen to what the European Commission does to bust the myths about boring bureaucrats. And once you’re convinced to explore more, learn also how students at universities all around Europe can also become bridges between Brussels institutions and youth dreaming of working in the EU bubble one day. Follow the work of Anne Claire's as well as her colleagues on social media:https://www.facebook.com/EU.Careers.EPSO/https://www.facebook.com/EuCareersSlovakia/ https://twitter.com/EU_Careershttps://www.instagram.com/eucareers/https://www.linkedin.com/company/eu-careers/ Connect with Anne Claire here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anne-claire-gathoye-b747774/

Lowell Ponte, BRAVE NEW WORLD, OVERCOMING THE DEMOCRAT MATRIX, Lowell Ponte urges people to consider red pill/blue pill options, Image of Revelation Beast System AI Rising Now, Options for Humans to OPT OUT NOW!, Prolife Issues, Social Atheistic Communist Satanism or GOD and Christianity Saved As Verb and NOT a Noun Only,Dr Bill Deagle MD AAEM ACAM A4M, NutriMedical Report Show, www.NutriMedical.com, www.ClayandIRON.com, www.Deagle-Network.com,NutriMedical Report Show,BRAVE NEW WORLDOVERCOMING THE DEMOCRAT MATRIXLowell Ponte urges people to consider red pill/blue pill optionsWND, April 7, 2019 URL: https://www.wnd.com/2019/04/overcoming-the-democrat-matrix/Twenty years ago, on March 31, 1999, on the eve of a new millennium, a movie transformed the thinking of millions around the world.“The Matrix” depicts a future Earth in which most of humankind has lost a war with their own proudly-created artificial intelligence computers. These machines have imprisoned humans in both pods and an illusion – The Matrix, a virtual-reality dream world controlled by the machines that most people mistake for reality.Deep underground in a community called Zion, a few thousand free humans such as Morpheus fight to survive and liberate a hypnotized humankind from this machine-conjured Grand Illusion.“The Matrix,” which won four Academy Awards, centers on one computer programmer known as Neo. You feel that “something is wrong with the world” we perceive, Morpheus tells Neo, a thought that “is like a splinter in your mind.”Morpheus offers Neo the choice of a blue pill, from which he will awaken the next morning back in the illusion as if nothing had happened, or a red pill, which will let him see the artificial construct of The Matrix, after which he can never go back. Neo takes the red pill, and we see his old world dissolve, and reality and his destiny take its place.Would humans prefer to be ruled by computers? Many apparently would, according to a January 2019 poll conducted by the Center for the Governance of Change at Spain’s IE University. More than one in four of the 1,600 Europeans polled said that they would like an artificial intelligence to “make important decisions about the running of their country.”These respondents, wrote Gizmodo, “are more than ready for the robots to give up the pretense of serving man and just take over.” In Germany, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom, almost one in three people wanted A.I. to take over political decision-making. In the Netherlands, 43 percent – close to half the adults polled there – preferred computer rule.Given the dishonest, arrogant, smug and self-serving stupidity of power-hungry human politicians and Eurocrats nowadays, we can understand why many would prefer Artificial Intelligence to no intelligence at all. A September 2018 Pew Research Center poll, reported Gizmodo, found that the median level of trust in human legislatures was only 43 percent.We have already seen artificial intelligence control stock trading. Flash crashes can happen when computers – programmed to beat competing computers by thousandths of a second – react with a huge cascade of buy or sell orders because of another computer’s mistake. Craig R. Smith and I, in our book “Don’t Bank On It! The Unsafe World of 21st Century Banking,” analyze how A.I. computers do not “think” like human beings when trading stocks.This is one reason why entrepreneur Elon Musk warned that A.I could prove to be “more dangerous than nukes,” and astrophysicist Stephen Hawking warned of such computers “out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand.”When looking into the humorless, radicalized, mesmerized eyes of today’s brainwashed young millennial socialists and Marxists, we should remember the warning of Texas A&M University-Commerce computational linguist Kiki Hempelmann that artificial intelligence computers do not understand jokes, one of the highest abilities of the human mind.“Teaching A.I. systems humor is dangerous because they may find it where it isn’t,” says Hemplemann. “Maybe bad A.I. will start killing people because it thinks it is funny.”Today’s young leftist utopians are hot-headed but cold-hearted, utterly bereft of human compassion, tolerance, fairness, feeling or the ability to laugh at one’s self. They seem either to be zombies or machines, ready only to hate, control, silence or kill anyone who disagrees with them. Many seem inhuman and insane.Nowhere is this more evident than in left-leaning social media such as Google, which just eliminated its A.I. ethics board after only one week. Like Facebook, Google wants to become The Matrix, controlling an artificial reality where leftist views are amplified while conservative voices are silenced. These Silicon Valley tyrants pretend that objective algorithms impose political correctness fairly – but biased humans write the algorithms, which Google and Facebook refuse to let outsiders analyze. Facebook was originally designed to act like an addictive drug on young minds.Computer scientists have discovered that artificial intelligence, even when well-intended, conjures its own biases such as racism or partisanship from the tiniest glimmers of conscious or unconscious prejudice in its human programmers.The leftists’ desire to be society’s “Dominatrix” is the essence of the Democrat Matrix, the dictatorship that red-pill-choosing humankind must overcome. #### For information regarding your data privacy, visit Acast.com/privacy See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

As I said, watching Italy would be, and will be, lots of fun as the Eurocrats scramble to deal with it... and as I […] The post NEWS AND VIEWS FROM THE NEFARIUM MAY 31 2018 appeared first on The Giza Death Star.

The gang are ditching regularly scheduled programming this week for a deep dive into the f***ing horror that is the Windrush scandal, with special guest Genista Tate-Alexander. We cover what its about, how it's effecting communities, and why this suffering is a natural result of the Tories' and Home Office's “hostile environment” policy. How bad is it? Why is it so flawed? And how is transforming our society? David Lammy’s furious speech in Parliament on the issue: https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/985906022798774272 ___ BREXIT WATCH Rowan brings us a dispatch from the Brussels bubble on what the Eurocrats are thinking about Brexit, after a string of failures for the UK government this week. It’s slowly dawning on EU citizens that no one in the UK has any sort of plan. The unpreparedness of the Government (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/17/brexit-legislation-caught-in-parliamentary-logjam) leads to us launch our own policy-writing service, “Bills Bills Bills”. Call 0800-LEGISLATE now to take advantage of our services. Considerably less free-market and racist than ALEC. ___ Like what you hear? Support us by... Following on Soundcloud! Subscribing and Reviewing on ITunes – itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/connected-disaffected/ Following on Twitter – twitter.com/CandDPodcast Following on FB – www.facebook.com/connectedanddisaffected/ Email your comments and ideas - connectedanddisaffected@gmail.com

The lives behind the headlines. In this edition: forty years in prison for the former Bosnian Serb Leader Radovan Karadzic, found guilty of war crimes. Does it send a signal to those in positions of power that they will, ultimately, be held accountable? Brussels -- not just a city of Eurocrats, but one where people and families live and grow up and where's there's been a phlegmatic response to Tuesday's bomb attacks there; Mexicans are increasingly angry about the level of corruption in their country - organised crime's now said to be deeply embedded in the country's legal and political establishment and the police can't be trusted either; the nine hundred-plus clumps of rock which make up the Solomon Islands may now be independent but, we find, old ties with Britain have not been entirely severed. And while some might regard Cantonese cooking as a little old hat, our correspondent says it is in fact one of China's most exquisite cuisines, with many of its delights unknown to outsiders

What happens when a Professor of Economics gets his hands on the economic levers of a country in the eye of the financial storm? Yanis Varoufakis' seven month stint as Greece's Minister of Finance took him into the heart of the Eurogroup, the IMF, and the continent's top decision-making bodies. With bluntness and force, he put the case for a different solution to Greece’s ills and accused the country’s creditors of terrorism. Telling Bloomberf “I wouldprefer to cut my arm off" rather than accept a bailout that did not involve debt restructuring, Varoufakis did not make friends among the Eurocrats. Sharing his first-hand view of the global financial system and what is means for ordinary citizens and governments when things go wrong, Yanis Varoufakis will discuss his experience at the intersection of politics and economics in theory and practice.  

How those within the Brussels Beltway in the EU institutions must pine for the simple days of the past. Not only was the European project in itself far less contested, but the nature of the journalism surrounding the EU was also far more accommodating. One of the main lessons of John Lloyd and Cristina Marconi‘s fascinating book Reporting the EU: News, Media and the European Institutions (I. B. Tauris, 2014) is how much it has mirrored the evolution of the European project itself. In the first couple of decades the journalists were as likely to be true believers as the Eurocrats in the corridors of power, even if their reports tended to reflect the concerns and interests of the individual countries that they served. That started to change as the EU (under various names) grew and changed. In the 1980s the British press developed a real streak of Euroscepticism, and journalists in general began to ask more questions than the Eurocrats were used to. Big developments such as the Maastricht Treaty and the expansion into the poorer corners of the former Soviet Empire begged bigger questions. And then there was the euro crisis, and the current wave of popular Euroscepticism that has found a home in almost every corner of the continent. All the while Eurocrats and EU boosters charged that Euroscepticism was something contrived through the practicing of hostile journalism by spiteful editors in thrall to shadowy media tycoons. If only the people of Europe had a fair picture of what they did, they’d say: then they’d fall in behind the European project once again. At least the euro crisis has led to the EU finding its way to the front pages of newspapers, along with a widespread realisation that what goes on within that Brussels Beltway (and in places like Berlin) matters to all its citizens far more than they’d realised. The authors of the book hope that recognition will continue to give the EU, for all its complexity, a legitimate place in Europe’s popular media, worthy of this peculiar set of institutions that has grown to have such an impact in so many parts of daily life. I hope you enjoy the interview! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How those within the Brussels Beltway in the EU institutions must pine for the simple days of the past. Not only was the European project in itself far less contested, but the nature of the journalism surrounding the EU was also far more accommodating. One of the main lessons of John Lloyd and Cristina Marconi‘s fascinating book Reporting the EU: News, Media and the European Institutions (I. B. Tauris, 2014) is how much it has mirrored the evolution of the European project itself. In the first couple of decades the journalists were as likely to be true believers as the Eurocrats in the corridors of power, even if their reports tended to reflect the concerns and interests of the individual countries that they served. That started to change as the EU (under various names) grew and changed. In the 1980s the British press developed a real streak of Euroscepticism, and journalists in general began to ask more questions than the Eurocrats were used to. Big developments such as the Maastricht Treaty and the expansion into the poorer corners of the former Soviet Empire begged bigger questions. And then there was the euro crisis, and the current wave of popular Euroscepticism that has found a home in almost every corner of the continent. All the while Eurocrats and EU boosters charged that Euroscepticism was something contrived through the practicing of hostile journalism by spiteful editors in thrall to shadowy media tycoons. If only the people of Europe had a fair picture of what they did, they'd say: then they'd fall in behind the European project once again. At least the euro crisis has led to the EU finding its way to the front pages of newspapers, along with a widespread realisation that what goes on within that Brussels Beltway (and in places like Berlin) matters to all its citizens far more than they'd realised. The authors of the book hope that recognition will continue to give the EU, for all its complexity, a legitimate place in Europe's popular media, worthy of this peculiar set of institutions that has grown to have such an impact in so many parts of daily life. I hope you enjoy the interview! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How those within the Brussels Beltway in the EU institutions must pine for the simple days of the past. Not only was the European project in itself far less contested, but the nature of the journalism surrounding the EU was also far more accommodating. One of the main lessons of John Lloyd and Cristina Marconi‘s fascinating book Reporting the EU: News, Media and the European Institutions (I. B. Tauris, 2014) is how much it has mirrored the evolution of the European project itself. In the first couple of decades the journalists were as likely to be true believers as the Eurocrats in the corridors of power, even if their reports tended to reflect the concerns and interests of the individual countries that they served. That started to change as the EU (under various names) grew and changed. In the 1980s the British press developed a real streak of Euroscepticism, and journalists in general began to ask more questions than the Eurocrats were used to. Big developments such as the Maastricht Treaty and the expansion into the poorer corners of the former Soviet Empire begged bigger questions. And then there was the euro crisis, and the current wave of popular Euroscepticism that has found a home in almost every corner of the continent. All the while Eurocrats and EU boosters charged that Euroscepticism was something contrived through the practicing of hostile journalism by spiteful editors in thrall to shadowy media tycoons. If only the people of Europe had a fair picture of what they did, they’d say: then they’d fall in behind the European project once again. At least the euro crisis has led to the EU finding its way to the front pages of newspapers, along with a widespread realisation that what goes on within that Brussels Beltway (and in places like Berlin) matters to all its citizens far more than they’d realised. The authors of the book hope that recognition will continue to give the EU, for all its complexity, a legitimate place in Europe’s popular media, worthy of this peculiar set of institutions that has grown to have such an impact in so many parts of daily life. I hope you enjoy the interview! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How those within the Brussels Beltway in the EU institutions must pine for the simple days of the past. Not only was the European project in itself far less contested, but the nature of the journalism surrounding the EU was also far more accommodating. One of the main lessons of John Lloyd and Cristina Marconi‘s fascinating book Reporting the EU: News, Media and the European Institutions (I. B. Tauris, 2014) is how much it has mirrored the evolution of the European project itself. In the first couple of decades the journalists were as likely to be true believers as the Eurocrats in the corridors of power, even if their reports tended to reflect the concerns and interests of the individual countries that they served. That started to change as the EU (under various names) grew and changed. In the 1980s the British press developed a real streak of Euroscepticism, and journalists in general began to ask more questions than the Eurocrats were used to. Big developments such as the Maastricht Treaty and the expansion into the poorer corners of the former Soviet Empire begged bigger questions. And then there was the euro crisis, and the current wave of popular Euroscepticism that has found a home in almost every corner of the continent. All the while Eurocrats and EU boosters charged that Euroscepticism was something contrived through the practicing of hostile journalism by spiteful editors in thrall to shadowy media tycoons. If only the people of Europe had a fair picture of what they did, they’d say: then they’d fall in behind the European project once again. At least the euro crisis has led to the EU finding its way to the front pages of newspapers, along with a widespread realisation that what goes on within that Brussels Beltway (and in places like Berlin) matters to all its citizens far more than they’d realised. The authors of the book hope that recognition will continue to give the EU, for all its complexity, a legitimate place in Europe’s popular media, worthy of this peculiar set of institutions that has grown to have such an impact in so many parts of daily life. I hope you enjoy the interview! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Selected House Music by Checkgate - Junio 2014 !!! ... Los openings ya estan aqui !! Ya huele a veranito y el sonido Deep llega fresco y potente ... Are you ready ?? ... GO !! ... Tony Tatum, Eurocrats, Deetron, Iñaki Garcia, ATFC & The Cube, David Penn, Groove Assassin, Franck Roger, DJ Roland Clark, Supernova, Joey Negro, Director's Cut & Payton, Daniel Trim & Monica Mira ... Disfruta de la sesión y recuerda que también estamos en www.facebook.com/musicftpeople

Recorded on Tuesday June 3, 2014. 1. Taylor McFerrin- Invisible/Visible (feat. Bobby McFerrin & Cesar Camargo Marino) 2. Little Dragon- Pretty Girls 3. Proper Heat- Invisible Dance 4. Kim Ann Foxman & Andy Butler- What You Need 5. Processory- Nightfall (Aeroplane Remix) 6. Atjazz- Does This Qualify? 7. Cuebur- I See You (feat. Vikter Duplaix) 8. Captain Planet- Un Poquito Mas (feat. Chico Mann) 9. Julien Gomes- Love Song 28 (Atjazz Astro Remix) 10. Eurocrats, Aeroplane, & Dimitri From Paris- Follow Me (Fingerpaint Remix)

On July 19, Lucian Vâlsan, James Huff and whoever shall call in will be talking about the issue of the slow process of stamping out economic freedom in the name of feminism that is taking place right now in the European Union and is bound to affect 28 nations of Europe. Last show, we covered in the news the “debate” that took place on July 9 in the joint meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality in the European Parliament. Basically, an overwhelming majority of the Eurocrats agree that by 2017, no private company in the EU should be able to employ whomever it wants, but whomever the EU wants. This Soviet Union-style measure is rooted into a proposal of the European Union. We'll talk extensively about the proposal and what individual MRAs from Europe could and should start doing in order to stop this madness before it ruins the EU's economy and moves the institutionalized misandry of the EU to a whole new level.   The subject is tricky so please join us and call in at (001) 310 388 9709, or Skype in, after the news. Tell us about the general state of economic freedom in your country that the EU is seeking to stamp out, and, if possible, come with ideas to move things on this issue. The show will commence at 7 PM GMT (London, Reykjavik and Lisbon time). That is 8 PM Central European, 9PM Eastern European, 10 PM in Belarus and 11 PM in Moscow. And for the listeners from North America this means 2 PM EST, 1 PM CST, 12 PM MST and 11 AM PST (times adjusted in accordance with DST both for Europe and North America)