Podcasts about freudian

She ‘Saw Him Go In'... But Was Panicking About Hitting Him-Explain That, Karen In this episode, we're pulling apart one of the most confounding contradictions in the Karen Read case — and it all comes down to what she knew, when she knew it, and what she said. Karen Read told investigators she saw John O'Keefe walk into the house that night. But then, hours later, she was sobbing, pulling at Jennifer McCabe, frantically saying: “Did I hit him? Could I have hit him?” Let that sink in. If she saw him go inside, why was she panicking that she ran him over? Why was she screaming to Google “how long to die in the cold” if she thought he was safe indoors? And how do you reconcile that kind of panic with someone who didn't know their boyfriend was lying dead in a snowbank? Tony Brueski sits down with retired FBI Special Agent Jennifer Coffindaffer to analyze this bizarre contradiction. Is it a case of genuine confusion and guilt-fueled anxiety — or a Freudian slip from someone who knew exactly what had happened? We break down the timeline inconsistencies, look at Karen's own statements from that morning, and unpack what her emotional reactions tell us — and what they don't. Because when you claim to have seen someone walk into a house, you don't start crying hours later about hitting them with a car… unless there's more to the story. This episode gets to the heart of the defense's weakest point — and why the prosecution is leaning into Read's own words to prove what she knew all along. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #KarenReadTrial #TrueCrimePodcast #TimelineContradictions #HiddenKillers #FBIAnalysis #GuiltVsInnocence #CourtroomDrama #CrimeSceneLogic Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

She ‘Saw Him Go In'... But Was Panicking About Hitting Him-Explain That, Karen In this episode, we're pulling apart one of the most confounding contradictions in the Karen Read case — and it all comes down to what she knew, when she knew it, and what she said. Karen Read told investigators she saw John O'Keefe walk into the house that night. But then, hours later, she was sobbing, pulling at Jennifer McCabe, frantically saying: “Did I hit him? Could I have hit him?” Let that sink in. If she saw him go inside, why was she panicking that she ran him over? Why was she screaming to Google “how long to die in the cold” if she thought he was safe indoors? And how do you reconcile that kind of panic with someone who didn't know their boyfriend was lying dead in a snowbank? Tony Brueski sits down with retired FBI Special Agent Jennifer Coffindaffer to analyze this bizarre contradiction. Is it a case of genuine confusion and guilt-fueled anxiety — or a Freudian slip from someone who knew exactly what had happened? We break down the timeline inconsistencies, look at Karen's own statements from that morning, and unpack what her emotional reactions tell us — and what they don't. Because when you claim to have seen someone walk into a house, you don't start crying hours later about hitting them with a car… unless there's more to the story. This episode gets to the heart of the defense's weakest point — and why the prosecution is leaning into Read's own words to prove what she knew all along. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #KarenReadTrial #TrueCrimePodcast #TimelineContradictions #HiddenKillers #FBIAnalysis #GuiltVsInnocence #CourtroomDrama #CrimeSceneLogic Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Every Christian is a counselor—whether we realize it or not. The question is: what worldview do we draw from when we give advice? In this podcast, Scott Brown and Jason Dohm, joined by special guest Jason Winslade, discuss the folly of secular psychology—which assumes that man is basically good—and even some Christian counseling, which baptizes Freudian psychology with a few Bible verses. What's needed, instead, is people who think biblically and reject dangerous worldly philosophies (Col. 2:8-10), drawing from God's all-sufficient Word to restore sinners and support the suffering in their time of need (Gal. 6:1-2). Relying on the sure foundation of Scripture, every Christian can learn, with God's help, to wisely counsel others.

Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord In episode 166 of Not on Record, hosts Joseph and Michael delve into a law school-style hypothetical involving a trial with a crucial audio or video recording that's difficult to understand due to accents or unclear articulation. The core issue arises when the judge, after submissions, privately re-examines the recording and arrives at a different conclusion than what was presented, without informing counsel. During trial a trial judge made several errors, including a sweeping generalization about an arranged marriage and misinterpreting "slept" as "slapped," deeming it a Freudian slip. The hosts emphasize that an accused person has the right to know the case they must meet and the evidence being used against them. Website: http://www.NotOnRecordpodcast.com Sign up to our email list - http://eepurl.com/hw3g99 Social Media Links Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/NotonRecord Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/notonrecordpodcast/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@notonrecordpodcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/notonrecord Telegram: https://t.me/NotOnRecord Minds: http://www.minds.com/notonrecord Audio Platforms Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4F2ssnX7ktfGH8OzH4QsuX Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/not-on-record-podcast/id1565405753 SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/notonrecord Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-842207 For more information on criminal law issues go to Neuberger & Partners LLP http://www.nrlawyers.com. Produced by Possibly Correct Media www.PossiblyCorrect.com

In Part 2, we wrap up our consideration of Jean-Paul Sartre's midcentury magnum opus by exploring how we move from the inaccessible interiority of consciousness to our concrete relations with others. The latter half of Being & Nothingness takes up the question of what aspects of our being are revealed to us in confrontation with the Other. Sartre famously argues here that it is the Other's look, the omnipresent possibility of being seen, judged, and evaluated by another consciousness that discloses the objectivity of our being through and for the Other. As soon as the Other enters the scene, a fundamental aspect of our being is alienated from us; captured in the Other's appropriating gaze. The various attempts by the for-itself to retrieve this alienated being and penetrate the Other's essential freedom play a determinate role in shaping the contours of our fundamental projects, that is the immanently revisable set of possibilities, meaning, and value we pro-ject into the world.  In the final sections of the book, Sartre sketches an alternative to Freudian psychoanalysis, asks us to reframe our conception of the autonomous will and the role of giving and asking for reasons, and gestures towards an ethics grounded in criterionless choice.Please consider becoming a paying subscriber to our Patreon to get exclusive bonus episodes, early access releases, and bookish merch: https://www.patreon.com/MoralMinorityFollow us on Twitter(X).Devin: @DevinGoureCharles: @satireredactedEmail us at: moralminoritypod@gmail.com

In episode 89 of the Podcast for Social Research, recorded live at BISR Central, BISR faculty Danielle Drori, Jude Webre, and Lauren K. Wolfe sat down following a screening of Stanley Kubrick's controversial final film, Eyes Wide Shut, to discuss its long thirty years in the making, its source material in fin-de-siècle Vienna, and its vision of bourgeois marriage and sexual morality in turn-of-the-millennium New York. Kicking off with behind-the-scenes Hollywood details, Jude adumbrates an argument for the film as an auteur's personal reverie, tracing resonances between it and the enigmatic story of Kubrick's own (second) married life in postwar New York City; Lauren then lets us in on the lurid sexual obsessions of Arthur Schnitzler, on whose 1926 novella Dream Story the film is based, with the interpretive aid of W.G. Sebald; while Danielle guides us through a collective Freudian analysis of the dreams that run through and construct the film's emotional core. With insightful and witty participation from the audience, the talk touches on masculinity within marriage; nudity and nakedness; coitus interruptus; Freud's stages of sexual development; dream as unconscious communication; sex and death; fucking down and marrying up; Nicole Kidman as gay icon; and whether anything of substance appears to have changed in bourgeois sexual morality between circa 1900 and 1999. The Podcast for Social Research is produced by Ryan Lentini. Learn more about upcoming courses on our website. Follow Brooklyn Institute for Social Research on Twitter / Facebook / Instagram / Bluesky  

Michelle Obama has a Freudian slip in a rant about child mutilation, Neil Young claims that Tesla is for fascists, and Tim Walz admits Kamala's big mistake. Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4biDlri Ep.1726 - - - DailyWire+: Join us at dailywire.com/subscribe and become part of the rebellion against the ridiculous. Normal is back. And this time, we're keeping it. The hit podcast, Morning Wire, is now on Video! Watch Now and subscribe to their YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/3RFOVo6 Live Free & Smell Fancy with The Candle Club: https://thecandleclub.com/michael - - - Today's Sponsors: Birch Gold - Text KNOWLES to 989898 for your free information kit. Jeremy's Razors - Try Jeremy's Razors for 20% off risk-free: https://www.jeremysrazors.com/KNOWLES Lean - Visit https://takelean.com and get 20% off with promo code MICHAEL20 - - - Socials: Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6 Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/tL9-DNEWaLoDay 7 of the Karen Read Retrial happened on April 30, 2025. Jen McCabe is back on the stand with Direct Examination. Special Prosecutor, Hank Brennan, asked her to recount when Karen Read said, "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him." Jen said it was in front of a female EMT and she was shock that Karen would say something like that. Direct Examination end in the morning for Alan Jackson to come in hot for a fiery Cross Examination! Jackson confronted Jen McCabe about not telling the Grand Jury that Karen said that she hit John O'Keefe and in fact she only said "Could I have hit him?" and "Did I hit him?" Jen was very evasive with her answers and even questioned Jackson. Judge Cannone would ask Jackson to move along because he would ask Jen McCabe the same question over and over again. Sometimes it would seem like he was making mountains of mole hills. Other times he would make snarky comments and the Judge would tell him to stop and tell the Jury to dismiss his comments.Jackson pointed out how Jen was corroborating stories with everyone that had been at 34 Fairview Rd the night of the 28th and the morning of the 29th. It began as early as after the Police and First Responders left the scene. Jen even went as far as to ask Julie Nagle for a screenshot of a text message of when her brother, Ryan Nagle, arrived at 34 Fairview Rd to pick her up. Jen did not share that information with Law Enforcement.The biggest discrepancy was that she initially lied to the FBI! The FBI showed up to Jen McCabe's to question her about the case. Jen asked them to wait for 10 mins before speaking with them. The FBI reminded her that it is crime to lie to them and they asked her if she called anyone before they began their conversation. Jen told them that she called her husband, Matt McCabe and her friend, Kerry Roberts. Jen ended the interview early because she felt uncomfortable with the questions they had asked her. Jen later called back the FBI to let them know that she "forgot" that she had also called 3 additional people during those 10 mins: Peggy O'Keefe, The District Attorney Witness Advocate, and Brian Albert Sr. Judge Cannone had another Freudian slip by calling Jen McCabe- Ms. Read. Ouch!There are many highlights of Jen McCabe seemingly being evasive but the biggest thing that didn't add up was her saying that she told Former Trooper Michael Proctor that she told him that she hear Karen Read say, "I hit him." However, that was not in his report. It doesn't make sense that Mr. Proctor didn't include that his report because that would have been perceived as a confession and Karen would have been in hand cuffs much sooner.RESOURCESRetrial Day 6 Case Brief - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV3yO_X6EpsSherri Papini Case - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVeiHSEo6VMWhat You Need to Know About the Retrial - https://youtu.be/89Jpa8vz1RQ Karen Read Retrial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKOJlfL__9F027hlETVU-vo Karen Read Trial - 2024 -

Michelle Obama referred to herself as “a Black man” on her podcast yesterday, and the internet is going wild! Was this a clip taken out of context, or did Michelle (Michael) actually commit a Freudian slip? What about the other evidence suggesting Michelle is a man? Next, we share an exclusive audio recording from Tina Peters herself. Tina was recently moved to the La Vista Correctional Facility, where she has been enduring harsh and unfair treatment with no aid from any faculty. She has a message for you, so be sure to tune in. All this and more on today's Untamed.  

In today's discussion with David Masciotra about the first hundred days of Trump 2.0 I made the (Freudian) error of referring to it as a “hundred years”. It certainly feels like a hundred years. So how should the Democrats respond to Trump's avalanche of illiberalism? Masciotra argues they should emulate Ted Kennedy's forceful 1987 rhetoric against Robert Bork, focusing on the existential threats to civil rights and democracy rather than worrying about bread and butter economic issues. Masciotra criticizes the Dems for neglecting their working class base while pursuing moderate suburban voters and running Kamala-style cheerful campaigns. He believes Democrats lack the unified messaging infrastructure that the Republicans have built and suggests they need to balance aggressive opposition with muscular Kennedyesque idealism to effectively counter Trump's assault upon American democracy. Five Key Takeaways* Masciotra believes Democrats should adopt Ted Kennedy's direct, aggressive rhetorical approach from his Robert Bork speech to counter Trump's policies.* He argues Democrats often run positive campaigns while Republicans run fear-based campaigns, which are typically more effective.* The Democratic Party lacks the unified messaging infrastructure the Republican Party has built over decades.* Masciotra suggests Democrats are too focused on chasing moderate voters while neglecting their base, unlike Republicans who effectively rally their core supporters.* He contends that after condemning Trump's actions, Democrats need to offer Kennedy-like idealism that gives people "ripples of hope" and something more positive to work toward.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

A year ago, the great American historian Adam Hochschild came on KEEN ON AMERICA to discuss American Midnight, his best selling account of the crisis of American democracy after World War One. A year later, is history really repeating itself in today's crisis of American democracy? For Hochschild, there are certainly parallels between the current political situation in the US and post WW1 America. Describing how wartime hysteria and fear of communism led to unprecedented government repression, including mass imprisonment for political speech, vigilante violence, and press censorship. Hochschild notes eery similarities to today's Trump's administration. He expresses concern about today's threats to democratic institutions while suggesting the importance of understanding Trump supporters' grievances and finding ways to bridge political divides. Five Key Takeaways* The period of 1917-1921 in America saw extreme government repression, including imprisoning people for speech, vigilante violence, and widespread censorship—what Hochschild calls America's "Trumpiest" era before Trump.* American history shows recurring patterns of nativism, anti-immigrant sentiment, and scapegoating that politicians exploit during times of economic or social stress.* The current political climate shows concerning parallels to this earlier period, including intimidation of opposition, attacks on institutions, and the widespread acceptance of authoritarian tendencies.* Hochschild emphasizes the importance of understanding the grievances and suffering that lead people to support authoritarian figures rather than dismissing their concerns.* Despite current divisions, Hochschild believes reconciliation is possible and necessary, pointing to historical examples like President Harding pardoning Eugene Debs after Wilson imprisoned him. Full Transcript Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. We recently celebrated our 2500th edition of Keen On. Some people suggest I'm mad. I think I probably am to do so many shows. Just over a little more than a year ago, we celebrated our 2000th show featuring one of America's most distinguished historians, Adam Hochschild. I'm thrilled that Adam is joining us again a year later. He's the author of "American Midnight, The Great War, A Violent Peace, and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis." This was his last book. He's the author of many other books. He is now working on a book on the Great Depression. He's joining us from his home in Berkeley, California. Adam, to borrow a famous phrase or remix a famous phrase, a year is a long time in American history.Adam Hochschild: That's true, Andrew. I think this past year, or actually this past 100 days or so has been a very long and very difficult time in American history that we all saw coming to some degree, but I don't think we realized it would be as extreme and as rapid as it has been.Andrew Keen: Your book, Adam, "American Midnight, A Great War of Violent Peace and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis," is perhaps the most prescient warning. When you researched that you were saying before we went live that your books usually take you between four and five years, so you couldn't really have planned for this, although I guess you began writing and researching American Midnight during the Trump 1.0 regime. Did you write it as a warning to something like is happening today in America?Adam Hochschild: Well, I did start writing it and did most of the work on it during Trump's first term in office. So I was very struck by the parallels. And they're in plain sight for everybody to see. There are various dark currents that run through this country of ours. Nativism, threats to deport troublemakers. Politicians stirring up violent feelings against immigrants, vigilante violence, all those things have been with us for a long time. I've always been fascinated by that period, 1917 to 21, when they surged to the surface in a very nasty way. That was the subject of the book. Naturally, I hoped we wouldn't have to go through anything like that again, but here we are definitely going through it again.Andrew Keen: You wrote a lovely piece earlier this month for the Washington Post. "America was at its Trumpiest a hundred years ago. Here's how to prevent the worst." What did you mean by Trumpiest, Adam? I'm not sure if you came up with that title, but I know you like the term. You begin the essay. What was the Trumpiest period in American life before Donald Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I didn't invent the word, but I certainly did use it in the piece. What I meant by that is that when you look at this period just over 100 years ago, 1917 to 1921, Woodrow Wilson's second term in office, two things happened in 1917 that kicked off a kind of hysteria in this country. One was that Wilson asked the American Congress to declare war on Germany, which it promptly did, and when a country enters a major war, especially a world war, it sets off a kind of hysteria. And then that was redoubled some months later when the country received news of the Russian Revolution, and many people in the establishment in America were afraid the Russian Revolution might come to the United States.So, a number of things happened. One was that there was a total hysteria against all things German. There were bonfires of German books all around the country. People would take German books out of libraries, schools, college and university libraries and burn them in the street. 19 such bonfires in Ohio alone. You can see pictures of it on the internet. There was hysteria about the German language. I heard about this from my father as I was growing up because his father was a Jewish immigrant from Germany. They lived in New York City. They spoke German around the family dinner table, but they were terrified of doing so on the street because you could get beaten up for that. Several states passed laws against speaking German in public or speaking German on the telephone. Eminent professors declared that German was a barbaric language. So there was that kind of hysteria.Then as soon as the United States declared war, Wilson pushed the Espionage Act through Congress, this draconian law, which essentially gave the government the right to lock up anybody who said something that was taken to be against the war. And they used this law in a devastating way. During those four years, roughly a thousand Americans spent a year or more in jail and a much larger number, shorter periods in jail solely for things that they wrote or said. These were people who were political prisoners sent to jail simply for something they wrote or said, the most famous of them was Eugene Debs, many times the socialist candidate for president. He'd gotten 6% of the popular vote in 1912 and in 1918. For giving an anti-war speech from a park bandstand in Ohio, he was sent to prison for 10 years. And he was still in prison two years after the war ended in November, 1920, when he pulled more than 900,000 votes for president from his jail cell in the federal penitentiary in Atlanta.So that was one phase of the repression, political prisoners. Another was vigilante violence. The government itself, the Department of Justice, chartered a vigilante group, something called the American Protective League, which went around roughing up people that it thought were evading the draft, beating up people at anti-war rallies, arresting people with citizens arrest whom they didn't have their proper draft papers on them, holding them for hours or sometimes for days until they could produce the right paperwork.Andrew Keen: I remember, Adam, you have a very graphic description of some of this violence in American Midnight. There was a story, was it a union leader?Adam Hochschild: Well, there is so much violence that happened during that time. I begin the book with a graphic description of vigilantes raiding an office of the Wobblies, the Industrial Workers of the World, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, taking a bunch of wobblies out into the prairie at night, stripping them, whipping them, flogging them fiercely, and then tarring and feathering them, and firing shotguns over their heads so they would run off into the Prairie at Night. And they did. Those guys were lucky because they survive. Other people were killed by this vigilante violence.And the final thing about that period which I would mention is the press censorship. The Espionage Act gave the Postmaster General the power to declare any publication in the United States unmailable. And for a newspaper or a magazine that was trying to reach a national audience, the only way you could do so was through the US mail because there was no internet then. No radio, no TV, no other way of getting your publication to somebody. And this put some 75 newspapers and magazines that the government didn't like out of business. It in addition censored three or four hundred specific issues of other publications as well.So that's why I feel this is all a very dark period of American life. Ironically, that press censorship operation, because it was run by the postmaster general, who by the way loved being chief censor, it was ran out of the building that was then the post office headquarters in Washington, which a hundred years later became the Trump International Hotel. And for $4,000 a night, you could stay in the Postmaster General's suite.Andrew Keen: You, Adam, the First World War is a subject you're very familiar with. In addition to American Midnight, you wrote "To End All Wars, a story of loyalty and rebellion, 1914 to 18," which was another very successful of your historical recreations. Many countries around the world experience this turbulence, the violence. Of course, we had fascism in the 20s in Europe. And later in the 30s as well. America has a long history of violence. You talk about the violence after the First World War or after the declaration. But I was just in Montgomery, Alabama, went to the lynching museum there, which is considerably troubling. I'm sure you've been there. You're not necessarily a comparative political scientist, Adam. How does America, in its paranoia during the war and its clampdown on press freedom, on its violence, on its attempt to create an authoritarian political system, how does it compare to other democracies? Is some of this stuff uniquely American or is it a similar development around the world?Adam Hochschild: You see similar pressures almost any time that a major country is involved in a major war. Wars are never good for civil liberties. The First World War, to stick with that period of comparison, was a time that saw strong anti-war movements in all of the warring countries, in Germany and Britain and Russia. There were people who understood at the time that this war was going to remake the world for the worse in every way, which indeed it did, and who refused to fight. There were 800 conscientious objectors jailed in Russia, and Russia did not have much freedom of expression to begin with. In Germany, many distinguished people on the left, like Rosa Luxemburg, were sent to jail for most of the war.Britain was an interesting case because I think they had a much longer established tradition of free speech than did the countries on the continent. It goes way back and it's a distinguished and wonderful tradition. They were also worried for the first two and a half, three years of the war before the United States entered, that if they crack down too hard on their anti-war movement, it would upset people in the United States, which they were desperate to draw into the war on their side. Nonetheless, there were 6,000 conscientious objectors who were sent to jail in England. There was intermittent censorship of anti-war publications, although some were able to publish some of the time. There were many distinguished Britons, such as Bertrand Russell, the philosopher who later won a Nobel Prize, sent to jails for six months for his opposition to the war. So some of this happened all over.But I think in the United States, especially with these vigilante groups, it took a more violent form because remember the country at that time was only a few decades away from these frontier wars with the Indians. And the westward expansion of the United States during the 19th century, the western expansion of white settlement was an enormously bloody business that was almost genocidal for the Native Americans. Many people had participated in that. Many people saw that violence as integral to what the country was. So there was a pretty well-established tradition of settling differences violently.Andrew Keen: I'm sure you're familiar with Stephen Hahn's book, "A Liberal America." He teaches at NYU, a book which in some ways is very similar to yours, but covers all of American history. Hahn was recently on the Ezra Klein show, talking like you, like we're talking today, Adam, about the very American roots of Trumpism. Hahn, it's an interesting book, traces much of this back to Jackson and the wars of the frontier against Indians. Do you share his thesis on that front? Are there strong similarities between Jackson, Wilson, and perhaps even Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I regret to say I'm not familiar with Hahn's book, but I certainly do feel that that legacy of constant war for most of the 19th century against the Native Americans ran very deep in this country. And we must never forget how appealing it is to young men to take part in war. Unfortunately, all through history, there have been people very tempted by this. And I think when you have wars of conquest, such as happen in the American West, against people who are more poorly armed, or colonial wars such as Europe fought in Africa and Asia against much more poorly-armed opponents, these are especially appealing to young people. And in both the United States and in the European colonization of Africa, which I know something about. For young men joining in these colonizing or conquering adventures, there was a chance not just to get martial glory, but to also get rich in the process.Andrew Keen: You're all too familiar with colonial history, Adam. Another of your books was about King Leopold's Congo and the brutality there. Where was the most coherent opposition morally and politically to what was happening? My sense in Trump's America is perhaps the most persuasive and moral critique comes from the old Republican Center from people like David Brooks, Peter Wayno has been on the show many times, Jonathan Rausch. Where were people like Teddy Roosevelt in this narrative? Were there critics from the right as well as from the left?Adam Hochschild: Good question. I first of all would give a shout out to those Republican centrists who've spoken out against Trump, the McCain Republicans. There are some good people there - Romney, of course as well. They've been very forceful. There wasn't really an equivalent to that, a direct equivalent to that in the Wilson era. Teddy Roosevelt whom you mentioned was a far more ferocious drum beater than Wilson himself and was pushing Wilson to declare war long before Wilson did. Roosevelt really believed that war was good for the soul. He desperately tried to get Wilson to appoint him to lead a volunteer force, came up with an elaborate plan for this would be a volunteer army staffed by descendants of both Union and Confederate generals and by French officers as well and homage to the Marquis de Lafayette. Wilson refused to allow Roosevelt to do this, and plus Roosevelt was, I think, 58 years old at the time. But all four of Roosevelt's sons enlisted and joined in the war, and one of them was killed. And his father was absolutely devastated by this.So there was not really that equivalent to the McCain Republicans who are resisting Trump, so to speak. In fact, what resistance there was in the U.S. came mostly from the left, and it was mostly ruthlessly silenced, all these people who went to jail. It was silenced also because this is another important part of what happened, which is different from today. When the federal government passed the Espionage Act that gave it these draconian powers, state governments, many of them passed copycat laws. In fact, a federal justice department agent actually helped draft the law in New Hampshire. Montana locked up people serving more than 60 years cumulatively of hard labor for opposing the war. California had 70 people in prison. Even my hometown of Berkeley, California passed a copycat law. So, this martial spirit really spread throughout the country at that time.Andrew Keen: So you've mentioned that Debs was the great critic and was imprisoned and got a considerable number of votes in the election. You're writing a book now about the Great Depression and FDR's involvement in it. FDR, of course, was a distant cousin of Teddy Roosevelt. At this point, he was an aspiring Democratic politician. Where was the critique within the mainstream Democratic party? Were people like FDR, who had a position in the Wilson administration, wasn't he naval secretary?Adam Hochschild: He was assistant secretary of the Navy. And he went to Europe during the war. For an aspiring politician, it's always very important to say I've been at the front. And so he went to Europe and certainly made no sign of resistance. And then in 1920, he was the democratic candidate for vice president. That ticket lost of course.Andrew Keen: And just to remind ourselves, this was before he became disabled through polio, is that correct?Adam Hochschild: That's right. That happened in the early 20s and it completely changed his life and I think quite deepened him as a person. He was a very ambitious social climbing young politician before then but I think he became something deeper. Also the political parties at the time were divided each party between right and left wings or war mongering and pacifist wings. And when the Congress voted on the war, there were six senators who voted against going to war and 50 members of the House of Representatives. And those senators and representatives came from both parties. We think of the Republican Party as being more conservative, but it had some staunch liberals in it. The most outspoken voice against the war in the Senate was Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, who was a Republican.Andrew Keen: I know you write about La Follette in American Midnight, but couldn't one, Adam, couldn't won before the war and against domestic repression. You wrote an interesting piece recently for the New York Review of Books about the Scopes trial. William Jennings Bryan, of course, was involved in that. He was the defeated Democratic candidate, what in about three or four presidential elections in the past. In the early 20th century. What was Bryan's position on this? He had been against the war, is that correct? But I'm guessing he would have been quite critical of some of the domestic repression.Adam Hochschild: You know, I should know the answer to that, Andrew, but I don't. He certainly was against going to war. He had started out in Wilson's first term as Wilson's secretary of state and then resigned in protest against the military buildup and what he saw as a drift to war, and I give him great credit for that. I don't recall his speaking out against the repression after it began, once the US entered the war, but I could be wrong on that. It was not something that I researched. There were just so few voices speaking out. I think I would remember if he had been one of them.Andrew Keen: Adam, again, I'm thinking out loud here, so please correct me if this is a dumb question. What would it be fair to say that one of the things that distinguished the United States from the European powers during the First World War in this period it remained an incredibly insular provincial place barely involved in international politics with a population many of them were migrants themselves would come from Europe but nonetheless cut off from the world. And much of that accounted for the anti-immigrant, anti-foreign hysteria. That exists in many countries, but perhaps it was a little bit more pronounced in the America of the early 20th century, and perhaps in some ways in the early 21st century.Adam Hochschild: Well, we remain a pretty insular place in many ways. A few years ago, I remember seeing the statistic in the New York Times, I have not checked to see whether it's still the case, but I suspect it is that half the members of the United States Congress do not have passports. And we are more cut off from the world than people living in most of the countries of Europe, for example. And I think that does account for some of the tremendous feeling against immigrants and refugees. Although, of course, this is something that is common, not just in Europe, but in many countries all over the world. And I fear it's going to get all the stronger as climate change generates more and more refugees from the center of the earth going to places farther north or farther south where they can get away from parts of the world that have become almost unlivable because of climate change.Andrew Keen: I wonder Democratic Congress people perhaps aren't leaving the country because they fear they won't be let back in. What were the concrete consequences of all this? You write in your book about a young lawyer, J. Edgar Hoover, of course, who made his name in this period. He was very much involved in the Palmer Raids. He worked, I think his first job was for Palmer. How do you see this structurally? Of course, many historians, biographers of Hoover have seen this as the beginning of some sort of American security state. Is that over-reading it, exaggerating what happened in this period?Adam Hochschild: Well, security state may be too dignified a word for the hysteria that reigned in the country at that time. One of the things we've long had in the United States is a hysteria, paranoia directed at immigrants who are coming from what seems to be a new and threatening part of the world. In the mid-19th century, for example, we had the Know-Nothing Party, as it was called, who were violently opposed to Catholic immigrants coming from Ireland. Now, they were people of Anglo-Saxon descent, pretty much, who felt that these Irish Catholics were a tremendous threat to the America that they knew. There was much violence. There were people killed in riots against Catholic immigrants. There were Catholic merchants who had their stores burned and so on.Then it began to shift. The Irish sort of became acceptable, but by the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century the immigrants coming from Europe were now coming primarily from southern and eastern Europe. In other words, Italians, Sicilians, Poles, and Jews. And they became the target of the anti-immigrant crusaders with much hysteria directed against them. It was further inflamed at that time by the Eugenics movement, which was something very strong, where people believed that there was a Nordic race that was somehow superior to everybody else, that the Mediterraneans were inferior people, and that the Africans were so far down the scale, barely worth talking about. And this culminated in 1924 with the passage of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act that year, which basically slammed the door completely on immigrants coming from Asia and slowed to an absolute trickle those coming from Europe for the next 40 years or so.Andrew Keen: It wasn't until the mid-60s that immigration changed, which is often overlooked. Some people, even on the left, suggest that it was a mistake to radically reform the Immigration Act because we would have inevitably found ourselves back in this situation. What do you think about that, Adam?Adam Hochschild: Well, I think a country has the right to regulate to some degree its immigration, but there always will be immigration in this world. I mean, my ancestors all came from other countries. The Jewish side of my family, I'm half Jewish, were lucky to get out of Europe in plenty of time. Some relatives who stayed there were not lucky and perished in the Holocaust. So who am I to say that somebody fleeing a repressive regime in El Salvador or somewhere else doesn't have the right to come here? I think we should be pretty tolerant, especially if people fleeing countries where they really risk death for one reason or another. But there is always gonna be this strong anti-immigrant feeling because unscrupulous politicians like Donald Trump, and he has many predecessors in this country, can point to immigrants and blame them for the economic misfortunes that many Americans are experiencing for reasons that don't have anything to do with immigration.Andrew Keen: Fast forward Adam to today. You were involved in an interesting conversation on the Nation about the role of universities in the resistance. What do you make of this first hundred days, I was going to say hundred years that would be a Freudian error, a hundred days of the Trump regime, the role, of big law, big universities, newspapers, media outlets? In this emerging opposition, are you chilled or encouraged?Adam Hochschild: Well, I hope it's a hundred days and not a hundred years. I am moderately encouraged. I was certainly deeply disappointed at the outset to see all of those tech titans go to Washington, kiss the ring, contribute to Trump's inauguration festivities, be there in the front row. Very depressing spectacle, which kind of reminds one of how all the big German industrialists fell into line so quickly behind Hitler. And I'm particularly depressed to see the changes in the media, both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post becoming much more tame when it came to endorsing.Andrew Keen: One of the reasons for that, Adam, of course, is that you're a long-time professor at the journalism school at UC Berkeley, so you've been on the front lines.Adam Hochschild: So I really care about a lively press that has free expression. And we also have a huge part of the media like Fox News and One American Network and other outlets that are just pouring forth a constant fire hose of lies and falsehood.Andrew Keen: And you're being kind of calling it a fire hose. I think we could come up with other terms for it. Anyway, a sewage pipe, but that's another issue.Adam Hochschild: But I'm encouraged when I see media organizations that take a stand. There are places like the New York Times, like CNN, like MSNBC, like the major TV networks, which you can read or watch and really find an honest picture of what's going on. And I think that's a tremendously important thing for a country to have. And that you look at the countries that Donald Trump admires, like Putin's Russia, for example, they don't have this. So I value that. I want to keep it. I think that's tremendously important.I was sorry, of course, that so many of those big law firms immediately cave to these ridiculous and unprecedented demands that he made, contributing pro bono work to his causes in return for not getting banned from government buildings. Nothing like that has happened in American history before, and the people in those firms that made those decisions should really be ashamed of themselves. I was glad to see Harvard University, which happens to be my alma mater, be defiant after caving in a little bit on a couple of issues. They finally put their foot down and said no. And I must say, feeling Harvard patriotism is a very rare emotion for me. But this is the first time in 50 years that I've felt some of it.Andrew Keen: You may even give a donation, Adam.Adam Hochschild: And I hope other universities are going to follow its lead, and it looks like they will. But this is pretty unprecedented, a president coming after universities with this determined of ferocity. And he's going after nonprofit organizations as well. There will be many fights there as well, I'm sure we're just waiting to hear about the next wave of attacks which will be on places like the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation and other big nonprofits. So hold on and wait for that and I hope they are as defiant as possible too.Andrew Keen: It's a little bit jarring to hear a wise historian like yourself use the word unprecedented. Is there much else of this given that we're talking historically and the similarities with the period after the first world war, is there anything else unprecedented about Trumpism?Adam Hochschild: I think in a way, we have often had, or not often, but certainly sometimes had presidents in this country who wanted to assume almost dictatorial powers. Richard Nixon certainly is the most recent case before Trump. And he was eventually stopped and forced to leave office. Had that not happened, I think he would have very happily turned himself into a dictator. So we know that there are temptations that come with the desire for absolute power everywhere. But Trump has gotten farther along on this process and has shown less willingness to do things like abide by court orders. The way that he puts pressure on Republican members of Congress.To me, one of the most startling, disappointing, remarkable, and shocking things about these first hundred days is how very few Republican members to the House or Senate have dared to defy Trump on anything. At most, these ridiculous set of appointees that he muscled through the Senate. At most, they got three Republican votes against them. They couldn't muster the fourth necessary vote. And in the House, only one or two Republicans have voted against Trump on anything. And of course, he has threatened to have Elon Musk fund primaries against any member of Congress who does defy him. And I can't help but think that these folks must also be afraid of physical violence because Trump has let all the January 6th people out of jail and the way vigilantes like that operate is they first go after the traitors on their own side then they come for the rest of us just as in the first real burst of violence in Hitler's Germany was the night of the long knives against another faction of the Nazi Party. Then they started coming for the Jews.Andrew Keen: Finally, Adam, your wife, Arlie, is another very distinguished writer.Adam Hochschild: I've got a better picture of her than that one though.Andrew Keen: Well, I got some very nice photos. This one is perhaps a little, well she's thinking Adam. Everyone knows Arlie from her hugely successful work, "Strangers in their Own Land." She has a new book out, "Stolen Pride, Lost Shame and the Rise of the Right." I don't want to put words into Arlie's mouth and she certainly wouldn't let me do that, Adam, but would it be fair to say that her reading, certainly of recent American history, is trying to bring people back together. She talks about the lessons she learned from her therapist brother. And in some ways, I see her as a kind of marriage counselor in America. Given what's happening today in America with Trump, is this still an opportunity? This thing is going to end and it will end in some ways rather badly and perhaps bloodily one way or the other. But is this still a way to bring people, to bring Americans back together? Can America be reunited? What can we learn from American Midnight? I mean, one of the more encouraging stories I remember, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't it Coolidge or Harding who invited Debs when he left prison to the White House? So American history might be in some ways violent, but it's also made up of chapters of forgiveness.Adam Hochschild: That's true. I mean, that Debs-Harding example is a wonderful one. Here is Debs sent to prison by Woodrow Wilson for a 10-year term. And Debs, by the way, had been in jail before for his leadership of a railway strike when he was a railway workers union organizer. Labor organizing was a very dangerous profession in those days. But Debs was a fairly gentle man, deeply committed to nonviolence. About a year into, a little less than a year into his term, Warren Harding, Woodrow Wilson's successor, pardoned Debs, let him out of prison, invited him to visit the White House on his way home. And they had a half hour's chat. And when he left the building, Debs told reporters, "I've run for the White house five times, but this is the first time I've actually gotten here." Harding privately told a friend. This was revealed only after his death, that he said, "Debs was right about that war. We never should have gotten involved in it."So yeah, there can be reconciliation. There can be talk across these great differences that we have, and I think there are a number of organizations that are working on that specific project, getting people—Andrew Keen: We've done many of those shows. I'm sure you're familiar with the organization Braver Angels, which seems to be a very good group.Adam Hochschild: So I think it can be done. I really think it could be done and it has to be done and it's important for those of us who are deeply worried about Trump, as you and I are, to understand the grievances and the losses and the suffering that has made Trump's backers feel that here is somebody who can get them out of the pickle that they're in. We have to understand that, and the Democratic Party has to come up with promising alternatives for them, which it really has not done. It didn't really offer one in this last election. And the party itself is in complete disarray right now, I fear.Andrew Keen: I think perhaps Arlie should run for president. She would certainly do a better job than Kamala Harris in explaining it. And of course they're both from Berkeley. Finally, Adam, you're very familiar with the history of Africa, Southern Africa, your family I think was originally from there. Might we need after all this, when hopefully the smoke clears, might we need a Mandela style truth and reconciliation committee to make sense of what's happening?Adam Hochschild: My family's actually not from there, but they were in business there.Andrew Keen: Right, they were in the mining business, weren't they?Adam Hochschild: That's right. Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Well, I don't think it would be on quite the same model as South Africa's. But I certainly think we need to find some way of talking across the differences that we have. Coming from the left side of that divide I just feel all too often when I'm talking to people who feel as I do about the world that there is a kind of contempt or disinterest in Trump's backers. These are people that I want to understand, that we need to understand. We need to understand them in order to hear what their real grievances are and to develop alternative policies that are going to give them a real alternative to vote for. Unless we can do that, we're going to have Trump and his like for a long time, I fear.Andrew Keen: Wise words, Adam. I hope in the next 500 episodes of this show, things will improve. We'll get you back on the show, keep doing your important work, and I'm very excited to learn more about your new project, which we'll come to in the next few months or certainly years. Thank you so much.Adam Hochschild: OK, thank you, Andrew. Good being with you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Pete kicks things off with an identity crisis – he's convinced he's 34, and Luke has the unenviable task of breaking the news that he's... absolutely not. Talk then turns to Pete's upcoming WrestleMe Vegas trip and the truly chaotic prospect of a 120-man Royal Rumble. That's a lot of sweaty bodies!Elsewhere, after a brief detour into 'The Slug', the lads debate where the line is drawn between harmless kink and full-blown creep behaviour. Plus, why do homophobes always say things are being jammed down their throats? Is it just a coincidence… or the Freudian slip of the century?Email us at hello@lukeandpeteshow.com or you can get in touch on X, Threads or Instagram if character-restricted messaging takes your fancy.***Please take the time to rate and review us on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your pods. It means a great deal to the show and will make it easier for other potential listeners to find us. Thanks!*** Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Karen Read's Behavior Analyzed FBI Profiler Robin Dreeke Breaks It Down Retired FBI Special Agent Robin Dreeke, former head of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program, joins us for a revealing breakdown of the Karen Read case. As the trial unfolds, Dreeke dives into her shifting narrative, apparent contradictions, and what her behavior may actually reveal about her role in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. We explore how alcohol, emotional reinforcement, and false memory can distort reality—and how Read's behavior fits a pattern seen in cases involving control, self-victimization, and narrative manipulation. From bizarre Freudian slips to unlikely defense theories involving a well-trained dog, nothing is off the table. With new vehicle data and voicemail records about to surface in trial, this episode provides a deeper lens on the probability, psychology, and behaviors that may define the outcome of one of the most confounding true crime stories in recent memory. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #KarenReadTrial #FBIProfiler #RobinDreeke #TrueCrimeAnalysis #DeceptionDetection #BehavioralAnalysis #KarenReadCase #JohnOKeefeDeath Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872 

Karen Read's Behavior Analyzed FBI Profiler Robin Dreeke Breaks It Down Retired FBI Special Agent Robin Dreeke, former head of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program, joins us for a revealing breakdown of the Karen Read case. As the trial unfolds, Dreeke dives into her shifting narrative, apparent contradictions, and what her behavior may actually reveal about her role in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. We explore how alcohol, emotional reinforcement, and false memory can distort reality—and how Read's behavior fits a pattern seen in cases involving control, self-victimization, and narrative manipulation. From bizarre Freudian slips to unlikely defense theories involving a well-trained dog, nothing is off the table. With new vehicle data and voicemail records about to surface in trial, this episode provides a deeper lens on the probability, psychology, and behaviors that may define the outcome of one of the most confounding true crime stories in recent memory. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #KarenReadTrial #FBIProfiler #RobinDreeke #TrueCrimeAnalysis #DeceptionDetection #BehavioralAnalysis #KarenReadCase #JohnOKeefeDeath Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Karen Read's Behavior Analyzed FBI Profiler Robin Dreeke Breaks It Down Retired FBI Special Agent Robin Dreeke, former head of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program, joins us for a revealing breakdown of the Karen Read case. As the trial unfolds, Dreeke dives into her shifting narrative, apparent contradictions, and what her behavior may actually reveal about her role in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. We explore how alcohol, emotional reinforcement, and false memory can distort reality—and how Read's behavior fits a pattern seen in cases involving control, self-victimization, and narrative manipulation. From bizarre Freudian slips to unlikely defense theories involving a well-trained dog, nothing is off the table. With new vehicle data and voicemail records about to surface in trial, this episode provides a deeper lens on the probability, psychology, and behaviors that may define the outcome of one of the most confounding true crime stories in recent memory. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #KarenReadTrial #FBIProfiler #RobinDreeke #TrueCrimeAnalysis #DeceptionDetection #BehavioralAnalysis #KarenReadCase #JohnOKeefeDeath Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Retired FBI Special Agent Robin Dreeke, former head of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program, joins us for a revealing breakdown of the Karen Read case. As the trial unfolds, Dreeke dives into her shifting narrative, apparent contradictions, and what her behavior may actually reveal about her role in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. We explore how alcohol, emotional reinforcement, and false memory can distort reality—and how Read's behavior fits a pattern seen in cases involving control, self-victimization, and narrative manipulation. From bizarre Freudian slips to unlikely defense theories involving a well-trained dog, nothing is off the table. With new vehicle data and voicemail records about to surface in trial, this episode provides a deeper lens on the probability, psychology, and behaviors that may define the outcome of one of the most confounding true crime stories in recent memory. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #KarenReadTrial #FBIProfiler #RobinDreeke #TrueCrimeAnalysis #DeceptionDetection #BehavioralAnalysis #KarenReadCase #JohnOKeefeDeath Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The episode elucidates the transformative journey of a vocal coach who, through his collaboration with the artist Daniel Caesar, has garnered significant recognition within the music industry. Initially approached to provide vocal coaching, our speaker's involvement swiftly evolved into vocal production for Caesar's acclaimed album, "Freudian," which ultimately led to Grammy nominations. This pivotal experience not only catalyzed his ascent in the industry but also underscored the profound impact of music in transcending borders and fostering emotional connections among audiences globally. Throughout the discussion, we delve into the nuances of audience reactions across different cultures, the importance of community within the Toronto music scene, and the challenges faced by emerging artists in gaining recognition. The conversation culminates in a contemplative exploration of the necessity for a more interconnected musical community that champions collaboration over competition.Takeaways: The evolution of my career has been significantly influenced by my collaboration with Daniel Caesar, whose debut album, 'Freudian', has garnered notable recognition, including Grammy nominations. Experiencing a world tour allowed me to witness diverse audience reactions, highlighting the cultural differences in how people engage with music across various regions. The impact of music transcends geographic boundaries, serving as a universal language that fosters emotional connections and encourages positive change in listeners. In the music industry, there exists a challenging dynamic where emerging artists often struggle to gain visibility and support due to established hierarchies and perceived credentials. The development of a supportive music community in Toronto is crucial, as the current environment often fosters competition rather than collaboration among artists. I believe that fostering connections and collaborations among artists can enhance the creative landscape in Toronto, allowing for mutual growth and success. Companies mentioned in this episode: Daniel Caesar Freudian Kanye West

In The Ego and the Id, Sigmund Freud uses the analogy of a horse and rider to illustrate the relationship between the ego and the id, emphasizing that we may have less control over the unconscious than we'd like to believe. Yet, a decade later in New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, Freud introduces the psychoanalytic motto: “Where id was, there ego shall be,” hinting at the possibility of greater agency than he originally proposed. This tension—between the limits of our control and the hope for transformation—has always intrigued me. In this episode, I explore that dynamic by sharing a few key quotes from Freud, and one from Mari Ruti that I believe sheds meaningful light on this enduring paradox.

Executive Director of the Presidential Council of Advisers for Digital Assets has Freudian slip and says America wants to buy infinite bitcoin?!► Bitcoin Well: bitcoinwell.com/simplybtc► Ledn: https://learn.ledn.io/simplySimply Bitcoin clients get 0.25% off their first loan► Coldcard: https://store.coinkite.com/promo/simplyPROMO CODE: SIMPLY for 5% OFF► Stamp Seed: www.stampseed.comPROMO CODE: SIMPLY for a 15% discount► HIVE Digital Technologies: hivedigitaltech.com► Casa: casa.io/simplyPROMO CODE: SIMPLY for 5% OFF your first year of Casa Standard or Premium ► Bitcoin Conference 2025: b.tc/conference/2025PROMO CODE: “SIMPLY” for 10% offFOLLOW US► https://twitter.com/SimplyBitcoinTV► https://twitter.com/bitvolt► https://twitter.com/Optimistfields► Nostr: npub1vzjukpr2vrxqg2m9q3a996gpzx8qktg82vnl9jlxp7a9yawnwxfsqnx9gcJOIN OUR TELEGRAM, GIVE US A MEME TO REVIEW!► https://t.me/SimplyBitcoinTVSUBSCRIBE TO OUR YOUTUBE► https://bit.ly/3QbgqTQSUPPORT US► On-Chain: bc1qpm5j7wsnk46l2ukgpm7w3deesx2mdrzcgun6ms► Lightning: simplybitcoin@walletofsatoshi.com#bitcoin #bitcoinnews #simplybitcoinDISCLAIMER: All views in this episode are our own and DO NOT reflect the views of any of our guests or sponsors.Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. If you are or represent the copyright owner of materials used in this video and have a problem with the use of said material, please contact Simply Bitcoin.

It was wonderful to welcome back poet, teacher, writer, & scholar Elizabeth Cantwell this week to explore haunted houses both in film & real life, plus the existential, psychosexual, guilt-filled, Freudian, & supernatural realms of THE HAUNTING (1963), THE CHANGELING (1980), POLTERGEIST (1982), STIR OF ECHOES (1999), & more. I always learn so much when I talk to Elizabeth & we laughed far more than one would think going in given the topic, so this episode instantly became one of my favorites. Grab a flashlight & meet us at the top of the staircase, gang, we've got this!Originally Posted on Patreon (4/13/25) here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/126578705Shop Watch With Jen logo Merchandise in Logo Designer Kate Gabrielle's Threadless ShopDonate to the Pod via Ko-fiTheme Music: Solo Acoustic Guitar by Jason Shaw, Free Music Archive

Emma calls in concerned for her son, you tell us the ickiest ick you've gotten, and more!

Emma calls in concerned for her son, you tell us the ickiest ick you've gotten, and more!

In this thought-provoking video, Nathan and Cameron delve into the intersection of theology, myth, and current cultural trends, with a special focus on C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien's perspectives on myth within Christianity. They explore how myths, often seen as mere stories, can point to deeper truths, especially in the context of the Christian faith. Drawing on Lewis's conversion and Tolkien's insights, they examine the role of myth in understanding reality, contrasting it with modern secular myths like those found in Freudian psychology. This conversation challenges viewers to think critically about how Christianity fits into the broader narrative of human experience and invites Christians to engage with cultural and theological questions in a deeper, more reflective manner. Perfect for those seeking a deeper theological discussion on how ancient truths intersect with modern life.DONATE LINK: https://toltogether.com/donate BOOK A SPEAKER: https://toltogether.com/book-a-speakerJOIN TOL CONNECT: https://toltogether.com/tol-connect TOL Connect is an online forum where TOL listeners can continue the conversation begun on the podcast.

Join Klaudia and Ollie for a stroll through Supernatural S5E17: "99 Problems" and S5E18: "Point of No Return." Points of Interest: The Official Mystery Spotcast Playlist, WHEN Buddie becomes canon, Hibachi Chef Dean Winchester, Conclave brainrot, for those with the yaoi goggles on, copius Ethel Cain references, Sam's out of control sideburns, a W*ncest Freudian slip, a request for feedback from our straight listeners, the Revelations to Omegaverse pipeline, Into the Benedictverse, Castiel's Diva Cup, “Never kill yourself pookie,” Michael or Muppet, textbook omega poses, and an inappropriately timed Doctor Who joke.---Send a song (with reasoning) to our email, Tumblr ask box, or Bluesky for the Mystery Spotcast Official PlaylistCheck out Fight For the Future's frontline organizations list---Resources for Palestine:BDS: Act Now Against These Companies Profiting From the Genocide of the Palestinian PeopleBDS: What you can do about Israel's escalated crimes across the occupied West BankDecolonize Palestine: A collection of resources for organizers and anyone who wants to learn more about Palestine.Follow BDS: Instagram / Bluesky / TikTok---Follow us @MysterySpotcast on Bluesky / TikTok / Instagram / Tumblr---Contact us:- Send us a question to our  Tumblr ask box or email us at themysteryspotcast@gmail.com- Submit your favorite Destiel fic for us to read

Emma calls in concerned for her son, you tell us the ickiest ick you've gotten, and more!

The Oedipus complex, Freudian slip, repression, the ego and the id – Sigmund Freud's ideas have become part of everyday language. He opened up the world's mind to the idea of the subconscious. He also pioneered the idea that our childhood shapes who we are. But what are the secrets of his own early years? And what started him on the path towards, literally, changing our minds about everything?Listen to Legacy on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. You can binge episodes early and ad-free on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Start your free trial by visiting wondery.com/links/legacy now.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Welcome to PsychEd, the psychiatry podcast for medical learners, by medical learners. This is our inaugural book club episode centered around the novel Mind Fixers by Anne Harrington.Mind Fixers is by the Harvard historian Anne Harrington, and came out from Norton in 2022. It reframes the “biological turn” in later twentieth century psychiatry with a history of the discipline from the later nineteenth century forward. Harrington argues that the biological turn had relatively little to do with new scientific advances, and came instead from a need to separate psychiatry from the increasingly unpopular public image of the discipline's previous, “Freudian” age. To make this argument, she starts with the anatomic research of turn-of-the-century figures like Kraepelin, and how this generally failed to explain important mental illnesses. She traces the emergence of “Freudian” or psychological approaches to mental illness to the high point of their dominance in the mid twentieth century, and then their decline, as their inadequacy with respect to things like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia became increasingly clear, and their emphasis on childhood experience stigmatized families. Biological psychiatry is then a way to restore the fields's respectability as as branch of medicine, but according to Harrington, there is not much transformative innovation to go along with this rebrand; and she emphasizes that the psychopharmacology revolution which gave us the first antipsychotics, MAOIS, tricyclics, and the receptor model of mental illness, actually happened during the heyday of psychoanalysis.The members of our team involved in this discussion are:Sara Abrahamson - MS2 at the University of TorontoDr. Kate Braithwaite - Medical Doctor from South AfricaDr. Wendy MacMillan-Wang - PGY4 psychiatry resident at the University of ManitobaDr. Alastair Morrison - PGY1 psychiatry resident at McMaster UniversityDr. Gaurav Sharma - Staff psychiatrist working in Nunavut, CanadaThis episode was edited by Dr. Angad Singh - PGY1 psychiatry resident at the University of Toronto Our discussion was structured around four themes:(03:15) - Psychiatry and Economic Incentives(19:33) - Psychiatry and Parenting(28:40) - Biological Psychiatry and its Alternatives(52:05) - Psychiatry and Social ControlIf you enjoyed this episode, consider listening to our episodes about:History of Psychiatry with Dr. David CastleCritical Psychiatry with Dr. Elia Abi-Jaoude and Lucy CostaFor more PsychEd, follow us on Instagram (⁠@psyched.podcast⁠), X (⁠@psychedpodcast⁠), and Facebook (⁠⁠PsychEd Podcast⁠⁠). You can provide feedback by email at ⁠psychedpodcast@gmail.com⁠. For more information, visit our website at ⁠psychedpodcast.org⁠.

The gang tries some black cherry faygo, and keep talking about A6A6I5 of Homestuck, now with Muse!Calliope and Jasprosesprite^2. Calliope returns to the land of the living. Karkat and Kanaya visit the queen of monsters. The Freudian slips continue. This episode covers pages 7561 - 7671 of Andrew Hussie's Homestuck, which is best read on the Unofficial Homestuck Web Archive.Get in touch!Leave us a message at our tumblr: https://seriousbusinesspod.tumblr.com

Question: I am a registered psychotherapist and I reject Freudian and Jungian beliefs. However, I did find that when you remove these demonic influences and stick with the "science" behind psychology and filter it through the Bible that it's a powerful tool. Proverbs in particular along with New Testament scriptures encourage us to guard our heart and mind, renew our mind with God's Word, and find peace of mind. The Bible is actually the BASIS of TRUE Psychotherapy if you study the subject biblically. What do you say?Response: It's instructive that just in the last week we have been contacted by Christian psychologists who insist that "psychotherapy" by name has been discarded by Christians who limit themselves to being called Biblical Counselors. Further, secular psychologists have also gone down this path. We appreciate your "rejection" of Freudian and Jungian beliefs. It is clear that your heart is for those you seek to help. With that in mind, the pertinent question to ask, however, is how thorough that process has been? We say that because some of these counselors are still using the teachings of those you correctly label as "demonic influences."Other psychologists have "come out" with the same concern for how they have been trained, and what they have learned in practices that span several decades.More recently, the Transgender movement has shown that "science" has very little to do with an utterly emotional, anti-science practice. So, we have to make sure we've gutted the structure of psychology/psychotherapy.There is, however, the often seen reference to the “Science” of psychology. There's a fascinating article entitled The Puzzle of Paul Meehl: An intellectual history of research criticism in psychology (i.e., checking them out from the perspective of real science [https://bit.ly/4ihy1qX]).Professor Andrew Gelman writes, "There's nothing wrong with Meehl. He's great. The Puzzle of Paul Meehl is that everything we're saying now, all this stuff about the problems with Psychological Science and PPNAS and Ted Talks and all that, Paul Meehl was saying 50 years ago. And it was no secret. So how is it that all this was happening, in plain sight, and now here we are?"Meehl concluded his 1967 article by saying, "Some of the more horrible examples of this process would require the combined analytic and reconstructive efforts of Carnap, Hempel, and Popper to unscramble the logical relationships of theories and hypotheses to evidence. Meanwhile our eager-beaver researcher, undismayed by logic-of-science considerations and relying blissfully on the ‘exactitude' of modem statistical hypothesis-testing, has produced a long publication list and been promoted to a full professorship. In terms of his contribution to the enduring body of psychological knowledge, he has done hardly anything."We will pray that as you devise your way, the Lord will direct your steps further.

This week we psychoanalyze Spellbound, Hitchcock's 1945 film noir mystery dominated by Freudian psychotherapy. Gregory Peck plays an amnesiac doctor and psychiatrist Ingrid Bergman races to unlock his past as z murder investigation threatens to derail his progress.***SPOILER ALERT*** We do talk about this movie in its entirety, so if you plan on watching it, we suggest you watch it before listening to our takes.A Selznick International Picture. Directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Produced by David O. Selznick. Written by Angus MacPhail, based on the novel The House of Dr. Edwardes by Hilary Saint George Saunders and Francis Beeding. Starring Ingrid Bergman, Gregory Peck, Michael Chekhov, Leo G. Carroll, Norman Lloyd.. Cinematography by George Barnes. Music by Miklos Rozsa.Ranking: 18 out of 52. Ranking movies is a reductive parlor game. It's also fun. And it's a good way to frame a discussion. We aggregated over 70 ranked lists from critics, fans, and magazines Spellbound got 1,989 ranking points.

Beau Is Afraid is not a movie that wants to be understood in a traditional sense—it's designed to be an overwhelming, anxiety-ridden odyssey where meaning is entirely subjective. Ari Aster crafts a surreal, often nightmarish world that feels both deeply personal and universally unsettling. The film taps into the psyche of its audience, mirroring their own fears, relationships, and insecurities, particularly surrounding themes of guilt, maternal control, and existential dread. Whether you see it as a tragic comedy, an absurdist horror, or a Freudian fever dream depends on what you bring to it—your own relationship with your mother, your personal anxieties, and how much you're willing to surrender to its chaos. This is a movie that refuses to give answers but thrives on interpretation, making it an experience that lingers long after the credits roll.Beyond its complex themes, Beau Is Afraid is also a masterclass in filmmaking. The cinematography is striking, shifting between claustrophobic close-ups and vast, unsettling dreamscapes that make you feel trapped inside Beau's mind. The soundtrack amplifies the tension, seamlessly weaving between eerie orchestrations and unexpectedly playful melodies, reinforcing the film's tonal instability. At the center of it all is Joaquin Phoenix, delivering a raw and deeply vulnerable performance that keeps the audience tethered to Beau's unraveling psyche. His performance is so committed that, even when the film descends into complete absurdity, his fear and confusion feel painfully real. Whether you love it or hate it, Beau Is Afraid is an ambitious, one-of-a-kind cinematic experience that challenges its audience to sit with discomfort and find meaning in the madness.Stick around until the end of the episode for a round of Movie 20 Questions.Safe travels, nomads.

If you're an oh I never cry kind of person, if nothing seems to touch you or move you that deeply, this is for you.Few things might be more impactful — and more challenging — than giving space to what has been avoided for a long, long time.Because that was me. With the exception of brief outbursts, I didn't allow myself a lot of emotions. It was difficult (and expensive!?) to re-connect with my heart and body. Every week I stepped into a bland office with tired carpets and waited for the dreaded words: “How does that make you feel?”I was not feeling anything.If anything, my body felt empty. There was a void. And tension. Like someone holding a door from bursting open.The head was my safe space. I wanted to think about my life, not feel it. Kudos to my therapist who gently prodded me back to my body when I tried to divert and tell a story.Anger might have been the hardest to access.Hot flashing anger. Boiling anger. Stewing anger. Even today, anger is a tough one. I still push it away. If I get angry, I may feel a short pull, a hint at something happening. Then it gets bottled up and placed in the toxic waste storage somewhere down in my guts. Anger does not feel safe. I had to learn, like a toddler, that experiencing anger was not the same as being an angry person. I had to teach myself not to feel guilty for anger simply arising. I had to grasp that being angry at someone I loved did not threaten to break our bond. Don't get me wrong: I don't want to act from a place of anger. I don't want my life to be filled with anger. No, like all feelings and thoughts, it arises and vanishes. The anger burns off. The better my overall state, the more centered I am, the less interesting it is. (This was where meditation changed my life profoundly.) But the self-denial, I found, leads to a dissociated existence, to a disconnect from my truth.It creates tension and numbness in my body. It leads to behavior that is hard to explain — like suddenly avoiding a person or place. It leads to the willful destruction of the gift of time to experience distraction and release.Then I climb down the ladder and open the anger barrel. Ah. That's what's going on…“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.” ― Carl JungI have found different ways to access that space. What seems to work best is movement, movement that lets the body express and release without the mind as an intermediary. Workouts, dance, TRE, breathwork all seem effective. And, yes, even writing — which has the advantage of being available for free to anyone at any time (well, provided some privacy).It's dead simple, but not easy.I learned this technique from the books of the late Dr. John Sarno (I shared it here with other notes on journaling). Years ago, Jim O'Shaughnessy mentioned Sarno to me, but I was not listening. Sarno focused on chronic pain, particularly back pain, and that was not a major issue for me.Last year, one of my stepbrothers used Sarno's method to overcome long COVID. The way he described it was very moving, as if he was dropping the weights he had been carrying by communing with his heart. It blew my mind.Strange as it may seem, people with an unconscious psychological need for symptoms tend to develop a disorder that is well known, like back pain, hay fever, or eczema. — The Divided Mind“John Sarno was a rehabilitation-medicine specialist at N.Y.U.,” writes Sam Dolnick at the New York Times. A doctor frustrated with his tools which didn't seem to be effective. His encounter with psychology made him see “his own physical ailments — an irritable stomach, itchy skin, shrieking headaches — as manifestations of his emotional well-being.” Mind and body appeared to him as one system and chronic pain often as a psychosomatic phenomenon — a physical symptom caused by psychological factors (he called it TMS).I don't know whether he is right about pain being a ‘distraction' but I don't doubt the connection between mental and physical health.As with Freud's patients, I found that my patients' physical symptoms were the direct result of strong feelings repressed in the unconscious. — The Mindbody PrescriptionThe medical community thought Sarno, who called himself ‘a heretic', went too far. “Because his colleagues wouldn't listen,” writes Dolnick, “he bypassed the journals and instead wrote best-selling books, conversational in tone, that detailed the link he saw between emotional distress and physical pain; he sold more than a million copies.”I didn't suffer from chronic pain, but I was familiar with the issue of bottled-up emotions. How else could they manifest? What issues was I risking down the road?Sarno focused on rage perhaps because that was his predicament (“I am furious!” he said. “It's there all the time! I'm in a rage!”). What about the other stuff we push away? The sorrow, shame, guilt, envy, fear, all the hurt and judgment and nasty stuff we would rather avoid.What if Sarno didn't go far enough?“It is perfectly acceptable to have a physical problem in our culture, but people tend to shy away from anything that has to do with the emotions.” — Healing Back PainI wanted to know the truth about how I felt — the embodied truth, not the story my mind would come up with. And I wanted to drop the weight. I needed to know how Sarno had helped people.For some patients, knowledge was enough. That's why Sarno's books analyze the condition, the treatment methods, and (Freudian) psychology. Unfortunately, Sarno buried a key idea among his many pages (kudos to his student Nicole Sachs for re-surfacing it): if knowing about the connection between psyche and body is not enough, you can choose to face and release whatever you are holding.The best description I've found is in the chapter ‘treatment' in The Divided Mind. Barely five pages of a “daily study program.” It's that simple.* Make three lists with all the sources of your emotional pain:* One list for your past: “Anger, hurt, emotional pain, and sadness generated in childhood will stay with you all your life because there is no such thing as time in the unconscious.”* One list for your current life circumstances: “List all the pressures in your life, since they all contribute to your inner rage.”* And one list for your personality traits, whatever contributes “to the internal emotional pain and anger.” For example: being a people pleaser, self-critical, a perfectionist, very driven, shy, self-sacrificing etc. — “The child in our unconscious doesn't care about anyone but itself and gets angry at the pressures to be perfect and good.” * Set aside time and “write an essay, the longer the better, about each item on your list. This will force you to focus in depth on the emotional things of importance in your life.” I called it write Until the Heart Catches.* Ideally, do this daily. More realistically, commit to it as an experiment, say for a month, then regularly to check in. This is done by hand. With pen and paper. I know you all want to type it and have AI analyze it. Or speak it into a transcription app and avoid typing altogether. That may be effective in different ways, but in this what matters is not insight but to have an emotional experience that was previously avoided.The point of the pen is movement. We need to move from head to body and stay with discomfort. We need to see the words take shape and be able to stare at them. We need to feel the emotional charge. It's work. If you stay at the level of trivial chatter, your experience will likewise be trivial.Yes, your hand may cramp in the beginning. It gets better.Yes, it may be illegible. That does not matter. We're not writing to share.This is about healing, growing, and a chance to get closer to your essence.What happens on that page is for your eyes only. It may be effective to destroy the pages later on. I haven't tried that yet, but I know it can be useful to ‘release' written statements — say a letter of forgiveness — to the ocean, fire etc.Occasionally, this writing yields creative sparks. Ideas and insights, songs and poetry, maybe waiting for you. There is gold in your shadow. When that happens, you just write the spark up somewhere else. Keep the mindbody writing between yourself and the universe.A few things I've learned doing this many times:* Turn off the phone. Practice discipline. You may feel the urge to go to the kitchen, the bathroom, to text someone, check the apps, to do work, to do anything but experience what has been avoided for so long.* Set a timer. It can take a while to go deep. I often start at the level of story with my gaze outward (“my problem is [person] is [doing]”). Give yourself enough space to go beyond the surface. Keep writing until you find the trail of feeling, then discomfort. Look for I feel [X] and, frankly, I'd rather not…* Stay with the body. The mind will try to distract you. For the purpose of this exercise what happened is irrelevant. The story does not matter. All that matters is whether you can give yourself permission to feel what your unconscious is holding.* Privacy. This is about experiencing emotions that don't feel safe to feel, let alone express around others. Even with my therapists and my IFS coach I censored myself. The more privacy you have for this work, the better.* Mindbody experience. I've broken pens, punched through pages, sobbed, cried, yelled, and cursed. I tend to shift back and forth between writing auf deutsch and in English. Many of my pages are illegible. Sometimes the letters get very large, at other times the writing is tiny. Allow yourself a full body experience. Give your parts the space to express themselves the way they want to.* Try speaking. Try reading the emotionally difficult/juicy stuff out loud. Don't think or dictate but rather let the hand write and then say out loud what appeared.* Let go. We're not trying to make this our reality. The goal is to visit the dragon's cave and return to the village. Say what needs to be said, cry if you feel like crying, and when you're done, close the notebook and leave it behind on the page. * End with soothing. Things might get loud and wild and you might feel raw and upset after. Give yourself time to calm down and comfort yourself. I'm not joking. Don't do this and hop on a work call right after.* Find a couple of self-care rituals as rewards for doing the work — a walk in nature, yoga nidra, a nap, hot bath, soothing music or guided meditation..* Add self-love and forgiveness. We're looking to meet ourselves on the page as honestly as we can. You might bump into shadow that can be difficult to face. That's valuable, but we also need to make sure we don't stay in that mindset. Aside from soothing self-care, end with an affirmation to love and forgive yourself. Perhaps find someone to share that love with. Share a hug.* The weirder this sounds, the more important it is. If everything love and forgiveness gives you the ick, try something like Love Yourself Like Your Life Depends on It by Kamal Ravikant.I've used mindbody writing for life circumstances like money or writing, for relationship and family issues, for hang-ups like my avoidance of intimacy, and for the big leaps I have not allowed myself. I could easily find dozens more for which I haven't explored with it yet.Like my reluctance to ask for help. Gotta be independent! Can't rely on others… oh. Is that so. I wonder what feelings are hiding in that space. Or my teeth clenched at night. I wonder what wants to be expressed there… Still, I've found it very effective already. I feel lighter and less tense. My story has been changing. I find peace and bliss on the other side of broken pens and mad pages.It is simply one way I meet my darkness and stuckness to release it, one page at a time.Maybe it's time to start the work?I hope this helps.— Frederik This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.frederikwrites.com/subscribe

In another special episode dedicated to the how, what and why of memory, Gyles talks to his long-time friend and colleague Professor Brett Kahr. Professor Kahr is a practising psychotherapist and an expert on Sigmund Freud, the father of psychotherapy and the inventor of the "talking cure". In this fascinating conversation, Gyles and Prof. Kahr take a detailed look at the power of childhood memories, particularly traumatic ones, to effect our adult lives, and the benefits to be had from examining them and learning from them. Brett also tells Gyles about Freud himself, how he developed his ideas and how he escaped the Nazis and came to London. Gyles talks to Brett about some of the memories we've heard from our guests on Rosebud, and Brett talks about some of the common themes which come up in psychoanalysis - such as dreams and sex. This is a wide-ranging and thought-provoking conversation, we hope you enjoy it. Professor Kahr's book: Coffee with Freud, is available from major bookshops online. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

RU335: DR VANESSA SINCLAIR ON RENDERING UNCONSCIOUS, THE BOOK SERIES: https://renderingunconscious.substack.com/p/ru335-dr-vanessa-sinclair-on-rendering Join Rendering Unconscious at Substack: https://renderingunconscious.substack.com Rendering Unconscious episode 335. In this episode, I discuss my recent trip to the London, the highlight of which was my pilgrimage to the Freud Museum, where my husband, Carl Abrahamsson, gave a lecture on the films "Seconds" (1966) and "The Substance" (2024) with Freudian cinephile Mary Wild as discussant. I am happy to say my visit to the Freud Museum gave me renewed enthusiasm for the field. The museum's existence is so significant for psychoanalysis, especially during these times of rising fascism, as it was where Freud when fellow psychoanalyst Marie Bonaparte helped him and his family escape Vienna. I then delve into my book series Rendering Unconscious: Psychoanalytic Perspectives, detailing its origins, contributors, and themes. The 2019 edition featured artwork by Alison Blickle, while the 2024 edition includes collages by Sinclair. The books cover diverse topics like violence, racism, and political issues, and are dedicated to the memory of queer poet and dear friend, Andrew Daul. Get both volumes of Rendering Unconscious: Psychoanalytic Perspectives here: https://amzn.to/4bHrdRp News & updates: Join me on March 15 – Book launch event and seminar for The Queerness of Psychoanalysis: From Freud and Lacan to Laplanche and Beyond (Routledge 2025) with co-editors Elisabeth Punzi and Myriam Sauer, Malmö Konstmuseum, Malmöhusvägen 6, Malmö, Sweden. Visit https://www.drvanessasinclair.net/events/ The Queerness of Psychoanalysis: From Freud and Lacan to Laplanche and Beyond (Routledge 2025) has incredible cover art by trans icon Val Denham. Get yours now: https://amzn.to/3QYFlw6 Links to all my books can be found at: https://www.drvanessasinclair.net/books/

Here are the 4 KEEN ON AMERICA take-aways in our conversation about the dysfunctional American immigration system with Felipe Torres Medina1) Background & Immigration Journey* Felipe Torres Medina is a comic writer for "The Stephen Colbert Show" and author of the new book America Let Me In about the US immigration system* Born in Bogotá, Colombia, Medina moved to the US at 21 on a student visa to pursue a master's in screenwriting at Boston University* Medina received an "alien of extraordinary ability" visa (talent visa for artists) after graduation, and eventually got a green card after marrying2) On the US Immigration System* Medina describes the immigration process as expensive (costing "tens of thousands of dollars" in legal fees) and filled with bureaucratic challenges* He emphasizes that legal immigration requires "tremendous privilege and money" that most people don't have* The book takes an interactive "choose your own path" format to highlight the maze-like nature of the immigration system* He points out that there hasn't been comprehensive immigration reform since the Clinton administration (nearly 30 years ago)3) Comedy as Commentary* Medina uses humor to process his experiences and create community around shared frustrations* He was inspired by writers like Julio Cortazar, George Saunders, Tina Fey, and Carrie Fisher* The book aims to educate Americans who "have so many opinions about immigration" but "don't know what it entails"* He mentions that making the book interactive and game-like adds "levity" to a tense topic4) How to Fix the System* While critical of Trump's immigration policies, Medina says the book isn't specifically about Trump but about a "flawed and messy" system created by multiple administrations* He suggests moving US Citizenship and Immigration Services out of the Department of Homeland Security to change the narrative that immigration is a security threat* His proposed reforms include creating better pathways for educated immigrants and hiring more USCIS staff to reduce backlogs FULL TRANSCRIPT* Andrew Keen: Hello everybody. It is Sunday, March the 9th, 2025. Interesting piece in the times. A couple of days ago, The New York Times, that is about the so-called British flame thrower who is a comic best suited to taking on Trump. They're talking about a man called Kumar. Nish Kumar looks very funny, and apparently he's very angry too. I have to admit, I haven't seen him. It's an interesting subject. It suggests that at the moment, even in spite of Trump and outraging many Americans, the state of American humor could be amped up a bit. My guest today is a writer on The Stephen Colbert Show and a comic, or certainly a comic writer in his own right, Philippe Torres Medina. He has a new book out on Tuesday. It's called America Let Me In, and I'm thrilled that he's joining us from Harlem in Manhattan today. Congratulations, Phillip, on the new job. What do you the new book? I was going to say job. That's a Freudian error here. What do you make of the Times's observation that American humor isn't in its best state when it comes to Trump?Felipe Torres Medina: Oh, wow. That's that's an interesting question. First of all, I love Nish Kumar. I think he's a wonderful, wonderful comedian. He's very funny. He has a level of wit and his observations are just wonderful. I hadn't seen this article, but I really appreciate that the times recognized him because he's been working very hard for a lot of years. I think more than American humor not being fit for the moment. I think at least personally for me, a little bit of addressing Trump again began. And addressing Trump in general is, you know, jokes have to be new. And after basically ten years of Donald Trump every day, all the time, it's certainly hard to continue to find new angles. Now, the dysfunction of the administration and perhaps sometimes the cruelty and whatever they're doing does provide you with material. But I think it can cause you as a writer to be like, oh God, here we go again. More Trump stuff. You know, because that's what we're talking about.Andrew Keen: Do you see your book, Philippe, as a Trump book? America? Let me in. It's about immigration. I mean, obviously touches on in many ways on Trump and certainly his hostility to immigration and immigrants. But is it a Trump book, or is it a broader kind of critique or observation about contemporary America?Felipe Torres Medina: Yeah, I never set out to write a book about Trump or a Trump book. My goal is to write a book about the immigration system, because I went through it, and as a comedian, I encountered in it many contradictions and absurdities that just kind of became fodder to me for comedy. So I try to write this book about the system, but the system was caused by many administrations in many parties, you know, now, the current hostility or the current everythingness of immigration, you know, immigration being kind of in the forefront of the national discourse certainly has been aided by Republican policy in the past ten years and by Donald Trump's rhetoric. But that doesn't mean that this is a book about Trump or as a response to Trump. It's actually a book responding to a system that is flawed and messy, but it's the one we have.Andrew Keen: Yeah. You described the book as a love letter to immigrants, but it's not a love letter to the system. Tell me your story. As you say. You went through it so you have firsthand experience. Where were you born?Felipe Torres Medina: So I was born in Colombia. I was born in Bogota, Colombia, which is the capital of Colombia. I lived there most of my life. I moved to United States when I was 21 on a student visa, because I came here to do my masters. I did my master's in screenwriting at Boston University. And after that, you know, I started working here as a comedian, but also as a writer. And I was able to get an alien of extraordinary ability visa, which is a very pretentiously named visa, kind of makes you sound like you're in the X-Men, but it it's just what they call talent visas for artists, athletes, entrepreneurs, educators, whatever. And so I got one of those and then several renewals of those. And then, you know, thanks to my work as a writer, as a comedian, initially as a copywriter in advertising, I was able to I bought I met the love of my life, got married, and then I have a green card and that's why I'm here.Andrew Keen: Yeah. As and quoting here, it sounds rather funny. An alien of extraordinary ability. Do you think your experience is typical? I mean, the even the fact that you came for grad school to to Boston puts you in a, in a kind of intellectual or professional elite. So is your experience in any way typical, do you think?Felipe Torres Medina: I wouldn't say typical. I would say my experience is the experience of many people who come here. And I think it's the experience of the people who are, quote unquote, the immigrants we want. Right. And, you know, if we're going to dive into the rhetoric of the of immigration these days, I came the right way and did everything, quote unquote, the right way. You know, but what this book and also this journey that I took to immigrate here proves is that it's it's only possible with tremendous amount of privilege and tremendous, tremendous amount of money. You know, it's a very expensive process for the majority of people.Andrew Keen: How much did it cost you?Felipe Torres Medina: Oh, I think in total since I started. I mean, when you count the fact that for most, like master's programs, you don't get any sort of financial aid unless you get, like a scholarship from your own country or a sort of like Fulbright or something like that. There's already the cost of a full master's program.Andrew Keen: But then you weren't coming. I mean, you didn't pay for your master's program in order to get immigration papers, you know.Felipe Torres Medina: Of course, that, but I, I had to pay for my master's program to be able to study here. You know, I didn't have I didn't have my any sort of aid. But, you know, discounting that in terms of immigration paperwork, I've spent tens of thousands of dollars because you have to hire immigration lawyers to make sure that everything's fine. And those are quite expensive.Andrew Keen: Was it worth it?Felipe Torres Medina: Well, yeah. You know, I met the love of my life. I live a.Andrew Keen: Very. I mean, there are lots of loves of. You could have met someone else, and that's true. Or you might have even you might have even met her or him at an airport somewhere else while they were on vacation.Felipe Torres Medina: That's that's possible. But yeah, I mean, I live a I live a good life. I do what I wanted to do, you know, I, I took got my master's because I wanted to write comedy professionally and I get to do that. And I do think when I set out to do this, I was like, well, the place with the best film and television industry in the world is and was then and still is the United States. So I was like, well, I have to go there, you know, and I was able to become a part of this industry and to work in this art form.Andrew Keen: You didn't get any job. You You got the combat job? Yes. I believe you drew the the short straw, right? I bet nobody else was right. Just Stephen Colbert.Felipe Torres Medina: Yeah, I'm very lucky. And but again, it's a mix of luck and hard work and all those things. So yeah, I don't I don't regret moving.Andrew Keen: So some people might be watching this maybe some some MAGA people. I'm not sure if MAGA people really watch this, but if they were they might be thinking, well, Philippe Torres Medina, he's a good example. He's the type of person we want. He jumped through many hoops. He's really smart. He's really successful. He brings value to this country. Is now a full time writer on the Colbert's show he came from it came from Latin America. And he's exactly the kind of person we want. And we want a system that's hard, because only guys like him have the intellectual and financial resources to actually get through it. Well, how would you respond to them?Felipe Torres Medina: I would say that I appreciate the compliment, but I wouldn't necessarily say that that's the best way to move forward on immigration now. I will say this book is a humorous take on the whole immigration journey. And so what? Like I tell different stories of different people coming here made up or inspired by real life. And one of the paths that you can take in this book, because this is kind of an interactive choose your own path book, is mine. But I think what this book tries to prove is that even if you do everything right, even if you, you know, have the money, sometimes it's very, very hard. And that, I think, does put us at a disadvantage when it comes to having a workforce that could be productive for the country, especially as birthrates are declining. You know, we are headed toward a but, you know, people have described as a barrel economy. If we don't simply up the population and the people who are upping the population and actually having children are immigrants.Andrew Keen: One other piece of news today, there's obviously a huge amount of news on the immigration front is apparently there's a freeze on funding to help green card holders. You've been through the process. You write about it in the new book. But how much more difficult is it now?Felipe Torres Medina: You mean under the current administration? Yeah. I wouldn't know. I you know, I think that.Andrew Keen: This idea of even freezing green card. Yeah. That holidays, even if you have a green card, you get frozen.Felipe Torres Medina: Yeah, exactly. And I think that that, you know, I think that that's what Trump did in his first term, more or less with legal immigration, was to create roadblocks and freezes and these kinds of things to kind of just like stymie the process and make it slower, make it harder, even for people who, again, are doing everything right to be able to remain in the country.Andrew Keen: And I'm guessing also some of the DOJ's stuff about laying off immigration judges and court stuff, they're taking office to leave. Apparently 100 immigration court staff are retiring. This adds to it as well.Felipe Torres Medina: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. I mean, Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS is a very particular part of the government because it is one of the few parts of the federal government that funds itself. Again, going back to cost the fees that they make are so big, they make so much money that if there's a government shut down, actually, USCIS does not shut down. It's one of the few parts of the government that didn't need to shut down, because they make so much money out of the immigrants trying to come here. So it's a really, really strange part of the government. It kind of doesn't know where it belongs. So seeing like the the DOJ's cuts that arrive into the and that may be implemented into USCIS. Kind I'm not familiar with any Dodge cuts recently on USCIS, but I suspect that they would be strange because it's a it's a very strange division of the federal government. It's not like the Department of Education or the like the Forestry Service. It's it's it's own kind of like little fiefdom.Andrew Keen: Are you wrote an interesting thing or you were featured recently on Lit Hub, where this show actually used to get distributed about how to write a funny book about American immigration. Of course, it's it's a good question. I mean, it's such a frustrating bureaucratic mess at the best of times. I do write anything funny, Philippe, about it.Felipe Torres Medina: Well, I think the, the to me, the, the finding a format to be able to explore this, this chaotic system. It's so, so complicated. It's like a maze. So to me, having this kind of interactive format allowed me to have some freedom to be like, okay, well, you know, one of the things that they taught me in my comedy education, when I was training at a theater here in New York, the Upright Citizens Brigade is the premise of if this is true, then what else is true? You know, so if this absurd thing is reality, then what? How can you heighten that reality? And for me, you know, the immigration system is so absurd. It's it's so Byzantine and chaotic that I was like, okay, well, I can heighten this to an extra level. And so when I keyed in on, on this format of like allowing the person who's reading it to be the many characters to inhabit the, the immigrants and also to be playing with the book, you know, going out and going to one page, making their own choices. It allowed me to change the tone immediately of the conversation because you say immigration and everyone's like, oh, you know, it gets tense. But if you're saying like, no, no, this is a game, you know, we're playing this game. It's about immigration, but it's a game. All of a sudden there's a levity to it, and then you take the real absurdities and the real chaos of the system and just heighten it, which is basically what you do with comedy at all times.Andrew Keen: Who are the the fathers or perhaps the mothers of this kind of comedy? The person who comes to my mind is is Kafka, who found his own writing very funny. Not, and I'm not sure everyone necessarily agrees. He, of course, wrote extensively about central mid European bureaucracy and its darkness and absurdity. Who's inspired you both as a comic writer and particularly in terms of this book?Felipe Torres Medina: Well, actually, Kafka also has a great book called America.Andrew Keen: Yeah. Which is a wonderful first paragraph about seeing this. Seeing the Statue of Liberty.Felipe Torres Medina: Yes. Which is also kind of about this. But I would say my inspirations comedically are, you know, I don't think I would have written this book without, like, the work of Tina Fey. I think Bossy Pants was a book where I was like, oh, you can be funny in writing. And Carrie Fisher is a big Star Wars nerd, you know, to like great, funny writer writers who are just, like, writing funny things about their lives. But I think the playfulness of it all, actually, I was inspired by this Argentine writer, Julio Cortazar, who wrote a novel that in English just translated as hopscotch. And this novel is a huge, like, structural disrupter, you know, in the like, what we call the Latin American boom of writing in the 60s, 70s and 80s. And he wrote this novel that is like a game of hopscotch. You're jumping from chapter two chapter. He's directing you back and forth. So I read a lot of that. And I, you know, I read that in my youth, and then I read it. I reread it as I was older. And then there are writers like George Saunders, who can be very funny while talking about very sad or very poignant things. And so that was also a big inspiration to me. But, you know, I am a late night writer, so I was interested in actually making it like, ha ha, funny. Not just, you know, sensible chuckle funny, you know, kind of like a very, like, intellectual kind of funny. So I was also inspired by, you know, my job and like Colbert's original character in Colbert's book, America, I am American. So can you the writing of The Onion and, you know, the book, The Daily Show Book America, which is just kind of like an explanation of what the federal government is and what the country is written in the tone of the correspondents or the the writers for The Daily Show back in the original Jon Stewart iteration. So those books kind of like informed me and made me like, realize, oh, I can you can make like a humorous guy that's jokey and funny, but also is actually saying something isn't just like or teaching you something. Because the biggest reason I started writing this book is that Americans don't know their own immigration system, and they have so many opinions about immigration, particularly now, but no one knows what what it entails. You know? And I don't just mean like conservatives, you know, I don't just mean like, oh, MAGA people. Like, I was living in New York in the Obama years or like the late Obama years, and none of my liberal Brooklyn, you know, IPA and iced matcha drinking friends had any idea what I was going through, you know, when I was trying to get my visas.Andrew Keen: The liberals drink IPA. I didn't know that I drink IPA, I mean, I have to change my. Yeah. It's interesting you bring up in the first part of that response, the, the the Argentine novelist. There's something so surreal now about America. An interesting piece in the times about not being able to pin Trump down because he says one thing one day, the next thing the next day, and everyone accepts that these are contradictions. Now, the times describes these contradictions as this ultimate cover. I'm not quite sure why they're a cover. If you say one thing one day, in the next something the opposite the next day. But is there a Latin American quality to this? I mean, there's a whole tradition of Latin American writing observing the, the cruel absurdities of of dictators and wannabe dictators.Felipe Torres Medina: Yeah. I mean, it's it's part of our literary tradition. You know, the dictator novel you have. But again, just as the feast of the goat, and you have Garcia marquez, my my compatriot, you know, like that.Andrew Keen: Was one of my favorite magnificent writing.Felipe Torres Medina: It's it's possibly, I hesitate to say, my favorite writer because it creates ranking, but.Andrew Keen: Well amongst your.Felipe Torres Medina: Favorite, among my favorite writers, 100 Years of Solitude. Obviously that is possibly my favorite novel, but he has also, I believe it's the Autumn of the Patriarch, which is his novel about. Exactly. Yeah. I mean, there is a there is. I wouldn't say it's a South American or Latin American quality to it. I think it's just once you encounter it, it is so absurd that art does have to come out and talk about it, you know, and, you know, you see the in a book like the Autumn of the Patriarch. That is a character full of contradictions. That is a character who, in chapter one, hates a particular figure because they he they think that they're against him and then is becomes friends with them and then hires him to be his personal bodyguard. You know, that is what dictators are, and that is what authoritarians do. It is the cult of the person. It is the whims of the person, and the opinion of the person are the be all and the end all to the point where the nation is. It is at the whims of, of of a a person, of those of those persons contradictions. So I wouldn't say it's necessarily a Latin American nature to this, but I think Latin America, because we experience dictatorship in many times supported or boosted by the United States. Latin Americans were able to find a way to turn this into art. And quite good art is what I would say.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and of course, it's the artists who are best able to respond to this. As you know, it's not just a Latin American thing. The Central Europeans, the Czechs in particular. Yes.Felipe Torres Medina: Milan Kundera.Andrew Keen: Yeah. Written a series of wonderful books about this. But the only way to respond to someone like Trump, for example, who says one thing one day, the next thing the next day when he talks about tariffs, he says, well, I'm going to have 25%. And the next day, oh, I've decided I'm not going to have 25%. Then the following day he's going to change his mind again. The policy people, I'm not very helpful here. We need artists, satirists of one kind or another humorist like yourself to actually respond to this, don't we?Felipe Torres Medina: I think so. I think that that that is what. Helps you? I mean, it's the emperor has no clothes, right? That's how you talk. And it's about all kinds of government, obviously. Autocracy or dictatorship is one thing, but at all in all systems of government, these are powerful people who think they have they know better and who think that they are invincible. And you know what? What satire or humor and art does is just point out and say like, wait, that's weird. That thing they just did is weird. And being able to point that out is, is a talent. But also that's why people respond to it so well. People say like, yeah, that is weird. I also notice that. And so you create community, you create partnership in there. And so all of a sudden you're punching up, which is something you want to do in comedy. You want to make fun of the people who have more power, and you're all punching up and laughing at the same thing, and you're all kind of reminding each other. You're not crazy. This is weird.Andrew Keen: Yeah. I mean, the thing that worries me. I was on Kolber on the Colbert Show a few years ago in the original show. I mean, it's brilliant comic, very funny. But him and Jon Stewart and the others, they've been going so long, and they. I'm not saying they haven't changed their shtick. I mean, writers like you produce very high quality work for them, but it's one of the problems that these guys have been going for a while and America has changed, but perhaps they haven't.Felipe Torres Medina: I mean, it's an interesting thing to bring up, particularly with with Stephen, because his show was completely different. Ten years ago, it was a completely different show. He was doing a character. Yeah, right. And now he's doing a more traditional late night show. I think I think the format of late night is a very interesting beast that somehow has become A political genre. You know, it didn't used to be with Letterman. Didn't you see with Conan O'Brien, Jay Leno? You know, they would dabble in politics. They would talk about politics because it's what people are talking about. But now it's become kind of like this world. It all has to be satire. And there's some there's some great work. And I do think people keep innovating and making, like, new things, even though the shows are about ten years old. You know, you have Last Week Tonight, which my wife writes for, but it's a show that does more like deep dive investigations and stuff like that. So it's more like end of the week, 60 minutes, but with jokes kind of format. But I do think, yeah, maybe like the shows, can the shows in the genre in general, like there's genre I could do with some change and some mixing it up and.Andrew Keen: Well, maybe your friend Kumar could.Felipe Torres Medina: Yeah. Well, what? Let us get.Andrew Keen: A slot to his own late night show. And I wonder also, when it comes to I don't want to obsess over Trump or that course it's hard not to these days, but because he himself is a media star who most people know through his reality television appearance and he still behaves like a reality television star. Does that add another dimension of challenges to the satirical writers like yourself, and comics like or satirical comics like Colbert and Jon Stewart?Felipe Torres Medina: I think it's just a layer of how to interpret him as a person. At least for me, it's like, okay, well, you have to remember that he is a show man, and that's what he's doing.Andrew Keen: Yeah. So they're coming back to your your metaphor of the air and power and not having any clothes on. He kind of, in his own nodding wink way, acknowledges that he's not pretending to wear any clothes.Felipe Torres Medina: Yeah, and, well, sometimes he is and sometimes he isn't. And that is. That's the challenge. And that's why writing jokes about him every day is hard. But, you know, we we.Andrew Keen: And the more I know I watched Saturday Night Live last week that Zelensky thing and it was brilliant. Zelensky and Musk and Trump. But I'm very doubtful it actually impacts in any way on anything. Well, and I.Felipe Torres Medina: Think that that's also a misconception people have about comedy. You know, comedy is there to be funny. You know, comedy isn't there to change your mind if it does that, great. But the number one impetus for For Comedy should be to make you laugh. And so the idea that, like, a sketch show is going to change the nation. I don't know. Those are things that I think are applied on to comedy. They're kind of glob down to comedy. I don't necessarily think that that's what it the, the people making the comedy set out to do so. I think if if it made you laugh and if it works. The comedy has done its job. Comedy, unfortunately, can't change the world, you know. Otherwise, you know, I'm sure there would have been a very. There are many good Romanian comedians who could have done something about it has.Andrew Keen: You know, time to time. I mean, Hava became Czech president for a while. You, you, you know, that you sometimes see laugh, laughter and comedy as a kind of therapy when it comes to some of the stuff you do with Kovat. Are you in in America? Let me in. Are you presenting the experience, the heartbreaking experience? So certainly an enormously frustrating experience of the American immigration system as a kind of therapy, both for people who are experiencing it And outsiders, Americans in general.Felipe Torres Medina: And for myself, I think.Andrew Keen: And of course, yes. So self therapy, so to speak.Felipe Torres Medina: I think so, I mean, it is for me a way to like comedy is a way to process things for me. It comes naturally to me, and it is inopportune at times when dealing with things like grief and things like that. But I mean event, anyone who's gone through grief, I think, can tell you there's one moment when things are going really bad and one of the people grieving with you makes one joke and you all laugh and you're like, this. This somehow fixed for one second. It was great. And then we're back to sadness. So I think comedy, you know, as much as again, I go back to what I said a second ago, it's about making you laugh and that making you laugh can create that partnership, can create that empathy and that that that community therapy, I guess, of people saying like, oh wait, yeah, this is weird, this is strange. And I feel better that someone else recognized it, that someone else saw this.Andrew Keen: It certainly makes you saying, hey, you wrote an interesting piece for The New Yorker this week. In times like these, where you, you write perhaps satirically about what you call good Americans. Is the book written for good or bad Americans or all Americans or no Americans? Who do you want to read this book?Felipe Torres Medina: Oh my God. I want everyone to read it and everyone to buy a copy so that I've got a lot of money. All right. No, I think it's written for most Americans and and immigrants as well. People living here. But I do think, yeah, it's written for everyone. I don't think I wrote it with particular like, kind of group in mind. I think to me, Obviously with my background and my political affiliations, I think liberals will enjoy the book. But I also think, you know, people who are conservative, people who are MAGA, people who don't necessarily agree on my vision of immigration, can learn a lot from the book. And I purposely wrote it so that these people wouldn't necessarily be alienated or dismissed in any way. You know, it's a huge topic, and I think it was more of a like, I know you have an opinion. I'm just showing you some evidence. Make with it what you will, but I'm just showing you some evidence that it might not be as you believe it is, both for liberals and conservatives. You know, wherever you are on the spectrum, liberals think it's super easy. Conservatives that think it's super easy but in a bad way to move here. And I'm here kind of saying like, hey, it's actually this super complicated thing that maybe we should talk about and we should try to reform in some way.Andrew Keen: Yeah. And I think even when it comes to immigration, often people are talking about different things. Conservatives tend to be talking about quote unquote, illegal immigration and progressives talking about something else, too. You deal with people who try to get into America illegally, or is that for you, just a subject that you're not touching in this book?Felipe Torres Medina: I address it very lightly toward the final pages of the book. I first of all, I can, like, claim ownership on all immigrant narratives. And I wrote this about the legal immigration system because it's what I've navigated. Again, I am not an immigration lawyer. I am not an activist. I'm a comedy writer who happened to go through the immigration like system, so I but I did feel like, you know, okay, well, let's talk for a second. You've seen how hard it is because I've shown you all this evidence in the first couple stories in the book. And again, I say in the last pages because because of the interactive nature of the book, this could there is potentially a way for you for this to be the first, one of the first things you read in the book, but to where the last pages of the book, I say, okay, let's talk about you. We've seen how hard it is. Let's talk about the people who do so much to try and come here and who go even harder because they do it in the like, in the unauthorized way, you know, or the people who come here seeking asylum, which is a legal way to come to the United States, but is very difficult. So I do present that, but I do think it is not necessarily the subject of a comedy book, As I said earlier, when you're dealing with comedy, you want to be punching up. You want to be making fun of people in authority figures or in a sort of status position that is above the general population or the the voice of the comic. And with with undocumented immigrants and people trying to come here in irregular ways. It's it's very hard to find the humor there because these people are already suffering very much. And so to me, the line is threading the line of comedy there. It can very quickly turn into bullying or making fun of those people. And I don't want to do that because a lot of people are already doing that, and a lot of people who are already doing that work on this in this administration. So I don't I don't really want to mess with that.Andrew Keen: Philip, I'm not sure if you've got a a Spanish translation of the book. I'm sure there will be one eventually.Felipe Torres Medina: Hopefully.Andrew Keen: If people start reading this in Colombia, where you're from, Bolivia or Argentina, Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, they think themselves, this is so hard to get in, even legally. Even if you have money to pay for lawyers, they might think, well, f**k it, I'll just try and get over the border illegally. And do you think in a way, I mean, it's obviously designed as a humor book, but in a way this would encourage any sane person to actually give up. I mean, go try and try and go somewhere else or just stay where you are.Felipe Torres Medina: I think, I think the book has a tone of I'm I'm a pretty optimistic person. So I think the book does have a tone of optimism and love for America. I do love the United States, where I, while presenting it as a difficult thing, I am also saying, like it? It's pretty good. You're going to have a good time if you make it here. So I don't think it will be a deterrent. Whether it's some sort of Trojan horse to create more people, to try and go through the border. I don't know, it'd be pretty funny if a funny book tended ended up doing that, but.Andrew Keen: It'd be great if we just got hold of the book and blamed you for for for all the illegal immigrants. But in all seriousness, it was been a lot of pieces recently about, according to the New York Times, people going silent for fear of retribution. As a comic writer and someone clearly on the left, the progressive in American politics. Do you think that there is a new culture of fear by some of your friends and colleagues in the comedy business? Are they fearing retribution? Trump, of all people, doesn't like to be laughed that some people say that he he only wanted to be president after Obama so brilliantly and comically destroyed him a few years ago.Felipe Torres Medina: I think in comedy, you know, I think people are tired of talking of Trump because, again, as I said, ten years of writing about him. I don't think anyone is necessarily afraid of talking about him or making fun of him. I think that is or his administration. I think that is proven like this past week with explosion of memes, making fun of J.D. Vance, his face, you know, to the point where J.D. Vance has tried to hop on the meme and be like, ha ha! Yes, I enjoy this very much too. Good job members. So like, obviously, first of all, he doesn't like it, but I think everyone is. And I think this is something that America does so well. Americans like to make fun of politicians, period. And even though I think in certain spaces of, you know, politics and activism, there might be fear of retribution that is much more marked. I think the let's make fun of of the Emperor for having no clothes that make fun of them is an instinct that that it's not going away and it won't go away any, anytime soon.Andrew Keen: Philip, finally, you've written a funny book about immigration. But of course, behind all the humor is a seriousness. Lots of jokes. It's a very entertaining, amusing, creative book. But it also, I think, suggests reform. You've given a great deal of thought. You've experienced it yourself. How can America improve its immigration story so that we don't have in the future more satirical books like America Like Me and what are the the reforms, realistically, that can be made that even conservatives might buy into?Felipe Torres Medina: Well, I think one of the biggest things is, if you look at it historically, there hasn't been comprehensive immigration reform since Clinton. Which is ridiculous. You know, we're nearing on 30 years there, and we're. We're basically 30 years since. And, you know, I'm 33, so it's a whole lifetime for a lot of people with no changes to a system, no comprehensive changes to a system. And that just means that, like it is going to become outdated. So obviously it's very hard right now with the tenor, but what we really need is for people to sit down and talk about it as a normal issue. And this is not an invasion. This is not a national emergency. It is simply an issue, an economic issue. And I think one of the biggest things, and one of my personal suggestions is that. The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has always been, as I said, this kind of strange ancillary part of the government. It started as part of the Department of Labor, eventually joining the Department of Justice. Then it goes back to labor. It kind of always bounces around. They don't know where it fits. And in after 911, it became part of the Department of Homeland Security. And I think that creates a an aura around immigration as something that is threatening to homeland security. You know, which is not true.Andrew Keen: Yeah. I see what you're saying. It's become the the sex when it comes to, in the context of Victorian something that we don't talk about, and we use metaphors and similes to, to, to describe. And I take your point on that. But what about some and I take your point on the fact that the system hasn't been reformed since Clinton. But let's end with a couple of final, just Doable reforms, Philippe, that can actually make the experience better. That will improve that. That might be cheaper that the the Doge people might buy into that both left and right will accept and say, oh, that's fair enough. This is one way we can make immigrating to America a better experience.Felipe Torres Medina: I think, rewarding if we're talking about this idea of like, we want the best immigrants, educated people. I think actually rewarding that because the current system does not do that for most people trying to get a work visa. They're subjected to a lottery where the chances are something like 1 in 16 of getting a work visa to be here, and that is really bad for companies in general. It's something that the big tech firms have been lobbying against for years, and because there's no consensus in Congress to actually do something. We have been able to address that. So I think actually rewarding the kind of like higher education, high achievement immigrants. In a way that isn't just like if you have $5 million, you can buy a gold car. Yeah, and.Andrew Keen: That's what Trump promised.Felipe Torres Medina: Right? Actually rewarding it in a way that's like, okay, well, if you have a college degree, maybe you don't just get a one year permit to work here, you know, maybe you can. There is a path for you to if you made your education here, if you start your professional life here, if you are contributing because all these immigrants are paying taxes or contributing, maybe there's a path that isn't as full of trapdoors and pitfalls. I would say that that that's one of the biggest things. And honestly, higher up, like I, I do think maybe this is my progressive side of me, but it's like get more people working in USCIS so that these waits aren't taking forever and getting more immigration judges, you know, hire people who are going to make this system efficient, because that is, I think, unfortunately, what Dodge thinks that the, you know, we're going to slim it down so it doesn't cost that much. Yeah. But if you slam it down, you don't have enough people. And there's a lot of people are still trying to come here and they're still trying to do things. And if you don't have enough people like working those cases, all you're creating is backlogs.Andrew Keen: Yeah. I'm guessing when those transforms the American immigration system through AI, you'll have another opportunity for you to write a book. Yeah. I mean, I let me in an important book, a very funny book, but also a very serious book by one of America's leading young comic writers full time, writing for Stephen Colbert, Philippe Torres Medina. Philippe, congratulations on the book. It's out next week. I think it will become a bestseller. Important book. Very funny too, and we can say the same about you. Thank you so much.Felipe Torres Medina: Thank you so much for having me.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Geoff, Gavin and Andrew talk about morning DJ, midnight bathroom nightmare, Mario Party March bribery, Andrew's clip, pickled gopher feet, psych outs, travel bags, Gavin's collection, Gurplid, Gurpler Silencer, ball news, flamingo kick, Disneyland, Geoff's absolutely disgusting stories, the night plunger, Geoff's new tattoo, Freudian snap, Survivor, faked vacations, floor donut fiasco, and phone text problems. Sponsored by Factor. Thanks Factor! Go to FACTORMEALS.com/FACTORPODCAST and use code FACTORPODCAST to get 50% off your first box plus free shipping on your first box. Support us directly at https://www.patreon.com/TheRegulationPod Stay up to date, get exclusive supplemental content, and connect with other Regulation Listeners. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You've got questions. We've got answers. Let's make a podcast!Yes, this week we're once again opening up a big bag of mail to do some listener questions! Which listeners, you might ask? Our Patreons, of course, because they're awesome and you should really consider joining them. Then you, too, might ask questions like: Who takes the blame when a slow rider has a fast teammate? Will the future be electric, or is it running on biofuels? How much can a bikeframe bend if bikes was build to bend? Will we ever see a return of the mighty 2 stroke? And should riders seek out help from sport psychologists, or might that accidentally give a whole new (and very literal!) meaning to the words 'Freudian slip'? We've got the answers to these and more, so come get 'em!Want more? Visit our website or support us on Patreon. With big thanks as always to Brad Baloo from The Next Men and Gentleman's Dub Club for writing our theme song. Check out The Nextmen for more great music! 

Today I spoke to Dr. Carl Waitz about his new book Youth Mental Health Crises and the Broken Social Link: A Freudian-Lacanian Perspective (Routledge, 2024). “The kids are not ok” blurbs Patricia Gherovici in her endorsement of Dr. Waitz' necessary new book. We know this. On the weekend we recorded this interview (February 9, 2025) the New York Times published research[1] showing national trendlines from 1990-2024. Rates of depression and suicide; up. Life expectancy and satisfaction; down. Dr. Waitz cites data from 2015-2020 showing suicide as the second leading cause of death for youth ages 10-14. In discussion with colleagues at other hospitals they recognize that these numbers are “striking”. The topic of youth mental health has been on Dr. Waitz' mind for a long time starting “as far back as when I first started working with adolescents. Even before I and went to graduate school for psychology.” Dr. Waitz' clinical experience with this material over the years is evident in this thoughtfully researched book. When he and his wife were expecting their “first kid” he realized that “this was starting to be a personal topic in addition to a professional one.” This is a deeply felt book. So was this interview. No matter where we were in our talk I associated to my current cases. Cases of youth in crisis. They cannot be discussed here. So we weaved in and out of the text. Sometimes exploring theory broadly. Sometimes specifically. All our discussion leading to the clinical question, what does psychoanalysis have to offer? We addressed this by discussing two passages near the end of the book. “Without the fantasy of a sexual rapport any longer, there is no easily available limit on jouissance and this is precisely why the panoply of solutions called the youth mental health crisis (suicide, self-injury, depression, identification with the stigma of diagnosis, and political polarization are substitutionary, if not contrary to the formation of a social link.” (p.180) “The challenges of psychoanalysis are greater than merely navigating its own exigencies. If it is to have anything to say about the youth mental health crisis, it must find a way of engaging with a non-psychoanalytic society. With this in mind, how can psychoanalysis a practice focused on a singular subject approach a problem of desire - itself a consequence of a loss of initiation rites at a social level while maintaing it's "non desire to cure" (p.175) As readers of clinical and theoretical literature recognize, analysts tend to shy away from declarative statements preferring to swim in the open waters of the unknown. I was pleased to end the interview by asking Dr. Waitz about his bold declaration, “There is no question more revealing of one's worldview then why one conceived a child one's religion or economics hold no candle to this question.” (p.100) [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/0... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychoanalysis

Today I spoke to Dr. Carl Waitz about his new book Youth Mental Health Crises and the Broken Social Link: A Freudian-Lacanian Perspective (Routledge, 2024). “The kids are not ok” blurbs Patricia Gherovici in her endorsement of Dr. Waitz' necessary new book. We know this. On the weekend we recorded this interview (February 9, 2025) the New York Times published research[1] showing national trendlines from 1990-2024. Rates of depression and suicide; up. Life expectancy and satisfaction; down. Dr. Waitz cites data from 2015-2020 showing suicide as the second leading cause of death for youth ages 10-14. In discussion with colleagues at other hospitals they recognize that these numbers are “striking”. The topic of youth mental health has been on Dr. Waitz' mind for a long time starting “as far back as when I first started working with adolescents. Even before I and went to graduate school for psychology.” Dr. Waitz' clinical experience with this material over the years is evident in this thoughtfully researched book. When he and his wife were expecting their “first kid” he realized that “this was starting to be a personal topic in addition to a professional one.” This is a deeply felt book. So was this interview. No matter where we were in our talk I associated to my current cases. Cases of youth in crisis. They cannot be discussed here. So we weaved in and out of the text. Sometimes exploring theory broadly. Sometimes specifically. All our discussion leading to the clinical question, what does psychoanalysis have to offer? We addressed this by discussing two passages near the end of the book. “Without the fantasy of a sexual rapport any longer, there is no easily available limit on jouissance and this is precisely why the panoply of solutions called the youth mental health crisis (suicide, self-injury, depression, identification with the stigma of diagnosis, and political polarization are substitutionary, if not contrary to the formation of a social link.” (p.180) “The challenges of psychoanalysis are greater than merely navigating its own exigencies. If it is to have anything to say about the youth mental health crisis, it must find a way of engaging with a non-psychoanalytic society. With this in mind, how can psychoanalysis a practice focused on a singular subject approach a problem of desire - itself a consequence of a loss of initiation rites at a social level while maintaing it's "non desire to cure" (p.175) As readers of clinical and theoretical literature recognize, analysts tend to shy away from declarative statements preferring to swim in the open waters of the unknown. I was pleased to end the interview by asking Dr. Waitz about his bold declaration, “There is no question more revealing of one's worldview then why one conceived a child one's religion or economics hold no candle to this question.” (p.100) [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/0... 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

So what to J.D. Vance's highly controversial speech at the Paris AI Summit this week? According to That Was The Week's Keith Teare, it was “a breath of fresh air”. Others will argue it was just more MAGA putridity designed to alienate our European friends. Some tech notables, like Union Square Ventures partner Albert Wenger, take both views simultaneously, acknowledging on the one hand that Vance was correct to push back against “regulatory capture”, but on the other that Vance was “mistaking jingoism and wishful thinking for true global leadership”. Here are the 5 KEEN ON takeaways from this weekly tech round-up with Teare:* J.D. Vance's Paris AI Summit speech marked a potential turning point in US-Europe AI relations. His message prioritizing AI opportunity over safety prompted European regulators to pull back on some restrictions, with the EU dropping its AI liability directive and the UK rebranding its AI Safety Institute.* Anthropic's growth is accelerating, with projections of $34.5 billion in revenue by 2027. They're currently outperforming OpenAI in some areas, particularly coding, and are expected to release a major new AI model soon.* The Musk-OpenAI conflict has intensified, with Musk's $100 billion bid for OpenAI's non-profit arm being rejected. Meanwhile, OpenAI is planning to incorporate its Q* (Q-star) model into a new GPT-5 release that will combine reasoning, operational capabilities, and multimedia functions.* The AI industry is seeing rapid advancement in humanoid robotics, with companies like Apptronics and Figure receiving significant valuations. Figure's valuation jumped from $2 billion to $39 billion after securing a major automotive partnership.* Traditional political alignments are becoming less relevant in tech policy, with Teare arguing that economic growth and technological progress are transcending traditional left-right divisions. This is exemplified by some progressives like Reid Hoffman embracing AI optimism while traditional conservatives champion technological progress. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody. It is Saturday, February 15th, 2025, a day after Valentine's Day. It's been a day or a week dominated by a certain J.D. Vance. Yesterday, he made a very controversial speech in Munich, which apparently laid bare the collapse of the transatlantic alliance. He attacked Europe over free speech and migration. So he's not the most popular fellow in Europe. And a couple of days before that, he spoke in Paris at the AI Summit, a classic Parisian event talking about summits. Macron, of course, also spoke there. According to The Wall Street Journal, Vance's counts were good. The German, of course, being a conservative newspaper. According to The Washington Post, which is a progressive newspaper, he pushed the "America First" AI agenda. Others, like Fast Company, ask what to make of Vance's speech at the Paris AI conference. According to my friend Keith Teare, the author of That Was The Week newsletter, the speech was a breath of fresh air. I was going to call you Marx, Keith. That would have been a true Freudian error. What do you admire about Vance's speech? Why is it a breath of fresh air?Keith Teare: Well, it's in the European context that it's a breath of fresh air. I think from an American perspective, he didn't really say anything new. We already think of AI in the way he expressed it. But in Europe, the dominant discussion around AI is still focused on safety. That is to say, AI is dangerous. We have to control it. We need to regulate it. And as a result of that, most of the American developments in AI are not even launched in Europe, because in order to be made available to citizens, it has to go through various regulatory layers. And that slows everything down. So in the context, Vance stood up on the platform in front of all of the people doing that regulation and told them basically, rubbed their noses in it, saying how self-destructive their approach was for European success. His opening lines were, "I'm not here to talk about AI safety. I'm here to talk about AI opportunity." And in the days since, there's been quite a big reaction in Europe to the speech, mostly positive from normal people and adjusting policy at the regulatory level. So it's quite a profound moment. And he carried himself very well. I mean, he was articulate, thoughtful.Andrew Keen: Yeah. You say his speech marks a crucial inflection point. I wonder, though, if Vance was so self-interested as a MAGA person, why would he want even to encourage Europe to develop? I mean, why not just let it be like social media or the Internet where American companies dominate? Is there anything in America's interest that the Trump-Musk alliance would benefit from strong European AI companies?Keith Teare: Well, from strong European AI openness, yes. I don't think Vance thinks for a minute there are any European companies that will be able to compete in that open environment. And so most of his purpose is economic. He's basically saying open up so that our guys can sell stuff to you and the money will flow back to the U.S. as it has done with Amazon and Google and every other major tech innovation in recent years. So it's basically an economic speech masquerading as a policy speech.Andrew Keen: I wonder if there's an opportunity for Europe given the clear divisions now that exist between the U.S. and Europe. I wonder whether there's an opportunity for Europe to start looking more sympathetically at Chinese AI companies. Did Vance warn in his speech, did he warn Europe about turning to the Chinese, the other potential partner?Keith Teare: Yeah. There are two parts of his speech I didn't really incorporate in the editorial. The first was a subplot all around China, which he didn't name, but he called "dictatorships." We don't want dictatorships leading in AI. And then there was another subplot, which was all about free speech and openness and not censoring, which was aimed at the Europeans, of course, and the Chinese.Andrew Keen: Discussion of their free speech, or at least it's their version of free speech, isn't it?Keith Teare: I think the funny thing is in order to be consistent, they're going to have to allow all free speech. And they will, because they know that. And so, weirdly, the Republicans become the free speech party, which makes no sense historically. But it is happening. And I thought there were a lot of interesting things in that speech that symbolized a very confident America. However, the reason America is doing this is because it's weak, which is a paradox.Andrew Keen: Politically weak or militarily weak or economically weak?Keith Teare: Not militarily - it's super strong, but economically it's relatively declining against China. It's the next Europe. America is the next Europe. China is the next America. And in that context, America's brashness sounds positive to our ears and to mine as well, because it's pro-optimism, pro-progress. But actually, it's coming from a place of weakness, which you see in the tariffs and the anti-Chinese stuff.Andrew Keen: And I want to come to the Munich speech where Vance was pretty clear. Trump's always been clear that if there is an opportunity for Ukraine, Ukrainians have to work for American access to its raw materials, minerals, etc. Whether America's foreign policy now is becoming identical to that of China, helping other countries as long as they provide them with essential resources.Keith Teare: Yeah, exactly. By the way, one of our commentators, David John William Bailey on LinkedIn, is saying we need to explain this. He says he's also attempting "$1 trillion mob-style shakedown." Anyone defending this is either deluded or only reads hard-right propaganda.Andrew Keen: Well, but Keith, you've always claimed to be a progressive. You always claim to be a man of the left. You have a background in left-wing communist activism. Now you're on board with Vance. You were on board the week before with Musk. You're ambivalent about Trump. What does this say to you? What does this suggest about you personally, or is the reality of politics these days that the supposed conservatives like Vance are actually progressive in their own way and the supposed progressives in the Democratic Party are actually conservative?Keith Teare: Well, as you know, I don't like those labels anymore because I think they're trying to fit a modern narrative into an old set of boxes. I think, broadly speaking, Vance is an economic progressive. He wants the economy to grow. He wants GDP to grow.Andrew Keen: Some people say everyone's a progressive in that sense if they want GDP to grow.Keith Teare: Yeah, but not very many people can do it. So I think they really are serious that they believe innovation in tech and GDP are correlated. And I believe GDP and social good are correlated. And so if you really want to be a progressive that wants people to have a good life, you have to support economic growth. And I think Vance does. And I think that's what his narrative is about. He's basically telling Europe that they're going to get the opposite, which has been true, by the way, now for a decade. European GDP per capita is as low as $35,000 a year. American is $85,000 a year.Andrew Keen: That's an astonishing shift. And this is going to be remembered, I think, as an important week in the American-European relationship. You said that the aftermath of the Vance speech has been remarkable and telling. The EU dropped its AI liability directive. The UK rebranded its AI Safety Institute. OpenAI removed diversity commitments. So a speech is now having an impact, particularly this Paris speech when it comes to AI policy, both in Europe but also in the US as well.Keith Teare: Yeah, I wouldn't give too much credit just to the speech. I think the speech is symptomatic of a lot of zeitgeist change and everyone is getting in line with the new zeitgeist, which is tech is good, AI is good, censorship is bad.Andrew Keen: Well, I don't know if that's - I'm not sure I would call that the zeitgeist, Keith. I mean, you're talking in Palo Alto, where that's always been the zeitgeist. I think if anything, in universities and book publishing, the reverse is true.Keith Teare: Yeah. So I'm an avid MSNBC watcher. I watch Morning Joe every morning with Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough. And so I'm kind of imbued with the liberal narrative compared to what's going on. And what's happened is a very rapid change from the days after the election when the liberal narrative was "we need to look at ourselves" has now become a narrative that "the judges have to save us from the administration." The administration is not democratic, even though it was elected, and we've got to rely on judges because there's no one else to rely on.Andrew Keen: That doesn't mean the zeitgeist has shifted. It just means that the people on one side have shifted their focus, but they still are not sympathetic to Trump, Vance, Musk.Keith Teare: I think there is increasing sympathy. I think you're going to be surprised. I think if an election was held today, Trump would win by more.Andrew Keen: Well, he would certainly win by more if he was running against Harris. That's another question. So it's been another remarkable week for AI content. One piece that you pick out, which I thought was interesting, is from somebody called Elizabeth Yin. Nice to have a female author - too many of our authors are male. Maybe I'm being too woke. But the AI takeover, according to Yin - no one's jobs are safe. This isn't exactly news, is it?Keith Teare: No, she's really summarizing what we've been talking about in That Was The Week for quite a while. But I thought it was a good summary. And she gives some kind of prioritization. There's a section that talks about regulated professions, human-centric jobs, creative and entrepreneurial jobs, energy and infrastructure and distribution. And she then breaks down what she thinks the main impact of AI is going to be. She kind of leaves it where you kind of want more from her because she doesn't thoroughly go through all of these. But she's a VC, she does early-stage investing. She's very good. And the one thing she says, which I don't think anyone's going to disagree with, is "fewer workers more." I was at an event this week in San Francisco where there was a panel with some VCs and entrepreneurs on exactly the same questions she's asking - where the cuts are going to come first or what sectors are going to be most dramatically affected in the short term. And people weren't entirely clear. But the one area that comes up is healthcare - that's the lowest hanging fruit at the moment.Keith Teare: Yeah, there's a funding event this week from a company that applies AI to biology, specifically cancer programming - anti-cancer cells. So you're going to see AI in everything. And it's that will lead to an acceleration of invention for sure, because the individual is still really important. By the way, there's another article about that this week. The individual now has an army of talent in AI, able to help them make progress. It just speeds everything up.Andrew Keen: Yeah. So what other AI news in the summary? There's a couple, 2 or 3 pieces on Anthropic. I use Anthropic. I like it. Their growth soars to 34.5 billion in 2027 revenue. That's of course, speculative. And they announce their next major AI model could arrive within weeks, Anthropic competitive with OpenAI.Keith Teare: Yes, and they're better than OpenAI at some things. They're already better than OpenAI at coding. If you put it in context, those three Anthropic pieces sit alongside the Google piece and the OpenAI pieces. And what it tells you is we've seen a major acceleration of product roadmaps and plans in the last couple of weeks, mainly in response to the DeepSea news, I think.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's interesting that DeepSea was a one-week wonder, but there are no headlines at least from you on DeepSea. It seems to have stimulated change as you suggest, rather than change things in its own way. And then your Google pieces - interesting that they're rolling out a new memory feature for Gemini AI, allowing recall of past conversations, which is increasingly getting to the point where these AIs, if not human or sentient, certainly are able to remember things and have conversations.Keith Teare: Yeah, and that becomes much easier once you go from LLMs to other LLMs with agents. An agent is a piece of software that speaks to another LLM to complete a task. And so you could have in software a memory agent or a recall agent whose only job is to say, "Is this question been asked recently and what did I look at the last time?" and bring it into the context for whatever the current question is. And I think we're going to see more and more of this. I've spent most of my week building a multi-agent system for my company, Single Rank. I have a question taker agent that you ask a question of. It then farms out to a database agent or a chart drawing agent or an expert reasoning agent. They all have different jobs and they come back and give their answers to the original agent, and then it gives the answer to the user. So this collaborative agents concept is becoming very real now. And memory is one of those - I think Perplexity is the most advanced.Andrew Keen: Yeah. We were talking about Perplexity before we went live. You convinced me - I use Anthropic but you said for me it's probably wiser to use Perplexity where I still have all the access to Anthropic, but it adds a layer and some more intelligence. As I said, I was at an event this week where one of the venture people from OpenAI was there who talked about Sam Altman's projection that in the not too distant future there'll be billion-dollar individual startups. Are you suggesting, Keith, that's not that far on the horizon, given the power of AI that individuals can do all and do the entire startup without needing the help of anybody else?Keith Teare: Depends on the startup. If the startup is mainly software, that's probably true. But if it needs account management and billing and all the others...Andrew Keen: But eventually all that stuff will get - that's the easy part, isn't it? You can always get that done.Keith Teare: It's the hard bit right now, like reconciling invoices to receipts. I'm not very good at that. So I think it's coming with two things: rising agents and then agents that can use tools to follow, do actions, if you will. So it's coming and it's probably coming this year and it'll accelerate. So, yes, it will get there. I think the headline of a single founder of $1 billion company is just a headline. But it's directionally correct.Andrew Keen: It does. And it does reiterate Elizabeth Yin's point that no jobs are safe - in finance, in HR, in coding, in content. I mean, I'm using it more and more to summarize these conversations. I don't need a large editorial staff. So clearly dramatic change. And in fact, your startup of the week, Keith, the robotics startup Apptronics, is in talks for new funding at an almost $40 billion valuation - a hardware company. Does this speak of the reality of this new AI revolution? That it's not just theory, it's practice now?Keith Teare: Yeah. Well, Figure has gone from 2 billion to 39 billion in less than a year. And why? Because one of the major car companies signed an agreement with it to have these robots on production lines in its factories. And the start of the week, by the way, is Apptronics, which is a different humanoid robotics company, also raising a lot of money but slightly earlier in its journey than Figure.Andrew Keen: It's my mistake - I have to admit I thought it was Figure so that's my error. I'm going to add an Apptronics image to this content. I'm rather embarrassed.Keith Teare: You've probably already got one. That said, they both speak to the same truth, which is AI is going to manifest itself in the physical world in the form of humanoid robots sooner rather than later.Andrew Keen: And that was another of Tim Draper's - he was one of the speakers at this event I went to in San Francisco. I know he's an investor in your firm. That was his big prediction. So Apptronics is building robots for humans. Are they just a kind of earlier version of Figure in some ways?Keith Teare: An earlier version, possibly more advanced in concept because they started later when the software gets better by the week. So the later you start, the more advanced the software is that you can leverage. And so we're not going to see an end to this. There's going to be a lot more of it. I think humanoid robots are really interesting because the physical world is built for humans. You know, steps, ladders, everything.Andrew Keen: But I'm not sure that would be the case, especially when it comes to, say, self-driving cars and roads. That's going to change as well, isn't it?Keith Teare: Well, you still have roads because they still are...Andrew Keen: You still have roads. But I'm saying the roads themselves will become more and more suited to self-driving cars as opposed to human-driving ones.Yeah. You would hope the roads would become more intelligent and communicate to the cars, but that seems to be much further off.Andrew Keen: But I'm sure the Chinese will do that. Not the Americans, not even in San Francisco. Meanwhile, there is still lots of tech news. There's this open feud between Sam Altman at OpenAI and Elon Musk. Musk this week had a bid to buy OpenAI for around $100 billion. Is this just sensational, meaningless stuff? Is this froth or is it meaningful in the long run? The Musk-Altman fight?Keith Teare: Well, the specifics of this are super interesting because it's very clever of Musk. What Musk is offering to buy is not OpenAI. He's offering to buy the not-for-profit part of OpenAI. Now Altman is trying to put a value on that not-for-profit because he wants it to go away, or at least be subsumed. And he's trying to do it at a very low valuation so that the stakeholders in the not-for-profit don't get much. So Musk put a super high price on the not-for-profit to force the board of OpenAI to put a proper value on it as it transitions or to stop transitioning - one or the other. And I think if I was on the board of OpenAI now, I'd be very worried. They rejected his offer yesterday, by the way, but that will not be the end.Andrew Keen: What is Musk doing? Is it just because he hates Altman and he's annoyed that he was one of the co-founders and he's no longer involved? Because if he does indeed do what he seems to want to do, which is weaken, even undermine OpenAI - I mean, the real winners are probably Anthropic and Google then rather than Musk.Keith Teare: Well, and Grok - he has his own Grok xAI.Andrew Keen: But is xAI a real player? I mean, he can get massive valuations, but how does it compare with Anthropic or Gemini?Keith Teare: It's good. I mean, it's very good. And the next version, rumors are that it's going to be a top performer.Andrew Keen: Certainly not a top - you said it's good, but it's not...Keith Teare: It depends on what for. But it's certainly as good or better than DeepSea already.Andrew Keen: So there is a method to Musk's madness. It's not just about hating Altman and OpenAI.Keith Teare: Well, because it's Musk, there's more than one thing going on. He has economic interests in xAI, for sure. He's also really pissed off with Altman because he considers that Altman basically stole the OpenAI idea from him, which is not really true when you get into the facts. But he believes that. And not only that, but lied by making it not-for-profit and then turning it into a for-profit when he promised he wouldn't. So Musk basically feels like he's got the moral high ground and that gives him the energy to fight. Altman is clearly tired of the whole thing. He's just trying to do what he's trying to do, you know, and having a light shone on it.Andrew Keen: So it's the first time you have articulated some concern about OpenAI. You've always been quite bullish. Are you suggesting that your bullishness in the past is changing a little bit?Keith Teare: I don't think so, because I think this is a bit of a sideshow. The biggest news this week about OpenAI is the decision to abandon the Q* model - not abandon it, but incorporate it into a new GPT-5 later this year.Andrew Keen: So how would a unified next generation release work? Which would be what? Everything together?Keith Teare: It would do reasoning, operational stuff, actions, and it would do what other LLMs do, including being capable of video and image production all in one, and probably will retain its position as the best across all of those different things. So I don't see that anything bad is going to happen to OpenAI. I do think Musk can be an irritant and it could force them into corporate decisions about valuation and merging their different components that aren't to their liking. That could happen.Keen: My interview of the week, which you were kind enough to include in this week's newsletter, is with Greg Betta. Most people won't be familiar with Greg Betta. He's a tech writer, journalist based in the North Bay San Francisco, but he's also the coauthor with Reid Hoffman, who everybody knows, of a new book called "Super Agency: What Could Possibly Go Right With Our AI Future?" And from a progressive point of view, it's optimistic about AI. So I guess Hoffman is one of the few progressives, Keith, who actually is optimistic about AI. Is that fair?Keith Teare: Yeah. He really represents that part of the liberal spectrum that was in the New York Times article last week suggesting the Democrats should embrace technology and innovation. And the book is symptomatic of that. I didn't have a chance to listen to the interview - give us a flavor of what he said.Andrew Keen: It's standard - it's like listening to you. He believes that this progress will ultimately benefit. He distinguishes himself a bit too, I thought, created some light between him and Hoffman. I think he sees Hoffman as being slightly more optimistic than him. But it's about super agency - you and I have talked endlessly about agency, about humans being able to shape their lives. And of course, that's the big debate. For the critics, it's the AI that will shape us. For the optimists, AI will enable us to shape the world. It's an age-old argument, and it's not going away.Another figure on the left, if that's still a term that means anything, is Albert Wenger. He's your post of the week and he comes back to the Vance speech. He says praising this speech by Vance is mistaking jingoism and wishful thinking for true global leadership with a real vision of AI and humanity. I'm assuming you don't agree with Albert on this issue.Keith Teare: I do agree with him. I think I wanted to take a positive view of Vance's speech for his optimism in the context of Europe. It was a great speech. Albert's right that the American framing is entirely jingoistic. And AI isn't - AI is entirely global and humanistic. So there is a contradiction between a declining superpower being a champion of progress for its own nation versus what Albert would prefer, which is leadership that is truly global in nature.Andrew Keen: It's interesting that the first comment on Albert's tweet was from someone called "e/acc" who says this may be the most e/acc speech of all time. I didn't know what that meant - it meant effective accelerationism. Are you familiar with this term, Keith?Keith Teare: Yeah, this is the Marc Andreessen Peter Thiel framing against the philanthropists.Andrew Keen: So are you an effective accelerationist? Do you believe in...Keith Teare: Effective altruism versus effective acceleration? This is interesting. You say they're the same thing - I don't think anyone thinks that. But I think you might be right. But as long as you put them in the right order, I think if you get acceleration and growth and value, you're going to get a better life.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's a play on effective altruism, but it's thinking in the same way that the world can become a better place.Keith Teare: Yeah. And the altruists wanted it to be done by good deeds as opposed to by economic progress.Andrew Keen: And even Albert acknowledges, like you, that there are aspects of the speech which in your language are a breath of fresh air. He said the only good point was the clear pushback against regulatory capture. Is it going to be effective? I mean, is it clear that the days of Lina Khan are over? Are we at the end of the period of regulatory capture, whether it's in Europe or the U.S.? As you say, one of the consequences of the speech was that the Europeans have taken a step back from regulation.Keith Teare: I would say the new Lina Khan is Elizabeth Warren. Lina Khan's gone. She's a sideshow. But Elizabeth Warren is still mainstream.Andrew Keen: Yeah, but a much, much older and perhaps less powerful figure, especially in Trump's America. I mean, Warren, she can talk a lot and get people annoyed, but she can't actually do anything. Whereas Lina Khan actually controlled regulatory capture - I mean, she was the head of the FTC.Keith Teare: Exactly. But I find Warren intensely irritating. It's amusing to me that Musk is asking how her net worth went from $200,000 to double-digit millions. And it's because she got subsidized by pharma, because she's pro-vax. And she's plugged into that.Andrew Keen: That's a controversial observation. You're saying anyone who gets supported by big Pharma is pro-vaccine? Does that mean that anyone who's anti-vax is not going to get the money? Most of us are pro-vax.Keith Teare: I'm totally pro-vax. But I'm just saying politicians like her typically get high net worth through serving stakeholders. And she is very against the credit card industry, for example. But she's not against pharma. So she's found her niche.Andrew Keen: Well, that's not a very generous interpretation, although it does suggest that when you give Elon Musk the keys to the Treasury and the IRS, then all these things are going to get revealed. And we should end with another interesting X from Albert, which I think gets to a lot of this. He said, "If you're young and capable and care about democracy, you should work for Doge." What do you make of that? I tend to think he's right.Keith Teare: I can't fully understand his meaning. In my brain, I'll interpret it the way I would, which is what I said last week.Andrew Keen: And to add to the quote, he said, "Offense is the best defense."Keith Teare: Yeah. The main threat to democracy is unelected bureaucrats blocking progress. I mean, if you think about it...Andrew Keen: Like Elizabeth Warren, in your view, at least.Keith Teare: No, I'd use the Obama example. Obama wanted to get a really good healthcare plan. And as soon as he was in office, he made speeches saying, "I won't be able to achieve what I want to achieve unless you, the people, are on the streets." Because Washington is averse to change. And it turned out that he had to make all kinds of compromises. And he ended up with what we today call Obamacare. But his experience was an experience of being blocked. And Trump basically has been through that himself. We're probably mostly thankful for that based on his first administration. He now is older, and he's not prepared...Andrew Keen: Suddenly older. I don't know about wiser.Keith Teare: He's not prepared to let the bureaucracy stand in his way. And Musk is his weapon. And there is something positive about a better, cheaper state and more democratic if the elected people can do what they said they were going to do.Andrew Keen: Yeah. And bring the expenses down. "If you're young and capable and care about democracy, you should work for Doge" - wise words from Albert Wenger. We will return to all these themes, Keith, in the future. Have a good week and we will see everybody again next week. Thanks so much.Keith Teare: Everyone. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Hosts Josh and Jamie and special returning guest critic and author Violet Lucca discuss a double feature inspired by her new book "David Cronenberg: Clinical Trials" with one of his earliest inspirations in sci-fi paperback cover artist turned experimental filmmaker Ed Emshwiller's RELATIVITY (1966) and one of Cronenberg's more unloved and forgotten passion projects, the psychological drama SPIDER (2002) starring Ralph Fiennes as a Freudian schizophrenic whose subjective mind provides Cronenberg with dreamy and depressed experimental form of the film. Next week's episode is a patron-exclusive bonus episode on 90s Stephen King adaptations by horror legends: THE DARK HALF (1993) + THE MANGLER (1955), you can get access to that episode (and all past + future bonus episodes) by subscribing to our $5 tier on Patreon: www.patreon.com/sleazoidspodcast Intro // 00:00-15:53 RELATIVITY // 15:53-1:01:07 SPIDER // 1:01:07-1:56:36 Outro // 1:56:36-1:59:38 BUY VIOLET'S DAVID CRONENBERG BOOK: https://bookshop.org/p/books/david-cronenberg-clinical-trials-violet-lucca/21170132?ean=9781419771910 MERCH: www.teepublic.com/stores/sleazoids?ref_id=17667 WEBSITE: www.sleazoidspodcast.com/ Pod Twitter: twitter.com/sleazoidspod Pod Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/SLEAZOIDS/ Josh's Twitter: twitter.com/thejoshl Josh's Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/thejoshl Jamie's Twitter: twitter.com/jamiemilleracas Jamie's Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/jamiemiller

We're going for a threepeat! Join Anthony as he sees if he can keep his streak alive. Here are today's clues:  1. complete, I heard you're from Helsinki?, what gives a surface its appearance, wine quality.  2. candy, place to learn how to work?, chop, emporium.  3. what comes after the point?, darn, fire, opposite of work in wrestling.  4. part of a Freudian trio, caller, meteoric suffix, contraction. 

The #1 Super Bowl ad? Snickers in 2010… because Snickers acted like a Freudian therapist.Waffle House is charging a 50-cent-per-egg fee… but we tell ya who to blame for Egg-flation is.New tariffs just hit Shein and Temu… hand it can all be explained with Barbie dolls.Plus, the newest job in America is “TikTok Coach”... because there is an “i” in “viral.”$CALM $MAT $SPYWant more business storytelling from us? Check out the latest episode of our new weekly deepdive show: “The Best Idea Yet” — The untold origin stories of the products you're obsessed with. From the McDonald's Happy Meal to Birkenstock's sandal to Nintendo's Super Mario Brothers to Sriracha. New 45-minute episodes drop weekly.Subscribe to The Best Idea Yet: Wondery.fm/TheBestIdeaYetLinks to listen.—-----------------------------------------------------Subscribe to our new (2nd) show… The Best Idea Yet: Wondery.fm/TheBestIdeaYetLinksEpisodes drop weekly. It's The Best Idea Yet.GET ON THE POD: Submit a shoutout or fact: https://tboypod.com/shoutouts FOR MORE NICK & JACK: Newsletter: https://tboypod.com/newsletter Connect with Nick: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolas-martell/ Connect with Jack: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack-crivici-kramer/ SOCIALS:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tboypod TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tboypodYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@tboypod Anything else: https://tboypod.com/ Subscribe to our new (2nd) show… The Best Idea Yet: Wondery.fm/TheBestIdeaYetLinksEpisodes drop weekly. It's The Best Idea Yet.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Dr. Joel Sneed, a psychologist and dedicated adult chess improver, discusses the challenges of learning chess later in life, his struggles with perfectionism and obsession over openings, and how psychological techniques like ACT and CBT can help manage chess-related anxiety. Get ChessDojo's first book, How to Analyze Your Games, here: https://amzn.to/3Ds5r78 Watch Live - https://twitch.tv/chessdojo  Join the Training Program - https://chessdojo.club  Play Chess - https://go.chess.com/chessdojo  Merch - https://www.chessdojo.club/shop  Want to support the channel? Patreon - https://patreon.com/chessdojo  Donate - https://streamelements.com/chessdojo/tip  Find all of our chess book & supplies recommendations (& more!) on our Amazon storefront: https://www.amazon.com/shop/chessdojo Shopping through our link is a great way to support the Dojo. We earn a small affiliate % but at no cost to you. Website: https://chessdojo.club  Twitch: https://twitch.tv/chessdojo  Discord: https://discord.gg/sUUh8HD  Twitter: https://twitter.com/chessdojo  Patreon: https://patreon.com/chessdojo  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chessdojo  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/chessdojo  Podcast: https://chessdojotalks.podbean.com  TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@/chessdojoclips  #chess #chesstraining  Chapters: 00:00 – Introduction to Dojo Talks; guest Dr. Joel Sneed's background in psychology and chess. 00:38 – Discussion on Sneed's chess journey, starting late and reaching a 2000+ rating. 01:54 – Sneed's transition from Freudian psychoanalysis to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and ACT therapy. 03:49 – Adapting to new technology as an older adult and learning struggles. 05:57 – Comparison between changes in psychology and changes in chess over time. 13:54 – Sneed's crisis moment: forgetting opening prep in a Blitz game and quitting chess. 17:11 – The frustration of learning but failing to apply knowledge in real games. 33:15 – Dealing with an "action crisis"—considering quitting chess and reevaluating goals. 53:16 – Focusing on process-oriented goals instead of rating-based goals. 1:16:35 – Sneed's new goal: playing more tournament games and prioritizing enjoyment over rating.

Evolutionary psychologist, Doug Lisle, PhD discusses listener questions with co-host, Nathan Gershfeld.  In today's show, Dr. Lisle discusses a listener's question about transference and counter-transference.    0:00 Intro 0:57 Question #1 2:46 A synopsis of psycho-dynamic thinking 9:36 Psycho-dynamic thinking is naïve and bizarre 11:21 What is a therapeutic relationship 20:10  Attraction can occur in a therapeutic relationship 26:50 ‘Transference' from therapist's past experiences 33:43 Therapeutic dynamic is usually not a burden or threat 37:36 Warning sign that something is out of line 45:38 What drew Dr. Lisle to be a psychologist   X: @BeatYourGenes Web: www.beatyourgenes.org Doug Lisle, PhD www.esteemdynamics.com Nathan Gershfeld, DC www.fastingescape.com Intro & outro song: City of Happy Ones • Ferenc Hegedus Licensed for use Copyright Beat Your Genes Podcast

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comJohn Gray is a political philosopher. He retired from academia in 2007 as Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, and is now a regular contributor and lead reviewer at the New Statesman. He's the author of two dozen books, and his latest is The New Leviathans: Thoughts After Liberalism. I'd say he's one of the most brilliant minds of our time — and my first podcast with him was a huge hit. I asked him to come on this week to get a broader and deeper perspective on where we are now in the world. He didn't disappoint.For two clips of our convo — on the ways Trump represents peace, and how heterosexuals have become more like gays — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: this week's inauguration; the peaceful transfer of power; the panic of the left intelligentsia; the contradictions in the new Trump administration; Bannon vs Musk; Vivek's quick exit; the techno-futurist oligarchs; Vance as the GOP's future; tariffs and inflation; the federal debt; McKinley and the Gilded Age; Manifest Destiny; Greenland; isolationism; the neocon project to convert the world; Hobbes and “commodious living”; Malthus and today's declining birthrates; post-industrial alienation; deaths of despair; Fukuyama's “End of History”; Latinx; AI and knowledge workers; Plato; Pascal; Dante; CS Lewis' Abolition of Man; pre-Christian paganism; Puritans and the woke; Žižek; Rod Dreher; Houellebecq; how submission can be liberating; Graham Greene; religion as an anchor; why converts are often so dangerous; Freudian repression; Orwell and goose-stepping; the revolution of consciousness after Christ; Star Wars as neo-Christian; Dune as neo-pagan; Foucault; Oakeshott's lovers; Montaigne; Judith Shklar; Ross Douthat; the UK's rape-gangs; Starmer and liberal legalism; the Thomist view of nature; the medieval view of abortion; late-term abortions; and assisted dying.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Sebastian Junger on near-death experiences, Jon Rauch on “Christianity's Broken Bargain with Democracy,” Evan Wolfson on the history of marriage equality, Yoni Appelbaum on how America stopped building things, Nick Denton on the evolution of new media, and Ross Douthat on how everyone should be religious. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Seth and Sean discuss the referee problem in Saturday's game in Kansas City, why that was big but far from the only issue the Texans had, go through the day's Headlines, re-live the Texans' Divisional loss in KC via the voice of Marc Vandermeer, give credit where it's due in Acknowledge Me, discuss Cal & Hannah McNair's message to fans after this season and assess if CJ Stroud had a Freudian slip in mentioning Stefon Diggs.

Seth and Sean discuss Cal and Hannah McNair's final message to fans this season from the postgame show and if CJ Stroud had a Freudian slip in his presser talking about Diggs. Could something be happening behind the scenes to bring Diggs back?

Jesse Eisenberg (A Real Pain, The Social Network, Now You See Me) is an Oscar-nominated actor, writer, and producer. Jesse joins the Armchair Expert to discuss not being cool enough to smoke, receiving a cease and desist letter as a kid from Woody Allen, and how community theater was his outlet for being an incredibly anxious child. Jesse and Dax discuss their saddest film wardrobe experiences, the Parmesan cheese version of Cyrano, and where movie roles rank on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Jesse explains the very strange economy of promoting a movie, the Freudian breakdown of his characters in A Real Pain, and the solace of writing.Follow Armchair Expert on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. Watch new content on YouTube or listen to Armchair Expert early and ad-free by joining Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Start your free trial by visiting wondery.com/links/armchair-expert-with-dax-shepard/ now.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Does not having a penis make you feel inferior due to a bad case of penis envy? Do you or have you ever wanted to have sex with your mother? Or your father? When most people think of Freud they think of his more extreme notions and theories, stuff like his Oedipus and Electra complexes. But he also really helped us understand our unconscious mind and how it interacts with our conscious mind. How the id, ego, and superego shape our personalities and desires. A fascinating blend of important science and insanity today as we explore the life and ideas of Sigmund Freud! Merch and more: www.badmagicproductions.com Timesuck Discord! https://discord.gg/tqzH89vWant to join the Cult of the Curious PrivateFacebook Group? Go directly to Facebook and search for "Cult of the Curious" to locate whatever happens to be our most current page :)For all merch-related questions/problems: store@badmagicproductions.com (copy and paste)Please rate and subscribe on Apple Podcasts and elsewhere and follow the suck on social media!! @timesuckpodcast on IG and http://www.facebook.com/timesuckpodcastWanna become a Space Lizard? Click here: https://www.patreon.com/timesuckpodcast.Sign up through Patreon, and for $5 a month, you get access to the entire Secret Suck catalog (295 episodes) PLUS the entire catalog of Timesuck, AD FREE. You'll also get 20% off of all regular Timesuck merch PLUS access to exclusive Space Lizard merch.