Podcasts about gramscian

Built on the shifting grounds of post-Yugoslav transformation, Staging the Promises examines how the residents of Bor — a Serbian copper-mining town marked by both socialist prosperity and post-socialist decline — became spectators to the staged enactments of promised futures. Deana Jovanović traces how local authorities and the copper-processing company theatrically projected visions of economic, infrastructural, environmental, urban, and post-industrial renewal. The book asks: What impact did the staging of promises have on the residents? What temporal, material, and political effects did these performances generate? How did they shape the citizens' futures and their present? Jovanović offers many ethnographic examples of ambivalence in people's orientation to their futures, while residents balanced hope with despair, disillusionment, and dismay. Staging the Promises highlights how the performances shaped the present, and how, in a Gramscian twist, they sustained hope alongside power dynamics that residents often criticized. Staging the Promises: Everyday Future-Making in a Serbian Industrial Town (Cornell UP, 2025) assesses the performative ways through which contemporary capitalist futures are remade. For Jovanović, Bor represents a site that reflects a current global trend: staging the promises of enhanced futures today play a significant role in contemporary populist politics. Through them, she argues, distant futures become gradually withdrawn from people's horizons. Deana Jovanović is Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Utrecht University. She ethnographically studies how people in late-industrial and post-socialist environments shape futures, interact with pipes and cables, and live with risks and airborne particles. She has published widely on these topics in internationally recognized journals. Yadong Li is a socio-cultural anthropologist-in-training. He is registered as a PhD student at Tulane University. His research interests lie at the intersection of economic anthropology, development studies, hope studies, and the anthropology of borders and frontiers. More details about his scholarship and research interests can be found here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Built on the shifting grounds of post-Yugoslav transformation, Staging the Promises examines how the residents of Bor — a Serbian copper-mining town marked by both socialist prosperity and post-socialist decline — became spectators to the staged enactments of promised futures. Deana Jovanović traces how local authorities and the copper-processing company theatrically projected visions of economic, infrastructural, environmental, urban, and post-industrial renewal. The book asks: What impact did the staging of promises have on the residents? What temporal, material, and political effects did these performances generate? How did they shape the citizens' futures and their present? Jovanović offers many ethnographic examples of ambivalence in people's orientation to their futures, while residents balanced hope with despair, disillusionment, and dismay. Staging the Promises highlights how the performances shaped the present, and how, in a Gramscian twist, they sustained hope alongside power dynamics that residents often criticized. Staging the Promises: Everyday Future-Making in a Serbian Industrial Town (Cornell UP, 2025) assesses the performative ways through which contemporary capitalist futures are remade. For Jovanović, Bor represents a site that reflects a current global trend: staging the promises of enhanced futures today play a significant role in contemporary populist politics. Through them, she argues, distant futures become gradually withdrawn from people's horizons. Deana Jovanović is Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Utrecht University. She ethnographically studies how people in late-industrial and post-socialist environments shape futures, interact with pipes and cables, and live with risks and airborne particles. She has published widely on these topics in internationally recognized journals. Yadong Li is a socio-cultural anthropologist-in-training. He is registered as a PhD student at Tulane University. His research interests lie at the intersection of economic anthropology, development studies, hope studies, and the anthropology of borders and frontiers. More details about his scholarship and research interests can be found here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Built on the shifting grounds of post-Yugoslav transformation, Staging the Promises examines how the residents of Bor — a Serbian copper-mining town marked by both socialist prosperity and post-socialist decline — became spectators to the staged enactments of promised futures. Deana Jovanović traces how local authorities and the copper-processing company theatrically projected visions of economic, infrastructural, environmental, urban, and post-industrial renewal. The book asks: What impact did the staging of promises have on the residents? What temporal, material, and political effects did these performances generate? How did they shape the citizens' futures and their present? Jovanović offers many ethnographic examples of ambivalence in people's orientation to their futures, while residents balanced hope with despair, disillusionment, and dismay. Staging the Promises highlights how the performances shaped the present, and how, in a Gramscian twist, they sustained hope alongside power dynamics that residents often criticized. Staging the Promises: Everyday Future-Making in a Serbian Industrial Town (Cornell UP, 2025) assesses the performative ways through which contemporary capitalist futures are remade. For Jovanović, Bor represents a site that reflects a current global trend: staging the promises of enhanced futures today play a significant role in contemporary populist politics. Through them, she argues, distant futures become gradually withdrawn from people's horizons. Deana Jovanović is Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Utrecht University. She ethnographically studies how people in late-industrial and post-socialist environments shape futures, interact with pipes and cables, and live with risks and airborne particles. She has published widely on these topics in internationally recognized journals. Yadong Li is a socio-cultural anthropologist-in-training. He is registered as a PhD student at Tulane University. His research interests lie at the intersection of economic anthropology, development studies, hope studies, and the anthropology of borders and frontiers. More details about his scholarship and research interests can be found here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

Built on the shifting grounds of post-Yugoslav transformation, Staging the Promises examines how the residents of Bor — a Serbian copper-mining town marked by both socialist prosperity and post-socialist decline — became spectators to the staged enactments of promised futures. Deana Jovanović traces how local authorities and the copper-processing company theatrically projected visions of economic, infrastructural, environmental, urban, and post-industrial renewal. The book asks: What impact did the staging of promises have on the residents? What temporal, material, and political effects did these performances generate? How did they shape the citizens' futures and their present? Jovanović offers many ethnographic examples of ambivalence in people's orientation to their futures, while residents balanced hope with despair, disillusionment, and dismay. Staging the Promises highlights how the performances shaped the present, and how, in a Gramscian twist, they sustained hope alongside power dynamics that residents often criticized. Staging the Promises: Everyday Future-Making in a Serbian Industrial Town (Cornell UP, 2025) assesses the performative ways through which contemporary capitalist futures are remade. For Jovanović, Bor represents a site that reflects a current global trend: staging the promises of enhanced futures today play a significant role in contemporary populist politics. Through them, she argues, distant futures become gradually withdrawn from people's horizons. Deana Jovanović is Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Utrecht University. She ethnographically studies how people in late-industrial and post-socialist environments shape futures, interact with pipes and cables, and live with risks and airborne particles. She has published widely on these topics in internationally recognized journals. Yadong Li is a socio-cultural anthropologist-in-training. He is registered as a PhD student at Tulane University. His research interests lie at the intersection of economic anthropology, development studies, hope studies, and the anthropology of borders and frontiers. More details about his scholarship and research interests can be found here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

Following the horrors of Nazism, the post-war far right needed to proceed strategically, and patiently, if it was ever to stage a comeback. Some far-right actors in Europe and in particular the French Nouvelle Droite took the Italian political philosopher Antonio Gramsci as their guide. Gramsci's teachings — culture first, politics later — were eventually absorbed by the US radical right. And in recent weeks US Vice President JD Vance and Trump adviser Elon Musk have brought such tactics back to Europe. It's a great irony of political thought that​ the most assiduous students of Gramsci — a Marxist jailed by Mussolini in 1920s and 1930s — would come to include so many on the far right. The history of how Gramscian thinking has flowed back and forth across the Atlantic is of particular interest to Philipp Adorf at the University of Bonn. Philipp is the author of two books on the radicalisation of the US Republican Party and he's a leading analyst of the rise of the far right Alternative for Germany, the AfD. Philipp also has closely analysed how groups including a "Vorfeld" or vanguard, which supports the AfD, are drawing on Gramscian principles to prepare Germany for a far-right future. Such tactics are helping to make what was once unthinkable for Germans — such as mass deportations and "remigration" of naturalised citizens — something that many of them now are prepared to vote for. Support the show

Reflections on strengthening the oppositon based on the works of Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci

Karim Safieddine is a PhD student interested in understanding the ways in which social movements, for what they represent in terms of various aspects of intellectual and organizational leadership, challenge or reproduce prevailing power relations and ideological norms between late 20th and 21st century Lebanon. In this context, his research focuses on the historical and contemporary development of the "Lebanese Left", particularly in relation to other more dominant local political forces. While he heavily relies on Gramscian optics in his studies, he is open to various models and methods. He was the President of the Secular Club at the American University of Beirut, which is where I know him from, as I participated briefly in the Club's political landscape during my undergrad years.  In this episode, we discuss a multitude of topics particular to Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria–from the various forces of power, oppression, hope, and resistance to the various moments and figures in history that shaped and reshaped the realities of millions of people, of institutions, of knowledge production, and so on.  The conversation was always rooted in the multifaceted anti-establishment movements in Lebanon, which inevitably requires us to constantly contextualize, analyze, and comprehend what these movements were up against, the tools they had (and didn't have) at their disposal, moments in which they were stubborn and moments in which they did the self-reflection necessary for more meaningful ways, and what it meant to be situated in the geopolitical context that was and is also constantly changing.  We break it down into two sections: Lebanon before 1990 and Lebanon after 1990, leading to the present conjuncture, where we end the episode on some reflections by Karim on what challenges and opportunities lie ahead, in such a pivotal moment.  For your reference, Isa and I compiled a small timeline of post-1990 Lebanon that could help you better understand the conversation (see below). Also, Karim mentions a lot of names of people as well as movements that I highly recommend looking up as you listen. It could be arduous and disruptive to pause and reflect at times, but doing so gives the experience - as well as Karim's voluntary work - the reflective value it deserves.  1990: Ta'if and beginning of Harirism / post-war neo-liberal order  2000: End of Israeli Occupation of South Lebanon  2005: Cedar Revolution + Assassination of Hariri + End of Assadist Occupation of Lebanon. 2006: July War (w/ Israel)  2008: “May 7” / Hezbollah “invades” Beirut 2011: Arab Spring (Focus: Syrian Revolution and War)  2015: “You Stink” Movement  2019: Thawra / October 17 Revolution  2020: Beirut Blast 2019-Present: Economic collapse  2023 Oct. 7–Present: Zionist onslaught + assassination of Hassan Nasrallah + End of Assad regime in Syria.  Finally, here are some pieces written by Karim:  13 Years After the Arab Uprisings: The Strategic Choices of Lebanon's Anti-establishment Movement Lebanon's opposition today: A story of perpetual crises Hezbollah couldn't save Gaza or Lebanon: Only state-building can ensure our future Karim's IG account: @safieddinekarim  PS: Special thanks to Chafic Mouharam for conversing with me over the past years about Lebanon. We were together in Toronto when the horrible Blast in Beirut took place and we processed, mourned, and reflected together. He helped inform some of my questions in this episode. Thank you, Chafic. Chapters: (00:00) Introduction & Personal Experiences (20:16) Lebanon Pre-1990 (41:35) Lebanon Post-1990 (1:01:45) Anti-establishment and 2019 Thawra (1:22:00) Looking ahead

E.P. Thompson versus Louis Althusser—what if their debate reshaped our understanding of Marxist theory forever? Join Nicolas D. Villareal as we unpack Thompson's contentious critiques of Althusser, revealing the misunderstandings and secondary sources that fueled their intellectual clash. We'll dissect Althusser's argument against historicism, his endeavor to preserve Marxism's scientific core, and how his ideas have often been misinterpreted or simplified, especially by followers like Foucault.As structuralism evolved, so did the criticisms and new trajectories within Marxist thought. We dive into Derrida's deconstructionism and Eco's Theory of Semiotics, unraveling their impacts on Marxist discourse. Hear our analysis on Althusser's later works, where Gramscian influences and Lenin's revolutionary defeatism highlight the complexities of change within structures. We'll explore how these debates have influenced contemporary Marxism, with nods to thinkers like Richard Wolff and the ever-evolving landscape from the 1960s to today.Finally, we tackle the nuanced legacy of Althusser's critiques and his contentious relationship with Maoism and Stalinism. The conversation spans Althusser's stance on traditional dialectics, psychoanalysis, and the unpredictable nature of social evolution, as well as his efforts to establish a left-wing critique of Stalinism. Reflecting on the broader philosophical and political implications, we examine how these debates continue to shape revolutionary theory and historical materialism, offering a balanced perspective on Althusser's enduring impact. Support the Show.Crew:Host: C. Derick VarnIntro and Outro Music by Bitter Lake.Intro Video Design: Jason MylesArt Design: Corn and C. Derick VarnLinks and Social Media:twitter: @varnvlogblue sky: @varnvlog.bsky.socialYou can find the additional streams on Youtube

Jim talks with Max Borders about the ideas in his two-part essay series responding to Christopher Rufo's recent manifesto "The New Right Activism." They discuss the commentary form of the essays, pillar saints vs boy Pharoahs, the Gray Tribe, Rufo as a rockstar gladiator, the white-paper industrial complex, the Gramscian model of capturing the institutions, the tit-for-tat approach to politics, recapturing the power of the state to indoctrinate the youth, the wartime point of view, the means & ends problem, subversive innovation, the University of Austin, public universities as indoctrination factories, a Handmaid's Tale vision of virtue, why Rufo is more Machiavellian than Aristotelian, the danger of rejecting an open society, changing the language & the case study of "equity," defending abstract principles in politics, how Rufos misses the point about real power, re-enlivening the U.S.'s founding principles, and much more. Episode Transcript "Rufo the Reactionary, Part 1," by Max Borders (Substack) "The New Right Activism: A manifesto for the counter-revolution," by Christopher Rufo The Social Singularity, by Max Borders JRS EP76 - Max Borders on the Social Singularity Max Borders is the author of The Social Singularity (2018) and The Decentralist (2021). His latest book is called Underthrow (2023). Currently, he is working on two major projects: a cosmopolitan constitution designed to open the era of open-source law, and a global fraternal society dedicated to the mission, morality, and mutualism of the “Gray Tribe.”

This Provocations 2023 forum was called “Gramsci: Counter-Hegemonic Gramscian Dreams for Community Minded Queer Socialist Teens” which was a presentation led by Margot Beavon-Collin.The final presentation of the day saw Margot provide a rough outline of the evolution of our understanding of the relationship between civil society and the State, with particular focus on Antonio Gramsci's contribution to socialist thought and its applicability in understanding the Accords process as discussed in Elizabeth Humphry's "How Labour Built Neoliberalism".A video release of this presentation, complete with slideshow, may become available some time in the future.

Mike Isaacson: Lügenpresse! [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOs Lizards wearing human clothes Hinduism's secret codes These are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genes Warfare keeps the nation clean Whiteness is an AIDS vaccine These are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocide Muslim's rampant femicide Shooting suspects named Sam Hyde Hiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the cops Secret service, special ops They protect us, not sweatshops These are nazi lies Mike: Welcome to another episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast. Today, we're talking about the lying press with Jonathan Hardy, professor of communications and media at the University of Arts, London. His most recent book, Branded Content: The Fateful Merging of Media and Marketing, explores the world of branded content, particularly native advertising or sponsored content–longform marketing copy made to look like news items. Welcome to the podcast, Dr. Hardy. Jonathan Hardy: Thank you, Mike. It's a pleasure to be here. Mike: It's great to have you. So I'm really excited to talk about marketing with you because that's the industry I'm in now, and I do have some ethical issues with some of the techniques that we use. Now I write in the B2B space, selling services to business owners and officers, so I don't super have a problem with what I do–you know, manipulating business owners into buying things. So reading your book, what comes up again and again is that most of these marketing techniques aren't new, but the digital age has made them more invasive and persistent. Can you talk a bit about how digitization has changed the advertising world? Jonathan: Sure. Well, it's done so definitely in a great many ways but I'll talk about some key ones that really relate to the work I've been doing on branded content. In the 20th century, through most of the 20th century, we had a model that I call advertising integration with separation, which means that the advertising appeared in the same vehicles as media. When you looked at a magazine or a newspaper, you turned the page and it's editorial, you turn the page, it's advertising. Or the adverts that appeared between programs on television and radio. So we had integration, but often some quite strict rules and strict practices that kept advertising and media separate. So what we're seeing in the digital age is an intensification of two tendencies which face in opposite directions. One is towards integration, so advertising getting baked into media content and integrated with it; product placement all the way through to influencer marketing, branding content and so on. But the other trend is disaggregation, advertising getting decoupled from media. Because essentially in the digital age, advertisers didn't need–as some of them put it–to pay the premium prices to put their ads in media content. They could track users around the internet. So these are trends going in opposite directions obviously, right? One is about integration, the other one is about disaggregation. But I argue that they have one really common power, which is that they indicate the growing strength of marketers over media. Media that rely on advertising revenue are having to become more and more dependent, satisfying advertisers who want to integrate their content so that people will engage with it. And they're also desperate because of these other trends of losing ad revenue coming from disaggregation to kind of, again, appeal as much as they can. So what we're seeing is a strengthening of marketer power in the digital age. Mike: So my intention with this episode was to give a deep dive into how things like the Cambridge Analytica scandal could have happened. To start, let's get some technical details. We're talking mostly about inbound marketing today. So before we get into advertising techniques and stuff, what is the difference between inbound and outbound marketing? Jonathan: Sure. Well, I'll talk about that, Mike. But we should acknowledge there's some confusion here, because these terms are not always used to talk about the same things. I think one really valuable aspect is this idea of push and pull, right? If you're pushing out messages, this is known as outbound marketing. You're sort of pushing your message out to reach people. If you on the other hand create great content that people come to you for to engage with, that's pulling. And that's known as inbound. So, so far, so good. That makes sense to me. But this is used in other ways too, and I think that illustrates actually a broader point which is that marketers, not surprisingly, are often in a competitive struggle to be on the side of the new and the innovative, and not the old and the tired. So some versions of inbound and outbound marketing I think get a bit problematic here. Because outbound in some versions is kind of associated with scattergun marketing. Right? The opposite of inbound as highly targeted aiming at particular people. And I don't really buy that. You know, marketers sometimes talk about spray and pray, for instance, you know? Chucking out messages. But quite honestly, most of the time modern marketers don't do that because they can't afford to do that. So I don't really buy the argument that outbound is untargeted. I think that's misleading. What's a bit more helpful from all of this, and actually quite a crucial issue, is if you like the challenges for a thing called push marketing. The challenge is when people are not engaging with traditional advertising forms and pushing them out, and the need to come up with more engaging content; either because it's more entertaining or it's more informative. And I think that aspect of inbound is important. Mike: So when it comes to inbound marketing, it's all about the buyer journey or the marketing funnel. Can you talk a bit about the theory behind the marketing funnel? Jonathan: Yeah, sure. I often test this out on students, but if you were studying advertising in the 20th century, you might have come across a model called AIDA, which was a mnemonic, helps you remember some important fundamentals. AIDA stands for Awareness, Interest, Desire, and Action. And it kind of summed up this idea of what's called in modern terms, a marketing funnel or a customer journey. Sort of how if you're a brand, people start off with awareness and then become more interested and motivated all the way up to purchase. That's essentially what the marketing funnel means. Just to relate it to branded content for a moment, it was often argued in the past that brands branded content, which means content that's produced or funded by brands, was particularly associated with that early stage–building brand awareness. But if you speak to people in the industry, they say it's not really true. Branded content is the content that serves people right across the customer journey. So if you think someone becomes more interested and they want to find more information about the product, for example, I think they're right and I think that's– We're often thinking about a new world where brands are involved in kind of thinking, "What are the information needs? What are the communication needs of consumers at every point?" And engaging with it. And amongst other things, that's breaking down some old divisions between what we might call advertising and customer services. And as an academic, I'm really interested. I'm critical of a lot of what's going on, but I'm interested in how that speaks to a changing world and convergence across communications. Mike: Where I work, we definitely use branded content across the buyer journey and we use different kinds of content for different points along the journey. So for instance, we do more informative content for when you're in the awareness stage. Whereas when you're in the purchasing stage, we hit you more with salesy content. Because that's the point where you're trying to just hear about the benefits and decide upon a final product. Jonathan: Yeah exactly. Mike: Can you talk a little bit about the software that's used to track customers? Because that's something that I don't think most people are aware about, the CRM software. Jonathan: Yeah. CRM means customer relations management software. Some of your listeners might be aware of software like Salesforce, which tracks relations between a company and its clients, or including its prospects. So yeah, customer relations management is a huge area. One of the things I looked at interestingly was the annual reports of what are called the holding companies. These are the really big groups that own advertising agencies and PR agencies. And they've been in a battle for survival and for their presence in companies, and they're often fighting alongside companies like Accenture who are offering companies all sorts of other data services. So it's a kind of interesting world in which the traditional advertisers are maneuvering to cover more ground because that ground's becoming more and more important to companies. And definitely, all the data around customers and other people in the chain is a really important battleground for these firms. Mike: Okay, and we'll talk a bit about what gets fed into the CRM in a bit. So the company I work for, we do exclusively owned media and digital ads, pretty much all inbound with an occasional email campaign here or there. But there's other forms of digital advertising, too. Let's start by talking about what owned media is. What do advertisers mean when they talk about owned media? Jonathan: Okay. This is content that's produced and published by the brand or the marketer themselves. It's got a really long history. In the United States at the end of the 19th century, the farm implements company John Deere had a magazine called The Furrow, for example. So what we now call contract publishing by a brand. Lots of other examples; the Michelin Guide to restaurants, the Guinness Book of Records, and so on. Brands have been involved in producing their own content for a long time, but this really got turbocharged in the internet age. With the early internet, brands started to create their own websites and web pages. They've now moved right across social media, for example. And some brands have become essentially media companies. So a brand like Red Bull, which is involved right across kind of music, sports, etc, is producing content of all kinds to support the brand. Your listeners, again, one of the models that's really helpful for students and might be of interest to your listeners is called PESO. PESO stands for paid, which is a term for advertising essentially, right? The brand pays and controls. Earned, which stands for traditional public relations. You work in PR, you write a great story or a feature, it gets carried by the media, you didn't pay. That's called earned media. The S is for shared. Used to be called viral, but shared is a much nicer word for things that get moved and amplified across the internet and social media. And then the O is owned. And what PESO tells us is, these things are still separate but they're overlapping and converging in the middle. Mike: Right. So the problem with owned media is that you have to get it in front of people. What are the various ways that advertisers try to get their own media to an audience? Jonathan: Well, I'm just gonna... If you don't mind, I'll just pick up this word 'problem', Mike, because it might help to explain where I come from on these issues. I think the industry is essentially looking for how to do marketing better, right? And quite a lot of people who are in academia, in universities like myself, are really asking and answering the same question. Their aim is really to help marketers do better and do research on it. And I call all of that affirmative. So the problem from that framing is how can we do this better? How can we learn how to be more effective? But I would self-describe myself as coming from a critical tradition, a tradition of critical political economy. And we ask a different question about “problem.” We say, "Are there problems in the way communications are organized and delivered? Are there problems for communication users? Are there problems for societies? And if there are, if things aren't great out there, let's identify them, understand them, and think about how to change them." So when I come to questions of problems, that's really the kind of dominant lens that I look at them. But obviously like anyone in order to understand things better, you've got to listen to everyone in this space; to industry practitioners, and I work a lot with them. So that's just a wider framing, but actually to answer your question. Well, it's interesting because historically, they've struggled. Right? Brands have kind of invested in great content and then found surprise, surprise! People aren't always interested in going to corporate websites and finding this stuff. So part of this story has been brands producing content that they need advertising, social media advertising, to say to people, "Hey, we've done this. Here's a snippet, but come and look at the full amount." That's an interesting feature. But essentially, in this space brands would say, "Well, you've got to produce material of value back to this language of sort of pull. People have to be engaged, entertained, and/or informed. Those are the key things you need to do to solve the problem." But the other thing we'll come on to is when the marketing messages get disguised and buried. Just to give you another take on problems, I think there are problems about brand's own content. Sometimes that can be really entertaining and I enjoy it like anyone else, but there are problems essentially because it's a brand voice. And sometimes that brand voice can be louder than other voices. And that essentially is an issue. But actually, I see less problems with brands and content compared to the material that's weaved into media content: sponsored, editorial, native advertising, and so on. Mike: Okay. What about things like SEO, SMO, paid search, display ads? That sort of thing. Jonathan: Sure. SEO, search engine optimization, is a practice of trying to improve your ranking traditionally in search results, but in wider areas of content so that it gets visibility and people engage with it. Right? Because we all know people don't turn mostly past the first page of search ranking results. And as I know you know, this divides into what are called relatively good practices and bad practices, sometimes referred to as white hat–in other words, everyone does this to try and be effective–and blackhat, which is nefarious 'don't do this'. What that sums up is a cat-and-mouse game between marketers and agencies and the platforms, because the platforms are concerned to ensure the integrity and quality of search results because they depend on that trust and therefore want to move some of these black practices off to the margins, if not get rid of them entirely. But we should remember, of course, these platforms are not just there to serve the consumer. They're there to generate ad revenue. And some of the tensions that play out in that space are important to note, too. But I'd say for me, again, there's a whole literature on how to do search engine optimization and if you were teaching people how to be marketers, I'd certainly say they need to understand that. One of the bigger concerns for me is about awareness. How aware are consumers of things like sponsored search results? There was some really important research done by the UK regulator for communications, Ofcom, which looked at young people and found that a majority of them couldn't recognize the difference between sponsored listings and so-called organic ones. Only a third of young people aged 12 to 15, for example, knew which search results on Google were sponsored, were adverts, or organic. That's a really, I think, important issue and an ongoing issue. Mike: Yeah, especially when it comes to children. Let's dig a little deeper into SEO. What kind of techniques do content producers both in media and advertising use to boost their search engine results? Jonathan: Oh, wow. There's a lot of terms and some great names out there to describe some of this stuff: keyword stuffing, cloaking, bait and switch. What they really have in common is artificially enhancing the value of your content without the intrinsic worth and value that would come from people's clicks and engagement. Okay? So there are a whole series from mildly artificial through to downright criminal and exploitative means to do it. One of the more serious, for example, is this great term brandjacking, where someone acquires or otherwise assumes the online identity of a brand for the purposes of inquiring their followers, their brand equity as they say. Mike: It can be less than that too. It can just be, for instance, putting a brand's name as one of your keywords in paid search. That's brand jacking too. Jonathan: Exactly, Yeah, exactly. Mike: Yeah. So keyword stuffing, this idea of throwing search terms into content. One other thing though that bothers me a little bit where I work is the way that we go after keywords. The content that we write is pretty much exclusively based on whether there is search for it. And so as a result–I guess in the aggregate–you end up with huge patches of knowledge that just are not covered by free media. Jonathan: Yeah, I agree. I think one of the fundamental questions here is, "What about brand voice in a world where that voice comes with resources that are not widely shared?" Right? In order to be a marketer, you have resources of money. And money buys you the chance to speak. Not everyone in our world gets the chance to speak and be heard, but brands can do it through their money. Now, of course there are small brands, there are radical organizations who advertise. But we also know that the concentration of voice is often in the hands of the concentration of wealth. Which means some people, some brands, some interests, some ideas get privileged over others. And that is a really fundamental concern and it drives, for me, this issue of saying, "Well, what's the settlement for society between communications and brands?" In the old world, I mentioned the 20th century, we had some settlements. We had some rules which said, "We're going to really make sure that you know this is an advert and we're going to keep some controls on where advertising appears and how much appears and what's advertised." And the digital age is throwing up challenges all the time because new spaces, new opp,ortunities emerge for brands. And the rules are often some way behind. So those are the, kind of fundamental issues. I think voice is a really good term to use to get into that. Mike: Right. So in addition to the black hat and white hat, there are gray hat techniques which kind of straddle the boundaries of marketing ethics. One example is the subject of your book, which is native ads, sponsored content, advertorials. So, what are these? What is sponsored content? We've talked about it a bit, we haven't really defined it. Jonathan: Sure. Well, lots of different forms. But what's common to a lot of the forms I examined is in the way the industry would describe it, that the advertising is blended into the media environment in which it appears. Okay? The advertising is integrated and blended in. And I think a good way in is–building on what I was just saying to you, really–is to start by asking some questions about payment and control. Those are really key elements in tracking this story. In the old world, we had advertorials in newspapers and magazines. We still do, of course, but they're a feature of the old world. And the brand paid and controlled the content. It was an ad, but it was an ad that started to blend in to its surroundings. But what's happened in the digital age is that's taken off across all media. So we have native advertising as a term for adverts, which are also paid for and controlled by the brand, but are coming into your newsfeed on mobile social media and so on. Then we have sponsored content. And here, things get a bit more complicated because these questions of payment and control get widened. Because sometimes the brand pays and controls, sometimes the brand pays and the media, the publisher, or an influencer for example says, "No, we control the content." And sometimes it's a blend of both. And fundamentally across that spectrum, we don't have clear and consistent labeling that is readily understood by people to know exactly what's happening here. So we don't always know when a brand paid and shaped content in this space, and that's a fundamental problem. Sorry, but can I just put in–I don't know if this will be helpful or not-- but an example I was going to give from the UK is that we have a London paper called The Evening Standard. And an investigation by an online publication, openDemocracy, discovered that Syngenta, which is a US agribusiness firm, was paying for favorable editorial in that newspaper. But those stories weren't being clearly labeled as paid for and sponsored by Syngenta. And obviously, that's a big deal because Syngenta was at the time being sued by a large number of American farmers, which of course didn't feature in this more positive coverage. So here we have some problems of labeling and identifying content, we have some problems of what kind of story gets shown, but we also have an issue which goes to the heart of this where the brand could pay but the publication could say, "No, we're in control. So we don't have to label that as an ad." Mike: Right. And there's also the other problem of advertisers' control over media in general, where if there's an unfavorable story they could have it pulled. And we've seen instances of this, too. Jonathan: Yeah, it's funny. And just to share with you, sometimes when you're talking to students particularly as a professor, it's good to show them that you may make mistakes, too. So I shared the fact that, you know, I'm in a tradition which has seen advertiser influence on the media as essentially a negative force, right? And looked at, kind of, "Well, when does this happen? And how does it happen? And how is it resisted?" You know, sometimes it's resisted because journalists say, "We're not going to have it." Chrysler company told American magazine editors it wanted to be told when they were putting its ad next to content it thought was controversial. The American Society of Magazine Editors said, "We're not doing that. We stand up for free media." So, those kinds of stories. But I said to the students I have to update this. Because we're in an era where advertisers are using their power and clout, sometimes for positive and progressive ends–ends that many of you might agree with. So you know, Unilever doing an ad ban on Facebook. The current ban or semi-ban, if you like, in which one of these major holding companies Omnicom is, quote, "Advising its clients,” so it's not quite a ban, but it's advice, “not to advertise on Twitter because look what Musk is doing, who knows how this is going to play out." So in its language, it's concerned with brand safety. It's advising marketers to produce a boycott. So what I'm saying is I come from a tradition which sees advertising influence as negative. You could argue and it's important to recognize there's some positive things happening in these stories, brands doing good, right? Calling out hate speech and racism and xenophobia. That story, of course, isn't just because those brands are angelic. It's because they've been put under powerful pressure from campaigns, from #StopHateForProfit in the US, Sleeping Giants, we have Stop Funding Hate in the UK. ANd also, frankly there's still a problem. Because however good they do, they still have enormous power and they can still use it in unaccountable ways. But anyway, there's a story that just acknowledges that it's sometimes complicated. Mike: So native advertisement's gone beyond traditional news media in the digital age. Where else do we find sponsored content? Jonathan: Well, we find it right across what we could call audio-visual. We've had a long history of product placement in films and television programs but, you know, there's some big questions about where that's going next. Amazon is a company that sells things, but it's chock full of audiovisual content, sponsored brand videos, and so on. So as this world evolves, as we get Amazon's Alexa and audio marketing, we're going to have more and more content in which there's a brand role and a brand presence. Another big example is the Beta Verses. I was at a recent conference with advertising lawyers and they were kind of half-jokingly saying, "What's going to happen in this world? Are people going to walk around in T-shirts with #AdOn if it's sponsored? How is the brand presence going to be seen and identified?" And again just on this, I'd like to go back to something that was written in 1966. The code of the International Chamber of Commerce is kind of the big international code, the self-regulatory code for marketers. And it said, at the time, "Advertisements should be clearly distinguishable as such, whatever their form and whatever the medium used." Again, I like to share with you and my students, that's great language. That includes TikTok. It was written in 1966. It's really clear what it's asking for. And it went on to say, "When published into medium post that also contains news and editorial opinion, an advertisement should be so presented that the consumer can readily distinguish it from editorial matter." That's interesting because it didn't even need to add that second sentence. It's just indicating that it really underscores the importance in some of our media like news and editorial that it really matters that we can trust the content and it's not an ad. That was 1966, I don't think that describes the world today, I don't think that rule even in its current form holds, but it does exist to call on. Mike: Yeah, I know. We now have companies that are flooding their own reviews with positive reviews to boost their rankings on Google and stuff. I do want to talk about something that skeeves me out in what I do, and that's ad retargeting. So, what is ad retargeting? Jonathan: Retargeting ads are a form of online targeted advertising that is served to people because they visited a particular website. We all know this, you kind of go to a website, look at a pair of shoes, go on to some other websites, and you're being flooded by adverts for those shoes. What on earth is going on? And the answer has been third-party cookies. So to introduce another term, cookies are bits of data that get put onto your browser, so they can then follow you as you move around the rest of the internet. And those so-called third-party cookies are sold for advertising purposes; they build up a profile of you so that you can be advertised to. And that's essentially what's gone on in retargeting. Now, the world of cookies is undergoing a change at the moment, which is interesting. But all your listeners will know this experience, as you say, of ad targeting. And it's still very much present in our experience of the internet. Mike: Yeah. So basically the cookies originally were intended, as I understood it, to allow websites to remember what you have, like in your shopping cart on digital marketing or on a digital storefront. And they kind of morphed into this weird thing where they can now track you across the Internet and add things to your profile so they have more and more information about you. Okay. Jonathan: Yeah. Well, there's an important difference, Mike. The first type you're talking about is called first-party cookies. And the important thing is, again, many of your listeners will say, "Actually, some of what they provide is quite helpful to me." You know, you go to a website, you put something in a shopping basket, you don't want to pay for it. But when you come back to that site, it's still in your shopping basket, right? That's a cookie that's controlled by the website itself. And often, frankly that can be a help to us. It's still collecting data. It still raises privacy issues.But it's often helpful. Third-party is different. For example, you go to a publisher who signed up to Google's AdSense. You go there because you want to read a story, but what gets put onto your browser is a third-party cookie. And that is being used to sell advertising to reach you. Mike: The third party being AdSense, right? Jonathan: Yeah. Mike: Okay. So let's talk a little bit about market research. How have market research techniques advanced in the digital age? Jonathan: I mentioned there's this challenge to third-party cookies. And that's been driven by a number of factors. It's been driven partly because with more use of mobile, people are on different devices, it's harder to track them. It's been driven by privacy pressures which have led to important new regulation, particularly for us in Europe. And I'd say that from the UK, we don't know exactly what's going to happen next. In fact, we have a government that's probably going to relax rules that apply in Europe. But from 2018, Europe said, "You need permission to collect cookies." And there was a really deep intake of breath across the advertising and marketing and platform industry saying, "This is going to destroy the model of internet advertising." So you need permission, and we have strong rules now that demand it. As I understand it in the US, there's no federal-level regulation. But there are states–California is an example–which have brought in new rules for consent to kind of strengthen privacy and protection. So, third-party cookies are on the slide. And to answer your question about data, one of the things that is becoming more and more important is so-called first-party data. So companies, brands are collecting as much material as they can about their customers so that they can market to them. So we're seeing a huge industry growing up around digital data in the areas of customer data, financial data, and operational data. Mike: In addition to collecting their own market research data, businesses can also pay for data. So, what kind of marketing data are businesses and ad agencies buying? Jonathan: What marketers are interested, as I say, in customer, financial, operational, derive from different sources. So yeah, they're buying up to create a richer tapestry of their clients and potential clients from their own data first party and from third-party data. And we're seeing the whole ecology of advertising and marketing and media changing with the growth of these firms that are basically data harvesters and data brokers. Mike: And are advertisers the only one that are buying these data. Jonathan: Certainly not. Political movements and organizations who want richer data on consumers to target them are also absolutely buying up this data too. Mike: Okay, so now I think we've discussed is everything you'd need to know to understand how the Cambridge Analytica scandal worked. So let's talk about it. So unlike the UK, the US did not have widely publicized hearings regarding Cambridge Analytica, so a lot of my US audience will probably be unfamiliar with what happened. So before we get into the details of how the scandal worked, big picture, what was the Cambridge Analytica scandal? Jonathan: Well, I like to think of this as kind of a bundle of scandals actually because it involved failures across quite a range of organizations. Cambridge Analytica, this company that gathered and used data and sold it on to political campaigns, but other players too. I mean, it's one of the biggest scandals for Facebook. So essentially what happens–and this as a practice goes back to 2015–is a Cambridge-based researcher puts out an app which collects the data on US Facebook users. But not just them–the people who willingly took part–it accesses the profiles of all their friends and family. So in the end, data on about 87 million Americans–about a quarter of the whole Facebook audience in the US–were collected. Mike: Can you describe the app that they put out? Jonathan: Yeah. Sure, Mike. The researcher was called Aleksandr Kogan, and he put out an app called This Is Your Digital Life. It was a psychological profile app in June 2014. Either way, one group that comes out reasonably good from this story and I'm particularly proud of this or pleased about this because it is close to my heart, was the Ethics Committee at Cambridge University, because that rejected an application by this academic and also made the damning judgment that Facebook's approach to consent fell far below the ethical expectations of the university. In other words, it was deeply unimpressed with Facebook's provision. But of course having said that, we could say Cambridge University has questions to answer because this was still an academic who undertook this work. So it was an app, people who took part gave consent, but they didn't give consent for their entire network to be data scraped in this way. The crucial thing about the scandal is that data was then used and sold on to right-wing politicians in the US in various forms, to Ted Cruz for his presidential campaign, and later for Donald Trump, because it produced rich, detailed profiles of American voters, which allowed micro-targeting. And we've seen this more and more, but it's a kind of early example of what kinds of micro targeting can be done. In other words, you identify a voter who's going to be particularly triggered by rights to own and carry a gun, for example, but you trigger a different message to a different voter to mobilize them. And often those messages can be actually flat contradiction that can be at odds, but it doesn't matter. It's whatever works to build your political coalition. I think the other thing just to highlight from this is this is often framed as a digital story, but it's older and broader than that. It's about power and money. We've had lots of lobbyists who engage in political campaigns and, again, we might all agree it's okay to promote your candidate and do marketing techniques. But it's not okay to do the dark arts of demolishing a candidate through fake news and misinformation, for example. Some of your listeners might be interested; I'm in the UK, I have a great shoutout for the Channel 4 News, a public service news channel which did amongst other things, an undercover investigation in which executives from Cambridge Analytica are sort of bragging, because they don't think they're being filmed, about how they've intervened in democratic elections. It's a deeply disturbing portrait of how money and power can be used to undermine democratic processes. Mike: Okay. And Cambridge Analytica wouldn't have been nearly as successful with what they did without the plethora of right-wing content farms pumping out slanted and misleading news content. Talk about the online ecosystem that existed in 2015-2016 that allowed these websites to thrive. Jonathan: Yeah, one kind of crystallizing example, again some of your listeners will remember, was an infamous example of a Russian organization called the Internet Research Agency, which spent thousands of dollars on social media ads and promoted posts in an effort to influence the US elections in 2016. So misinformation, fake authors, pretending to be Texans when you're actually in a content farm as part of the kind of quasi-state corporate world of Russia.  How did that all happen? It partly happens because of the deeper logics and business models of the internet, right? You know, promoting controversy and hate, driving traffic and engagement. It happened because of lax rules on who's the source and sponsor of marketing messages. Lots of things caused it but yeah, that was the ecosystem at the time. And I think, again, before we just jump to the digital, this happens because of money. And so much of the right which can often appear to be kind of grassroots is, as we know, funded by very rich corporate donors who often don't like to be particularly transparent about who they are and how they operate. And the left progressive forces, which are more rooted in popular movements, in the end have less resource. We don't have the power of capital. We have the power of trade unions and collective work, but relatively weakly resourced. And that's a key issue. Mike: And the content farming, it wasn't just from the Russian state, it was also private sector too. I mean, there was money to be made here. So can you talk a bit about how that was profitable? Jonathan: Yeah. Well, if you generate clicks, if you produce clickbait, then the algorithmic world recognizes success at the levels of engagement and eyeballs, and that can be monetized. We should remember that's often not the primary motivation for political campaigns, it was information, disinformation, and mobilizing people to vote for candidates. But yeah, there's an economy built around it as well which meant advertisers became very aware that they were often not choosing to support right wing publications because of the way the algorithms were driving traffic towards popular and shared content. And that's one of the reasons we saw the first wave, if you like, of boycotts and withdrawals from big brands like– big companies, rather, like Unilever who were being advised that their brand safety was being compromised by the sites that were appearing on and that many of their consumers were deeply unhappy about hate speech being connected with their advertising and advertising dollars. Mike: Yeah. So one of the things that happened too as a result of these boycotts was that major social media and search platforms kind of reformed their algorithms to try to suppress this misinformation from proliferating. So, how has the digital media landscape changed since the 2016 presidential election and since Brexit? Jonathan: Well, as I say, I think we should recognize that it's often been civil society power, political power, these campaigns that have forced marketers to divest. This hasn't just come from corporate voices; it's come from popular campaigns which absolutely deserve recognition. But as I say, I think marketers using their power for good is all well and good, if you like, but it's still an exercise in a marketer's power. And that power is ultimately private and in my view, unaccountable. I mean, a defender would say, "What are you talking about? The market decides that consumers don't like it. That's a powerful force on brands." To which you could say, "Well, consumer power does matter." Right? Ad blocking is a really good example of consumer power in this world. But consumer power is dispersed, it's not concentrated. And it's not sufficient very often to challenge corporate power and interests. So these are all arguments, essentially, for a much stronger public regulation of communications because it shouldn't be left to private power to regulate itself. But nor, however important it is, can we rely on consumers only, you know? Like other people, I believe in the importance of media literacy and better education so we can find our way through this world and decode it, but I also don't think the burden of responsibility should lie on consumers. It should be a principle. If you're big and you're in a communications space, then you act responsibly, and public regulation is the only way to kind of underpin that that is actually done. Relying on self-regulation from powerful forces in this world is not enough. Mike: Yeah. Especially when the advertising techniques are constantly changing and evolving, you can't expect consumers to be privy to new ways of reaching them. So we've talked about various advertising techniques, let's talk a bit about their social implications. What are the consequences we're seeing from the proliferation of owned media? Jonathan: Sure. Well, I like to sum up the whole world of what I call branded content around three problem areas. The first key problem area is around consumer awareness–this principle that we should know when we're being sold to. And that gets the lion's share of attention, actually, from all parties to the discussion. And that's important. It's about labeling and disclosure and identification. But I argue that that attention tends to displace two others. The second big area of concern is around the quality and integrity of the media. I don't think there's enough people in this world who are speaking up for the importance of having media spaces that are free from commercial influence and interference. So that's the second area. And then the third area, which I think is really where the radical voices come in, where the critical tradition I'm part of comes in, is this notion of marketer's power of voice. You know, the significance of a world in which the ability to pay can give you a louder voice. It's not to say we can wish that away, but it is to say that it's a way of thinking about historically that societies have put limits on that. They've said, "This is where advertising can appear. This is how it can appear." And I think we need a conversation about what those rules should be for the 21st century because at the moment, we're in a bit of a hybrid of old rules that are weak and don't work, and new spaces that are opening up. So for me, that's the call of my book, really, to say, "These are deep problems. This isn't just about surface-level techniques; this isn't just about new tools in the marketing toolbox. This is a much more deep reconfiguration of the space between commercial voices, advertising, and communication space, and we need to work out what the rule should be. I put a call in for saying we really need to have a discussion about what a 21st century version of separation–keeping media and advertising apart–would look like. And I say that because of course we can't put it all back in the box, we can't come up with a solution that would have worked in 1960 and say that's going to do it. It isn't going to do it. But I think that's a really key discussion to be had. Where should we be seeking a world which is free or freer from commercial influence and interference? How are we going to create that? How should it be configured and organized? Mike: Yeah. Going back to owned media, I mean, the owned media dominates search results now. It's basically impossible to look something up online unless you're finding it through Wikipedia without having to use corporate blogs. And there's always a limitation to that, right? There's always a wall where they will not give you more information than is necessary to hook you to their services, right? When I farm out my content to freelancers, I actually specifically instruct them that the reader should come away knowing what to do, but not how to do it. And so there's a technique to writing instructional articles that make you feel more helpless, and that's definitely what we aim for in our copy, which I take particular pleasure in making business owners feel helpless and so on and whatever. So let's talk about native. Jonathan: Can I just say, I think that's such an important point and I agree entirely, and it shows that, kind of, you know, this isn't a simple change where we can easily identify the before and after. What you're describing is a kind of world where more and more content comes from an interested party and is underpinned by money and monetizing it as a driver. And we know historically we've relied on content to come from other quarters, right? I'm very proud to work in a university world because that's a world that defends the idea of, "Well, actually we should ask questions that are important for society, not the sponsor, not the company." So that's one side. We've traditionally had media in various traditions, you know, a free press in the US standing up for the idea of independent and impartial, know the advertisers can't call the tune because then we lose something really precious and what it means to do journalism. And all of those alternative sites are weak because for me, this all comes down to these questions of resource, money and power as a way in, so they have relatively less. What are we going to do about it? Well, in Europe some of us defend and advocate for public service media, but also for new forms of public service community media, non-profit, hyperlocal, because those are really important spaces where that other content gets produced. I don't know about you, sometimes it's depressing that we don't link up the networks more effectively. Why don't we have publications that pull together all the non-governmental organizations and civil society groups who are producing great content but can't always get it out to wide audiences? We don't have a very great tradition of connecting the content with the vehicle to promote it amongst, if you like, the left and progressive causes. But plenty of people are thinking about how to do it. And yeah, absolutely, it comes through to other solutions. We need to defend and extend public media–what I call in Europe, public service media. And do that in new ways, too, because some of the old ways have been– Well, PBS in the States and all the problems of corporate funding kind of shrinking what gets said in that space, so a lot to fix too. But I think that's a really important part of the solution. We need non-commercial media, and have to work out how to support and develop it to create that kind of other kinds of information. Mike: So by that same token, open-access journals I think are also really important, too. The fact that so much media now is putting up paywalls, all these academic journals are charging $30-$40 to rent an article, and there's just really no way to get free information that isn't paid for in some way. So let's talk about native. What is the effect of sponsored content on the public? Jonathan: Let me answer that by an example I show my students, which is an Exxon advertorial in the New York Times. Exxon paid for an editorial which said, "Guess what? The solution to the climate crisis isn't the removal of fossil fuels. It's smarter use of our assets." That sums up for me some of the greatest dangers, which is sponsored content amplifies voices who can speak with partiality because they're advocating for themselves, but undermines independent journalism in the process. To give another example, Facebook, as you know, has paid huge sums into lobbying and influencing politicians in Europe because it senses danger, right? Europe has created some quite strong rules on data privacy and on cookies as we discussed earlier. Facebook took out 20 ad-sponsored content items in the British newspaper, The Daily Telegraph. So it sets up stories with charity bosses who say Facebook is great without disclosing that they're financed by Facebook. It has people saying what great things it's doing to kind of cut content, even though it's been pushed out just after the Christchurch massacre, which of course was relayed for hours on Facebook and other social platforms before it was taken down. That's the problem with sponsored content, it strengthens and amplifies voices. And of course there are other problems; it's disguised; it's hidden; people aren't aware of it. We should know who the source of our content is. In fact, just be interested to talk to you because you're working in journalism. I think one of the things I grapple with but would really like to see more debate out is about the disclosure of sources. Now, I know from the Human Rights tradition and so on the absolute importance of protecting a journalist's sources. Because we don't get good stories if journalists can't protect whistleblowers and others. But we need something which protects that important public interest right. That gives readers better guidance to what the provenance, you know, what's behind the story. We could have ingredients in food and drink, but what were the sources? And in particular, we definitely need to know when there's been a paid source underlying a piece of content. So what drives me in that debate is one of the things that happened in the UK was we had a debate about political advertising on Facebook, which said we should be told better when there are political advertising. But that was running alongside another debate about how to save the British press, which was saying let's have more native advertising. So we've had contradictions and gaps in the way these issues have been treated. And I think we should recognize what's happening underneath, which is we don't always know the interests and sources behind our content. And we should do. Particularly when it's either a political voice or a commercial voice. Mike: Yeah. And I want to give a shoutout here to Corey Pein and his book, Live Work Work Work Die, where he talks about how the tech world typically, they don't really concern themselves with following rules and regulations. They just kind of do what they do and then just once regulators catch up to them, they hope they've made enough money where the fines or penalties or whatever is insignificant to how much profits they've made. And we see that with what happened with Facebook and I guess Twitter to some extent where they weren't regulating political advertisements at all. At least in the United States, political advertising has certain rules for financing and stuff that you have to report it and stuff like that. And so in the 2016 election, that was just out the window. And that's been fixed. Facebook now requires that political advertisements are registered as such, and they only get served in certain ways. All right, so there are regulations in place regarding advertising. What safeguards exist to protect the public from nefarious advertisers? Jonathan: I think just to respond to what you were saying, these are kind of almost the deeper myths, the deeper stories that have been told. The story that internet innovation was somehow kind of natural, inescapable, has-to-be-done-this-way. You want change and all these great services, this is what comes with it. It's going to be driven in these ways, we're going to move fast, we're going to trip over the old rules. I don't know about you, I think that is a myth in the making and it doesn't stack up, and it's already fragmenting and under pressure. So when Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg gets into US hearings in the likes of Cambridge Analytica, he has to say something different at that point. He has to say we do stand up for privacy and consumer protection. The problem is he doesn't fully deliver, and perhaps the bigger problem is the grand-sounding statements are there to reassure investors and markets and other stakeholders, but behind the scenes, Facebook carries on paying millions into lobbyists who go and influence politicians to make sure the rules are kept as weak as possible. So that would be my summary. In the space that I've looked at, native advertising and so on, we see a kind of mixed progress. So just taking the United States, 2015 Federal Trade Commission comes in with new rules and guidance on native advertising. And the rules are certainly an improvement: they're sharper; they're clearer. But what happens? Compliance by the industry remains low. Some early studies found 70% of marketers within I think a year of the new guidance weren't compliant. It got a bit better. But all the latest studies show right across publishing or influencer marketing, there's a compliance problem. There's that lobbying problem I mentioned. So the big marketers say, "Yes, we want to be responsible and transparent, it's in our interests that consumers know they've got ads." But actually then go and lobby. And the kind of thing they lobby over is to say, "Leave it to us what the disclosures should be." So what happens is consumer awareness is very low. Lots of the academic studies in this area have found awareness rates of about 10%, right? People being able to fully identify ad-sponsored content in news publications, for example. And it remains very low. So these industry people are kind of saying, "Well, leave it to us. We need to be fitting for the platform." And the result is consumers have low awareness and are confused. And people like me in this debate and in my book say, "We should call this out. We should have– If the objective really was consumer awareness, then we should move to clearer and more consistent labeling." And why I perfectly accept Instagram and Facebook are not the same thing and TikTok is not the same thing, if we had much more consistent labeling, we'd be in a better place. So one of the things I've argued for in Europe, for example, when we have product placement on television, unlike in the US it has to show a sign–a P sign to tell you that there's product placement. And not just at the end of programs as you're used to where the credits roll very quickly, but before and after each ad break. So why don't we have a sign, a hashtag ad, or a B sign for branded content across all branded material? I think that's an important argument to have because I think we're going into a world which is going to become even less recognizable as these new forms and formats emerge. Mike: Okay, so we've talked about some of them already, but what kind of policy gaps do you see with respect to marketing and media? And what do you think we should do to patch them? Jonathan: Well, I must just say it's a lovely time to speak to you and your audience about this because we've just started–I'm very proud of this–a three year research project which is looking into the rules and regulation of branded content. So we have what's called a Branded Content Governance Project and we're looking at the United States, Canada, Mexico, the UK, every country in the European Union, and Australia to kind of track what the rules are and what we can learn from that to do better. When I map this, I see the forces sitting in four areas. There's regulation, public regulation. There's industry self-regulation, when it makes its own rules. There's the power of the market, ad blocking, for example. And there's the power of civil society arguing for better. And I think we're at a point where self-regulation by the industry is failing. And that's becoming recognized not just by activists if you like, but by governments too. So we need a new settlement. And I think that needs a strengthening of public regulation as I've outlined. But I think all the elements need to work together. And that means putting pressure on companies to actually do as they say and strengthen their own self-regulation. Mike: Okay. Let's talk a bit about the stakes. So given the current digital landscape, what do you see the internet looking like if policy does not catch up with advertisers? Jonathan: Yeah. Well, that's a great question. Pretty chastening one, isn't it? There's a famous moment in 1994 where the chairman of Procter & Gamble, Edward Harnes, gets up and does a speech to the American Association of Advertising Agencies. And it basically says, "Hold your nerve. Things are happening, digitalization is about to happen. You could get slaughtered. The digital world could help people bypass ads and evade them. But if you keep your nerve, you can dominate this space." And I don't know about you, Mike, but I feel he was right. [chuckles] We knew this was happening in the early internet, the commercialization of the internet. But that corporate model and that corporate dominance is dominant. It's strong. However, I think we always need to look for sources of hope. And if it's dominant, it's also contested. There are forces challenging it, whether those forces are kind of carving out space for public media as we discussed, or whether like I am with others, we're kind of arguing for the rules to be improved on behalf of consumers and society. So I think we're losing, but classic Gramscian and optimism of the will is required. And to recognise all the things that are being done to highlight the problem and think through solutions. Whether that's very local ones like– I mean, something we haven't mentioned I think is very important is kitemarking, right? Small publications, non-profit or low profit saying, “We're going to signal what standards are to readers." And that's good for the publication but I think it also is good for awareness. It says, "Well, yeah, why is this publication different from these other commercial ones?" Because this is how it engages with advertisers. So I think that's all really important, too. Mike: All right. Well, cool. Well, hopefully, we can save the internet. Thanks, Dr. Hardy, for coming onto the Nazi Lies Podcast to talk about the lying press. The book again is Branded Content out from Routledge. Thanks again, Dr. Hardy. Jonathan: Thank you. Mike: If you liked what you heard and want to help us pay our guests and transcriptionist, consider subscribing to The Nazi Lies Patreon. Subscriptions start as low as $2, and some levels come with merch. If you don't want to commit to monthly donations, you can give a one-time donation via PayPal.me/NaziLies or CashApp to $NaziLies. [Theme song]

This episode of Guerrilla History is a continuation of our Sanctions As War miniseries.  In this important episode, we bring on Nima Nakhaei to discuss the history and impact of sanctions on Iraq, the repercussions of which we continue to see today!  Get the word out and share this with comrades involved in the anti-sanctions movement. Nima Nakhaei is a faculty member in the Department of Politics at York University. His research sits at the nexus of Marxist political economy, Poulantzasian state theory and Gramscian discourse analysis. Within this approach, he explores the ways in which the political economy, state formations and identity discourses in the Middle East have been structured by the interiorization of imperialist relations and their crises. Help support the show by signing up to our patreon, where you also will get bonus content: https://www.patreon.com/guerrillahistory 

This podcast makes reference to slides presented by Ken Spours. To view these, watch the podcast video on our CompassTV youtube channel The right is shape shifting again - from Johnson to now Liz Truss.  What a Truss premiership means is unclear - will she stick to desiccated Thatcherism or pivot to a new hybrid Toryism?We are joined live with Professor Ken Spours who through his work on the Osbourne Supremacy and shapeshifters had helped us place a Gramscian lens over the adaptation and contortions of modern Toryism.  Also joining us is Gaby Hinsliff, the flabulous Guardian political columnist who writes astutely about centre-left politics. Enjoyed the podcast and want to be a live audience member at our next episode? Want to have the chance in raising questions to the panelist? Become a member! Support our work and be a part of the Compass communitySupport the show

Our special guest on the show this episode is Professor Marv Waterstone. A Marxist geographer whose research and teaching focuses on the Gramscian notions of hegemony and common sense, and their connections to social justice and progressive social change.Professor Waterstone also co-authored the book 'Consequences of Capitalism: Manufacturing Discontent and Resistance' with Prof. Noam Chomsky. Marv Waterstone and Noam Chomsky co-teach the lectures from the book as a course entitled “What is Politics?” at the University of Arizona.  Remember to share this podcast and follow us on Twitter!TWITTER: https://twitter.com/Crucem_sanctamhttps://twitter.com/HumanRedacted

Join Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone as they discuss their latest book, Consequences of Capitalism. Consequences of Capitalism, a new book by Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone, exposes the deep, often unseen connections between neoliberal 'common sense' and structural power. In making these linkages, the will show how the current hegemony keeps social justice movements divided and marginalized. And, most importantly, we see how we can fight to overcome these divisions. Is there an alternative to capitalism? Chomsky and Waterstone will chart a critical map for a more just and sustainable society. Get the book, Consequences of Capitalism: https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/1548-consequences-of-capitalism --------------------------------------------------------------------- Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor (emeritus) in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Laureate Professor of Linguistics and Agnese Nelms Haury Chair in the Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona. His work is widely credited with having revolutionized the field of modern linguistics. Chomsky is the author of numerous best-selling political works, which have been translated into scores of languages. Recent books include What Kind of Creatures Are We?, as well as Optimism Over Despair, and Internationalism of Extinction. Marv Waterstone is Professor Emeritus in the School of Geography and Development at the University of Arizona, where he has been a faculty member for over 30 years. He is also the former director of the University of Arizona Graduate Interdisciplinary Program in Comparative Cultural and Literary Studies. His research and teaching focus on the Gramscian notions of hegemony and common sense, and their connections to social justice and progressive social change. His most recent books are Wageless Life: A Manifesto for a Future beyond Capitalism (University of Minnesota Press; co-authored with Ian Shaw) and Geographic Thought: A Praxis Perspective (Routledge; co-edited with George Henderson). Janine Jackson (host) is the program director at Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) and producer/host of FAIR's syndicated weekly radio show CounterSpin. Her work has appeared in various publications, including Civil Rights Since 1787 (New York University Press) and Stop the Next War Now: Effective Responses to Violence and Terrorism (New World Library). Watch the live event recording: https://youtu.be/7-D5jbtnzpI Buy books from Haymarket: www.haymarketbooks.org Follow us on Soundcloud: soundcloud.com/haymarketbooks

India Policy Watch #1: What Outrage Means Insights on burning policy issues in India— RSJLast week while writing about the Fabindia Diwali ad and the accompanying outrage, I wrote that this ‘arms race of purity’ might become a familiar feature in our cultural landscape. This week we got this:“Homegrown FMCG player Dabur has withdrawn its advertisement on Karva Chauth showing a lesbian couple celebrating the festival in the ad campaign of its Fem Creme bleach and has issued unconditionally apology.After facing backlash on social media platforms and also from a politician from the ruling BJP, the company has withdrawn the ad campaign.In the same week, Bajrang Dal activists vandalised the set and assaulted the director and crew members of the web series Aashram because it ‘defamed the Hindu religion’. There are a few larger questions I have about this phenomenon. Before I come to them, let’s look at this Dabur ad issue a bit more. The ad uses the classic “traditional plot with a twist” approach to make it stand out amidst the clutter. A karwa chauth ad with a lesbian couple must have checked all the boxes in the minds of the marketers at Dabur. It was topical and it celebrated diversity. The recent Cadbury’s Dairy Milk campaign that went viral where it switched the gender roles of its classic ads of the 90s is a good example of this approach. The new ad had the girl hitting a last-ball six while her boyfriend danced onto the pitch. So, here’s a thought experiment: what if Cadbury’s had made the same ad with a same-sex couple? Would that have created the same outrage as the Dabur karwa chauth ad? I suspect there would have been some but nothing of the kind we saw with the Dabur ad. There are more than a few ads and TV shows right now featuring same-sex couples. In fact, the statement of the BJP leader who threatened legal action against the ad is useful to quote here:"In future they will show two men taking 'feras' (marrying each other according to Hindu rituals)." I suspect the issue becomes fraught when Hindu rituals are involved. I have argued in previous editions that the way ideologies are understood in India are different from their original conception. A liberal is used for a left-leaning activist kind instead of someone believing in individual rights and consent. People call themselves conservative that is, those who value order, custom and self-directed change in society, while they champion bigoted views and radical changes that will usher in an ‘ideal society’. They do so without any sense of irony. An absence of ideological clarity is a feature of our democracy. Ideological ConfusionNow, if I were an Indian conservative, how would I look at the Dabur ad? Sure, I would wince a bit at the lesbian angle. After all, to me, marriage is a social institution and it is solemnised between a woman and a man. But then I would also reluctantly acknowledge that same-sex relationship is now accepted in many societies. It has a legal sanction in India. Maybe then as a true conservative, I will look at the ad again. Sure it shows lesbians but they are also following a tradition that I hold dear. The ad upholds my belief that individualism has to be grounded by custom and tradition. That social cohesion will be preserved only if we adhere to our cultural mores. So, I would welcome an ad that co-opts a new generation into this tradition. But that’s not how the so-called conservatives behaved. What explains this? The simple answer is that it’s about outrage, not so much about the tradition. It is about using another incident to strengthen the narrative that there are insidious forces who will destroy sanatan dharma if we aren’t forever vigilant. And you can only trust us to protect you from these forces. Today it is a lesbian couple following the karwa chauth ritual that’s seen as a threat to the faith. Tomorrow it could be a straight woman in the ad but without a bindi. The reason for outrage doesn’t really matter. The narrative that religion is under threat is what is important. So, the far-fetched notion that marketing teams and ad agencies working for Fabindia or Dabur are either anti-Hindu or part of some global conspiracy. Not the obvious reality that almost every lever of power is now controlled by those of your ideological slant. That’s not enough. There are still some mythical powerful people who are brainwashing our young. Not the obvious reality that the young in these companies and their customers are slowly changing and accepting of diversity on their own like a conservative would have preferred. There is no real respect for tradition or for how society is changing itself. It is just another opportunity to play an imaginary victim card and keep the narrative of Hinduism in danger for future electoral gains. Thinking About CultureBeyond these specific instances, there are a few questions that come to my mind as I look at the cultural landscape in India. First, we often use the Breitbart doctrine - politics is the downstream of culture - around here. Like we have written before, there is a long history to this idea before Breitbart. Anyway, there’s an obvious counter to the Breitbart doctrine that comes up after seeing instances like these - isn’t politics influencing culture here? Hasn’t culture now become downstream of politics? The way to think about this is that the Breitbart doctrine is focused on the outcome. The outcome always is about a politics different from what it is today. So, yes, the politician in MP who threatened legal action against the ad was trying to influence culture today. But his goal is to create a kind of politics tomorrow that’s narrower and more bigoted than today. How your culture is changing today is still the best indicator of the kind of politics you will get tomorrow. Going by the spate of fake outrage about ads and TV shows, the future of politics doesn’t look promising.Second, there’s another point that’s made when issues like these come up. No one votes on such issues and these are some fringe elements trying to get into a news cycle. Don’t overread this. I agree, with a caveat. Usually, these are indeed isolated instances of people coercing others to their point of view with limited success except when those doing this hold the levers of power. Then the consequences are both real and long-term. They cannot be likened to an equally stupid outrage by the other side who hold almost no power even if they are vocal. To take the US case, the QAnon and other right-wing crazy ideas can find support on social media but there are hardly people holding power in government, universities or corporates who believe in them. But ‘wokeism’ in universities and workplaces can be a real problem as seen in the dismissals of many alternative voices because those holding power in these places tends to support woke ideas. In India, the shoe is on the other foot. The right-wing ideas have the support of those in power. In edition #120 (A Short History of Breitbart Doctrine), I had written about the Gramscian idea of cultural hegemony which is being followed to the letter in India:Gramsci argued a capitalist state had two overlapping spheres that helped it to thrive. There was the ‘political society’ that ruled through coercion and control of means of production which was visible to all. But there was also the ‘civil society’ that ruled through consent and control of minds. The civil society was the public sphere of ideas and beliefs that were shaped through the church, media or universities. To him, the capitalist state was successful in ‘manufacturing consent’ among people through the ‘cultural hegemony’ it set up through its control of the public sphere. People living in such societies didn’t question their position or their exploitation because they thought this was the ‘natural state’ of existence. The cultural hegemony was so complete and overpowering that there could hardly be any mobilisation of people against the ‘political society’ which ruled through coercion. The minds of the people were brainwashed through propaganda.In short: establishing cultural hegemony is the first step to winning the minds and eventually, the votes of people (we are talking of democracy here). Over time, this hegemony in the public sphere will earn you the long-term consent of the people who will consider it their ‘natural state’. Self-censorship will follow as an outcome of this hegemony. That addresses the second question on why people self-censor themselves.Third, there’s the other question that usually comes up along with the imagined victimhood. Why only choose Hindu rituals? Why not show such ads using rituals of other Abrahamic faiths? Well, if some 82 per cent of the people in India are Hindus, it is natural for an ad or a TV show to focus on this majority for their message; radical or otherwise. Dabur or Fabindia won’t show such ads in another non-Hindu majority country if we were to take the hypothetical case of them being present there. Everyone focuses on the majority. It is for exactly the same reason why more than 80 per cent of films and TV shows have protagonists with Hindu names and faith. Or, a majority of holidays in offices are for Hindu festivals. This is how it works for any overwhelming majority. You get everything in majority. A decade or two back, I remember, there used to be articles and shows debating the relevance of rituals like karwa chauth and their place in modern society. Today, the debate is who can be shown observing the ritual and, maybe, what should they be wearing. That’s enough for you to know who is winning the culture war. p.s: Growing up I had almost no knowledge of karwa chauth. I don’t recollect any film or TV shows that featured it in their plots. Till Shah Rukh Khan (SRK) and Kajol ‘universalised’ it in Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge. Culture changes, gradually and then suddenly, to misquote Hemingway. SRK would’ve learnt it . A Framework a Week: Rules For Political Survival Tools for thinking public policy— RSJI’m reading The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics (2011) by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith. The Netflix series How To Become A Tyrant is based on this. It is an interesting book with the central premise that politicians, dictators and democrats alike, are all the same. They must follow the same playbook of self-interested behaviour to stay in power. I will write about the book in a more relevant context some other time, perhaps. For now, I will leave you with this excellent set of rules that authors suggest leaders can use to succeed in any system:Rule 1: Keep your winning coalition as small as possible. A small coalition allows a leader to rely on very few people to stay in power. Fewer essentials equals more control and contributes to more discretion over expenditures. Bravo for Kim Jong Il of North Korea. He is a contemporary master at ensuring dependence on a small coalition.Rule 2: Keep your nominal selectorate as large as possible. Maintain a large selectorate of interchangeables and you can easily replace any troublemakers in your coalition, influentials and essentials alike. After all, a large selectorate permits a big supply of substitute supporters to put the essentials on notice that they should be loyal and well behaved or else face being replaced.Bravo to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin for introducing universal adult suffrage in Russia’s old rigged election system. Lenin mastered the art of creating a vast supply of interchangeables.Rule 3: Control the flow of revenue. It’s always better for a ruler to determine who eats than it is to have a larger pie from which the people can feed themselves. The most effective cash flow for leaders is one that makes lots of people poor and redistributes money to keep select people—their supporters—wealthy.Bravo to Pakistan’s president Asif Ali Zardari, estimated to be worth up to $4 billion even as he governed a country near the world’s bottom in per capita income.Rule 4: Pay your key supporters just enough to keep them loyal. Remember, your backers would rather be you than be dependent on you. Your big advantage over them is that you know where the money is and they don’t. Give your coalition just enough so that they don’t shop around for someone to replace you and not a penny more.Bravo to Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe who, whenever facing a threat of a military coup, manages finally to pay his army, keeping their loyalty against all odds.Rule 5: Don’t take money out of your supporter’s pockets to make the people’s lives better. The flip side of rule 4 is not to be too cheap toward your coalition of supporters. If you’re good to the people at the expense of your coalition, it won’t be long until your “friends” will be gunning for you. Effective policy for the masses doesn’t necessarily produce loyalty among essentials, and it’s darn expensive to boot. Hungry people are not likely to have the energy to overthrow you, so don’t worry about them. Disappointed coalition members, in contrast, can defect, leaving you in deep trouble.Bravo to Senior General Than Shwe of Myanmar, who made sure following the 2008 Nargis cyclone that food relief was controlled and sold on the black market by his military supporters rather than letting aid go to the people—at least 138,000 and maybe as many as 500,000 of whom died in the disaster.Cynical? Maybe. Illuminating, nevertheless. India Policy Watch #2: Musical Chairs Insights on burning policy issues in India— Pranay KotasthaneIn September, you would have come across many headlines to this effect: "right to sit" becomes a workplace law in Tamil Nadu. Or Tamil Nadu Becomes Second State After Kerala to Establish Right to Sit for Workers. Or Tamil Nadu’s ‘right to sit’ Bill, a long-overdue fundamental right.Of course, the change in law doesn’t mean the ‘right to sit’ is now an enforceable fundamental right. Nevertheless, the news coverage on this issue seems to suggest tha a legal right to sit for all workers in shops and establishments in the state would improve the conditions of workers. As someone skeptical of framing entitlements as rights guaranteed by the state, I was intrigued. How is the government going to enforce such a legal right? What does the right cover? What qualifies as seating? What does adequate seating mean? What’s the market failure here? How will smaller shops provide space for adequate seating?A useful philosophical distinction to consider here is between negative and positive rights. The holder of a negative right is entitled to non-interference. That is, having a negative right to sit implies an employer cannot stop a worker from sitting. A positive right is entitled to the provision of some good or service. That is, having the positive right to sit implies an employer must provide workers with a chair to sit on. The framing of the news reportage seemed to indicate that the government was leaning towards a positive right.So I searched for the exact text of the Kerala and TN amendments to their shops and establishment acts. This is what they say:Tamil Nadu LA Bill 29 of 2021:“22-A. Seating facilities -The premises of every establishment shall have suitable seating arrangements for all employees so that they may take advantage of any opportunity to sit which may occur in the course of their work and thereby avoid ‘on their toes’ situation throughout the working hours."Kerala LA Ordinance 50 of 2018 is almost identical:12B. Seating facilities — In every shop and establishment, suitable arrangements for sitting shall be provided to all workers so as to avoid ‘on the toes’ situation throughout the duty time, so that they may take advantage of any opportunity to sit which may occur in the course of their work.That’s about it. Although there’s no mention of a ‘right to sit’, my friend Ameya Naik educated me that such an obligation on a shop or establishment by definition creates a legal right for workers. So, how effective is this right likely to be? We can anticipate the following unintended consequences:Shops might procure a few chairs and yet prevent workers from sitting. Since the act does not define what ‘any opportunity to sit which may occur in the course of their work’ is, enforcing the right will be quite difficult.Smaller shops and establishments with limited space might find it difficult to comply to this law. Expect chairs to appear miraculously just before the inspector pays a visit.This gives another tool in the hands of the inspectors who are also supposed to check if shops comply with laws on holidays, opening and closing hours of the establishment, cleanliness, ventilation, lighting, prevention against fire etc. — a total of 32 sections under the Shops and Establishments Act. Given the limited capacity, we can expect that the bribe rates to increase.In sum, this ‘right to sit’ is, in reality, a mandate at par with other compliances for shops such as a holiday a week, a maximum work day of eight hours, wage for overtime work etc. In the most optimistic scenario, we can expect its compliance levels to be at par with these other pre-existing mandates. Finally, I am honestly unable to identify the exact market failure that necessitates government intervention on seating facilities in a shop. If I had no choice but to recommend a government intervention, an ethical labour sourcing certification that shops can voluntarily opt for, would be my first solution.India Policy Watch #3: Effecting Policy Change Insights on burning policy issues in India— Pranay KotasthaneThis week I read Himanshu Jha’s Capturing Institutional Change: The Case of the Right to Information Act in India. The ‘Right to X’ in a book title is usually a red flag for me but I am glad I ignored that thought. This book is an excellent read for anyone trying to understand how public policy changes happen in India. On the RTI Act’s promulgation, the first dominant narrative is that a bottom-up social movement with the Mazdoor Kisaan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) ultimately culminated in the RTI Act 2005. Another dominant narrative highlights the key role played by the UPA-1 government. Jha challenges both these narrative and argues, rather convincingly, that:‘institutional change in the case of RTI in India is an incremental and gradual process of ideas emerging from within the state.’ [page 12]That’s a bold claim. Jha argues that key elements in the Indian political ecosystem were on board with the idea of freedom of information many years before the RTI act came into being. It was an idea whose time had come long before 2005. First the opposition parties and later, the mainstream parties played a major role in overturning the established norm of secrecy. The social movement did have a role to play but it too had a co-dependent relationship with elements in the state; the narrative that it was an outright contest between the society and the state in which the former won is incorrect. As a public policy student, this argument interests me because it again challenges a deep-seated belief in India that only crises drive positive changes in our polity. Many reforms, like the RTI Act, the National Pension System reform have actually come about as a result of a gradual process involving aligning cognitive maps, smart negotiating, and display of political will. That is a sign of hope and a call for rejecting cynicism. Crisis is no guarantee for a policy reform. The well-thought-through reforms take time and perhaps for good reason. HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Article] Pratap Bhanu Mehta in The Indian Express on Aryan Khan affair: It's not about establishing that everyone is equal before the law. There are larger ideological connections here.[Podcast] Jordan Peterson podcast: Peterson, Steven Pinker, and Jonathan Haidt sit down to discuss truth, how societies function, utopias, the role of religion, & more. [Book] Successful Public Policy: Lessons from Australia and New Zealand is a rare book that identifies elements of good policy design. The chapter on water markets is particularly relevant to India. Get on the email list at publicpolicy.substack.com

We sat down with George Hoare, co-host of the Aufhebunga bunga podcast, to look at Brexit and COVID-19 using Gramsci's concepts of historic bloc and hegemony as guides. Check out George's first book: An Introduction to Antonio Gramsci: His Life, Thought and Legacy And his latest book: The End of the End of History: Politics in the Twenty-First Century Mentioned in the show: The Full Brexit Blog

We live in strange times. Politics around the world seem to be transforming into something new and often frightening. But this process has a history. In 1989, the bi-polar certainties of the Cold War gave way to a neo-liberal consensus, what Francis Fukuyama termed “the End of History”. Yet with BREXIT and Trump in 2016, the End of History seemed to be coming to an end itself. The current COVID crisis has only accelerated this process. To make sense of this Gramscian interregnum and its great variety of morbid symptoms, Alex Hochuli, George Hoare, and Philip Cunliffe started the Aufhebunga Bunga podcast in April 2017. Billing itself as the “global political podcast at the end of the end of history”, the podcast offers theoretically informed and often provocative analysis and commentary. The podcast has led to a book, The End of the End of History: Politics in the Twenty-First Century, out with Zero Books in 2021. In our discussion, these three scholars lay out their defense of the concept of the End of History, discuss post-politics and anti-politics, and explain how politics are back. They also diagnose the pandemic of Neoliberal Order Breakdown Syndrome and explain which demographic groups are most susceptible to NOBS. Drawing from the recent history of the USA and UK, as well as Italy and Brazil, Hochuli, Hoare, and Cunliffe offer an analysis of our world and make some bleak predictions for what is to come in terms of future ideological formations. Alex Hochuli is a writer and translator living in Sao Paolo, Brazil, George Hoare is a political consultant in London, and Philip Cunliffe is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Kent. Michael G. Vann is a professor of world history at California State University, Sacramento. A specialist in imperialism and the Cold War in Southeast Asia, he is the author of The Great Hanoi Rat Hunt: Empires, Disease, and Modernity in French Colonial Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 2018). When he's not reading or talking about new books with smart people, Mike can be found surfing in Santa Cruz, California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We live in strange times. Politics around the world seem to be transforming into something new and often frightening. But this process has a history. In 1989, the bi-polar certainties of the Cold War gave way to a neo-liberal consensus, what Francis Fukuyama termed “the End of History”. Yet with BREXIT and Trump in 2016, the End of History seemed to be coming to an end itself. The current COVID crisis has only accelerated this process. To make sense of this Gramscian interregnum and its great variety of morbid symptoms, Alex Hochuli, George Hoare, and Philip Cunliffe started the Aufhebunga Bunga podcast in April 2017. Billing itself as the “global political podcast at the end of the end of history”, the podcast offers theoretically informed and often provocative analysis and commentary. The podcast has led to a book, The End of the End of History: Politics in the Twenty-First Century, out with Zero Books in 2021. In our discussion, these three scholars lay out their defense of the concept of the End of History, discuss post-politics and anti-politics, and explain how politics are back. They also diagnose the pandemic of Neoliberal Order Breakdown Syndrome and explain which demographic groups are most susceptible to NOBS. Drawing from the recent history of the USA and UK, as well as Italy and Brazil, Hochuli, Hoare, and Cunliffe offer an analysis of our world and make some bleak predictions for what is to come in terms of future ideological formations. Alex Hochuli is a writer and translator living in Sao Paolo, Brazil, George Hoare is a political consultant in London, and Philip Cunliffe is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Kent. Michael G. Vann is a professor of world history at California State University, Sacramento. A specialist in imperialism and the Cold War in Southeast Asia, he is the author of The Great Hanoi Rat Hunt: Empires, Disease, and Modernity in French Colonial Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 2018). When he's not reading or talking about new books with smart people, Mike can be found surfing in Santa Cruz, California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

We live in strange times. Politics around the world seem to be transforming into something new and often frightening. But this process has a history. In 1989, the bi-polar certainties of the Cold War gave way to a neo-liberal consensus, what Francis Fukuyama termed “the End of History”. Yet with BREXIT and Trump in 2016, the End of History seemed to be coming to an end itself. The current COVID crisis has only accelerated this process. To make sense of this Gramscian interregnum and its great variety of morbid symptoms, Alex Hochuli, George Hoare, and Philip Cunliffe started the Aufhebunga Bunga podcast in April 2017. Billing itself as the “global political podcast at the end of the end of history”, the podcast offers theoretically informed and often provocative analysis and commentary. The podcast has led to a book, The End of the End of History: Politics in the Twenty-First Century, out with Zero Books in 2021. In our discussion, these three scholars lay out their defense of the concept of the End of History, discuss post-politics and anti-politics, and explain how politics are back. They also diagnose the pandemic of Neoliberal Order Breakdown Syndrome and explain which demographic groups are most susceptible to NOBS. Drawing from the recent history of the USA and UK, as well as Italy and Brazil, Hochuli, Hoare, and Cunliffe offer an analysis of our world and make some bleak predictions for what is to come in terms of future ideological formations. Alex Hochuli is a writer and translator living in Sao Paolo, Brazil, George Hoare is a political consultant in London, and Philip Cunliffe is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Kent. Michael G. Vann is a professor of world history at California State University, Sacramento. A specialist in imperialism and the Cold War in Southeast Asia, he is the author of The Great Hanoi Rat Hunt: Empires, Disease, and Modernity in French Colonial Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 2018). When he's not reading or talking about new books with smart people, Mike can be found surfing in Santa Cruz, California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

We live in strange times. Politics around the world seem to be transforming into something new and often frightening. But this process has a history. In 1989, the bi-polar certainties of the Cold War gave way to a neo-liberal consensus, what Francis Fukuyama termed “the End of History”. Yet with BREXIT and Trump in 2016, the End of History seemed to be coming to an end itself. The current COVID crisis has only accelerated this process. To make sense of this Gramscian interregnum and its great variety of morbid symptoms, Alex Hochuli, George Hoare, and Philip Cunliffe started the Aufhebunga Bunga podcast in April 2017. Billing itself as the “global political podcast at the end of the end of history”, the podcast offers theoretically informed and often provocative analysis and commentary. The podcast has led to a book, The End of the End of History: Politics in the Twenty-First Century, out with Zero Books in 2021. In our discussion, these three scholars lay out their defense of the concept of the End of History, discuss post-politics and anti-politics, and explain how politics are back. They also diagnose the pandemic of Neoliberal Order Breakdown Syndrome and explain which demographic groups are most susceptible to NOBS. Drawing from the recent history of the USA and UK, as well as Italy and Brazil, Hochuli, Hoare, and Cunliffe offer an analysis of our world and make some bleak predictions for what is to come in terms of future ideological formations. Alex Hochuli is a writer and translator living in Sao Paolo, Brazil, George Hoare is a political consultant in London, and Philip Cunliffe is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Kent. Michael G. Vann is a professor of world history at California State University, Sacramento. A specialist in imperialism and the Cold War in Southeast Asia, he is the author of The Great Hanoi Rat Hunt: Empires, Disease, and Modernity in French Colonial Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 2018). When he's not reading or talking about new books with smart people, Mike can be found surfing in Santa Cruz, California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

We live in strange times. Politics around the world seem to be transforming into something new and often frightening. But this process has a history. In 1989, the bi-polar certainties of the Cold War gave way to a neo-liberal consensus, what Francis Fukuyama termed “the End of History”. Yet with BREXIT and Trump in 2016, the End of History seemed to be coming to an end itself. The current COVID crisis has only accelerated this process. To make sense of this Gramscian interregnum and its great variety of morbid symptoms, Alex Hochuli, George Hoare, and Philip Cunliffe started the Aufhebunga Bunga podcast in April 2017. Billing itself as the “global political podcast at the end of the end of history”, the podcast offers theoretically informed and often provocative analysis and commentary. The podcast has led to a book, The End of the End of History: Politics in the Twenty-First Century, out with Zero Books in 2021. In our discussion, these three scholars lay out their defense of the concept of the End of History, discuss post-politics and anti-politics, and explain how politics are back. They also diagnose the pandemic of Neoliberal Order Breakdown Syndrome and explain which demographic groups are most susceptible to NOBS. Drawing from the recent history of the USA and UK, as well as Italy and Brazil, Hochuli, Hoare, and Cunliffe offer an analysis of our world and make some bleak predictions for what is to come in terms of future ideological formations. Alex Hochuli is a writer and translator living in Sao Paolo, Brazil, George Hoare is a political consultant in London, and Philip Cunliffe is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Kent. Michael G. Vann is a professor of world history at California State University, Sacramento. A specialist in imperialism and the Cold War in Southeast Asia, he is the author of The Great Hanoi Rat Hunt: Empires, Disease, and Modernity in French Colonial Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 2018). When he's not reading or talking about new books with smart people, Mike can be found surfing in Santa Cruz, California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

We live in strange times. Politics around the world seem to be transforming into something new and often frightening. But this process has a history. In 1989, the bi-polar certainties of the Cold War gave way to a neo-liberal consensus, what Francis Fukuyama termed “the End of History”. Yet with BREXIT and Trump in 2016, the End of History seemed to be coming to an end itself. The current COVID crisis has only accelerated this process. To make sense of this Gramscian interregnum and its great variety of morbid symptoms, Alex Hochuli, George Hoare, and Philip Cunliffe started the Aufhebunga Bunga podcast in April 2017. Billing itself as the “global political podcast at the end of the end of history”, the podcast offers theoretically informed and often provocative analysis and commentary. The podcast has led to a book, The End of the End of History: Politics in the Twenty-First Century, out with Zero Books in 2021. In our discussion, these three scholars lay out their defense of the concept of the End of History, discuss post-politics and anti-politics, and explain how politics are back. They also diagnose the pandemic of Neoliberal Order Breakdown Syndrome and explain which demographic groups are most susceptible to NOBS. Drawing from the recent history of the USA and UK, as well as Italy and Brazil, Hochuli, Hoare, and Cunliffe offer an analysis of our world and make some bleak predictions for what is to come in terms of future ideological formations. Alex Hochuli is a writer and translator living in Sao Paolo, Brazil, George Hoare is a political consultant in London, and Philip Cunliffe is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Kent. Michael G. Vann is a professor of world history at California State University, Sacramento. A specialist in imperialism and the Cold War in Southeast Asia, he is the author of The Great Hanoi Rat Hunt: Empires, Disease, and Modernity in French Colonial Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 2018). When he's not reading or talking about new books with smart people, Mike can be found surfing in Santa Cruz, California. 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

We live in strange times. Politics around the world seem to be transforming into something new and often frightening. But this process has a history. In 1989, the bi-polar certainties of the Cold War gave way to a neo-liberal consensus, what Francis Fukuyama termed “the End of History”. Yet with BREXIT and Trump in 2016, the End of History seemed to be coming to an end itself. The current COVID crisis has only accelerated this process. To make sense of this Gramscian interregnum and its great variety of morbid symptoms, Alex Hochuli, George Hoare, and Philip Cunliffe started the Aufhebunga Bunga podcast in April 2017. Billing itself as the “global political podcast at the end of the end of history”, the podcast offers theoretically informed and often provocative analysis and commentary. The podcast has led to a book, The End of the End of History: Politics in the Twenty-First Century, out with Zero Books in 2021. In our discussion, these three scholars lay out their defense of the concept of the End of History, discuss post-politics and anti-politics, and explain how politics are back. They also diagnose the pandemic of Neoliberal Order Breakdown Syndrome and explain which demographic groups are most susceptible to NOBS. Drawing from the recent history of the USA and UK, as well as Italy and Brazil, Hochuli, Hoare, and Cunliffe offer an analysis of our world and make some bleak predictions for what is to come in terms of future ideological formations. Alex Hochuli is a writer and translator living in Sao Paolo, Brazil, George Hoare is a political consultant in London, and Philip Cunliffe is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Kent. Michael G. Vann is a professor of world history at California State University, Sacramento. A specialist in imperialism and the Cold War in Southeast Asia, he is the author of The Great Hanoi Rat Hunt: Empires, Disease, and Modernity in French Colonial Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 2018). When he's not reading or talking about new books with smart people, Mike can be found surfing in Santa Cruz, California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

We live in strange times. Politics around the world seem to be transforming into something new and often frightening. But this process has a history. In 1989, the bi-polar certainties of the Cold War gave way to a neo-liberal consensus, what Francis Fukuyama termed “the End of History”. Yet with BREXIT and Trump in 2016, the End of History seemed to be coming to an end itself. The current COVID crisis has only accelerated this process. To make sense of this Gramscian interregnum and its great variety of morbid symptoms, Alex Hochuli, George Hoare, and Philip Cunliffe started the Aufhebunga Bunga podcast in April 2017. Billing itself as the “global political podcast at the end of the end of history”, the podcast offers theoretically informed and often provocative analysis and commentary. The podcast has led to a book, The End of the End of History: Politics in the Twenty-First Century, out with Zero Books in 2021. In our discussion, these three scholars lay out their defense of the concept of the End of History, discuss post-politics and anti-politics, and explain how politics are back. They also diagnose the pandemic of Neoliberal Order Breakdown Syndrome and explain which demographic groups are most susceptible to NOBS. Drawing from the recent history of the USA and UK, as well as Italy and Brazil, Hochuli, Hoare, and Cunliffe offer an analysis of our world and make some bleak predictions for what is to come in terms of future ideological formations. Alex Hochuli is a writer and translator living in Sao Paolo, Brazil, George Hoare is a political consultant in London, and Philip Cunliffe is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Kent. Michael G. Vann is a professor of world history at California State University, Sacramento. A specialist in imperialism and the Cold War in Southeast Asia, he is the author of The Great Hanoi Rat Hunt: Empires, Disease, and Modernity in French Colonial Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 2018). When he's not reading or talking about new books with smart people, Mike can be found surfing in Santa Cruz, California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The New Benedictines In 2017, author Rod Dreher wrote The Benedict Option: a Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation. I'm not really a fan of Dreher. I find his writing to be whiny, his personality to be grating, and his claim to be a conservative to be dubious. One of my close friends refers to him seamlessly as The Insufferable Rod Dreher. I concur. That said, I recommend The Benedict Option. I have also heard very good things about his latest offering, Live Not By Lies: a Manual for Christian Dissidents. In fact, Fr. Eckardt wrote about it recently. When The Benedict Option came out, it was largely misunderstood by a lot of people in the LCMS. Some thought it was a kind of silver-bullet step-by-step program (proof of the LCMS's tyranny of the bureaucracy). Others rolled their eyes at the idea of Christian community as an attempt to turn us into the Amish or a monastic community. Of course, many of these same moqueurs lived on a seminary campus for three years, immersed in the Bible, confessions, and patristic writings, with lives ordered by the centrality of the worship schedule of the chapel, study, time spent making lifelong bonds of brotherhood with seminarians and their families, and living a countercultural Logocentric and cruciform life, embracing biblical heteronormativity, an exclusively-male clergy, the order of creation in the family, and submission to the Word of God - not to mention putting on a black shirt with a white collar that confesses before the world that we who pursue this life are set apart from the world. Seminary professors essentially live the Benedict Option, as their very homes, neighborhoods, employment, and day to day life are lived out in a tightly-knit Christian community that extends beyond the three years of campus life that is lived by the students. And this sense of community is a boon to both our professors and their students, which is to say, to our future pastors who are being formed for service. Dreher came up with the title The Benedict Option based on philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre's book After Virtue: a Study in Moral Theory, in which the author calls to mind the lifestyle of Christians living in the days of the Roman Empire's collapse - who essentially safeguarded and restarted civilization around the Rule of St. Benedict and the idea of Christian communities springing up in concentric circles around these Benedictine centers of Christian civilization, learning, worship, and community. In After Virtue, MacIntyre says that we in the present age are awaiting “another—doubtless very different—St. Benedict.” Dreher explains: Today, a new post-Christian barbarism reigns. Many believers are blind to it, and their churches are too weak to resist. Politics offers little help in this spiritual crisis. What is needed is the Benedict Option, a strategy that draws on the authority of Scripture and the wisdom of the ancient church. The goal: to embrace exile from the mainstream culture and construct a resilient counterculture. And so, he suggests that Christians should be more intentional about seeking out the likeminded, especially within the household of faith. He calls upon us to be more hospitable with one another, sharing our lives, withdrawing from the corrupted institutions of the world, and creating our own infrastructures (which is what our Lutheran forbears did by instituting parochial schools that taught the faith instead of undermining it). And contrary to some straw-man responses, Dreher is not suggesting political quietism or sticking our heads in the sand. He is not advocating a complete severance from the world, or a surrender from the idea of being salt and light. So stop typing that comment now, girlfriend. I know you're out there. This is hardly radical or new. We Lutherans have a strong heritage of this very thing. But we, alas, as we became more Americanized, we desired to become “like everyone else” - not unlike the Israelites in 1 Sam 8. And as the culture continues to degenerate, as Christians become increasingly marginalized - we would do well to be more proactive in how we live our lives, go about our work, raise our children, and contribute to civilization. We don't know what the future holds. We may be facing centuries of a new dark age followed by the return of Christ when the Church may dwindle to a handful of people, or there may be a great backlash in our time that restores a sense of virtue to western society and the world. We just don't know. But we do need to live in the here and now, in a world where Biblical Christianity is increasingly identified with hatred, where the idea that the freedom of religion is a preeminent natural right is increasingly seen as a retrograde and dangerous superstition, where the normal family is recast as evil, where deviancy is normalized, where there are now second- and third- generations of people in our country who have no idea who Jesus is, what the Bible is, or what the Church is. The abortion holocaust continues to rage, gender extremists are gaining ground every day, and our history is being rewritten by Neo-Orwellians. All of the major institutions of society, public and private sector alike, are increasingly pressuring conformity to a jackbooted antichristian agenda in the Gramscian juggernaut “march through the institutions “. It is becoming a problem as to how our children should be educated, for whom should they work, how they will find faithful spouses, and how much of the world's entertainment they should ingest. One trend that I have seen over the past several weeks is heartening. I have run into a large number of the laity - mostly young couples - who are making life decisions based on where they can find a faithful congregation. This is not how things were when I was growing up. We went to school, and we got jobs. If the best pay and opportunity for advancement took us out of state, away from family, and even to a place where there were no faithful churches - so be it. We had to “make a living.” Our jobs were the top priority. Early in my ministry, I had a young parishioner who nailed his dream job in another state. Some time after expressing his uncontainable excitement, he finally got around to asking me what church he should attend. Sadly, there was none anywhere nearby that I could recommend. The state he was moving to was a confessional wasteland. When I reported this to him and to his mother, they were utterly crestfallen. But he was not crestfallen enough to change his plans, not enough to decline the job. It reminded me of the tragic passage of the rich young man in Matt 19:16-22, who, upon being called to follow Jesus, “went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.” I too fell for this temptation in my twenties. I took a job with zero consideration about church attendance. In time, God pushed me around like a piece on a chessboard, and somehow, I ended up in the office of the holy ministry in spite of myself. I'm still scratching my head, but gratefully. By contrast, I am finding more and more people who are deliberately and proactively moving to cities and towns that have solid, liturgical, confessional congregations and pastors. And I have also met people who have turned down lucrative work based on the lack of a church community to join. And in one sense, I think Covid-19 had a small silver lining to it: it has diminished the importance of physical location to one's employment. Homeschooling has also made it possible for children to be educated anywhere. More and more people are able to work from home or run businesses over the Internet. I have met numerous Christian people, living in these gray and latter days, who see how important belonging to a faithful Christian community is to them and to their children - who in some cases have not yet even been conceived. And it is not only young couples ordering their lives around the locus of altar, font, and pulpit instead of salary, benefits, and ambition. Retired people, and even the middle aged are now more likely than ever to be willing to pull up the stakes, sell the home, and seek out a likeminded community of brothers and sisters in Christ. And this is really what the Benedict Option is all about. The days are long over when we could essentially locate anywhere, find a faithful confessional Lutheran church and a parochial school nearby, a church that uses the hymnal and worships according to the liturgy, one with a faithful pastor who handles the Word of God rightly - whether at the altar, in the pulpit, or while giving private pastoral care. And as our society has disintegrated, so too has the unity of our churches. One must now be discerning in deciding at what altar to commune and where one's children will be born again of water and the Spirit. And as we have all learned in the aftermath of the coronavirus, even introverts like me need community. After all, the Greek word for Church means “assembly.” And this doesn't happen by Zoom or by simply calling oneself a Lutheran without having a congregation to be a part of. My hat is off to our faithful laity who have made the kingdom their top priority. This is something that we pastors should encourage and exhort our parishioners to. And for all of the bashing of the Benedict Option, that's really all that it is.

Why would the two most conservative governors in the country fold like a cheap suit when it came to kid-transgenderism- We compare this to the behind-the-scenes explanation for Roe v. Wade, and why the conservative justices folded so quickly to the zeitgeist to introduce the abortion holocaust to America.--It is a lesson in the lapse of faith at the highest levels. It wasn't so much a conspiracy.--It was the force of the media, the Gramscian zeitgeist, and the apostasy of the kids - influencing the most powerful leaders in the country.--This program includes---1. The World View in 5 Minutes with Adam McManus -Canadian police barricade church with riot-style fence, Couple adopts seven siblings after parents die in car accident, Devotional prayer asks God to -help me to hate white people----2. Generations with Kevin Swanson

While excellent newsletters on specific themes within public policy already exist, this thought letter is about frameworks, mental models, and key ideas that will hopefully help you think about any public policy problem in imaginative ways. PS: If you enjoy listening instead of reading, we have this edition available as an audio narration on all podcasting platforms courtesy the good folks at Ad-Auris. If you have any feedback, please send it to us.📣📣📣 Announcement: Admissions are now open for the summer cohort of Takshashila Institution’s 12-week Graduate Certificate Programme in Public Policy. Visit takshashila.org.in/courses to find out more.  Global Policy Watch: A Short History Of The Breitbart DoctrineBringing an Indian perspective to burning global issues- RSJIn edition #117 where we covered the resignation of Pratap Bhanu Mehta, we had a polemic by Edward Skidelsky as suggested reading in our homework section. We specifically quoted this line:“The ‘woke’ left is currently pursuing this goal by way of a Gramscian “long march through the institutions” — a progressive co-option of the schools, universities, state bureaucracies and big corporations.”  What’s this ‘Gramscian long march’ that’s mentioned here? That’s the first question for this post.Separately, I was drawn to a U.S. national survey done by Cato Institute last year on freedom of expression. The results weren’t surprising to me (including the stupid graph that I have copied below from their site):“Strong liberals stand out, however, as the only political group who feel they can express themselves. Nearly 6 in 10 (58%) of staunch liberals feel they can say what they believe. However, centrist liberals feel differently. A slim majority (52%) of liberals feel they have to self‐​censor, as do 64% of moderates, and 77% of conservatives. This demonstrates that political expression is an issue that divides the Democratic coalition between centrist Democrats and their left flank.”I take the ‘strong liberal’ in the US to be the progressive wing of the Democratic party. They are the ‘woke’ Skidelsky was referring to in his article. There’s no equivalent survey of this kind in India. But I would venture to suggest the “strong liberals” in India might not poll as well on speaking their minds nor would the Indian conservatives be as reticent as their American counterparts in today’s times. Based on incidents like P.B. Mehta’s resignation that seem to have become more frequent in recent years and the ‘chilling effect’ that follows, I would guess these percentages might just flip in India. Anyway, the percentages aren’t of interest to me. My interest is in the phenomenon. This dominance of one side that makes the other side self-censor themselves. What explains this? That’s the second question for this post.That Old Chestnut: The Breitbart DoctrineBoth these questions - on Gramscian long march and on self-censorship - bring me to the oft-repeated Breitbart doctrine:“Politics is downstream of culture.”That is, change the culture and sooner, politics will change. Now you’d think this was an insight that galvanised the American conservative right following the Obama takeover of the establishment. It was what got Trump into the White House with Steve Bannon in tow. That this was part of the right-wing toolkit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The left was likely the originator of the idea that culture influences politics. To understand this better, we will go through a short history of ‘manufacture of consent’ and ‘cultural hegemony’. Knowing it will help address the two questions raised at the start of this post as well. Manufacture Of ConsentThe term ‘manufacture of consent’ first appeared in Walter Lippman’s book ‘Public Opinion’ (1922). For Lippman, the world was too complex for an ordinary individual to comprehend. In order to make sense of it, people carried a mental image of the world inside their heads. These pictures were what drove groups or individuals to act in society in the name of Public Opinion. A strong democracy, therefore, needs institutions and media that help in creating the most accurate interpretations of the world in the minds of the people. But this isn’t easy. Lippman was worried democracy relied on something so irrational as a public opinion that takes shape in the minds of poorly informed and easily manipulated people. For Lippman, policymakers and experts should use narratives for ‘manufacture of consent’ among people which enables public opinion to be channelled in a manner that’s consistent with what’s good for society. Lippman believed persuasion and the knowledge of how to create consent through ‘propaganda’ will change politics in the age of mass media. As he wrote:“A revolution is taking place, infinitely more significant than any shifting of economic power. Within the life of the generation now in control of affairs, persuasion has become a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government. None of us begins to understand the consequences, but it is no daring prophecy to say that the knowledge of how to create consent will alter every political calculation and modify every political premise. Under the impact of propaganda, not necessarily in the sinister meaning of the word alone, the old constants of our thinking have become variables.” Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in their book ‘Manufacturing Consent’ (1988) picked up this idea to argue media outlets are “are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function.” Market forces and an entrenched establishment control the mass media which manipulates public opinion by revealing only half-truths and distorted facts that serve their interests. It manufactures consent through propaganda while keeping the ill-informed public in thrall with distractions and entertainment. Chomsky has since argued this control of mass culture through media and institutions and the ‘manufacture of consent’ is essential to the survival of capitalism.Gramsci And Cultural HegemonyWhile Lippman was writing about the need for the ‘manufacture of consent’ using culture in a capitalist democracy like America, Antonio Gramsci, an Italian neo-Marxist was thinking on similar lines in a prison in Mussolini’s Italy. Gramsci started with a simple question. Why didn’t the working class living in an oppressive regime (anything that’s non-Marxist was oppressive in his view) revolt more often when they could see clearly how badly the economic balance was tilted against them? Why didn’t the exploited rise in revolt more often?Gramsci argued a capitalist state had two overlapping spheres that helped it to thrive. There was the ‘political society’ that ruled through coercion and control of means of production which was visible to all. But there was also the ‘civil society’ that ruled through consent and control of minds. The civil society was the public sphere of ideas and beliefs that were shaped through the church, media or universities. To him, the capitalist state was successful in ‘manufacturing consent’ among people through the ‘cultural hegemony’ it set up through its control of the public sphere. People living in such societies didn’t question their position or their exploitation because they thought this was the ‘natural state’ of existence. The cultural hegemony was so complete and overpowering that there could hardly be any mobilisation of people against the ‘political society’ which ruled through coercion. The minds of the people were brainwashed through propaganda. Gramsci, therefore, concluded that for the struggle (or revolution) to take over means of production to even begin, the people will have to win the war over cultural hegemony. He used the WW1 terms that were in vogue then. For the war of manoeuvre (that is a direct attack over the enemy) to be successful, it has to be preceded by the war of position (digging trenches and cutting off enemy lines etc). The people will have to win the war of ideas and beliefs by creating their own cultural hegemony and taking over the public sphere through control of religious institutions, media and universities. This is the ‘Gramscian march’ that Skidelsky referred to in his article.This was a far-reaching idea about how the nature of power had changed in a world where universities and mass media shaped people’s thinking. The power of engineering consent using culture is the first step to launch a successful attack over an existing power structure. While Garmsci used neo-Marxian terms to expound his ideas, the broader implications of his argument were clear. In short: establishing cultural hegemony is the first step to winning the minds and eventually, the votes of people (we are talking of democracy here). Over time, this hegemony in the public sphere will earn you the long-term consent of the people who will consider it their ‘natural state’. Self-censorship will follow as an outcome of this hegemony. That addresses the second question on why people self-censor themselves.Over a hundred years since Lippman first wrote about ‘manufacture of consent’, the idea that politics is downstream of culture has only acquired greater currency in a saturated media space that all of us inhabit now. The left and the right have both acquired the toolkits to fight this ‘war of position’ in various democracies around the world. In the US, it is ‘woke left’ on a supposed Gramscian march today. In India, I suspect, the shoe is on the other foot. But the march is definitely on.India Policy Watch: Mandal AgainInsights on burning policy issues in India- Pranay KotasthaneA Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is set to announce its judgment on the Maratha quota case. Amongst other issues, the court will decide on the question if state governments can breach the 50 per cent reservation ceiling. This 50 per cent limit comes from the Indra Sawhney judgment of 1993, which legally upheld the recommendations of the Mandal Committee Report. Legal issues aside, today’s political reality makes this judgment even more riveting. Perhaps all political parties appear to be in favour of going beyond this 50 per cent limit, although in different ways. The NDA government has already increased reservations to ~60 per cent in central-government jobs, central-government educational institutions, and private educational institutions through the 103rd constitutional amendment in 2019. The additional 10 per cent seats are now meant to be reserved for economically weaker sections (EWS) of citizens not already benefiting from reservation. In other words, this quota is for persons from non-SC, non-ST, non-OBC classes, as long as their earning is below a defined income threshold. On the other hand, many caste-based and one-caste-dominated political parties are in favour of breaching the 50 per cent ceiling in order to extend or increase quotas for their caste base. The gap between the court-prescribed ceiling and the political reality has become unsustainable. To use a Ravi Shastri phrase, “something’s gotta give”. Not to forget, that 50 per cent ceiling number itself is quite contrived. Read what the Indra Sawhney case judgment says:Just as every power must be exercised reasonably and fairly, the power conferred by Clause (4) of Article 16 should also be exercised in a fair manner and within reasonably limits - and what is more reasonable than to say that reservation under Clause (4) shall not exceed 50% of the appointments or posts, barring certain extra-ordinary situations as explained hereinafter. From this point of view, the 27% reservation provided by the impugned Memorandums in favour of backward classes is well within the reasonable limits. Together with reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it comes to a total of 49.5%. Beneath the legalese, observe the narrative power of numbers at play. Any measured phenomenon creates implicit norms of what is “too high” or “too low”. The 50 per cent limit seems intuitively “just right” or “balanced” — half of the seats have quotas while the other half doesn’t. This powerful narrative largely survived for over 25 years but seems to be falling apart now. And so it appears that reservations have ceased to be a means to correct for inadequate representation of certain disadvantaged sections. Instead, reservations have become springboards for all groups to demand proportional representation. The implicit norm now is that the State needs to enable representation of groups in educational institutions and government jobs according to their proportion in the population; the question of historical disadvantage has been relegated to an incidental criterion. Moreover, the general equilibrium effect of quotas is that group identities have become sharper and more powerful. Is there another way out?There is no doubt that a republic founded in a society with a long history of systematic discrimination will inevitably resort to some affirmative action. But is there a way out beyond caste-based reservations? Nitin Pai and I had proposed one such alternative a couple of years ago in FirstPost:Consider this thought experiment. There are no predetermined quotas for any posts. Positions are filled only based on a composite score of all applicants. The composite score is a combination of two measures. The first is an inequityscore — calculated to compensate for the relative disadvantage faced by an applicant.The second measure strictly represents an applicant’s ability to be effective for the position they are applying for. Selection is on the basis of the composite score. No seats are reserved and yet the score allows for addressing multidimensional inequity much better than current methods.The inequity score can be used to indicate relative disadvantage along several dimensions: individual, social and geographic. Different factors can be assigned different weightages. For instance, given the salience of caste in the Indian social context, the greater the disadvantage a community faces, the higher the weightage.In addition, we can incorporate other parameters into the inequity score — parents’ level of education, income levels, rural upbringing, or even childhood nutritional deficiencies. Currently, our system of quota-based allocations does not account for non-caste disadvantages that have a disproportionate impact on life outcomes.A national commission for equity can be formed to propose and review parameters and their weightages within a cooperative federal framework. It doesn’t have to be one-size-fits-all solution. States can assign their own factors and weightages according to the local conditions.The second measure — an effectiveness score — can then be kept completely independent of equity considerations. It can take the form of a test, an interview or any other indicator to assess candidates’ ability to perform the job they have applied for. Information about the inequity scores can be masked from evaluators of the effectiveness score.By filling positions based on a sum of the two scores, it becomes possible to be more comprehensive in addressing social inequities while also creating stronger incentives for an individual pursuit of excellence.Satish Deshpande and Yogendra Yadav had proposed a similar model for higher education way back in 2006:An evidenced-based model addressing multiple sources of group and individual disadvantages helps to de-essentialise identity markers such as caste or religion; that is, it provides a rational explanation why specific castes or communities are entitled to compensatory discrimination and undermines attitudes that treat such entitlements as a “birth right”.In essence, this solution tries to solve for both “merit” and “disadvantage”. The opponents of reservation claim that quotas directly undermine efficiency and merit. The proponents of quotas on the other hand find the notion of merit completely odious. They argue on these lines: Efficiency of administration in the affairs of the Union or of a State must be defined in an inclusive sense, where diverse segments of society find representation as a true aspiration of governance by and for the people. In contrast to quotas, the composite score solution acknowledges that some assessment of “merit” is inescapable, even desirable. But it also doesn't ignore the problem that disadvantaged individuals face. Hence, we believe it is a better solution than quotas.In edition#72, we discussed a framework on “nine competing visions of equality” only to reiterate Deborah Stone’s insightful conclusion:“equality often means inequality, and equal treatment often means unequal treatment. The same distribution may look equal or unequal, depending on where you focus.”Essentially, any distribution, however equalising it is in one respect, can be charged as being unequal on another parameter. What matters far more is whether a distribution is perceived as being fair or not. As Starmans et al write:… humans naturally favour fair distributions, not equal ones, and that when fairness and equality clash, people prefer fair inequality over unfair equality In the Indian context, quotas come with charges of unfairness. It is time to look beyond them. PS: A commonplace assertion that “the constitution imagined reservations to last only for ten years at the outset” is a myth. This 10-year clause was meant to apply to reservations of seats for SC/ST groups in the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies. There was no such 10-year limit on reservations in jobs and educational institutions under articles 15(4) and 16(4). I too believed in this urban myth having read it being regurgitated in countless opinion pieces. Hat-tip to an alert Puliyabaazi listener for updating my priors. HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Video] "The Big Idea" - a half-hour interview between Noam Chomsky and British journalist Andrew Marr, first aired by the BBC in February 1996. A great interview where Andrew Marr is completely convinced he’s not taken in by the propaganda while Chomsky is sure he is! [Podcast] A Puliyabaazi episode discussing the nine competing visions of equality[Article] Alexander Lee on redesigning India’s reservation system[Article] Satish Deshpande traces the history of reservation policies[Article] Pratap Bhanu Mehta on how the open category is slowly becoming a reserved category through other means Get on the email list at publicpolicy.substack.com

This newsletter is really a public policy thought-letter. While excellent newsletters on specific themes within public policy already exist, this thought-letter is about frameworks, mental models, and key ideas that will hopefully help you think about any public policy problem in imaginative ways. It seeks to answer just one question: how do I think about a particular public policy problem/solution?PS: If you enjoy listening instead of reading, we have this edition available as an audio narration on all podcasting platforms courtesy the good folks at Ad-Auris. If you have any feedback, please send it to us.- RSJA short mid-week note on some points that have emerged from the Pratap Bhanu Mehta resignation issue. Let’s take the issue of ‘shrinking liberal space’ in the public discourse and how this is another example of it. All politics is a contestation of narratives. The primary motive is to have your narrative dominate while diminishing the rest. So, from a realist lens, this is what every political party aspires to while few achieve. Therefore to expect any different from any dominant political grouping is to live under a delusion. You might desire a secure and self-assured dispensation that lets a thousand different and often dissenting ideas bloom. But that ideal state of affairs is rare anywhere in the world and in history. India is no stranger to a narrative dominating its body politic for decades. Good or bad is beside the point here. There’s another narrative in town now and, naturally, it wants to dominate forever. QuestionsThat brings us to a couple of questions. Isn’t good or bad that was conveniently brushed aside above, an important point in this context? If this narrative dominance is what is to be expected, should this be a worry for India?Well, narrative dominance of any kind is an unstable equilibrium. For three reasons. One, we aim for dominance but once we achieve it, boredom sets in. No one likes to watch games where their team is so dominant that there is no contest. Over time we lose interest or we create two versions of our team to play against each other. Soon it is “us” versus “them” again. Either way, the narrative dominance is broken. This is also the reason there can never be a successful conservative-only or liberal-only social media platform in the long term. People crave to argue. To go one up on others. They will invent enemies if they have to. We have written about Schmitt’s friend-enemy construct in politics before here. Two, narrative dominance of any kind doesn’t emerge out of a vacuum. It is built on the vestige of a previously dominant narrative. Those who were dominated by the previous narrative, remember those times. The humiliation and the rage of being under it is the fuel that sustains the current narrative. Unfortunately, humans are mortal. They die and a whole new generation arrives who have no first-hand experience of the previous narrative. They only learn about it from the surviving members who tell them about the horrors of the past. Or, from books. That’s one of the reasons why changing history textbooks is always on the agenda of every dispensation in the world. You control the past, you control the future. But time wears down everything eventually. In the pre-internet era, this could take multiple generations to come to a pass. That has shrunk now. Alternative narratives sustain themselves online and the information velocity facilitates their spread. Three, there’s always a tendency to overreach among those who are driving their narrative dominance. Nothing remains sacrosanct in their desire to dominate - university, media, courts, law enforcement agencies, regulators or independent bodies. In a democracy, with strong independent institutions, the checks and balances in-built in the system come into play to counter this. This is a battle of attrition between institutions and political formations. The institutions usually win because they are designed to be permanent. They are necessary for democracy to survive. If they are subverted, democracy withers away.The Indian ProblemBetween the three, the institutional response tends to be the fastest way to counter-narrative dominance. The other two could take time and a lot could be undone during that period. The challenge in India is the institutional mechanism has been systematically weakened over many decades. To begin with, we inherited colonial institutional and legal structures that weren’t exactly suited for liberal democracy. Whatever gains we made in building new institutions and strengthening them were lost starting from the 70s. The Emergency being a high watermark of that era. Since then it has been one step forward and two backward on this. The reasons why a state or the union government in India can make citizens or private entities (like a private university) fall in line are two-fold. One, there are just too many outdated laws often working at cross purposes that are impossible for anyone to manage. This gives the state the power to haul you up for breaking the law. Two, the willingness of the institutions to do the bidding of the political class because their independence has been compromised. This means a CBI or a Tax raid is always around the corner. Coercive institutions are a structural problem and there’s little incentive for political parties to change this. This seems like an irreversible slide. The problem with this slide is clear. Overtime when this narrative loses steam and an alternative narrative emerges (as it will), expect its adherents to be keener to dominate every sphere. To eliminate space for any dissent. And they will do so using the same tools - political and ideological mobilisation that overwhelms the institutions. Pratap Bhanu Mehta might have been countering the narrative of the current regime in his op-ed pieces. But the larger point he was making was probably beyond it. He was alerting us to the dangers of this inevitable slide. HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Article] “The Spectre of Totalitarianism: The worst offenders in the new climate of intolerance are our universities” writes Edward Skidelsky in The Critic. Money quote: The “woke” left is currently pursuing this goal by way of a Gramscian “long march through the institutions” — a progressive co-option of the schools, universities, state bureaucracies and big corporations. Get on the email list at publicpolicy.substack.com

Our good friend Brendan returns to the show to discuss definitions of fascism, the history of antisemitism, Gramscian political tactics, the fascist riot on capitol hill, the class make up of fascism, and much more!  Episode featuring Brendan and Jon 'The Lit Crit Guy' on Antonio Gramsci here: https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/gramsci Outro Music: "Hot Water Rising" by No Thanks Support and check out their new album here: https://no-thanks.bandcamp.com/album/submerger ----- Support Rev Left Radio: https://www.patreon.com/RevLeftRadio or make a one time donation: PayPal.me/revleft LEARN MORE ABOUT REV LEFT RADIO: www.revolutionaryleftradio.com

In this podcast, we speak with Ibrahim Halawi and Bassel Salloukh about their upcoming field note, which reflects on the Gramscian dilemma that anti-sectarian, post-war protests in Lebanon have faced. The field note being discussed is not yet published, but Ibrahim's earlier article mentioned in the podcast can be found here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sena.12328

What's up with David Stockman and Paul Craig Roberts. . .Reagan's advisers from the 1980s--. . .-Forecasting death camps, international economic bankruptcy, and the end of a 30-year experiment in Keynesian banking.- Will cooler heads prevail- Or is this no time for cool heads--People are wondering whether Christians should flee the nation, or shall we stick around and learn to navigate the cancel culture in the Gramscian revolution- One thing we know for sure. . .God is dealing the cards, and the economic wild card could turn this whole thing on its head.----This program includes-----1. The World View in 5 Minutes with Adam McManus -Horrifying slaughter of hundreds of Ethiopian Christians, Senator Marco Rubio- Recounts are legit, media needs self-awareness, Christian ministry sues Barclay's Bank over dropping account due to reparative therapy-----2. Generations with Kevin Swanson

On today's episode of the Resistance Library Podcast Sam and Dave discuss Antonio Gramsci and exactly what is “Cultural Marxism.”   You may have heard the terms “Cultural Marxism,” “Critical Theory” or “Frankfurt School” bandied about. And while you might have an intuitive approximation of what these terms mean for America in the 21st century, there's a good chance that you don't know much about the deep theory, where the ideology comes from, and what it has planned for America – and the world.   The underlying theory here is a variant of Marxism, pioneered by early-20th-century Italian Marxist politician and linguist Antonio Gramsci. Gramscian Marxism is a radical departure from Classical Marxism. One does not need to endorse the Classical Marxism of Marx, Engels and others to appreciate the significant differences between the two. He is easily the most influential thinker that you have never heard of.   Marx's original idea was that Communism was a historical inevitability, an evolutionary transition that would lead to a bottom-up eruption of revolutionary violence sparked by the Proletariat's frustration and fury over having been used and abused by the Bourgeoisie for long enough that “the revolutionary subject” (Marx's term for the broad working class) would overthrow capitalism and usher in socialism.   Gramsci, on the other hand, held that such a revolution was unlikely – particularly in the West, where general prosperity and the lassitude of relative contentment would tend to dull the working class' passion for a bloody, bothersome overthrow. In successful Western nations, a Marxist state was far more likely to develop through a slow, patient process of incrementalist takeover of the cultural institutions – the arts, entertainment, and news media, and most especially the schools and universities. As such, the weapon to be used for revolution was not the economic might of an organized working class, but a “long march through the institutions” (a phrase actually coined by German Marxist Rudi Dutschke), whereby every institution in the West would be subverted through penetration and infiltration.   For Gramsci, culture was more important than either economics or politics.   Gramsci's divergence from Classical Marxism was nothing short of brilliant; certainly, the results speak for themselves when one considers the social unrest that is gripping America and the West today. In a sense, we are living through the endgame of a Gramscian revolution.   Throughout this article, we will use the term “Cultural Marxism” as a catchall to refer to this phenomenon, because it is the most all-encompassing and does not limit us to discussing any one specific variation (Gramsci, the Frankfurt School or what have you). Finally, we should briefly echo the words of Dr. Jordan Peterson on “the bloody postmodern Neo-Marxists,” because he has helped raise awareness of the phenomenon: “It's not obvious by any stretch of the imagination why postmodernism and Neo-Marxism or Marxism proper would be aligned because postmodernism is an anti-grand narrative philosophical movement and Marxism is a grand narrative. The fact that these two things seem to coexist in the same space needs some explanation, because it's a very tricky thing to get to the bottom of." Because Cultural Marxism is ideologically distinct from postmodernism and deconstruction, we will not touch on either in this article, though they certainly have been influential on the international left. You can read the full article “Cultural Marxism's Origins: How the Disciples of an Obscure Italian Linguist Subverted America” at Ammo.com.   For $20 off your $200 purchase, go to https://ammo.com/podcast (a special deal for our listeners).   Follow Sam Jacobs on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SamJacobs45   And check out our sponsor, Libertas Bella, for all of your favorite Libertarian shirts at LibertasBella.com.   Helpful Links:  Cultural Marxism's Origins: How the Disciples of an Obscure Italian Linguist Subverted America Woke Capitalism: How Huge Corporations Demonstrate Status by Endorsing Political Radicalism Resistance Library  Sam Jacobs

Let's not get our eye off the real issue, as we approach the elections. Rod Dreher insists the real problem is not politics. We've lost the culture. The cultural pressure is strong to... lie. But, here's the exhortation . . . Live not by lies. What are the lies we have to push against in the Gramscian culture today- The soft totalitarianism of the day is about to add forced vaccines. How will we navigate these new requirements in the rising 1984'ish state-----This program includes-----1. The World View in 5 Minutes with Adam McManus -Amy Coney Barrett is 115th Supreme Court Justice, Reformed Pastors Disagree on Voting for Trump, Colorado Faces Worst Fires in History-----2. Generations with Kevin Swanson

Professor Lucian Ashworth of Memorial University joins the Hayseed Scholar podcast. Luke talks about growing up in England and Wales, then moving to the Netherlands at the age of 15. He chats with Brent about his decision to go to Keele, some of the major figures in IR that shaped his interests very early on, and then going to Career Services at Keele to try and decide where to go for his PhD. Ultimately deciding on Dalhousie, Luke recalls how he developed an interest in interwar figures like Norman Angell and David Mitrany, while also becoming aware of a new guard of approaches and scholars developing Gramscian, Feminist and post-structural applications of International Relations. Thereafter, some time spent at Carleton University with David Long began a series of collaborations that would produce work published at the end of the 1990s. Luke discusses his job interview at Limerick, where he then worked for 16 years until moving to his current position at Memorial in Newfoundland. Luke reflects on the students he trained at Limerick who are still in the academy to this day, such as former Hayseed Scholar podcast guest Cian O'Driscoll and the now 'internationally renown' Seán Molloy. Luke shares the ways in which the moves in the late 1990s and early 2000s to rethink, and reconstitute, the historiography of International Relations, happened in tandem, and then eventual dialogue, with scholars like Duncan Bell, Brian Schmidt and Cecelia Lynch. These moves helped in part to setup the vibrant Historical IR section that includes another Hayseed Scholar podcast guest, Halvard Leira, along with Or Rosenboim and Ben de Carvalho. Luke also discusses the pathbreaking work which has also reconsidered the racial and gender dynamics of this historiography, including by Robbie Shilliam and the Women and the History of International Thought project. He concludes by sharing his thoughts on how studying past civilizational collapses may help us with our current crises of the pandemic and climate catastrophe. 

With the recent surge of "Mayor Pete" Buttigieg in the #Demoncrat Party's race to see who becomes the High Priest of Infanticide (Nominee) we are republishing my interview with Dr. E. Michael Jones from May 2, 2019 when "The Babadook" first announced his campaign for the High Priest gig. Below is commentary from the host of Reconquest, Brother André Marie on the same subject! Pete Buttigieg is the son of a Marxist disciple of Antonio Gramsci. That is no wild accusation. Dr. Joseph Buttigieg was an avowed Gramscian, who wanted, like his master, to transmit Marxism into the world through cultural means ( i.e., via “Cultural Marxism”; see here and here for more on Dr. Buttigieg’s Gramscian Marxism). In 1980, after moving to the U.S. from his native Malta, Joseph Buttigieg became a professor at Notre Dame University, itself a symbol Catholic dysfunctionality, especially during and after the 35-year presidency of the extreme liberal, Theodore Hesburgh (1952-1987), father of the infamous “Land O’ Lakes Statement.” After graduating from a Catholic High School, the younger Buttigieg went to Harvard, where he became an Episcopalian (a “lateral move” for a progressivist Catholic) and discovered his sexual attraction to other men, which he now acts upon as a partnered and “married” sodomite. As the son of Marxist Catholics, one with Jesuit training, and as a James-Martin-praising sexual deviant, Pete Buttigieg stands as an icon of so much of what is aberrant in the contemporary Church. Michael Voris does a good job on the subject of his background and candidacy in this highly recommended “Vortex”. Of special interest to us is the tangential mention of the Kennedy political clan, whose own Catholic progressivism has been the subject of several pieces on this site (see From Indifferentism to Apostasy, Bobby Kennedy and Father Feeney: Religion as American Politics, and Chris Matthews: ‘That Priest, Father Feeney…’). The mention is tangential, but it also says a lot about the nexus of Catholicism and politics in public life here in America: …when Pete was not learning the Faith in the Catholic high school, he was winning the JFK Profiles in Courage essay contest awarded by the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston. Pro-abort and fake Catholic Caroline Kennedy and other members of pro-abort and fake Catholic Kennedy clan presented the teenage Pete with the award. The Kennedys likewise were corrupted by the Jesuits and an errant hierarchy more concerned about climate change and immigration than salvation. Salvation: Something progressivists don’t like to talk about except in terms of universalism or indifferentism. But it is THE issue, and modern churchmen have (so far) failed Pete Buttigieg in this most important of all matters.

Joining us this week to talk about the morbid symptoms of the post-neoliberal interregnum is Rune Møller Stahl, post-doc at the University of Copenhagen. We discuss his new paper wherein he argues that we are in the midst of a Gramscian "interregnum," or a highly volatile transitional period between global orders. This interpretation has tremendous consequences for the socialist left. *** Become a supporter of DPS Media by becoming a patron today: http://www.patreon.com/deadpundits *** Find Rune's paper here: -"Ruling the Interregnum: Politics and ideology in nonhegemonic times," https://polsci.ku.dk/ansatte/PHD/?pure=da%2Fpublications%2Fruling-the-interregnum(4bfcc727-e0e5-47f1-82b7-f1841817d427).html ----------------------------------- Twitter: www.twitter.com/deadpundits Facebook: www.facebook.com/deadpunditssociety Instagram: www.instagram.com/deadpunditssociety YouTube: www.youtube.com/channel/UCHahv2fM9eH2K4TzmsWl_Xg

David Reaboi came highly recommended by several people I respect, and after our conversation, it's not hard to understand why. National security, information warfare, cultural analysis are subjects for which David has an academic level of understanding, and that knowledge is supported and expanded by his on-the-ground experiences working in these realms, and his network of similarly credentialed and experienced connections. We sat down for a conversation that, though comparatively short, couldn't have been more dense in relevant and poignant information. The conversation ranged from his family history and years in college to 9/11 and his emergence into the realm of national security. We talked history through the lens of cultural movements and took a very real and, to be perfectly frank, rather daunting look at how the Gramscian "long march through the institutions" and the impact that those emerging from the Frankfurt School has infiltrated Western Society and chipped away at its foundations for decades. We also talked about American style war tactics, possible near-future outcomes and how an individual might become more attuned to the world around them from a geopolitical perspective. This isn't a podcast to listen to if you're hoping emerge from it with a warm and fuzzy feeling, but sometimes recognizing reality means recognizing dire situations and planning accordingly. Want more from David? Twitter The Federalist Security Studies Group --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/logocentrifugal/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/logocentrifugal/support

Stuart Hall once wrote that we mustn’t use Gramsci like ‘an Old Testament prophet who, at the correct moment, will offer us the consoling and appropriate quotation.’ Instead, we must ‘think’ our problems in a Gramscian way. What would it mean to ‘think’ some of the problems facing Egypt and the broader Middle East in such a way, and what are some of the challenges and productive encounters this might produce? This talk looks at how Gramsci has ‘travelled’ to the Middle East, and what made this travel possible. In particular, Sara Salem traces some of the ways in which Gramsci’s concepts have been thought with in contexts such as Egypt, and argues that the productive debates that have emerged around this suggest a continuing usefulness of Gramsci for scholars of the region. More importantly, Salem also argues that the particularities of capitalism in the colony and postcolony pose important challenges to prominent interpretations of Gramsci’s work. She suggests that thinking about Gramsci through ‘traveling theory’ allows for both productive conversations as well as challenges to Eurocentric accounts of Marxist theory, and sheds light on some of the afterlives of empire in the Middle East. Recorded on 2 May 2019. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sara Salem (@saramsalem) is Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at LSE. Her main research interests include political sociology, postcolonial studies, Marxist theory, feminist theory, and global histories of empire and imperialism. Salem is an editor at the journal Historical Materialism. John Chalcraft is Professor of Middle East History and Politics in the Department of Government at LSE and leads the Social Movements and Popular Mobilisation in the MENA Research Netwrok. Image: Antonio Gramsci by Gabriele Cancedda. Source: Gramscimania

While hardly a counter-cultural figure himself, the late Samuel Francis was enormously influential in fringe right-wing movements at the turn of the century, helping to popularize with his writing both an explicitly racialist view of civilization and a "Gramscian" strategy - after the theories of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci -  of cultural warfare. Without Francis, the Alt-Right and "white nationalism" as we (unfortunately) know it today would almost certainly not exist, at least not in the U.S. "Angry White Male," a vivid and prescient 1996 profile of Francis by D.C. journalist John Cloud, looks at the internecine battles within conservatism during the 1990s that led to Francis being fired from The Washington Times. In this episode, Joe & Josh examine how a dour Southern traditionalist - whose thought was, at heart, simply a defense of the white supremacist society in which he was raised - paved the way for sh*tlords, edgelords, and racist trolls to take the struggle for cultural hegemony online.“Angry White Male” by John Cloud, The Washington City Paper, 1996https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/article/13010023/angry-white-maleOptional:“Why Race Matters,” by Samuel Francis, American Renaissance, 1994http://www.unz.org/Pub/AmRenaissance-1994sep-0000“Unpatriotic Conservatives” by David Frum, National Review, 2003http://www.nationalreview.com/article/391772/unpatriotic-conservatives-david-frumLet us know what you think: essayquestionspodcast@gmail.com

Jack, Tom and Yair get insanely Gramscian in this episode, talking music, film, and the spectacle of American politics in 2017. Yair fills us all in on his 4th July pub crawl. Tom reviews Wonder Woman. Jack reads from the Bible. A special guest contacts us from the island of Diego Garcia, having evaded CIA censure with a little help from our Russian paymasters. We also have a go at Chuka Umunna for being a cunt, and talk about our newfound fame in the wake of our very first profile piece. It's all gravy.