POPULARITY
21 episodes with hegelian
12 episodes with hegelian
12 episodes with hegelian
7 episodes with hegelian
3 episodes with hegelian
8 episodes with hegelian
8 episodes with hegelian
5 episodes with hegelian
3 episodes with hegelian
5 episodes with hegelian
3 episodes with hegelian
3 episodes with hegelian
4 episodes with hegelian
3 episodes with hegelian
5 episodes with hegelian
3 episodes with hegelian
3 episodes with hegelian
2 episodes with hegelian
This teaching warns that many modern seminaries and theological institutions have been overtaken by the zeitgeist—the “spirit of the age”—which the speaker identifies as a vehicle for deception within the church, particularly through academic theology. Tracing influences from 19th-century German liberalism, Darwinism, Hegelian philosophy, consumerism, and Eastern mysticism, the speaker argues that these ideas have steadily undermined biblical authority, the historicity of Scripture, and core gospel doctrines. He cites numerous well-known institutions and leaders as examples of how compromise on issues such as biblical inerrancy, Christ's atonement, sexuality, Israel, and ecumenism has led to doctrinal drift, moral confusion, and institutional collapse. The message urges believers—especially those considering ministry training—to exercise extreme discernment, prioritize Scripture over tradition or academic prestige, and remember that teachers will be judged more strictly, concluding that a Christ-centered, biblically grounded faith is ultimately more vital than formal theological credentials. This teaching was originally taught on RTN TV's "Word for the Weekend" on October 25, 2025 and can be found on RTN and Moriel's YouTube and ministry channels. Word for the Weekend streams live every Saturday. See RTNTV.org for more information
Welcome to The Other Side of Midnight with Lionel, your late-night hub for untangling the web of government surveillance and historical mind-control operations. Join Lionel as he dives deep into declassified CIA operations like MK Ultra, Bluebird, and Project Artichoke, and explores how modern citizens are tracked through everything from repo tow trucks and EZ Passes to voluntary DNA databases. From decoding psychological concepts like the "Overton Window" and the "Hegelian dialectic" to fielding fiery calls about casino card-counting and stolen license plates, Lionel fearlessly challenges mainstream media narratives. It's a provocative, entertaining wake-up call urging conservatives to stop sitting on the sidelines and start fighting back. Tune in, question everything, and discover what the powers-that-be don't want you to know. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Get access to The Backroom (95+ exclusive episodes) on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/OneDimeIn this episode of 1Dime Radio, Keegan Kjeldsen from Essential Salts (Untimely Reflections/The Nietzsche podcast) joins me for a chapter-by-chapter breakdown of Francis Fukuyama's book The End of History and the Last Man. We unpack liberal democracy's philosophical roots, the fragility of authoritarian states, the Hegelian struggle for recognition, and the tensions between capitalism, legitimacy, and human dignity. Don't miss this guide to one of the most misunderstood books of the modern era.Part 2 of this discussion is in The Backroom (Patreon Exclusive). You will you get an additional 2 hours of Keegan/EssensialSalts and explaining the rest of Fukuyama's book chapter by chapter. Timestamps:00:00:00 The Backroom Preview00:04:53 Why Read Fukuyama 00:10:14 Theory of History Explained: Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche)00:26:01 The Weakness of Strong States00:46:02 Why Communism and RW Dicatorships Failed01:12:00 Liberal Democracy as the final form of government? 01:28:03 The Struggle for Recognition and Human Nature02:10:01 Transition to Part 2 (On Patreon)GUEST:Keegan Kjeldsen (EssentialSalts / Untimely Reflections)• YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@untimelyreflections• The Nietzsche Podcast (Spotify): https://open.spotify.com/show/0ZARzVCRfJZDCyeKjvIEfE• Untimely Reflections Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/untimelyreflectionsFOLLOW 1Dime:• Substack (Articles and Essays): https://1dimereview.substack.com/• X/Twitter: https://x.com/1DimeOfficial• Instagram: instagram.com/1dimeman• Check out my main channel videos: https://www.youtube.com/@1DimeeTags: #1DimeRadio #Fukuyama #PoliticalPhilosophy #Hegel #TheNietzschePodcast #EssentialSalts #UntimelyReflectionsLeave a like, drop a comment, and give the show a 5-star rating on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you listen to this.
** Every Tuesday evening, we host an online gathering of friends and newcomers, listening to and discussing our podcast. 8pm ET/5pm PT. Join us! After the episode drops, you'll find the registration link at the top of our website: realprogressives.orgThis week Steve invited Gabriel Rockhill to talk about his new book Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism? Vol 1 of The Intellectual World War. The war on communism is about protecting imperial super-profits, keeping cheap labor and resources flowing from the Global South to the imperial core. It has never been about lofty values and freedom fries. So why does the empire care about books, grants, and academic careers?Gabriel's investigation begins with a potent symbol: the legacy of Che Guevara. We know the CIA hunted and executed him. Less known is their parallel mission to assassinate the legacy of his thoughts. By seizing and editing his Bolivian diaries, US intelligence and its media assets would control the narrative of his struggle. It's a microcosm of a vast, systemic project. It reveals that empires understand a fundamental truth: the pen can be mightier than the sword. That might sound trite but think about it: to control populations and maintain global dominance, you must control the realm of thought, the very imagination of what is possible.The true target of this intellectual war has never been abstract Marxist theory. It is actually existing socialism: the tangible, state-building projects that succeeded in breaking the chains of imperialism. From the Soviet Union and China to Cuba, Vietnam, and beyond, these movements achieved the unthinkable: they halted the imperial value flow. They stopped the hemorrhage of natural resources and cheap labor from the Global South to the capitalist core, claiming their right to self-determination and independent development. This was the existential threat: a model proving that escape from the imperialist world-system was achievable. The panic in the halls of power was not over esoteric debates about Hegelian dialectics, but over the loss of super-profits and the empowering example of successful liberation.Gabriel and Steve discuss why dialectical and historical materialism is more than just a lofty sounding term. It actually matters. It's like the anti-virus software for propaganda. Instead of being knocked over every time a new headline drops, we have a framework for seeing patterns. Coups, destabilization, narrative management, the whole traveling circus? They all make sense. And they're all connected. (In fact, you can't listen to this episode without hearing the dialectical relationship between material control and the control of ideas.)Using the Marxist lens, Gabriel analyzes the socioeconomic base of the “theory industry” and a certain brand of Western or academic Marxism that turns class struggle into a grad-seminar aesthetic and cultural war hobby, safely disconnected from organizing, anti-imperialism, and actual movements. He argues the capitalist system naturally fosters and funds ideas that secure its survival, making knowledge production a commodity-driven system focused on exchange value (career advancement, book sales) rather than use value for liberation.Gabriel isn't just naming names for sport. (And besides, in the US we already have a long and colorful tradition of naming names, so let's not be clutching our pearls.) He's pointing at a system that manufactures respectable “leftist” ideas that don't threaten empire. As the imperial core becomes more openly brulat at home, we need to reconnect with the international, anti-imperialist thread of revolutionary Marxism if we're serious about changing anything.Gabriel Rockhill is a philosopher, cultural critic, and activist. He is the Founding Director of the Critical...
Join host Jeff on this wide-ranging Friday edition of Right On Radio as he dissects the week's biggest stories, plays audio clips, and issues practical spiritual and survival advice. Jeff opens by reacting to the World Economic Forum and its globalist messaging, explores the theme of sovereignty, and warns listeners about how maps and power are shifting in the emerging New World Order. The episode gives a clear primer on psychological warfare: Jeff summarizes classic experiments (Asch conformity study, Milgram obedience, Stanford prison) and modern dynamics (social-media algorithms, false dilemmas, the Cartman drama triangle, zealous hero worship, controlled opposition, and the Hegelian dialectic). He explains how these forces narrow perception, stoke fear and tribalism, and manipulate public opinion — and previews a forthcoming teaching video that will go deeper into these concepts. Featuring notable clips and commentary, Jeff plays and reacts to segments from Yuval Harari on AI and “religions of the book,” and a short Trump clip outlining alleged strategies to entrench single-party rule via immigration and voting changes. He connects Harari's warning to a practical takeaway: own physical Bibles and don't rely solely on digital sources. Light moments include a short comedy clip about beer and hormones from U.S. scientists. Practical preparedness is a recurring theme — Jeff issues cold-weather/ice-storm warnings, recommends quality inverter generators or wood stoves, and shares tips for preventing frozen-pipe damage. He also promotes Telegram as an algorithm-free way to follow Right On Radio content. On money and stewardship, Jeff outlines his three core investment categories: investing in human capital and businesses, caution around stock-market and crypto exposure, and prioritizing real estate for cash flow. He discusses precious and industrial metals (silver, gold, copper), CBDC concerns, recent bank/central-bank headlines, and why some financial shifts could presage broader systemic change. Political and geopolitical notes include talk of RICO-style accountability, grand juries, the Board of Peace and its implications for Israel and regional power, plus a mention of Mark Carney and global finance. Jeff closes with community announcements — Sunday Bible study, Telegram prayer calls, and offers of coaching and resources for listeners wanting help with business or real-estate investing. Expect a mix of analysis, biblical perspective, practical prepping advice, and provocative audio clips — all aimed at helping Right On Radio listeners think critically, steward resources wisely, and prepare spiritually and practically for turbulent times. Want to Understand and Explain Everything Biblically? Click Here: Decoding the Power of Three: Understand and Explain Everything or go to www.rightonu.com and click learn more. Thank you for Listening to Right on Radio. Prayerfully consider supporting Right on Radio. Click Here for all links, Right on Community ROC, Podcast web links, Freebies, Products (healing mushrooms, EMP Protection) Social media, courses and more... https://linktr.ee/RightonRadio Live Right in the Real World! We talk God and Politics, Faith Based Broadcast News, views, Opinions and Attitudes We are Your News Now. Keep the Faith
In this episode of Chasing Leviathan, PJ and Dr. Kalliopi Nikolopoulou discuss the intersection of ancient tragedy, justice, and cosmology. Drawing from Dr. Nikolopoulou's book Hunting for Justice: The Cosmology of Decay in Aeschylus' Oresteia, the conversation explores how the relationship between nature and justice has been severed by modern political thought. Together, they examine Aeschylus' Oresteia—the only fully surviving trilogy of Greek tragedy—to trace the move from tribal blood-feuds to the establishment of the Areopagus, the world's first courtroom.The discussion engages the philosophical tension between the "Solar" order of Apollo and the "Chthonic" justice of the Furies, asking whether human reason alone can sustain a civic community. Analyzing the trial of Orestes and its famous hung jury, Dr. Nikolopoulou critiques the Hegelian view of progress, suggesting that when justice is reduced to a mere social construct, it loses its vital alignment with the natural world. The episode explores concepts such as ananke (necessity), the "theological politics" of Athena, and the inherent arbitrariness that persists within even the most rational legal systems.This conversation is essential for those interested in classical philology, legal theory, environmental ethics, and continental philosophy. Rather than viewing the Oresteia as a simple story of legal evolution, Dr. Nikolopoulou reframes it as a warning about the limits of human technology and craft in the face of mortality. Scholarly yet accessible, this episode speaks to the need for a "cosmological" justice that remains open to the biological and existential realities of the human condition.Make sure to check out Dr. Nikolopoulou's book: Hunting for Justice: The Cosmology of Dike in Aeschylus's Oresteia
This episode of The Common Reader podcast is a little different. I spoke to both Jeffrey Lawrence and Julianne Werlin about literature, politics, and the future of the academic humanities. Questions included: what do we mean when we talk about literature and markets? Can we leave politics out of literary discussion? Should we leave it out? If we can't leave it out, can we have nice friendly conversations about it? What is academic Marxism? We also talked about whether Stephen Greenblatt is too ideological and why universities are necessary to literary culture, academics on Substack. Julianne writes Life and Letters. Jeffrey writes Avenues of the Americas. Here is Julianne's interview in The Republic of Letters. Transcript (AI generated, will contain some errors)Henry Oliver (00:00)Today I am talking to Jeffrey Lawrence and Julianne Werlin.Jeffrey is a professor of English literature and comparative literature at Rutgers University. He specializes in the 20th and 21st century and he writes the sub stack, Avenues of America. Julianne probably needs no introduction to a sub stack audience. She writes Life and Letters, one of my favorite sub stacks. She's a professor of English at Duke University, where as well as specializing in early modern poetry, she is interested in sociological and demographic studies of literature.and we are going to have a big conversation about literature and markets, politics, what do we mean when we talk about literature and markets, can we leave politics out of literary discussion, should we leave it out, if we can't leave it out, can we have nice friendly conversations about it, and also maybe what is academic Marxism and what should it be and why is it so confusing? Jeffrey and Julianne, hello.Julianne (00:59)Hi.Jeffrey Lawrence (01:01)Hi, thanks for having us.Julianne (01:02)Yeah, thank you.Henry Oliver (01:04)I am going to start by referencing an interview that you did, Julianne, for Republic of Letters, which everyone has been reading. And you said, I've printed it out wrong, so I can't read the whole quote. But you said something like, you joined Substack because you wanted people to talk with and because you felt a lack of debate in your academic field. There are lots of good things about scholarship being slow and careful, but it also needs to be animated by debate and conversation.and a sense of the stakes of what we're doing, and that is eroding in the academy. So I want you both to talk about that. Why is that happening? How much of a problem is it? How much is Substack or the internet more generally the solution? What should we be doing? Why don't we go to Julianne first, because it's your quote.Julianne (01:54)Sure, I mean, won't go on too long ⁓ since I have already spoken about this, but my sense within English departments is, you know, they're becoming smaller, fewer people are taking our classes, we have much less of a role in public conversation and public debate, except as kind of a stalking horse for certain types of arguments. And certainly, if you are an early modernist, it's very hard to locate a kind of a...Henry Oliver (02:14)YouJulianne (02:25)discrete set of debates within early modern literature because there is so little public salience to literary fields. And I think this is happening in all literature. It's especially pronounced if you're working in the earlier periods. So my sense in joining SUBSTAC was that perhaps there will be debates by people who are not already so deep within the particular professional and disciplinary structures of a field that they canfind new points of connection between literature and public life along different ⁓ axes that we have maybe not explored adequately within English departments and are maybe becoming harder to explore as English departments contract and recede from public life.Henry Oliver (03:04)Mm-hmm.So we're bringing Milton back to the people and also finding out why they care about him at all. ⁓ What do you think about it, Geoff?Julianne (03:16)Well, hopefully. I mean, that's the goal.Jeffrey Lawrence (03:21)Great, ⁓ so I actually restacked that specific quote from Julianne because it resonated so much with me. Yeah, I mean, my sense is that as someone who works on 20th and 21st century literature, there is more crossover there, I would say, between sort of academic scholarship and public debate. But I really wanna just echo what Julianne said there, that ⁓ I have gotten the feeling that withinlet's call it like the legacy media. There are particular arguments that come from academia that are pushed forward and that become representative of the field of 20th and 21st century literature as a whole. And those kind of come to stand in for academic debate more generally. And I think it becomes very difficult. One of the things that I was noticing so much isthat the people who had access to those legacy journals, are places like the Atlantic, the New York Times, that those began to dominate the debates and people just aren't recognizing that in scholarships. So one of the things I particularly like about Substack is that I feel like although it has some of the same problems as social media more generally about kind of like who gets to participate and algorithmic culture and all of that sort of stuff.I did feel like the ideological diversity both left and right compared to the sort of a kind of monoculture, mono, you know, sort of academic argument that I found over and over in these legacy magazines, that Substack was the place where a lot of these debates are happening. And I only joined maybe four or five months ago, but for me,⁓ sort of just in terms of my relationship to the Academy, it's really changed my sense of what can be said and what's being said by academics.Henry Oliver (05:17)feels to me like in some way humanities academia needs deregulating because there's all sorts of things people can't feel like they can't say and can't do. But it's such a tangled mess that the easiest thing is for you all to just go to Substack and do it there and just try and avoid the bureaucracy because it's gone too far. But when you're on Substack...I feel like you're often faced with people saying, these English literature academics, it's all woke BS. They don't know anything. They've killed this, right? You're simultaneously in a kind of semi hostile environment. How do you, how does that seem to you?Julianne (05:56)Yeah, mean, that's certainly true. I think that we are avatars on Substack for a kind of authority that we feel in our own lives we do not possess in any way. So we're in this position where, you know, at least I feel this, I'm responding to comments that are, you know, very much, by people who very much feel that they're attacking authority figures. And I'm, you know, I'm just a person on the internet, you know, talking with them when I'm on Substack. What I like about it is precisely that it levels any kind of authority structures insofar as they exist, which is debatable at this phase. But that's not always the reality on Substack. I also feel there's an additional thing, again, as an early modernist, where you feel like, you you don't have...Henry Oliver (06:27)Yeah.Julianne (06:52)there's not a lot of interest by people who are kind of on the left in contemporary politics in the Renaissance. It's seen as kind of a conservative, canonical thing to study. And there's a lot of pushback. even within English departments, there's a lot of pushback ⁓ surrounding the idea that people should study Shakespeare or study Milton. It's seen as kind of old and fussy and conservative. And then at the same time, you go on the internet and you're the kind of ⁓ exemplar.Henry Oliver (06:59)Mmm. Yeah.Mmm.Julianne (07:22)of woke cultural discourse. So you feel like as a Renaissance scholar, you can't win. You're nobody's idea of what people should be doing intellectually or culturally.Henry Oliver (07:25)HahahaDo you think, someone asked me this the other day about why academics write in this funny way and why no one reads their books and all this. That was the way they phrased it. And I said, I think what you're saying is like, why is there no AC Bradley today? Because Shakespeare in tragedy, so I don't remember the number, of like quarter of a million copies or something that to us just feels like an insane number.Is there some legitimate criticism there that A.C. Bradley wrote in a way that, you know, your grandmother could understand? And a lot of what comes out of the Academy today is much more cut off from the ordinary reading experience.Julianne (08:18)Yeah, I mean, think that's not debatable. think there have been quantitative studies, ⁓ DH studies that have shown that academic prose has become more difficult. I think it's much more a consequence of how literary culture has become this sort of narrow and marginalized field that is preserved within academic debate and academic structures of argument and disciplinarity. Stephen Greenblatt certainly tries to benew A.C. Bradley and he does reach readers outside of academia but his audience is you know especially as a share of the population is not A.C. Bradley's audience and I don't think that's a fault of his prose. Well that's true.Henry Oliver (08:59)might be the fault of some of his ideas.Well, Jeff, I want to come to you on that. A.C. Bradley was not politically ideological. Maybe he's a crazy Hegelian and he's insane on that level. But is the problem that Stephen Greenblatt's just obviously kind of a bit cranky in some ideological way, is this a general problem of the modern humanities academia?Jeffrey Lawrence (09:24)Yeah, I mean, I tend to see the problem as it's kind of being a dual problem. One, I think, is the fact that we are facing in a lot of the academy a kind of scarcity politics. there are very, if you look at just academic hiring since the financial crisis in 2008, there's just much less of it that's happening. And so I think, I mean, part of what I see is this sense that there are certainI mean, we could say certain ideological lines that over the past 10 years, but even let's say over the past 15 years ⁓ have been the ones that have become dominant in the academy. And I think my problem is not that people connect politics to literature. I think that that's something that we all do to a certain degree. think the part of the problem is that we are now entering a situation in whichif you deviate from a particular political line, which I have sort of identified with the Democratic Party, because I think you can follow a foul of it to the right, you can also follow a foul of it to the left, then you are seen as someone who is saying something that is not in line with the contemporary academy. And I think it used to be that when there were many jobs and many different departments that you could go to,Henry Oliver (10:28)Mm, mm.Jeffrey Lawrence (10:48)there were fewer consequences for making those types of statements that were out of sync with the dominant. And now I think it's it's become very, very punitive. And this is also reinforced again by the fact that what public scholarship we do have tends to be in line with this because the institutions that are kind of the elite, I would say Ivy league.institutions are also the ones that are feeding people into ⁓ sort of that public legacy discourse.Henry Oliver (11:23)Let's talk about politics and literature because I don't like making literature political as such. But whenever I read, Julianne's probably read the Lisa Liebes substack. I don't know if you've got to that yet, Jeff. She's like, there should be no politics at all and it's all aesthetics, which I kind of sympathize with. But then it just makes me think like, well, what about Edmund Spenser?Like there's a certain extent to which a lot of poetry is political and we have to be political when we talk about it, otherwise we're just ignoring a big part of it. ⁓ So how do we solve that problem? Like are we like badly trained in thinking about politics in the humanities academy or is it like what's going on?have we got to a point where you can say there should be no politics about explicitly political writers?Julianne (12:19)Do you want to begin, Jeff?Jeffrey Lawrence (12:20)Yeah, I mean, I can just say briefly because I mean, I teach courses, a number of courses that are about politics and literature. I actually think, I mean, I started doing this in 2016, right after Trump's election. I taught Steve Bannon's film about the financial crisis alongside ⁓ the Big Short and a couple of kind of like trying to show kind of like the left and right responses. I mean, that's not literature, that's film, but many of thethe literary works that we look at in those courses. There are conservatives, there are more classic liberals, there are Marxists. I mean, my personal feeling is that we need to talk about politics and literature, that it is a fair, it is a reasonable object of study. The problem, I think, is partially when you act as if certain...certain political writers or certain topics are simply out of bounds for study. And so there was actually a post by Dan Silver today about why I teach conservative thinkers and a response from the points John Baskin saying, who would think that you wouldn't teach conservative thinkers in a sociology course? But I do think that it's become par for the course thatHenry Oliver (13:20)Mmm.Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.Jeffrey Lawrence (13:37)teaching someone, whether you're on the right and you're teaching someone who's a Marxist or you're a Marxist and you're teaching conservatives, that somehow this is kind an ethical failure. And I think that's a real problem of not assuming that what you're teaching is kind of necessarily what you believe in or talking about politics means necessarily taking an ideological stance.Julianne (14:04)Yeah, I think that's completely right. I think there's this very pervasive confusion between ⁓ talking about the politics of literature andarticulating an authoritative political perspective on that literature. Almost everybody who studies literature, especially in a historical context or in a contemporary context, honestly, is going to be talking about politics. Spencer, course, right? Milton. ⁓ How do you talk about somebody who was a literal revolutionary who wrote in favor of regicide and not talk about politics? You have to talk about politics.Henry Oliver (14:31)YouJulianne (14:37)⁓ But then there's become this confusion where people assume that if you are talking about the politics of literature, you have not just a political, but actually an ethical ⁓ teaching that you are imparting by way of that literature. And that if you're not doing that, you're somehow not talking about literature, you're not teaching the literature. That's the confusion that has been so devastating to us and I think so devastating to literary study.Henry Oliver (15:03)So what's the alternative? What should we be doing instead?Julianne (15:07)I I think that we should be talking about the politics of literature while acknowledging that literature raises political debates, not endless debates. know, there's not any given author is going to raise, you know, a certain salient set of questions that we can talk about, that we can debate and acknowledging that people historically have had different responses to these, that it has been used in different ways in different moments and that it is still used in different ways today. That doesn't mean that as intellectuals and scholars, we won't have our own positions that may inform our scholarshipin our writing and even our teaching, it just means that our positions do not shut down conversation and do not exhaust the range of possible positions.Henry Oliver (15:48)Yeah, and we should say, we're saying about, you you should teach conservative thought and stuff. I don't think either of you would identify as being on the right or conservative. So you're saying that from a, from that position. ⁓ How do we, how do we get out of this then? How do we leave politics at the door? Because when I read modern ⁓ literary scholarship, to me, it's either like very useful because it's not political.Julianne (16:01)Yeah.Henry Oliver (16:17)Or I just, as I did with that book that we all, or that Jeff and I, sort of disagreed about. I just find it almost unreadable because it's not scholarship anymore. It's just partisanship. How do we move past this? Like, what's the solution?Jeffrey Lawrence (16:33)I mean, if I can jump in just there, I mean, I would say one of the issues is having an ideological litmus test for scholars. And I think I see this in 20th and 21st century literature in a very strong way. And so what I would say is that, you know, allowing people to occupy different political positions, and I really meanJulianne (16:33)I mean, if I could jump in just there, I mean, I would say one of the issues is having an ideological litmus test for scholars. And I think I see this in 20th and 21st century literature in a very strong way. And so what I would say is that allowing people to occupy different political positions, and I really mean,Henry Oliver (16:36)Yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (17:03)like people who I know on the left because they're not toeing a particular line are also not welcome or are also kind of meat pushback in contemporary humanities departments that I think we need to get rid of that. And my thought about the Adam Kelly book, ⁓ the New Sincerity book is that to me, I think that what he's trying to do in that bookHenry Oliver (17:10)Yeah, yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (17:31)is to understand neoliberalism as an economic and political philosophy that has effects on culture and to try to understand how authors themselves are dealing with that in their prose.To me, that is somewhat different from the way that neoliberalism is occasionally bandied about in the academy, where it doesn't just, it isn't just another word for saying, okay, this is the Chicago school or the Austrian school, and we're gonna kind of take it seriously as a mode of thought. if just saying like, neoliberalism is like our ontological condition in the 21st century, and therefore everything is.necessarily an expression of neoliberalism and we don't need to necessarily define it. So I mean, I think that may be where the disagreement extends is that I think that ⁓ Adam Kelly is trying to sort of be precise about that politics in order to understand how contemporary writers generally on the left are using it. Whereas I think that the kind of more wishy washy version of that isHenry Oliver (18:37)Mm-hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (18:44)You know, just to say that neoliberalism is the air that we breathe. And there, I think I agree with you that it's just not super helpful.Henry Oliver (18:49)Mmm.Yeah, my problem with the book was that he would not tell you what did Hayek think or say. He would say Hayek was a cheerleader for the free market. Or he would not tell you what is the Gary Becker view of human capital. He would say human capital is an ideology that infuses itself into every aspect of your life so that you can no longer be separate from the market. And it's all this stuff, and it's like, well, that's nothing to do with Hayek and Gary Becker. ⁓Jeffrey Lawrence (19:19)Can I just,just one thing on that, is that, I mean, I did go back and I mean, he has these moments where he's talking specifically about Hayek and the road to serfdom and saying, I think that this is a worldview in which, he'll quote Hayek talking about the problem with representative democracy and say, the real moral choices are choices that are made in the market.To me, I think that that is to engage to a certain degree with the thought. It is true, I think, as often happens in scholarship that you have the people who are defining a phenomenon from the perspective that you may be interested in. So there are a number of people from the left who are criticizing neoliberalism. I see him as engaging a little bit more than you do.Henry Oliver (20:11)Mmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (20:11)in that in that direct thought and particularly compared to other humanities scholars who do I think what you're saying which is to just do that. So that's where I think I see him as doing.Henry Oliver (20:18)sure, yeah.I guess you could summy critique up as being like, if this is the good version, things are worse than I thought. Yeah. Yeah. So from here, let's go to the question of what is academic Marxism?Jeffrey Lawrence (20:27)Okay, well.Henry Oliver (20:35)Because I think a lot of people think that there's a lot of Marxism in the academy and that if they're not woke, they're Marxists or maybe they're both, right? And ⁓ personally, I spend a lot of time trying to work out what these Marxists think and it's quite confusing. And there seem to be lots of, and Julianne, you and I have talked about this, all the different, some Marxists aren't Marxists, as it were. tell us, give us a quick overview of how Marxist things really are.Julianne (21:04)Yeah, I mean it's a very complicated question to answer.because Marxism is too, well, debatably a living tradition. ⁓ And there's a huge amount of disagreement about what constitutes Marxism, ⁓ what is a legitimate form of Marxism, what is not, where do the boundaries lie, what is reconcilable with other schools of thought, what is not. But I think the big picture is that beginning, even in the 60s, Marxism moved into academia. This is a story that is told very inflectionallyHenry Oliver (21:11)youJulianne (21:37)and Perry Anderson's considerations on Western Marxism, where he argues that in the West, Marxism becomes alienated from actual political, economic, and social movements. It moves into academia. And as a result, it becomes much more philosophical, much more abstruse, much less concerned with the traditional concerns of Marxism, labor and the politics of labor and the politics and economics of labor. And that this continues and is accelerated, in fact, in the Cold War. So what you get atthe same time, you have something called the cultural turn in history and in sociology, ⁓ the rise of what is, debatably called identity politics. so Marxism remains a current within that, but it's far less of an influential current as time goes by. ⁓ And I think that many, many people...use the word Marxism and would say that there are Marxist influences in their work, but they're not viewing it as a kind of systematic approach to economics or to economic history. And so at that point, I do think you have to ask, well, what does Marxism actually mean? There are certainly people that work with, you know, ideas that they refer to as Marxist, but that have implications that to my mind are entirely antithetical to Marxism. And so I kind of feelas somebody who does work within what I would call the historical materialist tradition.⁓ in a very sort of straightforwardly economic sense, know, are markets becoming more efficient in Renaissance England? Those kinds of questions. How much does bread cost? How much do books cost? Those kinds of questions. ⁓ If you're interested in that tradition within Marxist thought, you feel that it's actually really incredibly peripheral within academia in comparison to, say, the politics of gender ⁓ or other considerations of that kind. And there's just not always sensitivityHenry Oliver (23:16)Mm-hmm.Julianne (23:35)to whether these different schools of thought actually cohere in any meaningful or deep way. What would you say, Jeff?Jeffrey Lawrence (23:44)Yeah, that's, I mean, just to pick up on that, think that that's really helpful in that trajectory, which I also, know, the Perry Anderson, a lot of people who have talked about how Marxism.moves into the academy after the 1960s, I think it is just really important to say it becomes a different thing. And I think part of the confusion, Henry, may also be that it's like, so the Christopher Ruffo version of this is it's like, it's all Marxism, it's all everywhere. But then I think that becomes, it's so broad a definition of Marxism that what we're really talking about is aof progressive politics or sort of an amalgam of different ideas that may have some roots in Marxism of previous periods, but really don't, as Julianne is saying, really don't align with like Marxist thought or Marxian thought as such. And also as someone who does take that tradition very seriously, I think a lot about Silvia Federici, who's a feminist, know, a Marxist feminist. Like these are people who are absolutely steeped.in a Marxist political tradition. And in some ways, these are figures that may be very important to the contemporary tradition. But if you actually read what they're writing, it's like, it's an extremely watered down version that we get in the academy in part, and I'll just end with this, in part because to Julianne's point, I think it like when Marxism also becomesHenry Oliver (24:59)Mmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (25:10)a kind of one discourse among many that you are using in what are often very bourgeois institutions, then it becomes a kind of intellectual tool and sometimes even an intellectual weapon, as many of these things are, where the question of how it relates to practical politics, working class politics,politics outside of the academy becomes sort of secondary. And so then really we're not talking about someone who's a Marxist as in they're like fighting for the working class. You're talking about someone who's just using Marx as a tool, which is fine, but that certainly shouldn't give them any sort of like, you know, moral high ground when speaking from the position of the left is my view.Henry Oliver (25:53)Is there some inherent aspect of literature that means it has been more amenable to Marxist study of any description than it has been to, you know, ⁓systems of thought that come more from a kind of Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek tradition. Because it's very striking to me how few liberals and libertarians they're currently, publicly currently, I know a lot of them keep it to themselves, some of them have said as much to me. ⁓ But is there some good literary reason for this? Or is it just an institutional ⁓ problem?Julianne (26:33)That's an interesting question. ⁓ I mean, there are sort of traditional reasons for this in thatMarxism from, you know, in Marxist writing from very early on was interested in the relationship between culture and historical change. So there's a very, even by the time you get to the beginning of the 20th century, there's already a very well developed materialist tradition for thinking about cultural change and cultural transformation over the long run in a way that I don't think is true ⁓ of rival ideologies. Not that there isn't great literary work, but that there's not the sameHenry Oliver (27:09)Sure, sure, sure.Julianne (27:11)kind of sense of a methodological tradition. So there's a lot of momentum there.⁓ But in terms of more intrinsic reasons, I don't know. I mean, it doesn't seem obvious. Certainly at other times and places, we haven't had the situation that we have now. I often find myself thinking of, know, Piketty's arguments, which this does not pertain to Marxism, but this does pertain to the ⁓ difference between the political parties in the US, which is just that ⁓ education has become the means of differentiating between two rival elites, you know, not...Henry Oliver (27:27)Mm.Julianne (27:47)a difference between a working class and an elite, but two rival elites that are actually distinguished by the university itself. So as long as the university plays that structural role, it seems unlikely that its politics are going to drift to the other side, because that is actually precisely what the university has become. ⁓ I don't know, what do you think, Jeff?Jeffrey Lawrence (28:06)Yeah, I mean, it's a really good question. I mean, I share the sense that, I mean, I think that there is an extraordinary ⁓ Marxist literary tradition that goes back to, you know, sort of Lukacs and these debates, Adorno, Horkheimer. These are critics that are important to me, cultural studies with people like Stuart Hall and Raymond Williams. I mean, they very much, I think, were, though,Henry Oliver (28:20)Mm-hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (28:30)That was a kind of insurgent force, we could say, within the academy that has now become, I would say, almost entirely dominant. I personally, mean, one of the things when I was writing my first book was on US and Latin American literature. I was very interested in a certain liberal tradition that comes from, you know, John Dewey. We would now say that, I mean, it's not the liberalism of, you know, Milton Friedman and von Hayek, but it is,Dewey, think, was for many people the most important philosopher, aesthetic philosopher of the early part of the 20th century. And he was a sort of radical liberal who thought a lot about the liberal tradition. I people like Lionel Trilling with the liberal imagination, these were, I think, writers who were very important.Henry Oliver (29:16)Mm-hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (29:19)in a particular moment. And I guess, you this is, you may see this as a dodge, I, Henry, but I definitely feel like these are books that are really important to my formation and whether or not I associate with a certain particular strain of contemporary ⁓ liberalism, I don't tend to think of myself necessarily in those terms. And so,Henry Oliver (29:26)HahahaJeffrey Lawrence (29:43)I think we really should be reading those because those types of people, people like John Dewey, people like Lionel Trilling, know, Philip Rav, these kind of mid-century intellectuals, they were really engaging in major debates and they were foundational for the field, even if now I think there may be some desire to take distance from them.Henry Oliver (30:07)It's the bigger problem that we should just get back to more for literature as literature.And once we allow a kind of methodological approach from one tradition or another, we're just no longer really studying literature. We're using literature to, like I had a professor once and they said an essay about Anglo-Saxon poetry with some Harold Bloom quote saying, none of this is any good. It's like the great age before the flood, that kind of thing. And I basically wrote an essay saying, yes, that's correct. And she did not like that. And I said, look, I bet you don't actually love anyof this poetry. I bet you don't care about any of this. You know, I just sort of... And she said, that's not the point. The point is that we can use it to impose the... You we can use it as a way of dealing with the ideas we want to deal with and having methodological... And I was just like, I'm never coming back. You know, goodbye. And that to me is kind of... Is that the more foundational problem, right? Some people want to take a kind of...Northrop Frye, Christopher Ricks, literature as literature approach, and some people want to have an extra literary methodology. Be it Freudian, be it feminist, be it identity politics, be it whatever. And that is the bigger sort of division here, and is the solution to just say Shakespeare is Shakespeare and you can keep the other stuff for your other classes.Julianne (31:33)Well, I don't know because, I mean, in terms of what actually goes into the classroom, I think that's a different question. I don't teach very much theory in the classroom. ⁓ But I don't think that we can just say that because the ability to say, you know, these are great works, this is part of a canon, it came with its own set of ideological commitments that are now...Henry Oliver (31:40)Show. Show, show, show.Julianne (31:57)sort of vanishing, right? So we need some kind of framework for making sense of why we read literary history at all, what its coherence is, what its shape is, what its structure is. A lot of those frameworks were implicit. didn't, you know, they were articulated, they didn't need to be articulated every single time because they were so woven into the whole system of education. As that becomes increasingly untrue, I think we do find ourselves in a position where we need to explain why we care about this object literature at all.in the first place. And I don't think just saying, you know, literature for literature's sake without situating it within some kind of wider account of culture really works. I don't know that situating it within some wider account of culture really works either in terms of persuading anyone, but I don't think you can say to people, look, Shakespeare is Shakespeare, we have to read him because he's great. I think you need to...Jeffrey Lawrence (32:45)Mm-hmm.Henry Oliver (32:45)HahahaJulianne (32:53)have an argument about the place that Shakespeare has in culture ought to have ⁓ because that is increasingly not true.Henry Oliver (33:02)So I mostly agree, but it is very striking to me. I mean, I sort of half agree. It is very striking to me that the just read it because it's great argument is winning a lot of ⁓ admirers on the internet, while some version of what you've just said is sort of dying in the academy. And I'm not saying that therefore that's a decisive factor and we should just do this. But in terms of getting people interested,that does see something on the internet among the new humanities culture on Substack and other places, does just seem to be resistant to these methodologies and ideology, right? Do you see what I'm saying? ⁓Jeffrey Lawrence (33:43)Can I, I mean, yeah, Imean, I would say, and we may just disagree on this, but I agree with Julianne that, I mean, the ideological context of a work, the historical context of work seems incredibly important. I saw Henry, yeah, yeah. And so I think that there, yeah, yeah, but I think that's not, I mean, I think we can't totally gloss over that because all three of us have had long educational sort of,Henry Oliver (33:58)sure, yeah. We're all historicists, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (34:11)a long educational formation that has allowed us to even have this conversation, let alone read these works. I, you you, you, I think you had a post about this on, on Austin about like, you know, sort of there, there are certain things that are helpful for you to know in order, once you're going into work. I think that that's different from the thing that you're pointing to and where I think I would agree with you, which is that when, when methodology becomes the TrumpHenry Oliver (34:15)Yes.Yeah, yeah, yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (34:41)card over literature. think that that is that is an important cultural shift. And I think we are now at the point in which this is my formulation for it. It's like if you're just going to read literature for, you know, for a particular political thing, for Marxism, let's say, in order to understand, you know, sort of like a Marxist conception of society, why not just read Marxism?Henry Oliver (34:42)Hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (35:11)like Marxist theory. mean, so I do think that that is a real problem and the failure, and to be fair to humanities scholars, this is, has been a big debate over the past five or 10 years. I think it's just more contested in the academic space than it is on Substack, where I think Substack is kind of demonstrating to my mind also that some of the more frank, I, I sweat, some of the more BS, yeah.Henry Oliver (35:11)Yes.Say what you want.Jeffrey Lawrence (35:39)Some of the more b******t arguments that I see about like, ⁓ well, there aren't X people, like there aren't white men who are writing and reading, and then you just see the tremendous number of people who are reading, they may just feel alienated from certain ways of doing things. And that, I think, that's a wide range of people. And I think it's a wide range of people who are turned off by certain things in the academy.Henry Oliver (35:49)yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (36:07)I think a lot of that though has to do with a general problem that we need people in literary studies who deeply care about literature, regardless of what ideological thing, you know, where they're coming from. And if you are always just interested in the methodology that you're bringing to it, as opposed to literature, then this is going to be a long-term problem because people are going to start asking, why is it that we are reading literature?Henry Oliver (36:34)To what extent is that the basic problem that the universities have right now? To me that just seems to be it's that, right?Julianne (36:39)I think that's a huge problem. Yeah, I think it's a huge problem.Yeah, it's a huge problem. guess, you know, while sort of agreeing with you and definitely agreeing with Jeff, I guess what I would say to sort of refine what I was saying earlier is, no, I don't think you should study the methodologies instead of studying literature. Of course not.⁓ But the questions that the methodologies ask are really basic to the questions that we need to ask about the study of literature. So it's not that you should be studying Marxism or feminism or this or that instead of studying literature, but I don't think you can...totally do away with the questions of, what is this thing? What is its role in culture? What does it mean? Why do we study it over long, long periods of time? ⁓ It is, it has become very hard to make that, that case. And it's not that I think making that case explicitly is going to win converts as opposed to talking about the literature itself. In the end, it's going to be the literature itself, if it's going to be anything at all. But to have an account of the meaning of what we're doing, even for our own sakes, we do need to be thinking about questions like what is this thing?and why, right, which are supposed to be questions that methods help us ask.Jeffrey Lawrence (37:53)And can I just add to that kind of the, I mean, a word that we haven't used so far is specialization. And I think to a certain degree, like what may unite us in this conversation is a sense too, that like, that literature is not just like this particular corner that you're studying and that you're interested in because it's your field. And so,Henry Oliver (38:13)Mmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (38:16)Those type of turf battles, I think, are also really important to this. The sense that your topic is the thing that you specifically focus on and the difficulty of communicating that is an issue. And also just the sense that, like, I mean, my sense is you can be interested in history and sociology. Julianne and I are both interested in that. And also literature, so that it doesn't, I mean, part of it is, I think, restoring the notion that a kind of broadHenry Oliver (38:19)Yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (38:46)like intellectual training is not a liability, but is actually something that you need in order to understand literature and that heightens your appreciation.Henry Oliver (38:57)Somewhere in one of Iris Murdoch's interviews, she talks about the state of literary undergraduates today, because obviously she was married to John Bailey and had a lot of, and this is like in the 80s or something, ⁓ and she said, well, they're not interested in just reading the literature and understanding the history of it anymore. They want to have all these crazy theories.It's very striking when you see stuff like that from 50 years ago. Did the cannon wars ever end? Did we ever change the arguments? In some ways, is this not just the Harold Bloom thing? It's still going, right? And one route out that I think you've identified is just ⁓ be broader. Just read more outside your own area.The people who everyone loves on Twitter, like CS Lewis and Harold Bloom, are the ones who weren't in their public facing work. They weren't narrow specialists. CS Lewis would do everything from some random Latin medieval writer to Jane Austen. And in a way, is that what we need? We just need to have more of that appreciation of the long history of literature.Jeffrey Lawrence (40:10)I mean, just one thing, then Julianna, I'd be curious to like from like a ⁓ 20th and 21st century perspective. Like I agree with that, but I also think that like that was Toni Morrison as well. I mean, talking about the classics, mean, part of the problem I think is that we have these readings of figures that become then sort of symbolic or totemic of.Henry Oliver (40:23)Yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (40:33)like a contemporary, you know, whatever that may be, an identity category or whatever it may be. Whereas if you actually read Toni Morrison, absolutely voracious, absolutely thinking about like, you know, the classics, you know, thinking through Greek drama, ⁓ know, Faulkner, you know, ⁓ master's thesis on the outsider in Faulkner and Virginia Woolf. I mean, I think some of this also has to dowith something that has happened very specifically in the past 10 years of also subjecting figures of the past who were interested in that more Catholic notion of culture to these kind of like very selective readings. I mean, it's true of James Baldwin. I thought about this a lot. Like a lot of these figures who just didn't want to be boxed in in a particular identity way get then taken up asHenry Oliver (41:11)Hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (41:26)kind of figures for that when actually, mean, in some ways they were, you know, I'm sure Toni Morrison and Harold Bloom wouldn't have agreed on everything, but there was actually, I mean, but really there is actually more alignment there than like the 2025 reading of them would give credit for.Henry Oliver (41:40)Yeah, yeah, yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (41:47)Yeah, don't know, Julianne, if yeah.Julianne (41:49)Yeah, no, mean, I obviously I agree so, so entirely with.everything you're saying, but especially with your comments about longer literary histories, more capacious reading, know, longer, wider. Obviously you read cross linguistically and do work cross linguistically. So both broader and longer literary histories, much more than kind of a focus on methodology. Part of the reason I'm defending methodology here is because methodology, if used well, forces you outside of disciplinary specialization or can, has that capacity. In my field, the problem is not thatpeople are adhering to big sweeping methodologies anymore. In my field, the problem is that the big questions have almost disappeared, replaced by, in many cases, extremely excellent, detailed, narrow, pointillist empiricist work. I think that work is...valuable and it's foundational, but you can't have a field that just has that. You have to have something that makes the field cohere. You have to have questions that the field coheres around. know, and increasingly, I'm a historicist. I got into this because I love this kind of like, ⁓ you know,tell me everything about this particular edition of the Fairy Queen. ⁓ I love that kind of thing. ⁓ And yet at the same time, there is part of me that is starting to wonder.Henry Oliver (43:09)YouJeffrey Lawrence (43:10)YouJulianne (43:17)is it actually more relevant even for being a Renaissance literary scholar to have read every single person writing in England in 1592 and then maybe instead of Dante or going the other way, right? Instead of...Richardson or Voltaire. Like maybe we should be reading more Voltaire instead of every non-entity. And I'm guilty of this because my whole project is every non-entity who published a book in 1592. So this is very much self-critique. But that more capacious sense, and that more capacious sense exactly as Jeff says, is very much aligned with how writers themselves, especially great writers, approach literature. I teach Toni Morrison in my Shakespeare class sometimes because she has a short play on Desdemona.Jeffrey Lawrence (43:47)If you ⁓Henry Oliver (44:06)So we're obviously all going to await your blog about the different editions of the Fairy Queen and your favorite things about each of them. Just give us some examples of what the big questions would be and what these empirical questions that people are. Just make it sort of concrete for us what you're talking about there.Julianne (44:11)Hawell i mean there are a lot of people who have big ideas ⁓that maybe make their way into their own work, that show up in the introduction of their own work, but that are not defining the field in a meaningful way. There are a few debates that think are actually happening within my field that are interesting, like the extent to which ⁓ Renaissance literature should be understood on national versus international lines. I think that's quite an active one that's very interesting. ⁓ But I think a lot of books written in the Renaissance, and I don't wantHenry Oliver (44:39)Mm-hmm.Julianne (45:03)topoint to any one book because these are all you know good books and books that I like but a lot of books will be have a very narrow date range a set there you know the typical organization of a book in literary studies is to have a sort of thematic topic not always thematics sometimes it'sbook historical or cultural, but ⁓ often it will be a thematic topic. Say a topic like ⁓ shame in Renaissance literature, right? So you'll take shame in Renaissance literature. This is fictional. This isn't anybody's book. If it is accidentally somebody's book, I apologize. Shame in Renaissance literature, okay? And then you'll have this ⁓ contextualizing introduction where you might bring in a bit of Foucault and you might bring in various other theorists.Henry Oliver (45:23)Mm-hmm.Sure, sure,Jeffrey Lawrence (45:39)YouJulianne (45:52)But you will also go very, very deeply into, say, sermons, right, the sermon literature. And then you'll have five chapters. you know, one will be like Shakespeare play, and then maybe one will be Spencer. And then maybe one will be somebody, you know, more marginal or be Ben Johnson or there'll be Webster, you know. ⁓ And then you will put them, you know, this is the method of New Hizorizis. You'll put them beside legal documents and you'll put them beside sermons and you'll put them beside other very, very contextualized and often very well contextualized.works from the period. But you won't write a book that is like, you know, literature and shame, you know, across three centuries ⁓ that would then maybe potentially think about, you know, is there a fundamentally different way that drama versus the novel represent shame? Does this help us understand long range debates about interiority? And again, it's not that nobody ever does this. It's that the feelI feel English literature used to be more aligned over around these kind of shared long-term questions and debates and they're much less aligned around them now because of specialization and because of the sort of dynamic of know decline and and narrowing of prospects that Jeff has mentioned.Henry Oliver (47:11)A lot of people complain about the administrators, the way funding is done, the way you can only get funding for certain types of work, career structures, all these structural factors that make life either difficult as an academic or just force you into certain decisions and activities. ⁓ To what extent is writing on Substack actually going to be a beneficial solution?to get around those problems and to what extent is it just going to be a sort of useful addition and is going to be very stimulating for you all but might not, you know, might not actually change things. What's your sense of that?Jeffrey Lawrence (47:54)This was something I've thought about this a lot because I wrote for the Chronicle of Higher Education. think Julianne and I have both write or have written for the Chronicle and something that was on the public humanities and I very specifically this is 2022 or 2023 said like, sub stack is not going to be the solution. Partially and my point there was something that I still believe to a certain extent which is thatas someone who has worked in different public humanities ⁓ programs, as someone who knows to a certain degree the publishing industry in the US and Latin America and has done work on that, I think that it's hard to ⁓ exaggerate the degree to which funding for this type of research, it's just really expensive and the existing funding models that exist for something like Substack or I mean any other sort of ⁓platform economy, even public humanities projects, it's just really hard to do. So I'm much more in favor. So I think Substack is really important as a venue. I think that as a potential model for, you know, a sustainable model for doing academic scholarship, I see a lot more limitations. And that's why I've said, I mean, I think in some ways, if the types of conversations that happen on Substack,could be then imported back into our fields. Like, I don't think we should just destroy the institutions and get rid of these departments. I think that there needs to be a sort of infusion of these types of debates that are happening on Substack in the university, because the universities have funding, you know, have funding. And I think it's partially about fighting for that, this kind of holistic thing that we've been talking about up to this point.Julianne (49:49)Yeah, I completely agree. That's my view as well. I don't think that Substack's funding model would actually be good for scholarship. I'm not saying that you couldn't get a few people making it viable, but for a scholarship as a whole, I think it would be terrible for scholarship as a whole. At the same time, for the reasons we've been discussing here, we need to be talking with other people and not just with people in our subfield of a subfield of a subfield. And Substack is great for that.Henry Oliver (50:18)I sometimes think that if you can draw a distinction between scholarship and criticism, the academy can keep the scholarship and the criticism needs to come outside. You can all still write it, right? But it needs to be done in a way that is free of all the institutional incentives and constraints and just all that problem and you can all just be free to say other things online.Jeffrey Lawrence (50:43)I mean, just very quickly on that, I mean, I do think that in my personal case, because I came to Substack partially because I had a very bad experience with a kind of ⁓ a piece that I had pitched to like a venue that was, you know, sort of like progressive venue where I felt like I was saying things about contemporary author that everyone else was saying, right? It was a kind of public secret, a kind of critique of this writer.And I felt like it was not going to be published in any of those venues and in the Academy itself, that would be a problem. And not because this was something that even, you know, sort of ⁓ departed so much from things that people would say, but just because of kind of like the power structures. And since I've been on Substack, I've had multiple people, particularly with the first Substack piece that I wrote, but with other ones as well.Henry Oliver (51:11)Mmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (51:35)people in academia telling me, thank you for saying this. And also I'm reading your sub stack as an academic right now. But I also, do think that there remains, I mean, it's changing, but I do think that there's speaking of shame, like there are people who they're just not sure as graduate students.what they can say and what they can't say. And I think that's a real issue. So I agree, criticism is important, but even for scholarships too, I think that there need to be taboos that are broken in order for scholarship, as Julianne said, to kind of like return to that more sort of vibrant feel that it once had.Julianne (52:20)Yeah, I think that's right. Obviously those taboos are less present in my field than in yours because the contemporary stakes are much less clear. ⁓ And sometimes I'm jealous of people who work in the contemporary field because there are stakes. And then I hear things like what you just said and I'm no longer so jealous. But yeah, no, do think that...Henry Oliver (52:35)YouJeffrey Lawrence (52:35)YouJulianne (52:46)People, even beyond what you would think that they would plausibly need to be, people are very cautious and graduate students especially are very cautious and even having the example of people saying things publicly is incredibly important and helpful.Henry Oliver (53:02)It's interesting how many PhD students there are on Substack. There are several English literature PhD students and I find it amazing actually that they're writing a Substack ⁓ rather than writing something academic. This to me is a very clear signal of something is changing, right? Something important is changing.Jeffrey Lawrence (53:28)I would say it's pragmatic too. I mean, I don't think that there's any reason people shouldn't graduate students. I don't think that they necessarily need to have a substack, but I also, I just think that there's a kind of recognition that, you know, especially at this moment, mean, frankly, with a lot of this does have to do with the Trump administration and kind of the way that it's been directed very specifically at, you know, sort of the humanities andHenry Oliver (53:47)Mm-hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (53:53)So I do think that there's a kind of sense that the hiring isn't happening. And so it's like, well, why am I going to invest in this very small possibility of getting an, an academic job or even better yet, I'm going to build my own audience. I'm going to talk about these things because that's going to empower me at the moment in which I'm actually looking for jobs. So I, I, I'm like, I agree with you that I think it's just like, ⁓ it's a pretty astonishing thing.in the sense of the sort of initiative, but it also kind of makes sense given the world that exists.Julianne (54:30)Yeah, mean, you know, our graduate students are not.coming in, I'm sure yours are the same way, they're not coming in thinking they're going to get jobs ⁓ anymore. So they're coming in thinking, I have six years to build the kind of intellectual life to become the kind of writer and the kind of thinker that I want to be. And that's the priority, much more than anything sort of pragmatic about what they might do in terms of future career prospects, because most of them have absolutely no idea. It's much more about how can I find an intellectual community? How can I become the kindintellectual I want to be. And if academia is not going to be their home long term for that, it cannot be in academia. It has to be elsewhere. In addition, now that there are fewer conferences, journals, you know, are delayed by years. That was another thing that got me on Substack is I wrote a review.And I wrote the review as soon as I got the book. I wrote the review that I was asked to review. Then like, you know, six weeks, sent it back. ⁓ It took four years for the review to appear in that journal. And I was like, why, how can we possibly have a conversation when this journal has just been sitting on this copy edited review until they could find a slot for it in their, you know, in this day and age? How can that be the case? You know, so I think, you know, that's also part of what's going on.Henry Oliver (55:49)Yes.So are you running introduction to sub-stack classes for your graduate students? This is not yet, yes.Julianne (55:59)No, not yet, not yet.Jeffrey Lawrence (56:00)Yeah, yeah. I mean,interestingly, we had an event with Lincoln Michelle, who's a very popular at Rutgers, who's a very popular Substack writer. I mean, that was one of our, was a hugely well attended event. I mean, I do think, and it doesn't necessarily need to be just Substack, but I think public intellectual work, think graduate students and also undergraduates, they want to understand this because they know ⁓Henry Oliver (56:08)Mm-mm.Jeffrey Lawrence (56:29)precisely what Julianne said, that it's not gonna work for them to just stay in their lane and keep the blinders on and keep going. Even if they want a career in academia, they know that they need to be involved in these other things. so, I mean, to the extent that I think we can do that in our institutions and give them a sense of what's going on, I mean, definitely we're thinking about that at Rutgers.Henry Oliver (56:55)If the humanities goes into some sort of terminal decline and there are fewer departments and the student numbers never recover and all these blah blah blah, all these bad things, ⁓ does it matter?Julianne (57:08)Well, for what? mean...Jeffrey Lawrence (57:10)Ha ha.Henry Oliver (57:10)Well, because everyone talksabout it like, the humanities are dying, this is terrible. And I'm like, what's the problem? We had like English literature was the number one subject for undergraduates, and now it's not, right? What is the actual problem if the humanities are in this terminal decline? No, I get that it's all bad for you. Yeah, no, for all of you, of course, right? But like, what's the what's the actual problem here? Yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (57:27)You mean besides the jobs of, mean, because part of that, right, right, Yeah, for us. But for society.Henry Oliver (57:38)Obviously when someone doesn't have a job or can't get a job, like of course, of course. But can you give us a succinct explanation of why people who are not involved in it should care about the decline of the humanities or should recognize that it's something that we don't want to happen in some way?Julianne (57:56)I mean, I think the sort of simplest thing is that we still do have, it's fading, but we still do have some shared cultural literary heritage ⁓ or basis. Yeah, I don't use the word heritage since it's a kind of nationally charged word, but some kind of shared basis that allows us to talk with each other about literature. ⁓ And most of this, think, is predicated not on the university, but on the high school canon.Henry Oliver (58:11)Sure.Julianne (58:25)is an extension of that. So I think our number one thing should be the high school curriculum. ⁓ But then our number two thing should be ⁓ ensuring that people have some kind of foundation in, you know, a...as wide a range as we can give them of literary texts that they get in university because that is the basis of a shared literary culture. I don't think you get, you know, I don't think you get a wider literary culture where people can talk about things, ⁓ you know, like 18th century books or, you know, 19th or 20th century books across the world ⁓ without having some kind of institutional basis, having some kind of shared institutional structure that people have passed through. Otherwise, what you will get is people, you know, picking up thingsyou know, a bit here, a bit there. Some of them will be so unfamiliar that they will be put off by it. Some of them maybe won't. ⁓ But you won't get anything like a common culture. And for me, that's sort of intrinsically good. But there is also this kind of idealistic ⁓ democratic aspect to this that you got in the mid-20th century in the post-war expansion of higher education and also the expansion of public education. This idea that you would have a citizenship thatbe participating in intellectual, philosophical, and political culture at a very high level. I don't see how you get that without having some kind of shared institutional basis for it.Jeffrey Lawrence (59:50)Yeah, mean, would just, yeah, I think everything and then maybe the only like word that I would use that you didn't use there is just kind of like literacy. mean, cultural literacy, but actual literacy, because I do think that beyond the culture wars, like the one thing that I think I'd like across the political spectrum is that there is this sense that a certain ability to read and to engage in civic life is declining.⁓ And so, yeah, I mean, I think that reading all sorts of texts is important and having cultural literacy is important to having an informed citizenry. So that to me seems like the reason for doing it. But as Julianne says, and maybe this doesn't totally answer the question, because I do think some of these are perhaps like for us at the college level, it's a little bit downstream of these sort of.broader issues, which is one more reason I think that making the case about why we should care about literature is also on us. It shouldn't just be assumed, as you're saying, Henry, that because we want jobs that this is good for everyone. I think we need to make that case.Henry Oliver (1:01:05)Will you be making that case on Substack?Jeffrey Lawrence (1:01:09)Yeah, mean, don't know, I mean, I think, you know, sort of more and more, I do think that, you know, that we need to be doing this. I mean, for me, everything that's happened over the past couple of years, I think the way my sense of kind of like the failure of a certain liberal project after the Trump election, you know, last year was really important to me in saying there is a way that we're going about the assumptions that we have aboutHenry Oliver (1:01:10)HahahaJulianne (1:01:11)ThankJeffrey Lawrence (1:01:38)literacy and what we should be doing and the role of academic scholarship. I mean, that I feel like was a turning point, at least personally for me. And I think engaging in places like Substack, but just generally in like public culture, to me, seems like it's just like it is the one avenue that we have. So yes, I guess.Henry Oliver (1:02:00)If your colleagues are listening and you both want to say something to them to encourage them onto Substack, what would you say?Julianne (1:02:10)Jeff, your colleagues, ⁓ do they subscribe to your Substack? Because one of the things that has happened is at first nobody, you know, I told a couple friends, but nobody else knew about this. But now more and more members of my department have subscribed to my Substack, which feels like, which does make it feel sort of high stakes in a different way. Has that happened to you?Henry Oliver (1:02:28)YouJeffrey Lawrence (1:02:32)I'm still pretty under the radar. ⁓ I have some colleagues, I know that there's some graduate students who also read it, ⁓ I mean, and colleague is a small thing. I'm more like, you my colleagues, have a great relationship with my department. I talk to them and sort of, but I think it's more like colleagues in general in terms of the academy that is important.Right? mean, and it again, I don't think it necessarily has to be sub-stacked, but it just shouldn't be Twitter. mean, I think that the long form writing that one finds in the debates for me, at least this is where it's happening right now. And so that would be my pitch is that I just think that the debates that are happening are better than they are anywhere else on the internet.Henry Oliver (1:03:18)Thank you both. I thought this was very interesting and I hope it encourages more of your peers to come and join us on Substack This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Ep. 186 The dialectic is ultimately the engine of all Marxist and Hegelian thought and also underlies Fascism and the conflict between Fascism and Marxism. It is also fundamentally Sociological Alchemy, as the Soviets both knew and admitted. Based on Marx's ideas about dialectical materialism as the fundamental law of all of Nature, including Man, the Soviets outlined three key dialectical laws and taught them to every school child and party member. First, there is the transformation of quantity into quality, and vice-versa. Second, there is the struggle and unification of opposites. Third, there is the "negation of the negation," which most people know as "problem, reaction, solution" in practice. In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, host James Lindsay introduces these three dialectical laws of Marxist and Soviet thought and brings them alive for you while comparing them to the social alchemy of George Soros and the ancient wizardry that tried to turn lead into gold. Latest from New Discourses Press! The Queering of the American Child: https://queeringbook.com/ Support New Discourses: https://newdiscourses.com/support Follow New Discourses on other platforms: https://newdiscourses.com/subscribe Follow James Lindsay: https://linktr.ee/conceptualjames © 2025 New Discourses. All rights reserved. #NewDiscourses #JamesLindsay #alchemy
Geisinger Unfiltered – KWR0055 Kingdom War Room Description Hello, Remnant Warriors of the Most High God—welcome to a new edition of The Kingdom War Room with Dr. Michael Lake, Dr. Mike Spaulding, and Dr. Corby Shuey, featuring special guest Darren Geisinger (Geisinger Unfiltered). In this episode, we connect the dots between the accelerating digital ID push, the rise of AI-driven deception, and the unfolding architecture of a global control grid—the type of system Scripture warns will culminate in the Beast system. We also discuss how chaos is strategically leveraged to usher in "solutions," why believers must cultivate discernment, and why the ultimate anchor in the days ahead is Jesus Christ and the Gospel of the Kingdom. You'll also hear Darren share about Geisinger Unfiltered and his "fiction-faction" novel series Zero Gs, and we close with a strong call to Word-centered courage, Christian community, and unwavering faith as the day draws near. Timeline of Topics Discussed 00:00 – Welcome + introducing Darren Geisinger 02:05 – "Geisinger Unfiltered" mission + AI co-host "Glitchy McBoltface" 05:10 – Digital ID pressure, buy/sell control, and the enforcement grid 09:20 – Real ID / travel restrictions + incremental rollout strategy 12:10 – Crime, migration, and Hegelian problem–reaction–solution dynamics 16:05 – "Alien" narratives, deception, and testing public reaction 20:30 – Panspermia, evolution narratives, and Hollywood as predictive programming 26:10 – Chaos (Leviathan/Behemoth themes) and the Beast system framework 31:20 – Transhumanism, neural links, and curated "reality" through AI 36:15 – The line in the sand: discernment, bodily integrity, and refusal to compromise 40:05 – Bringing it back to the Gospel: only Jesus saves 43:00 – Hebrews 10 encouragement: hold fast, fellowship, real community 47:10 – AI as a tool vs. AI as a substitute "god" 52:00 – Deepfakes, manufactured evidence, and "controlled internet" outcomes 56:00 – Hope in Matthew 24: Gospel of the Kingdom preached + God's end-time strengthening 1:01:20 – Final exhortations: Word, prayer, discernment, and preparing the remnant 1:05:30 – Where to find Darren + closing remarks + ministry support info ✅ Watch / Listen Weekly: Kingdom Intelligence Briefing
We're joined by Hunter Hunt-Hendrix, composer, philosopher, and force behind Liturgy, whose concept of transcendental black metal has redrawn the boundaries between underground music and systematic thought. Her work operates in parallel registers: an experimental music practice that stands on its own terms, and a body of theory moving through theology, psychoanalysis, and philosophy. This episode goes deep into Hunter's provocation that the Byzantine tradition of Christianity (the Eastern lineage that lasted another thousand years after the Latin West began its trajectory toward secularism, science, and industry) might hold resources for navigating the current moment of structural collapse. We discuss the difference between the transcendental (conditions of possibility, historicized horizons, Hegelian self-relating negativity) and the transcendent (a higher realm of intelligibility that is actually, ontically, here), and why critical theory's allergy to the latter might be more ideological than rational. We also get into Hunter's framework for practice: tetraperichoresis, a fourfold structure involving integration (merging ancient and contemporary materials), coalescence (putting philosophy, music, and drama into positive feedback), irrigation (moving between institutional worlds and smashing them against each other), and catalysis (the messianic wager that everything you do could be hastening the Kingdom). References:Hunt-Hendrix, Hunter. "Byzantine Accelerationism: Towards a Universal Orthodox Christianity." Šum Journal #22 (2024).Hunt-Hendrix, Hunter. "Transcendental Black Metal: A Vision of Apocalyptic Humanism." Hideous Gnosis: Black Metal Theory Symposium I (2010).Liturgy, Origin of the Alimonies (2020) — the cosmogonical opera-album.Hunter Hunt-Hendrix's Substack — ongoing philosophical writing and the System of Transcendental Qabala.Katerina Kolozova, Cut of the Real: Subjectivity in Poststructuralist Philosophy (Columbia University Press, 2014).The Seven Ecumenical Councils of Eastern Christianity, particularly the Seventh Council on icon veneration (787 CE) and John of Damascus's theological defense.Maximus the Confessor's Ambigua — discussed in relation to eschatology and the idea that "true humanism has never been tried."Lacan's graph of desire — discussed in relation to masculine/feminine subject positions.The CCRU and chaos magic traditions — referenced in relation to esoteric practice and Nick Land.Sergei Bulgakov's Sophiology and the conception of the divine feminine.
The source material consists of a speaker's critical analysis of what they categorize as staged historical events or psychological operations (psyops), particularly focusing on the alleged shooting of Charlie Kirk. The speaker details a three-part media strategy supporting these events, encompassing predictive programming (content released long before the event), concurrent programming (content released at the time), and reinforcement (the media ecosystem validating the premise). Furthermore, the discussion transitions to critique the anti-geoengineering movement, which the speaker dismisses as controlled opposition designed to ensure both sides of the political spectrum agree on the fundamental premise of man-made global alteration. The speaker contends that these scripted events suggest that key public figures are merely scripted people playing pre-planned roles that stretch back decades. Ultimately, the speaker argues that the public's increasing inability to discern truth from sophisticated media fakery and AI-generated content is ushering in a "new dark age."The speaker focuses on analyzing major current events, such as the Charlie Kirk shooting, as staged historical events or psychological operations (psyops) that shape shared history. These simulated events are characterized by pervasive media saturation involving predictive, concurrent, and reinforcement programming. The South Park episode featuring a Charlie Kirk-esque character (Cartman/Clyde) falling off a chair to the left is cited as specific evidence of concurrent and predictive programming leading up to the alleged shooting event. The analysis extends to major public figures, referred to as "fake people" or scripted actors, whose roles are foreshadowed in prior media, suggesting they step into pre-planned scenarios (e.g., Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens).The speaker also critically analyzes the anti-geo-engineering movement (chemtrails), calling it intellectually dishonest and controlled opposition that serves as a tool of the "system". This movement, like climate change activism, results in the Hegelian dialectic working because both sides agree that man is destroying the planet.The central theme is the need for a paradigm shift to an "off-world stage perspective," where individuals adopt the premise of "fake until proven real" to counteract the rising tide of media fakery and AI-generated content, which threatens to usher in a "new dark age" characterized by visual illiteracy.Staged Events and Predictive Programming: Significant headline-grabbing events are considered simulated events (psyops or hoaxes) that are often scheduled and planned in advance, with scripts potentially existing 20 years ago or longer. The planning of these events is evidenced by the existence of predictive, concurrent, and reinforcement programming across media ecosystems, blurring the lines between nonfiction and fiction.The South Park Example: The South Park episode featuring a Charlie Kirk character being knocked off a chair to the left is highlighted as a conspicuous example of concurrent and predictive programming, elevating Charlie Kirk's profile just in time for the staged event and possibly foreshadowing his alleged fate. The association of this character with Cartman is noted as potentially representing how "the left characterizes the right". he event. And that'd be under concurrent programming.""And I'm suggesting that maybe the whole thing about political theater and politics in general is just a steam valve to give the masses an illusion of control.""It turns out all of the conspiracies of Trutherville, if they're popular conspiracies, they're fake. These are part of a meta conspiracy.""If you haven't made that paradigm shift already, you're gonna fall into this new dark age."
Get Jon's book "End of the World: Civilization and Its Fate": https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/end-of-the-world-9781538189016/_______________ Dr Jon Mills is a philosopher-psychoanalyst and Honorary Professor at the University of Essex, whose work bridges Hegelian philosophy, psychoanalytic theory, and contemporary existential threats facing civilisation. With over 35 books to his name—including five Gradiva Award winners—Jon has spent decades developing what he calls “dialectical psychoanalysis,” a rigorous philosophical framework for understanding the unconscious mind. His latest work, which we're discussing in this episode, confronts an uncomfortable question: does humanity possess a collective death drive that propels us towards self-destruction?_______________ You can find Jon's work at:Website: https://www.philosophypsychoanalysis.comPublications: https://www.philosophypsychoanalysis.com/academics-psychoanalysis-philosophy_______________In this conversation, I sit down with Jon to explore the darkest questions about our species' future. We examine whether humanity harbours a death wish, diving into the multiple existential crises threatening civilisation—climate change, nuclear weapons, AI risks, geopolitical conflict, and overpopulation/demographic collapse. Jon brings his formidable philosophical toolkit to bear on these challenges, drawing from Hegel, Freud, and his own dialectical framework to understand how good and evil operate simultaneously in human affairs. We debate techno-optimism versus existential pessimism, explore the psychology behind apocalyptic thinking, and we talk about my previous episode on secular eschatology and we discuss what that reveals about our relationship with mortality. We're left with the question of whether our species can transcend its self-destructive patterns or whether we're inexorably drawn towards catastrophe._______________⏳Timestamps00:00 James's Intro01:21 Claude AI's intro to Jon02:16 Jon's prolific output02:59 Does humanity have a death wish?04:13 The collective forces at play05:57 Collective and the collective unconscious09:03 What we mean by humanity - metaphor or reality?11:03 The crises facing humanity today12:25 What Jon wanted to achieve with the book15:45 Universal pessimism?19:41 James on demographic collapse23:29 Poverty decline globally25:21 Optimism on climate26:09 China and the Thucydides Trap27:45 James on AI concerns28:16 Negative trends in prejudice and freedom31:03 The psychology of the Thucydides Trap34:35 Good and evil are operative at once36:43 James's secular eschatology thesis41:45 Why are most apocalypse predictions Western?43:26 Apocalypse as death-cope44:39 Apocalypse as unmet need gone rotten?45:35 Jon's relationship with death48:18 Jon's guest recommendation: Michael Montgomery
South Park Charlie Kirk Predictive ProgrammingThe source material consists of a speaker's critical analysis of what they categorize as staged historical events or psychological operations (psyops), particularly focusing on the alleged shooting of Charlie Kirk. The speaker details a three-part media strategy supporting these events, encompassing predictive programming (content released long before the event), concurrent programming (content released at the time), and reinforcement (the media ecosystem validating the premise). Furthermore, the discussion transitions to critique the anti-geoengineering movement, which the speaker dismisses as controlled opposition designed to ensure both sides of the political spectrum agree on the fundamental premise of man-made global alteration. The speaker contends that these scripted events suggest that key public figures are merely scripted people playing pre-planned roles that stretch back decades. Ultimately, the speaker argues that the public's increasing inability to discern truth from sophisticated media fakery and AI-generated content is ushering in a "new dark age."SynopsisThe speaker focuses on analyzing major current events, such as the Charlie Kirk shooting, as staged historical events or psychological operations (psyops) that shape shared history. These simulated events are characterized by pervasive media saturation involving predictive, concurrent, and reinforcement programming. The South Park episode featuring a Charlie Kirk-esque character (Cartman/Clyde) falling off a chair to the left is cited as specific evidence of concurrent and predictive programming leading up to the alleged shooting event. The analysis extends to major public figures, referred to as "fake people" or scripted actors, whose roles are foreshadowed in prior media, suggesting they step into pre-planned scenarios (e.g., Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens).The speaker also critically analyzes the anti-geo-engineering movement (chemtrails), calling it intellectually dishonest and controlled opposition that serves as a tool of the "system". This movement, like climate change activism, results in the Hegelian dialectic working because both sides agree that man is destroying the planet.The central theme is the need for a paradigm shift to an "off-world stage perspective," where individuals adopt the premise of "fake until proven real" to counteract the rising tide of media fakery and AI-generated content, which threatens to usher in a "new dark age" characterized by visual illiteracy.5 Talking PointsStaged Events and Predictive Programming: Significant headline-grabbing events are considered simulated events (psyops or hoaxes) that are often scheduled and planned in advance, with scripts potentially existing 20 years ago or longer. The planning of these events is evidenced by the existence of predictive, concurrent, and reinforcement programming across media ecosystems, blurring the lines between nonfiction and fiction.The South Park Example: The South Park episode featuring a Charlie Kirk character being knocked off a chair to the left is highlighted as a conspicuous example of concurrent and predictive programming, elevating Charlie Kirk's profile just in time for the staged event and possibly foreshadowing his alleged fate. The association of this character with Cartman is noted as potentially representing how "the left characterizes the right".Controlled Opposition in Conspiracy Culture: Movements like anti-geo-engineering (chemtrails) are viewed as controlled opposition or a "litmus test" for gullibility, designed to provide the right wing with a political framework, ultimately aligning with the mainstream climate change narrative that "man is destroying the planet". The speaker argues that these popular conspiracy theories are generally fake and political, serving to misdirect those who stray from the mainstream.Fake People and Scripted Roles: Many individuals on the world stage are considered "scripted people" or "plants" who are playing roles in a reality TV show that is an "alternate reality game" inviting audience participation. Figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk were allegedly foreshadowed in predictive content, suggesting they stepped into pre-existing roles. The activities of people associated with Charlie Kirk (e.g., Erica Kirk, Candace Owens, J.D. Vance) are seen as part of the overall scripted scenario.Combating Visual Illiteracy in the Age of AI: Due to the advancing sophistication of media fakery and AI agents influencing public opinion, relying on visuals to deconstruct a fake event is no longer reliable, necessitating a paradigm shift. Adopting the mindset of "fake until proven real" is crucial to avoid falling into a new dark age of visual illiteracy and remaining susceptible to psychological operations and emotional manipulation.5 Quotes"These are simulated events with significance in terms of our shared history. These are world
Tiananmen Square, the Unmasking of Communism, and Karl Marx's Hegelian Roots Professor Sean McMeekin Professor Sean McMeekin's book, To Overthrow the World: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Communism, begins with the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989 as the "tearing off of the mask" of communism, revealing raw force and brutality. The discussion traces communism back to Karl Marx, noting that he was a Hegelian who drew from Hegel the idea of history as a product of "incessant struggle," which Marx reduced to class struggle between oppressors and oppressed. Marx's theory, described as an "abstract word game" and a "philosophical project," posited that history would inevitably simplify into a "binary dialectical cataclysm" between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
JT's Mix Tape Episode 54 UncensoredBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/jt-s-mix-tape--6579902/support.Please support our sponsor Modern Roots Life: https://modernrootslife.com/?bg_ref=rVWsBoOfcFJESUS SAID THERE WOULD BE HATERS Shirts: https://jtfollowsjc.com/product-category/mens-shirts/WOMEN'S SHIRTS: https://jtfollowsjc.com/product-category/womens-shirts/
Key Quotes from the Speaker (Host Tim)On media and history manipulation: "The more we get into history bending, the more we go down the psy op by psy op and break it down in terms of the propaganda content, who's involved, how it connects to other projects, the more I'm confident that we're making some serious progress here to making the case that our history is being proactively manufactured and performed in front of us so we can internalize it."On AI and art: "I feel the same way about AI art. In fact, if anything, it's enhanced what I do. I look at the thumbnails. Look at everything I'm everything I send out, AI art. It doesn't stop me from doing the real stuff, but oftentimes, I use it for composition, for ideas."On chemtrails as misinformation: "Chemtrails don't exist... To be a chemtrail believer is to also have this scapegoat that the government's destroying the climate. Whereas on the left, they say the climate's being destroyed by capitalism and by the right wingers. So anyway, if you wanna get yourself caught up in a Hegelian dialectic where you agree with the other side but you disagree on whose fault it is, be my guest."On media fakery and discernment: "We've been hoodwinked. So you can no longer rely on your own senses to navigate this. We're basically blindfolded, hoodwinked. The wool's been pulled over our eyes. That's what generative AI has has become."On religions and psyops: "All the religions serve as a subset of government just like Hollywood and media does... We might be looking at some kind of psyop Armageddon at some point in the future."Bullet Point Topics Alien Invasion as AI: Theorizes alien narratives condition for AI takeover; ties to Tucker/Candace claims of demonic AI/aliens.Religious Cults and Eschatology: Discusses Raelians, Heaven's Gate, Solar Temple; links to AI utopias (e.g., Grimes on communism); Saturn iconography in media.9/11 Echoes in Recent Events: Connects Dick Cheney's death, UPS plane crash (9/11-coded), NYC mayor resembling bin Laden, anthrax-like incidents, FAA groundings.Charlie Kirk Psyop: Analyzes as new JFK, Americana's death, Turner Diaries parallels; ties to Erica Kirk's roles and predictive programming.Demonic Trends: Notes "demons are real" push by Can
Courtenay Turner is an American podcaster, author, aerial acrobatic performer, and anti-technocracy activist known as a “Congenital Rubella Warrior” who overcame partial blindness, hearing loss, and childhood open-heart surgery to champion cognitive liberty and resistance to global control systems. Launched during the 2020 lockdowns, the Courtenay Turner Podcast features deep-dive conversations on occult geopolitics, Hegelian dialectics, biodigital convergence, and AI surveillance. Tickets to Cornerstone Forum 26': https://www.showpass.com/cornerstone26/Tickets to the Mashspiel:https://www.showpass.com/mashspiel/Silver Gold Bull Links:Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/Email: SNP@silvergoldbull.comText Grahame: (587) 441-9100Bow Valley Credit UnionBitcoin: www.bowvalleycu.com/en/personal/investing-wealth/bitcoin-gatewayEmail: welcome@BowValleycu.com Use the code “SNP” on all ordersProphet River Links:Website: store.prophetriver.com/Email: SNP@prophetriver.comGet your voice heard: Text Shaun 587-217-8500
Join Pastor Lucas Miles as he continues his series on “The Pagan Threat.” In this powerful message, Pastor Lucas clarifies that the threat is not individual pagans, but the broader effort to replace the Christian Gospel in society with alternative ideologies rooted in secularism and Marxism. He explains how these movements often use the Hegelian dialectic to introduce radical ideas under more socially acceptable terms, ultimately seeking to erode the foundations of biblical truth. Drawing from Scripture, including the account of the Tower of Babel, Pastor Lucas explores the spiritual and historical roots of humanity's rebellion against God and warns against the rise of self-deification—when individuals place themselves in the position of God, defining morality and truth on their own terms.Pastor Lucas also exposes how “soft paganism” has subtly crept into the modern church, through practices like the Enneagram and through attitudes that judge others in ways that only God can. Throughout the message, Pastor Lucas addresses three major challenges facing Christians today: doubts about the goodness of God, the church's role in justice, and the exclusivity of Christianity. He explains that questioning God's goodness lies at the heart of rebellion, that the failures of the church do not invalidate the truth of the Gospel, and that salvation is found only in Jesus—yet God's love is revealed in giving humanity the dignity of choice.Key Themes:The real “Pagan Threat"The use of the Hegelian dialecticRebellion and self-deification“Soft paganism” in the modern churchDoubting God's goodnessThe church's role in justiceThe exclusivity of ChristThe call to discernment and truthTimestamps:01:22 - What is the Pagan Threat?02:11 - Marxism, Hegelian Dialectic, and Cultural Shifts04:36 - Tower of Babel & Rebellion Against God07:20 - Cancel Culture and the “Hive Brain”08:23 - Self-Deification and Worship of Self09:31 - Soft Paganism in the Church11:09 - The Enneagram and Occult Influences13:12 - Why Deception is So Effective14:01 - Three Main Challenges to Faith15:36 - Doubting the Goodness of God18:54 - The Problem of Evil & God's Character22:41 - The Church's Role in Justice28:09 - The Exclusivity of Christianity51:42 - Closing Prayer & Invitation
Join Pastor Lucas Miles as he continues his series on “The Pagan Threat.” In this powerful message, Pastor Lucas clarifies that the threat is not individual pagans, but the broader effort to replace the Christian Gospel in society with alternative ideologies rooted in secularism and Marxism. He explains how these movements often use the Hegelian dialectic to introduce radical ideas under more socially acceptable terms, ultimately seeking to erode the foundations of biblical truth. Drawing from Scripture, including the account of the Tower of Babel, Pastor Lucas explores the spiritual and historical roots of humanity's rebellion against God and warns against the rise of self-deification—when individuals place themselves in the position of God, defining morality and truth on their own terms.Pastor Lucas also exposes how “soft paganism” has subtly crept into the modern church, through practices like the Enneagram and through attitudes that judge others in ways that only God can. Throughout the message, Pastor Lucas addresses three major challenges facing Christians today: doubts about the goodness of God, the church's role in justice, and the exclusivity of Christianity. He explains that questioning God's goodness lies at the heart of rebellion, that the failures of the church do not invalidate the truth of the Gospel, and that salvation is found only in Jesus—yet God's love is revealed in giving humanity the dignity of choice.Key Themes:The real “Pagan Threat"The use of the Hegelian dialecticRebellion and self-deification“Soft paganism” in the modern churchDoubting God's goodnessThe church's role in justiceThe exclusivity of ChristThe call to discernment and truthTimestamps:01:22 - What is the Pagan Threat?02:11 - Marxism, Hegelian Dialectic, and Cultural Shifts04:36 - Tower of Babel & Rebellion Against God07:20 - Cancel Culture and the “Hive Brain”08:23 - Self-Deification and Worship of Self09:31 - Soft Paganism in the Church11:09 - The Enneagram and Occult Influences13:12 - Why Deception is So Effective14:01 - Three Main Challenges to Faith15:36 - Doubting the Goodness of God18:54 - The Problem of Evil & God's Character22:41 - The Church's Role in Justice28:09 - The Exclusivity of Christianity51:42 - Closing Prayer & Invitation
“You become what you pretend to be, so be careful what you pretend to be.” — Jean-Paul SartreIn The Great Patriotic Heist, I argued that the American Left has begun performing patriotism — not feeling it, performing it. The same institutions that once mocked the flag now wrap themselves in it, speaking solemnly about “our Republic” and “the unfinished promise of 1776.” It's not rediscovered affection — it's narrative survival. The populist Right took the flag hostage, so the only way to reclaim it was to start waving their own. My warning then was simple: performance has a half-life. It either collapses or becomes real.This episode is about what happens if it becomes real — if people pretending to love America start actually loving it. Here, pretending isn't lying — it's creation. We perform ideals until they exist. We said “all men are created equal” long before we believed it, and through repetition made it partly true. America evolves not through honesty but rehearsal.Sartre called it “bad faith.” Not hypocrisy, but self-entrapment — when you play a role so long you forget it's a choice. America's moral managers — experts, editors, educators — now perform patriotism because they know you can't govern people who think you hate their country. But repetition changes people. Roles have gravity. Pretending shapes the pretender.What happens when actors start believing their own script? When “freedom,” “democracy,” and “the Republic” stop being props and start being convictions again? Maybe the costume fuses to the skin. Maybe the same Left that once saw America as villain becomes its strictest guardian. That fusion could create something new — not the populist Right's raw nationalism nor the technocratic Left's therapy-state, but a hybrid: moral nationalism wrapped in empathy, managed through control.That's the Hegelian rhythm — thesis, antithesis, synthesis. The thesis was neoliberal order: global, expert, moralized. The antithesis was populism — Left and Right fusing in rebellion. For a moment, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump spoke the same language of revolt: different grammar, same fury. That was synthesis one — populism as authenticity, revolt against curated virtue.But populism became self-aware. Its anger turned ritual, its authenticity cosplay. MAGA became fandom. Once authenticity becomes aesthetic, the establishment knows how to sell it back. Enter synthesis two: Progressive Patriotism — focus-grouped, diverse, emotionally ergonomic. Patriotism as lifestyle brand.It looks real, sounds real, even feels real — but it's patriotic the way a corporate mission statement is heartfelt. Still, America's hunger for sincerity is so deep even simulation can work. If enough people perform belief, it becomes belief.Picture 2026 — the 250th anniversary. “America 250” events: diverse, polished, professional. Fireworks with spoken-word poetry. Speeches about freedom delivered like mindfulness apps. It'll be immaculate — and in some way, it might succeed. Millions will feel pride, gratitude, even tears. The performance may cross into faith.And when belief hardens, rebellion returns. Every orthodoxy breeds heresy. Somewhere, a younger generation is already rolling its eyes at both MAGA's nostalgia and the Left's choreography. They'll want danger, not safety; truth, not optics. Their patriotism, if it exists, will be quiet, personal, unbranded.That's the American cycle: imitation becomes belief, belief institution, and institutions rebellion's target. Each generation pretends until the mask becomes its face — then rips it off.Maybe progressive patriotism sticks. Maybe the country becomes gentler, managerial, moralistic — a nation of caretakers with flags. But someone will always stand up, roll their eyes, and say “enough.”Because America's soul belongs to the unmanageable — the ones who stop pretending.And that, in the end, was Sartre's warning: the danger isn't pretending. It's when the pretending works.
Absolute Ethical Life: Aristotle, Hegel and Marx by Michael Lazarus Karl Marx gave us not just a critique of the political economy of capital but a way of confronting the impoverished ethical quality of life we face under capitalism. Interpreting Marx anew as an ethical thinker, Absolute Ethical Life provides crucial resources for understanding how freedom and rational agency are impacted by a social world formed by value under capitalism, with consequences for philosophy today. Michael Lazarus situates Marx within a shared tradition of ethical inquiry, placing him in close dialogue with Aristotle and Hegel. Lazarus traces the ethical and political dimensions of Marx's work missed by Hannah Arendt and Alasdair MacIntyre, two of the most profound critics of modern politics and ethics. Ultimately, the book claims that Marx's value-form theory is both a continuation of Aristotelian and Hegelian themes and at the same time his most distinctive theoretical achievement. In this normative interpretation of Marx, Lazarus integrates recent moral philosophy with a historically specific analysis of capitalism as a social form of life. He challenges contemporary political and economic theory to insist that any conception of modern life needs to account for capitalism. With a robust critique of capitalism derived from the determinations of what Marx calls the "form of value," Lazarus argues for an ethical life beyond capital. Michael Lazarus is a Lecturer in Political Theory in the Department of Political Economy. Before coming to King's College London, he was Deakin University Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Alfred Deakin Institute and a visiting Postdoctoral Fellow at Yale University. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/a48266/videos 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
Absolute Ethical Life: Aristotle, Hegel and Marx by Michael Lazarus Karl Marx gave us not just a critique of the political economy of capital but a way of confronting the impoverished ethical quality of life we face under capitalism. Interpreting Marx anew as an ethical thinker, Absolute Ethical Life provides crucial resources for understanding how freedom and rational agency are impacted by a social world formed by value under capitalism, with consequences for philosophy today. Michael Lazarus situates Marx within a shared tradition of ethical inquiry, placing him in close dialogue with Aristotle and Hegel. Lazarus traces the ethical and political dimensions of Marx's work missed by Hannah Arendt and Alasdair MacIntyre, two of the most profound critics of modern politics and ethics. Ultimately, the book claims that Marx's value-form theory is both a continuation of Aristotelian and Hegelian themes and at the same time his most distinctive theoretical achievement. In this normative interpretation of Marx, Lazarus integrates recent moral philosophy with a historically specific analysis of capitalism as a social form of life. He challenges contemporary political and economic theory to insist that any conception of modern life needs to account for capitalism. With a robust critique of capitalism derived from the determinations of what Marx calls the "form of value," Lazarus argues for an ethical life beyond capital. Michael Lazarus is a Lecturer in Political Theory in the Department of Political Economy. Before coming to King's College London, he was Deakin University Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Alfred Deakin Institute and a visiting Postdoctoral Fellow at Yale University. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/a48266/videos Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science
Absolute Ethical Life: Aristotle, Hegel and Marx by Michael Lazarus Karl Marx gave us not just a critique of the political economy of capital but a way of confronting the impoverished ethical quality of life we face under capitalism. Interpreting Marx anew as an ethical thinker, Absolute Ethical Life provides crucial resources for understanding how freedom and rational agency are impacted by a social world formed by value under capitalism, with consequences for philosophy today. Michael Lazarus situates Marx within a shared tradition of ethical inquiry, placing him in close dialogue with Aristotle and Hegel. Lazarus traces the ethical and political dimensions of Marx's work missed by Hannah Arendt and Alasdair MacIntyre, two of the most profound critics of modern politics and ethics. Ultimately, the book claims that Marx's value-form theory is both a continuation of Aristotelian and Hegelian themes and at the same time his most distinctive theoretical achievement. In this normative interpretation of Marx, Lazarus integrates recent moral philosophy with a historically specific analysis of capitalism as a social form of life. He challenges contemporary political and economic theory to insist that any conception of modern life needs to account for capitalism. With a robust critique of capitalism derived from the determinations of what Marx calls the "form of value," Lazarus argues for an ethical life beyond capital. Michael Lazarus is a Lecturer in Political Theory in the Department of Political Economy. Before coming to King's College London, he was Deakin University Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Alfred Deakin Institute and a visiting Postdoctoral Fellow at Yale University. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/a48266/videos Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory
Absolute Ethical Life: Aristotle, Hegel and Marx by Michael Lazarus Karl Marx gave us not just a critique of the political economy of capital but a way of confronting the impoverished ethical quality of life we face under capitalism. Interpreting Marx anew as an ethical thinker, Absolute Ethical Life provides crucial resources for understanding how freedom and rational agency are impacted by a social world formed by value under capitalism, with consequences for philosophy today. Michael Lazarus situates Marx within a shared tradition of ethical inquiry, placing him in close dialogue with Aristotle and Hegel. Lazarus traces the ethical and political dimensions of Marx's work missed by Hannah Arendt and Alasdair MacIntyre, two of the most profound critics of modern politics and ethics. Ultimately, the book claims that Marx's value-form theory is both a continuation of Aristotelian and Hegelian themes and at the same time his most distinctive theoretical achievement. In this normative interpretation of Marx, Lazarus integrates recent moral philosophy with a historically specific analysis of capitalism as a social form of life. He challenges contemporary political and economic theory to insist that any conception of modern life needs to account for capitalism. With a robust critique of capitalism derived from the determinations of what Marx calls the "form of value," Lazarus argues for an ethical life beyond capital. Michael Lazarus is a Lecturer in Political Theory in the Department of Political Economy. Before coming to King's College London, he was Deakin University Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Alfred Deakin Institute and a visiting Postdoctoral Fellow at Yale University. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/a48266/videos Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history
Absolute Ethical Life: Aristotle, Hegel and Marx by Michael Lazarus Karl Marx gave us not just a critique of the political economy of capital but a way of confronting the impoverished ethical quality of life we face under capitalism. Interpreting Marx anew as an ethical thinker, Absolute Ethical Life provides crucial resources for understanding how freedom and rational agency are impacted by a social world formed by value under capitalism, with consequences for philosophy today. Michael Lazarus situates Marx within a shared tradition of ethical inquiry, placing him in close dialogue with Aristotle and Hegel. Lazarus traces the ethical and political dimensions of Marx's work missed by Hannah Arendt and Alasdair MacIntyre, two of the most profound critics of modern politics and ethics. Ultimately, the book claims that Marx's value-form theory is both a continuation of Aristotelian and Hegelian themes and at the same time his most distinctive theoretical achievement. In this normative interpretation of Marx, Lazarus integrates recent moral philosophy with a historically specific analysis of capitalism as a social form of life. He challenges contemporary political and economic theory to insist that any conception of modern life needs to account for capitalism. With a robust critique of capitalism derived from the determinations of what Marx calls the "form of value," Lazarus argues for an ethical life beyond capital. Michael Lazarus is a Lecturer in Political Theory in the Department of Political Economy. Before coming to King's College London, he was Deakin University Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Alfred Deakin Institute and a visiting Postdoctoral Fellow at Yale University. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/a48266/videos 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
The Real Reason America Is Turning from God with Pastor Lucas MilesEpisode Description:In this powerful continuation of The Pagan Threat series, Pastor Lucas Miles unpacks how the Hegelian dialectic—thesis, antithesis, and synthesis—has become the engine driving America's moral and cultural drift.From the shift away from a constitutional republic to the erosion of biblical values, Lucas exposes how conflict is strategically manufactured to advance ideological change. He explains how this same dialectic now shapes conversations around marriage, gender, government, and even the church itself.Lucas confronts the rise of modern paganism and goddess worship, showing how ancient spirits of rebellion—Asherah, Diana, and Gaia—have reemerged in pop culture and progressive spirituality. Drawing from Scripture and history, he traces the spiritual roots of feminism, socialism, and radical environmentalism, connecting them to a single global agenda: to replace God with man-made utopia.You'll also hear Lucas explain the “master-slave dialectic” and how it fuels identity politics, feminism, and digital idolatry—from the sexual revolution to the rise of OnlyFans. His message is clear: every attempt to find identity apart from Christ leads to bondage.
The Real Reason America Is Turning from God with Pastor Lucas MilesEpisode Description:In this powerful continuation of The Pagan Threat series, Pastor Lucas Miles unpacks how the Hegelian dialectic—thesis, antithesis, and synthesis—has become the engine driving America's moral and cultural drift.From the shift away from a constitutional republic to the erosion of biblical values, Lucas exposes how conflict is strategically manufactured to advance ideological change. He explains how this same dialectic now shapes conversations around marriage, gender, government, and even the church itself.Lucas confronts the rise of modern paganism and goddess worship, showing how ancient spirits of rebellion—Asherah, Diana, and Gaia—have reemerged in pop culture and progressive spirituality. Drawing from Scripture and history, he traces the spiritual roots of feminism, socialism, and radical environmentalism, connecting them to a single global agenda: to replace God with man-made utopia.You'll also hear Lucas explain the “master-slave dialectic” and how it fuels identity politics, feminism, and digital idolatry—from the sexual revolution to the rise of OnlyFans. His message is clear: every attempt to find identity apart from Christ leads to bondage.
In this eye-opening message, Pastor Lucas Miles reveals how the modern progressive agenda—transhumanism, gender ideology, radical feminism, and even environmentalism—are all fueled by the same ancient, spiritual deception.Drawing from Hegel, Marx, and early feminist thought, Pastor Lucas traces the philosophical and theological roots of today's cultural revolution—showing how a Marxist-pagan worldview seeks to dethrone God and make humanity its own god.Through biblical insight and historical clarity, he contrasts this counterfeit “utopia” with the true hope of the Gospel: that only Christ's return can make all things new.
In this eye-opening message, Pastor Lucas Miles reveals how the modern progressive agenda—transhumanism, gender ideology, radical feminism, and even environmentalism—are all fueled by the same ancient, spiritual deception.Drawing from Hegel, Marx, and early feminist thought, Pastor Lucas traces the philosophical and theological roots of today's cultural revolution—showing how a Marxist-pagan worldview seeks to dethrone God and make humanity its own god.Through biblical insight and historical clarity, he contrasts this counterfeit “utopia” with the true hope of the Gospel: that only Christ's return can make all things new.
Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future By: Dan Wang Published: 2025 288 Pages Briefly, what is this book about? The rise of China's immense manufacturing prowess, where it comes from (a culture of engineering according to Want), and where it might be going. What's the author's angle? Wang has been putting out a well regarded annual letter on China for many years now. This is a distillation of his thoughts in book form. Also he has Chinese parents who often regret leaving China when they did. Who should read this book? If you're at all interested in what's happening with China you should absolutely read this book. Specific thoughts: Which theory of China is correct?
This week, Jason and Matt welcome back a guest who has been on the front lines of the battle for police accountability for years—David, better known as San Joaquin Valley Transparency. Four years after his last appearance, we sit down to discuss the evolving landscape of citizen journalism and the ever-expanding police state under the current administration. The conversation kicks off with a dive deep into the political hypocrisy of the last few years, exploring how the right's brief awakening to the police state during COVID has evaporated, and how both political parties simply trade outrage-jerseys depending on who controls the White House. David gives us a crucial on-the-ground perspective from his community on the real-world impact of the recent ICE raids, cutting through the national media narrative. The discussion expands from the visible police on the street to the invisible digital panopticon of companies like Palantir, and we explore the chilling theory of a Hegelian dialectic—asking if social chaos is being deliberately engineered to make a frightened public beg for more control. David's evolution from a street-level auditor to an activist seeking systemic change at city council meetings is a powerful lesson in effective resistance. Despite the heavy subject matter, we close on a much-needed white pill for the future of liberty. (Length: 57:36) Donate/Subscribe to TFTP: https://tftpsubdomain.wpengine.com/tftp-membership/ His website: https://watch.recordthepolice.tv/ His YT Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_8tJst6X5fx6dUXuuXdl9w His IG: https://www.instagram.com/official_san_joaquin_?igsh=MTc4MmM1YmI2Ng== His FB: https://www.facebook.com/sjvtkern01/ His X: https://x.com/sjvtkern
Phoenix symbolism/occult roots, Game B/Dark Enlightenment dialectic, influences (Thiel, Yarvin, Land, Hall), tokenization/technofudalism, theobros/dominionism, and Hegelian dialectic book. During our podcast break, enjoy this replay of Courtenay's presentation for the Rising Tide Foundation with host Matthew Ehret from July 2025. Key topics: Phoenix symbolism: Alchemical/occult roots (solve et coagula), ties to Rosicrucians, and modern "Phoenixing the Republic" (Brett Weinstein). Dialectic: Game B (decentralized theosophical utopia) vs. Dark Enlightenment (authoritarian technocracy), both advancing noosphere/singularity. Influences: Peter Thiel's Prospera, Curtis Yarvin's gov corp, Nick Land's accelerationism, Jordan Hall's civium, and third-way politics. Tokenization: Fractal ownership, tokenized economy, and technofudalism as control mechanisms. Theobros: Christian nationalism, dominionism, and subverting the Constitution with divine mandate. Read Courtenay's “The Phoenix Conspiracy”: Read (Sneak-peek) Courtenay's book: Share Courtenay's Substack Follow and Connect with Matthew Ehret:
2020 awakening, Frankfurt/Tavistock infiltration, Hegelian dialectics/Game B/technocracy, occult influences, spirituality in research, and resisting authoritarian "woke right" tactics. During our podcast break, enjoy this replay of Courtenay's appearance on Occult Symbolism & Pop Culture with host Isaac Weishaupt from June 2025. Key topics: Courtenay's awakening in 2020: From entertainment/fitness to podcasting amid COVID isolation, influenced by personal challenges (hearing impairment, family dynamics). Frankfurt School/Tavistock infiltration: Psychological/philosophical roots in culture, education, and politics for social engineering. Dark Enlightenment: Hegelian dialectics as gnostic Jacob's Ladder, Game B vs. technocracy, occult influences (e.g., Julius Evola, Nick Land), and Courtenay's book on dialectics as control machinery. Spirituality and research: How occult/esoteric studies reinforced Christian faith amid conspiracy explorations. Cultural tactics: Victim mentality, propaganda, and resisting authoritarianism in "woke right" movements. Read Courtenay's Articles: Hegel's Dialectic, a Gnostic Jacob's Ladder & the Machinery of Control The Phoenix Conspiracy Technological Age of Aquarius: Third Way Dream or Digital Dystopia? Follow and Connect with Issac Weishaupt:
Send us a textWelcome back to the team room, where Peaches, Aaron, and Trent torch fake professionalism, internet tough guys, and the circus that is LinkedIn. This episode takes a dark turn into the assassination of Charlie Kirk—why it matters, how it changes the political landscape, and what comes next when the “moderate” is taken out. The crew doesn't hold back on cancel culture, the broken rules of engagement online, and why political violence isn't a dial—it's a switch. If you thought free speech was safe, buckle up. This one's raw, unfiltered, and guaranteed to make someone rage in the comments.⏱️ Timestamps: 00:00 – Why Special Warfare selection is about raw materials, not finish lines 01:00 – LinkedIn: the dumpster fire of fake leadership bios 06:00 – Social media DMs and bar-fight energy 09:30 – Cancel culture and communication breakdowns 11:20 – The Charlie Kirk assassination: what it means and why it matters 15:30 – Pendulum swings: from 9/11 to Patriot Act 2.0 19:40 – Freedom vs. security: the Hegelian trap 22:00 – Doxxing, databases, and the cancel wars heating up 28:00 – Violence as a “dial” vs. a “switch” 36:30 – How mainstream media radicalizes both sides 42:00 – Gaslighting, rhetoric, and the no-middle-ground problem 44:15 – Members-only continuation and Nashville OTS plug
Today we're unpacking every conspiracy theory around the Charlie Kirk assassination. We'll discuss what the mechanics of the Hegelian Dialect is and how it's being executed today. We'll talk about Jimmy Kimmel being cancelled, Epstein Files coverup, the Blue and Whites, occult symbolism of Astrology and Tarot, Hierophant card, Vav in Kabbalah, summoning the antichrist, Saturn death cults, Dion Fortune, Steve Jackson's Illuminati card predictive programming, Tyler Robinson conspiracies, Peter Thiel and the public execution ritual. LINKS: Check out Isaac's Occult Symbolism and Pop Culture episode on Kirk and the King Kill 33 assassination: https://illuminatiwatcher.com/charlie-kirk-shooting-king-kill-33-freemasonry-witchcraft-and-occult-rituals-bonus/ FULL SHOW NOW UP AD-FREE with early access on Patreon.com/BreakingSocialNorms and Apple Podcast Premium; free feed gets it in one day! You can now sign up for our commercial-free version of the show with a Patreon exclusive bonus show called “Morning Coffee w/ the Weishaupts” at Patreon.com/BreakingSocialNorms OR subscribe on the Apple Podcasts app to get all the same bonus “Morning Coffee” episodes AD-FREE with early access! (*Patreon is also NOW enabled to connect with Spotify! https://rb.gy/r34zj)Want more?…Index of all previous episodes on free feed: https://breakingsocialnorms.com/2021/03/22/index-of-archived-episodes/Leave a review or rating wherever you listen and we'll see what you've got to say!Follow us on the socials:instagram.com/theweishaupts2/Check out Isaac's conspiracy podcasts, merch, etc:AllMyLinks.com/IsaacWOccult Symbolism and Pop Culture (on all podcast platforms or IlluminatiWatcher.com)Isaac Weishaupt's book are all on Amazon and Audible; *author narrated audiobooks*STATEMENT: This show is full of Isaac's and Josie's useless opinions and presented for entertainment purposes. Audio clips used in Fair Use and taken from YouTube videos.
Technocracy origins (carbon credits, propaganda), Game B/Dark Enlightenment dialectic, influences (Yarvin, Land, Thiel, Musk), AI/surveillance, free will loss, and Hegelian dialectic book. During our podcast break, enjoy this replay of Courtenay's appearance on World-HD with host Craig Wenclewicz on LFA-TV from June 2025. Key topics: Technocracy's origins (1930s, energy/carbon credits, Club of Rome's climate propaganda, social engineering/surveillance for control). Dialectic between Game B (decentralized theosophical utopia) and Dark Enlightenment (neo-reactionary technocracy), both advancing singularity/noosphere. Influences: Curtis Yarvin, Nick Land, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk's grandfather, network states, tokenized economy, eugenics, stable coins/Bitcoin reserve. Concerns: AI governance, surveillance grids, public-private partnerships, and eradicating free will for collective "utopia" (dystopia). Read (Sneak-peek) Courtenay's book: Hegel's dialectic as gnostic Jacob's Ladder and machinery of control: Follow and Connect with Craig Wenclewicz:
Send us a textThe medical industrial complex doesn't value all lives equally—and Scott Schara learned this in the most devastating way possible. When his 19-year-old daughter Grace, who had Down syndrome, entered the hospital with mild COVID symptoms, Scott never imagined she would never come home. Seven days later, Grace was dead—not from COVID complications, but from what Scott discovered was deliberate medical mismanagement, including an illegal DNR order placed without family consent.What followed was an extraordinary journey that transformed this grieving father into a medical freedom advocate and researcher. Scott shares the shocking moment when, after requesting Grace's medical records, he realized her death wasn't simply a tragic accident but part of a systematic devaluation of certain lives. Recent research confirms his suspicions—patients with Down syndrome were 630% more likely to receive DNR orders during the COVID era, revealing an institutionalized bias against those deemed "non-contributing members of society."Scott's investigation led him deep into troubling territory, uncovering what he describes as the "Hegelian dialectic" operating in healthcare—a problem-reaction-solution model where manufactured crises drive people toward pre-designed "solutions." He explains how standard of care protocols, insurance requirements, and government reimbursement systems have effectively turned our medical institutions into "state actors" that prioritize collectivist principles over individual rights and genuine healing.The conversation moves beyond merely exposing corruption to addressing the spiritual dimensions of our current medical crisis. Scott articulates how Americans have "sold their birthright to the state," placing faith in human systems rather than divine providence. He offers a powerful message about the opportunity this moment presents for sharing the gospel and reclaiming true health sovereignty through spiritual awakening.Whether you're concerned about medical freedom, caring for vulnerable loved ones, or simply trying to navigate an increasingly complex healthcare landscape, Scott's insights will change how you view the entire system. His message is ultimately one of hope—that by acknowledging our misplaced trust, repenting, and returning to reliance on God rather than human authorities, we can protect ourselves and those we love.What would you risk to protect your loved ones? Scott Schara's story challenges us to consider this question before it's too late.https://ouramazinggrace.net/homeSupport the showhttps://www.jacksonfamilyministry.comhttps://bobslone.com/home/podcast-production/
Game B's decentralized theosophy vs. Dark Enlightenment's technocracy, shared esoteric roots, AI governance, surveillance, free will erosion, and Courtenay's Hegelian dialectic book. During our podcast break, enjoy this replay of Courtenay's appearance on The David Knight Show from May 2025. Key topics: Dialectic between Game B (decentralized, theosophical "new operating system for civilization") and Dark Enlightenment (authoritarian, neoreactionary), both advancing technological singularity/noosphere. Game B origins: 2011 Stanton meetings (Jim Rutt, Jordan Hall, Brett Weinstein), Emancipation Party, transpolitical movement, liquid democracy, blockchain voting, conscious evolution (Barbara Marx Hubbard, Teilhard de Chardin). Dark Enlightenment: Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug), accelerationism (Nick Land), Peter Thiel, Elon Musk's technocracy roots, network states, tokenized economy, positive eugenics. Shared esoteric ties: Gnosticism, ancient mysteries, spiral dynamics, theosophy, collective intelligence, fractal ownership, communitarianism as control mechanisms. Concerns: Decentralization leading to world brain (H.G. Wells), AI governance, surveillance, and eradicating free will for collective "utopia" (dystopia in practice). Courtenay's book (sneak peek): Hegel's dialectic as gnostic Jacob's Ladder and machinery of control. https://courtenayturner.substack.com/p/hegels-dialectic-a-gnostic-jacobs Follow and Connect with The David Knight Show:
§108-1250- 3:00 Podcasting and Romance; new intros; 3:00- 22:40Book 3 Gay Science §108— The Death of God; theology of atheism; §109 anthropomorphism and will to power; the need for error life v knowledge ; §11022:42 - 41:55John's “famous” saber tooth tiger anecdote; the recurring problem of identification; thinking was/is risky; perceiving complexity dangerous for life; the advantage of unjust and coarse perception (errors); at some historical, slow cautious thoughtful judgment ALSO became advantageous for life, Socrates as inverted instinct; disputation is not conversation41:55 - 57:00Nietzsche's interpretive historicism; section 113 - doctrine of poisons; when will artistic energies join with science; is it like Hegelian history? Multiplicity and negation; Booboo agrees to write the Hegel v Nietzsche book
Welcome to the Desert of the Real (2002) is Slavoj Žižek talking about 9/11 from a Lacanian, Hegelian, Ljubljana-slobber-in-a-stained-Lenin-T-shirt perspective. For this episode, the wonderful Stephen G Adubato of Cracks in Postmodernity helped me navigate Žižek's discursive 'It feels like I'm reading five books at once' style.Cracks in Postmodernity: https://cracksinpomo.substack.com/VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATIONJack has published a novel called Tower!Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Tower-Jack-BC-ebook/dp/B0CM5P9N9M/ref=monarch_sidesheetThe first nine chapters of Tower are available for free here: jackbc.substack.comOur Patreon: www.patreon.com/TheBookClubfromHellJack's Substack: jackbc.substack.comLevi's website: www.levioutloud.comwww.thebookclubfromhell.comJoin our Discord (the best place to interact with us): https://discord.gg/nbRkVeztEQWatch us on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0n7r1ZTpsUw5exoYxb4aKA/featuredX: @bookclubhell666Jack on X: @supersquat1Levi on X: @optimismlevi
Breht listens to, comments on, and expounds upon a public lecture by the late professor of philosophy Rick Roderick from 1989 on Hegel, Marx, and modern American capitalism. Along the way he explicates the Hegelian notion of Freedom, Right and Left Hegelianism, the End of History, Communism as the Dawn of History, Cognitive Dissonance among the American People, Moral Critiques of Capitalism, Contradictions within Ideology, Dialectical Inversions of Liberal Pretense, and much more. Part 2 coming soon! outro music 'Antithesnails (spinstrumental)' by Spinitch find and support more of their work here: https://spinitch.bandcamp.com/album/boxorama-spinstrumentals ---------------------------------------------------- Support Rev Left and get access to bonus episodes: www.patreon.com/revleftradio Make a one-time donation to Rev Left at BuyMeACoffee.com/revleftradio Follow, Subscribe, & Learn more about Rev Left Radio: https://revleftradio.com/
Lionel begins by discussing freedom of speech, societal changes in attire at public places like airports, and the perceived limitations on what can be said publicly by certain demographics. Lionel analyzes mayoral candidate Zoran Mamdani's policies through the lens of globalist agendas, the Hegelian dialectic (problem-reaction-solution), and the potential for increased surveillance and control through seemingly benevolent programs like free transit and housing. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Lionel expresses grave concern about existential threats to free speech, particularly focusing on the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and the First Amendment. Lionel emphasizes the importance of public education on these complex legal and technological issues to safeguard fundamental freedoms. Lionel begins by discussing freedom of speech, societal changes in attire at public places like airports, and the perceived limitations on what can be said publicly by certain demographics. Lionel analyzes mayoral candidate Zoran Mamdani's policies through the lens of globalist agendas, the Hegelian dialectic (problem-reaction-solution), and the potential for increased surveillance and control through seemingly benevolent programs like free transit and housing. Lionel critiques the "bumper sticker sloganeering" and "incuriosity" of people who use labels like "communist," "wokester," "law and order," and "Sharia law" without understanding their true meaning or nuances. Lionel talks about Andrew Cuomo's controversial policies and then Lionel and callers discuss historical hoaxes. Lionel then talks about filming a scene for House of Cards with Robin Wright. While on set, he experienced excruciating, alien-like abdominal pain that led to an ambulance being called and being given morphine at the hospital, which instantly and completely alleviated his pain. Lionel then talks about economic and political theories, discussing figures like Marx and Engels in the context of communism's ideal of a "classless, stateless society" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Hello, and welcome to Entangled! The podcast where we explore the science of consciousness, the true nature of reality, and what it means to be a spiritual being having a human experience. I'm your host Jordan Youkilis, and today I'm joined by my friend John Coffey in Part I of his Chronicles: The Great Work.In this conversation, John explains how he navigated his awakening to the UFO/ET phenomenon with the help of Whitley Strieber's work, but then how he concluded Strieber was disingenuous. John explains that disinformation is a recurring theme in the realm of Ufology, and why discernment is necessary for understanding the true state of global affairs.John proposes his thesis that our world is run by a cabal of elite psychopaths that desire a One World Government, characterized by tyranny, control, and depopulation. John challenges whether the official narrative of virtually any topic is true, and argues the cabal has created a state of perpetual fear and crisis.We discuss the role of propaganda, we question why Obama repealed the Smith Mundt Act, and we consider the capture of our media establishment. Next, we discuss issues with the music and entertainment industry in establishing false narratives.From there, we discuss Barack Obama and The Beatles as examples of wolves in sheep's clothing. We discuss the Tavistock Institute and how the counter-cultural movement of the 1960s was a psy op created by CIA and other intelligence as a means to break apart the family. We consider the reality of feminism relative to its narrative and discuss how it has contributed to the destruction of the nuclear family. We discuss the economic impact of inflation and how money printing has been used as a tool to force women into the workforce.We consider the dangers of social engineering and mind control, and why the strength of the term “mind control” is appropriate. John proposes that COVID-19 was run as a military-grade, mind control psychological operation.John then provides four historical examples of mass mind control, including the Reichstag Fire in Berlin, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the JFK Assassination, and 9/11. Next, we consider whether COVID-19 was a genocide, and the damaging implications of the SPARS pandemic exercise in 2018.From there, we discuss finding synchronicity, awakening, and purpose despite the baggage that come with discussing “conspiracy theories”. John and I consider the malevolent force at work in the world, and the dark, social engineering behind the woke agenda.We then discuss whether Trump is part of the Deep State and the structure of the cabal. Here I wanted to add an author's disclaimer. This episode was first recorded in January 2023. My perspectives on President Donald Trump have evolved significantly over the subsequent two and a half years, as I reexamined geopolitical events over the past decade with fresh eyes, and a recognition of how distorted my perception of Donald Trump as a political figure had been made by the legacy media. I documented this journey in Episodes 76 & 77: Trump 2024: MAGA, or How I Recovered from TDS.Next, John describes the failures of Operation Warp Speed and the weaponization of the term anti-vaxxer. We consider Hegelian dialectic and the illusion of choice as a means to divide and conquer.From there, John describes “The Great Work”, the multi-generational plan to consolidate world government. We discuss how central bankers have funded both sides of every war, and the need to ask cui bono? Who benefits?Next, we discuss the concept of doublethink and our ability to live in cognitive dissonance. We consider whether the COVID gene therapies were ultimately a bioweapon intended to drive the depopulation agenda. I ask John's recommendations for how to go from here and to fix the current system, and he explains the need to “say no” and resist.We then discuss the true nature of the human spirit, and that we're beings of incredible power. We consider humanity as a species with amnesia. John explains why he is pessimistic short-term, but optimistic long-term. We discuss how knowledge is the key to avoiding fear, and how it's easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled. We conclude with homework to the audience from John: challenging them to investigate the official narrative about dinosaurs and fossil fuels.Music from the show is available on the Spotify playlist “Entangled – The Vibes”. If you like the show, please drop a 5-star review and subscribe on Substack, Spotify, X, Apple, YouTube or wherever you listen to podcasts.Please enjoy the episode!Music: Intro: Ben Fox - "The Vibe". End Credits: Captain Qubz - “Going Home”.Outro: “The Great Work” starts at Episode 88.Recorded: 1/16/23. Published: 7/21/25.Check out the resources mentioned:* Whitley Streiber's Library: https://www.bookseriesinorder.com/whitley-strieber/* Crrow 777: https://www.youtube.com/Crrow777/videos* Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon by David McGowan: https://www.amazon.com/Weird-Scenes-Inside-Canyon-Laurel/dp/1909394122* My Family Thinks I'm Crazy: https://myfamilythinksimcrazy.com/ This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit entangledpodcast.substack.com
What can JD Vance's arguments with Pope Francis teach us about selfishness, altruism, and the morality of the modern world?Join the team at the IAI for four articles about egoism, self-sacrifice, and everything in between, analysing a range of subjects, including: Friedrich Nietzsche and his rivalry with former maestro Arthur Schopenhauer; the 10 Commandments and their relationship to jealousy; why God might be "stupid, indifferent, and evil"; and of course the aforementioned showdown between JD and the Pope.These articles were written by Slavoj Žižek, Steven D. Hales, Kristján Kristjánsson, and Guy Elgat.Slavoj Žižek is a Hegelian philosopher, a Lacanian psychoanalyst, and a Communist. He is the author of 'Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist'. Steven D. Hales is Professor of Philosophy at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, and author of 'The Myth of Luck: Philosophy, Fate and Fortune'. Kristján Kristjánsson is Professor of Character Education and Virtue Ethics at the University of Birmingham. His work spans topics in moral philosophy, moral psychology, and moral education. He is also the editor of the Journal of Moral Education. Guy Elgat is a lecturer at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. He is the author of 'Nietzsche's Psychology of Ressentiment' and 'Being Guilty: Freedom, Responsibility, and Conscience in German Philosophy from Kant to Heidegger'.And don't hesitate to email us at podcast@iai.tv with your thoughts or questions on the episode!To witness such debates live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
On today's episode of the Occult Symbolism and Pop Culture with Isaac Weishaupt podcast we are joined by an expert on the philosophies of the Dark Enlightenment- Courtenay Turner! We'll catch up with her life story, background and red-pill awakening before getting into her research of the Dark Enlightenment, Technocracy movement, the AI government, Hegelian left & right dialectic, Game B, political ideologies, tech oligarchs and her upcoming book!*If you're watching the video version of the show- we had some internet connection and lagging issues that I couldn't fix in post-production.Links:Check out Courtenay Turner's podcast and socials: https://linktr.ee/courtenayturnerCourtenay's Hegelian Dialect video: https://rumble.com/v6spwgh-courtenay-turner-live-hegelian-left-right-building-the-technocracy.htmlCourtenay's Technocracy Roundtable video: https://courtenayturner.substack.com/p/cognitive-liberty-presents-resist?r=lphy5&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=trueShow sponsors- Get discounts while you support the show and do a little self improvement!*CopyMyCrypto.com/Isaac is where you can copy James McMahon's crypto holdings- listeners get access for just $1 WANT MORE?... Check out my UNCENSORED show with my wife, Breaking Social Norms: https://breakingsocialnorms.com/GRIFTER ALLEY- get bonus content AND go commercial free + other perks:*PATREON.com/IlluminatiWatcher : ad free, HUNDREDS of bonus shows, early access AND TWO OF MY BOOKS! (The Dark Path and Kubrick's Code); you can join the conversations with hundreds of other show supporters here: Patreon.com/IlluminatiWatcher (*Patreon is also NOW enabled to connect with Spotify! https://rb.gy/hcq13)*VIP SECTION: Due to the threat of censorship, I set up a Patreon-type system through MY OWN website! IIt's even setup the same: FREE ebooks, Kubrick's Code video! Sign up at: https://illuminatiwatcher.com/members-section/*APPLE PREMIUM: If you're on the Apple Podcasts app- just click the Premium button and you're in! NO more ads, Early Access, EVERY BONUS EPISODE More from Isaac- links and special offers:*BREAKING SOCIAL NORMS podcast, Index of EVERY episode (back to 2014), Signed paperbacks, shirts, & other merch, Substack, YouTube links & more: https://allmylinks.com/isaacw *STATEMENT: This show is full of Isaac's useless opinions and presented for entertainment purposes. Audio clips used in Fair Use and taken from YouTube videos.
Agon Hamza and Frank Ruda sit with the Americanphilosopher Todd McGowan to discuss the nature of comedy, perversion and hysteria, psychoanalysis as a philosophicalorientation, political nonbelonging, alienation, Hegelian philosophy.. and a lot more!You can listen to our podcast here: https://anchor.fm/crisisandcritique If you like this and other episodes, please consider subscribing and supporting us at our Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=71723553
Jeffrey Madoff is, as you will discover, quite a fascinating and engaging person. Jeff is quite the creative entrepreneur as this episode's title says. But he really is so much more. He tells us that he came by his entrepreneurial spirit and mindset honestly. His parents were both entrepreneurs and passed their attitude onto him and his older sister. Even Jeffrey's children have their own businesses. There is, however, so much more to Jeffrey Madoff. He has written a book and is working on another one. He also has created a play based on the life of Lloyd Price. Who is Lloyd Price? Listen and find out. Clue, the name of the play is “Personality”. Jeff's next book, “Casting Not Hiring”, with Dan Sullivan, is about the transformational power of theater and how you can build a company based on the principles of theater. It will be published by Hay House and available in November of this year. My conversation with Jeff is a far ranging as you can imagine. We talk about everything from the meaning of Creativity to Imposture's Syndrome. I always tell my guests that Unstoppable Mindset is not a podcast to interview people, but instead I want to have real conversations. I really got my wish with Jeff Madoff. I hope you like listening to this episode as much as I liked being involved in it. About the Guest: Jeffrey Madoff's career straddles the creative and business side of the arts. He has been a successful entrepreneur in fashion design and film, and as an author, playwright, producer, and adjunct professor at Parsons School of Design. He created and taught a course for sixteen years called “Creative Careers Making A Living With Your Ideas”, which led to a bestselling book of the same name . Madoff has been a keynote speaker at Princeton, Wharton, NYU and Yale where he curated and moderated a series of panels entitled "Reframing The Arts As Entrepreneurship”. His play “Personality” was a critical and audience success in it's commercial runs at People's Light Theater in Pennsylvania and in Chicago and currently waiting for a theater on The West End in London. Madoff's next book, “Casting Not Hiring”, with Dan Sullivan, is about the transformational power of theater and how you can build a company based on the principles of theater. It will be published by Hay House and available in November of this year. Ways to connect Jeffrey: company website: www.madoffproductions.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/b-jeffrey-madoff-5baa8074/ www.acreativecareer.com Instagram: @acreativecareer About the Host: Michael Hingson is a New York Times best-selling author, international lecturer, and Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe. Michael, blind since birth, survived the 9/11 attacks with the help of his guide dog Roselle. This story is the subject of his best-selling book, Thunder Dog. Michael gives over 100 presentations around the world each year speaking to influential groups such as Exxon Mobile, AT&T, Federal Express, Scripps College, Rutgers University, Children's Hospital, and the American Red Cross just to name a few. He is Ambassador for the National Braille Literacy Campaign for the National Federation of the Blind and also serves as Ambassador for the American Humane Association's 2012 Hero Dog Awards. https://michaelhingson.com https://www.facebook.com/michael.hingson.author.speaker/ https://twitter.com/mhingson https://www.youtube.com/user/mhingson https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhingson/ accessiBe Links https://accessibe.com/ https://www.youtube.com/c/accessiBe https://www.linkedin.com/company/accessibe/mycompany/ https://www.facebook.com/accessibe/ Thanks for listening! Thanks so much for listening to our podcast! If you enjoyed this episode and think that others could benefit from listening, please share it using the social media buttons on this page. Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a comment in the section below! Subscribe to the podcast If you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher. You can subscribe in your favorite podcast app. You can also support our podcast through our tip jar https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/unstoppable-mindset . Leave us an Apple Podcasts review Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts, which exposes our show to more awesome listeners like you. If you have a minute, please leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts. Transcription Notes: Michael Hingson ** 00:00 Access Cast and accessiBe Initiative presents Unstoppable Mindset. The podcast where inclusion, diversity and the unexpected meet. Hi, I'm Michael Hingson, Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe and the author of the number one New York Times bestselling book, Thunder dog, the story of a blind man, his guide dog and the triumph of trust. Thanks for joining me on my podcast as we explore our own blinding fears of inclusion unacceptance and our resistance to change. We will discover the idea that no matter the situation, or the people we encounter, our own fears, and prejudices often are our strongest barriers to moving forward. The unstoppable mindset podcast is sponsored by accessiBe, that's a c c e s s i capital B e. Visit www.accessibe.com to learn how you can make your website accessible for persons with disabilities. And to help make the internet fully inclusive by the year 2025. Glad you dropped by we're happy to meet you and to have you here with us. Well, hi everyone. Welcome to another episode of unstoppable mindset. We're glad to have you on board with us, wherever you happen to be. Hope the day is going well for you. Our guest today is Jeffrey Madoff, who is an a very creative kind of person. He has done a number of things in the entrepreneurial world. He has dealt with a lot of things regarding the creative side of the arts. He's written plays. He taught a course for 16 years, and he'll tell us about that. He's been a speaker in a variety of places. And I'm not going to go into all of that, because I think it'll be more fun if Jeffrey does it. So welcome to unstoppable mindset. We are really glad you're here and looking forward to having an hour of fun. And you know, as I mentioned to you once before, the only rule on the podcast is we both have to have fun, or it's not worth doing, right? So here Jeffrey Madoff ** 02:13 we are. Well, thanks for having me on. Michael, well, we're really glad Michael Hingson ** 02:17 you're here. Why don't we start as I love to do tell us kind of about the early Jeffrey growing up, and you know how you got where you are, a little bit or whatever. Jeffrey Madoff ** 02:28 Well, I was born in Akron, Ohio, which at that time was the rubber capital of the world. Ah, so that might explain some of my bounce and resilience. There Michael Hingson ** 02:40 you go. I was in Sandusky, Ohio last weekend, nice and cold, or last week, Jeffrey Madoff ** 02:44 yeah, I remember you were, you were going to be heading there. And, you know, Ohio, Akron, which is in northern Ohio, was a great place to grow up and then leave, you know, so my my childhood. I have many, many friends from my childhood, some who still live there. So it's actually I always enjoy going back, which doesn't happen all that often anymore, you know, because certain chapters in one's life close, like you know, when my when my parents died, there wasn't as much reason to go back, and because the friends that I had there preferred to come to New York rather than me go to Akron. But, you know, Akron was a great place to live, and I'm very fortunate. I think what makes a great place a great place is the people you meet, the experiences you have. Mm, hmm, and I met a lot of really good people, and I was very close with my parents, who were entrepreneurs. My mom and dad both were so I come by that aspect of my life very honestly, because they modeled the behavior. And I have an older sister, and she's also an entrepreneur, so I think that's part of the genetic code of our family is doing that. And actually, both of my kids have their own business, and my wife was entrepreneurial. So some of those things just carry forward, because it's kind of what, you know, what did your parents do? My parents were independent retailers, and so they started by working in other stores, and then gradually, both of them, who were also very independent people, you know, started, started their own store, and then when they got married, they opened one together, and it was Women's and Children's retail clothing. And so I learned, I learned a lot from my folks, mainly from the. Behavior that I saw growing up. I don't think you can really lecture kids and teach them anything, yeah, but you can be a very powerful teacher through example, both bad and good. Fortunately, my parents were good examples. I think Michael Hingson ** 05:14 that kids really are a whole lot more perceptive than than people think sometimes, and you're absolutely right, lecturing them and telling them things, especially when you go off and do something different than you tell them to do, never works. They're going to see right through it. Jeffrey Madoff ** 05:31 That's right. That's right. And you know, my kids are very bright, and there was never anything we couldn't talk about. And I had that same thing with my parents, you know, particularly my dad. But I had the same thing with both my parents. There was just this kind of understanding that community, open communication is the best communication and dealing with things as they came up was the best way to deal with things. And so it was, it was, it was really good, because my kids are the same way. You know, there was always discussions and questioning. And to this day, and I have twins, I have a boy and girl that are 31 years old and very I'm very proud of them and the people that they have become, and are still becoming, Michael Hingson ** 06:31 well and still becoming is really the operative part of that. I think we all should constantly be learning, and we should, should never decide we've learned all there is to learn, because that won't happen. There's always something new, Jeffrey Madoff ** 06:44 and that's really what's fun. I think that you know for creativity and life at large, that constant curiosity and learning is fuel that keeps things moving forward, and can kindle the flame that lights up into inspiration, whether you're writing a book or a song or whatever it is, whatever expression one may have, I think that's where it originates. Is curiosity. You're trying to answer a question or solve a problem or something. Yeah, Michael Hingson ** 07:20 and sometimes you're not, and it's just a matter of doing. And it doesn't always have to be some agenda somewhere, but it's good to just be able to continue to grow. And all too often, we get so locked into agendas that we don't look at the rest of the world around us. Jeffrey Madoff ** 07:41 I Well, I would say the the agenda in and of itself, staying curious, I guess an overarching part of my agenda, but it's not to try to get something from somebody else, right, other than knowledge, right? And so I guess I do have an agenda in that. That's what I find interesting. Michael Hingson ** 08:02 I can accept that that makes sense. Jeffrey Madoff ** 08:06 Well, maybe one of the few things I say that does so thank you. Michael Hingson ** 08:10 I wasn't even thinking of that as an agenda, but just a way of life. But I hear what you're saying. It makes sense. Oh, there are Jeffrey Madoff ** 08:17 people that I've certainly met you may have, and your listeners may have, also that there always is some kind of, I wouldn't call it agenda, a transactional aspect to what they're doing. And that transactional aspect one could call an agenda, which isn't about mutual interest, it's more what I can get and or what I can sell you, or what I can convince you of, or whatever. And I to me, it's the the process is what's so interesting, the process of questioning, the process of learning, the process of expressing, all of those things I think are very powerful, yeah, Michael Hingson ** 09:03 yeah, I hear what you're saying. So for you, you were an Akron did you go to college there? Or what did you do after high school? So Jeffrey Madoff ** 09:11 after high school, I went to the University of Wisconsin, ah, Madison, which is a fantastic place. That's right, badgers, that's right. And, and what really cinched the deal was when I went to visit the school. I mean, it was so different when I was a kid, because, you know, nowadays, the kids that my kids grew up with, you know, the parents would visit 18 schools, and they would, you know, they would, they would file for admission to 15 schools. And I did one in my parents. I said to them, can I take the car? I want to go check out the University. I was actually looking at Northwestern and the University of Wisconsin. And. And I was in Evanston, where Northwestern is located. I didn't see any kids around, and, you know, I had my parents car, and I finally saw a group of kids, and I said, where is everybody? I said, Well, it's exam week. Everybody's in studying. Oh, I rolled up the window, and without getting out of the car, continued on to Madison. And when I got to Madison, I was meeting somebody behind the Student Union. And my favorite band at that time, which was the Paul Butterfield blues band, was giving a free concert. So I went behind the Student Union, and it's a beautiful, idyllic place, lakes and sailboats and just really gorgeous. And my favorite band is giving a free concert. So decision made, I'm going University of Wisconsin, and it was a great place. Michael Hingson ** 10:51 I remember when I was looking at colleges. We got several letters. Got I wanted to major in physics. I was always science oriented. Got a letter from Dartmouth saying you ought to consider applying, and got some other letters. We looked at some catalogs, and I don't even remember how the subject came up, but we discovered this University California campus, University California at Irvine, and it was a new campus, and that attracted me, because although physically, it was very large, there were only a few buildings on it. The total population of undergraduates was 2700 students, not that way today, but it was back when I went there, and that attracted me. So we reached out to the chair of the physics department, whose name we got out of the catalog, and asked Dr Ford if we could come and meet with him and see if he thought it would be a good fit. And it was over the summer between my junior and senior year, and we went down, and we chatted with him for about an hour, and he he talked a little physics to me and asked a few questions, and I answered them, and he said, you know, you would do great here. You should apply. And I did, and I was accepted, and that was it, and I've never regretted that. And I actually went all the way through and got my master's degree staying at UC Irvine, because it was a great campus. There were some professors who weren't overly teaching oriented, because they were so you research oriented, but mostly the teachers were pretty good, and we had a lot of fun, and there were a lot of good other activities, like I worked with the campus radio station and so on. So I hear what you're saying, and it's the things that attract you to a campus. Those count. Oh, Jeffrey Madoff ** 12:35 yeah. I mean, because what can you really do on a visit? You know, it's like kicking the tires of a car, right? You know? Does it feel right? Is there something that I mean, sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you do meet a faculty member or someone that you really connect with, and that causes you to really like the place, but you don't really know until you're kind of there, right? And Madison ended up being a wonderful choice. I loved it. I had a double major in philosophy and psychology. You know, my my reasoning being, what two things do I find really interesting that there is no path to making a good income from Oh, philosophy and psychology. That works Michael Hingson ** 13:22 well you possibly can from psychology, but philosophy, not hardly Jeffrey Madoff ** 13:26 No, no. But, you know, the thing that was so great about it, going back to the term we used earlier, curiosity in the fuel, what I loved about both, you know, philosophy and psychology used to be cross listed. They were this under the same heading. It was in 1932 when the Encyclopedia Britannica approached Sigmund Freud to write a separate entry for psychology, and that was the first time the two disciplines, philosophy and psychology, were split apart, and Freud wrote that entry, and forever since, it became its own discipline, but the questions that one asks, or the questions that are posed in Both philosophy and psychology, I still, to this day, find fascinating. And, you know, thinking about thinking and how you think about things, I always find very, very interesting. Michael Hingson ** 14:33 Yeah, and the whole, the whole process, how do you get from here to there? How do you deal with anything that comes up, whether it's a challenge or just fulfilling the life choices that you make and so on. And philosophy and psychology, in a sense, I think, really are significantly different, but they're both very much thinking oriented. Jeffrey Madoff ** 14:57 Oh, absolutely, it. And you know, philosophy means study of life, right? What psychology is, yeah, so I understand why they were bonded, and now, you know, understand why they also separated. Yeah, Michael Hingson ** 15:15 I'll have to go look up what Freud said. I have never read that, but I will go find it. I'm curious. Yeah, Jeffrey Madoff ** 15:23 it's it's so interesting. It's so interesting to me, because whether you believe in Freud or not, you if you are knowledgeable at all, the impact that he had on the world to this day is staggeringly significant. Yeah, because nobody was at posing those questions before, yeah, Michael Hingson ** 15:46 yeah. And there's, there's no doubt that that he has had a major contribution to a lot of things regarding life, and you're right, whether you buy into the view that he had of a lot of things isn't, isn't really the issue, but it still is that he had a lot of relevant and interesting things to say, and he helps people think that's right, that's right. Well, so what did you do? So you had a double major? Did you go on and do any advanced degree work? No, Jeffrey Madoff ** 16:17 you know it was interesting because I had thought about it because I liked philosophy so much. And I approached this professor who was very noted, Ivan Saul, who was one of the world Hegelian scholars, and I approached him to be my advisor. And he said, Why do you want me to be your advisor? And I said, because you're one of the most published and respected authors on that subject. And if I'm going to have an advisor, I might as well go for the person that might help me the most and mean the most if I apply to graduate schools. So I did in that case certainly had an agenda. Yeah, and, and he said, you know, Jeff, I just got back from the world Hegelian conference in Munich, and I found it very depressing as and he just paused, and I said, why'd you find it depressing? And he said, Well, there's only one or two other people in the world that I can speak to about Hegel. And I said, Well, maybe you want to choose a different topic so you can make more friends. That depressing. That doesn't sound like it's a mix, you know, good fit for life, right? But so I didn't continue to graduate studies. I took graduate courses. I started graduate courses the second semester of my sophomore year. But I thought, I don't know. I don't want to, I don't want to gain this knowledge that the only thing I can do is pass it on to others. It's kind of like breathing stale air or leaving the windows shut. I wanted to be in a world where there was an idea exchange, which I thought would be a lot more interesting. Yeah. And so there was a brief period where I thought I would get a doctorate and do that, and I love teaching, but I never wanted to. That's not what I wanted to pursue for those reasons. Michael Hingson ** 18:35 So what did you end up doing then, once you got Jeffrey Madoff ** 18:37 out of college? Well, there was a must have done something I did. And there's a little boutique, and in Madison that I did the buying for. And it was this very hip little clothing store. And Madison, because it was a big campus, you know, in the major rock bands would tour, they would come into the store because we had unusual things that I would find in New York, you know, when I was doing the buying for it, and I get a phone call from a friend of mine, a kid that I grew up with, and he was a year older, he had graduated school a year before me, and he said, Can you think of a gig that would earn more than bank interest? You know, I've saved up this money. Can you think of anything? And I said, Well, I see what we design. I mean, I see what we sell, and I could always draw. So I felt like I could design. I said, I'll start a clothing company. And Michael, I had not a clue in terms of what I was committing myself to. I was very naive, but not stupid. You know, was ignorant, but not stupid. And different. The difference between being ignorant and being stupid is ignorant. You can. Learn stupids forever, yeah, and that started me on this learning lesson, an entrepreneurial learning lesson, and there was, you know, quite formative for me. And the company was doubling in size every four months, every three months, and it was getting pretty big pretty quick. And you know, I was flying by the seat of my pants. I didn't really know what I was doing, but what I discovered is I had, you know, saleable taste. And I mean, when I was working in this store, I got some of the sewers who did the alterations to make some of my drawings, and I cut apart a shirt that I liked the way it fit, so I could see what the pieces are, and kind of figure out how this all worked. So but when I would go to a store and I would see fabric on the bolt, meaning it hadn't been made into anything, I was so naive. I thought that was wholesale, you know, which it wasn't and but I learned quickly, because it was like you learn quickly, or you go off the edge of a cliff, you go out of business. So it taught me a lot of things. And you know the title of your podcast, the unstoppable, that's part of what you learn in business. If you're going to survive, you've gotta be resilient enough to get up, because you're going to get knocked down. You have to persevere, because there are people that are going to that you're competing with, and there are things that are things that are going to happen that are going to make you want to give up, but that perseverance, that resilience, I think probably creativity, is third. I think it's a close call between perseverance and resilience, because those are really important criteria for a personality profile to have if you're going to succeed in business as an entrepreneur. Michael Hingson ** 22:05 You know, Einstein once said, or at least he's credited with saying, that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, right and and the reality is that good, resilient. People will look at things that didn't go right, and if they really look at them, they'll go, I didn't fail. Yeah, maybe I didn't go right. I may have made a mistake, or something wasn't quite right. What do I do to fix it so that the next time, we won't have the same problem? And I think that's so important. I wrote my book last year, live like a guide dog, true stories from a blind man and his dogs about being brave, overcoming adversity and moving forward in faith. And it's all about learning to control fear, but it's also all about learning from dogs. I've had eight guide dogs, and my wife had a service dog, and it's all about learning from dogs and seeing why they live in an environment where we are and they feed off of us, if you will. But at the same time, what they don't do is fear like we do. They're open to trust, and we tend not to be because we worry about so many things, rather than just looking at the world and just dealing with our part of it. So it is, it is interesting to to hear you talk about resilience. I think you're absolutely right that resilience is extremely important. Perseverance is important, and they do go together, but you you have to analyze what it is that makes you resilient, or what it is that you need to do to keep being resilient. Jeffrey Madoff ** 23:48 Well, you're right. And one of the questions that you alluded to the course that I taught for 16 years at Parsons School of Design, which was my course, was called creative careers, making a living with your ideas. And I would ask the students, how many of you are afraid of failing? And probably more than three quarters of the class, their hands went up, and I said to them, you know, if that fear stops you, you'll never do anything interesting, because creativity, true creativity, by necessity, takes you up to and beyond the boundaries. And so it's not going to be always embraced. And you know, failure, I think everyone has to define it for themselves. But I think failure, to me, is and you hear that, you know, failure is a great way to learn. I mean, it's a way. To learn, but it's never not painful, you know, and it, but it is a way to learn if you're paying attention and if you are open to that notion, which I am and was, because, you know, that kind of risk is a necessary part of creativity, going where you hadn't gone before, to try to find solutions that you hadn't done before, and seeing what works. And of course, there's going to be things that don't, but it's only failure if you stop doing what is important to you. Yeah, Michael Hingson ** 25:39 well, I think you're absolutely right. And one of the things that I used to do and still do, but it started when I was working as program director of our radio station at UC Irvine, was I wanted people to hear what they sounded like on the radio, because I always listened to what I said, and I know it helped me, but getting the other radio personalities to listen to themselves was was well, like herding cats, it just wasn't doable. And what we finally did is we set up, I and the engineer of the radio station, set up a recorder in a locked cabinet, and whenever the board went on in the main studio, the microphone went on, it recorded. So we didn't need to worry about the music. All we wanted was what the people said, and then we would give people the cassettes. And one of the things that I started saying then, and I said it until, like about a year ago, was, you know, you're your own worst critic, if you can learn to grow from it, or if you can learn to see what's a problem and go on, then that's great. What I learned over the last year and thought about is I'm really not my own worst critic. I'm my own best teacher, because I'm the only one who can really teach me anything, and it's better to shape it in a positive way. So I am my own best teacher. And so I think you're right. If you really want to talk about the concept of failure, failure is when you won't get back up. Failure is when you won't do anything to learn and grow from whatever happens to you, even the good stuff. Could I have done it better? Those are all very important things to do. Jeffrey Madoff ** 27:19 No, I agree. So why did you think it was important for them to hear their voice? Michael Hingson ** 27:25 Because I wanted them to hear what everyone else heard. I wanted them to hear what they sounded like to their listeners. And the reality is, when we got them to do that, it was, I say it was incredible, but it wasn't a surprise to me how much better they got. And some of those people ended up going into radio broadcasting, going into other kinds of things, but they really learned to hear what everyone else heard. And they they learned how to talk better. They learn what they really needed to improve upon, or they learn what wasn't sounding very good to everyone else, and they changed their habits. Jeffrey Madoff ** 28:13 Interesting, interesting. So, so part of that also helps them establish a certain on air identity. I would imagine finding their own voice, so to speak, right, Michael Hingson ** 28:30 or finding a better voice than they than they had, and certainly a better voice than they thought they had. Well, they thought they had a good voice, and they realized maybe it could be better. And the ones who learned, and most of them really did learn from it, came out the better for it. Jeffrey Madoff ** 28:49 So let me ask you a personal question. You have been sightless since birth? Is that correct? Michael Hingson ** 28:56 Yeah, I've been blind since birth. And Jeffrey Madoff ** 28:59 so on a certain level, I was trying to think about this the other night, and how can I phrase this? On a certain level, you don't know what you look like, Michael Hingson ** 29:15 and from the standpoint of how you look at it, yeah, yeah. Jeffrey Madoff ** 29:19 And so, so two, that's two questions. One is so many of us for good and bad, our identity has to do with visual first, how do you assess that new person? Michael Hingson ** 29:39 I don't look at it from a visual standpoint as such. I look at it from all the other senses that I have and use, but I also listen to the person and see how we interact and react to. Each other, and from that, I can draw pretty good conclusions about what an individual is like, so that I can decide if that's a a lovely person, male or female, because I'm using lovely in the sense of it's the kind of person I want to know or not, and so I don't obviously look at it from a visual standpoint. And although I know Helen Keller did it some, I'm not into feeling faces. When I was in college, I tried to convince girls that they should let me teach them Braille, but they had no interest in me showing them Braille, so we didn't do that. I actually a friend of mine and I once went to a girls dorm, and we put up a sign. Wanted young female assistant to aid in scientific Braille research, but that didn't go anywhere either. So we didn't do it. But so Braille pickup. Oh, Braille pickup. On the other hand, I had my guide dog who was in in my current guide dog is just the same chick magnet right from the get go, but, but the the reality is that visual is, I think there's a lot to be said for beauty is only skin deep in a lot of ways. And I think that it's important that we go far beyond just what one person looks like. People ask me all the time, well, if you could see again, would you? Or if you could see, would you? And my response is, I don't need to. I think there's value in it. It is a sense. I think it would be a great adventure, but I'm not going to spend my life worrying about that. Blindness isn't what defines me, and what defines me is how I behave, how I am, how I learn and grow, and what I do to be a part of society and and hopefully help society. I think that's more important. Jeffrey Madoff ** 31:53 You know, I agree with you, and it's it's also having been blind since birth. It's not like you had a you had an aspect that you lost for some reason, right? Michael Hingson ** 32:04 But I know some people who became blind later in life, who attended centers where they could learn about what it was like to be blind and learn to be a blind person and and really adapted to that philosophy and continue to do what they did even before they lost their their eyesight, and were just as successful as they ever were, because it wasn't so much about having eyesight, although that is a challenge when you lose it, but it was more important to learn that you could find alternatives to do the same things that you did before. So Jeffrey Madoff ** 32:41 if you ever have read Marvel Comics, and you know Daredevil has a heightened sense of a vision, or you know that certain things turn into a different advantage, is there that kind of in real life, compensatory heightened awareness of other senses. Michael Hingson ** 33:08 And the answer is not directly. The answer is, if you choose to heighten those senses and learn to use them, then they can be a help. It's like SEAL Team Six, or Rangers, or whatever, they learn how to observe. And for them, observing goes far beyond just using their eyesight to be able to spot things, although they they certainly use that, but they have heightened all of their other senses because they've trained them and they've taught themselves how to use those senses. It's not an automatic process by any definition at all. It's not automatic. You have to learn to do it. There are some blind people who have, have learned to do that, and there are a number that have not. People have said, well, you know, could any blind person get out of the World Trade Center, and like you did, and my response is, it depends on the individual, not necessarily, because there's so many factors that go into it. If you are so afraid when something like the World Trade Center events happen that you become blinded by fear, then you're going to have a much harder time getting out than if you let fear be a guide and use it to heighten the senses that you have during the time that you need that to occur. And that's one of the things that live like a guide dog is all about, is teaching people to learn to control fear, so that in reality, they find they're much more effective, because when something happens, they don't expect they adopt and adapt to having a mindset that says, I can get through this, and fear is going to help. Jeffrey Madoff ** 34:53 That's fascinating. So one I could go on in this direction, I'll ask you, one, one other. Question is, how would you describe your dreams? Michael Hingson ** 35:08 Probably the same way you would, except for me, dreaming is primarily in audio and other interactions and not using eyesight. But at the same time, I understand what eyesight is about, because I've thought about it a lot, and I appreciate that the process is not something that I have, but I understand it, and I can talk about light and eyesight all day. I can I when I was when it was discovered that I was blind for the first several years, I did have some light perception. I never as such, really even could see shadows, but I had some light perception. But if I were to be asked, How would you describe what it's like to see light? I'm not sure how I would do that. It's like asking you tell me what it's like to see put it into words so that it makes me feel what you feel when you see. And it's not the excitement of seeing, but it's the sensation. How do you describe that sensation? Or how do you describe the sensation of hearing their their senses? But I've yet to really encounter someone who can put those into words that will draw you in. And I say that from the standpoint of having done literally hundreds or 1000s of speeches telling my story about being in the World Trade Center, and what I tell people today is we have a whole generation of people who have never experienced or had no memory of the World Trade Center, and we have another generation that saw it mainly from TV and pictures. So they their, their view of it was extremely small. And my job, when I speak is to literally bring them in the building and describe what is occurring to me in such a way that they're with me as we're going down the stairs. And I've learned how to do that, but describing to someone what it's like to see or to hear, I haven't found words that can truly do that yet. Oh, Jeffrey Madoff ** 37:15 fascinating. Thank you. Michael Hingson ** 37:20 Well, tell me about creativity. I mean, you do a lot of of things, obviously, with with creativity. So what is creativity? Jeffrey Madoff ** 37:29 I think that creativity is the compelling need to express, and that can manifest in many, many, many different ways. You have that, you know, just it was fascinating here you talk about you, describing what happened in Twin Towers, you know. And so, I think, you know, you had a compelling need to process what was a historic and extraordinary event through that unique perception that you have, and taking the person, as you said, along with you on that journey, you know, down the stairs and out of the Building. I think it was what 78 stories or something, right? And so I think that creativity, in terms of a trait, is that it's a personality trait that has a compelling need to express in some way. And I think that there is no such thing as the lightning bolt that hits and all of a sudden you come up with the idea for the great novel, The great painting, the great dance, the great piece of music. We are taking in influences all the time and percolating those influences, and they may come out, in my case, hopefully they've come out in the play that I wrote, personality and because if it doesn't relate to anybody else, and you're only talking to yourself, that's you know, not, not. The goal, right? The play is to have an audience. The goal of your book is to have readers. And by the way, did your book come out in Braille? Michael Hingson ** 39:31 Um, yeah, it, it is available in Braille. It's a bit. Actually, all three of my books are available in with their on demand. They can be produced in braille, and they're also available in audio formats as well. Great. Jeffrey Madoff ** 39:43 That's great. So, yeah, I think that person, I think that creativity is it is a fascinating topic, because I think that when you're a kid, oftentimes you're told more often not. To do certain things than to do certain things. And I think that you know, when you're creative and you put your ideas out there at a very young age, you can learn shame. You know, people don't like what you do, or make fun of what you do, or they may like it, and it may be great, but if there's, you know, you're opened up to that risk of other people's judgment. And I think that people start retreating from that at a very young age. Could because of parents, could because of teachers, could because of their peer group, but they learn maybe in terms of what they think is emotional survival, although would never be articulated that way, at putting their stuff out there, they can be judged, and they don't like being judged, and that's a very uncomfortable place to be. So I think creativity is both an expression and a process. Michael Hingson ** 40:59 Well, I'll and I think, I think you're right, and I think that it is, it is unfortunate all too often, as you said, how children are told don't do this or just do that, but don't do this, and no, very few people take the next logical step, which is to really help the child understand why they said that it isn't just don't. It should be. Why not? One of my favorite stories is about a student in school once and was taking a philosophy class. You'll probably have heard this, but he and his classmates went in for the final exam, and the instructor wrote one word on the board, which was why? And then everybody started to write. And they were writing furiously this. This student sat there for a couple of minutes, wrote something on a paper, took it up, handed it in, and left. And when the grades came out, he was the only one who got an A. And the reason is, is because what he put on his paper was, why not, you know, and, and that's very, very valid question to ask. But the reality is, if we really would do more to help people understand, we would be so much better off. But rather than just telling somebody what to do, it's important to understand why? Jeffrey Madoff ** 42:22 Yeah, I remember when I was in I used to draw all the time, and my parents would bring home craft paper from the store that was used to wrap packets. And so they would bring me home big sheets I could do whatever I wanted on it, you know, and I would draw. And in school I would draw. And when art period happened once or twice a week, and the teacher would come in with her cart and I was drawing, that was when this was in, like, the middle 50s, and Davy Crockett was really a big deal, and I was drawing quite an intricate picture of the battle at the Alamo. And the teacher came over to me and said she wanted us to do crayon resist, which is, you know, they the watercolors won't go over the the crayon part because of the wax and the crayon. And so you would get a different thing that never looked good, no matter who did it, right? And so the teacher said to me, what are you doing? And I said, Well, I'm drawing. It's and she said, Why are you drawing? I said, Well, it's art class, isn't it? She said, No, I told you what to do. And I said, Yeah, but I wanted to do this. And she said, Well, you do what I tell you, where you sit there with your hands folded, and I sat there with my hands folded. You know I wasn't going to be cowed by her. And I've thought back on that story so often, because so often you get shut down. And when you get shut down in a strong way, and you're a kid, you don't want to tread on that land again. Yeah, you're afraid, Michael Hingson ** 44:20 yeah. Yeah. And maybe there was a good reason that she wanted you to do what she wanted, but she should have taken the time to explain that right, right now, of course, my question is, since you did that drawing with the Alamo and so on, I'm presuming that Davy Crockett looked like Fess Parker, right? Just checking, Jeffrey Madoff ** 44:42 yeah, yep, yeah. And my parents even got me a coon Michael Hingson ** 44:47 skin hat. There you go, Daniel Boone and David Crockett and Jeffrey Madoff ** 44:51 Davy Crockett and so there were two out there. Mine was actually a full coon skin cap with the tail. And other kids had it where the top of it was vinyl, and it had the Disney logo and a picture of Fess Parker. And I said, Now I don't want something, you know, and you are correct, you are correct. It was based on fess Barker. I think Michael Hingson ** 45:17 I have, I had a coons kid cap, and I think I still do somewhere. I'm not quite sure where it is, but it was a real coonskin cap with a cake with a tail. Jeffrey Madoff ** 45:26 And does your tail snap off? Um, no, yeah, mine. Mine did the worst thing about the coonskin cap, which I thought was pretty cool initially, when it rained, it was, you know, like you had some wet animal on your Well, yes, yeah, as you did, she did, yeah, animal on your head, right? Wasn't the most aromatic of the hub. No, Michael Hingson ** 45:54 no, it's but Huh, you got to live with it. That's right. So what is the key to having great creative collaborations? I love collaborating when I wrote my original book, Thunder dog, and then running with Roselle, and then finally, live like a guide dog. I love the idea of collaborating, and I think it made all three of the books better than if it had just been me, or if I had just let someone else do it, because we're bringing two personalities into it and making the process meld our ideas together to create a stronger process. Jeffrey Madoff ** 46:34 I completely agree with you, and collaboration, for instance, in my play personality, the director Sheldon apps is a fantastic collaborator, and as a result, has helped me to be a better writer, because he would issue other challenges, like, you know, what if we looked at it this way instead of that way? What if you gave that power, that that character, the power in that scene, rather than the Lloyd character? And I loved those kinds of challenges. And the key to a good collaboration is pretty simple, but it doesn't happen often enough. Number one is listening. You aren't going to have a good collaboration if you don't listen. If you just want to interrupt and shut the other person down and get your opinion out there and not listen, that's not going to be good. That's not going to bode well. And it's being open. So people need to know that they're heard. You can do that a number of ways. You can sort of repeat part of what they said, just so I want to understand. So you were saying that the Alamo situation, did you have Davy Crockett up there swinging the rifle, you know? So the collaboration, listening, respect for opinions that aren't yours. And you know, don't try to just defeat everything out of hand, because it's not your idea. And trust developing a trust with your collaborators, so that you have a clearly defined mission from the get go, to make whatever it is better, not just the expression of one person's will over another. And I think if you share that mission, share that goal, that the other person has earned your trust and vice versa, that you listen and acknowledge, then I think you can have great collaboration. And I've had a number of great collaborators. I think I'm a good collaborator because I sort of instinctively knew those things, and then working with Sheldon over these last few years made it even more so. And so that's what I think makes a really great collaboration. Michael Hingson ** 49:03 So tell me about the play personality. What's it about? Or what can you tell us about it without giving the whole thing away? Jeffrey Madoff ** 49:10 So have you ever heard of Lloyd Price? Michael Hingson ** 49:14 The name is familiar. So that's Jeffrey Madoff ** 49:16 the answer that I usually get is, I'm not really sure. Yeah, it's kind of familiar. And I said, Well, you don't, probably don't know his name, but I'll bet you know his music. And I then apologize in advance for my singing, you know, cause you've got walk, personality, talk, personality, smile, oh yeah, yeah. I love that song, you know. Yeah. Do you know that song once I did that, yes, yeah. So Lloyd was black. He grew up in Kenner, Louisiana. It was he was in a place where blacks were expected to know their place. And. And if it was raining and a white man passed, you'd have to step into a mud puddle to let them pass, rather than just working by each other. And he was it was a tough situation. This is back in the late 1930s and what Lloyd knew is that he wanted to get out of Kenner, and music could be his ticket. And the first thing that the Lloyd character says in the play is there's a big dance opening number, and first thing that his character says is, my mama wasn't a whore. My dad didn't leave us. I didn't learn how to sing in church, and I never did drugs. I want to get that out of the way up front. And I wanted to just blow up all the tropes, because that's who Lloyd was, yeah, and he didn't drink, he didn't learn how to sing in church. And, you know, there's sort of this baked in narrative, you know, then then drug abuse, and you then have redeemed yourself. Well, he wasn't like that. He was entrepreneurial. He was the first. He was the it was really interesting at the time of his first record, 1952 when he recorded Lottie, Miss Claudia, which has been covered by Elvis and the Beatles and Bruce Springsteen and on and on. There's like 370 covers of it. If you wanted to buy a record by a black artist, you had to go to a black owned record store. His records couldn't get on a jukebox if it was owned by a white person. But what happened was that was the first song by a teenager that sold over a million copies. And nobody was prejudiced against green, which is money. And so Lloyd's career took off, and it The story tells about the the trajectory of his career, the obstacles he had to overcome, the triumphs that he experienced, and he was an amazing guy. I had been hired to direct, produce and direct a short documentary about Lloyd, which I did, and part of the research was interviewing him, and we became very good friends. And when I didn't know anything about him, but I knew I liked his music, and when I learned more about him, I said, Lloyd, you've got an amazing story. Your story needs to be told. And I wrote the first few scenes. He loved what I wrote. And he said, Jeff, I want you to do this. And I said, thank you. I want to do it, but there's one other thing you need to know. And he said, What's that? And I said, You're the vessel. You're the messenger, but your story is bigger than you are. And he said, Jeff, I've been waiting for years for somebody to say that to me, rather than just blowing more smoke up my ass. Yeah. And that started our our collaboration together and the story. And it was a great relationship. Lloyd died in May of 21 and we had become very close, and the fact that he trusted me to tell his story is of huge significance to me. And the fact that we have gotten such great response, we've had two commercial runs. We're moving the show to London, is is is really exciting. And the fact that Lloyd, as a result of his talent and creativity, shattered that wall that was called Race music in race records, once everybody understood on the other side that they could profit from it. So there's a lot of story in there that's got a lot of meat, and his great music Michael Hingson ** 54:04 that's so cool and and so is it? Is it performing now anywhere, or is it? No, we're Jeffrey Madoff ** 54:12 in between. We're looking actually, I have a meeting this this week. Today is February 11. I have a meeting on I think it's Friday 14th, with my management in London, because we're trying to get a theater there. We did there in October, and got great response, and now we're looking to find a theater there. Michael Hingson ** 54:37 So what are the chance we're going to see it on Broadway? Jeffrey Madoff ** 54:41 I hope a very good chance Broadway is a very at this point in Broadway's history. It's it's almost prohibitively expensive to produce on Broadway, the West End has the same cache and. Yeah, because, you know, you think of there's that obscure British writer who wrote plays called William Shakespeare. You may have heard of Michael Hingson ** 55:07 him, yeah, heard of the guy somewhere, like, like, I've heard of Lloyd Price, yeah, that's Jeffrey Madoff ** 55:15 it. And so I think that Broadway is certainly on the radar. The first step for us, the first the big step before Broadway is the West End in London. Yeah, Michael Hingson ** 55:30 that's a great place to go. It is. Jeffrey Madoff ** 55:32 I love it, and I speak the language, so it's good. Well, there you Michael Hingson ** 55:35 are. That helps. Yes, well, you're a very creative kind of individual by any standard. Do you ever get involved with or have you ever faced the whole concept of imposter syndrome? Jeffrey Madoff ** 55:48 Interesting, you mentioned that the answer is no, and I'll tell you why it's no. And you know, I do a fair amount of speaking engagements and that sort of thing, and that comes up particularly with women, by the way, imposter syndrome, and my point of view on it is, you know, we're not imposters. If you're not trying to con somebody and lying about what you do, you're a work in progress, and you're moving towards whatever it is that your goals are. So when my play became a produced commercial piece of theater and I was notarized as a playwright, why was that same person the day before that performance happened? And so I think that rather than looking at it as imposter, I look at it as a part of the process, and a part of the process is gaining that credibility, and you have to give yourself permission to keep moving forward. And I think it's very powerful that if you declare yourself and define yourself rather than letting people define you. So I think that that imposter syndrome comes from that fear, and to me, instead of fear, just realize you're involved in the process and so you are, whatever that process is. And again, it's different if somebody's trying to con you and lie to you, but in terms of the creativity, and whether you call yourself a painter or a musician or a playwright or whatever, if you're working towards doing that, that's what you do. And nobody starts off full blown as a hit, so to speak. Yeah, Michael Hingson ** 57:44 well, I think you're absolutely right, and I think that it's all about not trying to con someone. And when you are doing what you do, and other people are involved, they also deserve credit, and people like you probably have no problem with making sure that others who deserve credit get the credit. Oh, absolutely, yeah, I'm the same way. I am absolutely of the opinion that it goes back to collaboration. When we're collaborating, I'm I'm very happy to talk about the fact that although I started the whole concept of live like a guide dog, carry Wyatt Kent and I worked on it together, and the two of us work on it together. It's both our books. So each of us can call it our book, but it is a collaborative effort, and I think that's so important to be able to do, Jeffrey Madoff ** 58:30 oh, absolutely, absolutely, you know, the stuff that I was telling you about Sheldon, the director, you know, and that he has helped me to become a better writer, you know, and and when, as as obviously, you have experienced too, when you have a fruitful collaboration, it's fabulous, because you're both working together to create the best possible result, as opposed to self aggrandizement, right? Michael Hingson ** 59:03 Yeah, it is. It is for the things that I do. It's not about me and I and I say it all the time when I'm talking to people who I'd like to have hire me to be a speaker. It's not about me, it's about their event. And I believe I can add value, and here's why I think I can add value, but it's not about me, it's about you and your event, right? And it's so important if, if you were to give some advice to somebody starting out, or who wants to be creative, or more creative and so on, what kind of advice would you give them? Jeffrey Madoff ** 59:38 I would say it's more life advice, which is, don't be afraid of creative risk, because the only thing that you have that nobody else has is who you are. So how you express who you are in the most unique way of who you are? So that is going to be what defines your work. And so I think that it's really important to also realize that things are hard and always take more time than you think they should, and that's just part of the process. So it's not easy. There's all these things out there in social media now that are bull that how people talk about the growth of their business and all of this stuff, there's no recipe for success. There are best practices, but there's no recipes for it. So however you achieve that, and however you achieve making your work better and gaining the attention of others, just understand it's a lot of hard work. It's going to take longer than you thought, and it's can be incredibly satisfying when you hit certain milestones, and don't forget to celebrate those milestones, because that's what's going to give you the strength to keep going forward. Michael Hingson ** 1:01:07 Absolutely, it is really about celebrating the milestones and celebrating every success you have along the way, because the successes will build to a bigger success. That's right, which is so cool. Well, this has been a lot of fun. We've been doing this for an hour. Can you believe it? That's been great. It has been and I really appreciate you being here, and I I want to thank all of you who are listening, but please tell your friends to get into this episode as well. And we really value your comments, so please feel free to write me. I would love to know what you thought about today. I'm easy to reach. It's Michael M, I C H, A, E, L, H i at accessibe, A, C, C, E, S, S i b, e.com, or you can always go to our podcast page, which is Michael hingson, M, I C H, A, E, L, H i N, G, s o n.com/podcast, where you can listen to or access all the of our podcasts, but they're also available, as most likely you've discovered, wherever you can find podcasts, so you can get them on Apple and all those places and wherever you're listening. We do hope you'll give us a five star review. We really value your reviews, and Jeff has really given us a lot of great insights today, and I hope that you all value that as well. So we really would appreciate a five star rating wherever you're listening to us, and that you'll come back and hear some more episodes with us. If you know of anyone who ought to be a guest, Jeff, you as well. Love You to refer people to me. I'm always looking for more people to have on because I do believe that everyone in the world is unstoppable if you learn how to accept that and move forward. And that gets back to our whole discussion earlier about failure or whatever, you can be unstoppable. That doesn't mean you're not going to have challenges along the way, but that's okay. So we hope that if you do know people who ought to be on the podcast, or if you want to be on the podcast and you've been listening, step up won't hurt you. But again, Jeff, I want to thank you for being here. This has been a lot of fun, and we really appreciate your time. Thank Jeffrey Madoff ** 1:03:16 you, Michael, for having you on. It was fun. You **Michael Hingson ** 1:03:23 You have been listening to the Unstoppable Mindset podcast. Thanks for dropping by. I hope that you'll join us again next week, and in future weeks for upcoming episodes. To subscribe to our podcast and to learn about upcoming episodes, please visit www dot Michael hingson.com slash podcast. Michael Hingson is spelled m i c h a e l h i n g s o n. While you're on the site., please use the form there to recommend people who we ought to interview in upcoming editions of the show. And also, we ask you and urge you to invite your friends to join us in the future. If you know of any one or any organization needing a speaker for an event, please email me at speaker at Michael hingson.com. I appreciate it very much. To learn more about the concept of blinded by fear, please visit www dot Michael hingson.com forward slash blinded by fear and while you're there, feel free to pick up a copy of my free eBook entitled blinded by fear. The unstoppable mindset podcast is provided by access cast an initiative of accessiBe and is sponsored by accessiBe. Please visit www.accessibe.com . AccessiBe is spelled a c c e s s i b e. There you can learn all about how you can make your website inclusive for all persons with disabilities and how you can help make the internet fully inclusive by 2025. Thanks again for Listening. Please come back and visit us again next week.
In this explosive live episode, Courtenay Turner will unravel the ideological undercurrents of Game~B-a movement positioning itself as a decentralized, pluralistic alternative to modern civilization's “rivalrous systems” while advancing a technocratic vision steeped in Hegelian dialectics and Leftist teleology. Framed as a “post-political” solution to societal collapse, Game~B's fusion of blockchain networks, AI-driven collective intelligence, and utopian rhetoric mirrors the Marxist critique of alienation-yet proposes a technological “Omega Point” eerily aligned with H.G. Wells' World Brain, Teilhard de Chardin's noosphere, and the Dark Enlightenment's war on “The Cathedral”.Key Themes:1: Game~B's Hegelian Roots:• How Game~B's critique of “Game~A” (neoliberal capitalism) recycles Marxist resentment of civilizational “rivalry” while rebranding collectivism as decentralized network states.• Its vision of “emergent coherence” through blockchain and AI mirrors Wells' call for a “permanent World Encyclopedia” and Teilhard's noospheric convergence, fulfilling Leftism's transcendent aspirations without overt coercion.2: The Phoenix Agenda:• Bret Weinstein's call to “Phoenix the Republic” and Jim Rutt's musings on “burning down” civilization's operating system evoke Operation Phoenix's CIA-orchestrated “creative destruction.” Is this a blueprint for controlled collapse?• Parallels to Hesse's Glass Bead Game: Will Game~B's “membranes” of self-organizing networks prioritize spiritual elitism over democratic accountability?3: Technocratic Singularity:• SingularityNET's decentralized AI market and optimal incentives for collective intelligence promise cooperation-but could entrench algorithmic governance.• Teilhard's Omega Point meets Silicon Valley: Is Game~B a secular rapture for the “Cognitariat,” leveraging blockchain to bypass nation-states?4: Leftism in Right-Wing Clothing:• James Lindsay's analysis of Leftist “Manichean telos” finds new expression in Game~B's romanticization of indigenous systems and Aquarian-age rhetoric.• Dark Enlightenment critiques of “The Cathedral” are co-opted to legitimize a post-democratic tech aristocracy. Join Courtenay as she dissects whether Game~B is humanity's salvation-or a Trojan Horse for a digitized Neo-Feudalism. Can decentralized networks transcend ideological capture, or will they amplify the very rivalries they claim to solve? Is the Phoenix a symbol of renewal-or a Tavistock-approved psyop? Tune in for a no-holds-barred exploration of civilization's next OS. __________________________________________________________________ ▶ GET On-Demand Access for Courtenay's Cognitive Liberty Conference Cognitive liberty Conference ----------------------------------------- ▶ Follow & Connect with Courtenay: CourtenayTurner.com Linktree ▶ Support my work & Affiliate links: Buy Me A Coffee GiveSendGo Venmo Cash APP RNC Store Vitamin B-17! Far Infrared Saunas...Promo: COURTZ Stem Cell Activation Gold Gate Capital Free Satellite Phone...Promo: COURTZ MagicDichol Goldbacks=Real Currency! Promo:COURTZ Honey Colony Health&More...Promo:COURTZ ▶ Follow Courtenay on Social Media: Twitter TruthSocial Instagram Telegram Facebook Apple Podcasts Spotify Amazon Music Rumble YouTube —————————————————▶ Disclaimer: this is intended to be inspiration & entertainment. We aim to inform, inspire & empower. Guest opinions/ statements are not a reflection of the host or podcast. Please note these are conversational dialogues. All statements and opinions are not necessarily meant to be taken as fact. Please do your own research. Thanks for watching! ————————————————— ©2025 All Rights Reserved Courtenay's Substack Bringing breadth and depth of context to inform, inspire and empower Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We finally discuss Feuerbach's proposed post-Hegelian, materialist approach to philosophy in his "Principles of the Philosophy of the Future" (1843). How can a materialist framework support phenomena central to F's account like our immediate, indubitable recognition of our selves, each other, and love itself? Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion, including a supporter-exclusive part three to this discussion. Sponsors: Have up to a $100 donation to effective charities matched at GiveWell.org. Learn about St. John's College at sjc.edu/pel. Learn about Mark's spring Core Texts in philosophy class at partiallyexaminedlife.com/class.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
