Podcasts about Western Europe

Early access programmes (EAPs) for novel medicines are an often-misunderstood strategy outside of western markets. In a new pharmaphorum podcast, web editor Nicole Raleigh speaks with Cem Zorlular, CEO of Er-Kim Pharmaceuticals, a company that has been serving as a regional affiliate for pharma and biotech since 1981 in the CEE and Mediterranean. Market access strategies in many international markets do not function the same way as they do in the US or Western Europe and require a different approach. Zorlular explains how EAPs can drive revenue for pharmaceutical companies from international unlicensed markets, but that most importantly EAPs allow patients access to life-altering novel medicines. What's more, he says, EAPs can also help shape the biotech space by supporting the opportunity for RWD collection outside of the clinical trial setting and build momentum with local payers, regulators, and the medical community. You can listen to episode 179a of the pharmaphorum podcast in the player below, download the episode to your computer, or find it - and subscribe to the rest of the series - in iTunes, Spotify, Amazon Music, Podbean, and pretty much wherever you get your other podcasts!

PRESS REVIEW – Friday, May 16: Romanians head to voting booths for the second round of presidential elections, which pit pro-Europe candidate Nicușor Dan against the populist, hard-right frontrunner George Simion. Who will prevail? Also: The New York Times looks at ground-breaking gene editing therapy which saved the life of an infant and could save many more. It also helps us find out why ginger cats are mostly male (it's a genetic thing). Romanians head to the polls on Sunday for the second round of voting in a presidential election with huge repercussions for Europe, all because of one man: George Simion. The hard-right populist, a Trump-loving candidate, is tipped to be the winner of this closely fought election. He could take Romania in a new direction, away from the traditional pro-Brussels mainstream. Simion is on the cover of Politico magazine this week. Early polls show his centrist rival Nicusor Dan, the mathematician mayor of Bucharest, catching up, but it's too early to tell. Politico's news site explains that it's been an unusual presidential campaign. The election campaign has been fought largely on TV and social media – neither candidate has spent much time campaigning on the ground. Simion hasn't even been in the country and attended only one debate with his rival.  Cotidianul, a Romanian daily, references the Politico cover story. It examines the similarities between Italy's Giorgia Meloni, a populist or neo-populist leader, and Simion. The two are most similar in terms of opening up their respective countries to the US. However, the article says that if Simion wins, he will discover, like Meloni, that populism as preached and populism as practiced are two different things – and this could affect his popularity within his own electorate. Romanian business paper Bursa sees Romanians as having a choice between "the plague and cholera". On its front page, it portray the two candidates in futurist outfits. The second round is perceived as a science fiction film, a Romanian-Russian production – in reference to Simion's closeness with the Kremlin.French daily Le Monde, meanwhile, has published a report by two Romanian journalists on a road trip to meet the Romanian diaspora. More than 60 percent of the Romanian diaspora in Europe voted for Simion in the first round of elections. Journalists Elena Stancu and Cosmin Bumbut hit the road in a campervan, travelling around Europe to document the lives of Romanians who have left the country since it joined the EU. It's believed that two to five million Romanians live in Western Europe. Life is not always easy for them: many take precarious jobs in which they are exploited; a common criticism by Simion.In some good news for science, an infant boy born with a rare genetic disorder has been healed in groundbreaking gene-editing treatment. KJ, a nine-month-old boy, was born with a genetic disorder that affects one in 1.3 million babies. His parents had a choice: palliative care or cutting-edge technology. They chose the latter. KJ has become the first patient to receive custom gene-editing treatment. The New York Times explains that his disorder was the result of a single incorrect DNA letter in the human genome. Researchers concocted an infusion, covered in fatty lipid molecules which were sent to the liver. Inside the lipids were instructions to command the cells to produce an enzyme that edits the gene. The revolutionary research was built on decades of federally funded research. The problem with rare disorders is that it's not viable for companies to spend time and money on specific treatments. However, this technology can be customised and forgoes long years of development and testing. It offers hope, notably to many people suffering from rare genetic disorders.Finally: new research in The Times of London has shed light on why 80 percent of ginger cats are male. And it's due to genetics! The ginger colour is caused by a ARHGAP 36 gene within pigment cells. In other mammals like orangutans and humans, the chances of being ginger are pretty much 50-50 because the genetic disruption that leads to the orange colour takes place earlier. In cats, though, it happens on the X chromosome. A male cat (XY), would only need one variant to be ginger whereas the female (XX) chromosome needs two. This explains why most ginger cats are male! You can catch our press review every morning on France 24 at 7:20am and 9:20am (Paris time), from Monday to Friday.

It's Thursday, May 15th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark 1,518 executions worldwide in 2024 A report from Amnesty International found there were 1,518 executions around the world last year. That's up 32 percent from 2023. Nations with the most documented executions include Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.  These numbers do not include executions in China, North Korea, and Vietnam. China is considered to be the world's leading executioner, with potentially thousands of executions last year. All of these countries are ranked on the Open Doors' World Watch List of nations where it is most difficult to be a Christian.  British city council no longer bans street preachers A local government district in England has backed down from banning street preachers. Back in March, Rushmoor Borough Council sought to criminalize street preaching, praying for people, singing, or handing out Bibles. Local churches, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, opposed the plan. Thankfully, the council backed down.  Jamie Broadey, a local evangelist, said, “Since we found out about the injunction and asked for prayer, we have been contacted by Christians from across the UK. The issue is uniting preachers and Christians and we are prepared to challenge this as far as need be to prevent the Gospel being criminalized.” Acts 5:29 says, “But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.'” $1.2 trillion economic package with Qatar United States President Donald Trump is visiting countries in the Middle East this week. Yesterday, he signed an agreement with Qatar that would generate an economic exchange worth at least $1.2 trillion. This includes an historic sale of Boeing aircraft and GE Aerospace engines to Qatar Airways worth $96 billion.  Trump budget insists on work requirements for Medicaid This week, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives unveiled the “big, beautiful bill,” as the president calls it, to advance Trump's agenda.  The bill includes tax breaks, spending cuts, and border security.  Notably, the measure would cut $900 billion from Medicaid spending. It would also require many people to prove they are working, volunteering, or pursuing education to be eligible for Medicaid. Listen to comments by House Speaker Mike Johnson. JOHNSON: “We are protecting Medicaid for the people who need and deserve it. This program is an essential lifeline for our most vulnerable Americans: pregnant women, single mothers, low income seniors, the disabled. That's who Medicaid is intended to be for, and that's who we're protecting while we're eliminating fraud, waste and abuse to improve Medicaid. “These are reforms to restore and preserve the system so that it doesn't collapse on itself. That means ensuring illegal aliens don't get coverage meant for Americans in need. It means implementing work requirements to ensure that adults who can work, but refuse to, cannot keep cheating the system. We're going to continue to call this out.” Trump's bill defunds Planned Parenthood The “big, beautiful bill” from Republicans also paves the way for defunding Planned Parenthood. The legislation would bar federal funds from going to prohibited entities that perform abortions in many cases. The measure would also cut taxpayer funding for transgender surgeries for minors.  U.S. drug overdose deaths down Drug overdose deaths in the United States declined last year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports 80,000 people died from overdoses in 2024. That's down 27 percent from 2023. It's the largest drop in overdose deaths on record. However, overdose deaths are still higher now than they were before the COVID-19 pandemic.  Inflation down and egg prices down Annual inflation was lower than expected last month. The consumer price index rose 0.2 percent in April. That put the 12-month inflation rate at 2.3 percent. Inflation is now the lowest it's been since 2021. Notably, egg prices fell by over 12 percent. However, they're still up about 50 percent compared to a year ago. Worldwide Bible engagement update And finally, the American Bible Society released the second chapter of its State of the Bible USA 2025 report.  The chapter looks at Bible engagement around the world.  People are most actively engaged and committed to the Bible in areas that are majority Christian like Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa.  Interestingly, people are the most receptive to new ideas and other religions in Muslim-majority areas like North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia.  The greatest indifference to the Bible is found in the secular west and certain majority-Christian areas like the U.S., Western Europe, Russia, and Eastern Europe.  Of countries in the secular West, the U.S. had the highest rates of Bible usage and church attendance.  Isaiah 45:22 says, “Look to Me, and be saved, all you ends of the Earth! For I am God, and there is no other.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Thursday, May 15th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Remember Us, by Robert Edsel-#1 New York Times bestselling author of The Monuments Men (which was turned into a blockbuster film with an all-star cast including George Clooney, Matt Damon, Bill Murray and Cate Blanchett) -begins in the pre-dawn hours of Hitler's invasion of Western Europe on May 10, 1940, when his forces rolled into the small rural province of Limburg in the Netherlands shattering more than 100 years of peace. Their freedom gone, the Dutch lived through four-and-a-half years of occupation until American forces reached Limburg in September 1944, the last portion of Western Europe liberated by the Allies before their advance on Nazi Germany slammed to a halt.Like The Monuments Men, Remember Us is an ensemble piece that follows twelve main characters over a six-year span, zeroing in on ordinary people including Frieda van Schäik, a teenager who falls in love with an American soldier; Lieutenant Colonel Robert Cole, the first member of the 101st Airborne to receive the Medal of Honor; and Sergeant Jeff Wiggins of the 960th Quartermaster Service Company, who escaped the poverty and racism of Alabama for yet another indignity-digging graves.Drawing on never-before-seen letters, diaries, and other historical records, Edsel shows the painful price of freedom, on the battlefields and inside American homes. In this rich, dramatic, and suspenseful story, he captures both the horrors of war and the transcendent power of gratitude, showing the extraordinary measures the Dutch have taken to thank their liberators. Remember Us is exactly the book we need-a reminder that grief is universal, that humanity knows no national or racial boundaries, and that we all want to be remembered, somehow, someway, by somebody.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/arroe-collins-unplugged-totally-uncut--994165/support.

Exploramos músicas que nacen de las tradiciones y las experimentaciones a partir de ellas, que nos revelan una enorme riqueza y diversidad por tierras de la Europa occidental, oculta habitualmente ruido de la uniformización. Viajamos por Cerdeña, la región de las Cuatro Provincias en Italia, Bretaña, Flandes, Auvernia, Provenza, Languedoc y el Mazizo Central francés, donde nos encontramos una inesperada conexión con Benín, en el África occidental. We explore music that springs from traditions and from experimentation rooted in them, revealing a vast richness and diversity throughout the lands of Western Europe, usually hidden beneath the noise of uniformity. We travel through Sardinia, the region of the Quattro Province in Italy, Brittany, Flanders, Auvergne, Provence, Languedoc, and the French Massif Central, where we find an unexpected connection with Benin, in West Africa. - Pierpaolo Vacca - Ballu travessu - Travessu - Daniele Bicego - Alessandrina - Cantami, o müsa - O'Tridal - Temple tuk - Live - Louise - Elisa - Louise - Tant que li Siam - La caminado di sesoun - Vent'alentour - Camille en Bal - Au plus chaud de chaque été - De còr e d'aiga - Cardboard Cabin - Skateboard Scottish - Schemerdonker - Buck - Gebed - Buck - Ktipietok Orkestar - Foua - Et ouai - Ktipietok Orkestar & Gangbé Brass Band - Atin de jlo he - Gangbetok 📸 Gangbetok

In April, travel to the U.S. rebounded with a notable 12% increase in visits from Western Europe, particularly from Germany and the U.K., though the data excludes Canada, where visits have declined. The U.S. air traffic control system is under scrutiny due to outdated technology and staffing shortages, prompting the government to invest billions in modernization, including new towers and increased hiring. Meanwhile, Highgate is expanding its luxury Viceroy brand with new developments like The Harriman in Idaho, marking a shift toward upscale leisure destinations. U.S. Visits From Europe Rebounded in April After Sharp Drop Highgate Expands Viceroy With Sun Valley Launch, Branded Residences — Exclusive Newark Outages Expose Air Traffic Control Crisis — What to Know About the Fix  Connect with Skift LinkedIn: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/company/skift/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ WhatsApp: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaAL375LikgIXmNPYQ0L/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Facebook: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://facebook.com/skiftnews⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/skiftnews/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Threads: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.threads.net/@skiftnews⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Bluesky: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bsky.app/profile/skiftnews.bsky.social⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/skift⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SkiftNews⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and never miss an update from the travel industry.

Spies In My Blood: A Polish Family's Secret Fight Against Nazis & Communists (Polestar-Media, 2025) is the true story of two brothers raised in New York by WWII exiles and their journey to Poland. Each takes a different path to infiltrate the Communist secret police on a mission to uncover the truth about their family of soldiers, spies, and assassins. Which brother would go into the family business?Alex Storozynski was the first in his family born in the United States, a new leaf on the family tree. When he set out to find his roots in Poland during the Cold War, his Mama stitched secret pockets into boxer shorts where he could hide his cash, passport, and important documents. Before he left to go behind the Iron Curtain, his mother warned him: “Be careful of your brother's friends.” His big brother George, a banker, told him, “Mama doesn't want you to go into the family business.”As an aspiring journalist, Storozynski interviewed Polish rock stars, filmmakers, and artists fighting censorship. He navigated the black market and learned to thrive in the surreal and repressive system. He persuaded the Communist government to give him a scholarship to write a doctoral dissertation about the most hated man in Poland, the military regime's press spokesman, Jerzy Urban. But he asked too many questions.Storozynski attended Urban's press conferences with American journalists and met underground Solidarity activists trying to overthrow the government. He translated interviews with opposition leaders like Lech Wałesa for The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Boston Globe.There's a Polish saying, “You can't fool your genes; it's in your blood.” The Communist secret police (SB) stole Storozynski's visa and interrogated him. When Senator Ted Kennedy arrived in Warsaw to give The Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award to Adam Michnik and the parents of martyred opposition priest Father Jerzy Popiełuszko, Storozynski spent time with the Kennedy clan and taught them to sing Sto Lat (May He Live 100 Years) to the opposition.The SB had enough. After investigating Alex Storozynski, they wrote: “The findings in the case show that he is familiar with the working methods of special services.” Storozynski was declared an “enemy of the state” and banned from Communist Poland.This is the true story of Alex Storozynski's quest to uncover the nitty-gritty of three generations of spies in his blood.Winston Churchill's words serve as a stark warning: “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” With the Russian Army again trying to move the border between East and Western Europe, the dormant Cold War has reignited a hot war. Russia's invasion of sovereign nations and killing of Ukrainians is a grim reminder of the need to avoid repeating history. Motorized terror squads are once again murdering Jews, and civilian bombing deaths are written off as collateral damage. The gravity of the situation cannot be overstated. Alex Storozynski is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, award-winning author, filmmaker, songwriter, and President Emeritus & Chairman of the Board of The Kosciuszko Foundation.Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar whose research areas are related to Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, military history, War studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, as well as Russian and East European history. 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

Spies In My Blood: A Polish Family's Secret Fight Against Nazis & Communists (Polestar-Media, 2025) is the true story of two brothers raised in New York by WWII exiles and their journey to Poland. Each takes a different path to infiltrate the Communist secret police on a mission to uncover the truth about their family of soldiers, spies, and assassins. Which brother would go into the family business?Alex Storozynski was the first in his family born in the United States, a new leaf on the family tree. When he set out to find his roots in Poland during the Cold War, his Mama stitched secret pockets into boxer shorts where he could hide his cash, passport, and important documents. Before he left to go behind the Iron Curtain, his mother warned him: “Be careful of your brother's friends.” His big brother George, a banker, told him, “Mama doesn't want you to go into the family business.”As an aspiring journalist, Storozynski interviewed Polish rock stars, filmmakers, and artists fighting censorship. He navigated the black market and learned to thrive in the surreal and repressive system. He persuaded the Communist government to give him a scholarship to write a doctoral dissertation about the most hated man in Poland, the military regime's press spokesman, Jerzy Urban. But he asked too many questions.Storozynski attended Urban's press conferences with American journalists and met underground Solidarity activists trying to overthrow the government. He translated interviews with opposition leaders like Lech Wałesa for The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Boston Globe.There's a Polish saying, “You can't fool your genes; it's in your blood.” The Communist secret police (SB) stole Storozynski's visa and interrogated him. When Senator Ted Kennedy arrived in Warsaw to give The Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award to Adam Michnik and the parents of martyred opposition priest Father Jerzy Popiełuszko, Storozynski spent time with the Kennedy clan and taught them to sing Sto Lat (May He Live 100 Years) to the opposition.The SB had enough. After investigating Alex Storozynski, they wrote: “The findings in the case show that he is familiar with the working methods of special services.” Storozynski was declared an “enemy of the state” and banned from Communist Poland.This is the true story of Alex Storozynski's quest to uncover the nitty-gritty of three generations of spies in his blood.Winston Churchill's words serve as a stark warning: “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” With the Russian Army again trying to move the border between East and Western Europe, the dormant Cold War has reignited a hot war. Russia's invasion of sovereign nations and killing of Ukrainians is a grim reminder of the need to avoid repeating history. Motorized terror squads are once again murdering Jews, and civilian bombing deaths are written off as collateral damage. The gravity of the situation cannot be overstated. Alex Storozynski is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, award-winning author, filmmaker, songwriter, and President Emeritus & Chairman of the Board of The Kosciuszko Foundation.Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar whose research areas are related to Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, military history, War studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, as well as Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/national-security

Spies In My Blood: A Polish Family's Secret Fight Against Nazis & Communists (Polestar-Media, 2025) is the true story of two brothers raised in New York by WWII exiles and their journey to Poland. Each takes a different path to infiltrate the Communist secret police on a mission to uncover the truth about their family of soldiers, spies, and assassins. Which brother would go into the family business?Alex Storozynski was the first in his family born in the United States, a new leaf on the family tree. When he set out to find his roots in Poland during the Cold War, his Mama stitched secret pockets into boxer shorts where he could hide his cash, passport, and important documents. Before he left to go behind the Iron Curtain, his mother warned him: “Be careful of your brother's friends.” His big brother George, a banker, told him, “Mama doesn't want you to go into the family business.”As an aspiring journalist, Storozynski interviewed Polish rock stars, filmmakers, and artists fighting censorship. He navigated the black market and learned to thrive in the surreal and repressive system. He persuaded the Communist government to give him a scholarship to write a doctoral dissertation about the most hated man in Poland, the military regime's press spokesman, Jerzy Urban. But he asked too many questions.Storozynski attended Urban's press conferences with American journalists and met underground Solidarity activists trying to overthrow the government. He translated interviews with opposition leaders like Lech Wałesa for The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Boston Globe.There's a Polish saying, “You can't fool your genes; it's in your blood.” The Communist secret police (SB) stole Storozynski's visa and interrogated him. When Senator Ted Kennedy arrived in Warsaw to give The Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award to Adam Michnik and the parents of martyred opposition priest Father Jerzy Popiełuszko, Storozynski spent time with the Kennedy clan and taught them to sing Sto Lat (May He Live 100 Years) to the opposition.The SB had enough. After investigating Alex Storozynski, they wrote: “The findings in the case show that he is familiar with the working methods of special services.” Storozynski was declared an “enemy of the state” and banned from Communist Poland.This is the true story of Alex Storozynski's quest to uncover the nitty-gritty of three generations of spies in his blood.Winston Churchill's words serve as a stark warning: “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” With the Russian Army again trying to move the border between East and Western Europe, the dormant Cold War has reignited a hot war. Russia's invasion of sovereign nations and killing of Ukrainians is a grim reminder of the need to avoid repeating history. Motorized terror squads are once again murdering Jews, and civilian bombing deaths are written off as collateral damage. The gravity of the situation cannot be overstated. Alex Storozynski is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, award-winning author, filmmaker, songwriter, and President Emeritus & Chairman of the Board of The Kosciuszko Foundation.Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar whose research areas are related to Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, military history, War studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, as well as Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

Oliver O'Connor, Chief Executive of Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association discusses the lack of availability of new cancer drugs.

This week we talk about the Marshall Plan, standardization, and USB.We also discuss artificial intelligence, Anthropic, and protocols.Recommended Book: Fuzz by Mary RoachTranscriptIn the wake of WWII, the US government implemented the European Recovery Program, more commonly known as the Marshall Plan, to help Western Europe recover from a conflict that had devastated the afflicted countries' populations, infrastructure, and economies.It kicked off in April of 1948, and though it was replaced by a successor program, the Mutual Security Act, just three years later in 1951—which was similar to the Marshall Plan, but which had a more militant, anti-communism bent, the idea being to keep the Soviets from expanding their influence across the continent and around the world—the general goal of both programs was similar: the US was in pretty good shape, post-war, and in fact by waiting to enter as long as it did, and by becoming the arsenal of the Allied side in the conflict, its economy was flourishing, its manufacturing base was all revved up and needed something to do with all the extra output capacity it had available, all the resources committed to producing hardware and food and so on, so by sharing these resources with allies, by basically just giving a bunch of money and assets and infrastructural necessities to these European governments, the US could get everybody on side, bulwarked against the Soviet Union's counterinfluence, at a moment in which these governments were otherwise prone to that influence; because they were suffering and weaker than usual, and thus, if the Soviets came in with the right offer, or with enough guns, they could conceivably grab a lot of support and even territory. So it was considered to be in everyone's best interest, those who wanted to keep the Soviet Union from expanding, at least, to get Europe back on its feet, posthaste.So this program, and its successor program, were highly influential during this period, and it's generally considered to be one of the better things the US government has done for the world, as while there were clear anti-Soviet incentives at play, it was also a relatively hands-off, large-scale give-away that favorably compared with the Soviets' more demanding and less generous version of the same.One interesting side effect of the Marshall Plan is that because US manufacturers were sending so much stuff to these foreign ports, their machines and screws and lumber used to rebuild entire cities across Europe, the types of machines and screws and lumber, which were the standard models of each in the US, but many of which were foreign to Europe at the time, became the de facto standard in some of these European cities, as well.Such standards aren't always the best of all possible options, sometimes they stick around long past their period of ideal utility, and they don't always stick, but the standards and protocols within an industry or technology do tend to shape that industry or technology's trajectory for decades into the future, as has been the case with many Marshall Plan-era US standards that rapidly spread around the world as a result of these giveaways.And standards and protocols are what I'd like to talk about today. In particular a new protocol that seems primed to shape the path today's AI tools are taking.—Today's artificial intelligence, or AI, which is an ill-defined type of software that generally refers to applications capable of doing vaguely human-like things, like producing text and images, but also somewhat superhuman things, like working with large data-sets and bringing meaning to them, are developing rapidly, becoming more potent and capable seemingly every day.This period of AI development has been in the works for decades, and the technologies required to make the current batch of generative AI tools—the type that makes stuff based on libraries of training data, deriving patterns from that data and then coming up with new stuff based on the prompting of human users—were originally developed in the 1970s, but the transformer, which was a fresh approach to what's called deep learning architectures, was first proposed in 2017 by a researcher at Google, and that led to the development of the generative pre-trained transformer, or GPT, in 2018.The average non-tech-world person probably started to hear about this generation of AI tools a few years later, maybe when the first transformer-based voice and image tools started popping up around the internet, mostly as novelties, or even more likely in late-2022 when OpenAI released the first version of ChatGPT, a generative AI system attached to a chatbot interface, which made these sorts of tools more accessible to the average person.Since then, there's been a wave of investment and interest in AI tools, and we've reached a point where the seemingly obvious next-step is removing humans from the loop in more AI-related processes.What that means in practice is that while today these tools require human prompting for most of what they do—you have to ask an AI for a specific image, then ask it to refine that image in order to customize it for your intended use-case, for instance—it's possible to have AI do more things on their own, working from broader instructions to refine their creations themselves over multiple steps and longer periods of time.So rather than chatting with an AI to come up with a marketing plan for your business, prompting it dozens or hundreds of times to refine the sales copy, the logo, the images for the website, the code for the website, and so on, you might tell an AI tool that you're building a business that does X and ask it to spin up all the assets that you need. From there, the AI might research what a new business in that industry requires, make all the assets you need for it, go back and tweak all those assets based on feedback from other AI tools, and then deploy those assets for you on web hosting services, social media accounts, and the like.It's possible that at some point these tools could become so capable in this regard that humans won't need to be involved at all, even for the initial ideation. You could ask an AI what sorts of businesses make sense at the moment, and tell it to build you a dozen minimum viable products for those businesses, and then ask it to run those businesses for you—completely hands off, except for the expressing your wishes part, almost like you're working with a digital genie.At the moment, components of that potential future are possible, but one of the main things standing in the way is that AI systems largely aren't agentic enough, which in this context means they need a lot of hand-holding for things that a human being would be capable of doing, but which they largely, with rare exceptions, aren't yet, and they often don't have the permission or ability to interact with other tools required to do that kind of building—and that includes things like the ability to create a business account on Shopify, but also the ability to access and handle money, which would be required to set up business and bank accounts, to receive money from customers, and so on.This is changing at a rapid pace, and more companies are making their offerings accessible to specific AI tools; Shopify has deployed its own cluster of internal AI systems, for instance, meant to manage various aspects of a business its customers perch on its platform.What's missing right now, though, is a unifying scaffolding that allows these services and assets and systems to all play nice with each other.And that's the issue the Model Context Protocol is meant to address.The Model Context Protocol, or MCP, is a standard developed by AI company Anthropic, and it's open and designed to be universal. The company intends for it to be the mycelium that connects large language model-based AI to all sorts of data and tools and other systems, a bit like the Hypertext Transfer Protocol, or HTTP, allows data on the web to be used and shared and processed, universally, in a standardized way, and to dip back into the world of physical objects, how standardized shipping containers make global trade a lot more efficient because everyone's working with the same sized boxes, cargo vessels, and so on.The Universal Serial Bus standard, usually shorthanded as USB, is also a good comparison here, as the USB was introduced to replaced a bunch of other standards in the early days of personal computing, which varied by computer maker, and which made it difficult for those makers, plus those who developed accessories, to make their products accessible and inexpensive for end-users, as you might buy a mouse that doesn't work with your specific computer hardware, or you might have a cable that fits in the hole on your computer, but doesn't send the right amount of data, or provide the power you need.USB standards ensured that all devices had the same holes, and that a certain basic level of data and power transmission would be available. And while this standard has since fractured a bit, a period of many different types of USB leading to a lot of confusion, and the deployment of the USB C standard simplying things somewhat, but still being a bit confounding at times, as the same shaped plug may carry different amounts of data and power, despite all that, it has still made things a lot easier for both consumers and producers of electronic goods, as there are fewer plugs and charger types to purchase, and thus less waste, confusion, and so on. We've moved on from the wild west era of computer hardware connectivity into something less varied and thus, more predictable and interoperable.The MCP, if it's successful, could go on to be something like the USB standard in that it would serve as a universal connector between various AI systems and all the things you might want those AI systems to access and use.That might mean you want one of Anthropic's AI systems to build you a business, without you having to do much or anything at all, and it may be capable of doing so, asking you questions along the way if it requires more clarity or additional permissiosn—to open a bank account in your name, for instance—but otherwise acting more agentically, as intended, even to the point that it could run social media accounts, work with manufacturers of the goods you sell, and handle customer service inquiries on your behalf.What makes this standard a standout compared to other options, though—and there are many other proposed options, right now, as this space is still kind of a wild west—is that though it was developed by Anthropic, which originally made it to work with its Claude family of AI tools, it has since also been adopted by OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and several of the other largest players in the AI world.That means, although there are other options here, all with their own pros and cons, as was the case with USB compared to other connection options back in the day, MCP is usable with many of the biggest and most spendy and powerful entities in the AI world, right now, and that gives it a sort of credibility and gravity that the other standards don't currently enjoy.This standard is also rapidly being adopted by companies like Block, Apollo, PayPal, CloudFlare, Asana, Plaid, and Sentry, among many, many others—including other connectors, like Zapier, which basically allows stuff to connect to other stuff, further broadening the capacity of AI tools that adopt this standard.While this isn't a done deal, then, there's a good chance that MCP will be the first big connective, near-universal standard in this space, which in turn means many of the next-step moves and tools in this space will need to work with it, in order to gain adoption and flourish, and that means, like the standards spread around the world by the Marshall Plan, it will go on to shape the look and feel and capabilities, including the limitations, of future AI tools and scaffoldings.Show Noteshttps://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2025/04/mcp-the-new-usb-c-for-ai-thats-bringing-fierce-rivals-together/https://blog.cloudflare.com/remote-model-context-protocol-servers-mcp/https://oldvcr.blogspot.com/2025/05/what-went-wrong-with-wireless-usb.htmlhttps://arxiv.org/html/2504.16736v2https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Context_Protocol#cite_note-anthropic_mcp-1https://github.com/modelcontextprotocolhttps://www.anthropic.com/news/integrationshttps://www.theverge.com/2024/11/25/24305774/anthropic-model-context-protocol-data-sourceshttps://beebom.com/model-context-protocol-mcp-explained/https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/26/openai-adopts-rival-anthropics-standard-for-connecting-ai-models-to-data/https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/09/google-says-itll-embrace-anthropics-standard-for-connecting-ai-models-to-data/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_artificial_intelligencehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USBhttps://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marshall-planhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Planhttps://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45079https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/marshall-planhttps://www.history.com/articles/marshall-plan This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join us on the Professor Liberty Podcast as we delve into the chilling history of Vlad the Impaler, the man behind the Dracula legend. Unravel the complex narrative of Vlad III, the ruler of Wallachia, whose brutal methods and defiance against the mighty Ottoman Empire positioned him as a controversial yet pivotal figure in Europe during the 15th century. Was Vlad III a cruel monster or a divine weapon used to thwart the Ottoman horde?  

I've been in London this week talking to America watchers about the current situation in the United States. First up is Edmund Fawcett, the longtime Economist correspondent in DC and historian of both liberalism and conservatism. Fawcett argues that Trump's MAGA movement represents a kind of third way between liberalism and conservatism - a version of American populism resurrected for our anti-globalist early 21st century. He talks about how economic inequality fuels Trumpism, with middle-class income shares dropping while the wealthy prosper. He critiques both what he calls right-wing intellectual "kitsch" and the left's lack of strategic vision beyond its dogma of identity politics. Lacking an effective counter-narrative to combat Trumpism, Fawcett argues, liberals require not only sharper messaging but also a reinvention of what it means to be modern in our globalized age of resurrected nationalism. 5 Key Takeaways* European reactions to Trump mix shock with recognition that his politics have deep American roots.* Economic inequality (declining middle-class wealth) provides the foundation for Trump's political appeal.* The American left lacks an effective counter-narrative and strategic vision to combat Trumpism.* Both right-wing intellectualism and left-wing identity politics suffer from forms of "kitsch" and American neurosis.* The perception of America losing its position as the embodiment of modernity creates underlying anxiety. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, we are in London this week, looking westward, looking at the United States, spending some time with some distinguished Englishmen, or half-Englishmen, who have spent a lot of their lives in the United States, and Edmund Fawcett, former Economist correspondent in America, the author of a number of important books, particularly, Histories of Liberalism and Conservatism, is remembering America, Edmund. What's your first memory of America?Edmund Fawcett: My first memory of America is a traffic accident on Park Avenue, looking down as a four-year-old from our apartment. I was there from the age of two to four, then again as a school child in Washington for a few years when my father was working. He was an international lawyer. But then, after that, back in San Francisco, where I was a... I kind of hacked as an editor for Straight Arrow Press, which was the publishing arm of Rolling Stone. This was in the early 70s. These were the, it was the end of the glory days of Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco, the anti-war movement in Vietnam. It was exciting. A lot was going on, a lot was changing. And then not long after that, I came back to the U.S. for The Economist as their correspondent in Washington. That was in 1976, and I stayed there until 1983. We've always visited. Our son and grandson are American. My wife is or was American. She gave up her citizenship last year, chiefly for practical reasons. She said I would always feel American. But our regular visits have ended, of course. Being with my background, my mother was American, my grandfather was American. It is deeply part of my outlook, it's part of my world and so I am always very interested. I read quite a bit of the American press, not just the elite liberal press, every day. I keep an eye on through Real Clear Politics, which has got a very good sort of gazetteer. It's part of my weather.Andrew Keen: Edmund, I know you can't speak on behalf of Europe, but I'm going to ask a dumb question. Maybe you'll give me a smarter answer than the question. What's the European, the British take on what's happening in America? What's happened in this first quarter of 2025?Edmund Fawcett: I think a large degree of shock and horror, that's just the first reaction. If you'll allow me a little space, I think then there's a second reaction. The first reaction is shock and terror, with good reason, and nobody likes being talked to in the way that Vance talked to them, ignorantly and provocatively about free speech, which he feels he hasn't really thought hard enough about, and besides, it was I mean... Purely commercial, in largely commercial interest. The Europeans are shocked by the American slide from five, six, seven decades of internationalism. Okay, American-led, but still internationalist, cooperative, they're deeply shocked by that. And anybody who cares, as many Europeans do, about the texture, the caliber of American democracy and liberalism, are truly shocked by Trump's attacks on the courts, his attacks on the universities, his attack on the press.Andrew Keen: You remember, of course, Edmund, that famous moment in Casablanca where the policeman said he was shocked, truly shocked when of course he wasn't. Is your shock for real? Your... A good enough scholar of the United States to understand that a lot of the stuff that Trump is bringing to the table isn't new. We've had an ongoing debate in the show about how authentically American Trump is, whether he is the F word fascist or whether he represents some other indigenous strain in US political culture. What's your take?Edmund Fawcett: No, and that's the response to the shock. It's when you look back and see this Trump is actually deeply American. There's very little new here. There's one thing that is new, which I'll come to in a moment, and that returns the shock, but the shock is, is to some extent absorbed when Europeans who know about this do reflect that Trump is deeply American. I mean, there is a, he likes to cite McKinley, good, okay, the Republicans were the tariff party. He likes to say a lot of stuff that, for example, the populist Tom Watson from the South, deeply racist, but very much speaking for the working man, so long as he was a white working man. Trump goes back to that as well. He goes back in the presidential roster. Look at Robert Taft, competitor for the presidency against Eisenhower. He lost, but he was a very big voice in the Republican Party in the 1940s and 50s. Robert Taft, Jr. didn't want to join NATO. He pushed through over Truman's veto, the Taft-Hartley bill that as good as locked the unions out, the trade unions out of much of the part of America that became the burgeoning economic America, the South and the West. Trump is, sorry, forgive me, Taft, was in many ways as a hard-right Republican. Nixon told Kissinger, professors are the enemy. Reagan gave the what was it called? I forget the name of the speech that he gave in endorsing Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican Convention. This in a way launched the new Republican assault on liberal republicanism. Rockefeller was the loser. Reagan, as it were, handed the palm to Rocket Goldwater. He lost to Johnson, but the sermon they were using, the anti-liberal went into vernacular and Trump is merely in a way echoing that. If you were to do a movie called Trump, he would star, of course, but somebody who was Nixon and Reagan's scriptwright, forgive me, somebody who is Nixon and Reagan's Pressman, Pat Buchanan, he would write the script of the Trump movie. Go back and read, look at some of Pat Buchanan's books, some of his articles. He was... He said virtually everything that Trump says. America used to be great, it is no longer great. America has enemies outside that don't like it, that we have nothing to do with, we don't need allies, what we want is friends, and we have very few friends in the world. We're largely on our, by our own. We're basically a huge success, but we're being betrayed. We're being ignored by our allies, we're being betrayed by friends inside, and they are the liberal elite. It's all there in Pat Buchanan. So Trump in that way is indeed very American. He's very part of the history. Now, two things. One is... That Trump, like many people on the hard right in Europe, is to some extent, a neurotic response to very real complaints. If you would offer a one chart explanation of Trumpism, I don't know whether I can hold it up for the camera. It's here. It is actually two charts, but it is the one at the top where you see two lines cross over. You see at the bottom a more or less straight line. What this does is compare the share of income in 1970 with the share of the income more or less now. And what has happened, as we are not at all surprised to learn, is that the poor, who are not quite a majority but close to the actual people in the United States, things haven't changed for them much at all. Their life is static. However, what has changed is the life for what, at least in British terms, is called the middle classes, the middle group. Their share of income and wealth has dropped hugely, whereas the share of the income and wealth of the top has hugely risen. And in economic terms, that is what Trumpism is feeding off. He's feeding off a bewildered sense of rage, disappointment, possibly envy of people who looked forward, whose parents looked forward to a great better life, who they themselves got a better life. They were looking forward to one for their children and grandchildren. And now they're very worried that they're not those children and grandchildren aren't going to get it. So socially speaking, there is genuine concern, indeed anger that Trump is speaking to. Alas, Trump's answers are, I would say, and I think many Europeans would agree, fantasies.Andrew Keen: Your background is also on the left, your first job was at the New Left Reviews, you're all too familiar with Marxist language, Marxist literature, ways of thinking about what we used to call late-stage capitalism, maybe we should rename it post-late-stage-capitalism. Is it any surprise, given your presentation of the current situation in America, which is essentially class envy or class warfare, but the right. The Bannonites and many of the others on the right fringes of the MAGA movement have picked up on Lenin and Gramsci and the old icons of class warfare.Edmund Fawcett: No, I don't think it is. I think that they are these are I mean, we live in a world in which the people in politics and in the press in business, they've been to universities, they've read an awful lot of books, they spend an awful lot of time studying dusty old books like the ones you mentioned, Gramsci and so. So they're, to some extent, forgive me, they are, they're intellectuals or at least they become, they be intellectualized. Lenin called one of his books, What is to be Done. Patrick Deneen, a Catholic right-wing Catholic philosopher. He's one of the leading right-wing Catholic intellectuals of the day, hard right. He named it What is To Be Done. But this is almost kitsch, as it were, for a conservative Catholic intellectual to name a book after Vladimir Lenin, the first Bolshevik leader of the Russian Revolution. Forgive me, I lost the turn.Andrew Keen: You talk about kitsch, Edmund, is this kitsch leftism or is it real leftism? I mean if Trump was Bernie Sanders and a lot of what Trump says is not that different from Sanders with the intellectuals or the few intellectuals left in. New York and San Francisco and Los Angeles, would they be embracing what's happening? Thanks, I've got the third again.Edmund Fawcett: No, you said Kitsch. The publicists and intellectuals who support Trump, there is a Kitsch element to it. They use a lot of long words, they appeal to a lot of authorities. Augustine of Hippo comes into it. This is really kind of intellectual grandstanding. No, what matters? And this comes to the second thing about shock at Trump. The second thing is that there is real social and economic dysfunction here that the United States isn't really coping with. I don't think the Trumpites, I don't think the rather kitschy intellectuals who are his mature leaders. I don't think they so much matter. What I think matters here is, put it this way, is the silence of the left. And this is one of the deep problems. I mean, always with my friends, progressive friends, liberal friends, it's terribly easy to throw rocks at Trump and scorn his cheerleaders but we always have to ask ourselves why are they there and we're here and the left at the moment doesn't really have an answer to that. The Democrats in the United States they're strangely silent. And it's not just, as many people say, because they haven't dared to speak up. It's not that, it's a question of courage. It's an intellectual question of lacking some strategic sense of where the country is and what kinds of policy would help get it to a better place. This is very bleak, and that's part of, underlies the sense of shock, which we come back to with Trump after we tell ourselves, oh, well, it isn't new, and so on. The sense of shock is, well what is the practical available alternative for the moment? Electorally, Trump is quite weak, he wasn't a landslide, he got fewer percentage than Jimmy Carter did. The balance in the in the congress is quite is quite slight but again you could take false comfort there. The problem with liberals and progressives is they don't really have a counter narrative and one of the reasons they don't have a counter-narrative is I don't sense they have any longer a kind of vision of their own. This is a very bleak state of affairs.Andrew Keen: It's a bleak state of affairs in a very kind of surreal way. They're lacking the language. They don't have the words. Do they need to reread the old New Left classics?Edmund Fawcett: I think you've said a good thing. I mean, words matter tremendously. And this is one of Trump's gifts, is that he's able to spin old tropes of the right, the old theme music of the hard right that goes back to late 19th century America, late 19th century Europe. He's brilliant at it. It's often garbled. It's also incoherent. But the intellectuals, particularly liberals and progressives can mishear this. They can miss the point. They say, ah, it doesn't, it's not grammatical. It's incoherent. It is word salad. That's not the point. A paragraph of Trump doesn't make sense. If you were an editor, you'd want to rewrite it, but editors aren't listening. It's people in the crowd who get his main point, and his main point is always expressed verbally. It's very clever. It's hard to reproduce because he's actually a very good actor. However, the left at the moment has nothing. It has neither a vocabulary nor a set of speech makers. And the reason it doesn't have that, it doesn't have the vocabularies, because it doesn't have the strategic vision.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and coming back to the K-word you brought up, kitsch. If anything, the kitsch is on the left with Kamala Harris and her presentation of herself in this kitschification of American immigration. So the left in America, if that's the right word to describe them, are as vulnerable to kitsch as the right.Edmund Fawcett: Yes, and whether it's kitsch or not, I think this is very difficult to talk to on the progressive left. Identity politics does have a lot to answer for. Okay, I'll go for it. I mean, it's an old saying in politics that things begin as a movement, become a campaign, become a lobby, and then end up as a racket. That's putting it much too strongly, but there is an element in identity politics of which that is true. And I think identity politics is a deep problem for liberals, it's a deep problem for progressives because in the end, what identity politics offers is a fragmentation, which is indeed happened on the left, which then the right can just pick off as it chooses. This is, I think, to get back some kind of strategic vision, the left needs to come out of identity politics, it needs to go back to the vision of commonality, the vision of non-discrimination, the mission of true civic equality, which underlay civil rights, great movement, and try to avoid. The way that identity politics is encouraged, a kind of segmentation. There's an interesting parallel between identity politics and Trumpism. I'm thinking of the national element in Trumpism, Make America Great Again. It's rather a shock to see the Secretary of State sitting beside Trump in the room in the White House with a make America it's not a make America great cap but it says Gulf of America this kind of This nationalism is itself neurotic in a way that identity politics has become neurotic.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's a Linguistic.Edmund Fawcett: Neurosis. Both are neurotic responses to genuine problems.Andrew Keen: Edmund, long-time viewers and listeners to the show know that I often quote you in your wonderful two histories of conservatism and liberalism when you, I'm not sure which of the books, I think it may have been in conservatism. I can't remember myself. You noted that this struggle between the left and the right, between liberalism and conservatives have always be smarter they've always made the first move and it's always been up to the liberals and of course liberalism and the left aren't always the same thing but the left or progressives have always been catching up with conservatives so just to ask this question in terms of this metaphorical chess match has anything changed. It's always been the right that makes the first move, that sets the game up. It has recently.Edmund Fawcett: Let's not fuss too much with the metaphor. I think it was, as it were, the Liberals made the first move for decades, and then, more or less in our lifetimes, it has been the right that has made the weather, and the left has been catching up. Let's look at what happened in the 1970s. In effect. 30-40 years of welfare capitalism in which the state played ever more of a role in providing safety nets for people who were cut short by a capitalistic economy. Politics turned its didn't entirely reject that far from it but it is it was said enough already we've reached an end point we're now going to turn away from that and try to limit the welfare state and that has been happening since the 1970s and the left has never really come up with an alternative if you look at Mitterrand in France you look at Tony Blair new Labor in you look at Clinton in the United States, all of them in effect found an acceptably liberal progressive way of repackaging. What the right was doing and the left has got as yet no alternative. They can throw rocks at Trump, they can resist the hard right in Germany, they can go into coalition with the Christian Democrats in order to resist the hard right much as in France but they don't really have a governing strategy of their own. And until they do, it seems to me, and this is the bleak vision, the hard right will make the running. Either they will be in government as they are in the United States, or they'll be kept just out of government by unstable coalitions of liberal conservatives and the liberal left.Andrew Keen: So to quote Patrick Deneen, what is to be done is the alternative, a technocracy, the best-selling book now on the New York Times bestseller list is Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson's Abundance, which is a progressive. Technocratic manifesto for changing America. It's not very ideological. Is that really the only alternative for the left unless it falls into a Bernie Sanders-style anti-capitalism which often is rather vague and problematic?Edmund Fawcett: Well, technocracy is great, but technocrats never really get to do what they say ought to be done, particularly not in large, messy democracies like Europe and the United States. Look, it's a big question. If I had a Leninist answer to Patrick Deneen's question, what is to be done, I'd be very happy to give it. I feel as somebody on the liberal left that the first thing the liberal left needs to do is to is two things. One is to focus in exposing the intellectual kitschiness, the intellectual incoherence on the one hand of the hard right, and two, hitting back in a popular way, in a vulgar way, if you will, at the lies, misrepresentations, and false appeals that the hard-right coasts on. So that's really a kind of public relations. It's not deep strategy or technocracy. It is not a policy list. It's sharpening up the game. Of basically of democratic politics and they need to liberals on the left need to be much tougher much sharper much more vulgar much more ready to use the kinds of weapons the kinds of mockery and imaginative invention that the Trumpites use that's the first thing the second thing is to take a breath and go back and look at the great achievements of democratic liberalism of the 1950s, 60s, 70s if you will. I mean these were these produced in Europe and the United States societies that by any historical standard are not bad. They have terrible problems, terrible inequities, but by any historical standard and indeed by any comparative standard, they're not bad if you ask yourself why immigration has become such a problem in Western Europe and the United States, it's because these are hugely desirable places to live in, not just because they're rich and make a comfortable living, which is the sort of the rights attitude, because basically they're fairly safe places to live. They're fairly good places for your kids to grow up in. All of these are huge achievements, and it seems to me that the progressives, the liberals, should look back and see how much work was needed to create... The kinds of politics that underpinned that society, and see what was good, boast of what was and focus on how much work was needed.Andrew Keen: Maybe rather than talking about making America great again, it should be making America not bad. I think that's too English for the United States. I don't think that should be for a winner outside Massachusetts and Maine. That's back to front hypocritical Englishism. Let's end where we began on a personal note. Do you think one of the reasons why Trump makes so much news, there's so much bemusement about him around the world, is because most people associate America with modernity, they just take it for granted that America is the most advanced, the most modern, is the quintessential modern project. So when you have a character like Trump, who's anti-modernist, who is a reactionary, It's bewildering.Edmund Fawcett: I think it is bewildering, and I think there's a kind of bewilderment underneath, which we haven't really spoken to as it is an entirely other subject, but is lurking there. Yes, you put your absolutely right, you put your finger on it, a lot of us look to America as modernity, maybe not the society of the future, but certainly the the culture of the future, the innovations of the future. And I think one of the worrying things, which maybe feeds the neurosis of Make America Great Again, feeds the neurosis, of current American unilateralism, is a fear But modernity, talk like Hegel, has now shifted and is now to be seen in China, India and other countries of the world. And I think underlying everything, even below the stuff that we showed in the chart about changing shares of wealth. I think under that... That is much more worrisome in the United States than almost anything else. It's the sense that the United States isn't any longer the great modern world historical country. It's very troubling, but let's face it, you get have to get used to it.Andrew Keen: The other thing that's bewildering and chilling is this seeming coexistence of technological innovation, the Mark Andreessen's, the the Musk's, Elon Musk's of the world, the AI revolution, Silicon Valley, who seem mostly in alliance with Trump and Musk of course are headed out. The Doge campaign to destroy government or undermine government. Is it conceivable that modernity is by definition, you mentioned Hegel and of course lots of people imagine that history had ended in 1989 but the reverse was true. Is it possible that modernity is by-definition reactionary politically?Edmund Fawcett: A tough one. I mean on the technocracy, the technocrats of Silicon Valley, I think one of their problems is that they're brilliant, quite brilliant at making machines. I'm the machinery we're using right here. They're fantastic. They're not terribly good at. Messy human beings and messy politics. So I'm not terribly troubled by that, nor your other question about it is whether looming challenges of technology. I mean, maybe I could just end with the violinist, Fritz Kreisler, who said, I was against the telegraph, I was against the telephone, I was against television. I'm a progressive when it comes to technology. I'm always against the latest thing. I mean, I don't, there've always been new machines. I'm not terribly troubled by that. It seems to me, you know, I want you to worry about more immediate problems. If indeed AI is going to take over the world, my sense is, tell us when we get there.Andrew Keen: And finally, you were half-born in the United States or certainly from an American and British parent. You spent a lot of your life there and you still go, you follow it carefully. Is it like losing a lover or a loved one? Is it a kind of divorce in your mind with what's happening in America in terms of your own relations with America? You noted that your wife gave up her citizenship this year.Edmund Fawcett: Well, it is. And if I could talk about Natalia, my wife, she was much more American than me. Her mother was American from Philadelphia. She lived and worked in America more than I did. She did give up her American citizenship last year, partly for a feeling of, we use a long word, alienation, partly for practical reasons, not because we're anything like rich enough to pay American tax, but simply the business of keeping up with the changing tax code is very wary and troublesome. But she said, as she did it, she will always feel deeply American, and I think it's possible to say that. I mean, it's part of both of us, and I don't think...Andrew Keen: It's loseable. Well, I have to ask this question finally, finally. Maybe I always use that word and it's never final. What does it mean to feel American?Edmund Fawcett: Well, everybody's gonna have their own answer to that. I was just... What does it mean for you? I'm just reading. What it is to feel American. Can I dodge the question by saying, what is it to feel Californian? Or even what is to be Los Angelino? Where my sister-in-law and brother-in-law live. A great friend said, what it is feel Los Angeles you go over those mountains and you put down your rucksack. And I think what that means is for Europeans, America has always meant leaving the past behind.Edmund Fawcett was the Economist‘s Washington, Paris and Berlin correspondent and is a regular reviewer. His Liberalism: The Life of an Idea was published by Princeton in 2014. The second in his planned political trilogy – Conservatism: The Fight for a Tradition – was published in 2020, also by Princeton University Press. The Economist called it ‘an epic history of conservatism and the Financial Times praised Fawcett for creating a ‘rich and wide-ranging account' that demonstrates how conservatism has repeated managed to renew itself.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

- Trump's Trade Embargo Announcement (0:10) - Impact on Global Trade and BRICS (4:08) - Challenges for U.S. Retailers and Manufacturers (16:32) - China's Strategic Response and Cultural Resilience (16:49) - Geopolitical Implications and Economic Collapse (34:05) - Preparation and Survival Strategies (1:06:23) - Special Reports and Additional Resources (1:14:50) - Mike Adams' Analysis of Geopolitical Factors (1:26:57) - Trump's Strategic Priorities and Western Europe's Reaction (1:30:44) - China's Strategic Advancements and Economic Dominance (1:37:11) - China's Long-Term Strategic Goals and Military Capabilities (1:40:57) - The Petrodollar System and Its Imminent Collapse (1:48:16) - The Rise of the BRICS Nations and the BRICS Blockchain (1:57:51) - Beljanski Foundation's Research and Clinical Trials (2:03:26) - The Importance of Nutritional Milestones and Health Choices (2:23:24) - The Future of Cancer Treatment and Research (2:29:31) - The Role of Technology and Information in Health (2:43:18) For more updates, visit: http://www.brighteon.com/channel/hrreport NaturalNews videos would not be possible without you, as always we remain passionately dedicated to our mission of educating people all over the world on the subject of natural healing remedies and personal liberty (food freedom, medical freedom, the freedom of speech, etc.). Together, we're helping create a better world, with more honest food labeling, reduced chemical contamination, the avoidance of toxic heavy metals and vastly increased scientific transparency. ▶️ Every dollar you spend at the Health Ranger Store goes toward helping us achieve important science and content goals for humanity: https://www.healthrangerstore.com/ ▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: https://www.naturalnews.com/Readerregistration.html ▶️ Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/hrreport ▶️ Join Our Social Network: https://brighteon.social/@HealthRanger ▶️ Check In Stock Products at: https://PrepWithMike.com

Founder of Borderhawk.News and head of Infowars Europe, Dan Lyman stops by to break down what is happening along the southern border of the United States as close to seven million illegal aliens have illegally crossed into America under the watch, and with the assistance, of the Biden regime. With Europe dealing with a similar situation as millions of fighting-age men from Africa and the Middle East stream into Western Europe in a coordinated fashion, Dan's team discovered how George Soros and his Open Society have partnered with Mastercard and the European Union to finance the migration with more than half a billion dollars as a way of changing the cultural makeup of the countries in their path. Yet another Soros-financed color revolution is well underway, this time disguised as refugees and asylum seekers. The Octopus of Global Control Audiobook: https://amzn.to/3xu0rMm Hypocrazy Audiobook: https://amzn.to/4aogwms Website: www.Macroaggressions.io Activist Post: www.activistpost.com Sponsors: Chemical Free Body: https://www.chemicalfreebody.com Promo Code: MACRO C60 Purple Power: https://c60purplepower.com/ Promo Code: MACRO Wise Wolf Gold & Silver: www.Macroaggressions.gold LegalShield: www.DontGetPushedAround.com EMP Shield: www.EMPShield.com Promo Code: MACRO ECI Development: https://info.ecidevelopment.com/-get-to-know-us/macro-aggressions Christian Yordanov's Health Transformation Program: www.LiveLongerFormula.com Privacy Academy: https://privacyacademy.com/step/privacy-action-plan-checkout-2/?ref=5620 Brain Supreme: www.BrainSupreme.co Promo Code: MACRO Above Phone: abovephone.com/macro Promo Code: MACRO Van Man: https://vanman.shop/?ref=MACRO Promo Code: MACRO My Patriot Supply: www.PrepareWithMacroaggressions.com Activist Post: www.ActivistPost.com Natural Blaze: www.NaturalBlaze.com Link Tree: https://linktr.ee/macroaggressionspodcast Dan Lyman: Website: www.Borderhawk.News Website: www.infowars.com

The Outer Realm welcomes back Morgan Daimler Host: Michelle Desrochers Date: May 1st, 2025 Episode: 557 Discussion : Morgan returns to talk about her lates book " Paid with a Kiss: Love and Sex in Fairy Belief " . - Paid with a Kiss gives a wide-ranging look at fairies, sex, gender, and human belief through history in Western Europe, focusing primarily on Irish, UK, and French evidence. By examining mythology, folklore, literature, and anecdotes, this book answers common questions of what we know about sex and sexuality among fairies and how they interact with humans, including human-fairy relationships and offspring. Aiming to answer an array of questions on humans, fairies, and intimacy that the author has been asked over the years, Paid with a Kiss is a deep dive into nearly two millennia of folk belief. Contact for the show - theouterrealmcontact@gmail.com Rumble: TheOuterRealm X - MicheleDerocher Website: www.theouterrealmradio.com Please support us by Liking, Subscribing, Sharing and Commenting. Thank you all !!! About Our Guest: -Morgan Daimler teaches classes on Irish myth and magical practices, fairies, and related subjects in the United States and internationally. She has been published in multiple anthologies as well as in Witches and Pagans magazine and Pagan Dawn magazine, and she is one of the world's foremost experts on all things Fairy. Besides the titles available through Moon Books Morgan has a high fantasy novel 'Into Shadow' through Cosmic Egg and has self-published books of Old and Middle Irish language translations, and has an urban fantasy/paranormal romance series called Between the Worlds. Morgan has also presented papers on fairies and on fairies and witches at several university conferences. The Book: AMAZON https://a.co/d/aBlQaFR If you enjoy the content on the channel, please support us by subscribing: Thank you All A formal disclosure: The opinions and information presented or expressed by guests on The Outer Realm Radio and Beyond The Outer Realm are not necessarily those of the TOR, BTOR Hosts, Sponsors, or the United Public Radio Network and its producers. Although the content may be interesting, it is deemed "For Entertainment Purposes" . We are always be respectful and courteous to all involved. Thank you, we appreciate you all

Science in Action this week comes from the European Geophysical Union general assembly, an annual get-together of scientists to discuss current projects, working hypotheses and potential findings. Nearly 18,000 in attendance this year, there is much to learn.AMOC – the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation - brings warmth to the north and cooler waters to the south in huge volumes. Climate modellers have expressed concern for its collapse (and subsequent weather chaos) as temperatures rise more generally, but others have said it is more resilient, a will-it-won't-it discussion Science in Action has covered before. But just this week, Stefan Rhamstorf has announced that extending the models past 2100 can show a different picture. The odds, he tells science in action, have shifted from 10% to more like 50/50 if the Paris climate target is missed. Has such climate change ever occurred before? And if so, what drove it? Hana Jurikova and colleagues have been using novel techniques to detect a link between atmospheric CO2 levels and rapid climate change in the geological past, and talks about how boron records in ancient brachiopods might give us a clue.What of the 6.2 magnitude earthquake near Istanbul last week? Could it have been worse? Will the next one be the big one? Expert Patricia Martínez-Garzón of GFZ in Germany doesn't quite allay the fears.Could more lives be saved from landslides and flash floods if we could set up a warning system? Stefania Ursica hopes so, and has looked to animal behaviour to design a programme to scan networks of seismic monitoring stations' output for the faint signals. Encoding different hunting and communication strategies – from nomadic whales to humming birds and bats, her new algorithm might be just the thing, though prediction will always be a different problem.Presenter: Roland Pease Producer: Alex Mansfield with Sophie Ormiston Production Coordinator: Josie Hardy(Image: 3D Render of a Topographic Map of Western Europe with the clouds from January 27, 2025. Credit: FrankRamspott via Getty Images)

IndiGo's Abhijit DasGupta explains how the LCC plans to shake up the India-Europe market ahead of launching its first routes to Western Europe this summer.

Show Notes: Joe O'Mahoney is a part-time professor of consulting at Cardiff University and  a leading authority on the growth and sale of boutiques and small consultancies. He has spent 20 years researching consultancies and interviewing hundreds of owners and senior leaders. He has developed a growth drivers model, which includes factors like leadership quality, client relationships, and market positioning. He conducts benchmark surveys and interviews with leadership teams and clients. Joe then conducts a SWOT analysis, and estimates the valuation of the firm. He helps the owner satisfy their equity goals, and pull the levers. Joe typically focuses on two to three priorities each year to drive up the firm's growth. He shares three key factors in leadership and team management that are crucial to a successful scale up. Building a Sales Team for a Boutique Consultancy Joe explains that, in the long term, building a competent sales team is crucial for a firm's valuation. This involves promoting, training, mentoring, rewarding, and recruiting sales capabilities. A culture that puts sales first should be complemented by a competent system that listens to sales calls and introduces new hires. This will help build a pipeline of capable sales people in the future. In the short term, implementing these strategies can improve marketing efforts. It is important to consider how your value proposition is translated into marketing themes and content, as well as the frequency and visibility of these posts. It is crucial to ensure that marketing efforts are effective and aligned with the company's goals.  Challenges of Scaling a Business Joe discusses the challenges of scaling a business, particularly for those with a two to 3 million revenue mark. He suggests that firms need to focus on their signature service, which is high value, high growth, and can cross-sell. Marketing algorithms reward clarity in these areas, leading to better value propositions, marketing, and themes. This clarity allows firms to build intellectual property (IP) and increase margins. Once sales, project margin, or EBITDA are reached, firms can decide on additional products to sell alongside their existing offerings, such as parallel products, cross-selling services, or follow-on services. By building a logical sequence of events, firms can achieve high-quality revenue. The Importance of IP in Scaling Consulting Firms Joe shares an example of a firm that focused on a manual approach to cloud consultancy. However, when breaking down their service lines by revenue, the company realized that they should change their focus. In terms of branding and content, Joe explains that buyers are interested in the past growth, future growth, and margin of the firm, but they also want a marketing machine that generates clients, and an architecture of sales that generates high-quality leads.  Joe explains that IP is a top priority for buyers, including the quality of the leadership team. This includes delivery IP, marketing IP, thought leadership, website design, and content. LinkedIn is an interesting example, as due diligence is starting to reveal its influence on a firm's success. Valuation and Growth Trajectory Valuation is a crucial factor for buyers and private equity, as they are interested in the future value of the firm. A healthy growth trajectory is essential, and a machine that can push up the multiple is preferred. Joe explains that it is often better to focus on building the architecture that will allow you to improve your multiple, rather than focusing on increasing your profit margin. This can be achieved by implementing a PSA system, CRM system, training people, and building out IP. However, it is difficult to drive up the multiple quickly, as everyone is talking about margin all the time. It is important for buyers to consider the firm's potential for growth and profitability before making a decision. Joe talks about the EBITDA and how it should be approached. The conversation turns to the treatment of owners' compensation and how it is recalculated during the sale process. He explains that if a board member is preparing a company for sale, Joe's  fee is taken out, and if a founder is paying themselves in dividends to improve profits, the EBITDA is adjusted accordingly.  Employees and Recruiting Talent for Boutique Consulting Firms Joe discusses the importance of recruiting and training employees to provide better value to clients and charge more. He suggests that consultancies operate in two markets: the market for clients and the market for employees. Boutique consultancies often struggle to recruit decent consultants due to the lack of brand recognition and value proposition. To attract the right people, consultancies need to have a clear value proposition for both clients and employees. This includes a clear cultural side of the company, clear values, and clear due diligence rules. The architecture behind this includes competencies, promotions, training, and mentoring. Buyers of Consulting Firms The typical buyers of consulting firms are typically strategic and industry buyers, who have a gap in their offerings. Private equity has become more involved in the market, accounting for 55% of purchases of consulting firms, including private equity-backed strategic buyers. This shift has led to a growing number of non-consultancies seeking to develop consultancy arms, accounting for about 15% of purchases. The Boutique Leaders Club for Consultants Joe shares information about  IP aspects he provides to his clients. He runs the Boutique Leaders club, a group of about 40 owners of consultancies above the 5 million revenue mark. Joe gives them access to 250 bits of IP. This includes competency frameworks, succession plans, and training on business development. The group can also conduct benchmarking surveys twice a year, tracking progress and creating plans for the future. The Boutique Leaders club also offers training materials, both online and face-to-face, to help firms prepare for the selling process, such as finding the best corporate advisor, selecting the right lawyers, and preparing for the selling process. Joe's Engagement Model with Consulting Firms Joe also shares his engagement model with consulting firms, which includes three ways: Board Advisory, as part of his leaders club, and one-off projects. He typically works with clients on a monthly basis, with a focus on value proposition, business development, and marketing. His clients are mostly UK-based, with three US clients and some in Western Europe. He left corporate consulting due to his dislike of managing people, and he is currently the bottleneck to his own firm. He has worked with some good ex-CEOs but struggles with quality of revenues. Bachman asks O'Mahoney to share his website and LinkedIn profile, and he appreciates the opportunity to discuss his experiences and insights on the industry. Timestamps: 01:59: Joe O'Mahoney's Consulting Services  03:48: Diagnostic Process and Growth Drivers Model  05:35: Improving Performance and Leadership Development  09:37: Building a Sales Architecture and CRM Systems 16:36: Intellectual Property and Digital Marketing  28:20: Recruiting and Developing People 34:45: Typical Buyers and Market Trends  37:46: Joe O'Mahoney's IP and Engagement Model  Links: Website: https://joeomahoney.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joeomahoney/?originalSubdomain=uk Unleashed is produced by Umbrex, which has a mission of connecting independent management consultants with one another, creating opportunities for members to meet, build relationships, and share lessons learned. Learn more at www.umbrex.com.    

Ukrainians have resisted Russia's aggression for years. Since the full-scale invasion of their country in 2022, Ukrainian women in particular have taken on important roles on the frontlines, in civil society, and at home. Gražina Bielousova's research examines how Ukrainian leftist feminists advocate for their causes at home and abroad, facing distinct challenges as they attempt to defend their country. The Ukrainian case is also distinct from Latvia and Lithuania, whose organizing takes on different shapes for the same cause. Bielousova joins Ben Gardner-Gill to explain these interactions and discuss the ongoing process of decolonization in Baltic Studies.Transcript Ben Gardner-Gill: Hello, and welcome to Baltic Ways. I'm your co-host, Ben Gardner-Gill. Today we're talking with Gražina Belousova. Gražina is a feminist scholar of race, religion, and gender in post-Soviet Europe. She earned her PhD from Duke University in 2022. Currently, she is a postdoctoral scholar at Vilnius University's Institute of International Relations and Political Science and a researcher at Vytautas Magnus University.Her current research project focuses on leftist feminisms in East Europe in light of Russia's war against Ukraine, which will culminate in her first book, What's Left of Feminism in East Europe.Gražina, welcome to Baltic Ways.Gražina Belousova: Thank you so much for having me, Ben.BGG: So let's kick off by just hearing a little bit more about your background. I know you finished your PhD pretty recently. Could you tell us a little bit more about how you got into academia, sort of your research interests, and what you're working on at the moment?GB: Right. Yes, I just defended my PhD in 2022. It's hard to believe that it's been nearly three years now. In my PhD, I focused on historical matters. My PhD was in religion and cultural anthropology. And one of the things that I found missing when I was trying to theorize the part of the world that I call home and that most of the world calls Eastern Europe—I realized that I was lacking a solid theory that would bridge economics, anthropology, and religious studies.I wanted to understand how religious difference, especially perceived religious difference, played a role in creating the space that we call Eastern Europe today. And that took me to 18th and 19th century travel writings by Western travelers, oftentimes who were on an official mission, to the edges or to the depths of the Russian Empire.So I've read a lot of ambassadors' letters. I've read a lot of dispatches from St. Petersburg and Moscow, trying to understand how Westerners thought about that religious difference and how that thinking structured their understanding of what this place was and why it was different. What I tried to argue is actually that perceived religious difference was at the root of thinking of Eastern Europe as something different.Now, when I chose to embark on that topic, I had to put another topic aside, which was the question of very contemporary matters, the question of leftist political thought and feminism. At that point, it felt to me more pertinent to write the kind of theory that I felt was missing. When I was given the opportunity to pursue a postdoctoral position at Vilnius University Institute of International Relations and Political Science, I pitched this idea to them.And we very quickly pulled together the application. And the next thing I knew, I was embarking on a project on leftist feminisms in Eastern Europe in light of the war in Ukraine. So, the path was windy, but here I am today, knees and elbows deep, in the project on leftist feminism.BGG: Wonderful. I mean, a windy path is going to be familiar to so many people listening.So, no surprise and no surprise as well that the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine has really impacted your work and your life as it has for many of us. So tell us a little bit more about that.Over the last three years, we've been watching and seeing the horrors in Ukraine. From your perspective, from your academic work, what are some of the main things that you're looking at?GB: One of the things that I'm particularly interested in is the way that groups that are on the edges of society, on the margins of society, such as leftists, such as feminists, and especially leftist feminists—when the two come together and try to articulate their social and political vision and explain to themselves and to their fellow compatriots and oftentimes foreign donors, in my case, also Western leftist feminists, their relevance, how they're trying to articulate their position.War has a penchant for heightening nationalist tendencies. And this is not some kind of particular Eastern European pathology. War anywhere is going to produce these results. That is normal. People defend themselves and articulate themselves on the basis on which they're being attacked, on the basis on which they're being bombed.So this is what we are seeing in Ukraine. Leftism in Eastern Europe, because of the Soviet past, is often associated with Soviet nostalgia. Feminism, on the other hand, is oftentimes seen as something antithetical to national identity, something that is imported from the West, and something that either has no relevance or can be dangerous, especially when questions of national unity, questions of national defense come about.That is one of the reasons why I embarked on this journey, and this is one of the reasons why Ukraine had to be part of this picture. Because while the other countries that I'm looking at—Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and Moldova—experience the threat of invasion, Ukraine is under attack.And one of the things that I'm finding is that Ukrainian leftist feminists are incredibly resourceful and incredibly gifted at articulating their relevance.One of the things that I'm going to say that stems from that understanding of leftist feminism that's erroneous, but that's pervasive, is that Ukrainian leftist feminists do not debate the legitimacy of the Ukrainian state. What is in question is the way things are happening under the conditions of war.The questions of most vulnerable people—so questions of what happens with people with disabilities, questions of what happens to single mothers, questions of what happens to the elderly people who are maybe unable to evacuate, questions of what happens to the working class people—all of these things are at the forefront of their minds. They're trying to be the advocates of their pleas to the larger society, while at the same time trying to articulate Ukraine's right to self-defense to Western leftist feminists.BGG: So they have both this tension, maybe tension is the wrong word, tell me if it isn't, but they have this tension internally where they're trying to advocate for what they see as justice or what is right with a domestic audience who, understandably, may be more frequently focused on what's happening at the front lines.And then there's also this international question, the foreign audience for these Ukrainian leftist feminists, who have a very different perspective on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. And I specifically use that verbiage instead of Russia's invasion of Ukraine because they're going to think about it very differently.So let's split those out a little bit, and I want to start with the domestic. You talked about the advocacy of these leftist feminists for the most marginalized groups in society, for those who are most vulnerable.In your view, where have they been most successful, perhaps? Where have they seen actual progress happen from their advocacy?GB: One of the things that immediately comes to mind, and many of my interlocutors were directly involved with, is the nurses' movement–the unionization and self-organization of the nurses.There is a movement called Be Like Nina, referring to one of the nurses seen as a pioneer of resisting exploitation. And, of course, under the conditions of war, the labor of nurses is incredibly valuable and needed, but not always appropriately compensated. This is what we can call essential labor, especially when we talk about the front lines, where people are wounded.Many of them are wounded very badly on a daily basis. However, there are other things that are happening in the background as well. While a lot of the resources are pulled to the front, there are people who are experiencing regular daily struggles with their health. And the nurses are being stretched very thin.And this was something that was really amazing to me. This was really one of the very few instances where I saw academics who are leftist feminists actually touching the ground with their ideas: where they got involved with helping the nurses organize, but not taking the center stage, where they acted as support, as a resource, but not overtaking the movement, rather creating the conditions under which nurses themselves could articulate what it was that they needed, what their goals were.And that was incredibly impressive to me because healthcare is severely underfunded across the whole region, and to achieve such tangible goals as wage increases and regulations that empower nurses to do their job was truly impressive. With every conversation with a woman—because I specifically talk only to women—I just felt sheer amazement, because this is so contrary to so many imaginations of what civil society, self-organization, or networks are like in Eastern Europe.This is so contrary to what some have called ‘uncivil' society. What is happening is really self-organization and civil society at its best, organized by women who are oftentimes stretched very thin, not just at work, but also at home, women whose husbands are potentially on the front lines.So to me, I really cannot think of anything else that, in terms of real life impact and in terms of transforming people's lives, has been grander (I'm going to go for that word) than this.BGG: That's remarkable, and thank you for bringing that. I had very little idea of this progress and this happening.So you use the term civil society, which I think is quite apt, and Western conceptions of civil society in the region that we call Eastern Europe can be highly misguided. Let's just put it like that. I think back to a webinar that the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies (AABS) hosted on Ukrainian civil society, democratization, responses to the war, and we have this comparative Ukrainian and Baltic perspective, where we looked at how Ukrainian civil society was responding.We looked at how Baltic civil society was responding, and you're doing something similar in your research here. You're looking at Latvia and Lithuania as two of the other case studies, in addition to Poland, Moldova, and, of course, Ukraine. One thing that I think we can all observe just from watching the news, let alone being in the countries as well, is that civil society across the region has had this really robust response in the last few years.So could you speak a little bit more to that in the comparative cases outside of Ukraine that you're looking at in your research, especially Latvia and Lithuania?GB: For sure. I think that in order to theorize civil society and the region in general, we need better theory than has been used often to talk about civil society at large.Here, for example, I'm thinking about Emily Channel Justice and her work and the way that she articulates the notion of self-organization. The way that she thinks about Ukraine, especially in the context of Maidan. The way that it left a self-organization, but that can be applied also to any form of civil society, regardless of ideology, is really a network of decentralized, self-organized people's groups.If you were to look for some kind of central organizing pattern, or some kind of centralized way of doing things, most likely you're not going to find it because it's based on personal network, connections, and localized issues. And I think that's definitely something that I'm seeing in Ukraine.One of the things that I'm seeing in Lithuania and Latvia is that it's going to differ slightly because there are going to be more central organizing figures. If we talk about organizing support for Ukraine, one of the things that we're going to see is that people are going to point to nationwide initiatives.Right now in Lithuania, there is an initiative called Radarum, which is a play on words, on radar and on darom, which is a Lithuanian word for let's do it. And it's a nationwide initiative to collect funds to purchase drones and anti-drone equipment for Ukraine. And there are particular faces that we associate with this initiative.National television is running ads for it. So there's a little bit more of a centralized sense to it. But once again, I would say that this is the mainstream way of organizing civil society, which, of course, with Westernization, has taken on some of the patterns that are similar to the West.If we look towards the left, we're going to see very much that it is self-organized, small groups of people who take different initiatives, such as raising funds for medical care, such as raising funds for queer people in Ukraine. So the more mainstream we go, the more patterns that are akin to those that we see in the West we're going to see.That is also going to be true in Latvia. The further left we go, the more organic, grassroots, self-organized cells of people we're going to find who participate in smaller, less visible initiatives. So that's probably the best way that I can explain the difference.BGG: Got it. We see this distinction of centralization and decentralization.One could consider these different types of movements organic in their own ways, but different in different ways. When one thinks of leftist organizing, which has a long and rich history, organic is sort of one of the key words.It's perpetual, and these society-wide initiatives, like what's currently going on in Lithuania, that we've seen across other countries over the last few years, are maybe a little bit less frequent and less common. So there's an important distinction there.So I want to pivot to the international dimension of how the Ukrainian leftist feminists are talking, especially with Western counterparts. And by Western, we mean Western Europe. We mean American and Canadian. We mean Western, as in not Eastern Europe. So could you talk a little bit about the challenges they're facing there?I think I alluded to it earlier. You alluded to it earlier, but could you dive a little bit more into that discourse, that dialogue between the Ukrainians and their counterparts?GB: This is the main point of contention. What does it mean to be leftist? How much does local experience shape being leftist?What is the relationship of the left to the national question? And I think this is where we are seeing the real tension. Underlying this tension, of course, is the question of Russia. Let me try to unpack this. And I'm going to start from the other end than I listed, which is with the question of Russia.Eastern European in general, and Ukrainian in particular, leftist feminists have a very different understanding as to what Russia is in terms of geopolitics than the Western counterparts are going to have. This stems from very different histories. Western leftism—especially the new wave of leftism that arose in the sixties and the seventies—in many ways has redefined itself not just through the questions of class, which I would argue were lost to some extent. They lost their centrality.And they redefined themselves through the anti-colonial, anti-racist struggle. And that struggle was particularly important because after the fall of the formal colonial system, the colonial patterns of economic exploitation, of social exploitation, of brain drain still very much persisted. And naming that and defining themselves against Western neoimperialism or neocolonialism in the Global South was one of the most defining features of the Left, both in the Global South and in the West. Now, Russia at that time had positioned itself as the ally of the colonized countries. And some of it was pure show, and some of it was actual money, resources, and help that were sent, for example, to Angola. And that made a real difference. Whether that was genuine concern for the colonized people or whether that was an ideological tool is a matter of debate.Whatever it was, it had a profound impact on the way that Western leftists relate to Russia. They continue to see Russia out of that tradition, in many ways, as an ally against Western capitalism and imperialism. Their empire, against which they define themselves, continues to be in the West, and oftentimes is seen as centered on the United States.The empire against which we define ourselves in Eastern Europe is Russia, because Russia was the colonizing power in a very real sense in the region. It was our empire that subjugated us. It was the colonial power that engaged in just about every single practice in which any colonial power engages in the region.For us, if we think outside of ourselves, Russia continues to be the colonial power in the way that it relates to Central Asia, in the way that it relates to the indigenous people of Siberia, in the way that it continues to conduct business. So both the left in the West and the left in the East continue to define themselves against the empire, but disagree on who the empire is.The fundamental difference is the question of Russia. Because of the way that Western leftists, and particularly Western leftist feminists, have been taught to see the world, the way that they have been habituated to see the world, they're unable to see Russia as an aggressor. They're unable to change their narrative about how NATO might act.And of course, the criticisms of continued Western abuses of power, especially when they center on the United States—such as Afghanistan or such as Iraq, but also here in the European context, intra-European context, Serbia is another context in which that comes up—are highly debatable questions, but they're seen a certain way. They're understood in a certain way by Western leftists. And because of Russia's criticism of the West, Western leftists see it as a natural ally, or at least as an equally guilty party.BGG: That's a really great explanation. I think the way that you've laid that out makes a lot of sense.It also harkens back to where I want to bring this, which is the debate that has been going on in Baltic studies and other academic fields, especially those focusing on the region, about thinking about Baltic history in particular as a colonial history and thinking about what it means to decolonize Baltic studies as a field, to decolonize our academic thinking. There have been a lot of discussions.I know that we were in the same room at the AABS panel at Yale last year on that fantastic panel about decolonization. Where do you think this leads with regard to your research specifically? There's already this trend in this field. I get the sense that you are an advocate and moving forward in land seeking for the field as a whole to move in that direction.What do you think the next steps are? What paths do you think could be taken? What do people need to be thinking about that they may not already be thinking about?GB: Well, I think for me, the key question when we are talking about Baltic studies and decolonization is what is it that we talk about when we talk about decolonizing Baltic studies or Baltic countries?Because I think sometimes we're talking about four different things. We are talking about the question of colonialism and coloniality. That's one. We are talking about imperialism, Russian imperialism, and Russian imperiality. We are talking about Russification and what it means to de-Russify. And we are also talking about Sovietization and what it means to de-Sovietize.And I would argue that while these four concepts are very much interrelated, they have very different agendas. So, I think it's a question of definitions. How do we define what our agenda is? Which of the four do we have in mind when we talk about decolonizing Baltic countries, Baltic studies, or anything else?And I would say that each of the four has its place and is significant. But the flip side of that, especially if we stay with the question of decolonization, is the question of Western theory, practice, and scholarship as it relates to Baltic studies. Because if we go back to the early questions in the conversation of what is civil society and whether there is a civil society, Baltic countries and the region as a whole are pathologized.Because the concept of what civil society is, or is not, was based on Western understandings and Western practices. And it rendered civil society in the region invisible. In what ways does the production of scholarship and knowledge about the region continue to be based in very unequal power relationships, in such a way that it continues to pathologize the region?And these are very uncomfortable questions, because much like, you know, in the late eighteenth century when the Lithuanian Polish Commonwealth was divided between the three powers, we're facing the same question: Who is our ally? Because we have learned that Russia is definitely not, but the West is also a problematic ally.This is where I think the question of what it means to center the study of the region in the theory, in the practice, in the questions that actually originate from the ground up, are so important. And I'm not ditching all Western scholarship out the window. That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.But I'm saying, what does it mean to balance? What does it mean to center? What does it mean to change the parameters of the conversation?BGG: Those are some weighty questions. I think they're good questions that the field is, I would say not even starting to engage with, but is engaging with, which is really excellent, but it's a long path.As anyone who is a scholar of decolonization will tell you, it doesn't happen overnight. It doesn't happen over a decade. It's sort of a continuous process. So, I think that is where we're going to have to leave it, knowing that there is so much more we could have talked about. But, Gražina, thank you so much.This has been a fascinating conversation. Thank you for joining Baltic Ways.GB: Thank you so much for having me, Ben. It's been a privilege.BGG: Thank you for listening to this episode of Baltic Ways, a co-production of the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies and the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI). A note that the views expressed in this and every Baltic Ways episode do not necessarily reflect those of AABS or FPRI.To ensure you catch the next episode of Baltic Ways, make sure you're subscribed to your podcast feed or wherever you get your shows. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time. Get full access to FPRI Insights at fpriinsights.substack.com/subscribe

Americans, it's time to move to Europe! The American geo-strategist Jason Pack anticipated last week's advice from Simon Kuper and moved to London a few years ago during the first Trump Presidency. Pack, the host of the excellent Disorder podcast, confesses to be thrilled to have escaped MAGA America. He describes the esthetics of contemporary Washington DC as "post-apocalyptic" and criticizes what he sees as the Trump administration's hostile atmosphere, ideological purity tests, and institutional destruction. Contrasting this with Europe's ideological fluidity, Pack warns that Trump's isolationist policies are increasing global disorder by fundamentally undermining America's global leadership role with its erstwhile European allies. Five Key Takeaways* Pack left America because he found the "esthetics" of working in policy and media spaces increasingly distasteful, particularly during Trump's first administration.* He argues that European political systems allow for greater ideological fluidity, while American politics demands strict partisan loyalty.* Pack describes Washington DC as "post-apocalyptic" with institutions functioning like zombies - going through motions without accomplishing anything meaningful.* Unlike European populists who want to control institutions, Pack believes Trump's administration aims to destroy government institutions entirely.* Pack warns that America's deteriorating relationships with traditional allies is creating a "rudderless world" with increased global disorder and potential for conflict. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. Over the last few days, we've been focusing on the impressions of America, of Trump's America around the world. We had the Financial Times' controversial columnist, Simon Cooper, on the show, arguing that it's the end of the American dream. He had a piece in the FT this week, arguing that it's time to move to Europe for Americans. Not everyone agrees. We had the London-based FT writer Jemima Kelly on the show recently, also suggesting that she hasn't quite given up on America. She is, of course, a Brit living in the UK and looking at America from London. My guest today, another old friend, is Jason Pack. He is the host of the Excellent Disorder podcast. Jason's been on the shows lots of times before. He's an observer of the world's early 21st century disorder. And he is an American living in London. So I'm thrilled that Jason is back on the show. Jason, did you have a chance to look at Simon Cooper's piece? Is it time for Americans to move to Europe?Jason Pack: You've already moved. Well, he's just popularizing what I've believed for eight or 10 years already. So yeah, I looked at the piece. I really enjoyed your podcast with him. I don't think many Americans will move because most Americans are not particularly global in their outlook. And as disenchanted as they will be, their networks of family and of perspective are in America. Some elites in media and finance will move. But for me, I just found the aesthetics of America becoming distasteful when I worked in D.C. during the first Trump administration. And that's why I pursued a European citizenship.Andrew Keen: Jason, it's interesting that you choose the word aesthetics. Two thoughts on that. Firstly, America has never been distinguished for its aesthetics. People never came to America for aesthetics. It's never been a particularly beautiful country, a very dynamic place, a very powerful place. So why do you choose that word aesthetic?Jason Pack: Because for most upper middle class Americans, life under Trump, particularly if they're white and heterosexual, will not change tremendously. But the aesthetics of working in the policy space or in the media will change. Having to deal with all the BS that we hear when we wake up and turn on the TV in the morning, having to interact with Republican nutcase friends who say, oh, the fat is being trimmed by the doge and don't worry about all those people who've been being laid off. The aesthetics of it are ugly and mean. And I have found among some Republican colleagues and friends of mine that they love the vileness of this dog-eat-dog aesthetic.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's an interesting way of putting it. And I understand exactly what you're saying. I'm less concerned with the aesthetics as with the reality. And my sense in some ways of what's happening is that the Trump people are obsessed with what you call aesthetics. They want to appear mean. I'm not actually sure that they're quite as mean as they'd like to think they are.Jason Pack: Oh, they're pretty mean. I mean, people are running around the NIH offices, according to colleagues of mine. And if you're out to the bathroom and your card is inserted in your computer, they go in, they steal the data from your computer.Andrew Keen: Actually, I take your point. What I meant more by that is that whereas most traditional authoritarian regimes hide their crimes against migrants. They deny wrongdoing. My sense of the Trump regime, or certainly a lot of the people involved in this Trump administration, is that they actually exaggerate it because it gives them pleasure and it somehow benefits their brand. I'm not convinced that they're quite as bad as they'd like to think.Jason Pack: Oh, I agree with that. They make Schadenfreude a principle. They want to showcase that they enjoy other people's pain. It's a bizarre psychological thing. Trump, for example, wanted to show his virility and his meanness, probably because he's an inner coward and he's not that feral. But we digress in terms of the aesthetics of the individual American wanting to leave. I experienced American government, like the State Department, and then, the bureaucracy of the policy space, say think tanks, or even the government relations trade space, say working for oil companies and government relations, as already authoritarian and ass-kissing in America, and the aesthetics of those industries I have always preferred in Europe, and that's only diverging.Andrew Keen: One of the things that always struck me about Washington, D.C. It was always uncomfortable as an imperial city. It always has been since the end of the Second World War, with America dominating the world as being one of two or perhaps the only super power in the world. But Washington, DC seems to always have been uncomfortable wearing its imperial mantle cloak in comparison, I think, to cities like London or Paris. I wonder whether, I'm not sure how much time you've spent back in America since Trump came back to power. I wonder if in that sense DC is trying to catch up with London and Paris.Jason Pack: I actually was giving a briefing in Congress to staffers of the House Foreign Affairs Committee only three weeks ago, and DC seemed post-apocalyptic to me. Many of my favorite restaurants were closing. There was traffic jams at bizarre hours of the day, which I think this is because the Trump people don't know how public transport works and they just ride their cars everywhere. So, yes, it seemed very bizarre being back. You were trying to gauge the interlocutor you were speaking to, were they merely pretending to be on board with Trump's stuff, but they actually secretly think it's ridiculous, or were they true believers? And you had to assess that before you would make your comments. So there is a slide to a kind of, again, neo-authoritarian aesthetic. In my conference, it became clear that the Republican Congressional staffers thought that it was all junk and that Trump doesn't care about Libya and he doesn't understand these issues. But we needed to make lip service in how we expressed our recommendations. So, fascinatingly, various speakers said, oh, there's a transactional win. There's a way that cheaper oil can be gotten here or we could make this policy recommendation appeal to the transactional impulses of the administration. Even though everyone knew that we were speaking in a Democrat echo-chamber where the only Republicans present were anti-Trump Republicans anyway.Andrew Keen: Describe DC as post-apocalyptic. What exactly then, Jason, is the apocalypse?Jason Pack: I don't think that the Trump people who are running the show understand how government works and whether you're at state or the NIH or USAID, you're kind of under siege and you're just doing what you're supposed to do and going through the motions. I mean, there's so much of like the zombie apocalypse going on. So maybe it's more zombie apocalypse than regular apocalypse, whereby the institutions are pretending to do their work, but they know that it doesn't accomplish anything. And the Trumpian appointees are kind of pretending to kind of cancel people on DAI, but the institutions are still continuing.Andrew Keen: I'm going to vulgarize something you said earlier. You talked about Trump wanting to appear bigger than he actually is. Maybe we might call that small penis syndrome. Is that, and then that's my term, Jason, let's be clear, not yours. Maybe it's fair or not. He probably would deny it, but I don't think he'll come on this show. He's more than welcome. Is that also reflected in the people working for him? Is there a bit of a small penis syndrome going on with a lot of the Trump people? Are they small town boys coming to America, coming to D.C. And in all their raison d'état trying to smash up the world that they always envied?Jason Pack: 100%. If you look at the Tucker Carlson and the Hegset, who went to Princeton in 03, and obviously Tucker Carlsen's WASP elite background is well known, they wanted to make it conventionally and couldn't. Hegson didn't achieve the rank of lieutenant general or colonel or anything in the army. He didn't make it in finance and Vance, obviously had just a minor career in finance, they didn't make the big time except through their hate and resentment of the establishment that succeeded on merit. So, I mean, you could call that small penis syndrome. I think another thing to point out is that many of them have been selected because whether they've been accused of rape or financial crimes or just meanness, they owe the great leader their ability to be in that position. And if he would throw them overboard they're entirely exposed, so that cash patels of the world and the Hexeds of the world serve at the mercy of the great leader, because if they were thrown to the wolves, they could be devoured for their misdeeds. And I think that that makes it a place where it's all about loyalty to the boss. But maybe we could pivot to the initial topic about how I think Europe is a place where you can reinvent yourself as an individual now. Certainly in the political and ideology space, and America really hasn't been for much of my left.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's interesting. And this is how actually our conversation you're doing. You're a much better podcast host than I am, Jason. You're reminding us of the real conversation rather than getting led down one Trumpian byway or another. I did a show recently on why I still believe in the American dream. And I was interviewed by my friend, David Maschiottra, another old friend of the show. And I suggested I originally came to America to reinvent myself and that's always been the platform with which Europeans have come to America. You're suggesting that perhaps the reverse is true now.Jason Pack: I really enjoyed that episode. I thought you were a great guest and he was a natural host. But I realized how it wasn't speaking to me. Many of my European friends who work in law, finance, tech, startup, you know, they finished their degrees in Italy or in England and they moved to America. And that's where they raised venture capital and they go on the exact success trajectory that you explained and they fetishize, oh my God, when my green card is gonna come through, I'm gonna have this big party. That never resonated with me because America was never a land of opportunity for me. And it hit me in hearing your podcast that that's because what I've aspired to is to work in government slash think tank or to be a professional expert. And if you don't ally yourself with one of the major political movements, you're always branded and you can never move ahead. I'll give a few examples if you're interested in the way that my trying to be in the center has meant that I could never find a place in America.Andrew Keen: Absolutely. So you're suggesting that your quote-unquote American dream could only be realized in Europe.Jason Pack: So I moved to the Middle East to serve my country after 9/11. If Gore had been elected president, I likely would have joined the army or the Marines or something. But Bush was president and I knew I needed to do this on my own. So, you know, I lived in Beirut, then I went to Iraq. Where did you graduate from, Jason? I graduated from Williams in 2002, but I was changing my studies as soon as the 9-11 happened. I stopped my senior thesis in biology and I pivoted to doing the Middle East. I thought the Middle East was going to be the next big thing. But I didn't realize that if you wanted to do it your own way, for example, living in Syria prior to working in government, then you couldn't get those security clearances. But in the UK, that's not really a problem. If you go to Leeds or Oxford and you got sent to study Arabic in Syria, you can work for the UK government, but not in America. If your went and did that your own way, your loyalties would be questioned. You wouldn't get your security clearance. I got an internship to work at the U.S. Embassy in Muscat, where I fell afoul of my supervisors because I was someone who wanted to speak in Arabic with Omanis and, for example, go to hear prayers at the mosque and really be a part of the society. And I was told, don't do that. But aren't we here to understand about Oman? And they're like, no, it's really important to mostly socialize with people at the embassy. But my British colleagues, they were out there in Omani society, and they were, for example, really participating in stuff because the relationship between the Omanis and the Brits and the Americans is a happy one. That's just a small example, but I wanna make the kind of further point, which is that if you wanna get promoted in think tank world in America, it doesn't matter whether it's Cato or Heritage on the right or New America Foundation or Middle East Institute on the left. You have to buy in hook, line, and sinker to the party line of those institutions. And if that party line is DEI, as it was at the Middle East Institute when I was there, and you're a white heterosexual male, you're not going to get promoted. And if, for example, you want to then interact with some Zionist think tank like FDD, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, I was going to a fellowship there for work that I had done about monitoring ISIS in Libya, and they had proposed a funding line for my project, which was just technically reading jihadi Facebook posts and monitoring them. And then they did some more research on me, ironically, after we had already signed the funds. And they said, oh, we're so sorry, we are going to have to pull back on this. We are going have to pay you a kill fee. We are really, really sorry. And I came to understand why that was. And it was because I had advocated that the Iranians should be allowed to get the bomb so that they could have mutually assured destruction theory with Israel.Andrew Keen: Well, Jason, I take your point, but everyone has their own narrative when it comes to why their career didn't did or didn't take off and how they know what that doesn't happen in Europe. I'm just making a contrast. Let me just come back to my argument about America, which is it isn't necessarily as straightforward as perhaps at first it seems. I think one of the reasons why America has always been a great place for reinvention is because of the absence of memory.Jason Pack: No, but what I'm saying is Google will inspire on you, and if you're not within the ideological cadre, you cannot progress at these kind of institutions.Andrew Keen: Okay, I take your point on that, but thinking more broadly, America is a place where you can, I've done so many different things in this country from being a scholar to being an internet entrepreneur to being an expert on technology to being a critic of technology to being against podcasts, to being a podcaster. And you can get away, and I've failed in practically all of them, if not all of them, but the fact is that because people don't have memory, you can keep on doing different things and people won't say, well, how can you get away with this? Last week you were doing X. My sense, and maybe correct me if I'm wrong about London or Europe, is there is much more memory. You can't get away with perpetual reinvention in Europe as you can in the U.S. and maybe that's because of the fact that in your language, living in Europe with its memory and respect for memory is more aesthetically pleasing. So I'm not suggesting this is as simple as it might appear.Jason Pack: I agree with that last point, but I think I'm trying to bring something else out. In spheres like tech or podcasting, there isn't credentialism in America. And therefore, if you're just good at it, you don't need the credentials and you can get going. And you and other Europeans who had great merit, as you do, have benefited from that. And in Europe, you might run up against credentialism, but, oh, but you didn't work at the BBC, so you don't get the job. I'm making a different point about ideological purity within the very specific realms of, say, working for an American presidential candidate or briefing a policymaker or rising up at a think tank. I have briefed labor MPs, Lib Dem MPs and Tory MPs. And they don't ask my politics. I can go in there and get a meeting with Keir Starmer's people on Libya, and they don't care about the fact that I want him to do something slightly different. Criticized him and praised him at different times on my podcast, try having an influence with some Trump people and then say, Oh, well, you know, I really think that I can help you on this Libya policy, but I happened to run a fairly anti-Trump podcast. No, you just can't get the briefing because America is about ideological purity tests and getting your ticket punch in the government and think tank and exporting professions, and therefore it's not some place you can reinvent yourself. If you're clearly an anti-Trump Republican McCainite, you can't all of a sudden become an AOC Democrat for the purpose of one meeting. But in Europe you can, because you can be a Lib Dem like Liz Truss and then be a Tory Prime Minister. And no one cares what my position on these topics are when they ask me to brief Keir Starmer's people and that's something that I find so fantastic about Europe.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, you know this stuff better than I do. But isn't someone like Truss rooted in ideological purity? She was a Lib Dem when she was at Oxford. Yeah, but that was a long time ago. I can reverse that, Jason, and say, well, when Trump was young, he ran around with Bill and Hillary Clinton, he went to their wedding, he funded them. He never was even a Republican until 2014 or 15. So, I mean, he's an example of the very ideological fluidity that you idealize in Europe.Jason Pack: I agree with your point. I think that he's an exception there and he wouldn't have allowed it from his staffers. They now have essentially loyalty tested everything. It's not a place where if you were Democrat with ideas that would benefit the Trumpian establishment, you can be heard. I'll give an example. I like the Abraham Accords and I have a colleague who wants to help extend the Abraham Accords to Pakistan, she can only work with ideologically pure Republicans in the pitching of this idea. She can't work with someone like me because I don't have the ideological purity, even though this is a nonpartisan idea and it should be embraced if you can get the Trumpians to be interested in it. But that's not how America works and it has not been. Reagan, of course, if you said that you like taxes, and I'm someone who likes taxes and I don't believe in the Laffer curve, and neoliberalism is a sham, you couldn't be on that economic team. So there are different ideological tests. Trump was never a politician, so he's not an expert like me in the expert class where we've been litmus tested our whole careers.Andrew Keen: Interesting. Jason, yesterday I was talking to someone who was thinking of hiring me to do a speech in Europe to a business group, and we were discussing the kinds of speeches I could give, and one of the things I suggested was a defense of America, suggesting that we can believe in America and that everyone's wrong. And these people have hired me before. I've often made provocative counterintuitive arguments, there was a little bit of a silence and they said, you can't make that speech in Europe. No one will take it seriously to a business community. What's generally, I mean, you travel a lot, you talk to lots of different people. Have people really given up on the promise of America, particularly within the establishment, the business establishment, the political establishment?Jason Pack: I don't know. I think that many Europeans still think that this is a passing phase. I will comment on the fact that I do not see anti-Americanism in my daily life as a result of Trump, the way that, for example, you do see anti-Semitism as a results of Netanyahu's policy. The individual Jew is tarred by horrible things happening in Gaza, but the individual American is not tarred by the deporting and illegal detentions and sacking of people by Doge because people in Poland or London or even the Middle East understand that you're likely to not be a Trump supporter and they're not targeting you as an individual as a result of that. So I think they believe in the promise of America and they still might like to move to America. But on individual level if you want to be a political animal inside the beast of campaigns, rising up to be a David Axelrod kind of figure. America has been a place of these litmus tests. Whereas in Europe, you know, I feel that there's tremendous fluidity because in Italy they have so and so many political parties and in Germany, what's the distinction between the SPD at one moment in the CDU and the Greens and there's a tradition of coalitions that allows the individual to reinvent himself.Andrew Keen: One of the things that came up with Cooper, and he's certainly no defender of Marine Le Pen or Meloni in Italy, but he suggested that the Trump people are far to the right of Le Pen and Meloni. Would you agree with that?Jason Pack: Because they want to break down institutions, whereas Le Pen and Meloni simply want to conquer the institutions and use them. They're not full-blown, disordering neopopulists, to use the language of my disorder podcast. When Meloni is in power, she loves the Italian state and she wants it to function merely with her ideological slant. Whereas the Trumpians, they have a Bannonite wing, they don't simply wanna have a MAGA agenda, use the U.S. Government. No, they want to break the Department of Agriculture. They want to break the EPA. They simply want to destroy our institutions. And there's no European political party that wants that. Maybe on the fringe like reform, but reform probably doesn't even want that.Andrew Keen: But Jason, we've heard so much about how the Bannonites idealized Orban in Hungary. A lot of people believe that Project 2025 was cooked up in Budapest trying to model America on Orban. Is there any truth to that? I mean, are the Trump people really re-exporting Orbanism back into the United States?Jason Pack: That there is some truth, but it can be overplayed. It can go back further to Berlusconi. It's the idea that a particularly charismatic political leader can come to dominate the media landscape by either having a state media channel in the Berlusconi sense or cowing media coverage to make it more favorable, which is something that Orban has done geniusly, and then doling out contracts and using the state for patronage, say, Orban's father's construction business and all those concrete soccer stadiums. There is an attempt potentially in Trump land to, through an ideological project, cow the media and the checks and balances and have a one-party state with state media. I think it's going to be difficult for them to achieve, but Chuck Carlson and others and Bannon seem to want that.Andrew Keen: You were on Monocle recently talking about the Pope's death. J.D. Vance, of course, is someone who apparently had a last, one of the last conversations with the Pope. Pope wasn't particularly, Pope Francis wasn't particularly keen on him. Bannon and Vance are both outspoken Catholics. What's your take on the sort of this global religious movement on the part of right-wing Catholics, and how does it fit in, not only to the death of Francis, but perhaps the new Pope?Jason Pack: It's a very interesting question. I'm not a right-wing Catholic, so I'm really not in a position to...Andrew Keen: I thought you were Jason, that's why you could always come on the show.Jason Pack: I think that they don't have the theological bona fides to say that what they call Catholicism is Catholicism because obviously Jesus turned the other cheek, you know, and Jesus didn't want to punish his enemies and make poor black or Hispanic women suffer. But there is an interesting thing that has been going on since 1968, which is that there was a backlash against the student protests and free love and the condom and all the social changes that that brought about. And Catholics have been at the forefront, particularly Catholic institutions, in saying this has gone too far and we need to use religion to retake our society. And if we don't, no one will have children and we will lose out and the Muslims and Africans will rule the roost because they're having babies. And that right-wing Catholicism is caught up in the moral panic and culture wars since 1968. What I argued in the monocle interview that you referenced from earlier today is something quite different, which is that the Catholic Church has a unique kind of authority, and that that unique kind of authority can be used to stand up against Trump, Bannon, Orban, and other neopopulists in a way that, say, Mark Carney or Keir Starmer cannot, because if Mark Kearney and Keir Stormer say, you guys are not sufficiently correctly American and you're not following the American laws, blah, blah blah, the kind of Americans who support Trump are not convinced by that because they say, these are just, you know, pinko Brits and Canadians. I don't even care about Mark Kearny, but it's quite different if the next Pontiff is someone who comes not only from the school of Francis, but maybe more so is a great communicator vested in the real doctrines of the church, the Lateran Councils and Vatican too, and can say, actually this given thing that Trump has just said is not in line with the principles of Jesus. It's not inline with what the Vatican has said about, for example, migration or social equity. And I find that that is a unique opportunity because even the right-wing Catholics have to acknowledge the Pope and Christian doctrine and the ability of the Catholic hierarchy to say this is not in line with our teachings. So I think there's a very interesting opportunity right now.Andrew Keen: Perhaps that brings to mind Stalin's supposedly famous remarks to Churchill at Potsdam when they were talking about the Pope. Stalin said to Churchill, the Pope, how many divisions does he have? In other words, it's all about ideology, morality, and ultimately it doesn't really. It's the kind of thing that perhaps if some of the Trump people were as smart as Stalin, they might make the same remark.Jason Pack: That was a physical war, and the Pope didn't have divisions to sway the battles in World War II, but this is an ideological or an influence war. And the Pope, if you've just seen from media coverage over the last week, is someone who has tremendous media influence. And I do think that the new pontiff could, if he wanted to, stand up to the moral underpinnings of Trump and pull even the most right-wing Catholics away from a Trumpian analysis. Religion is supposed to be about, because Jesus didn't say punish your enemies. Don't turn the other cheek and own the libs. Jesus said something quite different than that. And it will be the opportunity of the new Catholic leader to point that out.Andrew Keen: I'm not sure if you've seen the movie Conclave, which was very prescient, made by my dear London friend, or at least produced by Tessa Ross at House Productions. But I wonder in these new conversations whether in the debates about who should the new Pope be, they'll mull over TikTok presence.Jason Pack: I hope they will. And I want to point out something that many people probably are not aware, which is that the College of Cardinals that constitutes the conclave does not have to pick one of their member to be pope. For the last six centuries, they have always chosen one of their own number, but they don't have to. So they could choose someone who has not only an ability to make great TikToks, but someone who can put forth a vision about climate change, about tax equity, for example, maybe about AI and what constitutes humanity from within the Catholic tradition, but reaching new faithful. And I think that they might actually consider we're doing this because in places like Western Europe, attendance is down, but in Eastern Europe and Latin America, it isn't. And in Africa, it's surging. So they may want to reach new millennials in Gen Z with a new message, but one which is rooted in their tradition. And I think that that would be a great counterbalance to what Trump and his ilk have done to how media coverage place things like climate change and migrants these days.Andrew Keen: Speaking of Trump and his ilk, Jason, lots of conversations here about the first cracks in his monolith. Speaking to me from London, I always look at the front page of The Telegraph, a conservative English newspaper. I refuse to give the money, so I never actually read any of the pieces. But I'm always curious as to the traditional conservative media attitude to Trump. What do not so much the Conservative Party, which seems to be in crisis in the UK, but what does Conservative media, Conservative thinkers, what's their take currently on Trump? Are you seeing a crack? Are people seeing this guy's absolutely insane and that the tariff policy is going to make all of us, everybody in the world poorer?Jason Pack: Well, Trump has always been a vote loser in the UK. So that even though Farage brags about his relationship, it isn't something that gets him more votes for reform. And whether it's Sunak or Badnak, and Badnak is the current leader of the Tory party, which is an opposition, she can't so closely associate herself with Trump because he's not popular in even right-wing British circles. However, the Tory media, like the telegraph and the spectator, they love the idea that he's owning the Libs. We talked about Schadenfreude, we talked about attacking the woke. The spectator has taken a very anti-woke turn over the last five to 10 years. And they love the ideal of pointing out the hypocrisies of the left and the effeminacy of it and all of that. And that gets them more clicks. So from a media perspective, there is a way in which the Murdoch media is always going to love the click bait, New York post bait of the Trump presidency. And that applies very much, you know, with the sun and the Daily Mail and the way that they cover media in this country.Andrew Keen: Although I was found in the U.S. That perhaps the newspaper that has been most persistently and usefully critical of Trump is the Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Murdoch.Jason Pack: Yeah, but that's a very highbrow paper, and I think that it's been very critical of the tariff policy and it said a lot of intelligent things about Trump's early missteps. It doesn't reach the same people as the New York Post or the Daily Mail do.Andrew Keen: Finally, Jason, let's go back to Disorder, your excellent podcast. You started it a couple of years ago before this new Trump madness. You were always one of the early people on this global disorder. How much more disordered can the world become? Of course, it could become more disorded in terms of war. In late April 2025, is the world more disordered than it was in April 2024, when Biden was still in power? I mean, we still have these wars in Gaza, in Ukraine, doesn't seem as if that much has changed, or am I wrong?Jason Pack: I take your point, but I'm using disorder in a particularly technical sense in a way by which I mean the inability of major powers to coordinate together for optimal solutions. So in the Biden days of last year, yes, the Ukraine and Gaza wars may be waging, but if Jake Sullivan or Blinken were smarter or more courageous, they could host a summit and work together with their French and British and Argentinian allies. Put forth some solutions. The world is more disordered today because it doesn't have a leader. It doesn't have institutions, the UN or NATO or the G7 where those solutions on things like the Ukraine war attacks could happen. And you may say, but wait, Jason, isn't Trump actually doing more leadership? He's trying to bring the Ukrainians and the Russians to the table. And I would say he isn't. They're not proposing actual solutions. They don't care about solving underlying issues. They're merely trying to get media wins. He wants the Japanese to come to Washington to have the semblance of a new trade deal, not a real trade deal. He's trying to reorder global finance in semblance, not in reality. So the ability to come to actual solutions through real coordinating mechanisms where I compromise with you is much weaker than it was last year. And on the Disorder Podcast, we explore all these domains from tax havens to cryptocurrency to cyber attacks. And I think that listeners of Keen On would really enjoy how we delve into those topics and try to see how they reflect where we're at in the global system.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's a strongly, I would strongly agree with you. I would encourage all keen on listeners to listen to Disorder and vice versa if this gets onto the Disorder podcast. What about the China issue? How structural is the tariff crisis, if that's the right word, gonna change US relations with China? Is this the new Cold War, Jason?Jason Pack: I'm not an economist, but from what I've been told by the economists I've interviewed on my podcast, it's absolutely completely game changing because whether it's an Apple iPhone or most pieces of manufactured kit that you purchase or inputs into American manufacturing, it's assembled everywhere and the connections between China and America are essential to the global economy. Work and it's not like you can all of a sudden move those supply chains. So this trade war is really a 1930s style beggar thy neighbor approach to things and that led to and deepened the great depression, right? So I am very worried. I had the sense that Trump might back off because he does seem to be very sensitive to the markets. But maybe this is such an ideological project and, you know, Andrew Ross Sorkin on CNBC was just saying, even though he's willing to back off if the T bill rate changes, he thinks that his strategy is working and that he's going to get some deals. And that terrifies me because that's not what's happening. It isn't working. And God forbid that they'll push this to its logical conclusion and cause a new recession or depression.Andrew Keen: I know you've got to run Jason. So final question, let's return to where we began with America and the changing nature of America. Your last episode of Disorder was with Corey Sharpe, who is a very, very good and one of Washington DC's, I think, smartest foreign policy analysts. She asks, what's America without allies? If this continues, what, indeed, I mean, you're happy in London, so I don't sound like you're coming back, whatever. But what will America become if indeed all these traditional allies, the UK, France, Germany, become, if not enemies, certainly just transactional relationships? What becomes of America without allies?Jason Pack: Wow, great question. I'm gonna treat this in two parts, the American cultural component and then the structural geopolitical component. I'm a proud American. Culturally, I work on Sundays. I don't take any holiday. I get angry at contractors who are not direct. I am going to be American my whole life and I want an American style work ethic and I wanna things to function and the customer to always be right. So I didn't move to Europe to get European stuff in that way, and I think America will still be great at new inventions and at hard work and at all of that stuff and will still, the NFL will still be a much better run sports league than European sports leagues. Americans are great at certain things. The problem is what if America's role in the world as having the reserve currency, coordinating the NATO allies. If that's eviscerated, we're just going to be living more and more in the global enduring disorder, as Corey Schacke points out, which is that the Europeans don't know how to lead. They can't step up because they don't have one prima inter Paris. And since the decline of the British Empire, the British haven't learned how, for example, to coordinate the Europeans for the defense of Ukraine or for making new missile technologies or dealing with the defense industry. So we're just dealing with a rudderless world. And that's very worrying because there could be major conflict. And then I just have to hope that a new American administration, it could be a Republican one, but I think it just can't be a Trumpian one, will go back to its old role of leadership. I haven't lost hope in America. I've just lost hope in this current administration.Andrew Keen: Well, I haven't lost hope in Jason Pack. He is an ally of ours at Keen On. He's the host of the Excellent Disorder podcast. Jason, it's always fun to have you on the show. So much to discuss and no doubt there will be much more over the summer, so we'll have you back on in the next month or two. Thank you so much. Keep well. Stay American in London. Thank you again.Jason Pack: It was a great pleasure. Thanks, Andrew. See you then. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Today's guest is Anne Speckhard, Director of the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism. She previously served for over two decades as Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown University School of Medicine. She has interviewed over 800 terrorists, their family members and supporters in various parts of the world including in Western Europe, the Balkans, Central Asia, the Former Soviet Union and the Middle East, and has also been training key stakeholders in law enforcement, intelligence, educators, and other countering violent extremism professionals on the use of counter-narrative messaging materials both locally and internationally. In this episode, Alon and Anne discuss the rise in violent extremism and the causes behind it, the prospects of political violence in the US, the role of social media in promoting violent extremism and terrorism, and how violent extremist movements in the Middle East may evolve in relation to current events. Full bio Anne Speckhard, Ph.D., is Director of the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism (ICSVE) and served for over two decades as Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown University School of Medicine and also served as an Affiliate in the Center for Security Studies, Georgetown University. She has interviewed over 800 terrorists, violent extremists, their family members and supporters around the world, including in Western Europe, the Balkans, Central Asia, the Former Soviet Union and the Middle East. Over the past five years, she has conducted in-depth psychological interviews with 275 ISIS defectors, returnees and prisoners, as well as 16 al Shabaab cadres (as well as their family members and leaders,) studying their trajectories into and out of terrorism, and their experiences inside ISIS and al Shabaab. Speckhard developed the ICSVE Breaking the ISIS Brand Counter Narrative Project from these interviews, which includes over 250 short counter narrative videos that mimic ISIS recruitment videos but contain actual terrorists strongly denouncing ISIS as un-Islamic, corrupt and brutal. These videos have been utilized in over 200 Facebook and Instagram campaigns globally. Beginning in 2020, she launched the ICSVE Escape Hate Counter Narrative Project, interviewing 54 white supremacists and members of hate groups, developing counternarratives from their interviews, and creating anti-recruitment videos. She has also conducted rare interviews with five Antifa activists. Dr. Speckhard is also an expert in rehabilitation and repatriation of terrorists and their families. In 2007, she designed the psychological and Islamic aspects of the Detainee Rehabilitation Program in Iraq to be applied to 20,000+ detainees and 800 juveniles. This work led to consulting with foreign governments on issues of terrorist prevention, interventions and repatriation; and the rehabilitation and reintegration of ISIS foreign fighters, wives and children. She has worked individually with former terrorists from Belgium, Australia, Sweden and elsewhere. She has also worked on these issues with NATO, OSCE, UN Women, UNCTED, UNODC, the EU Commission and EU Parliament, and to the US Senate & House, Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, Health & Human Services, and the FBI. Dr. Speckhard actively trains key stakeholders in law enforcement, intelligence, elite hostage negotiation teams, educators, and other professionals in countering violent extremism, locally and internationally. Her focus is on the psychology of terrorism, the effective use of counter-narrative messaging materials produced by ICSVE, as well as studying the use of children as violent actors by groups such as ISIS. Her consultations and trainings include U.S., Australian, Canadian, German, British, Dutch, Austrian, Swiss, Belgian, Danish, Iraqi, Syrian, Jordanian and Thai national police and security officials, among others.

Im zweiten Teil unserer siebenteiligen Serie richten wir den Blick auf eines der erschütterndsten Kapitel des Zweiten Weltkriegs: die Befreiung der Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslager. Am 27. Januar 1945 stößt die Rote Armee auf Auschwitz – und damit auf Beweise für ein industrielles Mordsystem, das Millionen Menschen das Leben gekostet hat. Das Sonderkommando von Auschwitz, gezwungen, bei der Ermordung seiner Mitmenschen zu helfen, wagt einen mutigen Aufstand gegen die SS. Wie reagieren amerikanische und sowjetische Soldaten auf die Schrecken, die sie in den befreiten Lagern vorfinden? Warum blieb die Welt so lange untätig angesichts des Völkermords? Und was bedeutet die Befreiung für die wenigen Überlebenden, deren Heimat und Familien längst ausgelöscht sind?Du hast Feedback oder einen Themenvorschlag für Joachim und Nils? Dann melde dich gerne bei Instagram: @wasbishergeschah.podcastQuellen:Guns at Last Light · The War in Western Europe, 1944-1945 von Rick AtkinsonThe Second World War von Antony BeevorThe Third Reich at War von Richard J. EvansEin Ende und ein Anfang - Wie der Sommer 45 die Welt veränderte von Oliver HilmesDer Holocaust von Wolfgang Benz: KL – Die Geschichte der nationalsozialistischen Konzentrationslager von Nikolaus WachsmannSonderbehandlung – Meine Jahre in den Gaskammern und Krematorien von Auschwitz von Filip MüllerVersuche, dein Leben zu machen' – Als Jüdin versteckt in Berlin von Margot FriedländerUnsere allgemeinen Datenschutzrichtlinien finden Sie unter https://art19.com/privacy. Die Datenschutzrichtlinien für Kalifornien sind unter https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info abrufbar.

Orhan Tahir is a Romani lawyer, scholar and journalist, originally from Bulgaria, who has lived in Western Europe for the past 10 years. He is currently engaged as a PhD researcher in Political Science at the Heidelberg University in Germany. Orhan's focus is on the construction of "Gypsies" as an outcast "Pariah people" in European imagination in line with the Orientalist narratives of colonial India, and the impact of this concept on modern perceptions of Roma. He is among the first scholars in Europe to examine the situation of the Roma from the perspective of "caste" - a new approach still unpopular in European academia.Orhan's LinkedInOur Romani crush is the artist and anarchist, Helios GomezSome information about enslaved African's language heritage https://wordscr.com/what-language-did-slaves-speak/https://www.nps.gov/ethnography/aah/aaheritage/sysMeaningA.htm Thank you for listening to Romanistan podcast.You can find us on Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook @romanistanpodcast, and on Twitter @romanistanpod. To support us, Join our Patreon for extra content or donate to Ko-fi.com/romanistan, and please rate, review, and subscribe. It helps us so much. Follow Jez on Instagram @jezmina.vonthiele & Paulina @romaniholistic. You can get our book Secrets of Romani Fortune Telling, online or wherever books are sold. Visit romanistanpodcast.com for events, educational resources, merch, and more. Please support our book tour fundraiser if you can. Email us at romanistanpodcast@gmail.com for inquiries. Romanistan is hosted by Jezmina Von Thiele and Paulina StevensConceived of by Paulina StevensEdited by Viktor PachasWith Music by Viktor PachasAnd Artwork by Elijah Vardo

Ukrainians have resisted Russia's aggression for years. Since the full-scale invasion of their country in 2022, Ukrainian women in particular have taken on important roles on the frontlines, in civil society, and at home. Gražina Bielousova's research examines how Ukrainian leftist feminists advocate for their causes at home and abroad, facing distinct sets of challenges as they attempt to defend their country. The Ukrainian case is also distinct in comparison to Latvia and Lithuania, whose organizing takes on different shapes for the same cause. Bielousova joins Ben Gardner-Gill to explain these interactions and discuss the ongoing process of decolonization in Baltic Studies.TranscriptBen Gardner-Gill: Hello, and welcome to Baltic Ways. I'm your co-host, Ben Gardner-Gill. Today we're talking with Gražina Belousova. Gražina is a feminist scholar of race, religion, and gender in post-Soviet Europe. She earned her PhD from Duke University in 2022. Currently, she is a postdoctoral scholar at Vilnius University's Institute of International Relations and Political Science and a researcher at Vytautas Magnus University.Her current research project focuses on leftist feminisms in East Europe in light of Russia's war against Ukraine, which will culminate in her first book, What's Left of Feminism in East Europe.Gražina, welcome to Baltic Ways.Gražina Belousova: Thank you so much for having me, Ben.BGG: So let's kick off by just hearing a little bit more about your background. I know you finished your PhD pretty recently. Could you tell us a little bit more about how you got into academia, sort of your research interests, and what you're working on at the moment?GB: Right. Yes, I just defended my PhD in 2022. It's hard to believe that it's been nearly three years now. In my PhD, I focused on historical matters. My PhD was in religion and cultural anthropology. And one of the things that I found missing when I was trying to theorize the part of the world that I call home and that most of the world calls Eastern Europe—I realized that I was lacking a solid theory that would bridge economics, anthropology, and religious studies.I wanted to understand how religious difference, especially perceived religious difference, played a role in creating the space that we call Eastern Europe today. And that took me to 18th and 19th century travel writings by Western travelers, oftentimes who were on an official mission, to the edges or to the depths of the Russian Empire.So I've read a lot of ambassadors' letters. I've read a lot of dispatches from St. Petersburg and Moscow, trying to understand how Westerners thought about that religious difference and how that thinking structured their understanding of what this place was and why it was different. What I tried to argue is actually that perceived religious difference was at the root of thinking of Eastern Europe as something different.Now, when I chose to embark on that topic, I had to put another topic aside, which was the question of very contemporary matters, the question of leftist political thought and feminism. At that point, it felt to me more pertinent to write the kind of theory that I felt was missing. When I was given the opportunity to pursue a postdoctoral position at Vilnius University Institute of International Relations and Political Science, I pitched this idea to them.And we very quickly pulled together the application. And the next thing I knew, I was embarking on a project on leftist feminisms in Eastern Europe in light of the war in Ukraine. So, the path was windy, but here I am today, knees and elbows deep, in the project on leftist feminism.BGG: Wonderful. I mean, a windy path is going to be familiar to so many people listening.So, no surprise and no surprise as well that the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine has really impacted your work and your life as it has for many of us. So tell us a little bit more about that.Over the last three years, we've been watching and seeing the horrors in Ukraine. From your perspective, from your academic work, what are some of the main things that you're looking at?GB: One of the things that I'm particularly interested in is the way that groups that are on the edges of society, on the margins of society, such as leftists, such as feminists, and especially leftist feminists—when the two come together and try to articulate their social and political vision and explain to themselves and to their fellow compatriots and oftentimes foreign donors, in my case, also Western leftist feminists, their relevance, how they're trying to articulate their position.War has a penchant for heightening nationalist tendencies. And this is not some kind of particular Eastern European pathology. War anywhere is going to produce these results. That is normal. People defend themselves and articulate themselves on the basis on which they're being attacked, on the basis on which they're being bombed.So this is what we are seeing in Ukraine. Leftism in Eastern Europe, because of the Soviet past, is often associated with Soviet nostalgia. Feminism, on the other hand, is oftentimes seen as something antithetical to national identity, something that is imported from the West, and something that either has no relevance or can be dangerous, especially when questions of national unity, questions of national defense come about.That is one of the reasons why I embarked on this journey, and this is one of the reasons why Ukraine had to be part of this picture. Because while the other countries that I'm looking at—Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and Moldova—experience the threat of invasion, Ukraine is under attack.And one of the things that I'm finding is that Ukrainian leftist feminists are incredibly resourceful and incredibly gifted at articulating their relevance.One of the things that I'm going to say that stems from that understanding of leftist feminism that's erroneous, but that's pervasive, is that Ukrainian leftist feminists do not debate the legitimacy of the Ukrainian state. What is in question is the way things are happening under the conditions of war.The questions of most vulnerable people—so questions of what happens with people with disabilities, questions of what happens to single mothers, questions of what happens to the elderly people who are maybe unable to evacuate, questions of what happens to the working class people—all of these things are at the forefront of their minds. They're trying to be the advocates of their pleas to the larger society, while at the same time trying to articulate Ukraine's right to self-defense to Western leftist feminists.BGG: So they have both this tension, maybe tension is the wrong word, tell me if it isn't, but they have this tension internally where they're trying to advocate for what they see as justice or what is right with a domestic audience who, understandably, may be more frequently focused on what's happening at the front lines.And then there's also this international question, the foreign audience for these Ukrainian leftist feminists, who have a very different perspective on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. And I specifically use that verbiage instead of Russia's invasion of Ukraine because they're going to think about it very differently.So let's split those out a little bit, and I want to start with the domestic. You talked about the advocacy of these leftist feminists for the most marginalized groups in society, for those who are most vulnerable.In your view, where have they been most successful, perhaps? Where have they seen actual progress happen from their advocacy?GB: One of the things that immediately comes to mind, and many of my interlocutors were directly involved with, is the nurses' movement–the unionization and self-organization of the nurses.There is a movement called Be Like Nina, referring to one of the nurses seen as a pioneer of resisting exploitation. And, of course, under the conditions of war, the labor of nurses is incredibly valuable and needed, but not always appropriately compensated. This is what we can call essential labor, especially when we talk about the front lines, where people are wounded.Many of them are wounded very badly on a daily basis. However, there are other things that are happening in the background as well. While a lot of the resources are pulled to the front, there are people who are experiencing regular daily struggles with their health. And the nurses are being stretched very thin.And this was something that was really amazing to me. This was really one of the very few instances where I saw academics who are leftist feminists actually touching the ground with their ideas: where they got involved with helping the nurses organize, but not taking the center stage, where they acted as support, as a resource, but not overtaking the movement, rather creating the conditions under which nurses themselves could articulate what it was that they needed, what their goals were.And that was incredibly impressive to me because healthcare is severely underfunded across the whole region, and to achieve such tangible goals as wage increases and regulations that empower nurses to do their job was truly impressive. With every conversation with a woman—because I specifically talk only to women—I just felt sheer amazement, because this is so contrary to so many imaginations of what civil society, self-organization, or networks are like in Eastern Europe.This is so contrary to what some have called ‘uncivil' society. What is happening is really self-organization and civil society at its best, organized by women who are oftentimes stretched very thin, not just at work, but also at home, women whose husbands are potentially on the front lines.So to me, I really cannot think of anything else that, in terms of real life impact and in terms of transforming people's lives, has been grander (I'm going to go for that word) than this.BGG: That's remarkable, and thank you for bringing that. I had very little idea of this progress and this happening.So you use the term civil society, which I think is quite apt, and Western conceptions of civil society in the region that we call Eastern Europe can be highly misguided. Let's just put it like that. I think back to a webinar that the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies (AABS) hosted on Ukrainian civil society, democratization, responses to the war, and we have this comparative Ukrainian and Baltic perspective, where we looked at how Ukrainian civil society was responding.We looked at how Baltic civil society was responding, and you're doing something similar in your research here. You're looking at Latvia and Lithuania as two of the other case studies, in addition to Poland, Moldova, and, of course, Ukraine. One thing that I think we can all observe just from watching the news, let alone being in the countries as well, is that civil society across the region has had this really robust response in the last few years.So could you speak a little bit more to that in the comparative cases outside of Ukraine that you're looking at in your research, especially Latvia and Lithuania?GB: For sure. I think that in order to theorize civil society and the region in general, we need better theory than has been used often to talk about civil society at large.Here, for example, I'm thinking about Emily Channel Justice and her work and the way that she articulates the notion of self-organization. The way that she thinks about Ukraine, especially in the context of Maidan. The way that it left a self-organization, but that can be applied also to any form of civil society, regardless of ideology, is really a network of decentralized, self-organized people's groups.If you were to look for some kind of central organizing pattern, or some kind of centralized way of doing things, most likely you're not going to find it because it's based on personal network, connections, and localized issues. And I think that's definitely something that I'm seeing in Ukraine.One of the things that I'm seeing in Lithuania and Latvia is that it's going to differ slightly because there are going to be more central organizing figures. If we talk about organizing support for Ukraine, one of the things that we're going to see is that people are going to point to nationwide initiatives.Right now in Lithuania, there is an initiative called Radarum, which is a play on words, on radar and on darom, which is a Lithuanian word for let's do it. And it's a nationwide initiative to collect funds to purchase drones and anti-drone equipment for Ukraine. And there are particular faces that we associate with this initiative.National television is running ads for it. So there's a little bit more of a centralized sense to it. But once again, I would say that this is the mainstream way of organizing civil society, which, of course, with Westernization, has taken on some of the patterns that are similar to the West.If we look towards the left, we're going to see very much that it is self-organized, small groups of people who take different initiatives, such as raising funds for medical care, such as raising funds for queer people in Ukraine. So the more mainstream we go, the more patterns that are akin to those that we see in the West we're going to see.That is also going to be true in Latvia. The further left we go, the more organic, grassroots, self-organized cells of people we're going to find who participate in smaller, less visible initiatives. So that's probably the best way that I can explain the difference.BGG: Got it. We see this distinction of centralization and decentralization.One could consider these different types of movements organic in their own ways, but different in different ways. When one thinks of leftist organizing, which has a long and rich history, organic is sort of one of the key words.It's perpetual, and these society-wide initiatives, like what's currently going on in Lithuania, that we've seen across other countries over the last few years, are maybe a little bit less frequent and less common. So there's an important distinction there.So I want to pivot to the international dimension of how the Ukrainian leftist feminists are talking, especially with Western counterparts. And by Western, we mean Western Europe. We mean American and Canadian. We mean Western, as in not Eastern Europe. So could you talk a little bit about the challenges they're facing there?I think I alluded to it earlier, and you alluded to it earlier, but could you dive a little bit more into that discourse, that dialogue between the Ukrainians and their counterparts?GB: This is the main point of contention. What does it mean to be leftist? How much does local experience shape being leftist?What is the relationship of the left to the national question? And I think this is where we are seeing the real tension. Underlying this tension, of course, is the question of Russia. Let me try to unpack this. And I'm going to start from the other end than I listed, which is with the question of Russia.Eastern European in general, and Ukrainian in particular, leftist feminists have a very different understanding as to what Russia is in terms of geopolitics than the Western counterparts are going to have. This stems from very different histories. Western leftism—especially the new wave of leftism that arose in the sixties and the seventies—in many ways has redefined itself not just through the questions of class, which I would argue were lost to some extent. They lost their centrality.And they redefined themselves through the anti-colonial, anti-racist struggle. And that struggle was particularly important because after the fall of the formal colonial system, the colonial patterns of economic exploitation, of social exploitation, of brain drain still very much persisted. And naming that and defining themselves against Western neoimperialism or neocolonialism in the Global South was one of the most defining features of the Left, both in the Global South and in the West. Now, Russia at that time had positioned itself as the ally of the colonized countries. And some of it was pure show, and some of it was actual money, resources, and help that were sent, for example, to Angola. And that made a real difference. Whether that was genuine concern for the colonized people or whether that was an ideological tool is a matter of debate.Whatever it was, it had a profound impact on the way that Western leftists relate to Russia. They continue to see Russia out of that tradition, in many ways, as an ally against Western capitalism and imperialism. Their empire, against which they define themselves, continues to be in the West, and oftentimes is seen as centered on the United States.The empire against which we define ourselves in Eastern Europe is Russia, because Russia was the colonizing power in a very real sense in the region. It was our empire that subjugated us. It was the colonial power that engaged in just about every single practice in which any colonial power engages in the region.For us, if we think outside of ourselves, Russia continues to be the colonial power in the way that it relates to Central Asia, in the way that it relates to the indigenous people of Siberia, in the way that it continues to conduct business. So both the left in the West and the left in the East continue to define themselves against the empire, but disagree on who the empire is.The fundamental difference is the question of Russia. Because of the way that Western leftists, and particularly Western leftist feminists, have been taught to see the world, the way that they have been habituated to see the world, they're unable to see Russia as an aggressor. They're unable to change their narrative about how NATO might act.And of course, the criticisms of continued Western abuses of power, especially when they center on the United States—such as Afghanistan or such as Iraq, but also here in the European context, intra-European context, Serbia is another context in which that comes up—are highly debatable questions, but they're seen a certain way. They're understood in a certain way by Western leftists. And because of Russia's criticism of the West, Western leftists see it as a natural ally, or at least as an equally guilty party.BGG: That's a really great explanation. I think the way that you've laid that out makes a lot of sense.It also harkens back to where I want to bring this, which is the debate that has been going on in Baltic studies and other academic fields, especially those focusing on the region, about thinking about Baltic history in particular as a colonial history and thinking about what it means to decolonize Baltic studies as a field, to decolonize our academic thinking. There have been a lot of discussions.I know that we were in the same room at the AABS panel at Yale last year on that fantastic panel about decolonization. Where do you think this leads with regard to your research specifically? There's already this trend in this field. I get the sense that you are an advocate and moving forward in land seeking for the field as a whole to move in that direction.What do you think the next steps are? What paths do you think could be taken? What do people need to be thinking about that they may not already be thinking about?GB: Well, I think for me, the key question when we are talking about Baltic studies and decolonization is what is it that we talk about when we talk about decolonizing Baltic studies or Baltic countries?Because I think sometimes we're talking about four different things. We are talking about the question of colonialism and coloniality. That's one. We are talking about imperialism, Russian imperialism, and Russian imperiality. We are talking about Russification and what it means to de-Russify. And we are also talking about Sovietization and what it means to de-Sovietize.And I would argue that while these four concepts are very much interrelated, they have very different agendas. So, I think it's a question of definitions. How do we define what our agenda is? Which of the four do we have in mind when we talk about decolonizing Baltic countries, Baltic studies, or anything else?And I would say that each of the four has its place and is significant. But the flip side of that, especially if we stay with the question of decolonization, is the question of Western theory, practice, and scholarship as it relates to Baltic studies. Because if we go back to the early questions in the conversation of what is civil society and whether there is a civil society, Baltic countries and the region as a whole are pathologized.Because the concept of what civil society is, or is not, was based on Western understandings and Western practices. And it rendered civil society in the region invisible. In what ways does the production of scholarship and knowledge about the region continue to be based in very unequal power relationships, in such a way that it continues to pathologize the region?And these are very uncomfortable questions, because much like, you know, in the late eighteenth century when the Lithuanian Polish Commonwealth was divided between the three powers, we're facing the same question: Who is our ally? Because we have learned that Russia is definitely not, but the West is also a problematic ally.This is where I think the question of what it means to center the study of the region in the theory, in the practice, in the questions that actually originate from the ground up, rather than are solely important. And I'm not ditching all Western scholarship out the window. That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.But I'm saying, what does it mean to balance? What does it mean to center? What does it mean to change the parameters of the conversation?BGG: Those are some weighty questions. I think they're good questions that the field is, I would say not even starting to engage with, but is engaging with, which is really excellent, but it's a long path.As anyone who is a scholar of decolonization will tell you, it doesn't happen overnight. It doesn't happen over a decade. It's sort of a continuous process. So, I think that is where we're going to have to leave it, knowing that there is so much more we could have talked about. But, Gražina, thank you so much.This has been a fascinating conversation. Thank you for joining Baltic Ways.GB: Thank you so much for having me, Ben. It's been a privilege.To ensure you catch the next episode of Baltic Ways, make sure you're subscribed to your podcast feed or wherever you get your shows. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.(Image: Facebook | Феміністична майстерня)Baltic Ways is a podcast from the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies, produced in partnership with the Baltic Initiative at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AABS or FPRI. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fpribalticinitiative.substack.com

It's official. The American Dream is dead. And it's been resurrected in Europe where, according to the FT columnist Simon Kuper, disillusioned Americans should relocate. Compared with the United States, Kuper argues, Europe offers the three key metrics of a 21st century good life: “four years more longevity, higher self-reported happiness and less than half the carbon emissions per person”. So where exactly to move? The Paris based Kuper believes that his city is the most beautiful in Europe. He's also partial to Madrid, which offers Europe's sunniest lifestyle. And even London, in spite of all its post Brexit gloom, Kuper promises, offers American exiles the promise of a better life than the miserable existence which they now have to eek out in the United States. Five Takeaways* Quality of Life.:Kuper believes European quality of life surpasses America's for the average person, with Europeans living longer, having better physical health, and experiencing less extreme political polarization.* Democratic Europe vs Aristocratic America: While the wealthy can achieve greater fortunes in America, Kuper argues that Europeans in the "bottom 99%" live longer and healthier lives than their American counterparts.* Guns, Anxiety and the Threat of Violence: Political polarization in America creates more anxiety than in Europe, partly because Americans might be armed and because religion makes people hold their views more fervently.* MAGA Madness: Kuper sees Trump as more extreme than European right-wing leaders like Italy's Meloni, who governs as "relatively pro-European" and "pro-Ukrainian."* It's not just a Trump thing. Kuper believes America's declining international credibility will persist even after Trump leaves office, as Europeans will fear another "America First" president could follow any moderate administration.Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello everybody. It's Monday, April the 21st, 2025. This conversation actually might go out tomorrow on the 22nd. Nonetheless, the headlines of the Financial Times, the world's most global economic newspaper, are miserable from an American point of view. US stocks and the dollar are sinking again as Donald Trump renews his attack on the Fed chair Jay Powell. Meanwhile Trump is also attacking the universities and many other bastions of civilization at least according to the FT's political columnist Gideon Rachman. For another FT journalist, my guest today Simon Kuper has been on the show many times before. All this bad news about America suggests that for Americans it's time to move to Europe. Simon is joining us from Paris, which Paris is that in Europe Simon?Simon Kuper: I was walking around today and thinking it has probably never in its history looked as good as it does now. It really is a fabulous city, especially when the sun shines.Andrew Keen: Nice of them where I am in San Francisco.Simon Kuper: I always used to like San Francisco, but I knew it before every house costs $15 million.Andrew Keen: Well, I'm not sure that's entirely true, but maybe there's some truth. Paris isn't exactly cheap either, is it? Certainly where you live.Simon Kuper: Cheaper than San Francisco, so I did for this article that you mentioned, I did some research on house prices and certainly central Paris is one of the most expensive areas in the European Union, but still considerably cheaper than cities like New York and San Francisco. A friend of mine who lives here told me that if she moved to New York, she would move from central Paris to for the same price living in some very, very distant suburb of New York City.Andrew Keen: Your column this week, Americans, it's time to move to Europe. You obviously wrote with a degree of relish. Is this Europe's revenge on America that it's now time to reverse the brain drain from Europe to America? Now it's from America to Europe.Simon Kuper: I mean, I don't see it as revenge. I'm a generally pro-American person by inclination and I even married an American and have children who are American as well as being French and British. So when I went to the US as firstly as a child, age 10, 11, I was in sixth grade in California. I thought it was the most advanced, wonderful place in the world and the sunshine and there was nowhere nice than California. And then I went as a student in my early 20s. And again, I thought this was the early 90s. This is the country of the future. It's so much more advanced than Europe. And they have this new kind of wise technocratic government that is going to make things even better. And it was the beginning of a big American boom of the 90s when I think American quality of life reached its peak, that life expectancy was reached, that was then declined a long time after the late 90s. So my impressions in the past were always extremely good, but no longer. The last 20 years visiting the US I've never really felt this is a society where ordinary people can have as good a life as in Europe.Andrew Keen: When you say ordinary people, I mean, you're not an ordinary person. And I'm guessing most of the people you and your wife certainly isn't ordinary. She's a well known writer. In fact, she's written on France and the United States and parenthood, very well known, you are well known. What do you mean by ordinary people?Simon Kuper: Yeah, I mean, it's not entirely about me. Amazingly, I am not so egomaniac as to draw conclusions on some matters just looking at my own situation. What I wrote about the US is that if you're in the 1% in the US and you are pursuing great wealth in finance or tech and you have a genuine shot at it, you will achieve wealth that you can't really achieve in Europe. You know, the top end of the US is much higher than in Europe. Still not necessarily true that your life will be better. So even rich Americans live shorter than rich Europeans. But OK, so the 1% America really offers greater expansion opportunities than Europe does. Anywhere below that, the Europeans in the bottom 99%, let's say, they live longer than their American equivalents. They are less fat, their bodies function better because they walk more, because they're not being bombarded by processed food in the same way. Although we have political polarization here, it's not as extreme as in the US. Where I quote a European friend of mine who lives in the American South. He says he sometimes doesn't go out of his house for days at a time because he says meeting Trump supporters makes him quite anxious.Andrew Keen: Where does he live? I saw that paragraph in the piece, you said he doesn't, and I'm quoting him, a European friend of mine who lives in the American South sometimes doesn't leave his house for days on end so as to avoid running into Trump supporters. Where does he live?Simon Kuper: He lives, let me say he lives in Georgia, he lives in the state of Georgia.Andrew Keen: Well, is that Atlanta? I mean, Atlanta is a large town, lots of anti-Trump sentiment there. Whereabouts in Georgia?Simon Kuper: He doesn't live in Atlanta, but I also don't want to specify exactly where he lives because he's entitled.Andrew Keen: In case you get started, but in all seriousness, Simon, isn't this a bit exaggerated? I mean, I'm sure there are some of your friends in Paris don't go outside the fancy center because they might run into fans of Marine Le Pen. What's the difference?Simon Kuper: I think that polarization creates more anxiety in the US and is more strongly felt for a couple of reasons. One is that because people might be armed in America, that gives an edge to any kind of disagreement that isn't here in Europe. And secondly, because religion is more of a factor in American life, people hold their views more strongly, more fervently, then. So I think there's a seriousness and edge to the American polarization that isn't quite the same as here. And the third reason I think polarization is worse is movement is more extreme even than European far-right movements. So my colleague John Byrne Murdoch at the Financial Times has mapped this, that Republican views from issues from climate to the role of the state are really off the charts. There's no European party coeval to them. So for example, the far-right party in France, the Rassemblement National, doesn't deny climate change in the way that Trump does.Andrew Keen: So, how does that contextualize Le Pen or Maloney or even the Hungarian neo-authoritarians for whom a lot of Trump supporters went to Budapest to learn what he did in order to implement Trump 2.0?Simon Kuper: Yeah, I think Orban, in terms of his creating an authoritarian society where the universities have been reined in, where the courts have been rained in, in that sense is a model for Trump. His friendliness with Putin is more of a model for Trump. Meloni and Le Pen, although I do not support them in any way, are not quite there. And so Meloni in Italy is in a coalition and is governing as somebody relatively pro-European. She's pro-Ukrainian, she's pro-NATO. So although, you know, she and Trump seem to have a good relationship, she is nowhere near as extreme as Trump. And you don't see anyone in Europe who's proposing these kinds of tariffs that Trump has. So I think that the, I would call it the craziness or the extremism of MAGA, doesn't really have comparisons. I mean, Orban, because he leads a small country, he has to be a bit more savvy and aware of what, for example, Brussels will wear. So he pushes Brussels, but he also needs money from Brussels. So, he reigns himself in, whereas with Trump, it's hard to see much restraint operating.Andrew Keen: I wonder if you're leading American liberals on a little bit, Simon. You suggested it's time to come to Europe, but Americans in particular aren't welcome, so to speak, with open arms, certainly from where you're talking from in Paris. And I know a lot of Americans who have come to Europe, London, Paris, elsewhere, and really struggled to make friends. Would, for Americans who are seriously thinking of leaving Trump's America, what kind of welcome are they gonna get in Europe?Simon Kuper: I mean, it's true that I haven't seen anti-Americanism as strong as this in my, probably in my lifetime. It might have been like this during the Vietnam War, but I was a child, I don't remember. So there is enormous antipathy to, let's say, to Trumpism. So two, I had two visiting Irish people, I had lunch with them on Friday, who both work in the US, and they said, somebody shouted at them on the street, Americans go home. Which I'd never heard, honestly, in Paris. And they shouted back, we're not American, which is a defense that doesn't work if you are American. So that is not nice. But my sense of Americans who live here is that the presumption of French people is always that if you're an American who lives here, you're not a Trumpist. Just like 20 years ago, if you are an American lives here you're not a supporter of George W. Bush. So there is a great amount of awareness that there are Americans and Americans that actually the most critical response I heard to my article was from Europeans. So I got a lot of Americans saying, yeah, yeah. I agree. I want to get out of here. I heard quite a lot of Europeans say, for God's sake, don't encourage them all to come here because they'll drive up prices and so on, which you can already see elements of, and particularly in Barcelona or in Venice, basically almost nobody lives in Venice except which Americans now, but in Barcelona where.Andrew Keen: Only rich Americans in Venice, no other rich people.Simon Kuper: It has a particular appeal to no Russians. No, no one from the gulf. There must be some there must be something. They're not many Venetians.Andrew Keen: What about the historical context, Simon? In all seriousness, you know, Americans have, of course, fled the United States in the past. One thinks of James Baldwin fleeing the Jim Crow South. Could the Americans now who were leaving the universities, Tim Schneider, for example, has already fled to Canada, as Jason Stanley has as well, another scholar of fascism. Is there stuff that American intellectuals, liberals, academics can bring to Europe that you guys currently don't have? Or are intellectuals coming to Europe from the US? Is it really like shipping coal, so to speak, to Newcastle?Simon Kuper: We need them desperately. I mean, as you know, since 1933, there has been a brain drain of the best European intellectuals in enormous numbers to the United States. So in 1933, the best university system in the world was Germany. If you measure by number of Nobel prizes, one that's demolished in a month, a lot of those people end up years later, especially in the US. And so you get the new school in New York is a center. And people like Adorno end up, I think, in Los Angeles, which must be very confusing. And American universities, you get the American combination. The USP, what's it called, the unique selling point, is you have size, you have wealth, you have freedom of inquiry, which China doesn't have, and you have immigration. So you bring in the best brains. And so Europe lost its intellectuals. You have very wealthy universities, partly because of the role of donors in America. So, you know, if you're a professor at Stanford or Columbia, I think the average salary is somewhere over $300,000 for professors at the top universities. In Europe, there's nothing like that. Those people would at least have to halve their salary. And so, yeah, for Europeans, this is a unique opportunity to get some of the world's leading brains back. At cut price because they would have to take a big salary cut, but many of them are desperate to do it. I mean, if your lab has been defunded by the government, or if the government doesn't believe in your research into climate or vaccines, or just if you're in the humanities and the government is very hostile to it, or, if you write on the history of race. And that is illegal now in some southern states where I think teaching they call it structural racism or there's this American phrase about racism that is now banned in some states that the government won't fund it, then you think, well, I'll take that pay cost and go back to Europe. Because I'm talking going back, I think the first people to take the offer are going to be the many, many top Europeans who work at American universities.Andrew Keen: You mentioned at the end of Europe essay, the end of the American dream. You're quoting Trump, of course, ironically. But the essay is also about the end of the America dream, perhaps the rebirth or initial birth of the European dream. To what extent is the American dream, in your view, and you touched on this earlier, Simon, dependent on the great minds of Europe coming to America, particularly during and after the, as a response to the rise of Nazism, Hannah Arendt, for example, even people like Aldous Huxley, who came to Hollywood in the 1930s. Do you think that the American dream itself is in part dependent on European intellectuals like Arendt and Huxley, even Ayn Rand, who not necessarily the most popular figure on the left, but certainly very influential in her ideas about capitalism and freedom, who came of course from Russia.Simon Kuper: I mean, I think the average American wouldn't care if Ayn Rand or Hannah Arendt had gone to Australia instead. That's not their dream. I think their American dream has always been about the idea of social mobility and building a wealthy life for yourself and your family from nothing. Now almost all studies of social ability say that it's now very low in the US. It's lower than in most of Europe. Especially Northern Europe and Scandinavia have great social mobility. So if you're born in the lower, say, 10% or 20% in Denmark, you have a much better chance of rising to the top of society than if you were born at the bottom 10%, 20% in the US. So America is not very good for social mobility anymore. I think that the brains that helped the American economy most were people working in different forms of tech research. And especially for the federal government. So the biggest funder of science in the last 80 years or so, I mean, the Manhattan Project and on has been the US federal government, biggest in the world. And the thing is you can't eat atom bombs, but what they also produce is research that becomes hugely transformative in civilian life and in civilian industries. So GPS or famously the internet come out of research that's done within the federal government with a kind of vague defense angle. And so I think those are the brains that have made America richer. And then of course, the number of immigrants who found companies, and you see this in tech, is much higher than the number percentage of native born Americans who do. And a famous example of that is Elon Musk.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and you were on the show just before Christmas in response to your piece about Musk, Thiel and the shadow of apartheid in South Africa. So I'm guessing you don't want the Musks and Thiels. They won't be welcome in Europe, will they?Simon Kuper: I don't think they want to go. I mean, if you want to create a tech company, you want very deep capital markets. You want venture capital firms that are happy to bet a few billion on you. And a very good place to do that, the best place in the world by far, is Silicon Valley. And so a French friend of mine said he was at a reception in San Francisco, surrounded by many, many top French engineers who all work for Silicon Valley firms, and he thought, what would it take them to come back? He didn't have an answer. Now the answer might be, maybe, well, Donald Trump could persuade them to leave. But they want to keep issuing visas for those kinds of people. I mean, the thing is that what we're seeing with Chinese AI breakthroughs in what was called DeepSeek. Also in overtaking Tesla on electric cars suggests that maybe, you know, the cutting edge of innovation is moving from Silicon Valley after nearly 100 years to China. This is not my field of expertise at all. But you know the French economist Thomas Filippon has written about how the American economy has become quite undynamic because it's been taken over by monopolies. So you can't start another Google, you can start another Amazon. And you can't build a rival to Facebook because these companies control of the market and as Facebook did with WhatsApp or Instagram, they'll just buy you up. And so you get quite a much more static tech scene than 30 years ago when really, you know, inventions, great inventions are being made in Silicon Valley all the time. Now you get a few big companies that are the same for a very long period.Andrew Keen: Well, of course, you also have OpenAI, which is a startup, but that's another conversation.Simon Kuper: Yeah, the arguments in AI is that maybe China can do it better.Andrew Keen: Can be. I don't know. Well, it has, so to speak, Simon, the light bulb gone off in Europe on all this on all these issues. Mario Draghi month or two ago came out. Was it a white paper or report suggesting that Europe needed to get its innovation act together that there wasn't enough investment or capital? Are senior people within the EU like Draghi waking up to the reality of this historical opportunity to seize back economic power, not just cultural and political.Simon Kuper: I mean, Draghi doesn't have a post anymore, as far as I'm aware. I mean of course he was the brilliant governor of the European Central Bank. But that report did have a big impact, didn't it? It had a big impact. I think a lot of people thought, yeah, this is all true. We should spend enormous fortunes and borrow enormous fortunes to create a massive tech scene and build our own defense industries and so on. But they're not going to do it. It's the kind of report that you write when you don't have a position of power and you say, this is what we should do. And the people in positions of power say, oh, but it's really complicated to do it. So they don't do it, so no, they're very, there's not really, we've been massively overtaken and left behind on tech by the US and China. And there doesn't seem to be any impetus, serious impetus to build anything on that scale to invest that kind of money government led or private sector led in European tech scene. So yeah, if you're in tech. Maybe you should be going to Shanghai, but you probably should not be going to Europe. So, and this is a problem because China and the US make our future and we use their cloud servers. You know, we could build a search engine, but we can't liberate ourselves from the cloud service. Defense is a different matter where, you know, Draghi said we should become independent. And because Trump is now European governments believe Trump is hostile to us on defense, hostile to Ukraine and more broadly to Europe, there I think will be a very quick move to build a much bigger European defense sector so we don't have to buy for example American planes which they where they can switch off the operating systems if they feel like it.Andrew Keen: You live in Paris. You work for the FT, or one of the papers you work for is the FT a British paper. Where does Britain stand here? So many influential Brits, of course, went to America, particularly in the 20th century. Everyone from Alfred Hitchcock to Christopher Hitchens, all adding enormous value like Arendt and Ayn Rand. Is Britain, when you talk of Europe, are you still in the back of your mind thinking of Britain, or is it? An island somehow floating or stuck between America, the end of the American dream and the beginning of the European dream. In a way, are you suggesting that Brits should come to Europe as well?Simon Kuper: I think Britain is floating quite rapidly towards Europe because in a world where you have three military superpowers that are quite predatory and are not interested in alliances, the US, China and Russia, the smaller countries, and Britain is a smaller country and has realized since Brexit that it is a small country, the small countries just need to ally. And, you know, are you going to trust an alliance with Trump? A man who is not interested in the fates of other countries and breaks his word, or would you rather have an alliance with the Europeans who share far more of your values? And I think the Labor government in the UK has quietly decided that, I know that it has decided that on economic issues, it's always going to prioritize aligning with Europe, for example, aligning food standards with Europe so that we can sell my food. They can sell us our food without any checks because we've accepted all their standards, not with the US. So in any choice between, you know, now there's talk of a potential US-UK trade deal, do we align our standards with the US. Or Europe? It's always going to be Europe first. And on defense, you have two European defense powers that are these middle powers, France and the UK. Without the UK, there isn't really a European defense alliance. And that is what is gonna be needed now because there's a big NATO summit in June, where I think it's going to become patently obvious to everyone, the US isn't really a member of NATO anymore. And so then you're gonna move towards a post US NATO. And if the UK is not in it, well, it looks very, very weak indeed. And if UK is alone, that's quite a scary position to be in in this world. So yeah, I see a UK that is not gonna rejoin the European Union anytime soon. But is more and more going to ally itself, is already aligning itself with Europe.Andrew Keen: As the worm turned, I mean, Trump has been in power 100 days, supposedly is limited to the next four years, although he's talking about running for a third term. Can America reverse itself in your view?Simon Kuper: I think it will be very hard whatever Trump does for other countries to trust him again. And I also think that after Trump goes, which as you say may not be in 2028, but after he goes and if you get say a Biden or Obama style president who flies to Europe and says it's all over, we're friends again. Now the Europeans are going to think. But you know, it's very, very likely that in four years time, you will be replaced by another America first of some kind. So we cannot build a long term alliance with the US. So for example, we cannot do long term deals to buy Americans weapons systems, because maybe there's a president that we like, but they'll be succeeded by a president who terrifies us quite likely. So, there is now, it seems to me, instability built in for the very long term into... America has a potential ally. It's you just can't rely on this anymore. Even should Trump go.Andrew Keen: You talk about Europe as one place, which, of course, geographically it is, but lots of observers have noted the existence, it goes without saying, of many Europe's, particularly the difference between Eastern and Western Europe.Simon Kuper: I've looked at that myself, yes.Andrew Keen: And you've probably written essays on this as well. Eastern Europe is Poland, perhaps, Czech Republic, even Hungary in an odd way. They're much more like the United States, much more interested perhaps in economic wealth than in the other metrics that you write about in your essay. Is there more than one Europe, Simon? And for Americans who are thinking of coming to Europe, should it be? Warsaw, Prague, Paris, Madrid.Simon Kuper: These are all great cities, so it depends what you like. I mean, I don't know if they're more individualistic societies. I would doubt that. All European countries, I think, could be described as social democracies. So there is a welfare state that provides people with health and education in a way that you don't quite have in the United States. And then the opposite, the taxes are higher. The opportunities to get extremely wealthy are lower here. I think the big difference is that there is a part of Europe for whom Russia is an existential threat. And that's especially Poland, the Baltics, Romania. And there's a part of Europe, France, Britain, Spain, for whom Russia is really quite a long way away. So they're not that bothered about it. They're not interested in spending a lot on defense or sending troops potentially to die there because they see Russia as not their problem. I would see that as a big divide. In terms of wealth, I mean, it's equalizing. So the average Pole outside London is now, I think, as well off or better than the average Britain. So the average Pole is now as well as the average person outside London. London, of course, is still.Andrew Keen: This is the Poles in the UK or the Poles.Simon Kuper: The Poles in Poland. So the Poles who came to the UK 20 years ago did so because the UK was then much richer. That's now gone. And so a lot of Poles and even Romanians are returning because economic opportunities in Poland, especially, are just as good as in the West. So there has been a little bit of a growing together of the two halves of the continent. Where would you live? I mean, my personal experience, having spent a year in Madrid, it's the nicest city in the world. Right, it's good. Yeah, nice cities to live in, I like living in big cities, so of big cities it's the best. Spanish quality of life. If you earn more than the average Spaniard, I think the average income, including everyone wage earners, pensioners, students, is only about $20,000. So Spaniards have a problem with not having enough income. So if you're over about $20000, and in Madrid probably quite a bit more than that, then it's a wonderful life. And I think, and Spaniards live about five years longer than Americans now. They live to about age 84. It's a lovely climate, lovely people. So that would be my personal top recommendation. But if you like a great city, Paris is the greatest city in the European Union. London's a great, you know, it's kind of bustling. These are the two bustling world cities of Europe, London and Paris. I think if you can earn an American salary, maybe through working remotely and live in the Mediterranean somewhere, you have the best deal in the world because Mediterranean prices are low, Mediterranean culture, life is unbeatable. So that would be my general recommendation.Andrew Keen: Finally, Simon, being very generous with your time, I'm sure you'd much rather be outside in Paris in what you call the greatest city in the EU. You talk in the piece about three metrics that show that it's time to move to Europe, housing, education, sorry, longevity, happiness and the environment. Are there any metrics at all now to stay in the United States?Simon Kuper: I mean, if you look at people's incomes in the US they're considerably higher, of course, your purchasing power for a lot of things is less. So I think the big purchasing power advantage Americans have until the tariffs was consumer goods. So if you want to buy a great television set, it's better to do that out of an American income than out of a Spanish income, but if you want the purchasing power to send your kids to university, to get healthcare. Than to be guaranteed a decent pension, then Europe is a better place. So even though you're earning more money in the US, you can't buy a lot of stuff. If you wanna go to a nice restaurant and have a good meal, the value for money will be better in Europe. So I suppose if you wanna be extremely wealthy and you have a good shot at that because a lot people overestimate their chance of great wealth. Then America is a better bet than Europe. Beyond that, I find it hard to right now adduce reasons. I mean, it's odd because like the Brexiteers in the UK, Trump is attacking some of the things that really did make America great, such as this trading system that you can get very, very cheap goods in the United States, but also the great universities. So. I would have been much more positive about the idea of America a year ago, but even then I would've said the average person lives better over here.Andrew Keen: Well, there you have it. Simon Cooper says to Americans, it's time to move to Europe. The American dream has ended, perhaps the beginning of the European dream. Very provocative. Simon, we'll get you back on the show. Your column is always a central reading in the Financial Times. Thanks so much and enjoy Paris.Simon Kuper: Thank you, Andrew. Enjoy San Francisco. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Kurz vor Weihnachten 1944, der Zweite Weltkrieg scheint für Deutschland eigentlich schon verloren. Doch Hitler hat andere Pläne: In den verschneiten Wäldern der Ardennen startet er seine letzte große Offensive. Während amerikanische GIs im Westen überrascht werden und erbitterten Widerstand leisten, bricht im Osten die gigantische Winteroffensive der Roten Armee los. Wir tauchen ein in die Schicksale von Männern, die an verschiedenen Fronten für das gleiche Ziel kämpfen – das Ende der Nazidiktatur. Wie ergeht es den einfachen Soldaten in diesen entscheidenden Kriegswochen? Warum ist Hitlers Ardennenoffensive von Anfang an zum Scheitern verurteilt? Und wie bestimmt der Vormarsch der Roten Armee im Januar 1945 den weiteren Verlauf des Krieges? Du hast Feedback oder einen Themenvorschlag für Joachim und Nils? Dann melde dich gerne bei Instagram: @wasbishergeschah.podcastQuellen:Tagebuch von Lee OttsTagebuch von Wladimir Gelfand1945 Victory in the West von Peter Caddick-AdamsGuns at Last Light · The War in Western Europe, 1944-1945 von Rick AtkinsonThe Second World War von Antony BeevorThe Third Reich at War von Richard J. EvansUnsere allgemeinen Datenschutzrichtlinien finden Sie unter https://art19.com/privacy. Die Datenschutzrichtlinien für Kalifornien sind unter https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info abrufbar.

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

Today we're getting into part one of a four-part series on why Western society is falling apart. Yes, it's collapsing—and if you live in the U.S. or Western Europe, that means you. I talked about this on a live stream earlier this year, but this topic is too important not to be on the official record, which is this show right here. If this is the main place you hear from me, you're in the right spot. Let's get into it. Show Notes: [03:52]#1 Cultural and social fragmentation.  [09:34]#2 The breakdown of the family structure.   [17:51]#3 The middle class is disappearing.  [23:05]Recap Episodes Mentioned: 3143: There Will Be No "Middle Class" [Part 1 of 4] Next Steps: ---

We are now only days away from the highly anticipated canonization of the first Millennial saint, Blessed Carlo Acutis, on April 27. Courtney Mares, Rome Correspondent for Catholic News Agency, joins us from the Eternal City. Across the US and even in secularizing Western Europe, this Lent had witnessed increases in conversions. We talk to Register correspondent Matt McDonald and Jane Tomaszewski, one of the newest members entering the Church.

In this episode, Matt and Chris pour themselves a stiff drink and slip into the fever‑dream crossover of Jordan Peterson and Michael Shellenberger, a conversation that opens with the claim that Western Europe is now the single greatest threat to free speech; yes, croissants and GDPR apparently out‑authoritarian China and Russia. According to Shellenberger, we can now rest safe as free speech has been restored and “America Is Back!” thanks to God-Emperor Trump and the living avatar of honest utterance, Elon 'Horus' Musk.Our hosts marvel as Shellenberger insists USAID is a rogue soft‑power leviathan that somehow staged January 6th, sabotaged the 2020 election, and deserves to be nuked from orbit... although he can't quite prove any of that YET​. Alongside the conspiratorial drivel there is also a heavy serving of Peterson's obscurantist mythicism and dinner‑party anthropology as he explains how Hungary is a model democracy, the US nation beset by parasites, and that this is all inevitably connected to how people are not paying enough attention to Jesus​.But that is not all! You will also learn about Manly Men vs. Gentlemen, Musk's “move fast and break government” ethos, and the revelation that free speech is not a nice‑to‑have but a must‑have—unless you are a lawyer, journalist, or student on the wrong side of the Trump administration. So buckle up for an hour of dystopian déjà vu, as two self‑styled rebel intellectuals morph into state propagandists, cheerleading every single action of Trump and Musk while lecturing the rest of us on free thought.Sources“Trump, Musk, Kennedy: The Dawn of Transparency,” The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast, Ep. 526.Shellenberger's Substack, including gems like "Why Trump's Victory Is, For Millions Of Us, Cathartic" and "Both USAID And The CIA Were Behind The Impeachment Of Trump in 2019"Taibbi & Shellenberger testify to the House Judiciary Committee to help uncover "the Biden-Harris Administration's unconstitutional censorship campaign"Singal-Minded articles detailing Shellenberger's sloppy journalism and conspiracy theories

Send us a text In a rare convergence of literature and hardcore ethos, The Vulgar Display of Podcast recently welcomed Karl Buechner of Earth Crisis, Freya, and Apocalypse Tribe and along with co-authors Keith Ward and Jeremy Mueller, to discuss their debut novel, The Unraveling: The Council of Crows. This middle-grade fantasy adventure is more than just a story—it's a decade-long project that evolved from a short story into a fully realized trilogy. The book drops May 5, 2025, with a limited hardcover edition available on Earth Day (April 22) via 3rd World Studios. The Council of Crows is crafted with the heart of three lifelong creatives who've spent over ten years meeting weekly to bring this story to life. It weaves humor, adventure, and timeless themes of animal rights and environmentalism into an engaging narrative tailored for young readers aged 8-12.“This book is a love letter to Earth,” said Beechner during the interview. “It reflects who we are—not just as artists, but as people. It's dedicated to the loved ones we've lost, and it's a call for compassion, kindness, and change.”The trio's “three-tier process” of writing involved brainstorming, independent drafting, and collective refinement, allowing each voice to shine through while delivering a unified message. Though the writing process spanned years, the team agrees the hardest part was knowing when it was “done.”They describe the book as the first in a three-part series, with the next two entries planned over the next three years. And while the story stands strong on its own, it's also deeply personal—an expression of grief, hope, and growth.For environmental activists, or those looking for impactful stories for the next generation, The Unraveling: The Council of Crows promises to be a powerful bridge between hardcore legacy and hopeful storytelling.Stay tuned. The crows are gathering.Karl also touched on Earth Crisis' upcoming tour with Judge and Integrity, hitting both coasts later this year. The band will also travel to England and Western Europe, while Karl's other project, Freya, embarks on an Eastern European tour.Following the well-received Fight as One album, the band continues to uphold its tradition of challenging norms and promoting alternative perspectives. The podcast reflects on the band's enduring legacy and their ability to bridge music, message, and now literature.www.BetterHelp.com/TheBarnhttp://www.betterhelp.com/TheBarn http://www.betterhelp.com/TheBarnThis episode is sponsored by www.betterhelp.com/TheBarn and brought to you as always by The Barn Media Group. YOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/@TheBarnPodcastNetwork SPOTIFY https://open.spotify.com/show/09neXeCS8I0U8OZJroUGd4?si=2f9b8dfa5d2c4504 APPLE https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1625411141 I HEART RADIO https://www.iheart.com/podcast/97160034/ AMAZON https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/7aff7d00-c41b-4154-94cf-221a808e3595/the-barn

We are now only days away from the highly anticipated canonization of the first Millennial saint, Blessed Carlo Acutis, on April 27. Courtney Mares, Rome Correspondent for Catholic News Agency, joins us from the Eternal City. Across the US and even in secularizing Western Europe, this Lent had witnessed increases in conversions. We talk to Register correspondent Matt McDonald and Jane Tomaszewski, one of the newest members entering the Church.

Holly Dagres on the “positive and constructive” talks between Iran and the US in Oman over the weekend. Also on the programme: Hong Kong’s opposition Democratic Party moves forward with its plans to dissolve and visits to the US from Western Europe plummet. Then: Amah-Rose Abrams brings us the latest arts news from Kyoto. Plus: a tribute to late Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In late February in DC, I attended the US premiere of the Bertelsmann Foundation of North America produced documentary “Lithium Rising”, a movie about the extraction of essential rare minerals like lithium, nickel and cobalt. Afterwards, I moderated a panel featuring the movie's director Samuel George, the Biden US Department of Energy Director Giulia Siccardo and Environmental Lawyer JingJing Zhang (the "Erin Brockovich of China"). In post Liberation Day America, of course, the issues addressed in both “Lithium Rising” and our panel discussion - particularly US-Chinese economic rivalry over these essential rare minerals - are even more relevant. Tariffs or not, George's important new movie uncovers the essential economic and moral rules of today's rechargeable battery age. FIVE TAKEAWAYS* China dominates the critical minerals supply chain, particularly in refining lithium, cobalt, and nickel - creating a significant vulnerability for the United States and Western countries who rely on these minerals for everything from consumer electronics to military equipment.* Resource extraction creates complex moral dilemmas in communities like those in Nevada, Bolivia, Congo, and Chile, where mining offers economic opportunities but also threatens environment and sacred lands, often dividing local populations.* History appears to be repeating itself with China's approach in Africa mirroring aspects of 19th century European colonialism, building infrastructure that primarily serves to extract resources while local communities remain impoverished.* Battery recycling offers a potential "silver lining" but faces two major challenges: making the process cost-effective compared to new mining, and accumulating enough recycled materials to create a closed-loop system, which could take decades.* The geopolitical competition for these minerals is intensifying, with tariffs and trade wars affecting global supply chains and the livelihoods of workers throughout the system, from miners to manufacturers. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. Last year, we did a show on a new book. It was a new book back then called Cobalt Red about the role of cobalt, the mineral in the Congo. We also did a show. The author of the Cobalt Red book is Siddharth Kara, and it won a number of awards. It's the finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. We also did a show with Ernest Scheyder, who authored a book, The War Below, Lithium, Copper, and the Global Battle to Power Our Lives. Lithium and cobalt are indeed becoming the critical minerals of our networked age. We've done two books on it, and a couple of months ago, I went to the premiere, a wonderful new film, a nonfiction documentary by my guest Samuel George. He has a new movie out called Lithium Rising and I moderated a panel in Washington DC and I'm thrilled that Samuel George is joining us now. He works with the Bertelsmann Foundation of North America and it's a Bertelsman funded enterprise. Sam, congratulations on the movie. It's quite an achievement. I know you traveled all over the world. You went to Europe, Latin America, a lot of remarkable footage also from Africa. How would you compare the business of writing a book like Cobalt read or the war below about lithium and cobalt and the challenges and opportunities of doing a movie like lithium rising what are the particular challenges for a movie director like yourself.Samuel George: Yeah, Andrew. Well, first of all, I just want to thank you for having me on the program. I appreciate that. And you're right. It is a very different skill set that's required. It's a different set of challenges and also a different set of opportunities. I mean, the beauty of writing, which is something I get a chance to do as well. And I should say we actually do have a long paper coming out of this process that I wrote that will probably be coming out in the next couple months. But the beauty of writing is you need to kind of understand your topic, and if you can really understand your topics, you have the opportunity to explain it. When it comes to filming, if the camera doesn't have it, you don't have it. You might have a sense of something, people might explain things to you in a certain way, but if you don't have it on your camera in a way that's digestible and easy for audience to grasp, it doesn't matter whether you personally understand it or not. So the challenge is really, okay, maybe you understand the issue, but how do you show it? How do you bring your audience to that front line? Because that's the opportunity that you have that you don't necessarily have when you write. And that's to take an audience literally to these remote locations that they've never been and plant their feet right in the ground, whether that be the Atacama in Northern Chile, whether that'd be the red earth of Colwaisy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And that's the beauty of it, but it takes more of making sure you get something not just whether you understand it is almost irrelevant. I mean I guess you do need to understand it but you need to be able to draw it out of a place. It's easier when you're writing to get to some of these difficult places because you don't have to bring 900 pounds of equipment and you can kind of move easier and you're much more discreet. You can get places much easier as you can imagine, where with this, you're carrying all this equipment down. You're obvious from miles away. So you really have to build relationships and get people to get comfortable with you and be willing to speak out. So it's different arts, but it's also different rewards. And the beauty of being able to combine analysis with these visuals is really the draw of what makes documentary so magic because you're really kind of hitting different senses at the same time, visual, audio, and combining it to hopefully make some sort of bigger story.Andrew Keen: Well, speaking, Sam, of audio and visuals, we've got a one minute clip or introduction to the movie. People just listening on this podcast won't get to see your excellent film work, but everybody else will. So let's just have a minute to see what lithium rising is all about. We'll be back in a minute.[Clip plays]Andrew Keen: Here's a saying that says that the natural resources are today's bread and tomorrow's hunger. Great stuff, Sam. That last quote was in Spanish. Maybe you want to translate that to English, because I think, in a sense, it summarizes what lithium rising is about.Samuel George: Right. Well, that's this idea that natural resources in a lot of these places, I mean, you have to take a step back that a lot of these resources, you mentioned the lithium, the cobalt, you can throw nickel into that conversation. And then some of the more traditional ones like copper and silver, a lot are in poor countries. And for centuries, the opportunity to access this has been like a mirage, dangled in front of many of these poor countries as an opportunity to become more wealthy. Yet what we continue to see is the wealth, the mineral wealth of these countries is sustaining growth around the world while places like Potosí and Bolivia remain remarkably poor. So the question on their minds is, is this time gonna be any different? We know that Bolivia has perhaps the largest lithium deposits in the world. They're struggling to get to it because they're fighting amongst each other politically about what's the best way to do it, and is there any way to it that, hey, for once, maybe some of this resource wealth can stay here so that we don't end up, as the quote said, starving. So that's where their perspective is. And then on the other side, you have the great powers of the world who are engaged in a massive competition for access to these minerals.Andrew Keen: And let's be specific, Sam, we're not talking about 19th century Europe and great powers where there were four or five, they're really only two great powers when it comes to these resources, aren't they?Samuel George: I mean, I think that's fair to say. I think some people might like to lump in Western Europe and the EU with the United States to the extent that we used to traditionally conceive of them as being on the same team. But certainly, yes, this is a competition between the United States and China. And it's one that, frankly, China is winning and winning handily. And we can debate what that means, but it's true. I showed this film in London. And a student, who I believe was Chinese, commented, is it really fair to even call this a race? Because it seems to be over.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's over. You showed it at King's College in London. I heard it was an excellent event.Samuel George: Yeah, it really was. But the point here is, to the extent that it's a competition between the United States and China, which it is, China is winning. And that's of grave concern to Washington. So there's the sense that the United States needs to catch up and need to catch up quickly. So that's the perspective that these two great powers are going at it from. Whereas if you're the Democratic Republic of Congo, if you are Bolivia, if your Chile, you're saying, what can we do to try to make the most of this opportunity and not just get steamrolled?Andrew Keen: Right. And you talk about a grave concern. Of course, there is grave concern both in Washington, D.C. and Beijing in terms of who's winning this race for these natural resources that are driving our networked age, our battery powered age. Some people might think the race has ended. Some people may even argue that it hasn't even really begun. But of course, one of the biggest issues, and particularly when it comes to the Chinese, is this neocolonial element. This was certainly brought out in Cobalt Red, which is quite a controversial book about the way in which China has essentially colonized the Congo by mining Cobalt in Congo, using local labor and then shipping out these valuable resources back to China. And of course, it's part of a broader project in Africa of the Chinese, which for some critics actually not that different from European 19th century colonialism. That's why we entitled our show with Siddharth Kara, The New Heart of Darkness. Of course, the original Heart of darkness was Joseph Conrad's great novel that got turned into Apocalypse Now. Is history repeating itself, Sam, when it comes to these natural resources in terms of the 19th-century history of colonialism, particularly in Africa?Samuel George: Yeah, I mean, I think it's so one thing that's fair to say is you hear a lot of complaining from the West that says, well, look, standards are not being respected, labor is being taken advantage of, environment is not being taken care of, and this is unfair. And this is true, but your point is equally true that this should not be a foreign concept to the West because it's something that previously the West was clearly engaged in. And so yes, there is echoes of history repeating itself. I don't think there's any other way to look at it. I think it's a complicated dynamic because sometimes people say, well, why is the West not? Why is it not the United States that's in the DRC and getting the cobalt? And I think that's because it's been tough for the United states to find its footing. What China has done is increasingly, and then we did another documentary about this. It's online. It's called Tinder Box Belt and Road, China and the Balkans. And what we increasingly see is in these non-democracies or faulty democracies that has something that China's interested in. China's willing to show up and basically put a lot of money on the table and not ask a whole lot of questions. And if the West, doesn't wanna play that game, whatever they're offering isn't necessarily as attractive. And that's a complication that we see again and again around the world and one, the United States and Europe and the World Bank and Western institutions that often require a lot of background study and open tenders for contracts and democracy caveats and transparency. China's not asking for any of that, as David Dollar, a scholar, said in the prior film, if the World Bank says they're going to build you a road, it's going to be a 10-year process, and we'll see what happens. If China says they'll build you a road a year later, you'll have a road.Andrew Keen: But then the question sound becomes, who owns the road?Samuel George: So let's take the Democratic Republic of the Congo, another great option. China has been building a lot of roads there, and this is obviously beneficial to a country that has very limited infrastructure. It's not just to say everything that China is doing is bad. China is a very large and economically powerful country. It should be contributing to global infrastructure. If it has the ability to finance that, wonderful. We all know Africa, certain African countries can really benefit from improved infrastructure. But where do those roads go? Well, those roads just happen to conveniently connect to these key mineral deposits where China overwhelmingly owns the interest and the minerals.Andrew Keen: That's a bit of a coincidence, isn't it?Samuel George: Well, exactly. And I mean, that's the way it's going. So that's what they'll come to the table. They'll put money on the table, they'll say, we'll get you a road. And, you know, what a coincidence that roads going right by the cobalt mine run by China. That's debatable. If you're from the African perspective, you could say, look, we got a road, and we needed that road. And it could also be that there's a lot of money disappearing in other places. But, you know that that's a different question.Andrew Keen: One of the things I liked about Lithium Rising, the race for critical minerals, your new documentary, is it doesn't pull its punches. Certainly not when it comes to the Chinese. You have some remarkable footage from Africa, but also it doesn't pull its punches in Latin America, or indeed in the United States itself, where cobalt has been discovered and it's the indigenous peoples of some of the regions where cobalt, sorry, where lithium has been discovered, where the African versus Chinese scenario is being played out. So whether it's Bolivia or the western parts of the United States or Congo, the script is pretty similar, isn't it?Samuel George: Yeah, you certainly see themes in the film echoed repeatedly. You mentioned what was the Thacker Pass lithium mine that's being built in northern Nevada. So people say, look, we need lithium. The United States needs lithium. Here's the interesting thing about critical minerals. These are not rare earth minerals. They're actually not that rare. They're in a lot of places and it turns out there's a massive lithium deposit in Nevada. Unfortunately, it's right next to a Native American reservation. This is an area that this tribe has been kind of herded onto after years, centuries of oppression. But the way the documentary tries to investigate it, it is not a clear-cut story of good guy and bad guy, rather it's a very complicated situation, and in that specific case what you have is a tribe that's divided, because there's some people that say, look, this is our land, this is a sacred site, and this is going to be pollution, but then you have a whole other section of the tribe that says we are very poor and this is an opportunity for jobs such that we won't have to leave our area, that we can stay here and work. And these kind of entangled complications we see repeated over and over again. Cobalt is another great example. So there's some people out there that are saying, well, we can make a battery without cobalt. And that's not because they can make a better battery. It's because they want to avoid the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But that cobalt is providing a rare job opportunity. And we can debate the quality of the job, but for the people that are working it, as they say in my film, they say, look, if we could do something else, we would do it. But this is all there is. So if you deprive them of that, the situation gets even worse. And that something we see in Northern Chile. We see it in Nevada. We see in Africa. We see it in Indonesia. What the film does is it raises these moral questions that are incredibly important to talk about. And it sort of begs the question of, not only what's the answer, but who has the right to answer this? I mean, who has right to speak on behalf of the 10 communities that are being destroyed in Northern Chile?Andrew Keen: I have to admit, I thought you did a very good job in the film giving everybody a voice, but my sympathy when it came to the Nevada case was with the younger people who wanted to bring wealth and development into the community rather than some of the more elderly members who were somehow anti-development, anti-investment, anti mining in every sense. I don't see how that benefits, but certainly not their children or the children of their children.Samuel George: I guess the fundamental question there is how bad is that mine going to be for the local environment? And I think that's something that remains to be seen. And one of the major challenges with this broader idea of are we going to greener by transitioning to EVs? And please understand I don't have an opinion of that. I do think anywhere you're doing mining, you're going to have immediate consequences. The transition would have to get big enough that the external the externalities, the positive benefits outweigh that kind of local negativity. And we could get there, but it's also very difficult to imagine massive mining projects anywhere in the world that don't impact the local population. And again, when we pick up our iPhone or when we get in our electric vehicle, we're not necessarily thinking of those 10 villages in the Atacama Desert in Chile.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and I've been up to the Atacama's, perhaps the most beautiful part in the world I've ever seen. It's nice. I saw the tourist side of it, so I didn't see the mining. But I take your point. There is one, perhaps, the most positive section of the film. You went to France. I think it was Calais, you took your camera. And it seems as if the French are pioneering a more innovative development of batteries which benefit the local community but also protect them environmentally. What did you see in northern France?Samuel George: Point, and that gets back to this extractive cycle that we've seen before. Okay, so northern France, this is a story a lot of us will know well because it's similar to what we've see in the Rust Belt in the United States. This is an industrial zone, historically, that faced significant deindustrialization in recent decades and now has massive problems with unemployment and lack of job opportunities, as one of the guys says in the film. Nothing's open here anymore except for that cafe over there and that's just because it has gambling guy. I couldn't have said it any better. This EV transition is offering an opportunity to bring back industrial jobs to whether it's Northern France or the United States of America. So that is an opportunity for people to have these more advanced battery-oriented jobs. So that could be building the battery itself. That could be an auto manufacturing plant where you're making EV electric vehicles. So there is job creation that's happening. And that's further along the development stage and kind of higher level jobs. And we meet students in France that are saying, look, this is an opportunity for a career. We see a long-term opportunity for work here. So we're really studying batteries and that's for university students. That's for people maybe 10, 15 years older to kind of go back to school and learn some skills related to batteries. So there is job creation to that. And you might, you may be getting ready to get to this, but where the real silver lining I think comes after that, where we go back to Georgia in the United States and visit a battery recycling plant.Andrew Keen: Right, yeah, those two sections in the movie kind of go together in a sense.Samuel George: Right, they do. And that is, I think, the silver lining here is that these batteries that we use in all of these appliances and devices and gadgets can be recycled in such a way that the cobalt, the lithium, the nickel can be extracted. And it itself hasn't degraded. It's sort of funny for us to think about, because we buy a phone. And three years later, the battery is half as good as it used to be and we figure well, materials in it must be degrading. They're not. The battery is degrading, the materials are fine. So then the idea is if we can get enough of this in the United States, if we can get old phones and old car batteries and old laptops that we can pull those minerals out, maybe we can have a closed loop, which is sort of a way of saying we won't need those mines anymore. We won't have to dig it up. We don't need to compete with China for access to from Bolivia or Chile because we'll have that lithium here. And yes, that's a silver lining, but there's challenges there. The two key challenges your viewers should be aware of is one, it's all about costs and they've proven that they can recycle these materials, but can they do it in a way that's cheaper than importing new lithium? And that's what these different companies are racing to find a way to say, look, we can do this at a way that's cost effective. Then even if you get through that challenge, a second one is just to have the sheer amount of the materials to close that loop, to have enough in the United States already, they estimate we're decades away from that. So those are the two key challenges to the silver lining of recycling, but it is possible. It can be done and they're doing it.Andrew Keen: We haven't talked about the T word, Sam. It's on everyone's lips these days, tariffs. How does this play out? I mean, especially given this growing explicit, aggressive trade war between the United States and China, particularly when it comes to production of iPhones and other battery-driven products. Right. Is tariffs, I mean, you film this really before Trump 2-0, in which tariffs were less central, but is tariffs going to change everything?Samuel George: I mean, this is just like so many other things, an incredibly globalized ecosystem and tariffs. And who even knows by the time this comes out, whatever we think we understand about the new tariff scenario could be completely outdated.Andrew Keen: Guaranteed. I mean, we are talking on Wednesday, April the 9th. This will go out in a few days time. But no doubt by that time, tariffs will have changed dramatically. They already have as we speak.Samuel George: Here's the bottom line, and this is part of the reason the story is so important and so timely, and we haven't even talked about this yet, but it's so critical. Okay, just like oil, you can't just dig oil out of the ground and put it in the car. It's got to be refined. Lithium, nickel, cobalt, it's got be refined as well. And the overwhelming majority of that refining occurs in China. So even your success story like France, where they're building batteries, they still need to import the refined critical minerals from China. So that is a massive vulnerability. And that's part of where this real fear that you see in Washington or Brussels is coming from. You know, and they got their first little taste of it during the COVID supply chain meltdown, but say in the event where China decided that they weren't gonna export any more of this refined material it would be disastrous for people relying on lithium devices, which by the way, is also the military. Increasingly, the military is using lithium battery powered devices. So that's why there's this urgency that we need to get this on shore. We need to this supply chain here. The problem is that's not happening yet. And okay, so you can slap these tariffs on and that's going to make this stuff much more expensive, but that's not going to automatically create a critical mineral refining capacity in the United States of America. So that needs to be built. So you can understand the desire to get this back here. And by the way, the only reason we're not all driving Chinese made electric vehicles is because of tariffs. The Chinese have really, really caught up in terms of high quality electric vehicles at excellent prices. Now, the prices were always good. What's surprising people recently is the quality is there, but they've basically been tariffed out of the United States. And actually the Biden administration was in part behind that. And it was sort of this tension because on the one hand, they were saying, we want a green revolution, we want to green revolution. But on the other hand, they were seeing these quality Chinese electric vehicles. We're not gonna let you bring them in. But yeah, so I mean, I think the ultimate goal, you can understand why a country that's convinced that it's in a long term competition with China would say we can't rely on Chinese refined materials. Slapping a tariff on it isn't any sort of comprehensive strategy and to me it almost seems like you're putting the horse before the cart because we're not really in a place yet where we can say we no longer need China to power our iPhone.Andrew Keen: And one of the nice things about your movie is it features miners, ordinary people living on the land whose lives are dramatically impacted by this. So one would imagine that some of the people you interviewed in Bolivia or Atacama or in Africa or even in Georgia and certainly in Nevada, they're going to be dramatically impacted by the tariffs. These are not just abstract ideas that have a real impact on people's lives.Samuel George: Absolutely. I mean, for decades now, we've built an economic system that's based on globalization. And it's certainly true that that's cost a lot of jobs in the United States. It's also true that there's a lot jobs and companies that have been built around global trade. And this is one of them. And you're talking about significant disruption if your global supply chains, as we've seen before, again, in the COVID crisis when the supply chains fall apart or when the margins, which are already pretty slim to begin with, start to degrade, yeah, it's a major problem.Andrew Keen: Poorly paid in the first place, so...Samuel George: For the most part, yeah.Andrew Keen: Well, we're not talking about dinging Elon Musk. Tell us a little bit, Sam, about how you made this movie. You are a defiantly independent filmmaker, one of the more impressive that I know. You literally carry two large cameras around the world. You don't have a team, you don't have an audio guy, you don't ever sound guy. You do it all on your own. It's quite impressive. Been you shlep these cameras to Latin America, to Southeast Asia, obviously all around America. You commissioned work in Africa. How did you make this film? It's quite an impressive endeavor.Samuel George: Well, first of all, I really appreciate your kind words, but I can't completely accept this idea that I do it all alone. You know, I'm speaking to you now from the Bertelsmann Foundation. I'm the director of Bertelsman Foundation documentaries. And we've just had this fantastic support here and this idea that we can go to the front line and get these stories. And I would encourage people to check out Bertelsmen Foundation documentation.Andrew Keen: And we should have a special shout out to your boss, my friend, Irene Brahm, who runs the BuzzFeed Foundation of North America, who's been right from the beginning, a champion of video making.Samuel George: Oh, absolutely. I mean, Irene Brahm has been a visionary in terms of, you know, something I think that we align on is you take these incredibly interesting issues and somehow analysts manage to make them extraordinarily boring. And Irene had this vision that maybe it doesn't have to be that way.Andrew Keen: She's blushing now as she's watching this, but I don't mean to make you blush, Sam, but these are pretty independent movies. You went around the world, you've done it before, you did it in the Serbian movie too. You're carrying these cameras around, you're doing all your own work, it's quite an achievement.Samuel George: Well, again, I'm very, very thankful for the Bertelsmann Foundation. I think a lot of times, sometimes people, when they hear a foundation or something is behind something, they assume that somebody's got an ax to grind, and that's really not the case here. The Bertelsman Foundation is very supportive of just investigating these key issues, and let's have an honest conversation about it. And maybe it's a cop-out, but in my work, I often don't try to provide a solution.Andrew Keen: Have you had, when we did our event in D.C., you had a woman, a Chinese-born woman who's an expert on this. I don't think she's particularly welcome back on the mainland now. Has there been a Chinese response? Because I would say it's an anti-Chinese movie, but it's not particularly sympathetic or friendly towards China.Samuel George: And I can answer that question because it was the exact same issue we ran into when we filmed Tinder Box Belt and Road, which was again about Chinese investment in the Balkans. And your answer is has there been a Chinese reaction and no sort of official reaction. We always have people sort of from the embassy or various affiliated organizations that like to come to the events when we screen it. And they're very welcome to. But here's a point that I want to get across. Chinese officials and people related to China on these issues are generally uniformly unwilling to participate. And I think that's a poor decision on their part because I think there's a lot they could say to defend themselves. They could say, hey, you guys do this too. They could say, we're providing infrastructure to critical parts of the world. They could said, hey we're way ahead of you guys, but it's not because we did anything wrong. We just saw this was important before you did and built the network. There are many ways they could defend themselves. But rather than do that, they're extremely tight-lipped about what they're doing. And that can, if you're not, and we try our best, you know, we have certain experts from China that when they'll talk, we'll interview them. But that kind of tight-lip approach almost makes it seem like something even more suspicious is happening. Cause you just have to guess what the mindset must be cause they won't explain themselves. And I think Chinese representatives could do far more and it's not just about you know my documentary I understand they have bigger fish to fry but I feel like they fry the fish the same way when they're dealing with bigger entities I think it's to their detriment that they're not more open in engaging a global conversation because look China is gonna be an incredibly impactful part of world dynamics moving forward and they need to be, they need to engage on what they're doing. I think, and I do think they have a story they can tell to defend themselves, and it's unfortunate that they very much don't do it.Andrew Keen: In our DC event, you also had a woman who'd worked within the Biden administration. Has there been a big shift between Biden policy on recycling, recyclable energy and Trump 2.0? It's still the early days of the new administration.Samuel George: Right. And we're trying to get a grip on that of what the difference is going to be. I can tell you this, the Biden approach was very much the historic approach of the United States of America, which is to try to go to a country like Congo and say, look, we're not going to give you money without transparency. We're not gonna give you this big, you know, beautiful deal. We're going to the cheapest to build this or the cheapest build that. But what we can compete with you is on quality and sustainability and improved work conditions. This used to be the United States pitch. And as we've seen in places like Serbia, that's not always the greatest pitch in the world. Oftentimes these countries are more interested in the money without questions being asked. But the United states under the Biden administration tried to compete on quality. Now we will have to see if that continues with the Trump administration, if that continuous to be their pitch. What we've see in the early days is this sort of hardball tactic. I mean, what else can you refer to what's happening with Ukraine, where they say, look, if you want continued military support, we want those minerals. And other countries say, well, maybe that could work for us too. I mean that's sort of, as I understand it, the DRC, which is under, you know, there's new competition there for power that the existing government is saying, hey, United States, if you could please help us, we'll be sure to give you this heaping of minerals. We can say this, the new administration does seem to be taking the need for critical minerals seriously, which I think was an open question because we see so much of the kind of green environmentalism being rolled back. It does still seem to be a priority with the new administration and there does seem to be clarity that the United States is going to have to improve its position regarding these minerals.Andrew Keen: Yeah, I'm guessing Elon Musk sees this as well as anyone, and I'm sure he's quite influential. Finally, Sam, in contrast with a book, which gets distributed and put in bookstores, doing a movie is much more challenging. What's the goal with the movie? You've done a number of launches around the world, screenings in Berlin, Munich, London, Washington D.C. you did run in San Francisco last week. What's the business model, so to speak here? Are you trying to get distribution or do you wanna work with schools or other authorities to show the film?Samuel George: Right, I mean, I appreciate that question. The business model is simple. We just want you to watch. You know, our content is always free. Our films are always free, you can go to bfnadox.org for our catalog. This film is not online yet. You don't need a password, you don't a username, you can just watch our movies, that's what we want. And of course, we're always on the lookout for increased opportunities to spread these. And so we worked on a number of films. We've got PBS to syndicate them nationally. We got one you can check your local listings about a four-month steel workers strike in western Pennsylvania. It's called Local 1196. That just started its national syndication on PBS. So check out for that one. But look, our goal is for folks to watch these. We're looking for the most exposure as we can and we're giving it away for free.Andrew Keen: Just to repeat, if people are interested, that's bfna.docs.org to find more movies. And finally, Sam, for people who are interested perhaps in doing a showing of the film, I know you've worked with a number of universities and interest groups. What would be the best way to approach you.Samuel George: Well, like you say, we're a small team here. You can always feel free to reach out to me. And I don't know if I should pitch my email.Andrew Keen: Yeah, picture email. Give it out. The Chinese will be getting it too. You'll be getting lots of invitations from China probably to show the film.Samuel George: We'd love to come talk about it. That's all we want to do. And we try, but we'd love to talk about it. I think it's fundamental to have that conversation. So the email is just Samuel.George, just as you see it written there, at BFN as in boy, F as in Frank, N as in Nancy, A. Let's make it clearer - Samuel.George@bfna.org. We work with all sorts of organizations on screenings.Andrew Keen: And what about the aspiring filmmakers, as you're the head of documentaries there? Do you work with aspiring documentary filmmakers?Samuel George: Yes, yes, we do often on projects. So if I'm working on a project. So you mentioned that I work by myself, and that is how I learned this industry, you know, is doing it by myself. But increasingly, we're bringing in other skilled people on projects that we're working on. So we don't necessarily outsource entire projects. But we're always looking for opportunities to collaborate. We're looking to bring in talent. And we're looking to make the best products we can on issues that we think are fundamental importance to the Atlantic community. So we love being in touch with filmmakers. We have internship programs. We're open for nonprofit business, I guess you could say.Andrew Keen: Well, that's good stuff. The new movie is called Lithium Rising, The Race for Critical Minerals. I moderated a panel after the North American premiere at the end of February. It's a really interesting, beautifully made film, very compelling. It is only 60 minutes. I strongly advise anyone who has the opportunity to watch it and to contact Sam if they want to put it on their school, a university or other institution. Congratulations Sam on the movie. What's the next project?Samuel George: Next project, we've started working on a project about Southern Louisiana. And in there, we're really looking at the impact of land loss on the bayous and the local shrimpers and crabbers and Cajun community, as well as of course This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

International arrivals to the U.S. dropped over 11% in March compared to last year, with significant declines from Western Europe, especially Germany, according to new government data. Morningstar has downgraded its 2025 revenue growth forecasts for major online travel companies due to economic concerns and tariffs introduced by President Trump. Meanwhile, Emirates' president warned of a potential global economic reset, pointing to current financial market instability and challenges faced by major U.S. airlines. U.S. Tourism Data Warning: Visits From Europe Dropped in March Emirates President Warns: 'We Are in Troubled Times,' as Global Reset Looms Growth Outlook for Online Travel Firms Cut in Half: Morningstar Connect with Skift LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/skift/ WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaAL375LikgIXmNPYQ0L/ Facebook: https://facebook.com/skiftnews Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/skiftnews/ Threads: https://www.threads.net/@skiftnews Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/skiftnews.bsky.social X: https://twitter.com/skift Subscribe to @SkiftNews (https://www.youtube.com/@SkiftNews)  and never miss an update from the travel industry.

We reach for it twice a day — without thinking about the decades of research and engineering that went into that squeezable tube of minty goo. Zachary Crockett extracts the last bit. SOURCES:Stephan Habif, chief technology officer at Colgate-Palmolive.Sergio Leite, global head of Oral Care R&D at Colgate-Palmolive.Peter Miskell, professor of international business history at the University of Reading. EXTRAS:"History of Toothpaste" (Delta Dental of Arkansas, 2019)."Cavity Protection or Cosmetic Perfection? Innovation and Marketing of Toothpaste Brands in the United States and Western Europe, 1955–1985," by Peter Miskell (Business History Review, 2011). RESOURCES:"9,000-Year-Old Dentistry," by WIRED Staff (WIRED, 2006).

TOC Dashboard: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ebe374c40c1a4231a06075155b0e8cb9/ Research Notes/Bibliography can be found here: https://publish.obsidian.md/s2underground ArcGIS Online CIP/COP: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=204a59b01f4443cd96718796fd102c00 00:00 - Global Concerns 08:15 - Tesla Attacks and Mapping Update 12:10 - Western Europe 14:00 - Strategic Movement 20:54 - Myanmar Earthquake 22:29 - GhostNet Reports Download the GhostNet plan here! https://github.com/s2underground/GhostNet The text version of the Wire can be found on Twitter: https://twitter.com/s2_underground And on our Wire Telegram page here: https://t.me/S2undergroundWire If you would like to support us, we're on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/user?u=30479515 Disclaimer: No company sponsored this video. In fact, we have ZERO sponsors. We are funded 100% by you, the viewer. All of our funding comes from direct support from platforms like Patreon, or from ad revenue on YouTube. Please note that even though it hurts our income, we still offer ad-free watching via alternative platforms like Odysee, Gab, and (for now) Rumble. Odysee: https://odysee.com/@S2Underground:7 Gab: https://gab.com/S2underground Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/S2Underground BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/P2NMGFdt3gf3/ Just a few reminders for everyone who's just become aware of us, in order to keep these briefings from being several hours long, I can't cover everything. I'm probably covering 1% of the world events when we conduct these briefings, so please remember that if I left it out, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's unimportant. Also, remember that I do these briefings quite often, so I might have covered an issue previously that you might not see if you are only watching our most recent videos. I'm also doing this in my spare time, so again I fully admit that these briefings aren't even close to being perfect; I'm going for a healthy blend of speed and quality. If I were to wait and only post a brief when it's "perfect" I would never post anything at all. So expect some minor errors here and there. If there is a major error or correction that needs to be made, I will post it here in the description, and verbally address it in the next briefing. Also, thanks for reading this far. It is always surprising the number of people that don't actually read the description box to find more information. This content is purely educational and does not advocate for violating any laws. Do not violate any laws or regulations. This is not legal advice. Consult with your attorney. Our Reading List! https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/133747963-s2-actual The War Kitchen Channel! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYmtpjXT22tAWGIlg_xDDPA 

It's Thursday, March 27th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Afghanistan, India, Nigeria, and Vietnam deny religious liberty The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom released its annual report on Tuesday.  The report advises the U.S. State Department to designate certain countries as Countries of Particular Concern for severe religious freedom violations. The commission recommended countries like Burma, China, North Korea, and Russia to remain on the list. It further recommended adding Afghanistan, India, Nigeria, and Vietnam. Nearly all the countries on the recommendation list are also on Open Doors' World Watch List of nations where it is most difficult to be a Christian. McKenna Wendt with International Christian Concern said, “[We are] particularly grateful for [the report's] focus on the persecution of our Christian brothers and sisters around the world.” Hebrews 13:3 says, “Remember the prisoners as if chained with them—those who are mistreated—since you yourselves are in the body also.” Christianity & Buddhism saw most losses from religious switching Pew Research released a new report on “religious switching” around the world. In many countries, about one out of five adults have left the religious group they grew up in. Christianity and Buddhism saw the most losses from this religious switching, while those with no religious affiliation increased. Religious switching was common across East Asia, Western Europe, North America, and South America. However, countries with large Christian populations, but with little religious switching, include Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, the Philippines, Poland, and Hungary. 10,000 Dutch were killed by euthanasia Sadly, nearly 10,000 people were killed in the Netherlands last year through euthanasia.  That's up 10% from 2023. Deaths involving psychological suffering were up 60%.  Bruno Waterfield, reporting for The Times, said, “There is concern that growing numbers of suicidal people, especially young people, are asking for help to die.” Proverbs 12:10 says “The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” Trump's signs Executive Order on Election Integrity In the United States, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order Tuesday entitled “Persevering and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” The order directs states to require proof of citizenship when people register to vote in federal elections.  The order also stated, “Above all, elections must be honest and worthy of the public trust.  That requires voting methods that produce a voter-verifiable paper record allowing voters to efficiently check their votes to protect against fraud or mistake.” Births increased in states with abortion bans The National Bureau of Economic Research released a report on how abortion bans have affected birth rates. About a dozen states passed near-total abortion bans since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. This increased the distance to the nearest abortion mill from 50 miles to 300 miles for the average woman in those states.  Notably, births also increased by 2.8% in those states compared to what they were expected to be without the abortion ban.  Only 16% of Christians believe in Trinity Dr. George Barna released his latest research on American Christianity.  About two thirds of U.S. adults identify as Christians according to the report. However, only 16% of self-identified Christians believe in the existence and influence of each person of the Trinity. That number falls to 11% among the general population. People who read the Bible daily and attend church weekly were more likely to believe in God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Dr. Barna noted, “These findings about America's ignorance or rejection of the Trinity are simply another in a long list of examples of people living without the truths and life principles of God shaping their lives.” In Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Partial solar eclipse this Saturday morning And finally, a partial solar eclipse is coming to parts of North America this week. The moon will pass between the sun and the Earth on Saturday morning for viewers in parts of the northeastern U.S. The sun and moon won't be perfectly aligned, so only part of the sun will be obscured.  The spectacle will also be visible in eastern Canada, western Africa, and Europe.  Close And that's The Worldview on this Thursday, March 27th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe by Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Murder in a cathedral, horrific illnesses and deformities, narrow escapes from injury and death, a vengeful dragon, a wandering eyeball, a bawdy monk and other sinners redeemed—the accounts of miracles performed by the Virgin Mary gathered and translated in The Miracles of Mary in Twelfth-Century France (Cornell UP, 2024) provide vivid glimpses into medieval life and beliefs. Bruce L. Venarde provides fluent translations of the first five collections of Marian miracle narratives from France, written in the second quarter of the twelfth century and never before available in English. The stories recorded in these collections—by Herman of Tournai; Hugh Farsit; Haimo of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives; John, son of Peter; and Gautier of Compiègne—offer descriptions of travel, living conditions, medical knowledge, conflict between and among lay and religious authorities, and the burgeoning cult of the Virgin Mary, which had only recently become important in Western Europe. Including notes, tables, and maps that orient and illuminate the texts, The Miracles of Mary in Twelfth-Century France makes these riveting tales available to readers seeking a view into the medieval past. 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

TOC Dashboard: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ebe374c40c1a4231a06075155b0e8cb9/ Research Notes/Bibliography can be found here: https://publish.obsidian.md/s2underground ArcGIS Online CIP/COP: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=204a59b01f4443cd96718796fd102c00 00:00 - Washington D.C. 04:19 - Western Region 05:28 - Tesla Attacks 06:36 - Western Europe 09:30 - Ukraine 15:27 - Middle East 18:05 - Far East 21:33 - GhostNet Reports Download the GhostNet plan here! https://github.com/s2underground/GhostNet The text version of the Wire can be found on Twitter: https://twitter.com/s2_underground And on our Wire Telegram page here: https://t.me/S2undergroundWire If you would like to support us, we're on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/user?u=30479515 Disclaimer: No company sponsored this video. In fact, we have ZERO sponsors. We are funded 100% by you, the viewer. All of our funding comes from direct support from platforms like Patreon, or from ad revenue on YouTube. Please note that even though it hurts our income, we still offer ad-free watching via alternative platforms like Odysee, Gab, and (for now) Rumble. Odysee: https://odysee.com/@S2Underground:7 Gab: https://gab.com/S2underground Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/S2Underground BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/P2NMGFdt3gf3/ Just a few reminders for everyone who's just become aware of us, in order to keep these briefings from being several hours long, I can't cover everything. I'm probably covering 1% of the world events when we conduct these briefings, so please remember that if I left it out, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's unimportant. Also, remember that I do these briefings quite often, so I might have covered an issue previously that you might not see if you are only watching our most recent videos. I'm also doing this in my spare time, so again I fully admit that these briefings aren't even close to being perfect; I'm going for a healthy blend of speed and quality. If I were to wait and only post a brief when it's "perfect" I would never post anything at all. So expect some minor errors here and there. If there is a major error or correction that needs to be made, I will post it here in the description, and verbally address it in the next briefing. Also, thanks for reading this far. It is always surprising the number of people that don't actually read the description box to find more information. This content is purely educational and does not advocate for violating any laws. Do not violate any laws or regulations. This is not legal advice. Consult with your attorney. Our Reading List! https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/133747963-s2-actual The War Kitchen Channel! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYmtpjXT22tAWGIlg_xDDPA 

Darrell Castle talks about the wars currently on-going in the world and how they are being used to form a new order of the world. Transcription / Notes THE U.S. AND RUSSIA HAVE COMMON INTERESTS Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today's Castle Report. This is Friday, the 21st day of March in the year of our Lord 2025. I will be talking about the subject I hate the most, and that is war which seems to be almost everywhere. The partial ceasefire in Ukraine, the open fire now in Gaza, and the U.S. war in the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden and Bab-el-Mandab against the Houthis. War shapes the world order and I guess it always has. For example, the military defeat of Napoleon in 1814 led to the Congress of Vienna which cemented Great Britain as the leader of the new world order instead of France. I suppose since those countries controlled the world it would be OK to call that a world war resulting in the new order which existed until World War One or 1914. The victors in WW l set the order with the formation of the League of Nations which totally collapsed when Germany decided that it would be a better world leader than Britain. The victors in World War ll formed the new order with the United States as its leader and the United Nations to cement the order permanently. The Soviet Union, which was one of the victors in WW ll didn't accept the U.S. as world leader and that resulted in a 40 year long world order which became the cold war. The end of the cold war brought an end to the Soviet Union which dissolved into the Russian Federation. The global elite of the world had to find a way to continue the struggle to feed the eternal death machine so the conflict between NATO and Russia continued. We won't move one inch closer to Russia Reagan told Gorbachev but later presidents reneged on that promise and the struggle continued. NATO was formed out of the shared belief that the Soviet Union was a direct threat to Western Europe and so an alliance pledging together that if one were attacked it would be considered an attack against all. The colonial possessions of the members were to be excepted from that deal as the French possessed Vietnam or Indochina as it was known then. That agreement didn't change much over the years and so the world order remained in a post-World War Two state of mind with the United States growing ever stronger militarily and Europe growing ever weaker. Europe was fine with it because all those countries could let their militaries deteriorate since the U.S. had their backs. The Europeans did not even live up to the paltry, relatively speaking, of 5% on defense that the NATO agreement called for. The U.S. constantly urged them to spend more but why should they because the U.S, nuclear umbrella was there to cover them. Donald Trump appeared on the scene and started his America First rhetoric exposing the obvious that the NATO agreement and the way it was enforced was extremely unfair to the U.S. The Europeans were stuck and have continued to be stuck in a 1939 mindset which told them the Russians are coming, but the Russians never came. They wanted to constantly poke the bear but they had nothing with which to defend themselves against the bear. The U.S. wanted a unipolar world with the U.S. at the head and the Europeans were fine with that as long as they could spend their tax revenue on their welfare and other social relief programs to pacify the masses. In the meantime, the U.S. and its people languished under the ever-increasing weight of 36 trillion of debt increasing by 2 trillion per year. The weight of constant wars and constantly increasing burdens of wounded veterans to care for, the people becoming ever more impoverished, the middle class driven into poverty and unpayable debt. Now, I'm taking a little poetic license here folks and speaking for Donald Trump but I think it went something like this. Trump takes office having already looked at the world and seen the order of it.

It's Wednesday, March 19th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Pakistan court annulled forced marriage of Christian girl to Muslim man A court in Pakistan issued an historic ruling in favor of a Christian woman last month. Shahida Bibi was 11 years old when her mother eloped with a Muslim man who then “gave” Bibi to his brother. She faced years of abuse and coercion and gave birth to two children. She was also forced into an Islamic marriage once she turned 18. Thankfully, a court annulled the forced marriage. Alliance Defending Freedom commented, “While these forced conversions and marriage abuses happen across the globe, they are especially prevalent in Pakistan. In coordination with our allied lawyers in the country, we are taking every step possible to prevent these situations from occurring.” Pakistan is ranked eighth on the Open Doors' World Watch List of nations where it is most difficult to be a Christian.  Bible sales nearly double United Kingdom Bible sales have nearly doubled in the United Kingdom, reports The Times. Between 2019 and 2024, the sale of Bibles increased 87% from 2.69 million British pounds to 5.02 million pounds.  Publishers credit this increased demand to the spiritual interest of young people. Sam Richardson, with The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, said, “Atheism, once considered by modern society to be the view of most rational adults, no longer seems to carry the same weight or appeal. Young people — Gen Z in particular — are statistically far less likely to identify as atheists than their parents.” Psalm 119:9 asks, “How can a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed according to Your word.” Putin agreed to limited ceasefire Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to a limited ceasefire in Ukraine during a call with U.S. President Donald Trump yesterday.  For 30 days, Russia said it would halt strikes on energy and infrastructure targets in Ukraine. This falls short of a complete 30-day ceasefire that Ukraine has agreed to.  Trump wrote on Truth Social, “My phone conversation today with President Putin of Russia was a very good and productive one. … We will be working quickly to have a Complete Ceasefire and, ultimately, an END to this very horrible War between Russia and Ukraine.” Appearing on the Real Clear Politics Radio Show, reporter Phil Wegman, offered a fascinating boxing analogy. Listen. WEGMAN: “What is absent from this readout between Trump and Putin is any type of fireworks. Both Trump and Putin, they know each other. They're known entities, and while Trump isn't as aggressive in his description of the Russian dictator, he doesn't trust the guy. That much is clear from his moves on arming the Ukrainians during his first term, from his moves on Nord Stream. (Look at the map here) “I think this is just two folks who know each other pretty well, who are circling one another before they get into the ring and actually begin trading diplomatic blows to get this thing to an end.” By the way, Nord Stream is a network of offshore natural gas pipelines which run under the Baltic Sea, from Russia all the way to Germany (759 miles), to provide Western Europe with natural gas. Trump sides with church in zoning case The Trump administration is backing a church in a case over religious discrimination with a California city. The city of Santa Ana denied a request by Anchor Stone Christian Church to operate in the city's professional district. The city's zoning laws make it difficult for churches, but not other groups like museums or art galleries, to operate in the district. The U.S. Department of Justice supports the church, accusing the city leaders of Santa Ana of violating the federal law by giving less favorable treatment to religious assemblies.  Environmental Protection Agency rolls out biggest deregulation ever The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced the biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history last week. The agency announced 31 actions aimed at unleashing American energy, lowering the cost of living for American families, and giving power back to states to make their own decisions. The agency's administrator, Lee Zeldin, said, “Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen. We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S., and more.” Missouri AG to Planned Parenthood: No more Abortion Kill Pills Missouri is cracking down on chemical abortions in the state. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey issued a cease-and-desist order to Planned Parenthood last week.  Bailey noted, “This order is a necessary enforcement mechanism to prevent Planned Parenthood from continuing to disregard Missouri law and to protect the health and safety of Missouri women. Planned Parenthood has a documented history of subverting state law, including failure to file complication reports.” Two astronauts returned after 9 months stranded in space And finally … SPACEX ANNOUNCER: “And splashdown. Crew Nine, back on Earth.  (applause and cheers) Butch, Suni, on behalf of SpaceX, welcome home!” two NASA astronauts headed back to Earth yesterday after spending an unexpected nine months aboard the International Space Station.   Last June, they anticipated only an 8-day stay. They languished in space for 286 days – 35 times longer than the initially scheduled mission. Astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams had planned on a short mission last spring. However, the Boeing Starliner crew capsule that took them to space encountered technical issues, stranding them on the space station.  The astronauts returned thanks to a SpaceX Freedom capsule.  The capsule entered our atmosphere at 17,500 miles per hour.  The heat shield brought the speed down to 350 miles per hour. And then the four parachutes, which opened at 6,500 feet above Earth, lowered the speed to 119 miles per hour, enabling the capsule to land gently at 15 miles per hour in the Gulf of America off the coast of Tallahassee, Florida. During an interview on board the space station, Wilmore shared his Christian faith. WILMORE: “My feeling on all of this goes back to my faith. It's bound in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He is working out His plan and His purposes for His glory throughout all of humanity. And how that plays into our lives is significant and important, and however that plays out, I am content because I understand that. I understand that He's at work in all things.” Romans 8:28 says, "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Wednesday, March 19th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe by Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

In word, no — not when it comes to the government, anyway. Bradley reviews the careful balance you need to strike when working in areas outside your expertise. Plus, he mulls over whether getting Western Europe to bulk up its armed forces will make the world safer, how Chuck Schumer's self interest and the national interest coincided on his vote for the continuing resolution on the budget and (because we needed to lift the mood) what makes a great cover version of a pop song.LIVE SHOW: Join Bradley for a live Firewall recording at P&T Knitwear on Wednesday, April 2 at 6:30PM. After his discussion with Spencer Greenberg, host of the Clearer Thinking podcast, Bradley will answer audience questions on-air. Space is limited. RSVP today: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/clearer-thinking-x-firewall-a-live-podcast-recording-tickets-1261541337099This episode was taped at P&T Knitwear at 180 Orchard Street — New York City's only free podcast recording studio.Send us an email with your thoughts on today's episode: info@firewall.media.Subscribe to Bradley's weekly newsletter, follow Bradley on Linkedin + Substack + YouTube, be sure to order his new book, Vote With Your Phone.

‘The Foreign Desk’ speaks to leaders from Nato’s Baltic members about the vexing, existential questions they face: what happens if Russia strikes one of them? Is Nato’s Article 5 the unassailable security that it used to be? Is it worthwhile to keep telling Western Europe “we told you so”?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Something incredible happened February 28th and March 1. Over 20,000 events took place across 183 countries, uniting believers in prayer, worship, and commissioning to reach the world with the gospel. Gather 25 was more than an event—it was a call to action for everybody, everywhere. Across the world, from living rooms in the U.S. to churches in Rwanda, from dorm rooms in Malaysia to arenas in South America, the church came alive. In this episode, Jennie reflects on what just took place and what happens next. If you've ever wondered what it looks like for God's people to move together, this is it. We are sharing highlights from teachers like Priscilla Shirer from North America, Pastor Charles Wandera from Africa, Louie Giglio live from Eastern Europe, Christine Caine from Western Europe, Luke DeJong live from Oceania, a powerful prayer from Nick and Pippa Gumbel and a closing moment from Jennie! Watch all this and MORE at live.gather25.com and don't miss the invitation to join us in telling the world about Jesus at www.everybodyeverywhere.com! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's the anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. And the world looks very different now than it did then.In the three years since Russian President Vladimir Putin's forces began their assault on their neighbor, tens of thousands of civilians and soldiers have perished. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been able to hold his enemies off with the help of support from the U.S.But now that Donald Trump is in charge, that's likely to change. The president has made it no secret that he believes Zelenskyy should try and make peace with Putin, no matter what it might cost his country. In his first month in office, Trump has taken steps to isolate the U.S. from its allies in Western Europe and NATO, putting those countries on even shakier ground as they try and contend with the possibility of continued Russian aggression.We discuss what the future of this conflict looks like for Ukraine.Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Connect with us. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

In today's episode of The Second in Command podcast, Cameron is joined by Sean Seamer, Global Chief Operating Officer of Brainlabs, a high-performance media agency.During the conversation, you'll be given a glimpse behind the scenes of a global organization's leadership transition and growth strategy. Sean, a seasoned executive with a wealth of international experience, shares his approach to stepping into a senior role within an already established team.You'll discover the company's ambitious expansion plans, highlighting both geographic growth and the evolution of its services. With a focus on developing talent pipelines in new markets and embracing technological innovation, Sean outlines how staying ahead in a dynamic industry requires constant adaptation. Sean's thoughts on leadership, personal growth, and the importance of maintaining balance offer valuable insights for anyone striving for long-term success.If you've enjoyed this episode of the Second in Command podcast, be sure to leave a review and subscribe today!Enjoy!In This Episode You'll Learn:Sean's globe-spanning career trajectory, including his time in San Francisco, London, Singapore, New Zealand, and Australia.Brainlabs' global ambitions and the strategic focus on expanding in Latin America and Western Europe.The importance of value alignment and the tangible culture at Brainlabs.Brainlabs' ongoing investment in product evolution and the exciting new developments in the pipeline.And much more...Resources:Connect with Sean: WebsiteConnect with Cameron: Website | LinkedInGet Cameron's latest book "Second in Command: Unleash the Power of your COO"Get Cameron's online course – Invest In Your Leaders

Ireland is the only country in Western Europe that has experienced being colonised in the modern era. It was used by England as a laboratory for imperialism, and was the site of bloody colonial wars for centuries, yet many people in the neighbouring United Kingdom have little understanding of Ireland's history.  The new series on Ireland & Empire begins with the Tudor Conquest. By the 1500s, there were small pockets of English imperialism in Ireland via descendants of the Anglo-Norman invasions of the 1190s, but they were concentrated along the southeastern coast. However, when Henry VIII launched the Protestant Reformation in England, establishing control over Ireland suddenly became a top priority. In 1541, he declared all Irish people as his subjects. He built upon previous laws banning Irish language and customs, and created a militarised society. And by Elizabeth I's reign, the Tudors introduced plantations in Ireland which granted land to English and Scottish settlers.  Listen as Anita and William are joined by Professor Jane Ohlmeyer at Jaipur Literature Festival to discuss how Tudor colonialism paved the way for the overhaul of Gaelic society in Ireland. _____________ Empire Club: Become a member of the Empire Club to receive early access to miniseries, ad-free listening, early access to live show tickets, bonus episodes, book discounts, and a weekly newsletter! Head to empirepoduk.com to sign up or start a free trial on Apple Podcasts. Email: empire@goalhanger.com Instagram: @empirepoduk  Blue Sky: @empirepoduk  X: @empirepoduk goalhanger.com Assistant Producer: Becki Hills Producer: Anouska Lewis Senior Producer: Callum Hill Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices