Podcasts about intellectuals

The two hundred and eighty years between the death of the philosopher Confucius and the reign of the first Emperor of China saw one of the most profound revolutions in human history. Not only did it end with the creation of an imperial rule that persisted through successive dynasties for 2,132 years, but it also saw the creation of “new traditions of thought and practice…great monuments of art, literature, and philosophy…that still inform social life in our own lifetime.” The era of the “warring states”, as scholars call it, was critical not just for China or East Asia, “but to that of humanity writ large.”Yet this era remains almost unknown in the English-speaking world. “If one enters any bookstore…in search of a book about classical Athens, the conquestions of Alexander, or the early Roman Republic,” writes my guest Andrew Meyer, “one will have many options. But if one looks for such a book about the corresponding period in early Chinese history, there are none. I wrote this book to fill that gap.”Andrew Seth Meyer is Professor of History at Brooklyn College. A specialist in the intellectual history of early China, he is the author of The Dao of the Military: Liu An's Art of War and co-author of The Huainanzi: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Government in Early Han China. His latest book is To Rule All under Heaven: A History of Classical China, from Confucius to the First Emperor, which is the subject of our conversation today.Chapters0:35 - Book Overview & Historical Context 4:47 - Dating the Warring States Period 8:42 - What Are the Warring States? 11:08 - Social Structure & Aristocracy 18:39 - Rivers & Regional Differences 24:45 - Military Power & Wealth 31:37 - Four Great Questions: State Models 40:51 - Centralization vs Regional Autonomy 51:26 - Education & Intellectuals

In this episode, we explore the life of Justin Martyr, a second-century philosopher who transitioned from a truth-seeker of various schools of thought to a Christian intellectual. We learn about his journey to faith, his defense of Christianity against Roman misconceptions, and his ultimate martyrdom, highlighting how he bridged faith and reason.Chapters00:00 Introduction to Justin Martyr01:48 Justin's Philosophical Journey05:22 Conversion to Christianity and Epiphany08:44 Challenging Roman Misconceptions10:44 Justin's Apology and Legal Defense15:37 Logos and Christian Philosophy17:20 Martyrdom and Enduring Legacy

How does emotion shape the landscape of public intellectual debate? In Sentimental Republic: Chinese Intellectuals and the Maoist Past (Harvard UP, 2025), Hang Tu proposes emotion as a new critical framework to approach a post-Mao cultural controversy. As it entered a period of market reform, China did not turn away from revolutionary sentiments. Rather, the post-Mao period experienced a surge of emotionally charged debates about red legacies, ranging from the anguished denunciations of Maoist violence to the elegiac remembrances of socialist egalitarianism. Sentimental Republic chronicles forty years (1978–2018) of bitter cultural wars about the Maoist past. It analyzes how the four major intellectual clusters in contemporary China—liberals, the Left, cultural conservatives, and nationalists—debated Mao's revolutionary legacies in light of the postsocialist transition. Should the Chinese condemn revolutionary violence and “bid farewell to socialism”? Or would a return to revolution foster alternative visions of China's future path? Tu probes the nexus of literature, thought, and memory, bringing to light the dynamic moral sentiments and emotional excess at work in these post-Mao ideological contentions. By analyzing how rival intellectual camps stirred up melancholy, guilt, anger, and resentment, Tu argues that the polemics surrounding the country's past cannot be properly understood without reading the emotional trajectories of the post-Mao intelligentsia. Hang Tu is Assistant Professor of Chinese Studies at the National University of Singapore and Deputy Director of the CCKF–NUS Southeast Asia Center for Chinese Studies. A scholar of Chinese literature and thought, his research focuses on the cultural politics of emotion in modern and contemporary China. His work has appeared in Critical Inquiry, The Journal of Asian Studies, Modern Intellectual History, MCLC, and Prism. Camellia (Linh) Pham is a PhD student in Comparative Literature at Harvard University. Her research focuses on modern Vietnamese literature, socialist realism, and literary translation across French, Vietnamese, Chinese, and English. She can be reached at cpham@g.harvard.edu. 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

How does emotion shape the landscape of public intellectual debate? In Sentimental Republic: Chinese Intellectuals and the Maoist Past (Harvard UP, 2025), Hang Tu proposes emotion as a new critical framework to approach a post-Mao cultural controversy. As it entered a period of market reform, China did not turn away from revolutionary sentiments. Rather, the post-Mao period experienced a surge of emotionally charged debates about red legacies, ranging from the anguished denunciations of Maoist violence to the elegiac remembrances of socialist egalitarianism. Sentimental Republic chronicles forty years (1978–2018) of bitter cultural wars about the Maoist past. It analyzes how the four major intellectual clusters in contemporary China—liberals, the Left, cultural conservatives, and nationalists—debated Mao's revolutionary legacies in light of the postsocialist transition. Should the Chinese condemn revolutionary violence and “bid farewell to socialism”? Or would a return to revolution foster alternative visions of China's future path? Tu probes the nexus of literature, thought, and memory, bringing to light the dynamic moral sentiments and emotional excess at work in these post-Mao ideological contentions. By analyzing how rival intellectual camps stirred up melancholy, guilt, anger, and resentment, Tu argues that the polemics surrounding the country's past cannot be properly understood without reading the emotional trajectories of the post-Mao intelligentsia. Hang Tu is Assistant Professor of Chinese Studies at the National University of Singapore and Deputy Director of the CCKF–NUS Southeast Asia Center for Chinese Studies. A scholar of Chinese literature and thought, his research focuses on the cultural politics of emotion in modern and contemporary China. His work has appeared in Critical Inquiry, The Journal of Asian Studies, Modern Intellectual History, MCLC, and Prism. Camellia (Linh) Pham is a PhD student in Comparative Literature at Harvard University. Her research focuses on modern Vietnamese literature, socialist realism, and literary translation across French, Vietnamese, Chinese, and English. She can be reached at cpham@g.harvard.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

How does emotion shape the landscape of public intellectual debate? In Sentimental Republic: Chinese Intellectuals and the Maoist Past (Harvard UP, 2025), Hang Tu proposes emotion as a new critical framework to approach a post-Mao cultural controversy. As it entered a period of market reform, China did not turn away from revolutionary sentiments. Rather, the post-Mao period experienced a surge of emotionally charged debates about red legacies, ranging from the anguished denunciations of Maoist violence to the elegiac remembrances of socialist egalitarianism. Sentimental Republic chronicles forty years (1978–2018) of bitter cultural wars about the Maoist past. It analyzes how the four major intellectual clusters in contemporary China—liberals, the Left, cultural conservatives, and nationalists—debated Mao's revolutionary legacies in light of the postsocialist transition. Should the Chinese condemn revolutionary violence and “bid farewell to socialism”? Or would a return to revolution foster alternative visions of China's future path? Tu probes the nexus of literature, thought, and memory, bringing to light the dynamic moral sentiments and emotional excess at work in these post-Mao ideological contentions. By analyzing how rival intellectual camps stirred up melancholy, guilt, anger, and resentment, Tu argues that the polemics surrounding the country's past cannot be properly understood without reading the emotional trajectories of the post-Mao intelligentsia. Hang Tu is Assistant Professor of Chinese Studies at the National University of Singapore and Deputy Director of the CCKF–NUS Southeast Asia Center for Chinese Studies. A scholar of Chinese literature and thought, his research focuses on the cultural politics of emotion in modern and contemporary China. His work has appeared in Critical Inquiry, The Journal of Asian Studies, Modern Intellectual History, MCLC, and Prism. Camellia (Linh) Pham is a PhD student in Comparative Literature at Harvard University. Her research focuses on modern Vietnamese literature, socialist realism, and literary translation across French, Vietnamese, Chinese, and English. She can be reached at cpham@g.harvard.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

How does emotion shape the landscape of public intellectual debate? In Sentimental Republic: Chinese Intellectuals and the Maoist Past (Harvard UP, 2025), Hang Tu proposes emotion as a new critical framework to approach a post-Mao cultural controversy. As it entered a period of market reform, China did not turn away from revolutionary sentiments. Rather, the post-Mao period experienced a surge of emotionally charged debates about red legacies, ranging from the anguished denunciations of Maoist violence to the elegiac remembrances of socialist egalitarianism. Sentimental Republic chronicles forty years (1978–2018) of bitter cultural wars about the Maoist past. It analyzes how the four major intellectual clusters in contemporary China—liberals, the Left, cultural conservatives, and nationalists—debated Mao's revolutionary legacies in light of the postsocialist transition. Should the Chinese condemn revolutionary violence and “bid farewell to socialism”? Or would a return to revolution foster alternative visions of China's future path? Tu probes the nexus of literature, thought, and memory, bringing to light the dynamic moral sentiments and emotional excess at work in these post-Mao ideological contentions. By analyzing how rival intellectual camps stirred up melancholy, guilt, anger, and resentment, Tu argues that the polemics surrounding the country's past cannot be properly understood without reading the emotional trajectories of the post-Mao intelligentsia. Hang Tu is Assistant Professor of Chinese Studies at the National University of Singapore and Deputy Director of the CCKF–NUS Southeast Asia Center for Chinese Studies. A scholar of Chinese literature and thought, his research focuses on the cultural politics of emotion in modern and contemporary China. His work has appeared in Critical Inquiry, The Journal of Asian Studies, Modern Intellectual History, MCLC, and Prism. Camellia (Linh) Pham is a PhD student in Comparative Literature at Harvard University. Her research focuses on modern Vietnamese literature, socialist realism, and literary translation across French, Vietnamese, Chinese, and English. She can be reached at cpham@g.harvard.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/chinese-studies

Hermione Lee is the renowned biographer of Virginia Woolf, Edith Wharton, Penelope Fitzgerald, and, most recently, Tom Stoppard. Stoppard died at the end of last year, so Hermione and I talked about the influence of Shaw and Eliot and Coward on his work, the recent production of The Invention of Love, the role of ideas in Stoppard's writing, his writing process, rehearsals, revivals, movies. We also talked about John Carey, Brian Moore, Virginia Woolf as a critic. Hermione is Emeritus Professor of English Literature at the University of Oxford. Her life of Anita Brookner will be released in September.TranscriptHenry Oliver: Today I have the great pleasure of talking to Professor Dame Hermione Lee. Hermione was the first woman to be appointed Goldsmiths' Professor of English Literature at the University of Oxford, and she is the most renowned and admired living English biographer. She wrote a seminal life of Virginia Woolf. She's written splendid books about people like Willa Cather, Edith Wharton, and my own favorite, Penelope Fitzgerald. And most recently she has been the biographer of Tom Stoppard, and I believe this year she has a new book coming out about Anita Brookner. Hermione, welcome.Hermione Lee: Thank you very much.Oliver: We're mostly going to talk about Tom Stoppard because he, sadly, just died. But I might have a few questions about your broader career at the end. So tell me first how Shavian is Stoppard's work?Lee: He would reply “very close Shavian,” when asked that question. I think there are similarities. There are obviously similarities in the delighting forceful intellectual play, and you see that very much in Jumpers where after all the central character is a philosopher, a bit of a bonkers philosopher, but still a very rational one.And you see it in someone like Henry, the playwright in The Real Thing, who always has an answer to every argument. He may be quite wrong, but he is full of the sort of zest of argument, the passion for argument. And I think that kind of delight in making things intellectually clear and the pleasure in argument is very Shavian.Where I think they differ and where I think is really more like Chekov, or more like Beckett or more in his early work, the dialogues in T. S. Elliot, and less like Shaw is in a kind of underlying strangeness or melancholy or sense of fate or sense of mortality that rings through almost all the plays, even the very, very funny ones. And I don't think I find that in Shaw. My prime reading time for Shaw was between 15 and 19, when I thought that Shaw was the most brilliant grownup that one could possibly be listening to, and I think now I feel less impressed by him and a bit more impatient with him.And I also think that Shaw is much more in the business of resolving moral dilemmas. So in something like Arms and the Man or Man and Superman, you will get a kind of resolution, you will get a sort of sense of this is what we're meant to be agreeing with.Whereas I think quite often one of the fascinating things about Stoppard is the way that he will give all sides of the question; he will embody all sides of the question. And I think his alter ego there is not Shaw, but the character of Turgenev in The Coast of Utopia, who is constantly being nagged by his radical political friends to make his mind up and to have a point of view and come down on one side or the other. And Turgenev says, I take every point of view.Oliver: I must confess, I find The Coast of Utopia a little dull compared to Stoppard's other work.Lee: It's long. Yes. I don't find it dull. But I think it may be a play to read possibly more than a play to see now. And you're never going to get it put on again anyway because the cast is too big. And who's going to put on a nine-hour free play, 50 people cast about 19th-century Russian revolutionaries? Nobody, I would think.But I find it very absorbing actually. And partly because I'm so interested in Isaiah Berlin, who is a very strong presence in the anti-utopianism of those plays. But that's a matter of opinion.Oliver: No. I like Berlin. One thing about Stoppard that's un-Shavian is that he says his plays begin as a noise or an image or a scene, and then we think of him as this very thinking writer. But is he really more of an intuitive writer?Lee: I think it's a terribly good question. I think it gets right at the heart of the matter, and I think it's both. Sorry, I sound like Turgenev, not making my mind up. But yes, there is an image or there is an idea, or there are often two ideas, as it were, the birth of quantum physics and 18th-century landscape gardening. Who else but Stoppard would put those two things in one play, Arcadia, and have you think about both at once.But the image and the play may well have been a dance between two periods of time together in one room. So I think he never knew what the next play was going to be until it would come at him, as it were. He often resisted the idea that if he chose a topic and then researched it, a play would come out of it. That wasn't what happened. Something would come at him and then he would start doing a great deal of research usually for every play.Oliver: What sort of influence did T. S. Elliot have on him? Did it change the dialogue or, was it something else?Lee: When I was working with him on my biography, he gave me a number of things. I had extraordinary access, and we can perhaps come back to that interesting fact. And most of these things were loans he gave them to me to work on. Then I gave them back to him.But he gave me as a present one thing, which was a black notebook that he had been keeping at the time he was writing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and also his first and only novel Lord Malquist and Mr. Moon, which is little known, which he thought was going to make his career. The book was published in the same week that Rosencrantz came up. He thought the novel was going to make his career and the play was going to sink without trace. Not so. In the notebook there are many quotations from T. S. Elliot, and particularly from Prufrock and the Wasteland, and you can see him working them into the novel and into the play.“I am not Prince Hamlet nor was meant to be.” And that sense of being a disconsolate outsider. Ill at ease with and neurotic about the world that is charging along almost without you, and you are having to hang on to the edge of the world. The person who feels themself to be in internal exile, not at one with the universe. I think that point of view recurs over and over again, right through the work, but also a kind of epigrammatical, slightly mysterious crypticness that Elliot has, certainly in Prufrock and in the Wasteland and in the early poems. He loved that tone.Oliver: Yes. When I read your paper about that I thought about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern quite differently. I've always disliked the idea that it's a sort of Beckett imitation play. It seems very Elliotic having read what you described.Lee: There is Beckett in there. You can't get away from it.Oliver: Surface level.Lee: Beckett's there, but I think the sense of people waiting around—Stoppard's favorite description of Rosencrantz was: “It's two journalists on a story that doesn't add up, which is very clever and funny.”Yes. And that sense of, Vladimir going, “What are we supposed to be doing and how are we going to pass the time?” That's profoundly influential on Stoppard. So I don't think it's just a superficial resemblance myself, but I agree that Elliot just fills the tone of that play and other things too.Oliver: In the article you wrote about Stoppard and Elliot, the title is about biographical questing, and you also described Arcadia as a quest. How important is the idea of the quest to the way you work and also to the way you read Stoppard?Lee: I took as the epigraph for my biography of Stoppard a line from Arcadia: “It's wanting to know that makes us matter, otherwise we're going out the way we came in.” So I think that's right at the heart of Stoppard's work, and it's right at the heart of any biographical work, whether or not it's mine or someone else's. If you can't know, in the sense of knowing the person, knowing what the person is like, and also knowing as much as possible about them from different kinds of sources, then you might as well give up.You can't do it through impressions. You've got to do it through knowledge. Of course, a certain amount of intuition may also come into play, though I'm not the kind of biographer that feels you can make things up. Working on a living person, this is the only time I've done that.It was, of course, a very different thing from working on a safely dead author. And I knew Penelope Fitzgerald a little bit, but I had no idea I was going to write her biography when I had conversations with her and she wouldn't have told me anything anyway. She was so wicked and evasive. But it was a set up thing; he asked me to do it. And we had a proper contract and we worked together over several years, during which time he became a friend, which was a wonderful piece of luck for me.I was doing four things, really. One was reading all the material that he produced, everything, and getting to know it as well as I could. And that's obviously the basic task. One was talking to him and listening to him talk about his life. And he was very generous with those interviews. I'm sure there were things he didn't tell me, but that's fine. One was talking to other people about him, which is a very interesting process. And with someone like him who knew everyone in the literary, theatrical, cultural world, you have to draw a halt at some point. You can't talk to a thousand people, or I'd have still been doing it, so you talk to particularly fellow playwrights, directors, actors who've worked with him often, as well as family and friends. And then you start pitting the versions against each other and seeing what stands up and what keeps being said.Repetition's very important in that process because when several people say the same thing to you, then you know that's right. And that quest also involves some actual footsteps, as Richard Holmes would say. Footsteps. Traveling to places he'd lived in and going to Darjeeling where he had been to school before he came to England, that kind of travel.And then the fourth, and to me, in a way, almost the most exciting, was the opportunity to watch him at work in rehearsal. So with the director's permissions, I was allowed to sit in on two or three processes like that, the 50th anniversary production of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern at the Old Vic with David Lavoie. And Patrick Marber's wonderful production of Leopoldstadt and Nick Hytner's production of The Hard Problem at the National. So I was able to witness the very interesting negotiations going on between Tom and the director and the cast.And also the extraordinary fact that even with a play like Rosencrantz, which is on every school syllabus and has been for 50—however many years—he was still changing things in rehearsal. I can't get over that. And in his view, as he often said, theater is an event and not a text, and so one could see that actual process of things changing before one's very eyes, and that for a biographer, it's a pretty amazing privilege.Oliver: How much of the plays were written during rehearsal do you think?Lee: Oh, 99% of the plays were written with much labor, much precision, much correction alone at his desk. The text is there, the text is written, and everything changes when you go into the rehearsal room because you suddenly find that there isn't enough time with that speech for the person to get from the bed to the door. It's physics; you have to put another line in so that someone can make an entrance or an exit, that kind of thing.Or the actors will say quite often, because they were a bit in awe—by the time he became well known—the actors initially would be a bit in awe of the braininess and the brilliance. And quite often the actors will be saying, “I'm sorry, I don't understand. I don't understand this.” You'd often get, “I don't really understand.”And then he would never be dismissive. He would either say, “No, I think you've got to make it work.” I'm putting words into his mouth here. Or he would say, “Okay, let's put another sentence or something like that.”Oliver: Between what he wrote at his desk and the book that's available for purchase now, how much changed? Is it 10%, 50? You know what I mean?Lee: Yes. You should be talking to his editor at Faber, Dinah Wood. So Faber would print a relatively small number for the first edition before the rehearsal process and the final production. And then they would do a second edition, which would have some changes in it. So 2%. Okay. But crucial sometimes.Oliver: No, sure. Very important.Lee: And also some plays like Jumpers went through different additions with different endings, different solutions to plot problems. Travesties, he had a lot of trouble with the Lenins in Travesties because it's the play in which you've got Joyce and you've got Tristan Tzara and you've got the Lenins, and they're all these real people and he makes him talk.But he was a little bit nervous about the Lenin. So what he gave him to say were things that they had really said, that Lenin had really said. As opposed to the Tzara-Joyce stuff, which is all wonderfully made up. The bloody Lenins became a bit of a problem for him. And so that gets changed in later editions you'll find.Oliver: How closely do you think The Real Thing is based on Present Laughter by Noël Coward?Lee: Oh, I think there's a little bit of Coward in there. Yes, sure. I think he liked Coward, he liked Wilde, obviously. He likes brilliant, witty, playful entertainers. He wants to be an entertainer. But I think The Real Thing, he was proud of the fact that The Real Thing was one of the few examples of his plays at that time, which weren't based on something else. They weren't based on Hamlet. They weren't based on The Importance of Being Earnest. It's not based on a real person like Housman. I think The Real Thing came out of himself much more than out of literary models.Oliver: You don't think that Henry is a bit like the actor character in Present Laughter and it's all set in his flat and the couples moving around and the slight element of farce?The cricket bat speech is quite similar to when Gary Essendine—do you remember that very funny young man comes up on the train from Epping or somewhere and lectures him about the social value of art. And Gary Essendine says, “Get a job in a theater rep and write 20 plays. And if you can get one of them put on in a pub, you'll be damn lucky.” It's like a model for him, a loose model.Lee: Yes. Henry, I think you should write an article comparing these two plays.Oliver: Okay. Very good. What does Stoppardian mean?Lee: It means witty. It means brilliant with words. It means fizzing with verbal energy. It means intellectually dazzling. The word dazzling is the one that tends to get used. My own version of Stoppardian is a little bit different from, as it were, those standard received and perfectly acceptable accounts of Stoppardian.My own sense of Stoppardian has more to do with grief and mortality and a sense of not belonging and of puzzlement and bewilderment, within all that I said before, within the dazzling, playful astonishing zest and brio of language and the precision about language.Oliver: Because it's a funny word. It's hard to include Leopoldstadt under the typical use of Stoppardian, because it's an untypical Stoppard.Lee: One of the things about Leopoldstadt that I think is—let's get rid of that trope about Stoppardian—characteristic of him is the remarkable way it deals with time. Here's a play like Arcadia, all set in the same place, all set in the same room, in the same house, and it goes from a big hustling room, late 19th-century family play, just like the beginning of The Coast of Utopia, where you begin with a big family in Russia and then it moves through the '20s and then into the terrible appalling period of the Anschluss and the Holocaust.And then it ends up after the war with an empty room. This room, is like a different kind of theater, an empty room. Three characters, none of whom you know very well, speaking in three different kinds of English, reaching across vast spaces of incomprehension, and you've had these jumps through time.And then at the very end, the original family, all of whom have been destroyed, the original family reappears on the stage. I'm sorry to tell this for anyone who hasn't seen Leopoldstadt. Because when it happens on the stage, it's an absolutely astonishing moment. As if the time has gone round and as if the play, which I think it was for him, was an act of restitution to all those people.Oliver: How often did he use his charm to get his way with actors?Lee: A lot. And not just actors. People he worked with, film people, friends, companions. Charm is such an interesting thing, isn't it? Because we shouldn't deviate, but there's always a slightly sinister aspect to the word charm as in, a magic charm. And one tends to be a bit suspicious of charm. And he knew he had charm and he was physically very magnetic and good looking and very funny and very attentive to people.But I think the charm, in his case, he did use it to get the right results, and he did use it, as he would say, “to look after my plays.” He was always, “I want to look after my plays.” And that's why he went back to rehearsal when there were revivals and so on. But he wasn't always charming. Patrick Marber, who's a friend of his and who directed Leopoldstadt, is very good on how irritable Stoppard could be sometimes in rehearsal. And I've heard that from other directors too—Jack O'Brien, who did the American productions of things like The Invention of Love.If Stoppard felt it wasn't right, he could get quite cross. So this wasn't a sort of oleaginous character at all. It's not smooth, it's not a smooth charm at all. But yes, he knew his power and he used it, and I think in a good way. I think he was a benign character actually. And one of the things that was very fascinating to me, not only when he died and there was this great outpouring of tributes, very heartfelt tributes, I thought. But also when I was working on the biography, I was going around the world trying to find people to say bad things about him, because what I didn't want to do was write a hagiography. You don't want to do that; there would be no point. And it was genuinely quite hard.And I don't know the theater world; it's not my world. I got to know it a little bit then. But I have never necessarily thought of the theater world as being utterly loving and generous about everybody else. I'm sure there are lots of rivalries and spitefulness, as there is in academic life, all the rest of it. But it was very hard to find anyone with a bad word to say about him, even people who'd come up against the steeliness that there is in him.I had an interview with Steven Spielberg about him, with whom he worked a lot, and with whom he did Empire of the Sun. And I would ask my interviewees if they could come up with two or three adjectives or an adjective that would sum him up, that would sum Stoppard up to them. And when I asked Spielberg this question, he had a little think and then he said, intransigent. I thought, great. He must be the only person who ever stood up to him.Oliver: What was his best film script? Did he write a really great film.Lee: That one. I think partly the novel, I don't know if you know the Ballard novel, the Empire of the Sun, it's a marvelous novel. And Ballard was just a magical and amazing writer, a great hero of mine. But I think what Stoppard did with that was really clever and brilliant.I know people like Brazil, the Terry Gilliam sort of surrealist way. And there's some interesting early work. Most of his film work was not one script; it was little bits that he helped with. So there's famously the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, he did most of the dialogue for Harrison Ford.But there are others like the One Hundred and One Dalmatians, where I think there's one line, anonymously Stoppardian in there. One of the things about the obituaries that slightly narked me was that there, I felt there was a bit too much about the films. Truly, I don't think the film work was—he wanted it to be right and he wanted to get it right—but it wasn't as close to his heart as the theater work. And indeed the work for radio, which I thought was generally underwritten about when he died. There was some terrific work there.Oliver: Yes. And there aren't that many canonical writers who've been great on the radio.Lee: Absolutely. He did everything. He did film, he did radio. He wrote some opera librettos. He really did everything. And on top of that, there was the great work for the public good, which I think is a very important part of his legacy, his history.Oliver: How much crossover influence is there between the different bits of his career? Does the screenwriting influence the theater writing and the radio and so on? Or is he just compartmentalized and able to do a lot of different things?Lee: That's such an interesting question. I don't think I've thought about it enough. I think there are very cinematic aspects to some of the plays, like Night and Day, for instance, the play about journalism. That could easily have been a film.And perhaps Hapgood as well, although it could be a kind of John le Carré type film thriller, though it's such a set of complicated interlocking boxes that I don't know that it would work as a film. It's not one of my favorite players, I must say. I struggle a little bit with Hapgood. But, yes, I'm sure that they fed into each other. Because he was so busy, he was often doing several things at once. So he was keeping things in boxes and opening the lid of that box. But mentally things must have overlapped, I'm sure.Oliver: He once joked that rather than having read Wittgenstein from cover to cover, he had only read the covers. How true is that? Because I know some people who would say he's very clever in everything, but he's not as clever as he looks. It's obviously not true that he only read the covers.Lee: I think there was a phase, wasn't there, after the early plays when people felt that he was—it's that English phrase, isn't it—too clever by half. Which you would never hear anyone in France saying of someone that they were too clever by half. So he was this kind of jazzy intellectual who put all his ideas out there, and he was this sort of self-educated savant who hadn't been to Oxford.There was quite a lot of that about in the earlier years, I think. And a sense that he was getting away with it, to which I would countermand with the story of the writing of The Invention of Love. So what attracted him to the figure of Housman initially was not the painful, suppressed homosexual love story, but the fact that here was this person who was divided into a very pernickety, savagely critical classical editor of Latin and a romantic lyric poet. In order to work out how to turn this into a play, he probably spent about six years taking Latin lessons, reading everything he could read on the history of classical literature. Obviously reading about Housman, engaging in conversation with classical scholars about Housman's, finer points of editorial precision about certain phrases. And what he used from that was the tip of the iceberg. But the iceberg was real.He really did that work and he often used to say that it was his favorite play because he'd so much enjoyed the work that went into it. I think he took what he needed from someone like Wittgenstein. I know you don't like The Coast of Utopia very much, but if you read his background to Coast of Utopia, what went into it, and if you compare what's in the plays, those three plays, with what's in the writing about those revolutionaries, he read everything. He may have magpied it, but he's certainly knows what he's talking about. So I defend him a bit against that, I think.Oliver: Good, good. Did you see the recent production at the Hamstead Theatre of The Invention of Love?Lee: I did, yes.Oliver: What did you think?Lee: I liked it. I thought it was rather beautifully done. I liked those boats rowing around that clicked together. I thought Simon Russell Beale was extremely good, particularly very moving. And very good in Housman's vindictiveness as a critic. He is not a nice person in that sense. And his scornfulness about the women students in his class, that kind of thing. And so there was a wonderful vitriol and scorn in Russell Beale's performance.I think when you see it now, some of the Oxford context is a little bit clunky, those scenes with Jowett and Pater and so on, it's like a bit of a caricature of the context of cultural life at the time, intellectual life at the time. But I think that the trope of the old and the young Housman meeting each other and talking to each other, which I still think is very moving. I thought it worked tremendously well.Oliver: What are Tom Stoppard's poems like?Lee: You see them in Indian Ink where he invents a poet, Flora Crewe, who is a poet who was died young, turn of the century, bold feminist associated with Bloomsbury and gets picked up much later as a kind of Sylvia Plath-type, HD type heroine. And when you look at Stoppard's manuscripts in the Harry Ransom Center in the University of Austin, in Texas, there is more ink spent on writing and rewriting those poems of Flora Crewe than anything else I saw in the manuscript. He wrote them and rewrote them.Early on he wrote some Elliot—they're very like Elliot—little poems for himself. I think there are probably quite a lot of love poems out there, which I never saw because they belong to the people for whom he wrote them. So I wouldn't know about those.Oliver: How consistently did Stoppard hold to a kind of liberal individualism in his politics?Lee: He was accused of being very right wing in the 1980s really, 1970s, 1980s, when the preponderant tendency for British drama was radicalism, Royal Court, left wing, all of that. And Stoppard seemed an outlier then, because he approved of Thatcher. He was a friend of Thatcher. He didn't like the print union. It was particularly about newspapers because he'd been a newspaper man in his youth. That was his alternative university education, working in Bristol on the newspapers. He had a romance heroic feeling about the value of the journalist to uphold democracy, and he hated the pressure of the print unions to what he thought at the time was stifling that.He changed his mind. I think a lot about that. He had been very idealistic and in love with English liberal values. And I think towards the end of his life he felt that those were being eroded. He voted lots of different ways. He voted conservative, voted green. He voted lib dem. I don't if he ever voted Labour.Oliver: But even though his personal politics shifted and the way he voted shifted, there is something quite continuous from the early plays through to Rock ‘n' Roll. Is there a sort of basic foundation that doesn't change, even though the response to events and the idea about the times changes?Lee: Yes, I think that's right, and I think it can be summed up in what Henry says in The Real Thing about politics, which is a version of what's often said in his plays, which is public postures have the configuration of private derangement. So that there's a deep suspicion of political rhetoric, especially when it tends towards the final solution type, the utopian type, the sense that individual lives can be sacrificed in the interest of an ultimate rationalized greater good.And then, he's worked in the '70s for the victims of Soviet communism. His work alongside in support of Havel and Charter 77. And he wrote on those themes such as Every Good Boy Deserves Favour and Professional Foul. Those are absolutely at the heart of what he felt. And they come back again when he's very modest about this and kept it quiet. But he did an enormous amount of work for the Belarus exile, Belarus Free Theater collective, people in support of those trying to work against the regime in Belarus.And then the profound, heartfelt, intense feeling of horror about what happened to people in Leopoldstadt. That's all part of the same thing. I think he's a believer in individual freedom and in democracy and has a suspicion of political rhetoric.Oliver: How much were some of his great parts written for specific actors? Because I sometimes have a feeling when I watch one of his plays now, if I'd been here when Felicity Kendal was doing this, I would be getting the whole thing, but I'm getting most of it.Lee: I'm sure that's right. And he built up a team around him: Peter Wood, the director and John Wood who's such an extraordinary Henry Carr in in in Travesties. And Michael Hordern as George the philosopher in Jumpers. And he wrote a lot for Kendal, in the process of becoming life companions.But he'd obviously been writing and thinking of her very much, for instance, in Arcadia. And also I think very much, it's very touching now to see the production of Indian Ink that's running at Hampstead Theatre in which Felicity Kendal is playing the older woman, the surviving older sister of the poet Flora Crewe, where of course the part of Flora Crewe was written for her. And there's something very touching about seeing that now. And, in fact, the first night of that production was the day of Stoppard's funeral. And Kendal couldn't be at the funeral, of course, because she was in the first night of his play. That's a very touching thing.Oliver: Why did he think the revivals came too soon?Lee: I don't really know the answer to that. I think he thought a play had to hook up a lot of oxygen and attract a lot of attention. If you were lucky while it was on, people would remember the casting and the direction of that version of it, and it would have a kind of memory. You had to be there.But people who were there would remember it and talk about it. And if you had another production very soon after that, then maybe it would diminish or take away that effect. I think he had a sort of loyalty to first productions often. What do you think about that? I'm not quite sure of the answer to that.Oliver: I don't know. To me it seems to conflict a bit with his idea that it's a living thing and he's always rewriting it in the rehearsal room. But I think probably what you say is right, and he will have got it right in a certain way through all that rehearsing. You then need to wait for a new generation of people to make it fresh again, if you like.Lee: Or not a generation even, but give it five years.Oliver: Everyone new and this theater's working differently now. We can rework it in our own way. Can we have a few questions about your broader career before we finish?Lee: Depends what they are.Oliver: Your former colleague John Carey died at a similar time to Stoppard. What do you think was his best work?Lee: John Carey's best work? Oh. I thought the biography of Golding was pretty good. And I thought he wrote a very good book on Thackery. And I thought his work on Milton was good. I wasn't so keen on The Intellectuals and the Masses. He and I used to have vociferous arguments about that because he had cast Virginia Woolf with all the modernist fascists, as it were. He'd put her in a pile with Wyndham Lewis and Ezra Pound and so on. And actually, Virginia Woolf was a socialist feminist. And this didn't seem to have struck him because he was so keen to expose her frightful snobbery, which is what people in England reading Woolf, especially middle class blokes, were horrified by.And she is a snob, there's no doubt about it. But she knew that and she lacerated herself for it too. And I think he ignored all the other aspects of her. So I was angry about that. But he was the kind of person you could have a really good argument with. That was one of the really great things about John.Oliver: He seems to be someone else who was amenable and charming, but also very steely.Lee: Yes, I think he probably was I think he probably was. You can see that in his memoir, I think.Oliver: What was Carmen Callil like?Lee: Oh. She was a very important person in my life. It was she who got me involved in writing pieces for Virago. And it was she who asked me to write the life of Virginia Woolf for Chatto. And she was an enormous, inspiring encourager as she was to very many people. And I loved her.But I was also, as many people were, quite daunted by her. She was temperamental, she was angry. She was passionate. She was often quite difficult. Not a word I like to use about women because there's that trope of difficult women, but she could be. And she lost her temper in a very un-English way, which was quite a sight to behold. But I think of her as one of the most creative and influential publishers of the 20th century.Oliver: Will there be a biography of her?Lee: I don't know. Yes, it's a really interesting question, and I've been asking her executors whether they have any thoughts about that. Somebody said to me, oh, who wants a biography of a publisher? But, actually, publishers are really important people often, so I hope there would be. Yes. And it would need to be someone who understood the politics of feminism and who understood about coming from Australia and who understood about the Catholic background and who understood about her passion for France. And there are a whole lot of aspects to that life. It's a rich and complex life. Yes, I hope there will be someday.Oliver: Her papers are sitting there in the British Library.Lee: They are. And in fact—you kindly mentioned this to start with—I've just finished a biography of the art historian and novelist, Anita Brookner, who won the Booker prize in 1984 for a novel called Hotel du Lac.And Carmen and Anita were great buddies, surprisingly actually, because they were very different kinds of characters. And the year before she died, Carmen, who knew I was working on Anita, showed me all her diary entries and all the letters she'd kept from Anita. And that's the kind of generous person that she was.That material is now sitting in the British Library, along with huge reams of correspondence between Carmen and many other people. And it's an exciting archive.Oliver: She seems to have had a capacity to be friends with almost anyone.Lee: Yes, I think there were people she would not have wanted to be friends with. She was very disapproving of a lot of political figures and particularly right-wing figures, and there were people she would've simply spat at if she was in the room with them. But, yes, she an enormous range of friends, and she was, as I said, she was fantastically encouraging to younger women writers.And, also, another aspect of Carmen's life, which I greatly admired and was fascinated by: In Virago she would often be resuscitating the careers of elderly women writers who had been forgotten or neglected, including Antonia White and including Rosamund Lehmann. And part of Carmen's job at Virago, as she felt, was not just to republish these people, some of whom hadn't had a book published for decades, but also to look after them. And they were all quite elderly and often quite eccentric and often quite needy. And Carmen would be there, bringing them out and looking after them and going around to see them. And really marvelous, I think.Oliver: Yes, it is. Tell me about Brian Moore.Lee: Breean, as he called himself.Oliver: Oh, I'm sorry.Lee: No, it's all right. I think Brian became a friend because in the 1980s I had a book program on Channel 4, which was called Book Four. It had a very small audience, but had a wonderful time over several years interviewing lots and lots of writers who had new books out. We didn't have a budget; it was a table and two chairs and not the kind of book program you see on the television anymore. And I got to know Brian through that and through reviewing him a bit and doing interviews with him, and my husband and I would go out and visit him and his wife Jean.And I loved the work. I thought the work was such a brilliant mixture of popular cultural forms, like the thriller and historical novel and so on. And fascinating ideas about authority and religion and how to be free, how to break free of the bonds of what he'd grown up with in Ireland, in Northern Ireland, the bombs of religious autocracy, as it were. And very surreal in some ways as well. And he was also a very charming, funny, gregarious person who could be quite wicked about other writers.And, he was a wonderfully wicked and funny companion. What breaks my heart about Brian Moore is that while he was alive, he was writing a novel maybe every other year or every three years, and people would review them and they were talked about, and I don't think they were on academic syllabuses but they were really popular. And when he died and there were no more books, it just went. You can think of other writers like that who were tremendously well known in their time. And then when there weren't any more books, just went away. You ask people, now you go out and ask people, say, “What about The Temptation of Eileen Hughes or The Doctor's Wife or Black Robe? And they'll go, “Sorry?”Oliver: If anyone listening to this wants to try one of his novels, where do you say they should start?Lee: I think I would start with The Doctor's Wife and The Temptation of Eileen Hughes. And then if one liked those, one would get a taste for him. But there's plenty to choose from.Oliver: What about Catholics?Lee: Yes. Catholics is a wonderful book. Yes. Wonderful book. Bit like Muriel Spark's The Abbess of Crewe, I think.Oliver: How important is religion to Penelope Fitzgerald's work?Lee: She would say that she felt guilty about not having put her religious beliefs more explicitly into her fiction. I'm very glad that she didn't because I think it is deeply important and she believes in miracles and saints and angels and manifestations and providence, but she doesn't spell it out.And so when at the end of The Gate of Angels, for instance, there is a kind of miracle on the last page but it's much better not to have it spelt out as a miracle, in my view. And in The Blue Flower, which is not my favorite of her books, but it's the book of the greatest genius possibly. And I think she was a genius. There is a deep interest in Novalis's romantic philosophical ideas about a spiritual life, beyond the physical life, no more doctrinally than that. And she, of course, believes in that. I think she believed, in an almost Platonic way, that this life was a kind of cave of shadows and that there was something beyond that. And there are some very mysterious moments in her books, which, if they had been explained as religious experiences, I think would've been much less forceful and much less intense.Oliver: What is your favorite of her books?Lee: Oh, The Beginning of Spring. The Beginning of Spring is set in Moscow just before the revolution. And its concerns an Englishman who runs a print and publishing works. And it's based quite a lot on some factual narratives about people in Moscow at the time. And it's about the feeling of that place and that time, but it's also about being in love with two people at the same time.And, yes, and it's about cultural clashes and cultural misunderstanding, and it is an astonishingly evocative book. And when asked about this book, interviewers would say to Penelope, oh, she must have lived in Moscow for ages to know so much about it. And sometimes she would say, “Yes, I lived there for years.” And sometimes she would say, “No, I've never been there in my life.” And the fact was she'd had a week's book tour in Moscow with her daughter. And that was the only time she ever went to Russia, but she read. So it was a wonderful example of how she would be so wicked; she would lie.Oliver: Yes.Lee: Because she couldn't be bothered to tell the truth.Oliver: But wasn't she poking fun at their silly questions?Lee: Yes. It's not such a silly question. I would've asked her that question. It is an astonishing evocation of a place.Oliver: No, I would've asked it too, but I do feel like she had this sense of it's silly to be asked questions at all. It's silly to be interviewed.Lee: I interviewed her about three times—and it was fascinating. And she would deflect. She would deflect, deflect. When you asked her about her own work, she would deflect onto someone else's work or she would tell you a story. But she also got quite irritable.So for instance, there's a poltergeist in a novel called The Bookshop. And the poltergeist is a very frightening apparition and very strong chapter in the book. And I said to her in interview, “Look, lots of people think this is just superstition. There aren't poltergeists.” And she looked at me very crossly and said they just haven't been there. They don't know what they're talking about. Absolutely factual and matter of fact about the reality of a poltergeist.Oliver: What makes Virginia Woolf's literary criticism so good?Lee: Oh, I think it's a kind of empathy actually. That she has an extraordinary ability to try and inhabit the person that she's writing about. So she doesn't write from the point of view of, as it were, a dry, historical appreciation.She's got the facts and she's read the books, but she's trying to intimately evoke what it felt like to be that writer. I don't mean by dressing it up with personal anecdotes, but just she has an extraordinary way of describing what that person's writing is like, often in images by using images and metaphors, which makes you feel you are inside the story somehow.And she loves anecdotes. She's very good at telling anecdotes, I think. And also she's not soft, but she's not harshly judgmental. I think she will try and get the juice out of anything she's writing about. Most of these literary criticism pieces were written for money and against the clock and whilst doing other things.So if you read her on Dorothy Wordsworth or Mary Wollstonecraft or Henry James, there's a wonderful sense of, you feel your knowledge has been expanded. Knowledge in the sense of knowing the person; I don't mean in the sense of hard facts.Oliver: Sure. You've finished your Anita Brookner biography and that's coming this year.Lee: September the 10th this year, here and in the States.Oliver: What will you do next?Lee: Yes. That's a very good question, though a little soon, I feel.Oliver: Is there someone whose life you always wanted to write, but didn't?Lee: No. No, there isn't. Not at the moment. Who knows?Oliver: You are open to it. You are open.Lee: Who knows what will come up.Oliver: Yes. Hermione Lee, this was a real pleasure. Thank you very much.Lee: Thank you very much. It was a treat. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk

A lively and entertaining cultural history of a supremely annoying intellectual vice Intellectuals have long provoked scorn and irritation, even downright aggression. Many learned individuals have cast such hostility as a badge of honor, a sign of envy, or a form of resistance to inconvenient truths. On Pedantry: A Cultural History of the Know-it-All (Princeton University Press, 2025) offers an altogether different perspective, revealing how the excessive use of learning has been a vice in Western culture since the days of Socrates. Taking readers from the academies of ancient Greece to today's culture wars, Arnoud Visser explains why pretentious and punctilious learning has always annoyed us, painting vibrant portraits of some of the most intensely irritating intellectuals ever known, from devious sophists and bossy savantes to hypercritical theologians, dry-as-dust antiquarians, and know-it-all professors. He shows how criticisms of pedantry have typically been more about conduct than ideas, and he demonstrates how pedantry served as a weapon in the perennial struggle over ideas, social status, political authority, and belief. Shifting attention away from the self-proclaimed virtues of the learned to their less-than-flattering vice, Visser makes a bold and provocative contribution to the history of Western thought. Drawing on a wealth of sources ranging from satire and comedy to essays, sermons, and film, On Pedantry sheds critical light on why anti-intellectual views have gained renewed prominence today and serves as essential reading in an age of rising populism across the globe. Arnoud S. Q. Visser is professor of textual culture in the Renaissance at Utrecht University and director of the Huizinga Institute, the Dutch national research school for cultural history. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. 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

A lively and entertaining cultural history of a supremely annoying intellectual vice Intellectuals have long provoked scorn and irritation, even downright aggression. Many learned individuals have cast such hostility as a badge of honor, a sign of envy, or a form of resistance to inconvenient truths. On Pedantry: A Cultural History of the Know-it-All (Princeton University Press, 2025) offers an altogether different perspective, revealing how the excessive use of learning has been a vice in Western culture since the days of Socrates. Taking readers from the academies of ancient Greece to today's culture wars, Arnoud Visser explains why pretentious and punctilious learning has always annoyed us, painting vibrant portraits of some of the most intensely irritating intellectuals ever known, from devious sophists and bossy savantes to hypercritical theologians, dry-as-dust antiquarians, and know-it-all professors. He shows how criticisms of pedantry have typically been more about conduct than ideas, and he demonstrates how pedantry served as a weapon in the perennial struggle over ideas, social status, political authority, and belief. Shifting attention away from the self-proclaimed virtues of the learned to their less-than-flattering vice, Visser makes a bold and provocative contribution to the history of Western thought. Drawing on a wealth of sources ranging from satire and comedy to essays, sermons, and film, On Pedantry sheds critical light on why anti-intellectual views have gained renewed prominence today and serves as essential reading in an age of rising populism across the globe. Arnoud S. Q. Visser is professor of textual culture in the Renaissance at Utrecht University and director of the Huizinga Institute, the Dutch national research school for cultural history. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

A lively and entertaining cultural history of a supremely annoying intellectual vice Intellectuals have long provoked scorn and irritation, even downright aggression. Many learned individuals have cast such hostility as a badge of honor, a sign of envy, or a form of resistance to inconvenient truths. On Pedantry: A Cultural History of the Know-it-All (Princeton University Press, 2025) offers an altogether different perspective, revealing how the excessive use of learning has been a vice in Western culture since the days of Socrates. Taking readers from the academies of ancient Greece to today's culture wars, Arnoud Visser explains why pretentious and punctilious learning has always annoyed us, painting vibrant portraits of some of the most intensely irritating intellectuals ever known, from devious sophists and bossy savantes to hypercritical theologians, dry-as-dust antiquarians, and know-it-all professors. He shows how criticisms of pedantry have typically been more about conduct than ideas, and he demonstrates how pedantry served as a weapon in the perennial struggle over ideas, social status, political authority, and belief. Shifting attention away from the self-proclaimed virtues of the learned to their less-than-flattering vice, Visser makes a bold and provocative contribution to the history of Western thought. Drawing on a wealth of sources ranging from satire and comedy to essays, sermons, and film, On Pedantry sheds critical light on why anti-intellectual views have gained renewed prominence today and serves as essential reading in an age of rising populism across the globe. Arnoud S. Q. Visser is professor of textual culture in the Renaissance at Utrecht University and director of the Huizinga Institute, the Dutch national research school for cultural history. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

A lively and entertaining cultural history of a supremely annoying intellectual vice Intellectuals have long provoked scorn and irritation, even downright aggression. Many learned individuals have cast such hostility as a badge of honor, a sign of envy, or a form of resistance to inconvenient truths. On Pedantry: A Cultural History of the Know-it-All (Princeton University Press, 2025) offers an altogether different perspective, revealing how the excessive use of learning has been a vice in Western culture since the days of Socrates. Taking readers from the academies of ancient Greece to today's culture wars, Arnoud Visser explains why pretentious and punctilious learning has always annoyed us, painting vibrant portraits of some of the most intensely irritating intellectuals ever known, from devious sophists and bossy savantes to hypercritical theologians, dry-as-dust antiquarians, and know-it-all professors. He shows how criticisms of pedantry have typically been more about conduct than ideas, and he demonstrates how pedantry served as a weapon in the perennial struggle over ideas, social status, political authority, and belief. Shifting attention away from the self-proclaimed virtues of the learned to their less-than-flattering vice, Visser makes a bold and provocative contribution to the history of Western thought. Drawing on a wealth of sources ranging from satire and comedy to essays, sermons, and film, On Pedantry sheds critical light on why anti-intellectual views have gained renewed prominence today and serves as essential reading in an age of rising populism across the globe. Arnoud S. Q. Visser is professor of textual culture in the Renaissance at Utrecht University and director of the Huizinga Institute, the Dutch national research school for cultural history. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A lively and entertaining cultural history of a supremely annoying intellectual vice Intellectuals have long provoked scorn and irritation, even downright aggression. Many learned individuals have cast such hostility as a badge of honor, a sign of envy, or a form of resistance to inconvenient truths. On Pedantry: A Cultural History of the Know-it-All (Princeton University Press, 2025) offers an altogether different perspective, revealing how the excessive use of learning has been a vice in Western culture since the days of Socrates. Taking readers from the academies of ancient Greece to today's culture wars, Arnoud Visser explains why pretentious and punctilious learning has always annoyed us, painting vibrant portraits of some of the most intensely irritating intellectuals ever known, from devious sophists and bossy savantes to hypercritical theologians, dry-as-dust antiquarians, and know-it-all professors. He shows how criticisms of pedantry have typically been more about conduct than ideas, and he demonstrates how pedantry served as a weapon in the perennial struggle over ideas, social status, political authority, and belief. Shifting attention away from the self-proclaimed virtues of the learned to their less-than-flattering vice, Visser makes a bold and provocative contribution to the history of Western thought. Drawing on a wealth of sources ranging from satire and comedy to essays, sermons, and film, On Pedantry sheds critical light on why anti-intellectual views have gained renewed prominence today and serves as essential reading in an age of rising populism across the globe. Arnoud S. Q. Visser is professor of textual culture in the Renaissance at Utrecht University and director of the Huizinga Institute, the Dutch national research school for cultural history. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A lively and entertaining cultural history of a supremely annoying intellectual vice Intellectuals have long provoked scorn and irritation, even downright aggression. Many learned individuals have cast such hostility as a badge of honor, a sign of envy, or a form of resistance to inconvenient truths. On Pedantry: A Cultural History of the Know-it-All (Princeton University Press, 2025) offers an altogether different perspective, revealing how the excessive use of learning has been a vice in Western culture since the days of Socrates. Taking readers from the academies of ancient Greece to today's culture wars, Arnoud Visser explains why pretentious and punctilious learning has always annoyed us, painting vibrant portraits of some of the most intensely irritating intellectuals ever known, from devious sophists and bossy savantes to hypercritical theologians, dry-as-dust antiquarians, and know-it-all professors. He shows how criticisms of pedantry have typically been more about conduct than ideas, and he demonstrates how pedantry served as a weapon in the perennial struggle over ideas, social status, political authority, and belief. Shifting attention away from the self-proclaimed virtues of the learned to their less-than-flattering vice, Visser makes a bold and provocative contribution to the history of Western thought. Drawing on a wealth of sources ranging from satire and comedy to essays, sermons, and film, On Pedantry sheds critical light on why anti-intellectual views have gained renewed prominence today and serves as essential reading in an age of rising populism across the globe. Arnoud S. Q. Visser is professor of textual culture in the Renaissance at Utrecht University and director of the Huizinga Institute, the Dutch national research school for cultural history. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network.

A lively and entertaining cultural history of a supremely annoying intellectual vice Intellectuals have long provoked scorn and irritation, even downright aggression. Many learned individuals have cast such hostility as a badge of honor, a sign of envy, or a form of resistance to inconvenient truths. On Pedantry: A Cultural History of the Know-it-All (Princeton University Press, 2025) offers an altogether different perspective, revealing how the excessive use of learning has been a vice in Western culture since the days of Socrates. Taking readers from the academies of ancient Greece to today's culture wars, Arnoud Visser explains why pretentious and punctilious learning has always annoyed us, painting vibrant portraits of some of the most intensely irritating intellectuals ever known, from devious sophists and bossy savantes to hypercritical theologians, dry-as-dust antiquarians, and know-it-all professors. He shows how criticisms of pedantry have typically been more about conduct than ideas, and he demonstrates how pedantry served as a weapon in the perennial struggle over ideas, social status, political authority, and belief. Shifting attention away from the self-proclaimed virtues of the learned to their less-than-flattering vice, Visser makes a bold and provocative contribution to the history of Western thought. Drawing on a wealth of sources ranging from satire and comedy to essays, sermons, and film, On Pedantry sheds critical light on why anti-intellectual views have gained renewed prominence today and serves as essential reading in an age of rising populism across the globe. Arnoud S. Q. Visser is professor of textual culture in the Renaissance at Utrecht University and director of the Huizinga Institute, the Dutch national research school for cultural history. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/education

A lively and entertaining cultural history of a supremely annoying intellectual vice Intellectuals have long provoked scorn and irritation, even downright aggression. Many learned individuals have cast such hostility as a badge of honor, a sign of envy, or a form of resistance to inconvenient truths. On Pedantry: A Cultural History of the Know-it-All (Princeton University Press, 2025) offers an altogether different perspective, revealing how the excessive use of learning has been a vice in Western culture since the days of Socrates. Taking readers from the academies of ancient Greece to today's culture wars, Arnoud Visser explains why pretentious and punctilious learning has always annoyed us, painting vibrant portraits of some of the most intensely irritating intellectuals ever known, from devious sophists and bossy savantes to hypercritical theologians, dry-as-dust antiquarians, and know-it-all professors. He shows how criticisms of pedantry have typically been more about conduct than ideas, and he demonstrates how pedantry served as a weapon in the perennial struggle over ideas, social status, political authority, and belief. Shifting attention away from the self-proclaimed virtues of the learned to their less-than-flattering vice, Visser makes a bold and provocative contribution to the history of Western thought. Drawing on a wealth of sources ranging from satire and comedy to essays, sermons, and film, On Pedantry sheds critical light on why anti-intellectual views have gained renewed prominence today and serves as essential reading in an age of rising populism across the globe. Arnoud S. Q. Visser is professor of textual culture in the Renaissance at Utrecht University and director of the Huizinga Institute, the Dutch national research school for cultural history. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David Austin Walsh, author of Taking America Back, on the relationship between the kooks and respectables on the right • Laura Field, author of Furious Minds, on the intellectual wing of Trumpism The post Two views of the right: the sordid side of “respectable,” and Trump's court intellectuals appeared first on KPFA.

Strong delusion today; Tree of Knowledge; Intellectuals; Altars = trusts; Maturity; In, but not of the world; Peace offerings; Artistic interpretation of burning offerings; Sacrifice; "wood" for altars?; Charity = freewill offerings; Cities of blood; "Anarchy"; Exercising authority over others; The sin of Sodom; Gen 18:20; Isa 3:9; Ez 16:49; Weakening the poor; Welfare snares; How to form a free society; Israel the republic; Grain reserves; Government of, for and by the people; Private religion; Melchizedek vs Abimelech; Pharisees not following Moses; No biting one another?; Wood on lively unhewn stones of the Altars; Counsell; Tabernacles; Bonds of the kingdom; Knowing the world's laws; Why go to church?; Daily ministration to the needy?; Eating at the table of rulers; Lot and the angels; Explaining the social welfare system of the kingdom; "Call no man on Earth Father"; Returning to rights and responsibilities; Christ's "command"; Network of Charity; Capitalist systems of economy; "Religion"; Human resources; Bishops distributing grain?; "Corban"; Meat with blood in it; Socialism; Making the word of God to none effect; Blind leading the blind; Judging and being judged; Actions have consequences; Making yourself merchandise; "Leaven"; Anarchists on welfare?; Covetousness; Understanding your position; Cursing children; Gal 3:7; Ez 7:23; Asking for help; Teaching God's system; Loving the truth; Ez 9:9; 1 Sam 8; Saul's election; "Strange fire"; Ez 22:2; Idolatry; Forced sacrifice?; Ez 24:6; Addiction to benefit; Ez 11:3; You're not in Israel!; Cauldrons and fleshpots; Creating socialist collectives; Benefits of Christ?; BEing the welfare of the righteous; "world"; Hab 2:7; Gen 9:4; Lev 17:10; Daily bread?; Biblical context; Ps 69:22-23; Darkened eyes; Right reason; Tree of Life; Act 15:20; Strangling = forcing; Having God as your fortress; Repentance; Rom 11:9; Prov 23:1; Ex 23:32; Sin or evidence of sin?; Ex 34:12; Deu 7:16; Looking for evidence; Fear not! Love!; Practicing pure religion; Emotional thinking; God as ruler; Finding the answer; Listening for God's voice; Faith is required; Faith is a gift; Arguing with God; Learning to care about your neighbor; Acceptance of benefits; Consent; Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4; Heb 5:6; Heb 6:20; Righteous king; Start your own repentance today.

Ben Burgis and Matt McManus chat with Laura K. Field about her excellent new book "Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right."Order the book::https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691255262/furious-mindsFollow Laura on Twitter: @lkatfieldFollow Matt on Twitter: @MattPolProfFollow Ben on Twitter: @BenBurgisFollow GTAA on Twitter: @Gtaa_ShowBecome a GTAA Patron and receive numerous benefits ranging from occasional patron-exclusive content to access to the GTAA Discord to our undying love and gratitude for helping us keep this thing going:patreon.com/benburgisRead the weekly philosophy Substack:benburgis.substack.com

Ravi opens by running through a turbulent week: the Minnesota ICE shooting, concerns about escalating federal power, and the DOJ's reported probe into Fed Chair Jerome Powell's independence, alongside global flash points like Iran and a U.S. electorate that's increasingly independent. With institutions under strain and norms being tested in real time, he then turns to the ideas shaping this moment. That sets the stage for his conversation with political philosopher Laura K. Field, author of Furious Minds, on the thinkers and factions behind the MAGA New Right—and why understanding them now matters more than ever. –– Leave us a voicemail with your thoughts on the show! 201-305-0084⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow Ravi at @RaviMGupta Notes from this episode are also available on Substack: https://thelostdebate.substack.com/ Read more from Ravi on Substack: https://realravigupta.substack.com  Follow The Branch at @thebranchmedia Listen to more episodes of Lost Debate on Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lost-debate/id1591300785 Listen to more episodes of Lost Debate on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7xR9pch9DrQDiZfGB5oF0F Listen to Where the Schools Went: https://thebranchmedia.org/show/where-the-schools-went/ 

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comLaura Field is a writer and political theorist who specializes in far-right populist intellectualism in the US. She's currently a Scholar in Residence at American University, a Senior Advisor for the Illiberalism Studies Program at GW, and a nonresident fellow with Brookings. Her new book is Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right. We bonded over some of the right's wackier innovations, and differed over how far the left has also slid into illiberalism.An auto-transcript is available above (just click “Transcript” while logged into Substack). For two clips of our convo — on the New Right's “post-constitutional moment,” and the war on the civil service — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: growing up in Alberta; losing a parent at a very young age; Plato an early inspiration; growing tired of the Straussians; the decline of religion under liberalism; Locke; Rousseau; Nietzsche; Fukuyama; the resurgence of the illiberal left and illiberal right; the Claremont Institute and Harry Jaffa; Jaffa's extreme homophobia and hatred of divorce; Allan Bloom; Lincoln fulfilling the Founding; Hobbes; the role of virtue in a republic; Machiavelli; Michael Anton's “Flight 93 Election”; John Eastman and “Stop the Steal”; Curtis Yarvin and The Cathedral; Adrian Vermeule's Common Good Constitutionalism; Catholic conversion; Pope Leo; Obergefell, debating Harvey Mansfield over marriage; Woodrow Wilson's expansion of the state; Thatcher and Reagan slimming it down; the pros and cons of technocratic experts; DOGE vs federal workers; “queer” curricula and the 1619 Project; edge-lords; Bronze Age Pervert and pagan masculinity; Fuentes and Carlson; and debating the dangers of wokeness.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Claire Berlinski on America's retreat from global hegemony, Jason Willick on trade and conservatism, and Vivek Ramaswamy on the right's future. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Caving to popular demand for more talk about Straussians, Jonah Goldberg sits down with Laura Field to discuss the ideas driving the New Right. Follow Laura and Jonah as they fall down rabbit holes and explore digressions in the complicated story of 20th-century conservatism, the rise of MAGA, and the intellects behind Trumpism. Shownotes:—Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right—Remnant on Straussians—Project 2025—“The Flight 93 Election”—Michael Anton: “Harry V. Jaffa: An Appreciation”—1776 Commission Report—Yoram Hazony: The Virtue of Nationalism—Herbert Croly: The Promise Of American Life—Charles A. Reich: The Greening of America—The 1619 Project—Marco Rubio: “Industrial Policy, Right and Wrong”—Patrick Deneen: Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future—The American Mind—Richard Reinsch: “‘Furious Minds' Review: The Road to MAGA”—Jonah on Invasion of the Body Snatchers and MAGA converts— Peter Schramm: “Born American, But in the Wrong Place” The Remnant is a production of ⁠The Dispatch⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of Jonah's G-File newsletters—⁠click here⁠. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member ⁠by clicking here⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Laura K. Field discusses her book, Furious Minds, which dissects the thought of MAGA intellectuals (yes, there are some). Anti-enlightenment, theocratic, racist, misogynistic and yet, claiming to be for the general good. Get up to 30% off OneSkin with the code MONACHAREN at https://www.oneskin.co/MONACHAREN #oneskinpod

Donate Here - https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=Y6TSU94STL9PUAll our Links - https://direct.me/theundergroundWhat is our Value for Value System?Value for Value is a listener based business model where you determine the value our content is worth. If you feel you are getting value from our content, please consider becoming a supporter by donating your time, talent, & treasure. Time: meaning any effort you put in to improving or developing our content or sharing it.Talent: meaning any skills you possess that you want to contribute to help us develop our platform (ie., artwork for podcast episodes, branding design, editing, etc). Treasure: pay a one-off amount or a recurring contribution for the value you think our service is worth. Please be sure with any payment you send via PayPal to include a note, so that we can read it on the livestream, if you'd like. Your donations keep our content advertisement free. Thank you.Where do you support us? Click the direct.me link to find our PayPal link for contributions as well as our YouTube, Odysee, TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter links! We appreciate the engagement from all of you! Contribution Amounts:Donors of less than $100 will automatically become Producers of the corresponding episode!Donors of $100 and above will automatically become Associate Executive Producers of the corresponding episode!Donors of $200 and above will receive the Executive Producer credit for that episode!We will list the credits in our show notes as Executive Producer, Associate Executive Producer, & Producer and is a genuine credit we will vouch for. Generally, executive producers are primarily responsible for financing the project. Therefore, this is a legitimate credit for your resume. Please note any amount will remain anonymous upon request.All donors will receive a special mention on the show unless otherwise noted!Special Note: The Value for Value business model originated with Adam Curry & John C. Dvorak of the No Agenda Podcast.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgihPtnBSek

What if America's “anti-intellectualism” isn't a decline in smarts but a culture built to distrust theory? We trace that paradox from Puritan moral rigor and pragmatist “cash value” truths to the postwar professional class that speaks in a neutral tone while hiding its class origins. With Hofstadter, Lasch, and Gouldner as our guides, we unpack how speech codes, funding models, and media ecosystems shape who gets to be an “intellectual” and whose knowledge counts.We dig into Lasch's portraits of turn‑of‑the‑century radicals—Jane Addams, Randolph Bourne, Lincoln Steffens—showing how bohemia, policy reform, and romantic revolt often masked a middle‑class distance from worker life. Hofstadter helps explain why theory gets cast as elitist, how evangelical charisma and “common sense” produce a populism that can slip into conspiracy, and why so many bright people end up suspicious of abstraction. Then Gouldner reframes the post‑WWII landscape: a technical‑professional new class whose legitimacy depends on universality, even as its language quietly excludes working‑class speech and experience.From there, we get practical. We compare elite “neutrality” to the hard realities of endowments and medical revenue, and we explore what counter‑publics look like now: labor clubs that teach Robert's Rules and strike strategy alongside Marx, Bourdieu, and Joe Burns. We talk code‑switching without erasing origins, and we sketch ways to build worker‑centered study that doesn't pander—spaces where rigor and relevance live together. Gramsci's “organic intellectual” still matters here: every worker thinks and theorizes, with or without credentials.If this resonates, help us grow the counter‑public: subscribe, share the episode with a friend who loves big ideas, and leave a review with one question you want us to tackle next. These are the primary readings we discuss:-The American Intellectual Elite by Charles Kadushin- Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter - The New Radicalism in America: The Intellectual as Social Type by Christopher Lasch - The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class  by Alvin Gouldner-  The Missing Generation: Academics and the Communist Party from theDepression to the Cold War by Ellen SchreckerSend us a text Musis by Bitterlake, Used with Permission, all rights to BitterlakeSupport the showCrew:Host: C. Derick VarnIntro and Outro Music by Bitter Lake.Intro Video Design: Jason MylesArt Design: Corn and C. Derick VarnLinks and Social Media:twitter: @varnvlogblue sky: @varnvlog.bsky.socialYou can find the additional streams on YoutubeCurrent Patreon at the Sponsor Tier: Jordan Sheldon, Mark J. Matthews, Lindsay Kimbrough, RedWolf, DRV, Kenneth McKee, JY Chan, Matthew Monahan, Parzival, Adriel Mixon, Buddy Roark, Daniel Petrovic

       5/8. Thoreau, Extinction Denial, and the Destruction of America's Beaver Engineers — Dan Flores — Nineteenth-century intellectuals including Henry David Thoreau lamented the systematic extermination of iconic American fauna. Flores documents that the concept of species extinction was initially incomprehensible to European ideology, which posited a divinely perfect creation precluding permanent species loss. Flores emphasizes that beavers, functioning as immense ecological engineers reshaping aquatic and riparian landscapes, exemplified catastrophic loss; their pelts became commodity targets for the emergent global market economy, driving enterprises like the American Fur Company and precipitating near-total beaver annihilation throughout continental North America.

GET THE NEW BLXCK MERCHA proper Friday freestyle episode full of jokes, chaos and pure personality. The team dive into everything from clapbacks and sibling drama to childhood memories, piercings, old school fashion, and the wildest confessions. Gina's “ghetto fabulous” era gets exposed, Brent stirs the pot as usual, and the chat goes left every five minutes - fights, tattoos, the purge, apocalypse survival teams, everything. We even manage to squeeze in the morning's headlines and a big discussion on entertainers vs intellectuals in Black leadership. Pure vibes from start to finish.

Provincial Metropolis: Intellectuals and the Hinterland in Colonial India (Cambridge UP, 2025) tells the story of Patna, in the north Indian region of Bihar, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A century and more earlier, Patna had been an important and populous city, but it came to be seen by many-and is still  seen today-as merely part of the mofussil, the provincial hinterland. Despite Patna's real decline, it continued to nurture a vibrant intellectual culture that linked it with cities and towns across northern India and beyond. Urdu literary gatherings and other Islamicate traditions inherited from Mughal times helped animate the networks sustaining institutions like scholarly libraries and satirical newspapers. Meanwhile, English-educated lawyers sought to bring new prominence to their city and region by making Patna the capital of a new province. They succeeded, but as Patna's political influence grew, its distinctive character was diminished. Ultimately, Provincial Metropolis shows, Patna's intellectual and cultural life thrived not despite its provinciality but because of it. * David Boyk is an Associate Professor of Instruction in the Department of Asian Languages and Cultures at Northwestern University, where he teaches courses in Hindi-Urdu language and literature, and on South Asian literature, film, and history more broadly. My scholarly interests are focused on South Asia and include urban and regional history, film, food studies,and the history of language and literature. You can learn more about him on his website.  * Saumya Dadoo is a PhD candidate in the Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS) at Columbia University. Her dissertation focuses on the history of law, policing, and punishment in colonial Allahabad.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The ongoing debate on U.S. anti-drug cartel military action in Venezuela. Historian Victor Davis Hanson’s piece, “Reality Caught Up to ‘Climate Change’” at victorhanson.com. Robert P. George’s resignation from the Heritage Foundation and the accessibility of American intellectuals. The song “My Sweet Lord” and copyright infringement claims. The crisis of friendless young men in America.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Provincial Metropolis: Intellectuals and the Hinterland in Colonial India (Cambridge UP, 2025) tells the story of Patna, in the north Indian region of Bihar, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A century and more earlier, Patna had been an important and populous city, but it came to be seen by many-and is still  seen today-as merely part of the mofussil, the provincial hinterland. Despite Patna's real decline, it continued to nurture a vibrant intellectual culture that linked it with cities and towns across northern India and beyond. Urdu literary gatherings and other Islamicate traditions inherited from Mughal times helped animate the networks sustaining institutions like scholarly libraries and satirical newspapers. Meanwhile, English-educated lawyers sought to bring new prominence to their city and region by making Patna the capital of a new province. They succeeded, but as Patna's political influence grew, its distinctive character was diminished. Ultimately, Provincial Metropolis shows, Patna's intellectual and cultural life thrived not despite its provinciality but because of it. * David Boyk is an Associate Professor of Instruction in the Department of Asian Languages and Cultures at Northwestern University, where he teaches courses in Hindi-Urdu language and literature, and on South Asian literature, film, and history more broadly. My scholarly interests are focused on South Asia and include urban and regional history, film, food studies,and the history of language and literature. You can learn more about him on his website.  * Saumya Dadoo is a PhD candidate in the Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS) at Columbia University. Her dissertation focuses on the history of law, policing, and punishment in colonial Allahabad.  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

Provincial Metropolis: Intellectuals and the Hinterland in Colonial India (Cambridge UP, 2025) tells the story of Patna, in the north Indian region of Bihar, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A century and more earlier, Patna had been an important and populous city, but it came to be seen by many-and is still  seen today-as merely part of the mofussil, the provincial hinterland. Despite Patna's real decline, it continued to nurture a vibrant intellectual culture that linked it with cities and towns across northern India and beyond. Urdu literary gatherings and other Islamicate traditions inherited from Mughal times helped animate the networks sustaining institutions like scholarly libraries and satirical newspapers. Meanwhile, English-educated lawyers sought to bring new prominence to their city and region by making Patna the capital of a new province. They succeeded, but as Patna's political influence grew, its distinctive character was diminished. Ultimately, Provincial Metropolis shows, Patna's intellectual and cultural life thrived not despite its provinciality but because of it. * David Boyk is an Associate Professor of Instruction in the Department of Asian Languages and Cultures at Northwestern University, where he teaches courses in Hindi-Urdu language and literature, and on South Asian literature, film, and history more broadly. My scholarly interests are focused on South Asia and include urban and regional history, film, food studies,and the history of language and literature. You can learn more about him on his website.  * Saumya Dadoo is a PhD candidate in the Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS) at Columbia University. Her dissertation focuses on the history of law, policing, and punishment in colonial Allahabad.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Provincial Metropolis: Intellectuals and the Hinterland in Colonial India (Cambridge UP, 2025) tells the story of Patna, in the north Indian region of Bihar, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A century and more earlier, Patna had been an important and populous city, but it came to be seen by many-and is still  seen today-as merely part of the mofussil, the provincial hinterland. Despite Patna's real decline, it continued to nurture a vibrant intellectual culture that linked it with cities and towns across northern India and beyond. Urdu literary gatherings and other Islamicate traditions inherited from Mughal times helped animate the networks sustaining institutions like scholarly libraries and satirical newspapers. Meanwhile, English-educated lawyers sought to bring new prominence to their city and region by making Patna the capital of a new province. They succeeded, but as Patna's political influence grew, its distinctive character was diminished. Ultimately, Provincial Metropolis shows, Patna's intellectual and cultural life thrived not despite its provinciality but because of it. * David Boyk is an Associate Professor of Instruction in the Department of Asian Languages and Cultures at Northwestern University, where he teaches courses in Hindi-Urdu language and literature, and on South Asian literature, film, and history more broadly. My scholarly interests are focused on South Asia and include urban and regional history, film, food studies,and the history of language and literature. You can learn more about him on his website.  * Saumya Dadoo is a PhD candidate in the Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS) at Columbia University. Her dissertation focuses on the history of law, policing, and punishment in colonial Allahabad.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/south-asian-studies

Provincial Metropolis: Intellectuals and the Hinterland in Colonial India (Cambridge UP, 2025) tells the story of Patna, in the north Indian region of Bihar, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A century and more earlier, Patna had been an important and populous city, but it came to be seen by many-and is still  seen today-as merely part of the mofussil, the provincial hinterland. Despite Patna's real decline, it continued to nurture a vibrant intellectual culture that linked it with cities and towns across northern India and beyond. Urdu literary gatherings and other Islamicate traditions inherited from Mughal times helped animate the networks sustaining institutions like scholarly libraries and satirical newspapers. Meanwhile, English-educated lawyers sought to bring new prominence to their city and region by making Patna the capital of a new province. They succeeded, but as Patna's political influence grew, its distinctive character was diminished. Ultimately, Provincial Metropolis shows, Patna's intellectual and cultural life thrived not despite its provinciality but because of it. * David Boyk is an Associate Professor of Instruction in the Department of Asian Languages and Cultures at Northwestern University, where he teaches courses in Hindi-Urdu language and literature, and on South Asian literature, film, and history more broadly. My scholarly interests are focused on South Asia and include urban and regional history, film, food studies,and the history of language and literature. You can learn more about him on his website.  * Saumya Dadoo is a PhD candidate in the Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS) at Columbia University. Her dissertation focuses on the history of law, policing, and punishment in colonial Allahabad. 

November 11 was once known as Armistice Day, the day set aside to celebrate the end of WWI. In this essay Rothbard discusses the war as the triumph of several Progressive intellectual strains from the late 19th and early 20th centuries.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/rothbard-world-war-i-triumph-progressive-intellectuals

November 11 was once known as Armistice Day, the day set aside to celebrate the end of WWI. In this essay Rothbard discusses the war as the triumph of several Progressive intellectual strains from the late 19th and early 20th centuries.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/rothbard-world-war-i-triumph-progressive-intellectuals

American intellectuals always seem to believe they are living through the end times. From the fascist poet Ezra Pound in the 1930s to the historian of fascism Timothy Snyder today, they flee America in despair. In Seekers and Partisans,, Boston University historian David Mayers tells the story of these exiled thinkers between 1935 and 1941 — what he calls “the crisis years.” But crisis… what crisis? Compared to Germany, Russia, or even Western Europe, America's troubles were relatively modest. So is history repeating itself nearly a century later? Are today's “Trumpagies” — intellectuals disillusioned with Trump's America — the second coming of Ezra Pound and his fellow seekers and partisans of the interwar years?1. History doesn't repeat — but it rhymes.Mayers argues that the wave of “Trumpagies” today — intellectuals leaving America out of despair — echoes but doesn't duplicate the 1930s exodus. Americans have long fled home in search of moral or political clarity abroad, though their motives shift with each crisis.2. The 1930s “crisis years” were more imagined than real.While Mayers' book Seekers and Partisans frames 1935–1941 as “the crisis years,” he notes that America's troubles then were mild compared to the totalitarian catastrophes of Europe. The panic, he suggests, often existed more in the minds of intellectuals than in the republic itself.3. Idealism and delusion often go hand in hand.Figures like Ezra Pound, W.E.B. Du Bois, and Anna Louise Strong reveal how moral passion can curdle into political blindness — from fascist sympathies to uncritical faith in communism or empire. Smart people, Mayers observes, can “get things dreadfully wrong.”4. The duty isn't to flee — it's to stay.Asked what lessons apply to Trump-era exiles, Mayers insists the responsible act is not flight but persistence: to “stay here and salvage the situation.” The illusion, he says, is that “things are all that brilliant elsewhere.”5. The American Dream includes its disillusionments.From the 1930s “seekers and partisans” to today's disenchanted academics, the impulse to escape America reveals as much about its promise as its failures. The intellectual's panic, Mayers suggests, is part of America's enduring struggle to understand 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

‘The Ultras' are the subject of The Spectator's cover story this week – this is the new Islamo-socialist alliance that has appeared on the left of British politics. Several independent MPs, elected amidst outrage over the war in Gaza, have gone on to back the new party created by former Labour MPs Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana. The grouping has got off to a rocky start but – as Angus Colwell and Max Jeffery write – there are expectations that they could pick up dozens of seats across the country. Can the hard-left coalition hold?Host Lara Prendergast is joined by the Spectator's deputy political editor James Heale, commissioning editor Lara Brown and Angus Colwell – who also writes the Spectator's new morning newsletter Spectator Daily.As well as the cover, they discuss: the intellectual forces behind Reform UK; whether Piers Morgan is right that ‘woke is dead'; why the American ‘Wasp' aesthetic was once so appealing; and are sex robots a fun consequence of capitalism – or a symptom of a lonely society.Produced by Patrick Gibbons.The Spectator is trialling new formats for this podcast, and we would very much welcome feedback via this email address: podcast@spectator.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

‘The Ultras' are the subject of The Spectator's cover story this week – this is the new Islamo-socialist alliance that has appeared on the left of British politics. Several independent MPs, elected amidst outrage over the war in Gaza, have gone on to back the new party created by former Labour MPs Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana. The grouping has got off to a rocky start but – as Angus Colwell and Max Jeffery write – there are expectations that they could pick up dozens of seats across the country. Can the hard-left coalition hold?Host Lara Prendergast is joined by the Spectator's deputy political editor James Heale, commissioning editor Lara Brown and Angus Colwell – who also writes the Spectator's new morning newsletter Spectator Daily.As well as the cover, they discuss: the intellectual forces behind Reform UK; whether Piers Morgan is right that ‘woke is dead'; why the American ‘Wasp' aesthetic was once so appealing; and are sex robots a fun consequence of capitalism – or a symptom of a lonely society.Produced by Patrick Gibbons.The Spectator is trialling new formats for this podcast, and we would very much welcome feedback via this email address: podcast@spectator.co.ukBecome a Spectator subscriber today to access this podcast without adverts. Go to spectator.co.uk/adfree to find out more.For more Spectator podcasts, go to spectator.co.uk/podcasts. Contact us: podcast@spectator.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Marc Lamont Hill vs QueenzFlip DRAMA Sparks Joe Budden's Explosive Rant on Black Intellectuals!

Join our Patreon for extra-long episodes and ad-free content: https://www.patreon.com/techishHosts Michael Berhane and TechCrunch reporter Dominic-Madori Davis unpack what's really going on with funding for Black founders — and why so many are heading back to the 9-to-5. They also get into Elon Musk's clash with X's head of product, Nikita Bier, Meta's smart glasses and the end of privacy, and why academics need to step out of the ivory tower.Follow Dom on Instagram (@dominicmadori) and subscribe to her Substack, The Black Cat.Chapters00:28 Black Founders Are Facing an Uphill Battle05:36 Sperm Racing Startup Raises $10M Seed09:30 Elon Musk and Nikita Bier's Bot Battle18:24 The Future of Social Media25:29 Marc Lamont Hill on the Joe Budden Podcast [Patreon-Only]Extra Reading & ResourcesQ2 2025 Black Venture Funding Report [HBCU.vc]Sperm-racing investors blow $10 million on ‘seed round' for sports venture [The San Francisco Standard]A new wave of social media apps provide hope in a doomscrolling world [TechCrunch]Support the show————————————————————Join our Patreon for extra-long episodes and ad-free content: https://www.patreon.com/techish Watch us on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@techishpod/Advertise on Techish: https://goo.gl/forms/MY0F79gkRG6Jp8dJ2———————————————————— Stay in touch with the hashtag #Techishhttps://www.instagram.com/techishpod/https://www.instagram.com/abadesi/https://www.instagram.com/michaelberhane_/ https://www.instagram.com/hustlecrewlive/https://www.instagram.com/pocintech/Email us at techishpod@gmail.com

India's democracy continues to puzzle the West — thriving amid diversity, faith, and chaos, yet repeatedly misjudged by global indices and foreign intellectuals. In this wide-ranging conversation, Prof. Salvatore Babones joins host Roshan Cariappa to unpack the bias behind Western democracy rankings, the cultural roots of India's political resilience, and why dharma, not rights, is at the heart of the Indian way. Babones explains why India's model of democracy isn't an imitation of the West but an expression of its 5,000-year-old civilizational ethos — a system built on duty, pluralism, and self-restraint. From press freedom myths to the Muslim question and Hindu civil society, this episode explores how India can redefine democracy for the world on its own terms. 00:00 – Intro & Hook: Why India Ranks Below Gaza 01:15 – What is Dharma Democracy? Duty over Rights 03:20 – India's Liberal Democracy & Western Misreadings 10:40 – Press Freedom & Media Bias Explained 19:00 – How Western Rankings Distort India's Image 21:15 – Dharma, Duty & the Indian Idea of Citizenship 23:00 – Yogi Adityanath: The Untranslatable Indian Leader 26:30 – Hindu Civil Society: Temples, Pluralism & Democracy 31:45 – Faith & Inclusion: The Muslim Question 36:40 – Partition's Hangover & Identity Politics 41:30 – Intellectuals, Migration & the Elite Disconnect 47:00 – Race, Discrimination & Lessons from America 52:10 – Can Dharma Include Islam? Paths to Belonging 57:00 – The Future of Dharma Democracy 01:03:25 – Party Modernization: BJP vs Congress 01:09:15 – If You Could Meet One Leader… (Rajendra Prasad) 01:11:10 – Closing Remarks & Sign-Off

CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR 1900 KYIV THE SHOW BEGINS IN THE DOUBTS THAT CONGRESS IS CAPABLE OF CUTTING SPENDING..... 10-8-25 FIRST HOUR 9-915 HEADLINE: Arab Intellectuals Fail Palestinians by Prioritizing Populism and Victimhood Narrative in Gaza ConflictGUEST NAME: Hussain Abdul-Hussain SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Hussain Abdul-Hussain about Hamas utilizing the power of victimhood to justify atrocities and vilify opponents. Arab and Muslim intellectuals have failed Palestinians by prioritizing populism over introspection and self-critique. Regional actors like Egypt prioritize populist narratives over national interests, exemplified by refusing to open the Sinai border despite humanitarian suffering. The key recommendation is challenging the narrative and fostering a reliable, mature Palestinian government. 915-930 HEADLINE: Arab Intellectuals Fail Palestinians by Prioritizing Populism and Victimhood Narrative in Gaza ConflictGUEST NAME: Hussain Abdul-Hussain SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Hussain Abdul-Hussain about Hamas utilizing the power of victimhood to justify atrocities and vilify opponents. Arab and Muslim intellectuals have failed Palestinians by prioritizing populism over introspection and self-critique. Regional actors like Egypt prioritize populist narratives over national interests, exemplified by refusing to open the Sinai border despite humanitarian suffering. The key recommendation is challenging the narrative and fostering a reliable, mature Palestinian government. 930-945 HEADLINE: Russian Oil and Gas Revenue Squeezed as Prices Drop, Turkey Shifts to US LNG, and China Delays Pipeline GUEST NAME: Michael Bernstam SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Michael Bernstam about Russia facing severe budget pressure due to declining oil prices projected to reach $40 per barrel for Russian oil and global oil surplus. Turkey, a major buyer, is abandoning Russian natural gas after signing a 20-year LNG contract with the US. Russia refuses Indian rupee payments, demanding Chinese renminbi, which India lacks. China has stalled the major Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline project indefinitely. Russia utilizes stablecoin and Bitcoin via Central Asian banks to circumvent payment sanctions. 945-1000 HEADLINE: UN Snapback Sanctions Imposed on Iran; Debate Over Nuclear Dismantlement and Enrichment GUEST NAME: Andrea Stricker SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Andrea Stricker about the US and Europe securing the snapback of UN sanctions against Iran after 2015 JCPOA restrictions expired. Iran's non-compliance with inspection demands triggered these severe sanctions. The discussion covers the need for full dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program, including both enrichment and weaponization capabilities, to avoid future conflict. Concerns persist about Iran potentially retaining enrichment capabilities through low-level enrichment proposals and its continued non-cooperation with IAEA inspections. SECOND HOUR 10-1015 HEADLINE: Commodities Rise and UK Flag Controversy: French Weather, Market Trends, and British Politics GUEST NAME: Simon Constable SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Simon Constable about key commodities like copper up 16% and steel up 15% signaling strong economic demand. Coffee prices remain very high at 52% increase. The conversation addresses French political turmoil, though non-citizens cannot vote. In the UK, the St. George's flag has become highly controversial, viewed by some as associated with racism, unlike the Union Jack. This flag controversy reflects a desire among segments like the white working class to assert English identity. 1015-1030 HEADLINE: Commodities Rise and UK Flag Controversy: French Weather, Market Trends, and British Politics GUEST NAME: Simon Constable SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Simon Constable about key commodities like copper up 16% and steel up 15% signaling strong economic demand. Coffee prices remain very high at 52% increase. The conversation addresses French political turmoil, though non-citizens cannot vote. In the UK, the St. George's flag has become highly controversial, viewed by some as associated with racism, unlike the Union Jack. This flag controversy reflects a desire among segments like the white working class to assert English identity. 1030-1045 HEADLINE: China's Economic Contradictions: Deflation and Consumer Wariness Undermine GDP Growth ClaimsGUEST NAME: Fraser Howie SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Fraser Howie about China facing severe economic contradictions despite high World Bank forecasts. Deflation remains rampant with frequently negative CPI and PPI figures. Consumer wariness and high youth unemployment at one in seven persist throughout the economy. The GDP growth figure is viewed as untrustworthy, manufactured through debt in a command economy. Decreased container ship arrivals point to limited actual growth, exacerbated by higher US tariffs. Economic reforms appear unlikely as centralization under Xi Jinping continues. 1045-1100 HEADLINE: Takaichi Sanae Elected LDP Head, Faces Coalition Challenge to Become Japan's First Female Prime Minister GUEST NAME: Lance Gatling SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Lance Gatling about Takaichi Sanae being elected head of Japan's LDP, positioning her to potentially become the first female Prime Minister. A conservative figure, she supports visits to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine. Her immediate challenge is forming a majority coalition, as the junior partner Komeito disagrees with her conservative positions and social policies. President Trump praised her election, signaling potential for strong bilateral relations. THIRD HOUR 1100-1115 VHEADLINE: DeepSeek AI: Chinese LLM Performance and Security Flaws Revealed Amid Semiconductor Export Circumvention GUEST NAME: Jack Burnham SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Jack Burnham about competition in Large Language Models between the US and China's DeepSeek. A NIST study found US models superior in software engineering, though DeepSeek showed parity in scientific questions. Critically, DeepSeek models exhibited significant security flaws. China attempts to circumvent US export controls on GPUs by smuggling and using cloud computing centers in Southeast Asia. Additionally, China aims to dominate global telecommunications through control of supply chains and legal mechanisms granting the CCP access to firm data.E V 1115-1130 HEADLINE: DeepSeek AI: Chinese LLM Performance and Security Flaws Revealed Amid Semiconductor Export Circumvention GUEST NAME: Jack Burnham SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Jack Burnham about competition in Large Language Models between the US and China's DeepSeek. A NIST study found US models superior in software engineering, though DeepSeek showed parity in scientific questions. Critically, DeepSeek models exhibited significant security flaws. China attempts to circumvent US export controls on GPUs by smuggling and using cloud computing centers in Southeast Asia. Additionally, China aims to dominate global telecommunications through control of supply chains and legal mechanisms granting the CCP access to firm data. 1130-1145 HEADLINE: Taiwanese Influencer Charged for Threatening President; Mainland Chinese Influence Tactics ExposedGUEST NAME: Mark Simon SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Mark Simon about internet personality Holger Chen under investigation in Taiwan for calling for President William Lai's decapitation. This highlights mainland Chinese influence operations utilizing influencers who push themes of military threat and Chinese greatness. Chen is suspected of having a mainland-affiliated paymaster due to lack of local commercial support. Taiwan's population primarily identifies as Taiwanese and is unnerved by constant military threats. A key propaganda goal is convincing Taiwan that the US will not intervene. 1145-1200 HEADLINE: Sentinel ICBM Modernization is Critical and Cost-Effective Deterrent Against Great Power CompetitionGUEST NAME: Peter Huessy SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Peter Huessy about the Sentinel program replacing aging 55-year-old Minuteman ICBMs, aiming for lower operating costs and improved capabilities. Cost overruns stem from necessary infrastructure upgrades, including replacing thousands of miles of digital command and control cabling and building new silos. Maintaining the ICBM deterrent is financially and strategically crucial, saving hundreds of billions compared to relying solely on submarines. The need for modernization reflects the end of the post-Cold War "holiday from history," requiring rebuilding against threats from China and Russia. FOURTH HOUR 12-1215 HEADLINE: Supreme Court Battles Over Presidential Impoundment Authority and the Separation of Powers GUEST NAME: Josh Blackman SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Josh Blackman about Supreme Court eras focusing on the separation of powers. Currently, the court is addressing presidential impoundment—the executive's authority to withhold appropriated funds. Earlier rulings, particularly 1975's Train v. City of New York, constrained this power. The Roberts Court appears sympathetic to reclaiming presidential authority lost during the Nixon era. The outcome of this ongoing litigation will determine the proper balance between executive and legislative branches. 1215-1230 HEADLINE: Supreme Court Battles Over Presidential Impoundment Authority and the Separation of Powers GUEST NAME: Josh Blackman SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Josh Blackman about Supreme Court eras focusing on the separation of powers. Currently, the court is addressing presidential impoundment—the executive's authority to withhold appropriated funds. Earlier rulings, particularly 1975's Train v. City of New York, constrained this power. The Roberts Court appears sympathetic to reclaiming presidential authority lost during the Nixon era. The outcome of this ongoing litigation will determine the proper balance between executive and legislative branches. 1230-1245 HEADLINE: Space Force Awards Contracts to SpaceX and ULA; Juno Mission Ending, Launch Competition Heats UpGUEST NAME: Bob Zimmerman SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Bob Zimmerman about Space Force awarding over $1 billion in launch contracts to SpaceX for five launches and ULA for two launches, highlighting growing demand for launch services. ULA's non-reusable rockets contrast with SpaceX's cheaper, reusable approach, while Blue Origin continues to lag behind. Other developments include Firefly entering defense contracting through its Scitec acquisition, Rocket Lab securing additional commercial launches, and the likely end of the long-running Juno Jupiter mission due to budget constraints. 1245-100 AM HEADLINE: Space Force Awards Contracts to SpaceX and ULA; Juno Mission Ending, Launch Competition Heats UpGUEST NAME: Bob Zimmerman SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Bob Zimmerman about Space Force awarding over $1 billion in launch contracts to SpaceX for five launches and ULA for two launches, highlighting growing demand for launch services. ULA's non-reusable rockets contrast with SpaceX's cheaper, reusable approach, while Blue Origin continues to lag behind. Other developments include Firefly entering defense contracting through its Scitec acquisition, Rocket Lab securing additional commercial launches, and the likely end of the long-running Juno Jupiter mission due to budget constraints.

HEADLINE: Arab Intellectuals Fail Palestinians by Prioritizing Populism and Victimhood Narrative in Gaza ConflictGUEST NAME: Hussain Abdul-Hussain SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Hussain Abdul-Hussain about Hamas utilizing the power of victimhood to justify atrocities and vilify opponents. Arab and Muslim intellectuals have failed Palestinians by prioritizing populism over introspection and self-critique. Regional actors like Egypt prioritize populist narratives over national interests, exemplified by refusing to open the Sinai border despite humanitarian suffering. The key recommendation is challenging the narrative and fostering a reliable, mature Palestinian government. 1905

HEADLINE: Arab Intellectuals Fail Palestinians by Prioritizing Populism and Victimhood Narrative in Gaza ConflictGUEST NAME: Hussain Abdul-Hussain SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Hussain Abdul-Hussain about Hamas utilizing the power of victimhood to justify atrocities and vilify opponents. Arab and Muslim intellectuals have failed Palestinians by prioritizing populism over introspection and self-critique. Regional actors like Egypt prioritize populist narratives over national interests, exemplified by refusing to open the Sinai border despite humanitarian suffering. The key recommendation is challenging the narrative and fostering a reliable, mature Palestinian government.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We’re with the cultural historian Robin D.G. Kelly at UCLA, who has the nerve to ask: where have our thinkers gone in Trump time? Not the experts or the influencers, but the grander minds who ... The post Where Are the Intellectuals? appeared first on Open Source with Christopher Lydon.

LEAVE A REVIEW if you liked this episode!!Let's Connect On Social Media!youtube.com/anthonyvicinotwitter.com/anthonyvicinoinstagram.com/theanthonyvicinohttps://anthonyvicino.comJoin an exclusive community of peak performers at Beyond the Apex University learning how to build a business, invest in real estate, and develop hyperfocus.www.beyondtheapex.com

Most books and resources devoted to professional development focus on strategies that faculty can use to create a positive learning environment for our students, but generally assume that everything will work as expected. In this episode, Jessamyn Neuhaus joins us to discuss her new book, Snafu Edu, which acknowledges the reality that everything does not always work as we hope that it will, and suggests strategies for addressing common situations in which things go wrong. Jessamyn is the Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence and Professor in the School of Education at Syracuse University. She is a historian and the editor of Teaching History: A Journal of Methods. Jessamyn has published extensively in scholarly publications in the areas of history, pedagogy, and cultural studies. She is a recipient of the SUNY Chancellor's Award for Teaching. Jessamyn is the author of  Geeky Pedagogy: A Guide for Intellectuals, Introverts, and Nerds Who Want to be Effective Teachers, and the editor of Picture a Professor: Interrupting Biases about Faculty and Increasing Student Learning. Her newest book, Snafu Edu: Teaching and Learning When Things Go Wrong in the College Classroom will be released shortly by the Oklahoma University Press series on Teaching, Engaging, and Thriving in Higher Education, edited by James Lang and Michelle Miller. A transcript of this episode and show notes may be found at http://teaforteaching.com.

Angel Studios https://Angel.com/ToddBecome a Premium Angel Studios Guild member to watch The King of Kings, stream all fan-curated shows and movies, and get 2 free tickets to every Angel Studios theatrical release. Alan's Soaps https://www.AlansArtisanSoaps.comUse coupon code TODD to save an additional 10% off the bundle price.Bioptimizers https://Bioptimizers.com/toddEnter promo code TODD to get 10% off your order of Berberine Breakthrough today.Bizable https://GoBizable.comUntie your business exposure from your personal exposure with BiZABLE.  Schedule your FREE consultation at GoBizAble.com today.  Bonefrog https://BonefrogCoffee.com/toddThe new GOLDEN AGE is here!  Use code TODD at checkout to receive 10% off your first purchase and 15% on subscriptions.Bulwark Capital https://KnowYourRiskPodcast.comBe confident in your portfolio with Bulwark! Schedule your free Know Your Risk Portfolio review. go to KnowYourRiskPodcast.com today.Renue Healthcare https://Renue.Healthcare/ToddYour journey to a better life starts at Renue Healthcare. Visit https://Renue.Healthcare/ToddGod be with the people in Colorado, after the recent terrorist attack. Unfortunately, this is what mass, controlled immigration does to a country. This is why Democrats are losing honest intellectualsEpisode Links:Nicole Shanahan, a former Democrat, says Democrats are "opening up to this acceptance that they were wrong, they were misguided, they were lied to, and it's all this bait and switch." "And nobody in their right mind can continue to support that."Witness to Peal Street attack: "Boulder has changed." "There's security guards at the bathrooms so people don't smoke meth in the bathrooms." "It's dirtier. It's not as safe as it used to be."Man removed from City Council meeting for his speech then his attorney lights them up over his First Amendment RightsI read porn from public school library books to @ScottPelley, who listened with his glasses tucked between his lips.  He edited out that part of the @60Minutes  interview to make our concerns seem unfounded. Scott is a liar and fraud. Julie Hammill, a lawyer for women, on CNN - Jennifer Sey's comment: “Julie's faces here are too much. She will not give this woman an inch. Nor should she. Watch! It's amazing!”A female American liberal student journalist cuts off an interview with @ThePosieParker after becoming triggered that she kept referring to trans women as men. These types of biases are carried into U.S. newsrooms and institutionalized from the top down.BREAKING: Supreme Court REJECTS appeal over student's ‘Two Genders' Shirt and upheld a federal appeals court decision that said the school was justified because the shirt carried a demeaning messageNicole Shanahan, a former Democrat, says Democrats are "opening up to this acceptance that they were wrong, they were misguided, they were lied to, and it's all this bait and switch." "And nobody in their right mind can continue to support that."

ORIGINALLY RELEASED Feb 12, 2020 In this episode, Jon Greenaway and Brenden Leahy return to the show and join Breht to explore the life, thought, and revolutionary legacy of Antonio Gramsci—the Italian Marxist theorist who redefined how we understand power, ideology, and resistance. We break down Gramsci's key concepts, including cultural hegemony, the role of organic intellectuals, and the importance of building counter-hegemonic institutions. We also examine his fierce opposition to Italian fascism, his imprisonment by Mussolini, and how his prison notebooks continue to offer critical insights for revolutionary struggle today. This is an accessible yet deep dive into one of the most original Marxist thinkers of the 20th century—essential listening for anyone serious about strategy, ideology, and the long war of position. Find Jon's show (@HorrorVanguard) here: https://www.patreon.com/horrorvanguard Check out Brenden's punk band No Thanks here: https://no-thanks.bandcamp.com/ ---------------------------------------------------- Support Rev Left and get access to bonus episodes: www.patreon.com/revleftradio Make a one-time donation to Rev Left at BuyMeACoffee.com/revleftradio Follow, Subscribe, & Learn more about Rev Left Radio HERE Outro Beat Prod. by flip da hood