Podcast appearances and mentions of James Burnham

140 MinutesPG-13Here are two episodes in which Pete and Aaron from Timeline Earth read and commented on a James Burnham chapter and Sam Francis' explanation of the Machiavellians.James Burnham on the Death of CapitalismSamuel Francis' Review of The MachiavelliansTimeline Earth PodcastPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on Twitter

140 MinutesPG-13Here are two episodes in which Pete and Aaron from Timeline Earth read and commented on a James Burnham chapter and Sam Francis' explanation of the Machiavellians.James Burnham on the Death of CapitalismSamuel Francis' Review of The MachiavelliansTimeline Earth PodcastPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on Twitter

140 MinutesPG-13Here are two episodes in which Pete and Aaron from Timeline Earth read and commented on a James Burnham chapter and Sam Francis' explanation of the Machiavellians.James Burnham on the Death of CapitalismSamuel Francis' Review of The MachiavelliansTimeline Earth PodcastPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on Twitter

Fresh off raising a monster $15B, Marc Andreessen has lived through multiple computing platform shifts firsthand, from Mosaic and Netscape to cofounding A16z. In this episode, Marc joins swyx and Alessio in a16z's legendary Sand Hill Road office to argue that AI is not just another hype cycle, but the payoff of an “80-year overnight success”: from neural nets and expert systems to transformers, reasoning models, coding, agents, and recursive self-improvement. He lays out why he thinks this moment is different, why AI is finally escaping the old boom-bust pattern, and why the real bottleneck may be less about models than about the messy institutions, incentives, and social systems that struggle to absorb technological change.This episode was a dream come true for us, and many thanks to Erik Torenberg for the assist in setting this up. Full episode on YouTube!We discuss:* Marc's long view on AI: from the 1980s AI boom and expert systems to AlexNet, transformers, and why he sees today's moment as the culmination of decades of compounding technical progress* Why “this time is different”: the jump from LLMs to reasoning, coding, agents, and recursive self-improvement, and why Marc thinks these breakthroughs make AI real in a way prior cycles were not* AI winters vs. “80-year overnight success”: why the field repeatedly swings between utopianism and doom, and why Marc thinks the underlying researchers were mostly right even when the timelines were wrong* Scaling laws, Moore's Law, and what to build: why he believes AI scaling laws will continue, why the outside world is messier than lab purists assume, and how startups can still create durable value on top of rapidly improving models* The dot-com crash and AI infrastructure risk: Marc's comparison between today's AI capex boom and the fiber/data-center overbuild of 2000, plus why he thinks this cycle is different because the buyers are huge cash-rich incumbents and demand is already here* Why old NVIDIA chips may be getting more valuable: the pace of software progress, chronic capacity shortages, and the idea that even current models are “sandbagged” by supply constraints* Open source, edge inference, and the chip bottleneck: why Marc thinks local models, Apple Silicon, privacy, trust, and economics all point toward a major role for edge AI* American vs. Chinese open source AI: DeepSeek as a “gift to the world,” why open models matter not just because they're free but because they teach the world how things work, and how open source strategies may shift as the market consolidates* Why Pi and OpenClaw matter so much: Marc's claim that the combination of LLM + shell + filesystem + markdown + cron loop is one of the biggest software architecture breakthroughs in decades* Agents as the new “Unix”: how agent state living in files allows portability across models and runtimes, and why self-modifying agents that can extend themselves may redefine what software even is* The future of coding and programming languages: why Marc thinks software becomes abundant, why bots may translate freely across languages, and why “programming language” itself may stop being a salient concept* Browsers, protocols, and human readability: lessons from Mosaic and the web, why text protocols and “view source” mattered, and how similar principles may shape AI-native systems* Real-world OpenClaw use: health dashboards, sleep monitoring, smart homes, rewriting firmware on robot dogs, and why the most aggressive users are discovering both the power and danger of agents first* Proof of human vs. proof of bot: why Marc thinks the internet's bot problem is now unsolvable via detection alone, and why biometric + cryptographic proof of human becomes necessaryTimestamps* 00:00 Marc on AI's “80-Year Overnight Success”* 00:01 A Quick Message From swyx* 01:44 Inside a16z With Marc Andreessen* 02:13 The Truth About a16z's AI Pivot* 03:29 Why This AI Boom Is Not Like 2016* 06:33 Marc on AI Winters, Hype Cycles, and What's Different Now* 10:09 Reasoning, Coding, Agents, and the New AI Breakthroughs* 12:13 What Founders Should Build as Models Keep Improving* 16:33 AI Capex, GPU Shortages, and the Dot-Com Crash Analogy* 24:54 Open Source AI, Edge Inference, and Why It Matters* 33:03 Why OpenClaw and PI Could Change Software Forever* 41:37 Agents, the End of Interfaces, and Software for Bots* 46:47 Do Programming Languages Even Have a Future?* 54:19 AI Agents Need Money: Payments, Crypto, and Stablecoins* 56:59 Proof of Human, Internet Bots, and the Drone Problem* 01:06:12 AI, Management, and the Return of Founder-Led Companies* 01:12:23 Why the Real Economy May Resist AI Longer Than Expected* 01:15:53 Closing ThoughtsTranscriptMarc: Something about AI that causes the people in the field, I would say, to become both excessively utopian and excessively apocalyptic. Having said that, I think what's actually happened is an enormous amount of technical progress that built up over time. And like for, for example, we now know that neural network is the correct architecture.And I, I will tell you like there was a 60 year run where that was like a, you know, or even 70 years where that was controversial. And so, so the way I think about what's happening is basically, I think, I think about basically the, the, the period we're in right now is it's, I call it 80 year overnight success, right?Which is like, it's an overnight success ‘cause it's like bam, you know, chat GPT hits and then, and then oh one hits, and then, you know, open claw hits and like, you know, these are open, these are, these are like overnight, like radical, overnight transformative successes, but they're drawing on an 80 year sort of wellspring backlog, you know, of, of, of, of ideas and thinking it's not just that it's all brand new, it's that it's an unlock of all of these decades of like very serious, hardcore research.If I were 18, like this is a hundred, this is what I would be spending all of my time on. This is like such an incredible conceptual breakthrough.swyx: Before we get into today's episode, I just have a small message for listeners. Thank you. We will not be able to bring you the ai, engineering, science, and entertainment contents that you so clearly want if you didn't choose to also click in and tune into our content.We've been approached by sponsors on an almost daily basis, but fortunately enough of you actually subscribed to us to keep all this sustainable without ads, and we wanna keep it that way. But I just have one favor to ask all of you. The single, most powerful, completely free thing you can do is to click that subscribe button.It's the only thing I'll ever ask of you, and it means absolutely everything to me and my team that works so hard to bring the in space to you each and every week. If you do it, I promise you will never stop working to make the show even better. Now, let's get into it.Alessio: Hey everyone, welcome to the Lidian Space Pockets. This is CIO, founder Kernel Labs, and I'm joined by s Swix, editor of Lidian Space.swyx: Hello. And we're in a 16 Z with a, uh, mark G and welcome.Marc: Yes, yes. A and what, half of 16? Something like that. A one. Exactly,swyx: exactly. Uh, apparently this is the, the final few days in your, your current office.You're moving across the road.Marc: Uh, we're, yeah. We have a, we have some, we have some projects underway, but yeah, this is actually, oh, this is the original. We're in actually the original office. We're in the, we're in the, we're, we're in the whole thing.swyx: It's beautiful. Yeah. Great.Marc: Thank you.swyx: So I have to come out, uh, this is a, you know, I wanted to pick a spicy start in October, 2022.I just made friends with Roone and, uh, I wanted to give him something to sort of be spicy about. And I said, uh. Uh, it'll never not be funny. The A 16 Z was constantly going. The future is where the smart people choose to spend their time and then going deep into crypto and not in ai. And that was in October 22nd, 2022.And Ruen says there was an internal meeting in a 16 Z to reorient around Gen ai. Obviously you have, but was there a meeting? What, what was that?Marc: I mean, I don't, look, I've been doing AI since the late eighties.swyx: Yeah.Marc: So I, I don't know, like all that, as far as I'm concerned, this stuff is all Johnny cum lately.Yeah. You, I mean, look, we've been doing ar entire existence. I mean, we've been doing AI machine learning deep, you know, deeply. We've been doing this stuff way from the beginning. Obviously a AI is just core to computer science. I, I, I actually view them as like quite, uh, quite continuous. Um, you know, Ben and I both have computer science degrees.Um, you know, we, we both, Ben, Ben and I actually both are world enough to remember the actual AI boom in the 1980s. Yeah. There was like a, there was a big AI boom at the time. Um, and there was a, was names like expert systems. Um, and they of like lisp and lisp machines. Uh, I, I coded in lisp. I was coding a lisp in 1989.When that was the, the language of the AI future. Um, yeah. So this is something that we're like completely, you completely comfortable with. I've been doing the whole time and are very enthusiastic aboutswyx: is there a strong, like this time is different because, uh, my closest analog was 20 16 17. It was an AI boom.Mm-hmm. And it petered out very, very quickly. Um, we, it just, it just in terms of investingMarc: sort of, sort of,swyx: yeah. Investment, investment excitement.Marc: Although that's really when the, the, the Nvidia phenomenon really, it was, I would say it was in that period when it was very clear that at, at the time it, the vocabulary was more machine learning, but it, it was very clear at that time that machine learning was hitting some sort of takeoff point.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: Well, and as you guys, you guys have talked about this at length on, on your thing, but, you know, if you really track what happened, I think the real story is, it was, it was the Alex net, uh, basically breakthrough in like 2013. That was the, that was the real knee in the curve. Um, and then it was obviously the transformer breakthrough in 17.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: Um, and then everything that followed. But, but, you know, look, machine learning, you know, there were, you know, look, uh, I mean look, I've been working, you know, I've been working with, uh, one of my, you know, kind of projects working with Facebook since 2004. Um, and on the board since 2007, and of course, you know, they, they started using machine learning very early, um, and, you know, have used it basically, you know, for like 20 years for, you know, content, you know, feed optimization and advertising optimization.And obviously many, you know, financial services. You know, many, many, many companies, many different sectors have been doing this. And so it's like one of these things, it's like, it's not a, it's not a single thing. Like it's, it's like, it's like layers, right? Yeah. Um, and, and the layers arrive at different paces and, but they kind of build up.swyx: Yeah.Marc: Uh, they kind of build up over time and then, and then, yeah. And then look, in retrospect, it was 2017 was kind of the, you know, the key, the key point with the trans transformer and then. And then as you guys know, there was this really weird like four year period where it's like the, the transformer existed and then it was just like,swyx: let's go.Yeah.Marc: Well, but, but it was just, but, but between 2020, but between 2017 and 2021, I mean, that was the era of which like companies like Google had internal chat Botts, but they weren't letting anybody use them.swyx: Yeah.Marc: Right. And then, you know, and then OpenAI developed Chat GT or GPT two, and then they told everybody, this is way too dangerous to deploy.Right. Yeah. You know, we can't possibly let normal people, normal people use this thing. And then you, you guys, I'm sure remember AI Dungeon, um mm-hmm. So the o for, there was like a year where like the only way for a normal person to use GP T three was in, in AI dungeon.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: And so you, you, we would do this, you'd go in there and you'd pretend to play Dungeons and Dragons.In reality, you're just trying to talk to talk to GPT. And so there was this, you know, there was this long, you know, and I, you know, the big, big companies, you know, big companies are cautious and, you know, the big companies were cautious. It, it, by the way, it took open ai. You know, they, they, they talk about this, it took open AI time to actually adjust, you know, kind of re redirect their researchswyx: path.I, I think, uh, let say Rosewood, right? Uh, the, the dinner that founded OpenAI was right there.Marc: Right, right. But that, that dinner would've taken place in 20swyx: 18Marc: 19. The formation of OpenAI Uhhuh as late as 2018.swyx: Uh, uh, sorry. Uh, no, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm wrong. Probably It should be 20. Yeah. They just celebrated a 10 year anniversary, so it it is 2025.Yeah, so, so 2015?Marc: Yeah. 2015. Yeah. 2015. But then, uh, um, Alec Radford did G PT one in what, probablyswyx: mm-hmm. 17, 18,Marc: yeah. 17, 18. So it, yeah. For, and then, and then they didn't really, and then GPT three was what? 2020? 2020.swyx: 2020.Marc: Because that became copilot immediately. Even open ai, which has been, you know, the leader of, of this thing in the last decade, you know, e even they had to adapt and, and, and lean into the new thing.And so. Um, yeah, I, I think it's just this process of basically sort of wave after wave layer after layer, you know, building on itself. And then you kind of get these catalytic moments where, where the whole thing pops and, and obviously that's what's happening now.swyx: Is it useful to think about will there be any ai, winter?‘cause there's always these patterns. Like, is this, in the summer is something I constantly think about because do I get, do I just like. Just get endlessly hyped and just trust that I will only be early and never wrong or right. Well, are we, will there be a winter?Marc: So there's something about, say the following.There's something about AI that has led to this repeated pattern. Um, and, and, and you guys know this,swyx: it's summer, winter, summer,Marc: winter, summer, winter, summer, winter. And it goes back 80 years. Yeah. 80 years. Uh, so the original neural network paper was 1943. Right. Which is, which is amazing. Uh, that it was, it was far back that long.And then there was you, if you guys have ever talked about this on your show, but there was this, uh, there was a big, uh, there was an a GI conference at Dartmouth University in 1950. 55. 55, yeah. And they got a NSF grant to, uh, for the, all the AI experts at the time to spend the summer together. And they figured if they had 10 weeks together, they could get a GI, uh, at the other end.And they got their, by the way, they got the grant, they got the 10 weeks and then, you know, 1955, you know. No, no. A GI. And like I said, I, I lived through the eighties version of this where there was a big, a big boom and a crash. And so, so there is this thing, and there, there is something about AI that causes the people in the field, I would say, to become both excessively utopian and excessively apocalyptic.Um, and, and it's probably on both sides of like the, the, the boom bus cycle. You, you kind of see that play out. Having said that, I think what's actually happened is like just, and you know, and we now know in retrospect like an enormous amount of technical progress that built up over time. And like for, for example, we now know that neural network is the correct architecture.And I, I will tell you like there was a 60 year run where that was like a, you know, or even 70 years or that was controversial. And, and we now know that that's the case. And so we, we now, you know, everything we're building on today just sort of derives from the original idea in 1943. And so, so in retrospect, we, we now know that like, these, these guys are right.They, they, you know, they would get the timing wrong and they thought, you know, capabilities would arrive faster, or they were, it could be turned into businesses sooner or whatever, but like, they were fundamentally, the, the scientists who worked on this over the course of decades were fundamentally correct about what they were doing.And, and the, and the payoff from, from, from all their work is happening now. And so, so the way I think about what's happening is basically, I think, I think about basically the, the, the period we're in right now is it's, I call it 80 year overnight success, right? Which is like, it's an overnight success.‘cause it's like bam, you know, chat, GPT hits and then, and then oh one hits, and then, you know, open claw hits and like, you know, these are open, these are, these are like overnight, like radical, overnight transformative successes, but they're drawing on an 80 year sort of wellspring backlog, you know, of, of, of, of ideas and thinking it's not just that it's all brand new, it's that it's an unlock of all of these decades of like very serious, hardcore research.Um, and thinking, and look, there were AI researchers who spent their entire lives. They got their PhD. They, they worked for, they've researched for 40 years. They retired in a lot of cases, they passed away and they never actually saw it work.swyx: Yeah. It's all sad.Marc: It is. It is sad. It's sad. Knewswyx: Jeff Hinton was like the last guy.Marc: Yeah. Yeah. Well, there were the guys, uh, was a guy, Alan Newell. I mean, there's tons of John McCarthy. You know, John McCarthy was like one of the inventors in the field. He's one of the guys who organized the Dartmouth Conference and you know, he taught at Stanford for 40 years. Wow. And passed, you know, passed away, I don't know, whatever, 10, 10 years ago or something.Never, never actually go. Got to see it happen. But like, it is amazing in retrospect, like, these guys were incredibly smart and they worked really hard and they were correct. So anyway, so then it's like, okay, you know, say history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. It's like, okay, does that mean that there's gonna be another, like, you know, basically boom buzz cycle.And I, I will tell you, like, let, like in a sense, like yes, everything goes through cycles and, you know, people get overly enthusiastic and overly depressed and there's, there's a time, there's a timelessness to that. Having said that, there's just no question. Um, so the form, the foremost dangerous words in investing this time are, this time is different.Do you know the 12 most dangerous words investing? No. The four most d foremost dangerous words in investing are this time is different. Yeah. Um, the 12 most dangerous words. And so like, I'll tell you what's different. Like now it's working like, like there's just no, I mean, look, there's just no question.And by the way, I, I'll just give you guys my take. Like L LLMs, like from, from basically the Chad G PT moment through to spring of 25. I think you could still, I think well intention, well, and of. Form skeptics could still say, oh, this is just pattern completion. And oh, these things don't really understand what they're doing.And you know, the hall hallucination rates are way too high. And, you know, this is gonna be great for creative writing and creating, you know, Shakespeare and so sonnets and, you know, as, as rap lyrics or whatever, like, it's gonna be great and all that stuff, but we're not gonna be able to harness this to make this relevant in, you know, coding or in medicine or in law or in, you know, you know, kind of feels that, you know, kind of really, really matter.And I think basically it was the reasoning breakthrough. It, it was oh one and then R one that basically answered that question basically said, oh no, we're gonna be able to actually turn this into something that's gonna work in the real world. And, and then obviously the coding breakthrough over the, over basically the coding breakthrough that kind of catalyzed over the holiday break was kind of the third step in that.Mm-hmm. Where you're just like, alright, if, if, you know, if Linus Tova is saying that the AI coding is no better than he is like. Like, that's, that's never happened before. That's theswyx: benchmark.Marc: Yeah. That's never happened before. And so now we know that it's, it's gonna sweep through coding and, and then, and then we, we know, you know, we know that if it's gonna work in coding, it's gonna work in everything else.Right. It's just then, because that's, that's like, that's like, that's like the hardest in many ways. That's the hardest example. And how everything else is gonna be a, a derivative of that. And then on top of that, we just got the agent breakthrough, you know, with Open Claw, which is fantastic. Which is amazing and incredibly powerful.And then we just got the, the, um, the auto research, uh, you know, the, the self-improvement. You know, we're now into the self-improvement breakthrough. And so the, so the way I think about it is we've had four fundamental breakthroughs in functionality, l OMS reasoning, uh, agents, um, and then, uh, and, and then now RSI, um, and, and they're all actually working.Um, and so I'm, I'm just, as you like, you can tell I'm jumping outta my shoes. Like, like this is, like this is it like this, this is the culmination of 80 years worth of worth of work, and this is the time it's becoming real.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: I, I'm completely convinced.Alessio: I think the anxiety that people feel is like during the transistor era, yet Mors law, and it's like, all right, we understand why these things are getting better.We understand the physics of it. Yeah. With ai, it's. It's so jagged in like the jumps where like, like you said, it's like in three months you have like this huge jump like, and people are like, well this can keep happening. Right? But then it keeps happening,Marc: it'll keep happening.Alessio: And so like how do you think about also timelines of like what's we're building?I think we always have this question with guests, which is like, you know, should you spend time building harness for a model versus like the next model just gonna do it one shot in the lead space. Right. And how does that inform, like how you think about the shape of the technology? You know, you talk about how it's a new computing platform.If you have a computing platform, then like every six months it like drastically changes in what it looks like. It's hard to build companies on top of it.Marc: Yeah. So, so a couple things. So one is like, look, the, the Moore's law was what we now call a scaling law. Like Moore's Law was a scaling law and for your younger viewers, more Moore's Law was every chip chip chips either get twice as powerful or twice as cheap every, every 18 months.And that, and that and that, you know, that it's gotten more complicated in the last few years. But like that, that was like the 50 year trajectory of, of, of the computer industry. And then, and then by the way, and that's what took the mainframe computer from a $25 million current dollar thing into, you know, the phone in your pocket being, you know, a million times more powerful than that.Like that, you know, for, for 500 bucks. And so that, that was a scaling law. And then, and then, and then key to any scaling law, including Moore's Law and the AI scaling laws is, you know, they're not really laws, right? They're, they're, they're, they're predictions, but when they work, they become self-fulfilling predictions because they, they, they, they, they set a benchmark and, and then the entire industry, right?All the smart people in the industry kind of work to make sure that, that, that actually happens. And so they, they kind of motivate the breakthroughs that are required to, to keep that going. And, and in and in chips, that was a 50 year, that was a 50 year run. Right. And it, it was amazing. And it's still happening in, in some areas of, of chips.I think the same thing is happening with the, the core scaling laws. The core scaling laws. In, in, in ai, you know, they're, they're not really laws, but like they, they are basically. There are predictions and then they're motivating catalysts for the research work that is required to be. And, and, and, and by the way, also the investment, uh, dollars, um, uh, you know, required to basically keep, you know, keep the curves going and, and look, it, it is, it's gonna be complicated and it's gonna be variable and they're, you know, there're gonna be walls that are gonna look like they're fast approaching, and then they're gonna be, you know, engineers are gonna get to work and they're gonna figure out a way to punch through the walls.And obviously that's, you know, that's been happening a lot, you know, and then look, there's gonna be times when it looks like the walls have, you know, the, the, the laws have petered out and then they're gonna, they're gonna pick up again and surge and then, and then, and then it, it appears what's happening to the eyes is there's not multiple, you know, multiple scaling laws.Um, there's multiple areas of improvement. And, and I think, you know, I don't know how many more there are already yet to be discovered, but there are probably some more that we don't know about yet. You know, they, like, for example, there's probably some scaling law around, um, world models and robotics that we don't fully understand, you know, kind of acquisition of data at scale in the real world that we don't fully understand yet.So that, that, that one will probably kick in at some point here. There's a bunch of really smart people working on that. Um, and so, yeah, I, I think the expectation is that, that, you know, the, the scaling laws generally are gonna continue. Yeah. The, the pace of improvement will continue to move really fast.Um. To your question on like what to build. So, uh, I'm a complete believer the scaling laws are gonna continue. I'm a complete believer the capabilities are gonna keep getting amazing, um, you know, leaps and bounds. Uh, the part where I kind of part ways a little bit with how, what I would describe as the AI purists, um, you know, which is, which I would characterize as like the people who are.In many ways, the smartest people in the field, but also the people who spend their entire life, like at a lab, um, and have, have, I would say, have very little experience in the outside world. Um, the, the, the nuance I would offer is the outside world of 8 billion people and institutions and governments and companies and economic systems and social systems is really complicated.Um, and, um, and doesn't, you know, it it 8 billion people making collective decisions on planet Earth is not a simple process of like, just like you see this happening now. It's like a bunch of AI CEOs have this thing, which is just like, well, there's just this, they just all have this kind of thing when they talk in public where they're just like, well, there's these, these obvious set of things that so society to do.Alessio: Mm-hmm.Marc: And then they're like, society's not doing any of those things. Right. And it's like, how can society not, you know, what, whatever their theory is, how can society not see x, y, Z? Mm-hmm. And the answer is, well, society is number one. There's no single society, it's like 8 billion people. And they like all have a voice, and they all have a vote, like at the end of the day of how they, they react to change.And then, you know, it just like, it's just human reality is just really complicated and messy. Um, and, and, and so the specific answer to your question is like, as usual, it depends. Um, you know, it, it depends. Look, pe there's no question people are gonna, like, there's no question they're gonna be companies.It's already happening. There are companies that think that they're building value on top of the models and then they're just gonna get blissed by the, by the next model. There's no question that's happening. But I think there's no question also that just the process of adaptation of any technology into the real and into the real messy world of humanity is, is just going to be messy and complicated.It's, it's not going to be simple and straightforward. It's gonna be messy and complicated. And there are gonna be a lot of companies and a lot of products, um, uh, and in, in fact entire industries that are gonna get built to, to, to basically actually help all of this technology actually reach real people.Alessio: The amount of capital going into these companies, I mean, Dario talked about it on the Door Cash podcast and Door Cash was like, why don't you just buy 10 x more GPUs? And he is like, because I'm gonna go bankrupt if the model doesn't exactly hit the, the performance level. How do you think about that?Also as a risk on, you know, you guys are investors, open AI and thinking machines and world apps. It seems like we're leveraging the scaling loss at a pretty high rate, right? Like how comfortable, I guess, do you feel with the downside scenario, like, and say like things Peter out, you think you can kind of like restructure uh, these build outs and uh, you know, capital investments.Marc: Yeah. So should start by saying, so I live through the.com crash, um, and I can tell you stories for hours about the.com crash and it was horrible. No, it was awful. It was, it was, it was apocalyptic by the way. The, a lot of the.com crash was actually at the time, it was actually a telecom crash. It was a bandwidth crash.Like the, the thing that actually crashed, that wiped out all the money with the tele, the telecom companies.swyx: GlobalMarc: crossing. Global, global, yeah.swyx: I'm from Singapore and they, they laid so much cable o over over our oceans.Marc: Actually there was a scaling law in the.com. Era. And it was literally the, the US Commerce Department put out a report in 1996 and they said internet traffic was doubling every quarter.Um, and, and actually in 1995 and 1996, internet traffic actually did double every quarter. And so that became the scaling law. And so what all these telecom entrepreneurs did was they went out and they raised money to build fiber, anticipating that the demand for bandwidth is gonna keep doubling every quarter.Doubling every quarter though is like, you know, grains of chess and the chessboard, like at some point the numbers become extremely large. Right. And, and, and it really, and really what happened was the internet. The internet by the way, continuously kept growing basically since inception. And it's, you know, it's, it's continuously grown.It's never shrunk. And it's grown really fast compared to anything else. Mm-hmm. You know, in, in, in human history. But it wasn't doubling every quarter as of 19 98, 19 99. And so there was this gap in the expectation of what they thought was a scaling law versus reality. And that's actually what caused the.com crash, which was the, it they, they way over companies like global crossing way overbuilt fiber, which is sort of the, and by the way, fiber, telecom equipment, you know, so all the, all the networking gear, you know, and then, and then by the way, the actual physical data centers, like that was the beginning of the, of the, of the data center build and then, and the data center overbuild.And so you had that, but it was, it was literally, I think it was like $2 trillion got wiped out, right? It was like Jesus, it was like a big, it was. And by the way, the other, the other subtlety in it was the internet companies themselves never really had any debt. ‘cause tech, tech companies generally don't run on debt, but the telecom companies run on debt.Physical infrastructure companies run on debt. And so the companies like Global Crossing not just raise a lot of equity, they also raise a lot of debt. So they're highly levered. And so then you just do the thing. It's just like, okay, you have a highly levered thing where you're, you're just over, you're overbuilding capacity.Demand is growing, but not as fast as you hoped. And then boom, bankrupt. Right. And, and then it, and then it's like they say about the hotel industry, which is, it's always the third owner of a hotel that makes money. It has to go bankrupt twice, right? You have to wash out all of the over optimistic exuberance before it gets to actually a stable state.And then it makes money. So by the way, all of those data centers and all of those, all the fiber that they're in use, it's all in use today. Yeah. But 25 years later. But it, it, it took, and actually the elapsed time was, it took 15 years. It took 15 years from 2000 to 2015 to actually fill, fill up all that capacity.The cautionary warning is the, the overbuild can happen. Um, and, and, and, and, you know, you, you get into this thing where basically everybody, everybody who basically has any sort of institutional capital, it's like, wow. It's just, I, I don't know how to invest in these crazy software things. For sure I can put build data centers and for sure I can buy GPUs that I can deploy, you know, compute grids and, and all these things.Um, and so, you know, if you're a pessimist, you could look at this and you could say, wow, this is like really set up to be able to basically replicate, you know, what we went through, what we went through in 2000. Obviously that would be bad. The counter argument, which is the one I I agree with, which is the counter on, on the other side is a couple things.One is the companies that are investing all the, the companies that are investing the money are like the bluest chip of companies. And so back, back, back in the, in the do, like Global Crossing was like a, it was like an entrepreneur. It was like a, a new venture, but like the money that's being deployed now at scale is Microsoft, and, you know, and Amazon and Google, Facebook and Facebook and Nvidia and, you know, these, these, these, and, and now you know, by the way, open ai philanthropic, which are now at like, you know, really serious size, um, you know, as companies with, you know, very serious revenue.These are very large scale companies with like, lots, lots of cash, lots of debt capacity that they've, they've never used. And so th this is institutional in a way that, that really wasn't at the time. And then the other is, at least for now, every dollar that's being put into anything that results in a running GPU is being turned into revenue right away.Like so, and you guys know this, like everybody's starved for capacity, everybody's starved for compute capacity and then, you know, all the associated things, memory and, and, and interconnected and everything else. Um, data center space. And so e every dollar right now that's being put into the ground is turning into revenue.And, and it, and in fact, I actually think there's an interesting thing happening, which is because everybody starve for capacity, the models that we actually have that we can use today are inferior versions of what we would have if not for the supply constraints. That's true. Um, if Right pose a hypothetical universe in which GPUs were 10 times cheaper and 10 times more plentiful mm-hmm.The models would be much better. ‘cause you would just allocate a lot more money to training and you'd just build better models and they would be better. Um, and so we're, we're actually getting the sandbag version of the technology.swyx: Yeah. No. Everything we use is quantized because the, the labs have to keep the, the full versions,Marc: right?swyx: LikeMarc: we're not even getting the good stuff.swyx: Yeah.Marc: But, but getting the good stuff, it's, it's just, even if technical progress stops. Once there's like a much bigger build of like GPU manufacturing capacity and memory, you know, all, all the things that have to happen in the course of the next five or 10 years.Once it happens, even the current technology is gonna get, gonna get much better. And then as you know, like there's just like a million ways to use this stuff. Like there's just like a million use cases for this. Mm-hmm. Like, it, it, you know, this isn't just sending packets across a, a thing, whatever, and hoping that people find something to do with it.This is just like, oh, we apply intelligence into every domain of human activity. And then it works like incredibly well. Yeah. Um. Here's what I know, here's what I know. Um, in the next three or four year, it's like somewhere between three or four years out, basically everything is selling out. So like the, the entire supply chain is, is, is, is sold out or, or, or selling out.And so there, there's no, like, we're just gonna have like chronic supply shortage for, you know, for years to come. Um, there's going to be a response from the market that's gonna result in an enormous, you know, it's happening now. An enormous flood of investment in a new fab capacity and ev you know, every, everything else to be able to do that, at some point the supply chain constraints will unlock, you know, at least to some degree that will be another accelerant to industry growth when that happens.‘cause the products will get better and everything will get cheaper. Um, and so, so I know that's gonna happen. I know that, you know, the deployments, you know, the, the actual use cases are like really compelling. And then, like I said, you know, with reasoning and agents and so forth, like, I know they're just gonna get like much, much better from here.And so I, I, I know the capabilities are like really real and serious. I also know that the technical progress is not going to stop. It. It, it is excel. It is, is accelerating. Like the, the breakthroughs are are tremendous. I mean, even just month over month, the breakthroughs are really dramatic. And so, you know, I think if you were a cynic and there, there are cynics, you can look at 2000, you can find echoes.But I can't even imagine betting it that this is gonna like somehow disappoint and, you know, at least for years to come, I think it would be essentially suicidal to make that bet. Yeah. Um, it was that Michael Burry, uh, uh, that'sswyx: anMarc: interesting guy, huh? We'll pick on a guy. We'll pick, let's pick on one guy.We'll pick. Well ‘cause he did, he he came out with, it was, it was the, heswyx: doesn't mind.Marc: It was the Nvidia short. Right. He came with the Nvidia short. And then if you guys probably talked about this, which is the, the analysis now that like the current models are getting better faster at such a rate that if you are running an Nvidia, if you're running an Nvidia inference chip today, that's three years old, you're making more money on it today than you did three years ago because the pace of improvement of the software is, is faster than the, the, the depreciation cycle, the chip.And then my understanding is Google is running. I don't if they've, I don't know exactly what, uh, these are rumors that I've heard or maybe it's public, but, um, I think Google's running very old TPUs, very profitably. Ference. Yeah. And very profit and very profitably. Yeah. Um, and so, so it actually turns out, as far as I can tell, it's actually the opposite of the Beery thesis is actually.He was actually 180 degrees wrong. It's actually the, the, the, the old Nvidia chips are getting more valuable, which is something that's like literally never happened before. Like it's never been the case that you have an older model chip that becomes more valuable, not less valuable. And that, and again, that's an expression of the just ferocious pace of software progress.Ferocious pace of capability payoff. Yeah. Uh, that you're getting on the other side of this. And so I just, the idea of betting against that, like.swyx: Yeah. Yeah. Well, one ofMarc: my, it seems like an invitation to get your face ripped up.swyx: One of my early hits was like modeling the lifespan of the H 100 and h two hundreds and, and going like, you know, usually they advise like four to seven years and it was, you know, maybe you sort of realistically haircut cut it down to two to three.Yeah. But actually it's going up and not down. Yeah. And, and uh, that's, I mean that's, I think that's the dream. Uh, we are finding utilization and I think utilization solves all problems. Like, you can, you can find use, use cases for even like the poor, like even memory, we're having a shortage. Right. And, and even like the, the shittier versions of, of memory that we do have, we are finding use cases for it.So like That's great.Marc: Yeah.Alessio: How, how important is open source AI and kinda like edge inference in a world in which you have three years of supply crunch. Like, do you think in the, like, you know, if you fast forward like five years, like how do you think about inference, uh, in the data center versus at the edge?Marc: Well, so just to start, yeah. So I think, I think open source is very important for a bunch of reasons. I think edge, edge inference is very important for a bunch of reasons. I, I think just practically speaking, if we're just gonna have fundamental construc, supply crunches for the next, I mean, you, you guys know if you just project forward demand over the next three years, right?Yeah. Relative to supply, one of the, its main predictions you can do is what's gonna, what, what's gonna happen to the cost of, of inference in the core, uh, over the next three years? And like, it may rise dramatically, right? Like, so, so what is, and then is, is, you know, like the, the, the big model competition are subsidizing heavily right now.Right? Right. And so, so what's the, what will be the average person's, you know, per day, per month token cost, you know, three years from now to do all the things that they want to do. And I, I don't know, it's gonna. I mean, I have, you guys probably have friends, I have friends today who are paying a thousand dollars a day for open claw, for claw tokens to run open claw.Right? And so, okay. $30,000 a month. Right? And, and by the way, those, those friends have like a thousand more ideas of the things that they want their claw to do, right? Yeah. And so you, you could imagine there, there's like latent demand of up to, I don't know, five or $10,000 a day of, of, of tokens for a fully deployed, you know, per personal agent.Uh, and obviously consumers can't pay that, right? And so, so, but it gives you a sense of the fu of the fu of the future scope of demand, right? And so, so even, even if there's a 10 x improvement in price performance, that still, you know, goes to a hundred dollars a day, which is still way beyond what people can pay.Mm-hmm. So there's just gonna be like. Ferocious to me, by the way. The agent thing, the other interesting thing is I think the agent thing, so up until now, a lot of the constraints of GGPU constraints, I think the agent thing now also translates into CPU constraints. Mm-hmm. Right?swyx: CPU memory.Marc: Yes. CPU memory, right?And so, like the entire chip ecosystem is just gonna get wait,swyx: wait for network constraints, that that will be the killer.Marc: It's all bottleneck potentially for years. And so, so I, I think that Brad, and, and I think it's actually possible, I mean, generally inference costs are gonna keep coming down, but I think the, let's put it this way, the rate of decline, I think may level out here for a bit because of these supply constraints.And then at some point, maybe the lab stops subsidizing so much and that, that, that again, will be, be an issue. And so there's just gonna be so much more demand for inference than, than can be satisfied. Um, you know, kind of with the centralized model. And then, and then, you know, you guys know this, but like all the, just the dramatic, I mean just the dramatic innovations that have happened in the Apple silicon to be able to do, uh, inferences, it's quite amazing the level of effort being put.Like the open source guys are putting incredible effort into getting, you know, this recurring pattern where the big model will never run on a pc, and then six months later mm-hmm. Oh, it runs in a pc, right? It's like amazing. And there's very smart people working on that. So there's all that. And then look, there's also, you know.There's also like other, there's other motivators. There's other motivators which is just like, okay, how much trust are the big centralized model providers? You know, how much trust are they building in the market versus, you know, how much are, you know, at least for, in certain cases with some people, for certain use cases, people being like, well, I'm not willing to just like, turn everything over.So there, there, there's all the trust issues. Um, by the way, there's also just like straight up price optimization. There's many uses of AI where you don't need Einstein in the cloud. You just need like a, a a, a smart local model. There's also performance issues where you want, you know, you want, you know, you're gonna want your doorknob to have an AI model in it.Right. You know, to be able to, you know, do, um, you know, to be able to do access control. Um, obviously like everything with a chip is gonna have an AI model in it. Mm-hmm. And it, a lot of those are gonna be local. Um, and so, yeah. No, like I think, I think you're gonna have ti and then you're gonna, by the way, also wearable devices, you know, you don't wanna do a complete round trip.You want, you know, you, whatever your smart devices are, you want it to be like super low latency. Yeah.swyx: The question, do we care who makes it? Yeah. One of the biggest news this week was the collapse of AI two, the Allen Institute. Mm-hmm. One of the actual American open source model labs. Yeah. Um, and, uh, I'm not that optimistic on, on American open source.Yeah. Like you, you guys invested in MIS trial and MIS trial's doing extremely well outside of China. That's about it.Marc: Yeah. We'll see. We'll see. I look, I, number one, I do think we care. Uh, I do think we, I do think we care who makes it. Um, I would say this, the, the, the, the previous presidential administration wanted to kill it in the us Oh yeah.They wanted to drown in the bathtub. Um, and so they wanted to kill it. So at least we have a government now that actually like, actually wants it wants it to happen. And youswyx: earned to councilMarc: and Yeah. And the new and the P pcast. Yeah. So the, the, you know, this admin for whatever other political issues people have, which are many, you know, this administration has, I think a very enlightened view and in particular an enlightened view on AI and in particular on open source ai.Uh, and so they're very supportive. Um, my read is the Chi. The Chinese have a very, the various Chinese companies have a very specific reason to do open source, which is, they, they, they don't fundamentally, they don't think they can sell commercial, uh, AI outside of China right now. And or at least specifically not, not in the US for a combination of reasons.And so they, they kind of view, I think, open source AI as a bit of a loss leader against basically domestic, uh, you know, paid, paid services. And then kind of an, you know, kind of an ancillary products. You know, they're, they're very excited about it, by the way. I think it's great. I think it's great that they're doing it.Um, you know, I think Deeps seek was like a gift to the world. Um, I think. The great thing about open source, open source, the, the, the impact of open source is felt two ways. One is you, you get the software for free, but the other is you get to learn how it works, right? And so like the paper, the paper, the paper and, and the code, right?And the code. And so, like, for example, I thought this was amazing. So open comes out with L one and it's an amazing technical breakthrough, and it's just like, absolutely fantastic. But of course they don't explain how it works in detail. And then of course they hide the, they hide the reasoning traces, right?And, and then, and then, and then everybody's like, okay, this is great, but like, who's gonna be able to replicate this? Are other people gonna be able to do this? You know, is their secret sauce in there? And then our one comes out and it's just like, there's the code and there's the paper, and now the whole world knows how to do it.And then, you know, three months later, every other AI model is, is adding reasoning. And so, so you get this kind of double, like even if the Chinese models themselves are not the models that get used, the education that's taken place to the rest of the world, the information diffusion, you know, is incredibly powerful.So that happens and then, I don't know. We'll, we'll see. You know, there are a bunch of American, you know, open source, you know, ai, uh, model companies. I mean, look, there's gonna be tremendous, you know, there already is. There's, you know, there's gonna be tre there's tremendous competition, uh, among the primary model companies.You know, there's, depending on how you count, there's like four or five, you know, big co model companies now that are, you know, kind of neck and neck, uh, in different ways. Um, uh, you know, and, and, and, um, you know, and then obviously Bo Bo both X and then MetAware involved are, you know, both have huge, you know, huge attempts to, you know, kind of, to kind of leapfrog underway.And then you've got, you know, a whole fleet of startups, new companies, including a whole bunch that we're backing, that are, you know, trying to come out with different approaches. And then you've got whatever it is. I don't know how, how many, how many, like main line foundation model companies are there in China at this point?It's probably six. It'sswyx: five Tigers is what they call it. Yeah. Uh, Quinn is in questionable because there's change in leadership,Marc: right?swyx: Yeah.Marc: But that, does that include, that includes like Moonshot,swyx: yes. Can deep seek, uh, uh, ZI, um, Quinn oh one is in there.Marc: Right. And then, um, and by dance and, and then you see,swyx: ance would be like the next tier ance.They weren't as prominent. They weren't, didn't haveMarc: a leading. Yeah. But they, you at least, you know, ance is very inspiring and presumably they have more stuff coming and Tencent probably has more stuff coming and, and so forth. And so, so, so like, look, here, here would be a thing you can anticipate, which is there are not these markets, there are not going to be between the US and China right now, there's like a dozen primary foundation model companies that are like at scale, at, at some level of a critical mass.It's not gonna be a dozen in three years, right? Like, it just because these industries don't bear a dozen, it's, it's gonna be three or you know, there's gonna be three or four big winners or maybe one or two big winners. And so there's gonna be like a whole bunch of those guys that are gonna have to figure out alternate strategies.Um, and I think like open source is one of those strategies. And so I, I think you could see like a whole, i, I, I think the questions like, who's gonna do open source? I think that could change really fast. I, I think that, that, that's a very dynamic thing. I think it's very hard to predict what happens. And, and I think it's very important.swyx: NVIDIA's doing a lot.Marc: Well, I was gonna say. Well, exactly. And then you're got Nvidia and then, and then, you know, just to, again, indu, there's an old thing in business strategy, which is called, uh, commoditize Compliments. Commoditize the compliment. That's right. And so if your Jensen is just kind of obvious, of course, you wanna commoditize the software.Yeah. And he's, and to his enormous credit, he's putting enormous resources behind that. And so maybe it, maybe it's literally Nvidia and I think that would be great.Alessio: Yeah. Uh, narrative violation to European projects, uh, in the, uh, damn.swyx: I'm hosting my, uh, Europe, uh, conference soon. And I got both of them.Alessio: They got us.They got us. MarkMarc: finished. They got us, us. Well, wait a minute. Where was Peter? So where was Steinberger when he did? In AustriaAlessio: was, yeah, yeah, yeah.Marc: He was in what? He was in Vienna. Oh, he was in Vienna. And then where is he now?swyx: Uh, he's moving to sf.Marc: Okay. Okay. Alright. Okay, there we go. And then, yeah, the PI guy, right?The PI guys are European.swyx: Yeah, they're also, they're buddies inAlessio: Australia. Mario's also there. Yeah.Marc: Right. And are they, yeah, they haven't announced yet. Any sort of change changed or have theyAlessio: No, they're, they have a company there.Marc: Okay. Got, okay. Good.Alessio: Good, good,good.Alessio: Um,Marc: yeah, good.swyx: Anyways, I think pie and open cloud very important software things and, and I just wanted you to just go off on what you think.Marc: Yeah. So I think in co the, the combination of the two of them I think is one of the 10 most important softwares. Openswyx: Claw got all the attention, but Right. Talk about pie,Marc: pi pie's, kind of the Yeah. PI's, PI's kind of the architectural breakthrough for those of us who are older. There was this whole thing that was very important in the world of software basically from like 1970 to, I don't know, it still is very important, but like 19, from 1973 to like basically the creation of Linux, which is basically this, this thing used to call like the Unix mindset.Like so, so, ‘cause there were all these different, you know, theories. There are all these different operating systems and mainframes and, and then you know, all these windows and Mac and all these things. And then there was this, but kind of behind it all was this idea of kind of the Unix mindset. And the Unix mindset was this thing where basically you don't have these, like, like in the old days, like, like the operating system that like made the computer industry really work, like in the 1960s mm-hmm.Was this thing called o os 360, which was this big operating system that IBM developed that was supposed to basically run everything. And it was this like giant monolithic architecture in the sky. It was like a, you know, it was like a giant castle. Um, of software. And, and by the way, it worked really well and they were very successful with it.But like, it was this huge castle in the sky, but it was this thing, it was almost unapproachable, which is like, you had to be kind of inside IBM or very close to IBM. And you had to really understand every aspect, how the system worked. And then the, the Unix sky is originally out of at and t and then out out of Berkeley, um, you know, came out and they said, no, let's have a completely different architecture.And the way architecture's gonna work is we're gonna have, we're gonna have a, a prompt and, and a, and a shell. And then, and then we're gonna, all, all the functionality is gonna be in the form of these discreet modules, and then you're gonna be able to chain the modules together. Mm-hmm. Yeah. And so like the, the, the op, it's almost like the operating, operating system itself is gonna be a programming language.Um, and then that led led to the, the, the sort of centrality of the shell. Um, and then that led to sort of, uh, you know, basically chaining together Unix tools. And then that led to the emergence of these, these scripting languages like Pearl, where you, you could basically kind of very easily do this, and then the shells got more sophisticated and then, and then, and then look like, you know, that, that, that number one, that worked and that, that was the world I grew up in.Like I was, I was a Unix guy. You know, sort of from, call it 1988 to, you know, kind of all, all the way through my work and it worked really well. It, it's in the background, um, you know, nor normal people don't need to, didn't need to necessarily know about it, but like, if you were doing like system architecture, application development, you, you, you knew all about it.Um, and then, you know, it's been in the background ever since. And, you know, look, your Mac still has a Unix shell, you know, kind of in there, and your iPhone still has a Unix shell kind of buried in there somewhere. So they're kind of in there. And then, you know, the Windows shell is kind of a, you know, sort of a weird derivative of that.But, um, you know, but look, the inter, the internet runs on Unix, um, and that smartphones, actually, both iOS and Android are Unix derivatives. And so, you know, kind of Unix did end up winning. But, but anyway, and then we just started taking that for granted. And then, and then so, so basically the, the way I think about what happened with Pie and then with Open Claw is basically what those guys figured out is, I always say the, the great breakthroughs are obvious in retrospect, right?Which is the best kind, the best kind. They weren't obvious at the time or somebody else would've done them already. Um, and so there is a, like a real conceptual leap, but then you look at it sort of the backwards looking and you're just like, oh, of course. Mm-hmm. Like the, the, to me those are always the best breakthroughs.Well, actually language models themselves are like that. It's just like, oh, next token completion. Oh, of course.swyx: Yeah. What other objective mattered?Marc: Yeah, exactly. But, but like it, right. But she's even saying it wasn't obvious until somebody actually did it. Right. And so the conceptual breakthrough is real and deep and powerful and, and very important.And so the way I think about pie and olaw is it's basically marrying the, the language model mindset to the un to the Unix, basically shell prompt mindset. And so it's, it's basically this idea that what, what, so what is an agent, right? And as, as, and as you know, like many smart people who have been trying to figure out what an agent is for, for, for decades, and they've had many architectures to build agents and the whole thing.And it turns out what is an agent. So it turns out what we now know is an agent is the following. It's, so it's a language model. And then above that, it's a ba, it's a bash shell. Um, so it's a, it's a Unix shell, and then it's, and then the agent has access, uh, has access to, to the shell. And, you know, hopeful, hopefully in a sandbox, maybe in, maybe in a sandbox.So it's, it's the model. Um, it's the shell. Um, and then it's a fi, it's a file system. Um, and then the state is stored in files. And then, you know, there's the markdown format for the, you know, for, for the files themselves. And then, and then there's basically what in Unix is called Aron job. There's a loop and then there's a heartbeat for the, there's heartbeat and, and the thing basically Wake Wakes up.Wakes up. So it's basically LLM plus shell, plus file system, plus markdown, plus kron. And it turns out that's an agent. And, and, and every part of that, other than the model is something that we already completely know and understand. And in fact, it turns out that like the latent power of the Unix shell is like extraordinary because basically like all, like, there's just like an, there's just enormous latent power in the shell.There's enormous numbers of Unix commands, there's enormous number of command line interfaces into all kinds of things already in the, you know, your entire, I mean your entire, just to start with, your computer runs on a shell. If you're running a Mac or a, or, or a phone, your computer, your computer's running on a shell, uh, already.And so like the full power of your computer is available at the command line level. Um, and then it turns out it's really easy to expose other functions as a command line interface. And so like this whole idea where we need like MCP and these like product mm-hmm. Fancy protocols, whatever, it's like, no, we don't, we just need like a command, command line thing.So that's the architecture. And then it turns out what is your agent? Your agent has a bunch of files starting a file system. And then there's the thing that just like completely blew my mind when I write my head around it as a result of this, which is like, okay. This means your agent is now actually independent of the model that it's running on.Because you can actually swap out a different LLM underneath your agent and your, your agent will change personality somewhat. ‘cause the model is different, but all of the state stored in the files will be retained.swyx: Yeah. Different instruction set, but you just compiledit.Marc: Right, exactly. And it's all right.It's like right. Swapping out a ship and recompiling, but it's, it's still, it's still your agent with all of its memories. Um, and with all of its capabilities. And then by the way, you can also swap out the shell, uh, so you can move it to a different execution environment that is also, is also a b shell, by the way, you can also switch out the file system, right.Uh, and you can, and you can, and you can swap out the, the, the heartbeat for the, the crown framework, the, the loop that the agent framework itself. And so your agent basically is ba basically at the end of the day, it's just. It's just, its files. Um, and then, and then there's of course it a openswyx: call.Marc: Yeah, it's, it's basically, it's, it's just the files.Um, and then by the way, as a consequence of that, the agent and then the agent itself, it turns out a couple important things. So one is it, it's, it, it can migrate itself, right? And so you're, you can instruct your agent, migrate yourself to a different, uh, runtime environment, migrate yourself to a different file system, migrate yourself to a different, you know, swap out the language model.Your agent will do all that stuff for you. And then there's the final thing, which is just amazing, which is the agent is the agent actually has full introspection. It actually, it actually knows about its own files and it could rewrite its own files. Right. Which by the way, is basically no widely deployed software system in history where the, the, the thing that you're using actually has full introspective knowledge of how it itself works and is able to modify itself.Like that, that, I mean, there have been toy systems that have had that, but there, there's never been a widely deployed system that has that capability and then that leads you to the capability. That just like completely blew my mind when I wrap my head around it, which is you can tell the agent to add new functions and features to itself and it can do that.Extend yourself. Yeah. Right? Extend, extend yourself. Like extend yourself. Give yourself a new capability. Right? And so, and so literally it's just like you run into somebody at a party and they're like, oh, I have my open claw, do whatever, connect to my eat, sleep bed, and it gives me better advice and sleep.And you go home at night and you tell your claw, or if they're at the party, by the way, you tell your claw, oh, add this capability to yourself. And your claw will say, oh, okay, no problem. And it'll go out on the internet and it'll figure out whatever it needs and then it'll go out to claw code or whatever.It'll write whatever it needs. And then the next thing you know, it has this new capability. And so you don't even have to, like, you can have it upgrade itself without even having to, without having to do anything other than tell it that you want it to do that. And so anyway, so the, the combination of all this is just, I mean, this is just like a massive, incredible, I mean, it's just incredible.Like if I, if I were, if I were 18, like this is a hundred, this is what I would be spending all of my time on. This is like such an incredible conceptual breakthrough. Yeah. And again, pe people are gonna look at it and they already get this response. People are gonna look at it and they're gonna say, oh, well, where's the breakthrough?‘cause these, the, all of these components were already known before. Mm-hmm. But, but this is the key, the key to the breakthrough was by using all these components that were known before, you get all of the underlying capability of that's buried in there. And so all, and so for example, computer use all of a sudden just kind of falls, trivi, trivial.Of course it's gonna be able to use your computer. It has full access to the shell. Right. And then, and then you just, you, you give it access to a browser, and then you've got the computer and the browser and, and often away it goes. And, and then you've got all the abilities of the browser also. Um, yeah.And so, and so the capability unlock here is profound. My friends who are, you know, deepest into this, are having their claw do like a, like, literally like a thousand things in their lives. They have new ideas every day. They're just like constantly throwing new challenges at the thing. And by the way, it's early and, you know, these are, you know, these are prototypes and there are, you know, as you guys know, there's security issues.Yeah. And, and so, you know, there's a bunch of stuff to be ironed out, but the, the unlock of capability is just incredible.swyx: Yeah.Marc: And I, I have absolutely no doubt that everybody in the world is gonna, is gonna have at least, you know, an agent like this, if not an entire family of agents. And w

In part three of our series about political conversions David talks to historian David Klemperer about the people who left Trotskyism behind – and where they ended up. From 1940s America to contemporary Britain, from the Second World War to the Iraq War, from James Burnham to Claire Fox, stories of one-time revolutionaries who found themselves in a very different place. What links Trotskyism to neoconservatism? And what happens when the renegade outsiders become establishment insiders? Join us on Friday 17th April at the Regent Street Cinema in London for the second film in our new season: a screening of South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut followed by a live podcast recording with David and director and campaigner Beeban Kidron. Tickets available now https://bit.ly/3O5rSEY You can find out everything you need to know about this podcast – who we are, what we do, plus merch, events and full lists of all episodes and PPF+ bonus episodes on our website https://www.ppfideas.com Next Time on Political Conversions: Switching Sides in the 21st Century Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The first panel discussion from the Gray Center's Fall 2025 conference featuring: James Burnham, King Street Legal, and formerly of the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency Susan Dudley, former Administrator, White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Founder & Senior Scholar, GW Regulatory Studies Center; Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy […]

The first panel discussion from the Gray Center's Fall 2025 conference featuring: James Burnham, King Street Legal, and formerly of the U.S. Department of Government EfficiencySusan Dudley, former Administrator, White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Founder & Senior Scholar, GW Regulatory Studies Center; Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public AdministrationLisa Heinzerling, Georgetown University Law CenterModerator: Mene Ukueberuwa, Wall Street Journal

In dieser Episode freue ich mich, »Dem Pudels Kern« gemeinsam mit Thomas Pisar auf den Grund zu gehen. Worum es gehen wird, wird klar, wenn wir Thomas kurz vorstellen: Thomas ist Physiker, Keynote-Speaker, Executive Advisor und Autor zweier Bücher: Die Pisar Studien und Komplexität als Stärke. Fokus in diesem Gespräch ist hauptsächlich Letzteres. Er ist auch Gastkolumnist in „Die Presse“. Er hat viele Jahre Erfahrung als Manager und zum Schluss als Director in der A1 Telekom Austria gemacht. Ein Umfeld, das reichhaltig zum Sammeln von Erfahrungen rund um das Thema Komplexität ist, besonders eben im unternehmerischen Umfeld. Hexenmeister oder Zauberlehrling? Die Wissensgesellschaft in der Krise Das Buch zum Podcast!  Heute steht Komplexität und wie wir damit umgehen können, wenn die Dinge unsicher und nicht mehr berechenbar sind, im Zentrum seiner Keynotes, Beratungen, Bücher und Trainings. Und genau darüber werden wir auch in der Episode sprechen. Sein Anliegen ist es, einen Weg aufzuzeigen, wie man zusätzlich zum Effizienzgedanken in der komplizierten auch in der komplexen Domäne erfolgreich handlungsfähig bleiben kann. In dieser Episode wird ein leitender Gedanke sein: vom Teil zum Ganzen und zurück. Wie kann man komplizierte Teile eines Systems verbessern, ohne das komplexe Ganze zu kompromittieren? Sind Naturwissenschaften (als Studium) eine gute Grundlage für verschiedenste Aufgaben, Jobs? Zumindest um strukturiertes, rationales Denken zu lernen? Verwechseln wir Wissen und Expertise – Techne/Ars vs. Episteme/Scientia? Heute spricht man auch häufig von tacit (implizitem) und explicit knowledge – was sind die Folgen davon? Besonders auch im Unternehmen? »Der Inhalt definiert die Form und nicht umgekehrt. Die Methodik ist wichtig, aber sollte dem Inhalt folgen.« Aus welchen Teilen besteht ein Unternehmen eigentlich? Wie ist das Wechselspiel zwischen Business Model und Operating Model? Was hat implizites und explizites Wissen damit zu tun? Warum könnten hier Grenzen der KI liegen? Was lernt KI eigentlich? Wie sehen Machtstrukturen im Unternehmen aus? Welche Rolle spielt das Organigramm in der Praxis? Wie geht man mit dem Unterschied zwischen expliziten und impliziten Hierarchien um? Suchen wir den Schlüssel unter der Laterne, wo das Licht brennt und nicht dort, wo wir ihn verloren haben? Warum scheitert das Naheliegende so häufig: Nach einem Problem wird die politische Spitze oder der Vorstand ausgetauscht – aber es ändert sich nichts. »Die Struktur prägt das Verhalten in der Organisation.« Hat nicht die Kybernetik der 1960er- und 1970er-Jahre viele der Fragen aufgegriffen und richtig beschrieben, oder wenigstens die richtigen Fragen aufgeworfen? Was ist aus der Kybernetik geworden? »Kompliziert kann ich berechnen, komplex kann ich nicht berechnen, kann ich nur ausprobieren.« Was passiert dann, wenn die Prognose selbst das System beeinflusst? »Das Modell verändert die Realität und umgekehrt.« Damit werden Modelle komplexer adaptiver Systeme noch problematischer als Modelle von »nur« komplexen Systemen. Lässt sich dies aber positiv, konstruktiv nutzen? »Wer spricht über Mut? Die Leute, die Angst haben.« Warum fallen wir in Europa mit jedem Jahr international weiter zurück? »Innovation entsteht nicht dadurch, dass ich eine Innovationsabteilung gründe.« … sondern eher das Gegenteil dürfte der Fall sein. Wodurch aber entsteht Innovation? Aspirin als Beispiel der Überschneidung von Innovation und explizitem sowie implizitem Wissen. Was ist Exaptation? Stuart Kauffman spricht dabei von Darwinian Preadaptations. Was ist Assembly Theory und warum kann diese auch für das Verständnis von Innovation relevant sein? »Ein komplexes System steuerst du nicht, indem du noch mehr Regeln daraufpackst. Es gibt immer viel mehr Möglichkeiten als du jemals Regeln definieren kannst.« Das kann zu durchaus kurios wirkenden Erkenntnissen führen, wie Rory Sutherland es ausdrückt: »The opposite of a good idea can also be a good idea.«, »If there would be a logical answer we would have already found it« Wie gehen wir im Unternehmen damit um? »Best Practice ist völlig unangebracht in einer komplexen Fragestellung« Warum die Suche nach dem Beleg der eigenen Idee keine Wissenschaft ist, leider aber in der Fachliteratur immer häufiger wird. Wenn 10.000 Menschen einen Russisch-Roulette-Wettbewerb starten und einmal pro Woche »spielen« – bleibt nach rund neun Monaten also ca. 40 Wochen ein »Gewinner« über. Darf dieser »Meister des russischen Roulettes« genannt werden, weil er das Spiel am besten beherrscht? Warum machen wir aber genau das regelmäßig in Politik und Wirtschaft? »Viele Probleme werden rational verstanden, ändern aber das Verhalten in keiner Weise.« Soziale und andere nicht-rationale Gründe treiben oftmals das Verhalten von Organisationen – auch wenn Rationalität »gespielt« wird. Hat sich ab Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts etwas Grundsätzliches verändert, eine Managerial Class entwickelt, die Unternehmen grundsätzlich anders denken? Wird die pseudo-rationale Begründung (des Scheiterns) erfolgreicher als richtig zu entscheiden? »Die Struktur fördert dieses Verhalten und bringt auch entsprechende Charaktere nach oben.« Und dieses Verhalten ist bemerkenswert vorhersehbar: »Show me the incentives and I show you the outcome«, Charlie Munger Warum also ins persönliche Risiko gehen und das tun, was man für richtig hält, wenn man den einfacheren und für die eigene Person (jedenfalls kurzfristig) sichereren Weg gehen kann? Sind die Erwartungen an CEOs unterschiedlich in Europa und in anderen Nationen? Was sind die Rahmenbedingungen, dass eine Organisation weder in der Erstarrung noch im Chaos landet? Wäre Management das Talent, eine Organisation »on the edge of chaos« zu halten – um mit Stuart Kauffman zu sprechen? »Alles optimiert, kein Gramm Fett mehr, aber dann ändert sich die Umwelt.« Was nun? »Wenn ich Komplexität ständig reduziere, dann kann ich nicht mehr auf die Komplexität mit der ich konfrontiert bin, reagieren. […] Nur Komplexität kann Komplexität aus dem Außen absorbieren.« Was bedeutet dies ganz konkret im Unternehmen? By Cruccone - Own work, CC BY 3.0 Einschub: Justo Gallego Martínez, der Mann, der ein Leben lang alleine eine Kathedrale baut, ist eindrucksvoll, aber kaum ein Modell für unsere moderne Welt. »Unternehmen überleben, wenn sie in einem gesunden, dynamischen Gleichgewicht mit ihrer Umwelt stehen. […] Man muss sich nicht anpassen, man muss aber auch nicht überleben« Aussterben ist Teil der Evolution und staatliche und andere zentralisierte Eingriffe ändern das nicht, machen es nur schwerer, teurer und schmerzhafter. Was ist die Rolle und die Gefahr, die in Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) liegen? Anders gesagt: Wie kann Leistung in der Praxis gemessen und bewertet werden? »Wenn es leichter ist, die Kennzahl zu gamen, als tatsächlich das, was dahintersteht, zu erfüllen, dann wird das System immer den Weg der geringeren Energie suchen.« Welche Beispiele gibt es dafür? Accountability Sink als (implizit) gewünschtes Ergebnis mancher oder vieler Organisationen? Darf man mit KPIs Leistung messen? Besonders individuelle? »Jede Messung ist eine Intervention.« Wie kann Verantwortung zugeordnet werden? Ohne persönliche Verantwortung entgleist jedes System. Was bedeutet Resilienz, Fragilität, Antifragilität und Robustheit unter diesen Rahmenbedingungen? Also, wie reagieren Systeme auf Störungen? Wie kann man verhindern, nur Beifahrer der Geschichte zu werden? Muss Fragilität immer vermieden werden? Ein Produkt zu entwickeln bedarf völlig anderer Fähigkeiten als es zu skalieren. Wie geht man mit dieser zeitlichen Dimension erfolgreich um? Was waren die »Wild Ducks« der IBM? »Manchmal kann man auch mit Verschlafen gewinnen.« Wie steht es mit Europa? »Es ist keine Frage des Könnens – es geht meines Erachtens darum, aus der Vollkaskomentalität herauszukommen.« Kein Risiko einzugehen ist das größte Risiko. Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 144: Was ist Fortschritt? Ein Gespräch mit Dr. Daniel Stelter aus ökonomischer Perspektive Episode 141: Passagier oder Steuermann? Ein Gespräch mit Markus Raunig Episode 139: Komfortable Disruption Episode 138: Im Windschatten der Narrative, ein Gespräch mit Ralf M. Ruthardt Episode 137: Alles Leben ist Problemlösen Episode 135: Friedrich Hayek und die Beschränktheit der menschlichen Vernunft. Ein Gespräch mit Nickolas Emrich Episode 129: Rules, A Conversation with Prof. Lorraine Daston Episode 128: Aufbruch in die Moderne — Der Mann, der die Welt erfindet! Episode 125: Ist Fortschritt möglich? Ideen als Widergänger über Generationen Episode 123: Die Natur kennt feine Grade, Ein Gespräch mit Prof. Frank Zachos Episode 122: Komplexitätsillusion oder Heuristik, ein Gespräch mit Gerd Gigerenzer Episode 121: Künstliche Unintelligenz Episode 111: Macht. Ein Gespräch mit Christine Bauer-Jelinek Episode 109: Was ist Komplexität? Ein Gespräch mit Dr. Marco Wehr Episode 99: Entkopplung, Kopplung, Rückkopplung Episode 90: Unintended Consequences (Unerwartete Folgen) Thomas Pisar Homepage von Thomas Pisar Führungsstil in komplizierten und komplexen Prozessen, confare Thomas Pisar, Die Pisar Studien (2025) Thomas Pisar, Komplexität als Stärke, Wiley (2026)   Fachliche Referenzen Dejan Stojanovic, Fuckup Nights  Royston M. M. Roberts, Serendipity: Accidental Discoveries in Science, Wiley (1989) Nobelprice for their discoveries concerning “prostaglandins and related biologically active substances”. (Aspirin) (1982) Stuart Kauffman, Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion, Basic Books (2010) Abhishek Sharma et al, Assembly theory explains and quantifies selection and evolution, Nature (2023) William Ross Ashby, An Introduction to Cybernetics, Wiley (1956) Six Sigma Dave Snowden, Making Sense of Complexity Rory Sutherland, 10 Rules of Alchemy (2020) Eric Ries, The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses Taschenbuch, Crown (2017) Frederic Laloux, Reinventing Organisations, Nelson Parker (2016) Malcolm Gladwell (keine Empfehlung) Russian Roulette: Nassim Taleb, The Precautionary Principle (2014) James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution; What is Happening in the World, John Day Company (1941) Charlie Munger, The Power of Incentives  Stuart Kauffman, At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity, Oxford University Press (1996) The man who built a cathedral with his own hands, BBC (2022) Dan Davies, The Unaccountability Machine, Why Big Systems Make Terrible Decisions - and How The World Lost its Mind, Profile Books (2024) Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma, with a New Foreword: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, Harvard Business Press (2024)

durée : 00:58:34 - Entendez-vous l'éco ? - par : Aliette Hovine - Le blocage du détroit d'Ormuz et les frappes sur les infrastructures hydrauliques révèlent les liens entre eau et pétrole dans le Golfe, ainsi que leur place centrale dans les économies locales. Une actualité suivie d'un épisode sur l'histoire de la philosophie managériale consacré à James Burnham. - invités : Franck Galland Chercheur associé à la Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique (FRS); Pierre Blanc Ingénieur général des ponts, des eaux et des forêts, docteur en géopolitique, enseignant-chercheur à Bordeaux sciences agro et à Sciences Po Bordeaux; François-Xavier de Vaujany professeur en sciences de gestion à l'Université Paris Dauphine-PSL

durée : 00:31:11 - Entendez-vous l'éco ? - par : Aliette Hovine - Communiste militant avant d'amorcer une trajectoire très conservatrice, James Burnham pressent l'avènement d'une classe managériale, qui devait selon lui prendre le relais des sociétés capitalistes et socialistes. - invités : François-Xavier de Vaujany professeur en sciences de gestion à l'Université Paris Dauphine-PSL

140 MinutesPG-13Here are two episodes in which Pete and Aaron from Timeline Earth read and commented on a James Burnham chapter and Sam Francis' explanation of the Machiavellians.James Burnham on the Death of CapitalismSamuel Francis' Review of The MachiavelliansTimeline Earth PodcastPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on Twitter

Echte kracht wordt verward met eenvormigheid, terwijl het meer een kwestie is van flexibiliteit, van veerkracht. Het zijn juist de vrije, niet totalitaire samenlevingen die beter zijn toegerust om in een onzekere toekomst te overleven, volgens deze auteur. Zowel bij nieuw rechts als in het kamp van klimaatlinks heerst momenteel de opvatting dat juist de kwaliteiten waarop de Verenigde Staten zich vroeger lieten voorstaan, het land in feite verzwakken. Pluralisme, zo hoor je vaak, leidt tot een verdeelde en onbestuurbare samenleving. De regels van de rechtsstaat zitten de overheid in de weg bij de aanpak van grote problemen. En door de wispelturigheid van de kiezer moeten politici vaak alweer weg voordat ze de kans hebben gehad blijvende verandering door te voeren. Sommige populisten voor wie een zwakke staat een groter schrikbeeld is dan een totalitaire staat, zouden de diversiteit van onze samenleving graag verruilen voor volstrekte eendracht. Onder milieuactivisten neigt men tot de gedachte dat de omvang van de klimaatcrisis geen ruimte meer laat voor de keuzevrijheid van de democratische rechtsstaat. Nieuw rechts Maar al deze critici zien kracht voor zwakheid aan. Vooral bij nieuw rechts zien velen het verschil niet tussen krachtpatserij en echte kracht. Ze denken dat onze vijanden ons voorbij dreigen te streven, dat Rusland en China de toekomst hebben en dat de VS en het hele Westen onherroepelijk in verval zijn. Maar echte kracht is vaak meer een kwestie van flexibiliteit dan van eenvormigheid. Een open samenleving is meestal buigzamer dan een gesloten samenleving. In een tijd waarin de lokroep van de gesloten samenleving onverbiddelijk aanzwelt, moeten we niet vergeten dat we dit scenario in de loop van de twintigste eeuw al zo vaak hebben zien aflopen met de ondergang van gesloten samenlevingen, of die nu fascistisch of communistisch waren. Het is goed om in deze tijd voor ogen te houden hoe robuust open samenlevingen in feite zijn, en waarom er zo'n hardnekkige neiging bestaat om hun veerkracht te onderschatten. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, de derivatenhandelaar die ook filosoof is en boeken schrijft over onzekerheid, geeft het voorbeeld van de muis en de olifant. De olifant is veel en veel groter. Maar als een olifant van tweemaal zijn eigen hoogte valt, breekt hij alle botten in zijn lijf. Een muis kan van tien keer zijn eigen hoogte vallen en daarna doodleuk wegrennen. Omdat onze soort geëvolueerd is in een omgeving waarin grootte gelijkstond aan kracht, hebben we de neiging een autoritair regime dat zich grootmaakt ook sterk te wanen. We beseffen niet hoe broos de botten van de olifant zijn. Taleb betoogt dat ons gezond verstand (het primitieve deel van onze hersenen) ons vaak in de weg zit in de uiterst complexe omgevingen waarin we nu leven. Dat we behoefte hebben aan een andere manier van denken, die meer uitgaat van redundantie, risicospreiding, openheid en misschien nog het voornaamst van al: een diepe laag nederigheid. En het is inderdaad opvallend dat telkens opnieuw dezelfde denkfout wordt gemaakt. In de twintigste eeuw waren er altijd wel vooraanstaande commentatoren die verkondigden dat de vrije wereld in verval was en autocratie de toekomst had. Zij bleken het telkens bij het verkeerde eind te hebben, en toch blijft die oude voorspelling de kop opsteken. George Orwell achter zjin schrijfmachine. – © Getty Images Zelfs tegenstanders van totalitarisme waren bang dat die staatsvorm toch onvermijdelijk was. Iets van die fascinatie met autocratisch machtsvertoon zie je ook in James Burnhams boek The Managerial Revolution (1941), dat in sommige rechtse kringen nu weer populariteit geniet. Burnham dacht dat het kapitalisme zou plaatsmaken voor een nieuwe ‘managersklasse', die een geleide economie zou opleggen. Elders in zijn werk stelde hij het ‘fanatisme' van de nazi's tegenover de veronderstelde ‘apathie' van Frankrijk en Groot-Brittannië. Uit al zijn werk spreekt de vrees dat vrije samenlevingen te zwak zijn om zich tegen een sluipend despotisme te verzetten. Maar Burnhams betoog werd eigenlijk al grotendeels ontkracht door de gebeurtenissen in zijn eigen tijd, zoals George Orwell in 1946 opmerkte in zijn essay ‘Bedenkingen bij James Burnham'. Hij schreef: ‘Overdreven ontzag voor macht vertroebelt de politieke blik, omdat het bijna onvermijdelijk uitloopt op de overtuiging dat de huidige trends zich onveranderd zullen voortzetten. (…) Dat moet wel tot verkeerde voorspellingen leiden, want zelfs al wordt de richting van de ontwikkelingen juist ingeschat, het tempo zal verkeerd worden ingeschat. Binnen vijf jaar tijd voorspelde Burnham zowel dat Duitsland door Rusland zou worden bedwongen als het omgekeerde. In beide gevallen volgde hij hetzelfde instinct: het instinct om te buigen voor de overwinnaar van het moment, om de huidige trend als onomkeerbaar te beschouwen.' Trend Wat Orwell bij Burnham constateert, zie je tegenwoordig terug bij schrijvers die betogen dat Amerika is uitgeteld en dat er een vorm van ‘postliberalisme' nodig is om onze verkalkte cultuur nieuw leven in te blazen. Denkers zoals Burnham zagen de trend van het moment – zwakke democratieën, de schijnbaar niet te stuiten opkomst van totalitaire staten – en gingen ervan uit dat aan die trend nooit meer een einde zou komen. Tekenen van verdeeldheid en balkanisering zijn voor de hedendaagse tegenhangers van Burnham in de VS niet moeilijk te vinden. Alleen trappen ze in dezelfde valkuil als hij door er klakkeloos van uit te gaan dat die trends zich in een rechte lijn zullen doorzetten en onze ondergang moeten inluiden. Maar zo werkt de geschiedenis niet. Crises zijn meestal onvoorzien, evenals de oplossing ervan. In een levendige en dynamische samenleving als de onze, waarin plaats is voor een breed scala aan verschillende instituties, is er ook meer kans dan in een centraal geleide samenleving dat de elementen al voor handen zijn om een crisis te weerstaan en er zelfs sterker uit te komen. In zijn boek Antifragiel: Dingen die baat hebben bij wanorde (2012) probeerde Taleb deze schijnbare paradox te verklaren vanuit het verschil tussen de relatief eenvoudige omgevingen waarin het ‘gezond verstand' van de mens is ontstaan en de veel complexere omgevingen waarin we tegenwoordig leven: omgevingen waarin de kans op ‘zwarte zwanen' steeds groter wordt en waarin je systemen nodig hebt die ‘antifragiel' zijn. Een perfect voorbeeld van het tekortschieten van gezondverstandoplossingen is ‘het stelselmatig voorkomen van bosbranden “voor de veiligheid”, wat de grote bosbranden juist veel erger maakt'. Gezondverstanddenken Zo is ons beleid vaak in de greep van een achterhaald soort gezond verstand dat onze samenleving veel kwetsbaarder maakt. We denken dat we de economie beschermen door de staat er meer macht over te geven, maar in feite werpen we zo alleen maar belemmeringen op voor het aanpassen van die economie wanneer interne of externe schokken dat vereisen. De remedie is volgens Taleb om af te stappen van ons gezondverstanddenken en de primitieve behoefte alles in de hand te houden, en om te leren enige mate van willekeur en onvoorspelbaarheid te accepteren. De vrije markt, tegenpool van een geleide economie, is niet alleen beweeglijker en flexibeler en daardoor beter in staat om schokken op te vangen, maar vermijdt ook de versterkende effecten die in strak gereguleerde markten schering en inslag zijn en die een kleine crisis kunnen aanwakkeren tot een systeemcrisis. Redundantie, de spreiding van macht en de vrijheid om te innoveren zijn eigenschappen die een samenleving bestand maken tegen schokken waar een geharnast en met dwang geleid systeem aan ten onder gaat. laat je niet verblinden door de illusie van macht De critici van de vrije samenleving hebben gelijk als ze zeggen dat zo'n samenleving alle kanten tegelijk op wordt getrokken door vakbonden, het bedrijfsleven, de kerken, maatschappelijke organisaties, universiteiten, non-profitorganisaties en duizenden andere instellingen. Ze hebben gelijk als ze zeggen dat autocratische samenlevingen een vorm van eendracht aan de dag leggen waaraan het ons ontbreekt, of ze nu doelen op het Rusland van Poetin of het Italië van Mussolini. Maar ze zitten ernaast als ze denken dat verscheidenheid de vrije samenleving zwakker maakt, of dat eenvormigheid een gesloten samenleving sterker maakt. Het zijn juist de vrije samenlevingen die beter zijn toegerust om in een onzekere toekomst te overleven en zelfs te gedijen, en de gesloten samenlevingen die hun zwakte verhullen. Dat wil niet zeggen dat vrije samenlevingen altijd van gesloten samenlevingen zullen winnen, of dat de historische ontwikkeling altijd in de richting van meer vrijheid gaat. Mensen zullen waarschijnlijk dezelfde fouten blijven maken die we in de loop van de geschiedenis altijd hebben gemaakt. Maar aan iedereen die in naam van de kracht nu onze vrijheid wil afdanken: laat je niet verblinden door de illusie van macht.

This is a different kind of episode than is typical; there's no book, no central text, not even a single, central event that guides the conversation. Instead, we begin with a few recent news items—speculation about Trump 2028, Speaker Mike Johnson's refusal to swear in a Democratic congresswoman, the stunning abdication of Congress as the shutdown continues, and, incredibly, a secretive billionaire and Mellon heir donates over a hundred million dollars to pay the military, among others—and then lay out our profound worries about Trump ruling by decree, and the coming of MAGA-style Caeserism. How and when might that occur? We discuss troubling signals the Trump administration is sending about upcoming elections, and especially the 2026 midterms; the ticking time bomb that is the Insurrection Act; how the right thinks about executive power (then and now), and more.Sources:Peter Rothpletz, "Trump's Third Term?" Zeteo/First Draft, Oct 24, 2025Dana Milbank, "How Reactionary is MAGA? Try the First Century B.C.," Washington Post, Sept 7, 2022Steve Bannon interview with The Economist, Oct 23, 2025 (YouTube)Shawn Hubler & Laurel Rosenhall, "Justice Department Will Monitor Elections in California and New Jersey," New York Times, Oct 24, 2025Steve Contorno & Ashley Killough, "Frustrated Arizonans Have Waited More Than a Month for Their New Congresswoman to be Seated," CNN, Oct 25, 2025Yoni Applebaum, "America's Fragile Constitution," The Atlantic, Oct 2015Abraham Lincoln, "Speech to the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield," Jan 27, 1838Bob Bauer & Jack Goldsmith, "Here's What Trump Could Unleash by Invoking the Insurrection Act," New York Times, Oct 18, 2025Damon Linker, "The Surest Path to Dictatorship: A Quick Plug for a Short Primer about the Insurrection Act," Notes from the Middleground, Oct 18, 2025"Discussing Caesarism," New Founding Podcast, Oct 21, 2022. Harvey Mansfield, Taming the Prince: The Ambivalence of Modern Executive Power (1989)James Burnham, Congress and the American Tradition (1959)Garry Wills, Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State (2010)...and don't forget to subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon for access to all of our bonus episodes!

In this episode of The Value Creators Podcast, Hunter Hastings speaks with Ryan Turnipseed about the greatest enemy of entrepreneurial value creation: bureaucracy. Value creation is a universal economic goal, so how and why have bureaucratic restraints emerged, and why are they so resistant to innovation? Drawing on the contrasting theories of James Burnham and Ludwig von Mises, Ryan explains how managerialism and bureaucratic systems suppress innovation, limit consumer sovereignty, and redirect businesses away from value creation toward rule-following and control.From rebranding fiascos to government regulation, from MBAs to corporate conformity, this conversation unpacks why bureaucracy persists and how entrepreneurs can resist it. Ryan highlights examples of entrepreneurial leadership—such as Elon Musk's overhaul of Twitter—that demonstrate how decisiveness and freedom can dismantle bureaucratic inertia.Key insights include:Why bureaucracy prioritizes rules and efficiency over profit and consumer value.How Burnham and Mises offer different but complementary theories of bureaucracy's rise.Why entrepreneurs must assert autonomy and freedom to restore value creation in their businesses.This is a must-listen for leaders who want to build adaptive, value-driven organizations in the 21st century.Resources:➡️ Learn What They Didn't Teach You In Business School: The Value Creators Online Business CourseSubscribe to Ryan Turnipseed's YouTube ChannelConnect with Hunter Hastings on LinkedInSubscribe to The Value Creators on SubstackMorning Star: Pioneering Zero-Bureaucracy OrganizationIs Managerialism Inevitable? Two Explanations For Cracker Barrel's Attempted Rebrand - Ryan Turnipseed on Substack

In this episode, we tackle significant accountability stories making headlines, including the FBI's investigation into potential obstruction of justice by its own agents concerning high-profile figures like Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden. Join John Solomon as he analyzes the implications of newly uncovered memos and hear from retired FBI special agent Jonathan Gilliam on the rare nature of these findings. He also discusses political interference in investigations and the recent Supreme Court ruling favoring President Trump. Don't miss our lineup featuring insights from Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and former chief counsel James Burnham!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

La realidad es que es una minoría que ejerce el poder sobre la mayoría, y su objetivo principal es mantener su poder. Aunque queramos creerlo y la élite lo diga constantemente, su principal objetivo no es servir a la comunidad.Notas y enlaces: https://www.intercambio-ionico.com Basado en el libro “The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom” de James Burnham. 

Devoted Know Your Enemy listeners will recall that, in November 2021, we released a fairly dense, theory-driven episode on Frank Meyer, the Communist from New Jersey whose exploits on behalf of the Party in the UK got him kicked out of the country and back to the United States, where he eventually turned right and became a key figure in the post-war U.S. conservative movement, both as an editor at National Review and an architect of institutions like the American Conservative Union, Young Americans for Freedom, and the Conservative Party of New York. Of course, we had more to say about Meyer, and we're devoting another episode to him, this time focused on the details of his incredible life, thanks to the publication of an extraordinary new biography of Meyer, Daniel J. Flynn's The Man Who Invented Conservatism: The Unlikely Life of Frank S. Meyer. Flynn discovered a trove of never-before-seen papers of Meyer's that range from personal documents (tax returns, Christmas cards from Joan Didion, his dance card from college) to his correspondence with nearly every conservative writer and intellectual of note in the 1950s and 60s. Armed with these files, Flynn offers a vivid portrait of a brilliant, eccentric political life and mind.Listen again: "Frank Meyer: Father of Fusionism" (November 10, 2021)Sources:Daniel J. Flynn, The Man Who Invented Conservatism: The Unlikely Life of Frank S. Meyer (2025)Frank S. Meyer, In Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo (Regnery, 1962)F.A. Hayek, "Why I am Not a Conservative," from The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition (2011)George H. Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 (Basic Books, 1976)Garry Wills, Confessions of a Conservative (Doubleday, 1979)"Against the Dead Consensus," First Things, March 21, 2019...and don't forget to subscribe on Patreon for access to all of our bonus episodes!

Offensichtlich habe ich Vince Ebert bei unserem letzten Gespräch nicht hinreichend abgeschreckt. Ich habe tatsächlich erneut die Freude, ihn zu einem Gespräch begrüßen zu dürfen! Der Titel der heutigen Episode folgt dem Buchtitel seines neuen Buches: »Wot Se Fack, Deutschland?« und statt Deutschland könnte ebenso – wie Vince Ebert im Gespräch erwähnt – Österreich stehen.   Vince Ebert ist Diplom-Physiker und Kabarettist seit über 25 Jahren. In der ARD moderierte er jahrelang die Sendung „Wissen vor Acht“. Seine Bücher sind Bestseller und haben sich über eine Million Mal verkauft. Außerdem ist er einer der gefragtesten Vortragsredner Deutschlands.   Das Buch von Vince Ebert erscheint am 14. August 2025, und ich wünsche an dieser Stelle natürlich viel Erfolg, denn dieses Buch ist es wert, gelesen zu werden!   Weiters möchte ich erwähnen, dass zwischen der Aufnahme unseres Gesprächs und der Veröffentlichung bekannt wurde, dass Vince Ebert mit der Hayek-Medaille 2025 ausgezeichnet wird. – Herzliche Gratulation dazu!   Diese Episode kreist um die Themen seines neuen Buches, beschränkt sich aber nicht darauf. Ich stelle zunächst die Frage, ob das Buch nachdenklicher als die früheren ist – oder ärgerlicher – oder ist es etwa eher Fassungslosigkeit, die man herausliest? Werfen wir unsere westlichen Werte und Errungenschaften ohne Not aus dem Fenster?   »Tagtäglich prasseln Meldungen auf uns ein, die immer absurder, bizarrer und bedrückender werden.« Warum bestätigen viele Menschen die Probleme und die Verrücktheit der Situation in Vier-Augen-Gesprächen, sind aber nicht bereit, dies im täglichen Leben auszudrücken und zu verändern?   Gibt es wieder – wie früher in der DDR – eine private und eine öffentliche Meinung, die sich komplett von der privaten Meinung unterscheidet? Wie kann der Weckruf aussehen, um die Menschen, die den Großteil der Bevölkerung ausmachen, aus dieser Angststarre zu befreien?   Wird der Sturm gar über uns hinwegziehen, wenn die Mehrheit der Menschen sich duckt und stillhält?   Warum schweigen führende Manager, wenn offensichtlich verheerende Ideen in der Politik umgesetzt werden?   »The fraud investigator Bill Black had coined the concept of a ‘criminogenic organisation'. It referred to an institution in which incentives and management systems were structurally designed to ensure that crimes would be committed.«, Dan Davies   Müssen Mitarbeiter und Bürger zunehmend die Feigheit des opportunistischen Managements ausbaden? Gibt es nicht auch im Alltag immer weniger Mut, seine Ansicht auszudrücken und sich schlechten Ideen entgegenzustellen – vom Elternabend bis zum beruflichen Umfeld?   Erleben wir einen solchen Tsunami an irren Ideen, dass die meisten Menschen davon überfordert sind? Gibt es eine Empörungserschöpfung?   »Das nimmt uns Satirikern eigentlich den Job weg.«   Kommen wir in ein neues Biedermeier? Werden die Narren, die häufig die Deutungshoheit zu haben scheinen, dadurch noch kecker?   »Wenn die Vernünftigen den Diskurs verlassen, überlassen sie den Narren das Feld.«   Die Krise, die wir erleben, scheint noch dazu im Kern hausgemacht und eben nicht von großen externen Problemen getrieben zu sein. Wie ist das zu erklären?   Was sind die drei großen Baustellen, die wir nach wie vor ignorieren und die das Potenzial haben, unsere Nationen zu zerstören?   Bürokratie (»Wir müssen da jetzt eine Kommission gründen, für Bürokratieabbau«)   Energieversorgung (siehe auch frühere Episode mit Vince Ebert)   Migration (in beide Richtungen)   Was war die Rolle der Merkel-Regierung ab ca. 2011? Hat sie die Schienen für die heutige tiefe Krise gelegt? Neben der politischen Dimension gibt es aber auch die Frage, wer überhaupt noch als Experte gelten darf?   »Besonders die sogenannten Expertenrunden im Zuge der Diskussionen um Klima, Corona und Migration haben einen neuen Oberlehrertypus hervorgebracht. Dieser verkauft seine Weltanschauung als Wissenschaft, flankiert von latenter Aggressivität und einer kaum zu überbietenden Überheblichkeit, mit der alle diejenigen abserviert werden, die es wagen, zu widersprechen oder auch nur Nachfragen zu stellen.«   Expertise wird gerade auch an Unis gesucht, aber was ist an den Unis los? Wie ist es zur starken Politisierung der Wissenschaft und der Uni-Landschaft gekommen? Ist das überhaupt ein neuer Trend? Sind Entscheidungen, etwa in Klima- oder Energiefragen, tatsächlich alternativlos, wie sie häufig dargestellt werden?   »Klimaforschung ist natürlich objektiv, wenn sie korrekt betrieben wird, aber Klimapolitik ist eine gesellschaftliche Frage. Da muss eine Gesellschaft darüber diskutieren.«   Wie ist das Zusammenspiel zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik zu interpretieren?   »Man weiß dann immer nie, ob die Politik sich die Wissenschafter raussucht, die eine passende Meinung vertreten, oder ob sich die Wissenschaftler politisiert und angepasst haben.«   Darf man sich über die qualitativ fragwürdigen Ergebnisse wundern, wenn Anreizsysteme eingerichtet werden, die Opportunität fördern? Werden politisch erwünschte Erkenntnisse gefordert, so ist das für den Wissenschaftsbetrieb fatal. Gibt es jedoch Unterschiede zwischen Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften?   Fahren Aktivisten eine »Bait and Switch«-Strategie – was ist darunter konkret zu verstehen?   Wem haben wir die woken Ideen zu verdanken? Welche Rolle spielt der Postmodernismus und davor die Entwicklungen der Naturwissenschaft und die Versuche, die Erfolge der Naturwissenschaft in die Geisteswissenschaften zu übernehmen (etwa im Rahmen des Wiener Kreises)?   »Das Schiff wird während der Fahrt laufend neu gebaut«, Otto Neurath Geht es nicht mehr um Wahrheit, sondern nur noch um die (irrige) Idee, alles wäre eine Frage von Machtverhältnissen? Wenn alles eine Frage der Machtstruktur ist, dann habe ich kaum Verantwortung mehr, dann läuft mein Leben nicht rund, weil ich schlechte Entscheidungen getroffen habe, sondern weil mich das Machtsystem unterdrückt und meine Genialität nicht erkennen will. Ist das eine Perpetuierung einer selbstverursachten Opferrolle? Eine bequeme Möglichkeit, die Verantwortungsübernahme zu vermeiden?   In der Geschichte gab es Gegenbewegungen, etwa die Romantik – stecken wir in einer neuen Romantik fest? Alles Emotion, nichts real? Ist alles subjektiv und es gibt keine objektiven Wahrheiten – aber ist diese Behauptung nicht selbstwidersprüchlich? Wie weit ist der Weg von der Postmoderne zur völligen Beliebigkeit?   »1986 hat Herbert Grönemeyer gesungen: Kinder an die Macht. Und immer öfter denke ich: Sein Wunsch hat sich erfüllt.«   Die Umdefinition von Worten ist auch ein gängiges Machtmittel, wie Hayek schon 1945 festgestellt hat:   »Freiheit ist keineswegs das einzige Wort, dessen Bedeutung ins Gegenteil verkehrt worden ist, damit es zum tauglichen Instrument der totalitären Propaganda wird. Wir haben schon gesehen, wie dasselbe mit den Wörtern Gerechtigkeit, Gesetz, Recht und Gleichheit geschieht. Diese Liste könnte so lange fortgesetzt werden, bis sie fast alle gebräuchlichen Ausdrücke der Moral und der Politik umfasst.«   Werden uns Begriffe genommen oder durch stete Umdefinition wertlos gemacht, so werden uns auch Wege der Argumentation genommen. Ist es das, was wir gerade erleben?   So provoziert beispielsweise Jette Nietzard mit »Eat the Rich«-Kappe und »All Cops are Bastards«-Pullover – während andere Vertreter der Partei regelmäßig vor der vermeintlichen Bedrohung der Demokratie durch Hass und Hetze warnen. Ist Hass und Hetze immer Hass und Hetze der anderen?   Woher kommt diese Polarisierung in der Gesellschaft?   »Wir sind ein evolutionäres Produkt. Wir sind rationale Wesen und wir sind auch Gefühlswesen. Wir sind gruppenzentriert, wir sind Individualisten. Wir pendeln immer zwischen dieser Herdenmentalität und diesem individualistischen Selbstentfaltungstrieb.«   Gelingt es zu vielen Menschen, besonders auch Wissenschaftlern und »Experten«, sich dem Test ihrer Ideen an der Realität zu entziehen beziehungsweise den Folgen solcher Tests? Kurz gesagt: Immunisieren sie sich selbst gegen die Fehler, die andere machen, wenn sie den Theorien folgen?   Was ist von der These zu halten, dass das Behaupten offensichtlich absurder Ideen eine Demonstration von großer Macht sein kann, die Menschen noch dazu demütigt?   Wie steht es mit Rationalität und Glauben? Was macht eine Religion heute erfolgreich?   Wie steht es eigentlich um den Rest der Welt – ist dort der Drang, sich selbst abzuschaffen, ebenso groß wie in Europa?   »Die Welt wird natürlich besser – aber wir nehmen uns heraus.«   Wie läuft hingegen der Diskurs in weiten Bereichen deutscher Eliten?   »Hier zulande sprechen wir ganz liebevoll von Familienunternehmern – in anderen Ländern nennt man sie Oligarchen.«, Martyna Linartas   Wieso kämpfen wir im Westen mit solcher Inbrunst gegen genau die Dinge, die uns erfolgreich gemacht, die unseren Wohlstand begründet haben und um die uns die Welt beneidet — oder beneidet hat?   »Der große Vorteil der westlichen Kultur ist die Selbstreflexion, der Selbstzweifel. Nicht umsonst haben wir eine Erinnerungskultur. […] Da sind Dinge schlecht gelaufen, wir versuchen sie jetzt besser zu machen – und wir haben sie auch verbessert. In den letzten zwanzig Jahren ist diese Selbstkorrektur in Selbstverachtung und dieser Selbstzweifel in komplette Selbstzerstörung umgeschlagen. […] Das ist vielleicht das, was man Wohlstandsverwahrlosung nennt.«   Wann kommt es zu Kipppunkten in Gesellschaften?   »Diversität bedeutet, alle denken das Gleiche und sehen dabei unterschiedlich aus. Dabei sollte Diversität eigentlich eine Vielfalt in Meinungen und Ansichten bedeuten.«   Menschen reagieren auf Anreize. Wie kann man diese in unserer Gesellschaft aber verändern?   »You get what you reward for.«, Charlie Munger   Wie hat sich die Rolle des Staates verändert – haben wir unsere Freiheit aufgegeben, um einen Nanny-State zu schaffen? Kann das überhaupt funktionieren – selbst wenn wir gewillt sind, unsere Freiheit aufzugeben?   »Seit ich denken kann, überfrachten wir die Politik mit so hohen Erwartungen, dass sie nur scheitern kann.«   Ist es wirklich die Politik, die scheitert, oder ist es zu einem systemischen Problem geworden? Wie kann uns ein Blick über den Tellerrand helfen? Brauchen wir mehr liberales oder libertäres Gedankengut in Europa?   »Das Gegenteil von links und rechts ist liberal.«   In der Biologie lehnt die Moderne zurecht einen »intelligenten Designer« ab, aber in der Wirtschaft soll das funktionieren? Passt das zusammen? Hat Marktwirtschaft nicht in Wahrheit eine emanzipierende Wirkung? Fürchtet man sich davor? Brodeln in der Gesellschaft so stark Spannungen, dass wir vor neuen Kipppunkten stehen? Können wir das Schiff noch vor dem Eisberg umsteuern?   »Die Revolution hat schon immer ihre eigenen Kinder gefressen.«   Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 130: Populismus und (Ordo)liberalismus, ein Gespräch mit Nils Hesse Episode 128: Aufbruch in die Moderne — Der Mann, der die Welt erfindet! Episode 126: Schwarz gekleidet im dunklen Kohlekeller. Ein Gespräch mit Axel Bojanowski Episode 125: Ist Fortschritt möglich? Ideen als Widergänger über Generationen Episode 118: Science and Decision Making under Uncertainty, A Conversation with Prof. John Ioannidis Episode 117: Der humpelnde Staat, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Christoph Kletzer Episode 113: Liberty in Our Lifetime 1: Conversations with Massimo Mazzone, Vera Kichanova and Tatiana Butanka Episode 107: How to Organise Complex Societies? A Conversation with Johan Norberg Episode 101: Live im MQ, Macht und Ohnmacht in der Wissensgesellschaft. Ein Gespräch mit John G. Haas. Episode 96: Ist der heutigen Welt nur mehr mit Komödie beizukommen? Ein Gespräch mit Vince Ebert Episode 91: Die Heidi-Klum-Universität, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Ehrmann und Prof. Sommer Episode 84: (Epistemische) Krisen? Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Vince Ebert Webseite LinkedIn Twitter / X Wot se Fack, Deutschland? dtv (2025) Lichtblick statt Blackout. dtv (2022) Hayek Medaille 2025 für Vince Ebert Fachliche Referenzen Dan Davies, The Unaccountability Machine, Why Big Systems Make Terrible Decisions - and How The World Lost its Mind, Profile Books (2024) Wiener Kreis: In Our Time, Logical Positivism (2009) Friedrich von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, Routledge (1944) Jette Nietzard provoziert, msn (2025) Grüne Kommunalpolitiker klagen über Hass und Drohungen, SZ (2025) Hassnachrichten: Habeck stellte 700 Anzeigen, ZDF (2024) Sabine Hossenfelder auf YouTube Wie ungleich ist Deutschland?: „Wir sprechen von Familienunternehmern – woanders nennt man sie Oligarchen“, Martyna Linartas im Gespräch, Tagesspiegel Interview Juni 2025 Charlie Munger on Incentives Thomas Sowell, intellectuals and Society, Basic Books (2010) James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution; What is Happening in the World, John Day Company (1941)  

Economic journalist Mani Basharzad reflects on Britain's Online Safety Act — and what it reveals about the rise of managerialism in public life.What begins as a discussion of misinformation soon unfolds into something broader: a quiet shift away from the liberal tradition of debate and dissent, toward a more technocratic instinct to manage, correct, and control.With nods to James Burnham, James Buchanan, and John Stuart Mill, this is a calm but pointed meditation on the value of open inquiry — and a reminder that freedom isn't always lost through loud confrontation, but through quiet consensus.Despatch features the best writing from CapX's daily newsletter – narrated by an automated voice.Stay informed with CapX's unmissable daily briefings from the heart of Westminster. Go to capx.co to subscribe. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comSam is a biographer, historian, and journalist. He used to be the editor of the New York Times Book Review, a features writer for Vanity Fair, and a writer for Prospect magazine. He's currently a contributing writer for the Washington Post. His many books include The Death of Conservatism and Whittaker Chambers: A Biography, and his new one is Buckley: The Life and the Revolution That Changed America.It's a huge tome — almost 1,000 pages! — but fascinating, with new and startling revelations, and a breeze to read. It's crack to me, of course, and we went long — a Rogan-worthy three hours. But I loved it, and hope you do too. It's not just about Buckley; it's about now, and how Buckleyism is more similar to Trumpism than I initially understood. It's about American conservatism as a whole.For three clips of our convo — Buckley as a humane segregationist, his isolationism even after Pearl Harbor, and getting gay-baited by Gore Vidal — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: me dragging Sam to a drag show in Ptown; the elite upbringing of Buckley during the Depression; his bigoted but charitable dad who struck rich with oil; his Southern mom who birthed a dozen kids; why the polyglot Buckley didn't learn English until age 7; aspiring to be a priest or a pianist; a middle child craving the approval of dad; a poor student at first; his pranks and recklessness; being the big man on campus at Yale; leading the Yale Daily News; skewering liberal profs; his deep Catholicism; God and Man at Yale; Skull and Bones; his stint in the Army; Charles Lindbergh and America First; defending Joe McCarthy until the bitter end and beyond; launching National Review; Joan Didion; Birchers; Brown v. Board; Albert Jay Nock; Evelyn Waugh; Whittaker Chambers; Brent Bozell; Willmoore Kendall; James Burnham; Orwell; Hitchens; Russell Kirk; not liking Ike; underestimating Goldwater; Nixon and the Southern Strategy; Buckley's ties to Watergate; getting snubbed by Reagan; Julian Bond and John Lewis on Firing Line; the epic debate with James Baldwin; George Will; Michael Lind; David Brooks and David Frum; Rick Hertzberg; Buckley's wife a fag hag who raised money for AIDS; Roy Cohn; Bill Rusher; Scott Bessent; how Buckley was a forerunner for Trump; and much more. It's a Rogan-length pod.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden cover-up, Walter Isaacson on Ben Franklin, Robert Merry on President McKinley, Tara Zahra on the last revolt against globalization after WWI, N.S. Lyons on the Trump era, Arthur C. Brooks on the science of happiness, and Paul Elie on crypto-religion in ‘80s pop culture. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

James Burnham was one of the most significant intellectual influences on the conservative movement of the twentieth century.  As an anti-Communist hardliner, his views on dealing with the Soviet menace head on ultimately shaped US foreign policy in the Reagan administration.  And his work at William F. Buckley's National Review gave the fledgling magazine its foreign policy heft.   Throughout his long public career, there emerged two James Burnhams: one who provided the early scaffolding to neoconservative ideas and the other who inspired paleoconservatives.  Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by history professor David Byrne to discuss his latest book James Burnham: An Intellectual Biography.   About David Byrne David Byrne is an adjunct professor of history at California Baptist University and Santa Monica College.  He contributes to the blogs The American Thinker and Crisis: A Voice for the Faithful Catholic Laity.  His previous book Ronald Reagan: An Intellectual Biography analyzes the ideas that informed Reagan's political philosophy and policies, establishing a rationale for the former president's motives, and discusses how thinkers such as Plato and Adam Smith influenced him.   Have you heard?  Saving Elephants has joined Substack! Having trouble keeping up with all that Saving Elephants is producing these days?  Join the substack to receive monthly newsletters to your inbox with the latest podcast episodes, YouTube clips and interviews, blog posts, recommended readings, and even the occasional banjo solo (no joke).  

John J. Miller is joined by David T. Byrne to discuss his new book, 'James Burnham: An Intellectual Biography.'

Listen to the rest of this premium episode by subscribing at patreon.com/knowyourenemyThe first three weeks of Donald Trump's second administration have seen a flurry of vicious executive orders aimed at the federal workforce, trans people, government agencies, and others—all while Elon Musk and his deranged band of young sociopaths, otherwise known as the "Department of Government Efficiency," have been set loose on the Treasury's payment system and other key functions of the state. In this episode, we talk with John Ganz to try to make sense of it all: how to avoid getting sucked into the political quicksand of debating conservatives about line items in a budget, what Trump and Musk really want, how "presidential" political systems break down, and, generally, how to think about What's Happening Now.Sources:James Burnham, The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom (1943)— The Managerial Revolution: What Is Happening in the World  (1941)George Orwell, "Second Thoughts on James Burnham," Polemic, May 1946John Ganz, "What Happened Here," Unpopular Front, Feb 4, 2024Nathan Tankus, "Elon Musk Wants to Get Operational Control of the Treasury's Payment System," Notes on the Crises, Feb 3, 2024Karen Yourish, et al, "All of the Trump Administration's Major Moves in the First 17 Days," New York Times, Feb 6, 2024Yoni Applebaum, "America's Fragile Constitution," The Atlantic, Oct 2015Eric Rauchway, Why the New Deal Matters (2021)

140 MinutesPG-13Here are two episodes in which Pete and Aaron from Timeline Earth read and commented on a James Burnham chapter and Sam Francis' explanation of the Machiavellians.James Burnham on the Death of CapitalismSamuel Francis' Review of The MachiavelliansTimeline Earth PodcastPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on Twitter

Get access to The Backroom Exclusive podcasts on Patreon: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/OneDime⁠ In this episode of 1Dime Radio, I am joined by a friend of the show, C. Derick Varn (  @VarnVlog  ), a theorist, writer, and leftist podcast veteran, to discuss the phenomenon of leftists shifting to the right and cases throughout the history of famous right-wingers who were former radical leftists, such as Benito Mussolini and various former Communists turned Fascists. We discuss examples of the infamous "Trotskyist to Neoconservative pipeline," such as Lyndon LaRouche, James Burnham, and Irving Kristol. We speculate about the intellectual, psychological, and social factors behind these political shifts and their relation to the culture of the left. In The Backroom on Patreon, Varn and I go deep into the lore of contemporary examples of famous leftists "leaving the left" as well as the phenomenon of the "post-left" whereby people reject the left-right binary. Become a Patron at Patreon.com/OneDime if you haven't already! 00:00 The ACP, "Maga Communism" and The Post-Left 04:12 Introduction to 1Dime Radio with C. Derek Varn 05:02 The Left-to-Right Political Shift 06:38 Trotskyists To Neocon Pipeline 15:07 LaRouche Vs MagaCommunism 45:42 Personal and Psychological Factors in Political Shifts 53:07 The Culture of the Left 01:21:38 The Urban-Rural Divide 01:23:27 The Backroom Preview Check out Varn's Show: https://www.youtube.com/@VarnVlog Follow me on X: https://x.com/1DimeOfficial Read Articles Faster with Speechify: https://share.speechify.com/mzrxH5D Outro Music by Karl Casey Give 1Dime Radio a 5 Star Rating if you enjoy the show!

0:00 - Michigan denies RFK Jr.'s escape from presidential ballot   11:46 - Harris flip-flops on building the border wall   27:29 - Harris and Walz to sit with CNN for exclusive first joint interview since campaign began   48:27 - William Jacobson is a Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell Law School. Founder of LegalInsurrection.com and president of the Legal Insurrection Foundation. He joined Dan and Amy with reaction to Tuesday's news of Jack Smith's new indictment against Donald Trump in the election interference case   01:03:23 - Andy Kroll is a national reporter for ProPublica and author of A Death on W Street: The Murder of Seth Rich and the Age of Conspiracy. He joined Dan and Amy with reaction to the announcement that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz will do their first interview with CNN this week   01:18:59 - Stephen Moore is a Noted Economist and author of Govzilla: How the Relentless Growth of Government Is Devouring Our Economy—And Our Freedom. He joined Dan and Amy with reaction to the Harris plan to fight price gouging.   01:35:55 - James Burnham is a former senior associate counsel to the president, deputy assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice, and counselor to the attorney general. He is now the principal at King Street Legal, PLLC. He joined Dan and Amy with reaction to Tuesday's news of Jack Smith's new indictment against Donald Trump in the election interference case 01:48:42 - Pelosi insisted Trump had to ‘pay a price' for Jan. 6 in unreleased footage: ReportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Political science is a real thing afterall! So why don't people talk about it? Highlights from: The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham

Hlustaðu í fullri lengd inni á www.patreon.com/skodanabraedur Sérstakur þáttur um elítur; hvernig þær fúnkera, af hverju þær eru til - og hvernig stjórna þær hugmyndum og kerfum? Til þess að skilja þetta betur skoðum við bókina The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom eftir James Burnham. Epískar pælingar þar. Í samhengi við þetta er lauslega snert á vibe-shifti sumarsins: Donald Trump, Peter Thiel og Elon Musk. Hvað er í gangi?

En este episodio de #PodcastLaTrinchera, Christian Sobrino entrevista a Humberto Mercader y Carlos Fontán para discutir el estudio de "Evaluación del Desempeño de Incentivos Económicos" publicado el 21 de mayo de 2024 por el Departamento de Desarrollo Económico y Comercio de Puerto Rico (DDEC). Humberto Mercader es el Sub-Secretario del DDEC y ha laborado en la agencia desde el 2021. Carlos Fontán es el Director de la Oficina de Incentivos Económicos del DDEC y ha laborado en la agencia desde el 2015. Este episodio de La Trinchera es presentado a ustedes por La Tigre,  el primer destino en Puerto Rico para encontrar una progresiva selección de moda Italiana, orientada a una nueva generación de profesionales que reconocen que una imagen bien curada puede aportar a nuestro progreso profesional. Detrás de La Tigre, se encuentra un selecto grupo de expertos en moda y estilo personal, que te ayudarán a elaborar una imagen con opciones de ropa a la medida y al detal de origen Italiano para él, y colecciones europeas para ella. Visiten la boutique de La Tigre ubicada en Ciudadela en Santurce o síganlos en Instagram en @shoplatigre.Por favor suscribirse a La Trinchera con Christian Sobrino en su plataforma favorita de podcasts y compartan este episodio con sus amistades.Para contactar a Christian Sobrino y #PodcastLaTrinchera, nada mejor que mediante las siguientes plataformas:Facebook: @PodcastLaTrincheraTwitter: @zobrinovichInstagram: zobrinovichThreads: @zobrinovichBluesky Social: zobrinovich.bsky.socialYouTube: @PodcastLaTrinchera“Se puede observar que los liberales apuntan sus polémicas más afiladas contra el capital que contra el ingreso. Capital, especialmente en la forma de propiedades inmuebles y hasta cierto grado toda acumulación grande de capital, usualmente está atado con el pasado, con la familia, hasta con el domicilio local y la tradición. Por ende el capital, desde la perspectiva de principios liberales, parece más irracional y apunta al pasado que los ingresos, que pueden pensarse como el producto de talento intelectual..." - James Burnham

[originally published on Patreon Nov 17, 2023] Today I'm rejoined by Comrade Chad to discuss post-Trotsky Trotskyism in the US, especially their penchant for attacking communism 'from the left'. Comrade Chad walks us through some of the theory and vocabulary necessary. Then we zero in on James Cannon, Max Schactman and James Burnham in particular. We attempt to explain the theoretical positions this entailed within both Trotskyism. Marxism, and Cold War geopolitics before explaining their actions in the labor movement. Along the way we discuss Farrell Dobbs, Jimmy Hoffa, Joseph Hansen, Burnham's theoretical works, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, and much more. episode art by Robert Voyvodich @r.voy__ Songs: Teamster Power by Tex Williams After You've Gone by the Toshiko Akiyoshi Trio Moiritat (Mack the Knife) by Sonny Rollins

James Burnham, a Trotskyite-turned-conservative, wrote The Managerial Revolution in 1941. In it, he describes the processes by which capitalist societies become managerial, and by which capitalists are displaced by managers as those who control the means of production.VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATIONJack has published a novel!Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Tower-Jack-BC-ebook/dp/B0CM5P9N9M/ref=monarch_sidesheetApple Books: http://books.apple.com/us/book/id6466733671Our Patreon: www.patreon.com/TheBookClubfromHellJack's website: www.jackbc.meLevi's website: www.levioutloud.comwww.thebookclubfromhell.comJoin our Discord (the best place to interact with us): discord.gg/ZMtDJ9HscrWatch us on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0n7r1ZTpsUw5exoYxb4aKA/featuredX: @bookclubhell666Jack on X: @supersquat1Levi on X: @optimismlevi

0:00 - Alito flag controversy   8:38 - Planet Fitness Founder & former CEO Mike Grondahl: company pretty much destroyed   28:30 - Cobb County Schools (GA) Supt. Chris Ragsdale on responsibility to protect kids from sexually explicit materials   47:31 - Deadly force authorized for MAL raid   01:02:44 - Former U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner, Mark Morgan, believes the outrageous number of illegal aliens crossing the border suggests the need to investigate illegal voter registration and potential voter fraud   01:17:44 - Noted economist Stephen Moore remarks on the passing of torch at the WEF. Get more Steve @StephenMoore   01:30:15 - Battalion Commander, FDNY (Ret.), member of the board at Tunnel to Towers Foundation, Jack Oehm, describes the work of T2T who have been helping America's heroes by providing mortgage-free homes to Gold Star and fallen first responder families. Kick-off summer with a day of golf to benefit the Tunnel to Towers Foundation - Wednesday, June 19, at Makray Memorial Golf Club in Barrington - register at 560theAnswer.com    01:41:47 - Lee Co (FL) Sheriff Carmine Marceno on law & order   01:50:30 - James Burnham, former senior associate counsel to the president, deputy assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice, and counselor to the attorney general, offers his opinion on Trump's trial in NYC, the details of the raid on Mar-a-Lago and Biden's move to “shield White House tapes.” James is currently principal at King Street Legal, PLLCSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hello everyone and welcome to Episode Ninety Seven!  And while we're at it, I hope you all remain safe and healthy out there. I just got back from a great herping trip to Suriname.  You may remember my conversation with Dick and Lieke back in episode 79 and it was fun to go visit and see how they operate herp tours there, and the answer is they do very well.  I was with a small group and we saw a lot of fabulous herps.  At any rate I am back home for just a few days, allowing me to get this time sensitive episode assembled and in your ears, so to speak.  I return to Peru in just a few days to assist Josh Holbrook with his tropical ecology class, so the next episode will come out in early June. SMP Patrons! I want to thank James Burnham for his contribution to the So Much Pingle podcast, via Patreon. Much appreciated, James, thank you so much.  And as always, I am grateful to all the show's patrons who help to keep the show moving forward. And if you're out there listening and you would like to kick in a few bucks, it's easy to do, you simply go to the So Much Pingle Patreon page. You can support the show for as little as three bucks a month – less than a fancy cup of coffee! You can also support the show via one-time contributions via PayPal or Venmo (please contact me via email to somuchpingle@gmail.com). Oh yeah. If you've been with the show from the early days or you've worked through the back catalog of episodes, you may recall me talking with Dr. Emily Taylor way back in Episode 12.  Well Emily is back with some exciting topics and it's always a pleasure to talk with her and catch some of that vibrant energy she has. And below are some links for books and cams and papers: Order link for the California Snakes book and other merchandise Project Rattlecam website, and Project Rattlecam on YouTube Link to Savannah Weaver and colleague's paper on Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizards. Open access. Link to paper "Effects of relational and instrumental messaging on human perception of rattlesnakes" Open access Thanks for listening everyone! And as always, please keep the comments and suggestions coming, and please take time to rate the show on your podcast platform! The show email is somuchpingle@gmail.com, and there's also a So Much Pingle group on Facebook, for discussion, comments, feedback, suggestions, herp confessions, tips for herping better, etc. -Mike  

0:00 - Another Chicago Police officer is fatally shot while returning home from work   12:01 - No accountability for thee, no accountability for me   30:53 - weak leaders invite evil   48:58 - Liel Leibovitz, editor at large for Tablet: What you're seeing at Columbia Univ didn't just happen. It took years of deliberate choices by administrators, donors, and lawmakers. Follow Liel on X @liel   01:05:39 - Steven Bucci, former top Pentagon official & visiting fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, on Ukraine Aid, China's influence in Latin America  and Joe Biden's uncle in New Guinea   01:25:22 - Bill Maher on Quiet On Set   01:44:19 - James Burnham, senior associate counsel to the president, deputy assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice, and counselor to the attorney general: No More Special Counsels. James is currently the principal at King Street Legal, PLLC. 02:02:02 - Co-Founder of GreenPeace, Patrick Moore, commemorates Earth Day with Dan & Amy and explains why Bill Gates is "one of the stupidest people that exists on this planet" Purchase your copy of Patrick's book today  Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of DoomSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This episode features an interview with a16z GP and co-founder Marc Andreessen, discussing his intellectual influences and detailing his quest to understand how the world works. He covers the authors who have shaped his thinking, the influence of elites on policies, and global governance. This conversation was recorded in late 2022. Since then, Marc and a16z have released “The Techno-Optimist Manifesto". If you enjoyed this episode with Marc check out episode 1 of Turpentine VC with Ben Horowitz who discusses the how they built the firm and its future plans. --- LINKS: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto: https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/ --- RECOMMENDED PODCAST: Turpentine Finance   Host Sasha Orloff (3x Founder & CEO) is joined by top founders and finance leaders at high growth tech companies who share how they navigated huge make-or-break decisions, rode inflection points, and architected success. If you want to learn the mental models and tactics top business leaders and CFOs, subscribe below. Debut episode features Casey Woo unpacking his wild ride managing billions in budgets at WeWork – arguably one of the craziest capital stories ever. Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5BflNhFxxLjqT2RA47352G  Listen on Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id1704418764 --- SPONSOR: SQUAD Access global engineering without the headache and at a fraction of the cost: head to choosesquad.com and mention “Turpentine” to skip the waitlist. --- Join our free newsletter: https://turpentinevc.substack.com/ - --- RELATED SHOWS:  @10xcapitalpodcast  If you like Turpentine VC, check out our show The 10x Capital Podcast with David Weisburd, where David talks to the investors behind the investors: https://10xcapitalpodcast.com/ --- X / TWITTER: @pmarca (Marc) @eriktorenberg (Erik) @turpentinemedia --- TIMESTAMPS: (00:00) Intro (01:33) How much has Marc changed vs the world changed? (05:05) How much do ideas matter? Who drives society — the elite or the masses? (08:07) People respond to interests more than ideas (10:18) Mental models for the left and the right (12:54) Sponsors: Turpentine | Squad (15:12) The road to hell is paved with good intentions (16:58) Master morality and slave morality (21:37) Unpacking Elon's quote “Wokeness is the mind-virus” (24:17) Is classical liberalism sustainable and how it leads to wokeness (33:18) James Burnham's worldview (41:09) How the left captured the institutions (43:44) Elon as the return to entrepreneurial capitalism (46:22) The experiments Elon is running (53:09) The billionaire mindset toward politics (55:49) We live in an oligarchy, not a democracy (1:04:13) Larry Page is the contrarian billionaire (1:05:48) Effective altruists think they can play God (1:08:54) SBF's roll-the-dice philosophy (1:09:33) Aristocratic vs Meritocratic elite (1:20:04) Elites are insulated from the consequences of their policies (1:22:06) Why global governance is a nerd trap (1:25:28) Global governance is anti-diversity (1:29:00) Tech people are politically homeless (1:29:49) Elites can't be removed, they can only be replaced (1:33:21) Advice for counter-elites (1:45:39) Reasons to be optimistic --- This show is produced by Turpentine: a network of podcasts, newsletters, and more, covering technology, business, and culture — all from the perspective of industry insiders and experts. We're launching new shows every week, and we're looking for industry-leading sponsors — if you think that might be you and your company, email us at erik@turpentine.co.

88 MinutesPG-13Aaron is one of the hosts of the Timeline Earth podcast.Aaron joins Pete to read and comment on Samuel Francis' review of James Burnham's classic, The Machiavellians.Timeline Earth PodcastGet Autonomy Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on Twitter

105 MinutesPG-13Curtis Yarvin is a prolific writer who used to blog under the name Mencius Moldbug. He is famous for coining the phrase and the concept of "The Cathedral"Curtis joins Pete to read and comment on chapter 7 of Academic Agent's (Neema Parvini) book, "The Populist Delusion." Chapter 7 covers James Burnham's 'Managerial Elites'Curtis' SubstackUnqualified ReservationsThe Populist DelusionGet Autonomy Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Support the show and get exclusive content: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/OneDime⁠ Read More with Speechify: https://speechify.com/?source=fb-for-mobile&via=1Dime In this episode of the 1Dime Radio podcast, we discuss the influence that the so-called "Professional Managerial Class" (PMC) exerts on the political scene, class structures, and the ideology of the right and the contemporary "left." Discussion revolves around PMC's intersection with identity politics, its role in the dissolution of the Democrats' working-class base, and its permeation in academia. In this episode, we dive into the Origins of the PMC and the history of the theory surrounding it. This includes the work of Barbara Ehrenreich, James Burnham, Tomas Frank, Catherine Liu, among others I also express some of my criticisms of PMC discourse and the problem of "class identity politics." There are numerous people who have written about the PMC. Adolph Reed, Catherine Liu, David Graeber, and many more. For this episode, I decided to bring on David McKerracher and Elton L.K. =, who have a short course on  @theory_underground  that is dedicated to understanding the PMC and the history of the theory behind it. You can find this course for free on YouTube and it covers a lot of the key ideas from the most important books written about the subject of the PMC: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlcbaQ1cp2TLyjRKSnWmx1glc3vC3SsRh&si=_OYcUrMwXh_RB9pk Subscribe to Theory Underground: https://www.youtube.com/@theory_underground/featured Elton L.K. is the founder and organizer of Dead Parrots Philosophical Society, a local public philosophy group that meets monthly in Boise. He runs two podcasts that relate more to his political work at the DSA: Working Class Intelligentsia, a podcast about Gramsci, and another called CLASS, which is an official education arm of the national education committee of the DSA. David McKerracher (Dave), founder of ⁠⁠Theory Underground⁠⁠, an educational platform for learning theory, and publishing house for organic intellectuals or aspiring theorists who pursue theory and philosophy outside of academia, or people with academic backgrounds who don't want to be restricted by academic fetters, i.e. renegade academics. Dave and Elton are both contributors to the book Underground Theory, which features some big names like Slavoj Zizek, Alenka Zupancic, and some smaller names like Dave, Elton and myself: https://www.amazon.com/Underground-Theory-David-McKerracher/dp/B0CH2CXSGN Check out 1Dime's videos if you haven't already: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@1Dimee/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Be sure to give 1Dime Radio a 5-star rating if you get value out of 1Dime Radio!

Seven years ago I was interviewed by the rapper and public intellectual Killer Mike for his podcast on the history of Reconstruction and black responses to white racist violence. That podcast was never aired, but the producers have just given me the audio file of the interview. Finally it is available, here, after being originally only for Patrons of Unregistered. BECOME A MEMBER OF UNREGISTERED ACADEMY at https://www.unregisteredacademy.com/ for access to the Foucault webinar and other live and video courses taught by Thaddeus Russell and invited experts: Israel and Palestine: Origins of the Gaza War Foucault Neoconservatism The Ukraine War: Russia vs. The West The New Deal American Slavery The Cold War History of NATO Malcolm X The Religious Right World War II: The Great Blowback The JFK Assassination History of the CIA Great Books: Plato's Republic Great Books: Aristotle's Politics Great Books: The Bible Book Club: Bronze Age Mindset by Bronze Age Pervert Book Club: The Managerial Revolution by James Burnham with Curtis Yarvin Book Club: The Unabomber Manifesto by Theodore Kaczynski Book Club: Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher Become a PATRON OF UNREGISTERED at https://www.patreon.com/unregistered and get: Access to Unregistered Live, the weekly live Zoom meeting with Thad and patrons of Unregistered Bonus episodes featuring interviews with Curtis Yarvin, Ben Burgis, Michael Malice, Cody Wilson, Batya Ungar-Sargon, Hotep Jesus, and Buck Johnson

We speak about the three eras of the “New Right”: from William F. Buckley and James Burnham to the second “New Right” under Reagan and Thatcher and now the third “New Right” that is taking shape in the wake of the populist revolutions of Trump and Brexit. We also speak about immigration, liberalism as a self-liquefying force, Thatcher's legacy, Brexit, Orban, and much more. John O'Sullivan is a political commentator and journalist. He was the senior policy writer and speechwriter in 10 Downing Street for Margaret Thatcher when she was British prime minister. He is also the former editor of National Review in the years 1988-1997 and is now an editor at large. Since 2017, he has been president of the Danube Institute in Budapest. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/aksubversive/message

WARNING: It seems my microphone was not fully plugged in during this exchange, and the computer defaulted to the internal microphone... which is, well, garbage. So, my audio quality sounds pretty dreadful here, but it's at least listenable, and there's no way we were re-doing this entire conversation. As mentioned towards the end, however, I may do a regular series episode concerning Burnham's Machiavellians at a later time, if there is further interest in the topic.My friend Karl Nord and I discuss James Burnham, one of the intellectual forebears of modern conservative thought in the United States. Remarkably, upon a closer look into his life, we find that Burnham is an iconoclast who could have been called a socialist, a nationalist, a conservative, a Trotskyist, a neoliberal, a centrist or a social democrat at various times in his life - and yet, he repudiates and attacks all of these ideologies at various times as well. This is a thinker who once thought a communist revolution was inevitable for America, who wrote briefs for the CIA, who supported McCarthy, and who shaped the worldview of generations of conservatives. In the end, the only label that suits him is "Machiavellian", which is fittingly the title of one of his books, which we take a cursory look at during this episode.

Everything can be quantified. Music, art, or literature can be measured. But what about emotions? In this episode, Jerome welcomes James Burnham to show us how he quantifies emotions. As an AI Emotional Intelligence Coach, James discusses his new project, an innovative app called Vibeonix that measures emotional intelligence by analyzing the frequency of one's vocal cords. The app allows users to understand their emotional palette and improve their emotional intelligence in 15 seconds a day. He also discusses the difficulty of confronting and releasing difficult emotions, such as fear and sadness. Emotional intelligence is crucial in controlling reactions instead of defaulting to survival mode, which can lead to delusion.  If you want to take your emotional well-being to new heights, tune into this episode! [00:01 - 07:38] Opening Segment Introducing James Burnham to the show Discussion on emotional intelligence and managing painful emotions Introduction of a new app that measures emotional intelligence through vocal cords Challenging the cultural belief that only certain emotions are acceptable to show [07:39 - 16:58] Learning to Release Negative Emotions: A Powerful Tool for Emotional Intelligence James demonstrates how to touch difficult emotions and release them Fear is a survival instinct, but we can learn to listen to it and move past delusions from our past experiences Emotional intelligence is vital to being in control of our reactions and not just reacting based on past trauma [16:59 - 24:11] Tracking Your Emotional Palate through an App The app helps users understand their emotional palate Most people do not have a complete understanding of their emotions Learning to feel emotions in the body helps care for them and dissipate negative ones The app can also help users resonate with positive emotions like self-love [24:12 - 30:55] The Four Pillars of Emotional Intelligence The app measures four main categories: empathy, achievement, motivation, and protection [30:56 - 32:29] Closing Segment Final words Connect with James with the links below Quotes: "Leading with trust and leading with an honest emotional palette is the most effective and fastest way to get to your end result." - James Burnham "The negative emotions get stuck in us. They remain in us unless we allow ourselves to listen, touch, and feel them. You've got to get out of your head, so we remain in our heads. And we stay very logical, reigning in those emotions because we've been taught that." - James Burnham "It's a beautiful thing when you get out of your head and into your body." - James Burnham Connect with James! Website: www.JamesGBurnham.com  LEAVE A REVIEW + help someone who wants to explode their business growth by sharing this episode or click here to listen to our previous episodes. Dreamcatchers is an inclusive organization that targets people's interest in being more instead of a certain demographic. We have people from all walks of life at many different ages. Find out more at www.dreamsshouldbereal.com. Find out more about Jerome at www.d3v3loping.com or www.myersmethods.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's Ruminant, unencumbered by any pretension to organization, Jonah waxes eloquent on everything from the spy balloon over Montana to the breakdown of organized religion. After beginning with a dive into the rhetoric surrounding the war in Ukraine, he directs his ire towards the cult of victimhood that seems to dominate public life. Stick around for a particularly eggheadish discussion on the nature of policing, American racial progress, and why individual choice matters.Show Notes:-Telegraph's Ukraine: The Latest podcast-The Guardian: Burning of Qur'an in Stockholm funded by journalist with Kremlin ties-Jonah's 1995 Public Interest article-James Burnham's Suicide of the West-Jonah: “The Race to Racism”

Dr. Darel E. Paul is a professor of political science and the Chair of the Political Economy Program at Williams College. Darel and Inez talk through the labor mechanics of corporate wokeism and its connection to the advancement and power of the professional class. They also discuss the political implications of the therapeutic management style popular in big companies, and how the economic structures James Burnham predicted are changing the agendas of the left and the right.--High Noon is an intellectual download featuring conversations that make possible a free society. The podcast features interesting thinkers from all parts of the political spectrum to discuss the most controversial subjects of the day in a way that hopes to advance our common American future.Hosted by Inez Stepman of Independent Women's Forum.You can listen to the latest High Noon episode(s) here or wherever you get your podcasts. Then subscribe, rate, and share with your friends. If you are already caught up and want more, join our online community at iwf.org/connect. Be sure to subscribe to our emails to ensure you're equipped with the facts on the issues you care about most. Independent Women's Forum (IWF) believes all issues are women's issues. IWF promotes policies that aren't just well-intended, but actually enhance people's freedoms, opportunities, and choices. IWF doesn't just talk about problems. We identify solutions and take them straight to the playmakers and policy creators. And, as a 501(c)3, IWF educates the public about the most important topics of the day. Check out the Independent Women's Forum website for more information on how policies impact you, your loved ones, and your community: www.iwf.org. Subscribe to IWF's YouTube channel. Follow IWF on social media: - on Twitter- on Facebook- on Instagram #IWF #HighNoonPodcast #AllIssuesAreWomensIssues Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

105 Minutes PG-13 Curtis Yarvin is a prolific writer who used to blog under the name Mencius Moldbug. He is famous for coining the phrase and the concept of "The Cathedral" which will be explained in this episode Curtis joins Pete to read and comment on chapter 7 of Academic Agent's (Neema Parvini) book, "The Populist Delusion." Chapter 7 covers James Burnham's 'Managerial Elites' Today's Sponsors -  Los Libertinos Podcast and, Mises Mayors - Buck Johnson for City Council Curtis' Substack Unqualified Reservations The Populist Delusion Get Autonomy 19 Skills PDF Download The Monopoly On Violence Support Pete on His Website Pete's Patreon Pete's Substack Pete's Subscribestar Pete's Venmo Pete on Facebook Pete on Twitter

The IRS plans to hire 87,000 new armed agents, while an FBI raid on Trump–the administration's open political rival–draws allegations of corruption. Economists and political scientists, from Mises to Robert Higgs to James Burnham to public choice scholars, explain why mission creep and abuse by state agencies is the rule rather than the exception. Jonathan Turley on Trump being disqualified from office: Mises.org/HAP356-1 Mises on the managerial state: Mises.org/Bureaucracy James Burnham's The Managerial Revolution: Mises.org/Burnham Bob Murphy Show Episode on the FBI: Mises.org/BMS92

Curtis Yarvin joined members of the Unregistered Academy for our course on James Burnham's The Managerial Revolution, one of the most influential books for critics of modern liberalism. Curtis Yarvin's "Gray Mirror" on Substack: https://graymirror.substack.com/   BECOME A PATRON OF UNREGISTERED (https://www.patreon.com/unregistered) and get all this: Unregistered Academy courses and conferences, including: Reading James Burnham's The Managerial Revolution with Curtis Yarvin Thaddeus Russell's World War II: The Great Blowback The Religious Right with Neil Young and Gio Pennacchietti The History of NATO with Scott Ritter and James Carden The Politics of COVID with Geoff Shullenberger and Jeffrey Tucker Reading The Unabomber Manifesto Reading Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism Bonus episodes of Unregistered, including recent interviews with Curtis Yarvin, Cody Wilson, Michael Malice, Hotep Jesus, Nadia Szold, Tony G of DrugCultGang, and COH, Slav, and CRK of The Fedpost Unregistered Live, a live weekly interactive Zoom meeting with Thad and patrons Discord private discussion group exclusively for patrons Become a Patron: https://www.patreon.com/unregistered

In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Marc Andreessen about the current state of Internet technology and culture. They discuss Marc's background in tech, the birth of the Internet, how advertising became the business model for digital media, the three stages of the Web, the blockchain, how successful technology reorders status and power in society, the Bitcoin white paper, the mystery surrounding the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the importance of distributed consensus, Bitcoin as digital gold, how society has performed during Covid, James Burnham and managerial capitalism, the principal-agent problem, negative externalities, risk and regulation, trust in institutions, WTF happened in 1971, regulatory capture, banning Trump and Alex Jones from social media, perverse incentives in philanthropy, and other topics. SUBSCRIBE to listen to the rest of this episode and gain access to all full-length episodes of the podcast at samharris.org/subscribe.   Learning how to train your mind is the single greatest investment you can make in life. That's why Sam Harris created the Waking Up app. From rational mindfulness practice to lessons on some of life's most important topics, join Sam as he demystifies the practice of meditation and explores the theory behind it.

The ladies discuss James Burnham's The Machiavellians and Vanity Fair's investigation of Peter Thiel and the New Right.