Podcasts about Max Weber

Charisma is a word we hear all the time, but what does it really mean? Why are some leaders able to draw people in, while others push us away? I've been fascinated by this for years, wondering why we're drawn to certain people, what makes us follow, and how charisma shapes our lives in ways we don't always notice. In a culture where stories and leaders are constantly competing for our attention, understanding charisma feels more urgent than ever. That's why I'm excited to talk with Molly Worthen. Molly is a historian and journalist whose new book, Spellbound, digs deep into the history of charisma in America. She traces how charisma has played out from the era of the Puritans and prophets, through conquerors, agitators, and experts, all the way to today's age of gurus and influencers. Each era reveals something about what we long for—and what we risk—when we put our trust in charismatic leaders. In this episode, we explore what charisma actually is, how it both unites and divides, and how these waves of charismatic movements have shaped our culture and our faith. We'll talk about the stories that draw us in, the identities we build, and how to stay grounded as followers of Jesus when everything around us feels like it's shifting. If you're trying to figure out who to trust, how to stay rooted, or just want to make sense of all the noise, this conversation is for you.Molly Worthen is a professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a freelance journalist. She teaches courses on North American religion and politics, global Christianity, and the history of ideas. She writes on these themes for The New York Times and has contributed to The New Yorker, Slate, The American Prospect, Foreign Policy, and other publications. She has also created video and audio courses on the history of Christianity and the history of charismatic leadership for the Great Courses and Audible. Her previous books are Apostles of Reason: The Crisis of Authority in American Evangelicalism and The Man on Whom Nothing Was Lost: The Grand Strategy of Charles Hill.Molly's Book:SpellboundMolly's Recommendations:The SparrowChildren of GodSubscribe to Our Substack: Shifting CultureConnect with Joshua: jjohnson@allnations.usGo to www.shiftingculturepodcast.com to interact and donate. Every donation helps to produce more podcasts for you to enjoy.Follow on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Threads, Bluesky or YouTubeConsider Giving to the podcast and to the ministry that my wife and I do around the world. Just click on the support the show link below Support the show

Yesterday, the self-styled San Francisco “progressive” Joan Williams was on the show arguing that Democrats need to relearn the language of the American working class. But, as some of you have noted, Williams seems oblivious to the fact that politics is about more than simply aping other people's language. What you say matters, and the language of American working class, like all industrial working classes, is rooted in a critique of capitalism. She should probably read the New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy's excellent new book, Capitalism and its Critics, which traces capitalism's evolution and criticism from the East India Company through modern times. He defines capitalism as production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets, encompassing various forms from Chinese state capitalism to hyper-globalization. The book examines capitalism's most articulate critics including the Luddites, Marx, Engels, Thomas Carlisle, Adam Smith, Rosa Luxemburg, Keynes & Hayek, and contemporary figures like Sylvia Federici and Thomas Piketty. Cassidy explores how major economists were often critics of their era's dominant capitalist model, and untangles capitalism's complicated relationship with colonialism, slavery and AI which he regards as a potentially unprecedented economic disruption. This should be essential listening for all Democrats seeking to reinvent a post Biden-Harris party and message. 5 key takeaways* Capitalism has many forms - From Chinese state capitalism to Keynesian managed capitalism to hyper-globalization, all fitting the basic definition of production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets.* Great economists are typically critics - Smith criticized mercantile capitalism, Keynes critiqued laissez-faire capitalism, and Hayek/Friedman opposed managed capitalism. Each generation's leading economists challenge their era's dominant model.* Modern corporate structure has deep roots - The East India Company was essentially a modern multinational corporation with headquarters, board of directors, stockholders, and even a private army - showing capitalism's organizational continuity across centuries.* Capitalism is intertwined with colonialism and slavery - Industrial capitalism was built on pre-existing colonial and slave systems, particularly through the cotton industry and plantation economies.* AI represents a potentially unprecedented disruption - Unlike previous technological waves, AI may substitute rather than complement human labor on a massive scale, potentially creating political backlash exceeding even the "China shock" that contributed to Trump's rise.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. A couple of days ago, we did a show with Joan Williams. She has a new book out, "Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back." A book about language, about how to talk to the American working class. She also had a piece in Jacobin Magazine, an anti-capitalist magazine, about how the left needs to speak to what she calls average American values. We talked, of course, about Bernie Sanders and AOC and their language of fighting oligarchy, and the New York Times followed that up with "The Enduring Power of Anti-Capitalism in American Politics."But of course, that brings the question: what exactly is capitalism? I did a little bit of research. We can find definitions of capitalism from AI, from Wikipedia, even from online dictionaries, but I thought we might do a little better than relying on Wikipedia and come to a man who's given capitalism and its critics a great deal of thought. John Cassidy is well known as a staff writer at The New Yorker. He's the author of a wonderful book, the best book, actually, on the dot-com insanity. And his new book, "Capitalism and its Critics," is out this week. John, congratulations on the book.So I've got to be a bit of a schoolmaster with you, John, and get some definitions first. What exactly is capitalism before we get to criticism of it?John Cassidy: Yeah, I mean, it's a very good question, Andrew. Obviously, through the decades, even the centuries, there have been many different definitions of the term capitalism and there are different types of capitalism. To not be sort of too ideological about it, the working definition I use is basically production for profit—that could be production of goods or mostly in the new and, you know, in today's economy, production of services—for profit by companies which are privately owned in markets. That's a very sort of all-encompassing definition.Within that, you can have all sorts of different types of capitalism. You can have Chinese state capitalism, you can have the old mercantilism, which industrial capitalism came after, which Trump seems to be trying to resurrect. You can have Keynesian managed capitalism that we had for 30 or 40 years after the Second World War, which I grew up in in the UK. Or you can have sort of hyper-globalization, hyper-capitalism that we've tried for the last 30 years. There are all those different varieties of capitalism consistent with a basic definition, I think.Andrew Keen: That keeps you busy, John. I know you started this project, which is a big book and it's a wonderful book. I read it. I don't always read all the books I have on the show, but I read from cover to cover full of remarkable stories of the critics of capitalism. You note in the beginning that you began this in 2016 with the beginnings of Trump. What was it about the 2016 election that triggered a book about capitalism and its critics?John Cassidy: Well, I was reporting on it at the time for The New Yorker and it struck me—I covered, I basically covered the economy in various forms for various publications since the late 80s, early 90s. In fact, one of my first big stories was the stock market crash of '87. So yes, I am that old. But it seemed to me in 2016 when you had Bernie Sanders running from the left and Trump running from the right, but both in some way offering very sort of similar critiques of capitalism. People forget that Trump in 2016 actually was running from the left of the Republican Party. He was attacking big business. He was attacking Wall Street. He doesn't do that these days very much, but at the time he was very much posing as the sort of outsider here to protect the interests of the average working man.And it seemed to me that when you had this sort of pincer movement against the then ruling model, this wasn't just a one-off. It seemed to me it was a sort of an emerging crisis of legitimacy for the system. And I thought there could be a good book written about how we got to here. And originally I thought it would be a relatively short book just based on the last sort of 20 or 30 years since the collapse of the Cold War and the sort of triumphalism of the early 90s.But as I got into it more and more, I realized that so many of the issues which had been raised, things like globalization, rising inequality, monopoly power, exploitation, even pollution and climate change, these issues go back to the very start of the capitalist system or the industrial capitalist system back in sort of late 18th century, early 19th century Britain. So I thought, in the end, I thought, you know what, let's just do the whole thing soup to nuts through the eyes of the critics.There have obviously been many, many histories of capitalism written. I thought that an original way to do it, or hopefully original, would be to do a sort of a narrative through the lives and the critiques of the critics of various stages. So that's, I hope, what sets it apart from other books on the subject, and also provides a sort of narrative frame because, you know, I am a New Yorker writer, I realize if you want people to read things, you've got to make it readable. Easiest way to make things readable is to center them around people. People love reading about other people. So that's sort of the narrative frame. I start off with a whistleblower from the East India Company back in the—Andrew Keen: Yeah, I want to come to that. But before, John, my sense is that to simplify what you're saying, this is a labor of love. You're originally from Leeds, the heart of Yorkshire, the center of the very industrial revolution, the first industrial revolution where, in your historical analysis, capitalism was born. Is it a labor of love? What's your family relationship with capitalism? How long was the family in Leeds?John Cassidy: Right, I mean that's a very good question. It is a labor of love in a way, but it's not—our family doesn't go—I'm from an Irish family, family of Irish immigrants who moved to England in the 1940s and 1950s. So my father actually did start working in a big mill, the Kirkstall Forge in Leeds, which is a big steel mill, and he left after seeing one of his co-workers have his arms chopped off in one of the machinery, so he decided it wasn't for him and he spent his life working in the construction industry, which was dominated by immigrants as it is here now.So I don't have a—it's not like I go back to sort of the start of the industrial revolution, but I did grow up in the middle of Leeds, very working class, very industrial neighborhood. And what a sort of irony is, I'll point out, I used to, when I was a kid, I used to play golf on a municipal golf course called Gotts Park in Leeds, which—you know, most golf courses in America are sort of in the affluent suburbs, country clubs. This was right in the middle of Armley in Leeds, which is where the Victorian jail is and a very rough neighborhood. There's a small bit of land which they built a golf course on. It turns out it was named after one of the very first industrialists, Benjamin Gott, who was a wool and textile industrialist, and who played a part in the Luddite movement, which I mention.So it turns out, I was there when I was 11 or 12, just learning how to play golf on this scrappy golf course. And here I am, 50 years later, writing about Benjamin Gott at the start of the Industrial Revolution. So yeah, no, sure. I think it speaks to me in a way that perhaps it wouldn't to somebody else from a different background.Andrew Keen: We did a show with William Dalrymple, actually, a couple of years ago. He's been on actually since, the Anglo or Scottish Indian historian. His book on the East India Company, "The Anarchy," is a classic. You begin in some ways your history of capitalism with the East India Company. What was it about the East India Company, John, that makes it different from other for-profit organizations in economic, Western economic history?John Cassidy: I mean, I read that. It's a great book, by the way. That was actually quoted in my chapter on these. Yeah, I remember. I mean, the reason I focused on it was for two reasons. Number one, I was looking for a start, a narrative start to the book. And it seemed to me, you know, the obvious place to start is with the start of the industrial revolution. If you look at economics history textbooks, that's where they always start with Arkwright and all the inventors, you know, who were the sort of techno-entrepreneurs of their time, the sort of British Silicon Valley, if you could think of it as, in Lancashire and Derbyshire in the late 18th century.So I knew I had to sort of start there in some way, but I thought that's a bit pat. Is there another way into it? And it turns out that in 1772 in England, there was a huge bailout of the East India Company, very much like the sort of 2008, 2009 bailout of Wall Street. The company got into trouble. So I thought, you know, maybe there's something there. And I eventually found this guy, William Bolts, who worked for the East India Company, turned into a whistleblower after he was fired for finagling in India like lots of the people who worked for the company did.So that gave me two things. Number one, it gave me—you know, I'm a writer, so it gave me something to focus on a narrative. His personal history is very interesting. But number two, it gave me a sort of foundation because industrial capitalism didn't come from nowhere. You know, it was built on top of a pre-existing form of capitalism, which we now call mercantile capitalism, which was very protectionist, which speaks to us now. But also it had these big monopolistic multinational companies.The East India Company, in some ways, was a very modern corporation. It had a headquarters in Leadenhall Street in the city of London. It had a board of directors, it had stockholders, the company sent out very detailed instructions to the people in the field in India and Indonesia and Malaysia who were traders who bought things from the locals there, brought them back to England on their company ships. They had a company army even to enforce—to protect their operations there. It was an incredible multinational corporation.So that was also, I think, fascinating because it showed that even in the pre-existing system, you know, big corporations existed, there were monopolies, they had royal monopolies given—first the East India Company got one from Queen Elizabeth. But in some ways, they were very similar to modern monopolistic corporations. And they had some of the problems we've seen with modern monopolistic corporations, the way they acted. And Bolts was the sort of first corporate whistleblower, I thought. Yeah, that was a way of sort of getting into the story, I think. Hopefully, you know, it's just a good read, I think.William Bolts's story because he was—he came from nowhere, he was Dutch, he wasn't even English and he joined the company as a sort of impoverished young man, went to India like a lot of English minor aristocrats did to sort of make your fortune. The way the company worked, you had to sort of work on company time and make as much money as you could for the company, but then in your spare time you're allowed to trade for yourself. So a lot of the—without getting into too much detail, but you know, English aristocracy was based on—you know, the eldest child inherits everything, so if you were the younger brother of the Duke of Norfolk, you actually didn't inherit anything. So all of these minor aristocrats, so major aristocrats, but who weren't first born, joined the East India Company, went out to India and made a fortune, and then came back and built huge houses. Lots of the great manor houses in southern England were built by people from the East India Company and they were known as Nabobs, which is an Indian term. So they were the sort of, you know, billionaires of their time, and it was based on—as I say, it wasn't based on industrial capitalism, it was based on mercantile capitalism.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the beginning of the book, which focuses on Bolts and the East India Company, brings to mind for me two things. Firstly, the intimacy of modern capitalism, modern industrial capitalism with colonialism and of course slavery—lots of books have been written on that. Touch on this and also the relationship between the birth of capitalism and the birth of liberalism or democracy. John Stuart Mill, of course, the father in many ways of Western democracy. His day job, ironically enough, or perhaps not ironically, was at the East India Company. So how do those two things connect, or is it just coincidental?John Cassidy: Well, I don't think it is entirely coincidental, I mean, J.S. Mill—his father, James Mill, was also a well-known philosopher in the sort of, obviously, in the earlier generation, earlier than him. And he actually wrote the official history of the East India Company. And I think they gave his son, the sort of brilliant protégé, J.S. Mill, a job as largely as a sort of sinecure, I think. But he did go in and work there in the offices three or four days a week.But I think it does show how sort of integral—the sort of—as you say, the inheritor and the servant in Britain, particularly, of colonial capitalism was. So the East India Company was, you know, it was in decline by that stage in the middle of the 19th century, but it didn't actually give up its monopoly. It wasn't forced to give up its monopoly on the Indian trade until 1857, after, you know, some notorious massacres and there was a sort of public outcry.So yeah, no, that's—it's very interesting that the British—it's sort of unique to Britain in a way, but it's interesting that industrial capitalism arose alongside this pre-existing capitalist structure and somebody like Mill is a sort of paradoxical figure because actually he was quite critical of aspects of industrial capitalism and supported sort of taxes on the rich, even though he's known as the great, you know, one of the great apostles of the free market and free market liberalism. And his day job, as you say, he was working for the East India Company.Andrew Keen: What about the relationship between the birth of industrial capitalism, colonialism and slavery? Those are big questions and I know you deal with them in some—John Cassidy: I think you can't just write an economic history of capitalism now just starting with the cotton industry and say, you know, it was all about—it was all about just technical progress and gadgets, etc. It was built on a sort of pre-existing system which was colonial and, you know, the slave trade was a central element of that. Now, as you say, there have been lots and lots of books written about it, the whole 1619 project got an incredible amount of attention a few years ago. So I didn't really want to rehash all that, but I did want to acknowledge the sort of role of slavery, especially in the rise of the cotton industry because of course, a lot of the raw cotton was grown in the plantations in the American South.So the way I actually ended up doing that was by writing a chapter about Eric Williams, a Trinidadian writer who ended up as the Prime Minister of Trinidad when it became independent in the 1960s. But when he was younger, he wrote a book which is now regarded as a classic. He went to Oxford to do a PhD, won a scholarship. He was very smart. I won a sort of Oxford scholarship myself but 50 years before that, he came across the Atlantic and did an undergraduate degree in history and then did a PhD there and his PhD thesis was on slavery and capitalism.And at the time, in the 1930s, the link really wasn't acknowledged. You could read any sort of standard economic history written by British historians, and they completely ignored that. He made the argument that, you know, slavery was integral to the rise of capitalism and he basically started an argument which has been raging ever since the 1930s and, you know, if you want to study economic history now you have to sort of—you know, have to have to address that. And the way I thought, even though the—it's called the Williams thesis is very famous. I don't think many people knew much about where it came from. So I thought I'd do a chapter on—Andrew Keen: Yeah, that chapter is excellent. You mentioned earlier the Luddites, you're from Yorkshire where Luddism in some ways was born. One of the early chapters is on the Luddites. We did a show with Brian Merchant, his book, "Blood in the Machine," has done very well, I'm sure you're familiar with it. I always understood the Luddites as being against industrialization, against the machine, as opposed to being against capitalism. But did those two things get muddled together in the history of the Luddites?John Cassidy: I think they did. I mean, you know, Luddites, when we grew up, I mean you're English too, you know to be called a Luddite was a term of abuse, right? You know, you were sort of antediluvian, anti-technology, you're stupid. It was only, I think, with the sort of computer revolution, the tech revolution of the last 30, 40 years and the sort of disruptions it's caused, that people have started to look back at the Luddites and say, perhaps they had a point.For them, they were basically pre-industrial capitalism artisans. They worked for profit-making concerns, small workshops. Some of them worked for themselves, so they were sort of sole proprietor capitalists. Or they worked in small venues, but the rise of industrial capitalism, factory capitalism or whatever, basically took away their livelihoods progressively. So they associated capitalism with new technology. In their minds it was the same. But their argument wasn't really a technological one or even an economic one, it was more a moral one. They basically made the moral argument that capitalists shouldn't have the right to just take away their livelihoods with no sort of recompense for them.At the time they didn't have any parliamentary representation. You know, they weren't revolutionaries. The first thing they did was create petitions to try and get parliament to step in, sort of introduce some regulation here. They got turned down repeatedly by the sort of—even though it was a very aristocratic parliament, places like Manchester and Leeds didn't have any representation at all. So it was only after that that they sort of turned violent and started, you know, smashing machines and machines, I think, were sort of symbols of the system, which they saw as morally unjust.And I think that's sort of what—obviously, there's, you know, a lot of technological disruption now, so we can, especially as it starts to come for the educated cognitive class, we can sort of sympathize with them more. But I think the sort of moral critique that there's this, you know, underneath the sort of great creativity and economic growth that capitalism produces, there is also a lot of destruction and a lot of victims. And I think that message, you know, is becoming a lot more—that's why I think why they've been rediscovered in the last five or ten years and I'm one of the people I guess contributing to that rediscovery.Andrew Keen: There's obviously many critiques of capitalism politically. I want to come to Marx in a second, but your chapter, I thought, on Thomas Carlyle and this nostalgic conservatism was very important and there are other conservatives as well. John, do you think that—and you mentioned Trump earlier, who is essentially a nostalgist for a—I don't know, some sort of bizarre pre-capitalist age in America. Is there something particularly powerful about the anti-capitalism of romantics like Carlyle, 19th century Englishman, there were many others of course.John Cassidy: Well, I think so. I mean, I think what is—conservatism, when we were young anyway, was associated with Thatcherism and Reaganism, which, you know, lionized the free market and free market capitalism and was a reaction against the pre-existing form of capitalism, Keynesian capitalism of the sort of 40s to the 80s. But I think what got lost in that era was the fact that there have always been—you've got Hayek up there, obviously—Andrew Keen: And then Keynes and Hayek, the two—John Cassidy: Right, it goes to the end of that. They had a great debate in the 1930s about these issues. But Hayek really wasn't a conservative person, and neither was Milton Friedman. They were sort of free market revolutionaries, really, that you'd let the market rip and it does good things. And I think that that sort of a view, you know, it just became very powerful. But we sort of lost sight of the fact that there was also a much older tradition of sort of suspicion of radical changes of any type. And that was what conservatism was about to some extent. If you think about Baldwin in Britain, for example.And there was a sort of—during the Industrial Revolution, some of the strongest supporters of factory acts to reduce hours and hourly wages for women and kids were actually conservatives, Tories, as they were called at the time, like Ashley. That tradition, Carlyle was a sort of extreme representative of that. I mean, Carlyle was a sort of proto-fascist, let's not romanticize him, he lionized strongmen, Frederick the Great, and he didn't really believe in democracy. But he also had—he was appalled by the sort of, you know, the—like, what's the phrase I'm looking for? The sort of destructive aspects of industrial capitalism, both on the workers, you know, he said it was a dehumanizing system, sounded like Marx in some ways. That it dehumanized the workers, but also it destroyed the environment.He was an early environmentalist. He venerated the environment, was actually very strongly linked to the transcendentalists in America, people like Thoreau, who went to visit him when he visited Britain and he saw the sort of destructive impact that capitalism was having locally in places like Manchester, which were filthy with filthy rivers, etc. So he just saw the whole system as sort of morally bankrupt and he was a great writer, Carlyle, whatever you think of him. Great user of language, so he has these great ringing phrases like, you know, the cash nexus or calling it the Gospel of Mammonism, the shabbiest gospel ever preached under the sun was industrial capitalism.So, again, you know, that's a sort of paradoxical thing, because I think for so long conservatism was associated with, you know, with support for the free market and still is in most of the Republican Party, but then along comes Trump and sort of conquers the party with a, you know, more skeptical, as you say, romantic, not really based on any reality, but a sort of romantic view that America can stand by itself in the world. I mean, I see Trump actually as a sort of an effort to sort of throw back to mercantile capitalism in a way. You know, which was not just pre-industrial, but was also pre-democracy, run by monarchs, which I'm sure appeals to him, and it was based on, you know, large—there were large tariffs. You couldn't import things in the UK. If you want to import anything to the UK, you have to send it on a British ship because of the navigation laws. It was a very protectionist system and it's actually, you know, as I said, had a lot of parallels with what Trump's trying to do or tries to do until he backs off.Andrew Keen: You cheat a little bit in the book in the sense that you—everyone has their own chapter. We'll talk a little bit about Hayek and Smith and Lenin and Friedman. You do have one chapter on Marx, but you also have a chapter on Engels. So you kind of cheat. You combine the two. Is it possible, though, to do—and you've just written this book, so you know this as well as anyone. How do you write a book about capitalism and its critics and only really give one chapter to Marx, who is so dominant? I mean, you've got lots of Marxists in the book, including Lenin and Luxemburg. How fundamental is Marx to a criticism of capitalism? Is most criticism, especially from the left, from progressives, is it really just all a footnote to Marx?John Cassidy: I wouldn't go that far, but I think obviously on the left he is the central figure. But there's an element of sort of trying to rebuild Engels a bit in this. I mean, I think of Engels and Marx—I mean obviously Marx wrote the great classic "Capital," etc. But in the 1840s, when they both started writing about capitalism, Engels was sort of ahead of Marx in some ways. I mean, the sort of materialist concept, the idea that economics rules everything, Engels actually was the first one to come up with that in an essay in the 1840s which Marx then published in one of his—in the German newspaper he worked for at the time, radical newspaper, and he acknowledged openly that that was really what got him thinking seriously about economics, and even in the late—in 20, 25 years later when he wrote "Capital," all three volumes of it and the Grundrisse, just these enormous outpourings of analysis on capitalism.He acknowledged Engels's role in that and obviously Engels wrote the first draft of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 too, which Marx then topped and tailed and—he was a better writer obviously, Marx, and he gave it the dramatic language that we all know it for. So I think Engels and Marx together obviously are the central sort of figures in the sort of left-wing critique. But they didn't start out like that. I mean, they were very obscure, you've got to remember.You know, they were—when they were writing, Marx was writing "Capital" in London, it never even got published in English for another 20 years. It was just published in German. He was basically an expat. He had been thrown out of Germany, he had been thrown out of France, so England was last resort and the British didn't consider him a threat so they were happy to let him and the rest of the German sort of left in there. I think it became—it became the sort of epochal figure after his death really, I think, when he was picked up by the left-wing parties, which are especially the SPD in Germany, which was the first sort of socialist mass party and was officially Marxist until the First World War and there were great internal debates.And then of course, because Lenin and the Russians came out of that tradition too, Marxism then became the official doctrine of the Soviet Union when they adopted a version of it. And again there were massive internal arguments about what Marx really meant, and in fact, you know, one interpretation of the last 150 years of left-wing sort of intellectual development is as a sort of argument about what did Marx really mean and what are the important bits of it, what are the less essential bits of it. It's a bit like the "what did Keynes really mean" that you get in liberal circles.So yeah, Marx, obviously, this is basically an intellectual history of critiques of capitalism. In that frame, he is absolutely a central figure. Why didn't I give him more space than a chapter and a chapter and a half with Engels? There have been a million books written about Marx. I mean, it's not that—it's not that he's an unknown figure. You know, there's a best-selling book written in Britain about 20 years ago about him and then I was quoting, in my biographical research, I relied on some more recent, more scholarly biographies. So he's an endlessly fascinating figure but I didn't want him to dominate the book so I gave him basically the same space as everybody else.Andrew Keen: You've got, as I said, you've got a chapter on Adam Smith who's often considered the father of economics. You've got a chapter on Keynes. You've got a chapter on Friedman. And you've got a chapter on Hayek, all the great modern economists. Is it possible, John, to be a distinguished economist one way or the other and not be a critic of capitalism?John Cassidy: Well, I don't—I mean, I think history would suggest that the greatest economists have been critics of capitalism in their own time. People would say to me, what the hell have you got Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in a book about critics of capitalism? They were great exponents, defenders of capitalism. They loved the system. That is perfectly true. But in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, middle of the 20th century, they were actually arch-critics of the ruling form of capitalism at the time, which was what I call managed capitalism. What some people call Keynesianism, what other people call European social democracy, whatever you call it, it was a model of a mixed economy in which the government played a large role both in propping up demand and in providing an extensive social safety net in the UK and providing public healthcare and public education. It was a sort of hybrid model.Most of the economy in terms of the businesses remained in private hands. So most production was capitalistic. It was a capitalist system. They didn't go to the Soviet model of nationalizing everything and Britain did nationalize some businesses, but most places didn't. The US of course didn't but it was a form of managed capitalism. And Hayek and Friedman were both great critics of that and wanted to sort of move back to 19th century laissez-faire model.Keynes was a—was actually a great, I view him anyway, as really a sort of late Victorian liberal and was trying to protect as much of the sort of J.S. Mill view of the world as he could, but he thought capitalism had one fatal flaw: that it tended to fall into recessions and then they can snowball and the whole system can collapse which is what had basically happened in the early 1930s until Keynesian policies were adopted. Keynes sort of differed from a lot of his followers—I have a chapter on Joan Robinson in there, who were pretty left-wing and wanted to sort of use Keynesianism as a way to shift the economy quite far to the left. Keynes didn't really believe in that. He has a famous quote that, you know, once you get to full employment, you can then rely on the free market to sort of take care of things. He was still a liberal at heart.Going back to Adam Smith, why is he in a book on criticism of capitalism? And again, it goes back to what I said at the beginning. He actually wrote "The Wealth of Nations"—he explains in the introduction—as a critique of mercantile capitalism. His argument was that he was a pro-free trader, pro-small business, free enterprise. His argument was if you get the government out of the way, we don't need these government-sponsored monopolies like the East India Company. If you just rely on the market, the sort of market forces and competition will produce a good outcome. So then he was seen as a great—you know, he is then seen as the apostle of free market capitalism. I mean when I started as a young reporter, when I used to report in Washington, all the conservatives used to wear Adam Smith badges. You don't see Donald Trump wearing an Adam Smith badge, but that was the case.He was also—the other aspect of Smith, which I highlight, which is not often remarked on—he's also a critic of big business. He has a famous section where he discusses the sort of tendency of any group of more than three businessmen when they get together to try and raise prices and conspire against consumers. And he was very suspicious of, as I say, large companies, monopolies. I think if Adam Smith existed today, I mean, I think he would be a big supporter of Lina Khan and the sort of antitrust movement, he would say capitalism is great as long as you have competition, but if you don't have competition it becomes, you know, exploitative.Andrew Keen: Yeah, if Smith came back to live today, you have a chapter on Thomas Piketty, maybe he may not be French, but he may be taking that position about how the rich benefit from the structure of investment. Piketty's core—I've never had Piketty on the show, but I've had some of his followers like Emmanuel Saez from Berkeley. Yeah. How powerful is Piketty's critique of capitalism within the context of the classical economic analysis from Hayek and Friedman? Yeah, it's a very good question.John Cassidy: It's a very good question. I mean, he's a very paradoxical figure, Piketty, in that he obviously shot to world fame and stardom with his book on capital in the 21st century, which in some ways he obviously used the capital as a way of linking himself to Marx, even though he said he never read Marx. But he was basically making the same argument that if you leave capitalism unrestrained and don't do anything about monopolies etc. or wealth, you're going to get massive inequality and he—I think his great contribution, Piketty and the school of people, one of them you mentioned, around him was we sort of had a vague idea that inequality was going up and that, you know, wages were stagnating, etc.What he and his colleagues did is they produced these sort of scientific empirical studies showing in very simple to understand terms how the sort of share of income and wealth of the top 10 percent, the top 5 percent, the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent basically skyrocketed from the 1970s to about 2010. And it was, you know, he was an MIT PhD. Saez, who you mentioned, is a Berkeley professor. They were schooled in neoclassical economics at Harvard and MIT and places like that. So the right couldn't dismiss them as sort of, you know, lefties or Trots or whatever who're just sort of making this stuff up. They had to acknowledge that this was actually an empirical reality.I think it did change the whole basis of the debate and it was sort of part of this reaction against capitalism in the 2010s. You know it was obviously linked to the sort of Sanders and the Occupy Wall Street movement at the time. It came out of the—you know, the financial crisis as well when Wall Street disgraced itself. I mean, I wrote a previous book on all that, but people have sort of, I think, forgotten the great reaction against that a decade ago, which I think even Trump sort of exploited, as I say, by using anti-banker rhetoric at the time.So, Piketty was a great figure, I think, from, you know, I was thinking, who are the most influential critics of capitalism in the 21st century? And I think you'd have to put him up there on the list. I'm not saying he's the only one or the most eminent one. But I think he is a central figure. Now, of course, you'd think, well, this is a really powerful critic of capitalism, and nobody's going to pick up, and Bernie's going to take off and everything. But here we are a decade later now. It seems to be what the backlash has produced is a swing to the right, not a swing to the left. So that's, again, a sort of paradox.Andrew Keen: One person I didn't expect to come up in the book, John, and I was fascinated with this chapter, is Silvia Federici. I've tried to get her on the show. We've had some books about her writing and her kind of—I don't know, you treat her critique as a feminist one. The role of women. Why did you choose to write a chapter about Federici and that feminist critique of capitalism?John Cassidy: Right, right. Well, I don't think it was just feminist. I'll explain what I think it was. Two reasons. Number one, I wanted to get more women into the book. I mean, it's in some sense, it is a history of economics and economic critiques. And they are overwhelmingly written by men and women were sort of written out of the narrative of capitalism for a very long time. So I tried to include as many sort of women as actual thinkers as I could and I have a couple of early socialist feminist thinkers, Anna Wheeler and Flora Tristan and then I cover some of the—I cover Rosa Luxemburg as the great sort of tribune of the left revolutionary socialist, communist whatever you want to call it. Anti-capitalist I think is probably also important to note about. Yeah, and then I also have Joan Robinson, but I wanted somebody to do something in the modern era, and I thought Federici, in the world of the Wages for Housework movement, is very interesting from two perspectives.Number one, Federici herself is a Marxist, and I think she probably would still consider herself a revolutionary. She's based in New York, as you know now. She lived in New York for 50 years, but she came from—she's originally Italian and came out of the Italian left in the 1960s, which was very radical. Do you know her? Did you talk to her? I didn't talk to her on this. No, she—I basically relied on, there has been a lot of, as you say, there's been a lot of stuff written about her over the years. She's written, you know, she's given various long interviews and she's written a book herself, a version, a history of housework, so I figured it was all there and it was just a matter of pulling it together.But I think the critique, why the critique is interesting, most of the book is a sort of critique of how capitalism works, you know, in the production or you know, in factories or in offices or you know, wherever capitalist operations are working, but her critique is sort of domestic reproduction, as she calls it, the role of unpaid labor in supporting capitalism. I mean it goes back a long way actually. There was this moment, I sort of trace it back to the 1940s and 1950s when there were feminists in America who were demonstrating outside factories and making the point that you know, the factory workers and the operations of the factory, it couldn't—there's one of the famous sort of tire factory in California demonstrations where the women made the argument, look this factory can't continue to operate unless we feed and clothe the workers and provide the next generation of workers. You know, that's domestic reproduction. So their argument was that housework should be paid and Federici took that idea and a couple of her colleagues, she founded the—it's a global movement, but she founded the most famous branch in New York City in the 1970s. In Park Slope near where I live actually.And they were—you call it feminists, they were feminists in a way, but they were rejected by the sort of mainstream feminist movement, the sort of Gloria Steinems of the world, who Federici was very critical of because she said they ignored, they really just wanted to get women ahead in the sort of capitalist economy and they ignored the sort of underlying from her perspective, the underlying sort of illegitimacy and exploitation of that system. So they were never accepted as part of the feminist movement. They're to the left of the Feminist Movement.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Keynes, of course, so central in all this, particularly his analysis of the role of automation in capitalism. We did a show recently with Robert Skidelsky and I'm sure you're familiar—John Cassidy: Yeah, yeah, great, great biography of Keynes.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the great biographer of Keynes, whose latest book is "Mindless: The Human Condition in the Age of AI." You yourself wrote a brilliant book on the last tech mania and dot-com capitalism. I used it in a lot of my writing and books. What's your analysis of AI in this latest mania and the role generally of manias in the history of capitalism and indeed in critiquing capitalism? Is AI just the next chapter of the dot-com boom?John Cassidy: I think it's a very deep question. I think I'd give two answers to it. In one sense it is just the latest mania the way—I mean, the way capitalism works is we have these, I go back to Kondratiev, one of my Russian economists who ended up being killed by Stalin. He was the sort of inventor of the long wave theory of capitalism. We have these short waves where you have sort of booms and busts driven by finance and debt etc. But we also have long waves driven by technology.And obviously, in the last 40, 50 years, the two big ones are the original deployment of the internet and microchip technology in the sort of 80s and 90s culminating in the dot-com boom of the late 90s, which as you say, I wrote about. Thanks very much for your kind comments on the book. If you just sort of compare it from a financial basis I think they are very similar just in terms of the sort of role of hype from Wall Street in hyping up these companies. The sort of FOMO aspect of it among investors that they you know, you can't miss out. So just buy the companies blindly. And the sort of lionization in the press and the media of, you know, of AI as the sort of great wave of the future.So if you take a sort of skeptical market based approach, I would say, yeah, this is just another sort of another mania which will eventually burst and it looked like it had burst for a few weeks when Trump put the tariffs up, now the market seemed to be recovering. But I think there is, there may be something new about it. I am not, I don't pretend to be a technical expert. I try to rely on the evidence of or the testimony of people who know the systems well and also economists who have studied it. It seems to me the closer you get to it the more alarming it is in terms of the potential shock value that there is there.I mean Trump and the sort of reaction to a larger extent can be traced back to the China shock where we had this global shock to American manufacturing and sort of hollowed out a lot of the industrial areas much of it, like industrial Britain was hollowed out in the 80s. If you, you know, even people like Altman and Elon Musk, they seem to think that this is going to be on a much larger scale than that and will basically, you know, get rid of the professions as they exist. Which would be a huge, huge shock. And I think a lot of the economists who studied this, who four or five years ago were relatively optimistic, people like Daron Acemoglu, David Autor—Andrew Keen: Simon Johnson, of course, who just won the Nobel Prize, and he's from England.John Cassidy: Simon, I did an event with Simon earlier this week. You know they've studied this a lot more closely than I have but I do interview them and I think five, six years ago they were sort of optimistic that you know this could just be a new steam engine or could be a microchip which would lead to sort of a lot more growth, rising productivity, rising productivity is usually associated with rising wages so sure there'd be short-term costs but ultimately it would be a good thing. Now, I think if you speak to them, they see since the, you know, obviously, the OpenAI—the original launch and now there's just this huge arms race with no government involvement at all I think they're coming to the conclusion that rather than being developed to sort of complement human labor, all these systems are just being rushed out to substitute for human labor. And it's just going, if current trends persist, it's going to be a China shock on an even bigger scale.You know what is going to, if that, if they're right, that is going to produce some huge political backlash at some point, that's inevitable. So I know—the thing when the dot-com bubble burst, it didn't really have that much long-term impact on the economy. People lost the sort of fake money they thought they'd made. And then the companies, obviously some of the companies like Amazon and you know Google were real genuine profit-making companies and if you bought them early you made a fortune. But AI does seem a sort of bigger, scarier phenomenon to me. I don't know. I mean, you're close to it. What do you think?Andrew Keen: Well, I'm waiting for a book, John, from you. I think you can combine dot-com and capitalism and its critics. We need you probably to cover it—you know more about it than me. Final question, I mean, it's a wonderful book and we haven't even scratched the surface everyone needs to get it. I enjoyed the chapter, for example, on Karl Polanyi and so much more. I mean, it's a big book. But my final question, John, is do you have any regrets about anyone you left out? The one person I would have liked to have been included was Rawls because of his sort of treatment of capitalism and luck as a kind of casino. I'm not sure whether you gave any thought to Rawls, but is there someone in retrospect you should have had a chapter on that you left out?John Cassidy: There are lots of people I left out. I mean, that's the problem. I mean there have been hundreds and hundreds of critics of capitalism. Rawls, of course, incredibly influential and his idea of the sort of, you know, the veil of ignorance that you should judge things not knowing where you are in the income distribution and then—Andrew Keen: And it's luck. I mean the idea of some people get lucky and some people don't.John Cassidy: It is the luck of the draw, obviously, what card you pull. I think that is a very powerful critique, but I just—because I am more of an expert on economics, I tended to leave out philosophers and sociologists. I mean, you know, you could say, where's Max Weber? Where are the anarchists? You know, where's Emma Goldman? Where's John Kenneth Galbraith, the sort of great mid-century critic of American industrial capitalism? There's so many people that you could include. I mean, I could have written 10 volumes. In fact, I refer in the book to, you know, there's always been a problem. G.D.H. Cole, a famous English historian, wrote a history of socialism back in the 1960s and 70s. You know, just getting to 1850 took him six volumes. So, you've got to pick and choose, and I don't claim this is the history of capitalism and its critics. That would be a ridiculous claim to make. I just claim it's a history written by me, and hopefully the people are interested in it, and they're sufficiently diverse that you can address all the big questions.Andrew Keen: Well it's certainly incredibly timely. Capitalism and its critics—more and more of them. Sometimes they don't even describe themselves as critics of capitalism when they're talking about oligarchs or billionaires, they're really criticizing capitalism. A must read from one of America's leading journalists. And would you call yourself a critic of capitalism, John?John Cassidy: Yeah, I guess I am, to some extent, sure. I mean, I'm not a—you know, I'm not on the far left, but I'd say I'm a center-left critic of capitalism. Yes, definitely, that would be fair.Andrew Keen: And does the left need to learn? Does everyone on the left need to read the book and learn the language of anti-capitalism in a more coherent and honest way?John Cassidy: I hope so. I mean, obviously, I'd be talking my own book there, as they say, but I hope that people on the left, but not just people on the left. I really did try to sort of be fair to the sort of right-wing critiques as well. I included the Carlyle chapter particularly, obviously, but in the later chapters, I also sort of refer to this emerging critique on the right, the sort of economic nationalist critique. So hopefully, I think people on the right could read it to understand the critiques from the left, and people on the left could read it to understand some of the critiques on the right as well.Andrew Keen: Well, it's a lovely book. It's enormously erudite and simultaneously readable. Anyone who likes John Cassidy's work from The New Yorker will love it. Congratulations, John, on the new book, and I'd love to get you back on the show as anti-capitalism in America picks up steam and perhaps manifests itself in the 2028 election. Thank you so much.John Cassidy: Thanks very much for inviting me on, it was fun.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Greetings, audient!This.. was... a long one. We each have our own scar tissue from university encounters, passionate moments of transformation and inspiration experienced alongside sad encounters with hopelessness, mediocrity and slave morality. So this one was more personal.The state of the University - as an institution, as a public good - has been in free fall for quite a while, well before contemporary dictators started slamming it down more forcefully (bullies invariably go for the weaker targets). In this episode we try to think of the university through the prisms of  democracy, political economy and, not least, metaphysics. The university today is seeing more and more threats to its relevance (and a fortriori, funding). The younger generations see this establishment as a "waste of taxpayer money," as something best left alone or left to Automated Intelligence (AI) devices, or left in the past. We try and trace this scarcity of the university as the stronghold of learning and teaching as a value in itself, one facing towards the future with hope and pride. Sagi takes the university to task for their theological roots and the Christian, metaphysically anti-Judaic ethos of Truth that has come to pervade (and pervert) it, for being anti-Judaic compels us, foundationally and methodologically, to value truth over justice (which comes, as Nietzsche had already pointed out, to a radical devaluation of value as such). Andy shares with us his bittersweet travels through ivy-league woke Humanities departments, the various petty egoisms that animate it in a kind of pathetic posturing and grandiloquence that settles for crumbs of value and importance. He brings up wokeism as a kind of rot that has taken over the Humanities. Andy's dog shared his sentiments.Addressing these issues requires, as Jake reminds us, being slow and careful. For, though it may look like the academic jobifications and woke-rots that proliferate today mark the closure, the end of the university's horizons (especially when "debated" on 'social media'), the need for critical thinking, for creating and enriching discourse and understanding of life and experience, are still at the core of this institution. Jacques Derrida, that many see as supporting an oblivious gutting of the university's functions and ideals, is actually an example of responsibility; to trace our current experience to where the university's original, however fantastic, ethos still holds sway, power, pride, and can still nourish value.Jack, out proud representative of the STEM disciplines, points out the lack of co-authorships in the Humanities, following a capitalist logic of branding that turns the scholar humble. Jack calls it a humiliation ritual, and Sagi was quick to interject Max Weber's critiques of the professionalization and "rationalization" of scholarship, and the Bildung they inflict on the scholar: the latter trains the scholar for hopeless work, churning publications as a vehicle for promoting one's brand, making scholarly experts follow a logic of monopoly and "cornering a market (of ideas)" rather than enriching the understanding or cross-pollinating with other university discourses in order to think differently about life, the universe, and everything...There's much more, of course. Dare a listen.Stars: WWJD, Pervs 'R Us; Marx Grudge 

"Sterben für Deutschland? Nach dem Showdown im Weißen Haus – Wer soll unser Land mit Waffen verteidigen?von Dirk Kaesler & Stefanie von Wietersheim - Kolumne(Hördauer ca. 30 Minuten)Rätsel des Lebens. Wie, um Himmels willen, geschieht es, dass ein Buch, ein Artikel, ein Aufsatz zu leben beginnt? Worte, die wir geschrieben haben, trafen auf Menschen wie ein magischer Bumerang, der eben diese Menschen zu uns zurückholt?Es ist doch so: Wir schreiben ein Buch, einen Aufsatz, eine Kolumne. Der Text wird „publiziert“, dem lesenden Publikum ausgeliefert. Fremde und vertraute Menschen lesen jene Worte und Sätze, die uns Autorin oder Autor in den Sinn kamen, als wir geschrieben haben. Wir haben keine Kontrolle darüber, was unsere Leserschaft mit unseren Gedanken, Einfällen und Formulierungen anfängt. Meistens erfahren wir das nicht, manchmal aber doch.Den Text der Kolumne finden Sie hierDirk Kaesler Prof. Dr., war nach seiner Promotion und Habilitation an der Universität München von 1984 bis 1995 Professor für Allgemeine Soziologie an der Universität Hamburg, von 1995 bis zu seiner Pensionierung 2009 an der Universität Marburg. Er lebt inzwischen in Potsdam. Zu seinen Forschungs- und Publikationsschwerpunkten gehören Wissenschafts- und Religionssoziologie, Politische Soziologie, Geschichte und Theorien der Soziologie, ihre Klassiker und Hauptwerke und dabei vor allem Max Weber. Zu seinen letzten Buchveröffentlichungen gehören die 2014 im Verlag C.H. Beck erschienene Biographie „Max Weber. Preuße, Denker, Muttersohn“ und sein zusammen mit Stefanie von Wietersheim 2021 im Verlag LiteraturWissenschaft veröffentlichter Band "Schön deutsch. Eine Entdeckungsreise".2009 bis 2014 sind in "literaturkritik.de" regelmäßig seine Glossen "Abstimmungen mit  der Welt" erschienen.Stefanie von Wietersheim ist Kulturjournalistin und Buchautorin. Ihre Bildbände Frauen & ihre Refugien, Vom Glück mit Büchern zu leben und Mütter & Töchter wurden zu Klassikern ihres Genres. In ihrem Buch Grand Paris – Savoir-vivre für Insider und solche, die es werden wollen schreibt sie über ihre Wahlheimat Frankreich. Sie geht als Autorin der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Sonntagszeitung im In- und Ausland auf Reportage. Zusammen mit Dirk Kaesler veröffentlichte sie 2021 im Verlag LiteraturWissenschaft.de Schön deutsch. Eine Entdeckungsreise.Wenn Ihnen diese Sendung gefallen hat, hören Sie doch hier mal rein.Sprecher: Matthias PöhlmannAufnahme, Schnitt und Realisation Uwe Kullnick

In this insightful episode, Gary Hamel discusses the foundational ideas behind his book, 'The Future of Management.' Delving into the historical context and evolution of management principles, Hamel explores how long-standing conventions, established by early 20th-century theorists like Frederick Winslow Taylor and Max Weber, continue to shape modern companies. He underscores the need for a radical rethink in organizational management to address contemporary challenges such as innovation, strategic renewal, and employee engagement. Drawing parallels from history, Hamel illustrates how groundbreaking management innovations in companies like Whole Foods, WL Gore, and Nucor have driven exceptional performance. He emphasizes the importance of creating human-centric workplaces that inspire and motivate employees, advocating for a shift away from bureaucratic, control-driven models towards environments rooted in purpose, community, and mutual respect. Join us for part one of this engaging conversation with one of management's leading thinkers.   00:00 Introduction to the Future of Management 02:01 The Origins of Modern Management 04:17 The Evolution of Management Innovation 08:49 Military Analogies in Management 12:34 The Layers of Innovation 22:20 Historical Management Innovations 29:56 The Industrial Revolution and Management 36:48 The Overlooked Innovation: Management 37:20 Taylor's Influence on Productivity 38:00 Ford's System and Its Limitations 39:04 Bureaucracy: A Double-Edged Sword 41:32 Adapting to the Knowledge Economy 43:16 The Role of Computational Power and Connectivity 45:50 The Need for Organizational Innovation 53:34 Case Studies: Whole Foods and Gore 01:01:54 Building Human-Centric Organizations 01:05:03 Concluding Thoughts on Leadership and Innovation

Hello Interactors,This week, the European Space Agency launched a satellite to "weigh" Earth's 1.5 trillion trees. It will give scientists deeper insight into forests and their role in the climate — far beyond surface readings. Pretty cool. And it's coming from Europe.Meanwhile, I learned that the U.S. Secretary of Defense — under Trump — had a makeup room installed in the Pentagon to look better on TV. Also pretty cool, I guess. And very American.The contrast was hard to miss. Even with better data, the U.S. shows little appetite for using geographic insight to actually address climate change. Information is growing. Willpower, not so much.So it was oddly clarifying to read a passage Christopher Hobson posted on Imperfect Notes from a book titled America by a French author — a travelogue of softs. Last week I offered new lenses through which to see the world, I figured I'd try this French pair on — to see America, and the world it effects, as he did.PAPER, POWER, AND PROJECTIONI still have a folded paper map of Seattle in the door of my car. It's a remnant of a time when physical maps reflected the reality before us. You unfolded a map and it innocently offered the physical world on a page. The rest was left to you — including knowing how to fold it up again.But even then, not all maps were neutral or necessarily innocent. Sure, they crowned capitals and trimmed borders, but they could also leave things out or would make certain claims. From empire to colony, from mission to market, maps often arrived not to reflect place, but to declare control of it. Still, we trusted it…even if was an illusion.I learned how to interrogate maps in my undergraduate history of cartography class — taught by the legendary cartographer Waldo Tobler. But even with that knowledge, when I was then taught how to make maps, that interrogation was more absent. I confidently believed I was mediating truth. The lines and symbols I used pointed to substance; they signaled a thing. I traced rivers from existing base maps with a pen on vellum and trusted they existed in the world as sure as the ink on the page. I cut out shading for a choropleth map and believed it told a stable story about population, vegetation, or economics. That trust was embodied in representation — the idea that a sign meant something enduring. That we could believe what maps told us.This is the world of semiotics — the study of how signs create meaning. American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce offered a sturdy model: a sign (like a map line) refers to an object (the river), and its meaning emerges in interpretation. Meaning, in this view, is relational — but grounded. A stop sign, a national anthem, a border — they meant something because they pointed beyond themselves, to a world we shared.But there are cracks in this seemingly sturdy model.These cracks pose this question: why do we trust signs in the first place? That trust — in maps, in categories, in data — didn't emerge from neutrality. It was built atop agendas.Take the first U.S. census in 1790. It didn't just count — it defined. Categories like “free white persons,” “all other free persons,” and “slaves” weren't neutral. They were political tools, shaping who mattered and by how much. People became variables. Representation became abstraction.Or Carl Linnaeus, the 18th-century Swedish botanist who built the taxonomies we still use: genus, species, kingdom. His system claimed objectivity but was shaped by distance and empire. Linnaeus never left Sweden. He named what he hadn't seen, classified people he'd never met — sorting humans into racial types based on colonial stereotypes. These weren't observations. They were projections based on stereotypes gathered from travelers, missionaries, and imperial officials.Naming replaced knowing. Life was turned into labels. Biology became filing. And once abstracted, it all became governable, measurable, comparable, and, ultimately, manageable.Maps followed suit.What once lived as a symbolic invitation — a drawing of place — became a system of location. I was studying geography at a time (and place) when Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and GIScience was transforming cartography. Maps weren't just about visual representations; they were spatial databases. Rows, columns, attributes, and calculations took the place of lines and shapes on map. Drawing what we saw turned to abstracting what could then be computed so that it could then be visualized, yes, but also managed.Chris Perkins, writing on the philosophy of mapping, argued that digital cartographies didn't just depict the world — they constituted it. The map was no longer a surface to interpret, but a script to execute. As critical geographers Sam Hind and Alex Gekker argue, the modern “mapping impulse” isn't about understanding space — it's about optimizing behavior through it; in a world of GPS and vehicle automation, the map no longer describes the territory, it becomes it. Laura Roberts, writing on film and geography, showed how maps had fused with cinematic logic — where places aren't shown, but performed. Place and navigation became narrative. New York in cinema isn't a place — it's a performance of ambition, alienation, or energy. Geography as mise-en-scène.In other words, the map's loss of innocence wasn't just technical. It was ontological — a shift in the very nature of what maps are and what kind of reality they claim to represent. Geography itself had entered the domain of simulation — not representing space but staging it. You can simulate traveling anywhere in the world, all staged on Google maps. Last summer my son stepped off the train in Edinburgh, Scotland for the first time in his life but knew exactly where he was. He'd learned it driving on simulated streets in a simulated car on XBox. He walked us straight to our lodging.These shifts in reality over centuries weren't necessarily mistakes. They unfolded, emerged, or evolved through the rational tools of modernity — and for a time, they worked. For many, anyway. Especially for those in power, seeking power, or benefitting from it. They enabled trade, governance, development, and especially warfare. But with every shift came this question: at what cost?FROM SIGNS TO SPECTACLEAs early as the early 1900s, Max Weber warned of a world disenchanted by bureaucracy — a society where rationalization would trap the human spirit in what he called an iron cage. By mid-century, thinkers pushed this further.Michel Foucault revealed how systems of knowledge — from medicine to criminal justice — were entangled with systems of power. To classify was to control. To represent was to discipline. Roland Barthes dissected the semiotics of everyday life — showing how ads, recipes, clothing, even professional wrestling were soaked in signs pretending to be natural.Guy Debord, in the 1967 The Society of the Spectacle, argued that late capitalism had fully replaced lived experience with imagery. “The spectacle,” he wrote, “is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images.”Then came Jean Baudrillard — a French sociologist, media theorist, and provocateur — who pushed the critique of representation to its limit. In the 1980s, where others saw distortion, he saw substitution: signs that no longer referred to anything real. Most vividly, in his surreal, gleaming 1986 travelogue America, he described the U.S. not as a place, but as a performance — a projection without depth, still somehow running.Where Foucault showed that knowledge was power, and Debord showed that images replaced life, Baudrillard argued that signs had broken free altogether. A map might once distort or simplify — but it still referred to something real. By the late 20th century, he argued, signs no longer pointed to anything. They pointed only to each other.You didn't just visit Disneyland. You visited the idea of America — manufactured, rehearsed, rendered. You didn't just use money. You used confidence by handing over a credit card — a symbol of wealth that is lighter and moves faster than any gold.In some ways, he was updating a much older insight by another Frenchman. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited America in the 1830s, he wasn't just studying law or government — he was studying performance. He saw how Americans staged democracy, how rituals of voting and speech created the image of a free society even as inequality and exclusion thrived beneath it. Tocqueville wasn't cynical. He simply understood that America believed in its own image — and that belief gave it a kind of sovereign feedback loop.Baudrillard called this condition simulation — when representation becomes self-contained. When the distinction between real and fake no longer matters because everything is performance. Not deception — orchestration.He mapped four stages of this logic:* Faithful representation – A sign reflects a basic reality. A map mirrors the terrain.* Perversion of reality – The sign begins to distort. Think colonial maps as logos or exclusionary zoning.* Pretending to represent – The sign no longer refers to anything but performs as if it does. Disneyland isn't America — it's the fantasy of America. (ironically, a car-free America)* Pure simulation – The sign has no origin or anchor. It floats. Zillow heatmaps, Uber surge zones — maps that don't reflect the world, but determine how you move through it.We don't follow maps as they were once known anymore. We follow interfaces.And not just in apps. Cities themselves are in various stages of simulation. New York still sells itself as a global center. But in a distributed globalized and digitized economy, there is no center — only the perversion of an old reality. Paris subsidizes quaint storefronts not to nourish citizens, but to preserve the perceived image of Paris. Paris pretending to be Paris. Every city has its own marketing campaign. They don't manage infrastructure — they manage perception. The skyline is a product shot. The streetscape is marketing collateral and neighborhoods are optimized for search.Even money plays this game.The U.S. dollar wasn't always king. That title once belonged to the British pound — backed by empire, gold, and industry. After World War II, the dollar took over, pegged to gold under the Bretton Woods convention — a symbol of American postwar power stability…and perversion. It was forged in an opulent, exclusive, hotel in the mountains of New Hampshire. But designed in the style of Spanish Renaissance Revival, it was pretending to be in Spain. Then in 1971, Nixon snapped the dollar's gold tether. The ‘Nixon Shock' allowed the dollar to float — its value now based not on metal, but on trust. It became less a store of value than a vessel of belief. A belief that is being challenged today in ways that recall the instability and fragmentation of the pre-WWII era.And this dollar lives in servers, not Industrial Age iron vaults. It circulates as code, not coin. It underwrites markets, wars, and global finance through momentum alone. And when the pandemic hit, there was no digging into reserves.The Federal Reserve expanded its balance sheet with keystrokes — injecting trillions into the economy through bond purchases, emergency loans, and direct payments. But at the same time, Trump 1.0 showed printing presses rolling, stacks of fresh bills bundled and boxed — a spectacle of liquidity. It was monetary policy as theater. A simulation of control, staged in spreadsheets by the Fed and photo ops by the Executive Branch. Not to reflect value, but to project it. To keep liquidity flowing and to keep the belief intact.This is what Baudrillard meant by simulation. The sign doesn't lie — nor does it tell the truth. It just works — as long as we accept it.MOOD OVER MEANINGReality is getting harder to discern. We believe it to be solid — that it imposes friction. A law has consequences. A price reflects value. A city has limits. These things made sense because they resist us. Because they are real.But maybe that was just the story we told. Maybe it was always more mirage than mirror.Now, the signs don't just point to reality — they also replace it. We live in a world where the image outpaces the institution. Where the copy is smoother than the original. Where AI does the typing. Where meaning doesn't emerge — it arrives prepackaged and pre-viral. It's a kind of seductive deception. It's hyperreality where performance supersedes substance. Presence and posture become authority structured in style.Politics is not immune to this — it's become the main attraction.Trump's first 100 days didn't aim to stabilize or legislate but to signal. Deportation as UFC cage match — staged, brutal, and televised. Tariff wars as a way of branding power — chaos with a catchphrase. Climate retreat cast as perverse theater. Gender redefined and confined by executive memo. Birthright citizenship challenged while sedition pardoned. Even the Gulf of Mexico got renamed. These aren't policies, they're productions.Power isn't passing through law. It's passing through the affect of spectacle and a feed refresh.Baudrillard once wrote that America doesn't govern — it narrates. Trump doesn't manage policy, he manages mood. Like an actor. When America's Secretary of Defense, a former TV personality, has a makeup studio installed inside the Pentagon it's not satire. It's just the simulation, doing what it does best: shining under the lights.But this logic runs deeper than any single figure.Culture no longer unfolds. It reloads. We don't listen to the full album — we lift 10 seconds for TikTok. Music is made for algorithms. Fashion is filtered before it's worn. Selfhood is a brand channel. Identity is something to monetize, signal, or defend — often all at once.The economy floats too. Meme stocks. NFTs. Speculative tokens. These aren't based in value — they're based in velocity. Attention becomes the currency.What matters isn't what's true, but what trends. In hyperreality, reference gives way to rhythm. The point isn't to be accurate. The point is to circulate. We're not being lied to.We're being engaged. And this isn't a bug, it's a feature.Which through a Baudrillard lens is why America — the simulation — persists.He saw it early. Describing strip malls, highways, slogans, themed diners he saw an America that wasn't deep. That was its genius he saw. It was light, fast paced, and projected. Like the movies it so famously exports. It didn't need justification — it just needed repetition.And it's still repeating.Las Vegas is the cathedral of the logic of simulation — a city that no longer bothers pretending. But it's not alone. Every city performs, every nation tries to brand itself. Every policy rollout is scored like a product launch. Reality isn't navigated — it's streamed.And yet since his writing, the mood has shifted. The performance continues, but the music underneath it has changed. The techno-optimism of Baudrillard's ‘80s an ‘90s have curdled. What once felt expansive now feels recursive and worn. It's like a show running long after the audience has gone home. The rager has ended, but Spotify is still loudly streaming through the speakers.“The Kids' Guide to the Internet” (1997), produced by Diamond Entertainment and starring the unnervingly wholesome Jamison family. It captures a moment of pure techno-optimism — when the Internet was new, clean, and family-approved. It's not just a tutorial; it's a time capsule of belief, staged before the dream turned into something else. Before the feed began to feed on us.Trumpism thrives on this terrain. And yet the world is changing around it. Climate shocks, mass displacement, spiraling inequality — the polycrisis has a body count. Countries once anchored to American leadership are squinting hard now, trying to see if there's anything left behind the screen. Adjusting the antenna in hopes of getting a clearer signal. From Latin America to Southeast Asia to Europe, the question grows louder: Can you trust a power that no longer refers to anything outside itself?Maybe Baudrillard and Tocqueville are right — America doesn't point to a deeper truth. It points to itself. Again and again and again. It is the loop. And even now, knowing this, we can't quite stop watching. There's a reason we keep refreshing. Keep scrolling. Keep reacting. The performance persists — not necessarily because we believe in it, but because it's the only script still running.And whether we're horrified or entertained, complicit or exhausted, engaged or ghosted, hired or fired, immigrated or deported, one thing remains strangely true: we keep feeding it. That's the strange power of simulation in an attention economy. It doesn't need conviction. It doesn't need conscience. It just needs attention — enough to keep the momentum alive. The simulation doesn't care if the real breaks down. It just keeps rendering — soft, seamless, and impossible to look away from. Like a dream you didn't choose but can't wake up from.REFERENCESBarthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). Hill and Wang. (Original work published 1957)Baudrillard, J. (1986). America (C. Turner, Trans.). Verso.Debord, G. (1994). The Society of the Spectacle (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Zone Books. (Original work published 1967)Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books.Hind, S., & Gekker, A. (2019). On autopilot: Towards a flat ontology of vehicular navigation. In C. Lukinbeal et al. (Eds.), Media's Mapping Impulse. Franz Steiner Verlag.Linnaeus, C. (1735). Systema Naturae (1st ed.). Lugduni Batavorum.Perkins, C. (2009). Philosophy and mapping. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Elsevier.Raaphorst, K., Duchhart, I., & van der Knaap, W. (2017). The semiotics of landscape design communication. Landscape Research.Roberts, L. (2008). Cinematic cartography: Movies, maps and the consumption of place. In R. Koeck & L. Roberts (Eds.), Cities in Film: Architecture, Urban Space and the Moving Image. University of Liverpool.Tocqueville, A. de. (2003). Democracy in America (G. Lawrence, Trans., H. Mansfield & D. Winthrop, Eds.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1835)Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). Charles Scribner's Sons. (Original work published 1905) This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

Aan de vooravond van Dodenherdenking en Bevrijdingsdag herdenken we niet alleen, maar herkennen ook. Dat is leerzaam, maar ook confronterend. Het boek De tien van Den Haag van Stephan Steinmetz is dat zeker in tijden dat ambtenaren worstelen met vragen van loyaliteit. In Amerika bij de omgang met de regering-Trump. En ook in eigen land met vragen over controversieel beleid.Jaap Jansen en PG Kroeger praten met Stephan Steinmetz over de belevenissen van de tien hoogste ambtenaren op de Haagse ministeries toen in mei 1940 Nazi-Duitsland Nederland binnenviel en al na enkele dagen dwong tot capitulatie.***Deze aflevering is mede mogelijk gemaakt met donaties van luisteraars die we hiervoor hartelijk danken. Word ook vriend van de show!Deze aflevering bevat een advertentie van Lendahand.com - gebruik de code betrouwbarebronnen500 bij je eerste investering (geldig t/m 31 mei 2025)Heb je belangstelling om in onze podcast te adverteren of ons te sponsoren? Zend een mailtje naar adverteren@dagennacht.nl en wij zoeken contact.Op sommige podcast-apps kun je niet alles lezen. De complete tekst plus linkjes en een overzicht van al onze eerdere afleveringen vind je hier***Ineens stonden de secretarissen-generaal moederziel alleen, zonder gezamenlijke beleidslijn. Met een naar Londen gevluchte regering die radeloos was en met een vijandige overwinnaar die scherp had afgewogen hoe de Nederlanders te paaien en te onderwerpen. "Maak er het beste van", zei minister Pieter Sjoerds Gerbrandy bij het afscheid tegen zijn SG.Steinmetz vertelt met rijke details hoe de ambtelijke top niet alleen een eigen werkwijze moest vinden - die was er voorheen nauwelijks - maar ook moest leren omgaan met een bezetter die geheel anders te werk ging dan waar men zozeer voor gevreesd werd. Een merkwaardige mengeling van opluchting, daadkracht, argwaan en onbestemde vrees nam de overhand. En stiekem waren 'de tien' zelfs blij dat ze zonder ministers, parlement, verdeelde partijen en verzuilde polder nu eens flink en 'modern' aan de slag konden.Adolf Hitler wilde ‘het Germaanse broedervolk' paaien en de Nederlandse economie inzetten voor zijn oorlogsmachine. Steinmetz laat zien hoe bij alle geruststellend klinkende boodschappen - ook over 'het Jodenvraagstuk'- al in de zomer van 1940 doelgericht werd gewerkt aan de voorbereiding van het maatschappelijk isolement en de ondergang van Joden - ook in Nederland.De tien SG's kozen daarbij voor een lijn van formele samenwerking met de bezetter, om bestuur, economie en grondwettelijke rechten zoveel mogelijk overeind te houden. En ze ontdekten dat ze met de bezetter - onder leiding van Hitlers 'stadhouder' Arthur Seyss-Inquart - één doel deelden: NSB'ers zoveel mogelijk buiten de deur houden.Zo probeerden ze vanuit een defensieve houding te doen wat de vader van Jan de Koning zijn tienerzoon destijds voorhield: 'het onderscheid tussen een greppel en de laatste gracht' in de gaten houden. Dat ze zich met hun houding op ‘een hellend vlak' begaven, beseften sommigen al aan het begin van de bezetting. Anderen hielden zich vast aan hun drijfveer ‘erger te voorkomen'. De sterke man onder de SG's, Hans Hirschfeld, noemde het de principiële keuze tussen 'Gesinnungsethik' en 'Verantwortungsethik', naar de terminologie van Max Weber.Een manier om de dialoog met Seyss-Inquart en zijn staf gaande te houden was het niet agenderen van mogelijke conflictstof, maar wel formele protesten uiten als het niet anders kon. Daarna poogden ze de scherpe kantjes eraf te halen, vaak met procedurele trucjes. Toen Joodse Nederlanders geen parken meer mochten bezoeken, ontstond een hele discussie over de definitie van 'een park'.Intussen kaapte de bezetter een perfectionistisch ambtelijk project dat het mogelijk maakte iedere inwoner nauwkeurig te identificeren en registreren. Stephan Steinmetz laat zien hoe naïef professionalisme, cowboygedrag en gebrek aan toezicht vanuit de top rampzalige gevolgen kreeg.Ondertussen droegen veel Nederlanders op de verjaardag van prins Bernhard een anjer – als stil protest. De aanhankelijkheid aan het Oranjehuis deed Nazi-propagandachef Joseph Goebbels tijdens een bezoek aan Den Haag in woede ontsteken. Steinmetz vertelt buitengewoon beeldend van een confrontatie tussen Hermann Göring en opperbevelhebber Winkelman.De NSB buiten de deur houden lukte uiteindelijk niet. Allengs werden Duitsgezinde SG's in vacatures benoemd. Toch probeerden de resterenden van de oorspronkelijke tien ook met hen erbij het land draaiende te houden. De bezetter besefte dat met name Hirschfeld onmisbaar was voor de economische situatie en de loyaliteit van het bedrijfsleven.Hoogst opmerkelijk - en verrassend actueel - is hoe hij de land- en tuinbouw drastisch aanpakte om mogelijke hongersnood te voorkomen. Niet minder hoe hij zo nodig bruut de confrontatie zocht als geweld dreigde, bijvoorbeeld bij een mijnstaking. "Wilt u kolen of lijken?" zei hij ijskoud tegen de generaals.Na de bevrijding werden de SG's vooral beoordeeld op wat zij hadden gedaan om 'het verzet' te helpen. Dat zij hun taak zagen als 'erger voorkomen', de NSB tegenhouden en 'het land draaiende houden' werd minder zwaar gewogen.Des te opvallender is dat de regering na 1945 Hirschfeld toch hoge posten bleef gunnen. Impliciet besefte men blijkbaar dat "Maak er het beste van" het enige was, dat hem en zijn collega's was meegegeven in onmogelijke omstandigheden.***Verder luisteren322 - 30 januari 1933, een fatale dag voor Duitsland en de wereld105 - Dagelijks leven in Nazi-Duitsland478 - Was Hitler een socialist?314 - Prins Heinrich XIII en het verlangen naar een autoritair Duisland385 - Jan de Koning en het verschil tussen een greppel en de laatste gracht479 - Winston Churchill. Staatsman. Redenaar. Excentriekeling.32 - Churchill en Europa: biografen Andrew Roberts en Felix Klos (vanaf 1 uur 3)300 - Ethische politiek: het bijzondere Nederland met zijn 'moreel hoogstaande opvattingen'441 - Extra zomeraflevering: boekenspecial! (oa over de secretarissen-generaal)186 - Hoe je een ministerie bestuurt, terreur bestrijdt en Poetin op je dak krijgt: Tjibbe Joustra over crisis en controle120 - Roel Bekker: Waarom bij de overheid dingen zo vaak fout gaan489 – Trump, Musk en de aanval op de privacy408 – FBI-chef J. Edgar Hoover, de machtigste ambtenaar van Amerika208 - Max Weber: wetenschap als beroep en politiek als beroep200 - De Heerser: Machiavelli's lessen zijn nog altijd actueel***Tijdlijn00:00:00 – Deel 100:52:00 – Deel 201:38:00 – Deel 302:00:51 – Einde Zie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:02:04 +0000 https://feed.neuezwanziger.de/link/21941/17019398/wolfram-weimer-trumps-niedergang-papst-prozession-eu-aussenpolitik-neue-zeitrechnungnung-und-sportideologie 75eba8b68f9807ef113d2a80dea51e4e Wolfgang und Stefan besprechen den April 2025 Welche Qualifikation braucht ein Kulturstaatsminister? Pah, das ist ja nicht mal ein richtiger Minister. Also eigentlich keine. Vielleicht wäre etwas mit Medien schön in der Biographie. Will uns die neue Bundesregierung ärgern? Ist Kultur von dort aus gesehen wirklich nur noch ein linksgrünversifftes Projekt, das ein paar hinter die Löffel bekommen soll? Oder ist die Ernennung von Wolfram Weimer einfach Sinnbild für die neue Herangehensweise, für die Modernisierung des Staates auf Verkaufsflächendesigner zu setzen, als Wirtschaftsministerin eine Unternehmensmanagerin zu wählen und überall Juristen zu platzieren, außer im Innenministerium? Wir gehen dem Denken von Wolfram Weimer heute im Detail nach, Wolfgang hat sein Buch gelesen. Danach begutachten wir die Signatur-Politik von Donald Trump. Einfach "Zölle" zu sagen, greift viel zu kurz. Hier klammern Leute am Staat, die ihn zerstören, was sie sich nicht eingestehen können, weil dann die anderen gewonnen hätten. Im Wirtschaftskrieg Amerika gegen China sind es nun die Amerikaner, die den Gesichtsverlust fürchten. Anschließend sehen wir einsame Sportler im Wald, die mal keinen Blödsinn erzählen. KÄS-Termine 2025: Fr. 20.06. / Fr. 19.09. / Fr. 19.12. per Mail: neuezwanziger@diekaes.de SOMMERSALON am 23. August! Tickets gibts hier 00:00:57 Wolfgangs Smartphone Wolfgang erzählt, wie er durch den Kauf eines neuen Autos dazu gezwungen wurde, sich ein Smartphone anzuschaffen. Sein altes Nokia reichte nicht mehr aus, um die modernen Funktionen des Autos zu nutzen. Er beschreibt den Kauf eines iPhones als Verlust seiner Autonomie und Freiheit, da er sich nun der Technologie unterwerfen muss. Stefan versucht, ihm die praktischen Seiten des Smartphones näherzubringen, wie die Navigationsfunktion, die nicht nur im Raum, sondern auch in der Zeit navigiert, indem sie die Ankunftszeit vorhersagt. Wolfgang will das Smartphone jedoch nur für das Nötigste nutzen und nicht für soziale Medien oder ständige Erreichbarkeit. 00:09:06 Strafen für Apple und Meta Passend zu Wolfgangs neuem iPhone wird über eine EU-Strafe gegen Apple berichtet. Die EU-Kommission wirft Apple vor, im App Store andere Anbieter benachteiligt zu haben, indem es Hinweise auf günstigere Angebote außerhalb des Stores verhinderte. Apple soll 500 Millionen Euro Strafe zahlen. Stefan hält die Strafe für längst überfällig, aber angesichts des Lock-in-Effekts, den Apple über Jahre ausgenutzt hat, für zu gering. Wolfgang rechnet vor, dass die Strafe nur einen Bruchteil (0,15%) des möglichen Strafmaßes von bis zu 10% des globalen Jahresumsatzes ausmacht. Auch Meta (Facebook, Instagram) erhielt eine Strafe von 200 Millionen Euro wegen der Praxis, Nutzer vor die Wahl zwischen personalisierter Werbung oder einem Bezahl-Abo zu stellen. Beide Strafen werden als symbolisch und wenig abschreckend kritisiert. Es wird diskutiert, dass die EU sich zwar nicht scheut, US-Tech-Konzerne zu bestrafen, aber die Abhängigkeit von deren digitaler Infrastruktur (Google Suche, Cloud-Dienste etc.) eine härtere Gangart verhindert. Matt Binder von Mashable erklärt, warum Meta die Strafe als "Tariff" (Zoll) bezeichnet, um negative Assoziationen in den USA zu wecken. 00:22:19 Papst beerdigt Stefan berichtet von seinem Wien-Besuch und der dortigen Schatzkammer, wo die Verschmelzung von staatlicher und sakraler Macht sichtbar wird. Im Kontrast dazu steht die als eher schlicht empfundene Beerdigungszeremonie für Papst Franziskus im Petersdom. Ein besonderer Moment war jedoch der Trauerzug mit dem Leichnam des Papstes durch das historische Zentrum Roms zur Basilika Santa Maria Maggiore, wo er beigesetzt wurde. Dieser Akt wurde selbst von nicht-religiösen Menschen als Gänsehautmoment empfunden und als letzter weltlicher Einschlag des Papstes gewertet. Wolfgang erinnert an die Tradition in Wien, verstorbene Burgschauspieler im Sarg um das Burgtheater zu tragen. Es wird auch die politische Dimension des Papsttums angesprochen, etwa die Rolle von Johannes Paul II. im Kalten Krieg oder Franziskus' Appelle gegen Aufrüstung. 00:28:15 Was denkt Wolfram Weimer Wolfram Weimer, ehemaliger Chefredakteur der Welt und Verleger (u.a. Cicero), wurde zum neuen Kulturstaatsminister ernannt. Die Entscheidung von Friedrich Merz löste viel Kritik aus, auch aus konservativen Kreisen. Jürgen Kaube (FAZ) bezweifelt Weimers Interesse an Kunst oder Geist. Die enge Verbindung zwischen Merz und Weimer (Golfpartner, Ludwig-Erhard-Gipfel, gegenseitige Lobpreisungen) wird beleuchtet. Wolfgang hat Weimers "Konservatives Manifest" gelesen, um dessen Denken zu verstehen. In einem Lanz-Auftritt von 2018 erklärt Weimer, Konservatismus sei wieder modern und bedeute nicht das Hängen am Gestern, sondern das Leben aus Werten, die immer gelten (Treue, Anständigkeit, Ehrlichkeit). Wolfgang kritisiert die Beliebigkeit dieser Definition. Stefan sieht Weimer als Gallionsfigur eines verlotternden Untergangs, der Chaos als Normalität verkauft. Weimers Buch wird analysiert: Er beklagt den Niedergang linker Weltanschauungen, interpretiert Böckenförde und Max Weber eigenwillig, fordert eine minimale Gesellschaft, kritisiert die "Bemutterung" durch den Staat (z.B. Verkehrsüberwachung) und sieht die Steuererklärung als "Marsch ins Freiheitsdefizit". Diese libertären Züge werden kritisiert. Weimer beklagt eine "Kleinkariertheit" durch Compliance-Regeln, die Geschenke und Geschäftsessen erschweren. Wolfgang hält das für Jammern auf hohem Niveau. Weimer stellt das Individuum über die Gesellschaft, fordert aber gleichzeitig Patriotismus und unterscheidet zwischen staatsbürgerlichem und natürlichem (Abstammungs-) Vaterland. Diese Widersprüche und die Nähe zum Ethnopluralismus werden diskutiert. Weimer bezieht sich positiv auf Oswald Spengler und beklagt die "biologische Selbstaufgabe" Europas durch niedrige Geburtenraten, spricht vom "eigenen Blut". Er kritisiert die Fokussierung auf die "dunkle Seite" des Kolonialismus in Lehrplänen. Die "Tugendrepublik" der "Gutmenschen" mit ihren Verboten (Fleisch, Kaminfeuer) und Quoten wird angeprangert. Am Ende plädiert er für eine Rechristianisierung Europas durch die Kultur. Abschließend äußern sich Michael Bröker und Micky Beisenherz zur Personalie. 02:20:54 Salon-Anmerkungen Es wird auf den kostenpflichtigen "Salon"-Teil des Podcasts hingewiesen, der die Sendung finanziert. Hörer werden gebeten, den Podcast zu teilen und zu bewerten, um die Sichtbarkeit zu erhöhen. Im nächsten Salon werden die Bücher "Abundance: How We Build a Better Future" von Esra Klein & Derek Thompson und "Die Welt nach dem Kapital" von Albert Wenger besprochen. Es wird erklärt, wie man den Salon über Steady, Patreon oder Apple Podcasts abonnieren kann. Man kann den Salon auch verschenken. Wolfgang kündigt Live-Termine in Zürich und Stuttgart an. Stefan erwähnt einen Termin in Mainz. Leseempfehlungen für den nächsten Salon werden gegeben. 02:26:38 Trumps Fanboys reden über Trumps Zölle Das Hauptthema ist Donald Trumps Zollpolitik. Es wird betont, dass dies seine "Signature Policy" ist, über die er seit Jahrzehnten spricht. Die aktuelle Situation mit Handelskriegen und Marktverwerfungen wird als direkte Folge dieser Politik gesehen. David McWilliams beschreibt Trumps Zoll-Formel als amateurhaft und inkompetent, basierend auf einer Formel, die ökonomisch keinen Sinn ergibt. Wolfgang erläutert den Unterschied zwischen früherer politischer Inkompetenz, die von Institutionen abgefangen wurde, und der heutigen Situation, in der Inkompetenz direkt an den Schalthebeln sitzt und zu chaotischer Politik führt. Stefan ergänzt, dass die Politik normalerweise durch die Verwaltung abgeschottet ist, dieser Mechanismus aber unter Trump zusammenbricht. Trumps Fokus auf Zölle ignoriert die Stärke Amerikas im Bereich digitaler Dienstleistungen und das Dollar-Privileg. Die Reaktion der Kapitalmärkte (steigende Zinsen für US-Staatsanleihen) wird als einziger wirksamer "Check" gegen Trumps Politik diskutiert, da sie die Staatsverschuldung und Kredite verteuert. Trump-Anhänger im "All In"-Podcast versuchen, die Politik zu rechtfertigen, räumen aber ein, dass das versprochene Wirtschaftswachstum ausbleibt. Hoss und Hopf sehen Trumps Handeln als Beschleunigung einer unvermeidbaren Rezession, damit er am Ende seiner Amtszeit als Gewinner dasteht – eine Logik, die als absurd kritisiert wird. Die Notwendigkeit, die heimische Landwirtschaft (Sojabauern) mit Milliardensummen zu subventionieren, um Wählerstimmen zu sichern, wird erwähnt. China reagiert mit der Drohung, westliche IP-Rechte zu ignorieren und Produkte selbst billiger anzubieten. Der Personalmangel in wichtigen Sektoren (Energieversorgung, U-Boot-Bau) in den USA wird thematisiert. Ben Shapiro plädiert für "Rugged Individualism" und lehnt staatliche Eingriffe ab, obwohl der Staat gleichzeitig Grenzen schützen soll. 04:10:24 Krieg: Gaza, Ukraine Die Berichterstattung über den Gaza-Krieg wird kritisiert. Es sei schwierig, seriöse Bilder und Informationen zu erhalten, ohne auf antisemitische Kanäle zu stoßen, die das Leid in Gaza zwar zeigen, aber gleichzeitig Hetze verbreiten. Seriöse Medien würden sich scheuen, die dramatische Lage abzubilden, was wiederum Antisemiten Vorschub leiste. Die Tagesthemen berichten über einen israelischen Angriff auf ein Krankenhaus, bei dem eine Hamas-Kommandozentrale getroffen worden sei, wobei jedoch medizinisches Gerät zerstört wurde. Diese Darstellung wird mit der Berichterstattung über den Ukraine-Krieg verglichen, wo eine solche Übernahme der russischen Darstellung undenkbar wäre. Ein Bericht über die Tötung von palästinensischen Sanitätern durch die israelische Armee, deren Leichen verscharrt wurden, wird erwähnt. Israel weist die Vorwürfe zurück und behauptet ohne Belege, es seien Hamas-Mitglieder gewesen. Ein israelischer Reserve-Offizier äußert sich besorgt über den zunehmenden Einfluss rechtsextremer Minister auf die Armee. Es wird die Entkopplung von Soldaten vom zivilen Leben und der Politik im Krieg thematisiert, illustriert durch Aussagen eines ukrainischen Soldaten, der nur noch seinen Frontabschnitt und seine Leute sieht. Die psychischen Folgen und die Verrohung durch den Krieg werden angesprochen. 04:28:46 EU und Aserbaidschan Die EU-Außenbeauftragte Kaya Kallas besucht Aserbaidschan. Stefan merkt an, dass Kallas im Westen kaum bekannt ist, in Russland aber neben Trump als Hauptgegnerin wahrgenommen wird. Kallas bezeichnet China als Schlüssel für den russischen Krieg, da es Russland wirtschaftlich und mit Dual-Use-Gütern unterstütze. Ihr Besuch in Baku wird kritisiert, da Aserbaidschan unter Präsident Aliyev einen Angriffskrieg gegen Armenier in Bergkarabach geführt hat, die Zivilgesellschaft unterdrückt und politische Gefangene hält. Dustin Hoffmann wirft der EU-Kommission vor, Werte zu ignorieren und sich brutalen Diktatoren anzubieten. Kallas lobt Aserbaidschan hingegen als wichtigen und verlässlichen Energiepartner, der der EU geholfen habe, sich von russischer Energie zu lösen. Es wird enthüllt, dass Aserbaidschan russisches Gas an die EU weiterleitet und somit von den Sanktionen profitiert. Kallas spricht dennoch von gemeinsamen Werten wie Menschenrechten und Rechtsstaatlichkeit und begrüßt eine Einigung im Friedensprozess mit Armenien. Der aserbaidschanische Außenminister Bayramov betont die guten Beziehungen zur Türkei und kritisiert die Biden-Administration als zu pro-armenisch. Er zeigt sich hoffnungsvoll bezüglich der neuen Trump-Administration. Aserbaidschan pflegt trotz seiner muslimischen Prägung enge Beziehungen zu Israel, bezieht Waffen und liefert Erdöl. Das Verhältnis zu Russland wird als "normal" beschrieben, wobei man die territoriale Integrität der Ukraine respektiere. Aserbaidschan wird als Beispiel für neue globale Akteure gesehen, die pragmatisch mit allen Seiten kooperieren und Einmischung ablehnen. 04:48:15 Neue Zeitrechnung Der Erfolgscoach Ed Mylett präsentiert ein Konzept zur Zeitmanipulation: Er teilt seinen Tag in drei 6-Stunden-Abschnitte (6-12 Uhr, 12-18 Uhr, 18-24 Uhr) und gewinnt so angeblich 21 Tage pro Woche. Wolfgang entlarvt dies als simple Einführung von Doppelschichten. Stefan meint, dass KI solche individuellen Zeitrechnungen problemlos in Standardzeit übersetzen könnte. 04:51:08 Neue Sportideologie Es wird eine aufkeimende Gegenbewegung zur rechten Vereinnahmung von Fitness und Männlichkeit beobachtet. Als Beispiel dient ein Fitness-Influencer, der in einem Video klarstellt, dass das Heben von Gewichten einen nicht zum "Warrior" oder Beschützer macht. Er kritisiert "Douchbags wie Andrew Tate", die Männern einreden, Frauen und Immigranten seien ihre Probleme. Er analysiert, wie rechte Ideologien über harmlos erscheinende Aktivitäten wie Fitness normalisiert und Fitness selbst radikalisiert wird. Der wahre Feind seien nicht andere Gruppen, sondern die Superreichen und CEOs, die von der Ungleichheit profitieren ("The enemy is up"). Er ruft Männer dazu auf, sich als Arbeiterklasse zu erkennen und sich nicht länger von den Eliten spalten zu lassen, um echten Wandel zu ermöglichen. Wolfgang hofft, dass solche Stimmen lauter werden. Stefan erwartet einen großen Backlash gegen die aktuelle politische Situation, die von Partikularinteressen und offensichtlicher Dummheit geprägt sei. Die Rolle von superreichen Geldgebern und Netzwerken innerhalb der CDU wird angesprochen. Komm' in den Salon. Es gibt ihn via Webplayer & RSS-Feed (zum Hören im Podcatcher deiner Wahl, auch bei Apple Podcasts und Spotify). Wenn du Salon-Stürmer bist, lade weitere Hörer von der Gästeliste ein. full Wolfgang und Stefan besprechen den April 2025 no Stefan Schulz & Wolfgang M. Schmitt 18258

In this episode of International Horizons, RBI director John Torpey speaks with Stephen Hanson and Jeffrey Kopstein, co-authors of The Assault on the State: How the Global Attack on Modern Government Endangers Our Future (Polity Press, 2024). In this conversation, they discuss how today's right-wing movements, from the United States to Hungary, are waging a new form of politics that undermines the very foundations of the modern, rules-based state. Drawing on Max Weber's concept of “patrimonialism,” Hanson and Kopstein explore how these leaders erode public trust, demolish impersonal bureaucracies, and replace rational governance with personal loyalty and whim. Along the way, they examine the role of conspiracy theories, the rise of “deep state” narratives, and the uneasy alliances connecting libertarians, Christian nationalists, and advocates of an all-powerful executive. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In this episode of International Horizons, RBI director John Torpey speaks with Stephen Hanson and Jeffrey Kopstein, co-authors of The Assault on the State: How the Global Attack on Modern Government Endangers Our Future (Polity Press, 2024). In this conversation, they discuss how today's right-wing movements, from the United States to Hungary, are waging a new form of politics that undermines the very foundations of the modern, rules-based state. Drawing on Max Weber's concept of “patrimonialism,” Hanson and Kopstein explore how these leaders erode public trust, demolish impersonal bureaucracies, and replace rational governance with personal loyalty and whim. Along the way, they examine the role of conspiracy theories, the rise of “deep state” narratives, and the uneasy alliances connecting libertarians, Christian nationalists, and advocates of an all-powerful executive. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

In this episode of International Horizons, RBI director John Torpey speaks with Stephen Hanson and Jeffrey Kopstein, co-authors of The Assault on the State: How the Global Attack on Modern Government Endangers Our Future (Polity Press, 2024). In this conversation, they discuss how today's right-wing movements, from the United States to Hungary, are waging a new form of politics that undermines the very foundations of the modern, rules-based state. Drawing on Max Weber's concept of “patrimonialism,” Hanson and Kopstein explore how these leaders erode public trust, demolish impersonal bureaucracies, and replace rational governance with personal loyalty and whim. Along the way, they examine the role of conspiracy theories, the rise of “deep state” narratives, and the uneasy alliances connecting libertarians, Christian nationalists, and advocates of an all-powerful executive. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

In this episode of International Horizons, RBI director John Torpey speaks with Stephen Hanson and Jeffrey Kopstein, co-authors of The Assault on the State: How the Global Attack on Modern Government Endangers Our Future (Polity Press, 2024). In this conversation, they discuss how today's right-wing movements, from the United States to Hungary, are waging a new form of politics that undermines the very foundations of the modern, rules-based state. Drawing on Max Weber's concept of “patrimonialism,” Hanson and Kopstein explore how these leaders erode public trust, demolish impersonal bureaucracies, and replace rational governance with personal loyalty and whim. Along the way, they examine the role of conspiracy theories, the rise of “deep state” narratives, and the uneasy alliances connecting libertarians, Christian nationalists, and advocates of an all-powerful executive. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Frieder Vogelmann zu den medialen und ökonomischen Bedingungen, politischen Effekten und epistemischen Aspekten demokratischer Öffentlichkeit. Diese Aufnahme fand im Rahmen der Tagung „Politische Öffentlichkeit: Strukturen und Strategien“ an der Universität Erfurt statt. Die Website der Tagung inklusive Programm findet ihr hier: https://www.poloeff.de/ Shownotes Frieder Vogelmanns Website (inklusive einer Liste seiner Publikationen): https://www.frieder-vogelmann.net/public/ Frieder Vogelmann am University College Freiburg: https://www.ucf.uni-freiburg.de/people/chair-in-epistemology-and-theory-of-science/prof-dr-frieder-vogelmann Sektion "Politische Theorie und Ideengeschichte" der Deutschen Vereinigung für Politikwissenschaft: https://www.dvpw.de/gliederung/sektionen/politische-theorie-und-ideengeschichte Website der Doppeltagung "Politische Öffentlichkeit: Strukturen und Strategien": https://www.poloeff.de/ der Account der Doppeltagung auf Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/poloeff.bsky.social Vogelmann, F. (2023). Umkämpfte Wissenschaften – zwischen Idealisierung und Verachtung. Reclam Verlag. https://www.reclam.shop/detail/978-3-15-014359-9/Vogelmann__Frieder/Umkaempfte_Wissenschaften_____zwischen_Idealisierung_und_Verachtung Vogelmann, F. (2022). Die Wirksamkeit des Wissens: Eine politische Epistemologie. Suhrkamp. https://www.suhrkamp.de/buch/frieder-vogelmann-die-wirksamkeit-des-wissens-t-9783518299722 Das erste Zitat im Podcast stammt aus dem Gespräch „Öffentlichkeit - was ist das eigentlich?“ zwischen Theodor W. Adorno und Arnold Gehlen, welches am 18. März 1964 zum ersten Mal gesendet wurde. https://youtu.be/K7WokFmA2kw?si=xC_3K0L3eEk5p4ah Vogl, J. (2021). Kapital und Ressentiment. Eine kurze Theorie der Gegenwart. C.H.Beck. https://www.chbeck.de/vogl-kapitalismus-ressentiment/product/32045602 zu Rupert Murdoch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch die taz: https://taz.de/ Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1992). Tausend Plateaus: Kapitalismus und Schizophrenie. Merve Verlag. https://www.merve.de/index.php/book/show/211 zu Carl Schmitt: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt Jäger, A. (2023). Hyperpolitik. Extreme Politisierung ohne politische Folgen. Suhrkamp. https://www.suhrkamp.de/buch/anton-jaeger-hyperpolitik-t-9783518127971 Paul, M. (2025). Faschismus als Lustgewinn. Berlin Review. https://blnreview.de/ausgaben/2025-03/morten-paul-faschismus-als-lustgewinn Brown, W. (2023). Nihilistische Zeiten. Denken mit Max Weber. Suhrkamp. https://www.suhrkamp.de/buch/wendy-brown-nihilistische-zeiten-t-9783518588031 Loick, D., & Thompson, V. E. (Hrsg.). (2022). Abolitionismus: Ein Reader. Suhrkamp. https://www.suhrkamp.de/buch/abolitionismus-t-9783518299647 Kurt, Ş. (2023). Hass. Von der Macht eines widerständigen Gefühls. HarperCollins. https://www.harpercollins.de/products/hass-von-der-macht-eines-widerstandigen-gefuhls-9783365001585 Comey, J. (2019). How Trump Co-opts Leaders Like Bill Barr. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/opinion/william-barr-testimony.html Löwenthal, L. (2021). Falsche Propheten: Studien zur faschistischen Agitation. Suhrkamp. https://www.suhrkamp.de/buch/leo-loewenthal-falsche-propheten-t-9783518587621 Landa, I. (2021). Der Lehrling und sein Meister. Liberale Tradition und Faschismus. Dietz Verlag. https://dietzberlin.de/produkt/der-lehrling-und-sein-meister/ Ronge, B. (2015). Eine Genealogie des Liberalismus. Michel Foucaults Vorlesungen zur Geschichte der Gouvernementalität. In: Das Adam-Smith-Projekt. Edition Theorie und Kritik. Springer VS. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-658-06027-5_2#citeas von Redecker, E. (2020). Revolution für das Leben: Philosophie der neuen Protestformen. S. Fischer. https://www.fischerverlage.de/buch/eva-von-redecker-revolution-fuer-das-leben-9783596708048   Thematisch angrenzende Folgen S03E28 | Sylke van Dyk zu alternativer Gouvernementalität https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e28-silke-van-dyk-zu-alternativer-gouvernementalitaet/ S03E19 | Wendy Brown on socialist Governmentality https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e19-wendy-brown-on-socialist-governmentality/ S02E56 | Şeyda Kurt zu strategischem Hass https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e56-seyda-kurt-zu-strategischem-hass/ S02E54 | Alex Demirovic zu zu sozialistischer Gouvernementalität, (Re-)produktion und Rätedemokratie (Teil 2) https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e54-alex-demirovic-zu-sozialistischer-gouvernementalitaet-re-produktion-und-raetedemokratie-teil-2/ S02E53 | Alex Demirovic zu zu sozialistischer Gouvernementalität, (Re-)produktion und Rätedemokratie (Teil 1) https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e53-alex-demirovic-zu-sozialistischer-gouvernementalitaet-re-produktion-und-raetedemokratie-teil-1/ S02E08 | Thomas Biebricher zu neoliberaler Regierungskunst https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e08-thomas-biebricher-zu-neoliberaler-regierungskunst/ S02E03 | Ute Tellmann zu Ökonomie als Kultur https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e03-ute-tellmann-zu-oekonomie-als-kultur/ S01E37 | Eva von Redecker zur Revolution für das Leben https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s01/e37-eva-von-redecker-zur-revolution-fuer-das-leben/ S01E29 | Thorsten Thiel zu Demokratie in der digitalen Konstellation https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s01/e29-thorsten-thiel-zu-demokratie-in-der-digitalen-konstellation/ S01E25 | Joseph Vogl zur Krise des Regierens https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s01/e25-joseph-vogl-zur-krise-des-regierens/ S01E11 | Frieder Vogelmann zu alternativen Regierungskünsten https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s01/e11-frieder-vogelmann-zu-alternativen-regierungskuensten/ S01E09 | Susanne Grof-Korbel zu PR, Warhheit & Journalismus https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s01/e09-susanne-grof-korbel-zu-pr-wahrheit-journalismus/ Future Histories Kontakt & Unterstützung Wenn euch Future Histories gefällt, dann erwägt doch bitte eine Unterstützung auf Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/join/FutureHistories   Schreibt mir unter: office@futurehistories.today Diskutiert mit mir auf Twitter (#FutureHistories): https://twitter.com/FutureHpodcast auf Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/futurehistories.bsky.social auf Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/futurehpodcast/ auf Mastodon: https://mstdn.social/@FutureHistories   Webseite mit allen Folgen: www.futurehistories.today English webpage: https://futurehistories-international.com   Episode Keywords #FriederVogelmann, #JanGroos, #FutureHistories, #Podcast, #Interview, #Öffentlichkeit, #Adorno, #Medien, #KritischeTheorie, #FrankfurterSchule, #JosephVogl, #Faschismus, #Faschisierung, #Ressentiment, #Liberalismus, #Kapitalismus, #Ökonomie, #PolitischeÖkonomie, #FakeNews, #Journalismus, #Demokratie, #Demokratietheorie

In this episode of International Horizons, RBI director John Torpey speaks with Stephen Hanson and Jeffrey Kopstein, co-authors of The Assault on the State: How the Global Attack on Modern Government Endangers Our Future (Polity Press, 2024). In this conversation, they discuss how today's right-wing movements, from the United States to Hungary, are waging a new form of politics that undermines the very foundations of the modern, rules-based state. Drawing on Max Weber's concept of “patrimonialism,” Hanson and Kopstein explore how these leaders erode public trust, demolish impersonal bureaucracies, and replace rational governance with personal loyalty and whim. Along the way, they examine the role of conspiracy theories, the rise of “deep state” narratives, and the uneasy alliances connecting libertarians, Christian nationalists, and advocates of an all-powerful executive. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of International Horizons, RBI director John Torpey speaks with Stephen Hanson and Jeffrey Kopstein, co-authors of The Assault on the State: How the Global Attack on Modern Government Endangers Our Future (Polity Press, 2024). In this conversation, they discuss how today's right-wing movements, from the United States to Hungary, are waging a new form of politics that undermines the very foundations of the modern, rules-based state. Drawing on Max Weber's concept of “patrimonialism,” Hanson and Kopstein explore how these leaders erode public trust, demolish impersonal bureaucracies, and replace rational governance with personal loyalty and whim. Along the way, they examine the role of conspiracy theories, the rise of “deep state” narratives, and the uneasy alliances connecting libertarians, Christian nationalists, and advocates of an all-powerful executive. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Depuis plus d'un siècle et les théories de Max Weber, la neutralité des sciences et de la recherche est érigée comme idéal. Les scientifiques seraient toujours en dehors des enjeux politiques, indiquant simplement depuis leur laboratoire la voie vers le vrai et le factuel. Une idée désormais insoutenable à l'heure par exemple de la crise climatique ou de la montée des extrêmes… Car les scientifiques sont avant tout des citoyen.ne.s qui se mobilisent au cœur d'un monde en turbulence. Aujourd'hui, nous leur laissons la parole pour leur permettre de sortir de cette neutralité qui les étouffe. Comment s'engagent-iels ? Peut-on être militant.e.s et scientifiques ? Quel collectif rejoindre, pour y faire quoi ? Quelles émotions les traversent face à l'inaction ? Nous remercions chaleureusement tous les scientifiques, chercheur.euse.s et militant.e.s qui ont accepté de répondre à nos questions. Vous n'entendrez ni nom de famille, ni nom d'institution ou de laboratoire dans cette émission afin de leur permettre de témoigner en toute sécurité. Ces témoignages ont été recueillis par les bénévoles du Labo des savoirs, dont nombre d'entre elleux sont des scientifiques. Vous n'entendrez pas non plus leur voix, mais imaginez-les derrière le micro, posant les questions ! Merci donc à Cécile, Jérémy, Chaymaa, et Valentin pour leur participation. Une émission réalisée par Sophie Podevin, Cécile Bergua, Jérémy Freixas, Chaymaa Rabih, et Valentin Peden. Pour aller plus loin : La vidéo YouTube d'immersion à Stand Up for Sciences avec Grand Labo : Comment Trump fait la guerre à la science Le livre de Scientifiques en rébellion : Sortir des labos pour défendre le vivant Le site de Labo1point5 Le site de Scientifiques en rébellion

Few Americans have been as explicit in their warnings about Donald Trump than the St. Louis based writer Sarah Kendzior. Her latest book, The Last American Road Trip, is a memoir chronicling Kendzior's journey down Route 66 to show her children America before it is destroyed. Borrowing from her research of post Soviet Central Asia, Kendzior argues that Trump is establishing a kleptocratic “mafia state” designed to fleece the country of its valuables. This is the third time that Kendzior has been on the show and I have to admit I've always been slightly skeptical of her apocalyptic take on Trump. But given the damage that the new administration is inflicting on America, I have to admit that many of Kendzior's warnings now appear to be uncannily prescient. As she warns, it's Springtime in America. And things are about to get much much hotter. FIVE TAKEAWAYS* Kendzior views Trump's administration as a "mafia state" or kleptocracy focused on stripping America for parts rather than traditional fascism, comparing it to post-Soviet oligarchic systems she studied as an academic.* She believes American institutions have failed to prevent authoritarianism, criticizing both the Biden administration and other institutional leaders for not taking sufficient preventative action during Trump's first term.* Despite her bleak analysis, Kendzior finds hope in ordinary Americans and their capacity for mutual care and resistance, even as she sees formal leadership failing.* Kendzior's new book The Last American Road Trip follows her journey to show her children America before potential collapse, using Route 66 as a lens to examine American decay and resilience.* As an independent voice, she describes being targeted through both publishing obstacles and personal threats, yet remains committed to staying in her community and documenting what's happening. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, it is April the 18th, 2025, a Friday. I'm thrilled today that we have one of my favorite guests back on the show. I call her the Cassandra of St. Louis, Sarah Kendzior. Many of you know her from her first book, which was a huge success. All her books have done very well. The View from Flyover Country. She was warning us about Trump and Trumpism and MAGA. She was first on our show in 2020. Talking about media in the age of Trump. She had another book out then, Hiding in Plain Sight, The Invention of Donald Trump and the Erosion of America. Then in 2022, she came back on the show to talk about how a culture of conspiracy is keeping America simultaneously complacent and paranoid that the book was called or is called, They Knew. Another big success. And now Sarah has a new book out. It's called The Last American Road Trip. It's a beautifully written book, a kind of memoir, but a political one, of course, which one would expect from Sarah Kendzior. And I'm thrilled, as I said, that the Cassandra of St. Louis is joining us from St. Louis. Sarah, congratulations on the new book.Sarah Kendzior: Oh, thank you. And thank you for having me back on.Andrew Keen: Well, it's an honor. So these four books, how does the last American road trip in terms of the narrative of your previous three hits, how does it fit in? Why did you write it?Sarah Kendzior: Well, this book kind of pivots off the epilog of hiding in plain sight. And that was a book about political corruption in the United States and the rise of Trump. But in the epilogue, I describe how I was trying as a mom to show my kids America in the case that it ended due to both political turmoil and corruption and also climate change. I wanted them to see things themselves. So I was driving them around the country to national parks, historic sites, et cetera. And so many people responded so passionately to that little section, especially parents really struggling on how to raise children in this America that I ended up writing a book that covers 2016 to 2024 and my attempts to show my children everything I could in the time that we had. And as this happens, my children went from relatively young kids to teenagers, my daughter's almost an adult. And so it kind of captures America during this time period. It's also just a travelog, a road trip book, a memoir. It's a lot of things at once.Andrew Keen: Yeah, got great review from Ms. magazine comparing you with the great road writers, Kerouac, of course, and Steinbeck, but Kerouak and Steinback, certainly Kerouack was very much of a solitary male. Is there a female quality to this book? As you say, it's a book as much about your kids and the promise of America as it is about yourself.Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, I think there is in that, you know, I have a section actually about the doomed female road trip where it's, you know, Thelma and Louise or Janet Bates and Psycho or even songs about, you know, being on the road and on the run that are written by women, you know, like Merle Haggard's I'm a Lonesome Fugitive, had to be sung by men to convey that quality. And there aren't a lot of, you know, mom on the Road with her husband and kids kind of books. That said, I think of it as a family book, a parenting book. I certainly think men would like it just as much as women would, and people without kids would like just as people with kids, although it does seem to strike a special resonance with families struggling with a lot of the same issues that I do.Andrew Keen: It's all about the allure of historic Route 66. I've been on that. Anyone who's driven across the country has you. You explain that it's a compilation of four long trips across Route 66 in 1998, 2007, 2017, and 2023. That's almost 40 years, Sarah. Sorry, 30. Getting away my age there, Andrew. My math isn't very good. I mean, how has Route 66 and of course, America changed in that period? I know that's a rather leading question.Sarah Kendzior: No, I mean, I devote quite a lot of the book to Route 66 in part because I live on it, you know, goes right through St. Louis. So, I see it just every day. I'll be casually grocery shopping and then be informed I'm on historic Route 66 all of a sudden. But you know it's a road that is, you once was the great kind of romanticized road of escape and travel. It was decommissioned notably by Ronald Reagan after the creation of the interstate. And now it's just a series of rural roads, frontage roads, roads that end abruptly, roads that have gone into ruin, roads that are in some really beautiful places in terms of the landscape. So it really is this conglomeration of all of America, you know of the decay and the destruction and the abandonment in particular, but also people's, their own memories, their own artistic works, you know roadside shrines and creations that are often, you know pretty off beat. That they've put to show this is what I think of our country. These are my values. This is what, I think, is important. So it's a very interesting journey to take. It's often one I'm kind of inadvertently on just because of where I live and the direction I go. We'll mirror it. So I kept passing these sites again and again. I didn't set out to write this book. Obviously, when I first drove it when I was 19, I didn't know that this was our future. But looking back, especially at technological change, at how we travel, at how trust each other, at all of these things that have happened to this country since this time, it's really something. And that road will bring back all of those memories of what was lost and what remains to be lost. And of course it's hitting its 100th anniversary next year, so I'm guessing there'll be a lot of reminiscing about Route 66.Andrew Keen: Book about memories, you write about that, eventually even your memory will just or this experience of this trip will just be a memory. What does that suggest about contextualizing the current moment in American history? It's too easy to overdramatize it or perhaps it's hard not to over dramatize it given what's happening. I want to talk about a little bit about that your take on America on April the 18th, 2025. But how does that make sense of a memorial when you know that even your memories will become memories?Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, I mean it's hard to talk frankly about what's happening in America now without it sounding over dramatic or hyperbolic, which I think is why so many people were reluctant to believe me over my last decade of warnings that the current crises and catastrophes that we're experiencing are coming, are possible, and need to be actively stopped. I don't think they were inevitable, but they needed to be stopped by people in charge who refused to do it. And so, my reaction to this as a writer, but just as a human being is to write everything down, is to keep an ongoing record, not only of what I witness now, but of what know of our history, of what my own values are, of what place in the world is. And back in 2016, I encouraged everyone to do this because I knew that over the next decade, people would be told to accept things that they would normally never accept, to believe things that they would normally, never believe. And if you write down where you stand, you always have that point of reference to look back towards. It doesn't have to be for publication. It doesn't have to for the outside world. It can just be for yourself. And so I think that that's important. But right now, I think everyone has a role to play in battling what is an authoritarian kleptocracy and preventing it from hurting people. And I think people should lean into what they do best. And what I do best is write and research and document. So that's what I meant. Continue to do, particularly as history itself is under assault by this government.Andrew Keen: One of the things that strikes me about you, Sarah, is that you have an unusual background. You got a PhD in Soviet studies, late Soviet studies.Sarah Kendzior: Anthropology, yeah, but that was nice.Andrew Keen: But your dissertation was on the Uzbek opposition in exile. I wonder whether that experience of studying the late Soviet Union and its disintegration equipped you in some ways better than a lot of domestic American political analysts and writers for what's happening in America today. We've done a number of shows with people like Pete Weiner, who I'm sure you know his work from the Atlantic of New York Times. About learning from East European resistance writers, brave people like Milan Kundra, of course, Vaclav Havel, Solzhenitsyn. Do you think your earlier history of studying the Soviet Union helped you prepare, at least mentally, intellectually, for what's happening in the United States?Sarah Kendzior: Oh, absolutely. I think it was essential, because there are all sorts of different types of authoritarianism. And the type that Trump and his backers have always pursued was that of a mafia state, you know, of a kleptocracy. And Uzbekistan is the country that I knew the most. And actually, you what I wrote my dissertation about, this is between 2006, and 2012, was the fact that after a massacre of civilians... A lot of Uzbekistan's journalists, activists, political figures, opposition figures, et cetera, went into exile and then they immediately started writing blogs. And so for the very first time, they had freedom of speech. They had never had it in Uzbekistan. And they start revealing the whole secret history of Uzbekistan and everything going on and trying to work with each other, try to sort of have some impact on the political process in Uzbekistan. And they lost. What happened was the dictator died, Islam Karimov died, in 2016, and was replaced by another dictator who's not quite as severe. But watching the losing side and also watching people persevere and hold on to themselves and continue working despite that loss, I think, was very influential. Because you could look at Václav Havel or Lech Walesa or, you know, other sort of. People who won, you know, from Eastern Europe, from the revolutions of 1989 and so forth. And it's inspiring that sometimes I think it's really important to look at the people who did not succeed, but kept going anyway. You know, they didn't surrender themselves. They didn't their morality and they didn't abandon their fellow man. And I think that that's important. And also just to sort of get at the heart of your question, yes, you the structure of it, oligarchs who shake down countries, strip them and sell them for parts. Mine them for resources. That model, especially of what happened to Russia, actually, in particular in the 1990s of these oligarch wars, is what I see as the future of the United States right now. That is what they're trying to emulate.Andrew Keen: That we did a show with Steve Hansen and Jeff Kopstein, both political scientists, on what they see. They co-wrote a book on patrimonialism. This is the model they see there. They're both Max Weber scholars, so they borrow from that historic sociological analysis. And Kopstein was on the show with John Rausch as well, talking about this patrimonials. And so you, do you share the Kopstein-Hansen-Rausch analysis. Roush wrote a piece in the Atlantic about this too, which did very well. But this isn't conventional fascism or communism. It's a kind of 21st century version of patrimonialism.Sarah Kendzior: It's definitely not traditional fascism and one of the main reasons for that is a fascist has loyalty to the state. They seek to embody the state, they seek to expand the state recently Trump has been doing this more traditional route somewhat things like wanting to buy Greenland. But I think a lot of what he's doing is in reaction to climate change and also by the way I don't think Trump is the mastermind or originator. Of any of these geopolitical designs. You know, he has a team, we know about some of them with the Heritage Foundation Project 2025. We know he has foreign advisors. And again, you know, Trump is a corporate raider. That is how he led his business life. He's a mafia associate who wants to strip things down and sell them for parts. And that's what they wanna do with the United States. And that, yes, there are fascist tactics. There are fascists rhetoric. You know there are a lot of things that this country will, unfortunately, and has. In common, you know, with, say, Nazi Germany, although it's also notable that of course Nazi Germany borrowed from a lot of the tactics of Jim Crow, slavery, genocide of Native Americans. You know, this has always been a back and forth and America always has had some form of selective autocracy. But yeah, I think the folks who try to make this direct line and make it seem like the 20th century is just simply being revived, I've always felt like they were off because. There's no interest for these plutocrats in the United States even existing as a sovereign body. Like it truly doesn't matter to them if all of our institutions, even something as benign as the Postal Service, collapse. That's actually beneficial for them because then they can privatize, they can mine resources, they can make money for themselves. And I really worry that their goal is partition, you know, is to take this country. And to split it into smaller pieces that are easier to control. And that's one of the reasons I wrote this book, that I wrote The Last American Road Trip because I don't want people to fall for traps about generalizations or stereotypes about different regions of this country. I want them to see it as a whole and that our struggles are interconnected and we have a better chance of winning if we stand by each other.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and your book, in particular, The View from Flyover Country was so important because it wasn't written from San Francisco or Los Angeles or D.C. Or New York. It was written from St. Louis. So in a way, Sarah, you're presenting Trump as the ultimate Hayekian b*****d. There's a new book out by Quinn Slobodian called Hayek's B******s, which connects. Trumpianism and mago with Neoliberalism you don't see a break. We've done a lot of shows on the rise and fall of neoliberalism. You don't say a break between Hayek and TrumpSarah Kendzior: I think that in terms of neoliberalism, I think it's a continuation of it. And people who think that our crises began with Trump becoming the president in 2017, entering office, are deluded because the pathway to Trump even being able to run for president given that he was first investigated by the Department of Justice in 1973 and then was linked to a number of criminal enterprises for decades after. You know, that he was able to get in that position, you know that already showed that we had collapsed in certain respects. And so I think that these are tied together. You know, this has a lot to do with greed, with a, you know a disregard for sovereignty, a disregard human rights. For all of this Trump has always served much better as a demagogue, a front man, a figurehead. I do think, you he's a lot smarter. Than many of his opponents give him credit for. He is very good at doing what he needs to do and knowing what he need to know and nothing more. The rest he gives to the bureaucrats, to the lawyers, et cetera. But he fills this persona, and I do wonder what will happen when he is gone because they've tried very hard to find a successor and it's always failed, like DeSantis or Nikki Haley or whoever. And I kind of wonder if one of the reasons things are moving so, so fast now is they're trying to get a lot of things in under the wire while he's still alive, because I don't think that there's any individual who people have the loyalty to. His cult is not that big. It's a relatively small segment of the country, but it is very intense and very loyal to him. I don't think that loyalty is transferable.Andrew Keen: Is there anything, you know, I presented you as the Cassandra from St. Louis, you've seen the future probably clearer than most other people. Certainly when I first came across your work, I wasn't particularly convinced. I'm much more convinced now. You were right. I was wrong. Is there, anything about Trump too, that surprised you? I mean, any of the, the cruelty? Open corruption, the anger, the hostility, the attempt to destroy anything of any value in America, the fact that they seem to take such great pleasure in destroying this country's most valuable thing.Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, it's extremely sad and no, he doesn't surprise me at all. He's been the same guy since I was a little kid. You know, he was a plot line on children's television shows in the 1980s where as a child, I was supposed to know that the name Trump was synonymous with corruption, with being a tax cheat, with being a liar, you know, these were just sort of cultural codes that I was expected to know. What surprised me more is that no one stopped him because this threat was incredibly obvious. And that so many people in power have joined in, and I'm assuming they're joining in because they would rather be on the side with all that power than be a target of that power, but that they feel apparently no sense of loss, no sense grief for things like the loss of national parks, public education, the postal service, things that most folks like, social security for your elderly parents. Most Americans... Want these things. And most Americans, regardless of political party, don't want to see our country torn apart in this fashion. And so I'm not surprised by Trump. I'm surprised at the extent of his enablers at the complicity of the press and of the FBI and other institutions. And, you know, it's also been very jarring to watch how open they are this time around, you know, things like Elon Musk and his operation taking out. Classified information. The thing is, is I'm pretty sure Trump did all that. I mean, we know Trump did this in his first term, you know, and they would emphasize things like this box of physical written documents in Mar-a-Lago illegally taken. But, you know my mind always just went to, well, what did they do digitally? Because that seems much easier and much more obvious. What did they with all of these state secrets that they had access to for four years? What kind of leverage would that give them? And I think now they're just kind of, they're not bothering to hide anything anymore. I think they set the stage and now, you know, we're in the midst of the most horrible play, the most terrible performance ever. And it's, you can be still crushing at times.Andrew Keen: And of course, the real question is whether we're in the last act. Your book, The Last American Road Trip, was written, mostly written, what, in 2024 from?Sarah Kendzior: 2023.Andrew Keen: 2023. So, I mean, here's, I don't know if you can answer this, Sarah, but you know as much about middle America and middle Americans as anyone. You're on the road, you talk to everyone, you have a huge following, both on the left and the right in some ways. Some of your books now, you told me before we went live, some of your previous books, like Hiding in Plain Sight, suddenly become a big hit amongst conservative Americans. What does Trump or the MAGA people around him, what do they have to do to lose the support of ordinary Americans? As you say, they're destroying the essential infrastructure, medical, educational, the roads, the railways, everything is being destroyed, carted off almost like Stalin carted of half of the Soviet Union back into Asia during the Second World War. What does he have to do to lose the support of Middle America?Sarah Kendzior: I mean, I don't think middle America, you know, by which like a giant swath of the country that's, that's just ideological, diverse, demographically diverse supports him. I mean some do certainly. He's got some hardcore acolytes. I think most people are disillusioned with the entire political system. They are deeply frustrated by Trump. They were deeply frustrated. By Biden, they're struggling to pay bills. They're struggling. To hold on to basic human rights. And they're mad that their leverage is gone. People voted in record numbers in 2020. They protested in record number throughout Trump's first term. They've made their concerns known for a very long time and there are just very few officials really listening or responding. And I think that initially when Trump reentered the picture, it caused folks to just check out mentally because it was too overwhelming. I think it's why voter turnout was lower because the Democrats, when they won, didn't make good on their promises. It's a very simple thing. If you follow through with your campaign platform that was popular, then you're going to retain those voters. If you don't, you may lose them, especially when you're up against a very effective demagogue who has a way with rhetoric. And so we're just in such a bad place, such a painful place. I don't think people will look to politicians to solve their problems and with very good reason. I'm hoping that there are more of a sense of community support, more of sense that we're all in this together, especially as financially things begin to fall apart. Trump said openly in 2014 that he intended to crash the American economy. He said this on a Fox News clip that I found in 2016. Because it was being reprinted all over Russian-language media. They loved this clip because it also praised Putin and so forth. And I was astounded by it. I was like, why in the world isn't this all over every TV station, every radio station? He's laying out the whole plan, and now he's following that plan. And so I'm very concerned about that. And I just hope people in times like this, traditionally, this opens the door to fascism. People become extremely afraid. And in their fear they want a scapegoat, they are full of rage, they take it out on each other. That is the worst possible move right now from both a moral or a strategic view. People need to protect each other, to respect each other as fully human, to recognize almost everyone here, except for a little tiny group of corrupt billionaires, is a victim in this scenario, and so I don't see a big difference between, you know, myself and... Wherever I go. I was in Tulsa yesterday, I was in San Francisco last week. We're all in this together and I see a lot of heartache wherever I go. And so if people can lend each other support, that is the best way to get through this.Andrew Keen: Are you suggesting then that he is the Manchurian candidate? Why did he say that in 2014?Sarah Kendzior: Well, it was interesting. He was on Fox during the Sochi Olympics, and he was talking about how he speaks with Putin every day, their pals, and that Putin is going to produce a really big win for us, and we're all going to be very happy about it. And then he went on to say that the crashing of the economy and riots throughout America is what will make America great again. And this is in February 2014. Fox has deleted the clip, You know, other people have copies. So it is, it's also in my book hiding in plain sight, the transcript of that. I'm not sure, like a Manchurian candidate almost feels, you know like the person would have to be blackmailed or coerced or brainwashed somehow to participate. I think Trump is a true volunteer and his loyalty isn't to Russia per se. You know, his loyalty is to his bank accounts, like his loyalty is to power. And one thing he's been after his whole life was immunity from prosecution because he has been involved or adjacent to such an enormous number of crimes. And then when the Supreme Court granted him that, he got what he wanted and he's not afraid of breaking the law in any way. He's doing what all autocrats do, which is rewrite the law so that he is no longer breaking it. And he has a team of lawyers who help him in that agenda. So I feel like on one sense, he's very. All-American. It's kind of a sad thing that as he destroys America, he's doing it in a very American way. He plays a lot of great American music at his rallies. He has a vernacular that I can relate to that and understand it while detesting everything he's doing and all of his horrific policies. But what they want to turn us into though, I think is something that all Americans just won't. Recognized. And we've had the slipping away of a kind of unified American culture for a while, I think because we've lost our pop culture, which is really where a lot of people would bond, you know, movies, music, all of it became split into streaming services, you know. All of it became bifurcated. People stopped seeing each other as much face to face, you know, during COVID and then that became kind of a permanent thing. We're very fragmented and that hurts us badly. And all we've kind of got left is I guess sports and then politics. So people take all the effort that they used to put into devouring American pop culture or American civic life and they put it into this kind of politics that the media presents as if it's a game, like initially a horse race during the election and now like, ooh, will the evil dictator win? It's like, this is our lives. Like we have a lot on the line. So I wish they would do, they would take their job more seriously too. Of course, they're up paywalled and on streaming sites, so who's watching anyway, but still it is a problem.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's interesting you talk about this death wish, you mentioned Thelma and Louise earlier, one of the great movies, American road movies, maybe in an odd way, the final scene of the Trump movie will be similar to the, you seem to be suggesting to, I'm not gonna give away the end of Thelmer and Louise to anyone who's watching who hasn't seen it, you do need to see it, similar ending to that movie. What about, you've talked about resistance, Sarah, a one of. The most influential, I guess, resistors to Trump and Trumpism. You put up an X earlier this month about the duty of journalism to resist, the duty to thinkers to resist. Some people are leaving, guys like Tim Snyder, his wife, Marcy Shaw, Jason Stanley, another expert on fascism. You've made it clear that you're staying. What's your take on people like Snyder who are leaving this country?Sarah Kendzior: Well, from what I know, he made a statement saying he had decided to move to Canada before Trump was put in office. Jason Stanley, on the other hand, explicitly said he's moving there because Trump is in office, and my first thought when I heard about all of them was, well, what about their students? Like, what about all these students who are being targeted by ICE, who are being deported? What about their TAs? What about everyone who's in a more vulnerable position. You know, when you have a position of power and influence, you could potentially do a lot of good in helping people. You know I respect everyone's decision to live wherever they want. Like it's not my business. But I do think that if you have that kind of chance to do something powerful for the community around you, especially the most vulnerable people in it who at this time are green card holders, people here on visas, we're watching this horrific crackdown at all these universities. My natural inclination would be to stay and take a stand and not abandon them. And I guess, you know, people, they do things in different ways or they may have their own personal concerns and, you know that's fine. I just know, you know I'm not leaving, you know, like I've got elderly parents and in-laws. I've got relatives who need me. I have a lot of people who depend on me and they depend on me in St. Louis and in Missouri. Because there aren't that many journalists in St. Louis. I think there could be, there are a lot of great writers in St Louis, you know, who have given a chance, given a platform, you could really show you what it's actually like here instead of all these stereotypes. But we're always, always marginalized. Like even I'm marginalized and I think I'm, you know, probably the most well-known in terms of being a political commentator. And so I feel like it's important to stand my ground but also You know, I love this, this state in the city and I love my community and I can't fathom, you know, leaving people in the lurch at a time like this. When I'm doing better, I'm on more solid ground despite being a target of various, you know organizations and individuals. I'm at a more solid down than somebody who's a, you know a black American or an immigrant or impoverished. Like I feel like it is my job to stand up for you know, folks here and let everyone know, you know what's going on and be somebody who they can come to and feel like that's safe.Andrew Keen: You describe yourself, Sarah, as a target. Your books have done very well. Most of them have been bestsellers. I'm sure the last American road trip will do very well, you're just off.Sarah Kendzior: It is the bestseller as of yesterday. It is your bestseller, congratulations. Yeah, our USA Today bestsellers, so yeah.Andrew Keen: Excellent. So that's good news. You've been on the road, you've had hundreds of people show up. I know you wrote about signing 600 books at Left Bank Books, which is remarkable. Most writers would cut off both hands for that. How are you being targeted? You noted that some of your books are being taken off the shelves. Are they being banned or discouraged?Sarah Kendzior: I mean, basically, what's been happening is kind of akin to what you see with universities. I just think it's not as well publicized or publicized at all, where there's not some sort of, you know, like the places will give in to what they think this administration wants before they are outright told to do it. So yes, there is an attempt to remove hiding in plain sight from circulation in 2024 to, you know, make the paperback, which at the time was ranked on Amazon. At number 2,000. It was extremely popular because this is the week that the Supreme Court gave Trump immunity. I was on vacation when I found out it was being pulled out of circulation. And I was in rural New Mexico and I had to get to a place with Wi-Fi to try to fight back for my book, which was a bestseller, a recent publication. It was very strange to me and I won that fight. They put it back, but a lot of people had tried to order it at that time and didn't get it. And a lot of people try to get my other books and they just can't get them. You know, so the publisher always has a warehouse issue or a shipping problem and you know, this kind of comes up or you know people notice, they've noticed this since 2020, you know I don't get reviewed in the normal kind of place as a person that has best selling books one after another would get reviewed. You know, that kind of thing is more of a pain. I always was able to circumvent it before through social media. But since Musk took over Twitter and because of the way algorithms work, it's more and more difficult for me to manage all of the publicity and PR and whatnot on my own. And so, you know, I'm grateful that you're having me on your show. I'm also grateful that, you Know, Flatiron did give me a book tour. That's helped tremendously. But there's that. And then there's also just the constant. Death threats and threats of you know other things you know things happening to people I love and it's been scary and I get used to it and that I expect it but you know you never could really get used to people constantly telling you that they're gonna kill you you know.Andrew Keen: When you get death threats, do you go to the authorities, have they responded?Sarah Kendzior: No, there's no point. I mean, I have before and it was completely pointless. And, you know, I'll just mostly just go to people I know who I trust to see if they can check in on things. I have to be very vague here who are not in the government or in the police or anything like that. I don't think anyone would protect me. I really just don't think anyone could help. You know, one thing is, you know, yes, I'm a prominent critic of Trump and his administration, but I was also a prominent critic of. The DOJ and Merrick Garland for not doing anything about all of these threats and also a critic of Biden and the Democrats for not impeaching quickly, for not being more proactive, for not acting with greater urgency. So I'm targeted by kind of everyone except for people who don't have any power, which is a strange situation to be in because I love my readers and I think that they're wonderful and I'm incredibly grateful for them because my books largely spread through word of mouth. It is scary for me, just as like a mom in Missouri without a lot of resources to be targeted by all of these kind of high profile, wealthy, powerful people. But all I have is my voice and my writing. And so I just do what I can. And that's just the way the cards have been dealt for me and it is what it is, so.Andrew Keen: Later historians write about this period in 50 or 100 years time. How do you think you mentioned the Biden administration, you were critical of them. We haven't talked about Kamala Harris's failed presidential term, which I wasn't particularly impressed with. How much moral responsibility do you think that Biden and Harris should be accused of for Trump too?Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, I mean, well, first of all, I'd be delighted if we have historians in the future. Well, I will be, even if I don't.Andrew Keen: Well, there will be, even if, I don't know, in America, there'll be somewhere.Sarah Kendzior: I is where it'll be some sort of AI creation that just, you know, belches out, make America great again, like, you know, like in The Shining or something, just over and over and over again. But assuming we have real historians that actually assess the situation, I think they are going to be tremendously critical of the Biden administration. I think it may in fact go down as one of the worst of all time. And he will be seen as a Neville Chamberlain-like figure who had the opportunity to stop or slow A number of autocratic practices and either chose to look the other way or to enable them. Because the thing is, in 2016, people were very doubtful that America could become an autocratic state. They hadn't seen this before. A lot of this was new to them. From 2016 through 2021, we saw all that Trump was capable of, and he committed a large multitude of crimes,RetryClaude hit the max length for a message and has paused its response. You can write Continue to keep the chat going.AKplease continueEditHere's the continuation of the transcript:Sarah Kendzior: ...and those crimes, not just him, but his cohort were never held accountable. And what they did during the Biden years was plan all of their next moves. Like you don't suddenly have a gulag for Americans in El Salvador, like just off the top of your head. You know, all of this takes planning. We knew about a lot of the plans, you know, the Democrats campaigned about combating Project 2025. And my question to them was, well, what what if you lose? How are you going to combat it then? You know what, if he gets back, what are you gonna do? They would be so offended. They're like, how dare you, you question us. How dare you question, you know, our plans? They're, like, well, I don't, you don't have a plan. Like, that's my question is what is the plan? And they didn't. And they could have spent those four years creating a bulwark against a lot of the most horrific policies that we're seeing now. Instead, they're kind of reacting on the fly if they're even reacting at all. And meanwhile, people are being targeted, deported, detained. They're suffering tremendously. And they're very, very scared. I think it's very scary to have a total dearth of leadership from where the, not just the opposition, but just people with basic respect for the constitution, our civil rights, etc., are supposed to be.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Project 2025, we've got David Graham on the show next week, who's written a book about Project 2025. Is there anything positive to report, Sarah? I mean, some people are encouraged by the behavior, at least on Friday, the 18th of April, who knows what will happen over the weekend or next week. Behavior of Harvard, some law firms are aggressively defending their rights. Should we be encouraged by the universities, law firms, even some corporate leaders are beginning to mutter under their breath about Trump and Trumpism?Sarah Kendzior: And it depends whether they actually have that power in wielded or whether they're just sort of trying to tamper down public dissent. I'm skeptical of these universities and law firms because I think they should have had a plan long ago because I was very obvious that all of this was going to happen and I feel so terribly for all of the students there that were abandoned by these administrations, especially places like Columbia. That gave in right away. What does hearten me though, you know, and I, as you said, I'd been on this tour, like I was all over the West coast. I've been all over, the Midwest and the South is, Americans, Americans do understand what's happening. There's always this like this culture in media of like, how do we break it to Americans? Like, yeah, well, we know, we know out here in Missouri that this is very bad. And I think that people have genuine concern for each other. I think they still have compassion for each other. I think there's a culture of cruelty that's promoted online and it's incentivized. You know, you can make money that way. You could get clicks that that way, whatever, but in real life, I think people feel vulnerable. They feel afraid, but I've seen so much kindness. I've been so much concern and determination from people who don't have very much, and maybe that's, you know, why people don't know about it. These are just ordinary folks. And so I have great faith in American people to combat this. And what I don't have faith in is our institutions. And I hope that these sort of in between places, places like universities who do a lot of good on one hand, but also can kind of act as like hedge funds. On the other hand, I hope they move fully to the side of good and that they purge themselves of these corrupt elements that have been within them for a long time, the more greedy. Aspects of their existence. I hope they see themselves as places that uphold civic life and history and provide intellectual resistance and shelter for students in the storm. They could be a really powerful force if they choose to be. It's never too late to change. I guess that's the message I want to bring home. Even if I'm very critical of these places, it's never to late for them to change and to do the right thing.Andrew Keen: Well, finally, Sarah, a lot of people are going to be watching this on my Substack page. Your Substack Page, your newsletter, They Knew, I think has last count, 52,000 subscribers. Is this the new model for independent writers, journalist thinkers like yourself? I'm not sure of those 52,00, how many of them are paid. You noted that your book has disappeared co-isindecially sometimes. So maybe some publishers are being intimidated. Is the future for independent thinkers, platforms like Substack, where independent authors like yourself can establish direct intellectual and commercial relations with their readers and followers?Sarah Kendzior: It's certainly the present. I mean, this is the only place or other newsletter outlets, I suppose, that I could go. And I purposefully divorced myself from all institutions except for my publisher because I knew that this kind of corruption would inhibit me from being able to say the truth. This is why I dropped out of academia, I dropped out of regular journalism. I have isolated myself to some degree on purpose. And I also just like being in control of this and having direct access to my readers. However, what does concern me is, you know, Twitter used to also be a place where I had direct access to people I could get my message out. I could circumvent a lot of the traditional modes of communication. Now I'm essentially shadow banned on there, along with a lot of people. And you know Musk has basically banned substack links because of his feud with Matt Taibbi. You know, that led to, if you drop a substack link in there, it just gets kind of submerged and people don't see it. So, you know, I think about Twitter and how positive I was about that, maybe like 12, 13 years ago, and I wonder how I feel about Substack and what will happen to it going forward, because clearly, you Know, Trump's camp realizes the utility of these platforms, like they know that a lot of people who are prominent anti authoritarian voices are using them to get the word out when they are when they lose their own platform at, like, say, the Washington Post or MSNBC or... Whatever network is corrupted or bullied. And so eventually, I think they'll come for it. And, you know, so stack has problems on its own anyway. So I am worried. I make up backups of everything. I encourage people to consume analog content and to print things out if they like them in this time. So get my book on that note, brand new analog content for you. A nice digital.Andrew Keen: Yeah, don't buy it digitally. I assume it's available on Kindle, but you're probably not too keen or even on Amazon and Bezos. Finally, Sarah, this is Friday. Fridays are supposed to be cheerful days, the days before the weekend. Is there anything to be cheerful about on April The 18th 2025 in America?Sarah Kendzior: I mean, yeah, there's things to be cheerful about, you know, pre spring, nice weather. I'm worried about this weekend. I'll just get this out real quick. You know, this is basically militia Christmas. You know, This is the anniversary of Waco, the Oklahoma City bombings, Columbine. It's Hitler's birthday. This is a time when traditionally American militia groups become in other words,Andrew Keen: Springtime in America.Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, springtime for Hitler. You know, and so I'm worried about this weekend. I'm worry that if there are anti-Trump protests that they'll be infiltrated by people trying to stoke the very riots that Trump said he wanted in order to, quote, make America great again and have everything collapse. So everyone, please be very, very careful this weekend heading out and just be aware of the. Of these dates and the importance of these days far predates Trump to, you know, militia groups and other violent extremist groups.Andrew Keen: Well, on that cheerful note, I asked you for a positive note. You've ruined everyone's weekend, probably in a healthy way. You are the Cassandra from St. Louis. Appreciate your bravery and honesty in standing up to Trump and Trumpism, MAGA America. Congratulations on the new book. As you say, it's available in analog form. You can buy it. Take it home, protect it, dig a hole in your garden and protect it from the secret police. Congratulations on the new book. As I said to you before we went live, it's a beautifully written book. I mean, you're noted as a polemicist, but I thought this book is your best written book, the other books were well written, but this is particularly well written. Very personal. So congratulations on that. And Sarah will have to get you back on the show. I'm not sure how much worse things can get in America, but no doubt they will and no doubt you will write about it. So keep well, keep safe and keep doing your brave work. Thank you so much.Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, you too. Thank you so much for your kind words and for having me on again. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

VIDEO - https://youtu.be/MFO4ncSKB4A Por qué la Desigualdad NO es el Problema: Lecciones Económicas y la Cultura de la Miseria. La desigualdad como motor del progreso económico: un análisis desde la perspectiva del desarrollo.¿Es la desigualdad un mal necesario para el crecimiento económico? Este video explora la polémica relación entre desigualdad y progreso, especialmente en países en desarrollo. A través de un análisis histórico y estudios de caso como Cuba y los Tigres Asiáticos, ErnestoMiami argumenta que la desigualdad, dentro de un marco de igualdad ante la ley, es un componente crucial para el desarrollo económico.

As the US-China trade war heats up, Ed Balls and George Osborne ask: what if the Trump White House took the nuclear option… defaulting on its debts to China? Ed explains why that could be a catastrophic thing to do, while George points to the ‘Mar-a-Lago Accord' as a way that the US in reality may negotiate its debt. Sticking with Trump, Ed and George also ponder ‘patrimonalism' – a term coined by Max Weber to describe governance by personal loyalty and kinship… Is Donald Trump the first patrimonial President of the United States? Josh Simons MP, a rising star in the Labour Party, asks for advice on getting government backing for a new road in his Makerfield constituency. Is he right to lobby the Housing and Transport departments, and what sort of arguments will pique the interest of the Labour leadership?Right now, the UK has eight living former Prime Ministers. Ed and George conclude by comparing their behaviour upon leaving Number 10. Which PMs clearly can't let go, and whose stock has risen over time? Technical Producer: Danny Pape Producers: Miriam Hall and Jarek ŻabaExecutive Producer: Dino SofosPolitical Currency is a Persephonica Production and is part of the Acast Creator Network. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.Become a member of POLITICAL CURRENCY GOLD

"Ist Vorbeikommen endgültig vorbei? Sind Spontanbesuche unhöflich oder empfehlenswert?von Dirk Kaesler & Stefanie von Wietersheim - Kolumne(Hördauer ca. 13 Minuten)Rätsel des Lebens. Wie, um Himmels willen, geschieht es, dass ein Buch, ein Artikel, ein Aufsatz zu leben beginnt? Worte, die wir geschrieben haben, trafen auf Menschen wie ein magischer Bumerang, der eben diese Menschen zu uns zurückholt?Es ist doch so: Wir schreiben ein Buch, einen Aufsatz, eine Kolumne. Der Text wird „publiziert“, dem lesenden Publikum ausgeliefert. Fremde und vertraute Menschen lesen jene Worte und Sätze, die uns Autorin oder Autor in den Sinn kamen, als wir geschrieben haben. Wir haben keine Kontrolle darüber, was unsere Leserschaft mit unseren Gedanken, Einfällen und Formulierungen anfängt. Meistens erfahren wir das nicht, manchmal aber doch.Den Text der Kolumne finden Sie hierDirk Kaesler Prof. Dr., war nach seiner Promotion und Habilitation an der Universität München von 1984 bis 1995 Professor für Allgemeine Soziologie an der Universität Hamburg, von 1995 bis zu seiner Pensionierung 2009 an der Universität Marburg. Er lebt inzwischen in Potsdam. Zu seinen Forschungs- und Publikationsschwerpunkten gehören Wissenschafts- und Religionssoziologie, Politische Soziologie, Geschichte und Theorien der Soziologie, ihre Klassiker und Hauptwerke und dabei vor allem Max Weber. Zu seinen letzten Buchveröffentlichungen gehören die 2014 im Verlag C.H. Beck erschienene Biographie „Max Weber. Preuße, Denker, Muttersohn“ und sein zusammen mit Stefanie von Wietersheim 2021 im Verlag LiteraturWissenschaft veröffentlichter Band "Schön deutsch. Eine Entdeckungsreise".2009 bis 2014 sind in "literaturkritik.de" regelmäßig seine Glossen "Abstimmungen mit  der Welt" erschienen.Stefanie von Wietersheim ist Kulturjournalistin und Buchautorin. Ihre Bildbände Frauen & ihre Refugien, Vom Glück mit Büchern zu leben und Mütter & Töchter wurden zu Klassikern ihres Genres. In ihrem Buch Grand Paris – Savoir-vivre für Insider und solche, die es werden wollen schreibt sie über ihre Wahlheimat Frankreich. Sie geht als Autorin der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Sonntagszeitung im In- und Ausland auf Reportage. Zusammen mit Dirk Kaesler veröffentlichte sie 2021 im Verlag LiteraturWissenschaft.de Schön deutsch. Eine Entdeckungsreise.Wenn Ihnen diese Sendung gefallen hat, hören Sie doch hier mal rein.Sprecher: Matthias PöhlmannAufnahme, Schnitt und Realisation: Uwe Kullnick

durée : 00:02:40 - L'Humeur du matin par Guillaume Erner - par : Guillaume Erner - Ce matin, Guillaume Erner imagine Marine Le Pen rejugée par Max Weber. - réalisation : Félicie Faugère

durée : 00:02:40 - L'Humeur du matin par Guillaume Erner - par : Guillaume Erner - Ce matin, Guillaume Erner imagine Marine Le Pen rejugée par Max Weber. - réalisation : Félicie Faugère

Parce qu'elle questionne notre rapport au désir, au consentement, l'égalité entre hommes et femmes, la vente du corps, parce qu'elle touche à d'autres domaines, celui du travail, de la précarité ou du trafic d'êtres humains, la prostitution dérange. En France, le nombre de personnes qui se prostituent est estimé à 40 000. Derrière ce chiffre, une très grande majorité de femmes et une pratique difficile à saisir. Tour à tour victimes d'un système ou travailleuses du sexe revendiquées, la réalité n'est pas la même selon la case dans laquelle on les place ou la façon dont elles-mêmes se considèrent. Entre stigmatisation, réglementation, abolition, pénalisation, comment se positionnent celles qui se prostituent ? Comment dépassionner le débat autour de la prostitution ?  Avec :• Lilian Mathieu, sociologue, directeur de rechercheCNRS aucentre Max Weber de l'ENS de Lyon. Auteur de plusieurs ouvrages sur la prostitution dontLes prostituées et leurs bienfaiteurs (Editions Textuel, 2025)• Sixtine Dano, animatrice 2D, illustratrice. Autrice du roman graphique Sybilline – chronique d'une escorte girl (Glénat, 2025)  Le témoignage de Mylène, travailleuse du sexe  En fin d'émission, la chronique Ecouter le monde de Monica Fantini  Programmation musicale : ► Isha - Sarah Lenka ► Wasav - Le Jèm'ss & Mikado 

Parce qu'elle questionne notre rapport au désir, au consentement, l'égalité entre hommes et femmes, la vente du corps, parce qu'elle touche à d'autres domaines, celui du travail, de la précarité ou du trafic d'êtres humains, la prostitution dérange. En France, le nombre de personnes qui se prostituent est estimé à 40 000. Derrière ce chiffre, une très grande majorité de femmes et une pratique difficile à saisir. Tour à tour victimes d'un système ou travailleuses du sexe revendiquées, la réalité n'est pas la même selon la case dans laquelle on les place ou la façon dont elles-mêmes se considèrent. Entre stigmatisation, réglementation, abolition, pénalisation, comment se positionnent celles qui se prostituent ? Comment dépassionner le débat autour de la prostitution ?  Avec :• Lilian Mathieu, sociologue, directeur de recherche CNRS au centre Max Weber de l'ENS de Lyon. Auteur de plusieurs ouvrages sur la prostitution dont Les prostituées et leurs bienfaiteurs (Éditions Textuel, 2025)• Sixtine Dano, animatrice 2D, illustratrice. Autrice du roman graphique Sybilline – chronique d'une escorte girl (Glénat, 2025).Le témoignage de Mylène, travailleuse du sexe. En fin d'émission, la chronique Écouter le monde de Monica Fantini. Programmation musicale : ► Isha - Sarah Lenka ► Wasav - Le Jèm'ss & Mikado. 

Elizabeth Anderson is one of today's leading political philosophers and has spent years studying how the work ethic shapes our economy, society, and politics. In her latest book, Hijacked, she explores how hard work, a principle originally intended to advance the virtue of helping others, has been used by parts of society in ways that harm workers.This is the first of a three-part series tracing the history of the work ethic, from its religious roots in Martin Luther and the Reformation to its influence on modern policies like prison labor reform in California. In this episode, Elizabeth and Dart dig into the early history: how the Protestant Reformation shaped ideas about labor, how work became a moral obligation, and how these centuries-old ideas still shape our world today.In this episode, Dart and Elizabeth discuss:- How work became a divine duty- How Locke's labor theory shaped ideas of property and work- The work ethic as a moral weapon against the poor- The origins of blaming poverty on personal failure- Why we still measure human worth by productivity- How poor laws shaped early ideas of economic survival- The hidden influence of these ideas on work today- And other topics…Professor Elizabeth Anderson specializes in moral and political philosophy, feminist theory, social epistemology, and the philosophy of economics. She holds the positions of Arthur F. Thurnau Professor, John Dewey Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy and Women's & Gender Studies, and Max Shaye Professor of Public Philosophy at the University of Michigan. A MacArthur “Genius” Fellow, Elizabeth has written extensively on democracy, labor, and economic justice, including her latest book, Hijacked: How Neoliberalism Turned the Work Ethic Against Workers and How Workers Can Take It Back. Resources Mentioned:Hijacked, by Elizabeth Anderson:  https://www.amazon.com/Hijacked-Neoliberalism-against-Workers-Lectures/dp/1009275437The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, by Max Weber: https://www.amazon.com/Protestant-Ethic-Spirit-Capitalism/dp/1603866043Second Treatise of Government, by John Locke: https://www.amazon.com/Second-Treatise-Government-Joseph-Carrig/dp/0760760950Connect with Elizabeth:Profile: https://lsa.umich.edu/philosophy/people/faculty/eandersn.htmlWork with Dart:Dart is the CEO and co-founder of the work design firm 11fold. Build work that makes employees feel alive, connected to their work, and focused on what's most important to the business. Book a call at 11fold.com.

Send us a textEver heard the word patrimonialism? Neither had we—until we read Jonathan Rauch's eye-opening article in The Atlantic: "One Word Describes Trump." In this episode of The Two Kens, Ken Fong and I dive into what this term really means and why it's the key to understanding the new administration. Patrimonialism, a concept from sociologist Max Weber, describes rulers who claim to be the symbolic “father” of the people—personifying and controlling the state. Sound familiar? We break down the administration's first 60 days including mass firings, legal overreach, and dismantling of key government services; renaming the Gulf of Mexico and Mount Denali (yes, really); trade wars, territorial ambitions including Canada, Greenland, the Panama Canal, and the chaos strategy at play. We also talk about my letters to Senate Majority Leader John Thune—picked up by Politico and The New Yorker—urging him to take a stand. Plus, we tackle the Democratic Party's challenge in fighting back against this Republican power grab. Join us for this timely and critical conversation.  SHOW NOTESBecome a Patron | Ken's Substack PageSupport the showBecome a Patron - Click on the link to learn how you can become a Patron of the show. Thank you! Ken's Substack Page The Podcast Official Site: TheBeachedWhiteMale.com

In this latest installment of the Two Kens collaborative series between Ken Fong and Ken Kemp, they introduce a term that respected German sociologist Max Weber first introduced 100 years ago that they believe best describes what Donald Trump is working hard to accomplish in his second term, and how knowing this term also tells us how best to thwart Trump's efforts. They were inspired by Jonathan Rauch's article in The Atlantic that appeared on February 24, 2025, entitled One Word Describes Trump: A Century Ago, A German Sociologist Explained Precisely How the President Thinks About the World. Fong and Kemp then look at the different responses to Trump's recent State of the Union address, especially how Senate Majority Leader John Thune appears to be subjugating his evanglical convictions to appear steadfastly loyal to President Trump.

Increasing interest in psychedelics, the occult, and the supernatural all point to one thing: enchantment is back.“The thing is you can't have enchantment that's only selective. You can't only have the bright side. You also need to acknowledge the dark side. That's one of the things I really wanted to do with this book and it caused some consternation with my first publisher. She didn't want the dark side in there.”The modern experience is one of disenchantment, argued sociologist Max Weber – a world from which the supernatural, and all gods and monsters, had been scrubbed.Not anymore, apparently. Increasing interest in the occult, and people's willingness to share about their ecstatic experiences, as well as their evil encounters with the supernatural, suggests a higher tolerance for talk about the spiritual realm – for good and ill.Life & Faith kicks off 2025 with an eye-opening interview with journalist Rod Dreher, author of Living in Wonder: Finding Mystery and Meaning in a Secular Age. In this wide-ranging chat, Rod talks about the budding religion of technology worship, the experience of art and beauty as a gateway to enchantment, the possibly malign spiritual forces at work in our world, and his increasing conviction that the world is not what you think it is. ---Explore:Rod's book Living in Wonder Rod's Substack

Frits Bolkestein (1933-2025) leidde een rijk leven vol ervaringen, belevenissen en uitdagingen over heel de wereld en ook nog in diverse levenskringen. Zijn Haagse jaren hebben misschien wel die veelkleurigheid aan het licht onttrokken. Jaap Jansen en PG Kroeger belichten daarom bij Bolkesteins overlijden vooral ook die minder bekende kanten die hun stempel op hem drukten.***Deze aflevering is mede mogelijk gemaakt met donaties van luisteraars die we hiervoor hartelijk danken. Word ook vriend van de show!Heb je belangstelling om in onze podcast te adverteren of ons te sponsoren? Zend een mailtje naar adverteren@dagennacht.nl en wij zoeken contact.Op sommige podcast-apps kun je niet alles lezen. De complete tekst plus linkjes en een overzicht van al onze eerdere afleveringen vind je hier***Zijn eerste avontuur spreekt al boekdelen. Kort na de oorlog stak hij zijn licht op aan Oregon State College. Als bètastudent. Die mooie staat aan de Westkust - met high deserts, een keten van vulkanen, multi-etnische, vruchtbare valleien en een ruige, Bretagne-achtige kust bij de Stille Oceaan - was ongeveer alles wat Nederland niet was. Vervolgens studeerde hij in Amsterdam alle mogelijke vakken. Waarna hij voor Shell opnieuw vertrok naar onbekende streken en avonturen.Vanuit die weidse blik en expertise in het internationale bedrijfsleven was hij gemotiveerd de politieke cultuur van de jaren ‘70 eens lekker op te schudden. Hij was daar net zo kritisch op als de man op wie hij in de jaren '50 nog stemde, PvdA'er Willem Drees.Hij stelde zich kandidaat voor de VVD. Niet vanuit diep liberale bevlogenheid, want in Bolkestein zat altijd een conservatief verscholen. Verantwortingsethik tegen de Gesinnningsethik op links, in termen van Max Weber.Onder premier Ruud Lubbers werd Bolkestein een klassieke 'export-staatssecretaris', maar hij bleek eigenlijk ongeschikt voor die rol. Maar doordat hij binnen de VVD tijdens opeenvolgende leiderschapscrises (Ed Nijpels! Joris Voorhoeve!) als brute 'kingmaker' bereid bleek messen te trekken, werd hij binnen de partij een factor.Als nieuwe VVD-voorman in de oppositie had hij moeite zijn rol te vinden. In de grote debatten hadden leiders als Ruud Lubbers en Hans van Mierlo weinig medelijden met hem. Nu zien we scherper dat Bolkestein de overgangsfiguur was tussen de eerste fase van successen van eerst het ‘Veronica-liberalisme' van Hans Wiegel en Nijpels en later de nog bredere basis onder Mark Rutte.Juist de elitaire conservatief die in Bolkestein school, maakte mogelijk dat hij zijn VVD op sleeptouw nam. Zoals alleen Nixon naar Mao kon reizen, kon alleen Bolkestein het taboe doorbreken dat de VVD nooit met de PvdA zou regeren. Paars was alleen mogelijk met zo'n VVD-leider en alleen met hem in die heel aparte rol van 'oppositieleider in de Kamer' tegenover zijn eigen kabinet. Zijn discipel Geert Wilders heeft in die jaren veel meer van hem afgekeken dan velen - ook Dick Schoof - beseffen.Die rol gaf hem vleugels, omdat hij zich daarin minder partijpolitiek hoefde op te sluiten en precies kon doen wat hem het best beviel: het 'milieu culturel' rond de politiek bespelen en impulsen geven. Bolkestein was hiermee veel meer een klassieke Franse of Duitse politicus dan een typisch Nederlandse. Geen toeval dus dat hij net als de Duitse CDU-leider Friedrich Merz het thema van de 'Leitkultur' naar zich toetrok en bewust breder debat uitlokte.Het voortdurend over van alles publiceren, ook internationaal, en de strijdbijl opnemen tegen 'linkse fanatici' als Noam Chomsky - nu een gepatenteerde Putinversteher - waren de vitamines van zijn politiek bestaan. Want ‘alleen dwazen veranderen nooit van mening', citeerde hij graag de Chinese wijsgeer Confucius.Den Haag was verrast, maar had gewoon slecht opgelet, toen hij na een electorale triomf in 1998 zijn ambitie te kennen gaf een hoofdrol te willen spelen in Brussel. Wat hij als Eurocommissaris aan reeksen fundamentele uitdieping en invulling pleegde binnen de grote architectuur van de Interne Markt van Jacques Delors, zag men in eigen land nauwelijks. Dat fel linkse Franse anti-EU media hem 'Frankenstein' noemde, vond hij natuurlijk prachtig.Het heeft iets tragisch dat dit grote werk onaf moest blijven, toen de eurofobe krachten zich verenigden tegen de Europese Grondwet die deze constructie een krachtig fundament zou geven. Bolkesteins Europese erfenis is in 2005 in zekere zin gebroken door discipel Wilders en EU-haters als Ronald Plasterk.Misschien dat Bolkestein door deze bittere ervaring aanvankelijk Rita Verdonk steunde. Zijn VVD moest nooit meer zozeer in de steek gelaten worden door de volkse aanhang. Uiteindelijk steunde hij Rutte. Maar pas toen helder was dat Verdonk deloyaal en een hol vat bleek. Niets voor een man als Bolkestein!Op een briefje schreef hij alvast hoe na zijn dood de herdenkingsbijeenkomst eruit moest zien. Twaalf sprekers, elk vijf minuten. En Bachs feestelijk slot van het Weihnachtsoratorium."Je moet nooit bang zijn om alleen te staan. Dat ben ik ook nooit geweest", zei hij ooit. Maar bij het eind van zijn leven geeft hij de achterblijvers - met Bach - warempel mee dat ze ook nooit alleen hoeven te staan.***Verder lezenrecente boeken van Frits BolkesteinMax van Weezel en Leonard Ornstein - Frits Bolkestein, portret van een liberale vrijbuiter (Prometheus, 1999)***Verder luisterenFrits Bolkestein in Betrouwbare Bronnen (2019)477 - De VVD staat sterk, maar zit ook klem173 - Onder de pragmatische Mark Rutte werd de VVD de grootste, maar ook kwetsbaar52 - Gerry van der List waarschuwt fletse VVD50 - Vrijheid van onderwijs379 - Migratie: het werkelijke verhaal325 - De mythe van Joop den Uyl; het spookbeeld van Mark Rutte461 - Ruud Lubbers zag het een slag anders64 - Wim Kok, een leven op eigen kracht - gesprek met biograaf Marnix Krop161 - Hans van Mierlo, een politieke popster344 - Nederland in Europa: een masterclass door Tom de Bruijn***Tijdlijn00:00:00 – Deel 100:43:00 – Deel 201:23:00 – Deel 301:33:42 – Einde Zie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Why are external accountability and thoughtful integration of algorithms necessary now to ensure fairer labor dynamics across work environments? What's the puzzling problem that comes with increasing the level of transparency of these algorithms?Hatim Rahman is an Associate Professor of Management & Organizations at Northwestern University in the Kellogg School of Management, and the author of the new book, Inside the Invisible Cage: How Algorithms Control Workers.Greg and Hatim discuss Ratim's book, and his extensive case study of a company matching employers with gig workers, exploring the ways algorithms impact labor dynamics. Hatim draws connections between Max Weber's concept of the 'iron cage' and modern, opaque algorithmic systems, discussing how these systems control worker opportunities and behavior. Their conversation further delves into the evolution and consequences of rating systems, algorithmic transparency, organizational control, and the balance between digital and traditional workforce structures. Rahman emphasizes the need for external accountability and thoughtful integration of algorithms to ensure fairer labor dynamics.*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Show Links:Recommended Resources:Control TheoryMax WeberGig EconomyGoodhart's LawRatings InflationFrederick Winslow TaylorFair.workGuest Profile:Faculty Profile at Kellogg School of Management | Northwestern UniversityLinkedIn ProfileHis Work:Inside the Invisible Cage: How Algorithms Control WorkersGoogle Scholar PageFast Company ArticlesEpisode Quotes:Experimenting to find the right balance between regulation and self-regulation33:36: Finding the right balance between self-regulation—where organizations can figure things out for themselves—and real legislation, regulation that creates societal and broader outcomes that are beneficial is where we are right now. Of course, the tricky thing is that you don't want to get that balance wrong either. But, I do think we're at the stage where we need to experiment, right? We need to figure out those optimal levels of transparency, opacity, regulation, and self-regulation.Why employers struggle to recognize and value skills badges from lesser-known institutions39:55: The problem with the skill sets that people develop is that, employers, they didn't understand what it meant. Right? Let's say you have a badge from some smaller university or community college. Employees generally struggle to understand what that means, right? Or they'll pass over it. They'll look for more recognizable, established credentials and proxies for skills. And so, at least when I was studying, many of the workers, employers—like we tried, but it didn't help us because the employer didn't know what it meant or how the passing of that skills test would concretely help them do the job that they required.Why do digital platforms struggle to balance transparency and risk?14:17: Organizations and digital platforms want to find the right balance, but they just struggle a lot to do so because many employers are risk-averse and want to limit their liability. I imagine that this is one of the reasons why they have favored opacity, right? If we don't have to reveal or tell, then it limits our ability to get exposure to lawsuits or exposure to gaming, zone, and so forth.

In this episode, our guest is Sascha Becker from the University of Warwick, and we talk about religion, how it is related to economic growth, Max Weber's theory on the Protestant Ethic, Erasmus, Luther, power dynamics, and more! 14:00 Religion and Economic Growth 17:00 Max Weber and The Protestant Ethic Theory 21:47 Digging for the Data 28:28 Objections from Various Disciplines 32:15 Diffusion of Ideas, and Innovations 35:59 Power Shift, Luther, and the Church 46:05 Cheezy Questions! 49:55 This or That? Who are you going to write a book with?!

Delve into the influential work of Max Weber, one of sociology's founding figures, as we explore his seminal text, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism." This episode examines Weber's revolutionary ideas that reshape the humanities and philosophy, extending their significance to contemporary society. Join us as we summarize his thesis and discuss its far-reaching consequences. #MaxWeber #ProtestantEthic #SpiritofCapitalism #sociology #humanities #philosophy #contemporarysociety Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Martin takes the guys into a discussion on a Max Weber quote. Weber is credited as essentially the world's first sociologist, and the discussion gets pretty heated. 

Many authors have written about the Manila Galleons, the massive ships that took goods back and forth between Acapulco and Manila, ferrying silver one way, and Chinese-made goods the other. But how did the Galleons actually work? Who paid for them? How did buyers and sellers negotiate with each other? Who set the rules? Why on earth did the shippers decide to send just one galleon a year? Juan José Rivas Moreno dives into these questions in his book The Capital Market of Manila and the Pacific Trade, 1668-1838: Institutions and Trade during the First Globalization (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024). Juan José Rivas Moreno is a historian of early modern finance, specialising in the financing of the Pacific trade. He obtained his PhD in Economic History from London School of Economics in 2023 with a thesis on the capital market of Manila which received the Coleman Prize 2024. Juan José was the recipient of a Newberry Library short-term fellowship and held an Economic History Society Fellowship in 2023-2024. Currently he is a Max Weber fellow at the European University Institute in Florence. You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of The Capital Market of Manila and the Pacific Trade. Follow on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Many authors have written about the Manila Galleons, the massive ships that took goods back and forth between Acapulco and Manila, ferrying silver one way, and Chinese-made goods the other. But how did the Galleons actually work? Who paid for them? How did buyers and sellers negotiate with each other? Who set the rules? Why on earth did the shippers decide to send just one galleon a year? Juan José Rivas Moreno dives into these questions in his book The Capital Market of Manila and the Pacific Trade, 1668-1838: Institutions and Trade during the First Globalization (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024). Juan José Rivas Moreno is a historian of early modern finance, specialising in the financing of the Pacific trade. He obtained his PhD in Economic History from London School of Economics in 2023 with a thesis on the capital market of Manila which received the Coleman Prize 2024. Juan José was the recipient of a Newberry Library short-term fellowship and held an Economic History Society Fellowship in 2023-2024. Currently he is a Max Weber fellow at the European University Institute in Florence. You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of The Capital Market of Manila and the Pacific Trade. Follow on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Many authors have written about the Manila Galleons, the massive ships that took goods back and forth between Acapulco and Manila, ferrying silver one way, and Chinese-made goods the other. But how did the Galleons actually work? Who paid for them? How did buyers and sellers negotiate with each other? Who set the rules? Why on earth did the shippers decide to send just one galleon a year? Juan José Rivas Moreno dives into these questions in his book The Capital Market of Manila and the Pacific Trade, 1668-1838: Institutions and Trade during the First Globalization (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024). Juan José Rivas Moreno is a historian of early modern finance, specialising in the financing of the Pacific trade. He obtained his PhD in Economic History from London School of Economics in 2023 with a thesis on the capital market of Manila which received the Coleman Prize 2024. Juan José was the recipient of a Newberry Library short-term fellowship and held an Economic History Society Fellowship in 2023-2024. Currently he is a Max Weber fellow at the European University Institute in Florence. You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of The Capital Market of Manila and the Pacific Trade. Follow on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies

Many authors have written about the Manila Galleons, the massive ships that took goods back and forth between Acapulco and Manila, ferrying silver one way, and Chinese-made goods the other. But how did the Galleons actually work? Who paid for them? How did buyers and sellers negotiate with each other? Who set the rules? Why on earth did the shippers decide to send just one galleon a year? Juan José Rivas Moreno dives into these questions in his book The Capital Market of Manila and the Pacific Trade, 1668-1838: Institutions and Trade during the First Globalization (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024). Juan José Rivas Moreno is a historian of early modern finance, specialising in the financing of the Pacific trade. He obtained his PhD in Economic History from London School of Economics in 2023 with a thesis on the capital market of Manila which received the Coleman Prize 2024. Juan José was the recipient of a Newberry Library short-term fellowship and held an Economic History Society Fellowship in 2023-2024. Currently he is a Max Weber fellow at the European University Institute in Florence. You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of The Capital Market of Manila and the Pacific Trade. Follow on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/southeast-asian-studies

Many authors have written about the Manila Galleons, the massive ships that took goods back and forth between Acapulco and Manila, ferrying silver one way, and Chinese-made goods the other. But how did the Galleons actually work? Who paid for them? How did buyers and sellers negotiate with each other? Who set the rules? Why on earth did the shippers decide to send just one galleon a year? Juan José Rivas Moreno dives into these questions in his book The Capital Market of Manila and the Pacific Trade, 1668-1838: Institutions and Trade during the First Globalization (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024). Juan José Rivas Moreno is a historian of early modern finance, specialising in the financing of the Pacific trade. He obtained his PhD in Economic History from London School of Economics in 2023 with a thesis on the capital market of Manila which received the Coleman Prize 2024. Juan José was the recipient of a Newberry Library short-term fellowship and held an Economic History Society Fellowship in 2023-2024. Currently he is a Max Weber fellow at the European University Institute in Florence. You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of The Capital Market of Manila and the Pacific Trade. Follow on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Many authors have written about the Manila Galleons, the massive ships that took goods back and forth between Acapulco and Manila, ferrying silver one way, and Chinese-made goods the other. But how did the Galleons actually work? Who paid for them? How did buyers and sellers negotiate with each other? Who set the rules? Why on earth did the shippers decide to send just one galleon a year? Juan José Rivas Moreno dives into these questions in his book The Capital Market of Manila and the Pacific Trade, 1668-1838: Institutions and Trade during the First Globalization (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024). Juan José Rivas Moreno is a historian of early modern finance, specialising in the financing of the Pacific trade. He obtained his PhD in Economic History from London School of Economics in 2023 with a thesis on the capital market of Manila which received the Coleman Prize 2024. Juan José was the recipient of a Newberry Library short-term fellowship and held an Economic History Society Fellowship in 2023-2024. Currently he is a Max Weber fellow at the European University Institute in Florence. You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of The Capital Market of Manila and the Pacific Trade. Follow on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Many authors have written about the Manila Galleons, the massive ships that took goods back and forth between Acapulco and Manila, ferrying silver one way, and Chinese-made goods the other. But how did the Galleons actually work? Who paid for them? How did buyers and sellers negotiate with each other? Who set the rules? Why on earth did the shippers decide to send just one galleon a year? Juan José Rivas Moreno dives into these questions in his book The Capital Market of Manila and the Pacific Trade, 1668-1838: Institutions and Trade during the First Globalization (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024). Juan José Rivas Moreno is a historian of early modern finance, specialising in the financing of the Pacific trade. He obtained his PhD in Economic History from London School of Economics in 2023 with a thesis on the capital market of Manila which received the Coleman Prize 2024. Juan José was the recipient of a Newberry Library short-term fellowship and held an Economic History Society Fellowship in 2023-2024. Currently he is a Max Weber fellow at the European University Institute in Florence. You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of The Capital Market of Manila and the Pacific Trade. Follow on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/asian-review

Many authors have written about the Manila Galleons, the massive ships that took goods back and forth between Acapulco and Manila, ferrying silver one way, and Chinese-made goods the other. But how did the Galleons actually work? Who paid for them? How did buyers and sellers negotiate with each other? Who set the rules? Why on earth did the shippers decide to send just one galleon a year? Juan José Rivas Moreno dives into these questions in his book The Capital Market of Manila and the Pacific Trade, 1668-1838: Institutions and Trade during the First Globalization (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024). Juan José Rivas Moreno is a historian of early modern finance, specialising in the financing of the Pacific trade. He obtained his PhD in Economic History from London School of Economics in 2023 with a thesis on the capital market of Manila which received the Coleman Prize 2024. Juan José was the recipient of a Newberry Library short-term fellowship and held an Economic History Society Fellowship in 2023-2024. Currently he is a Max Weber fellow at the European University Institute in Florence. You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of The Capital Market of Manila and the Pacific Trade. Follow on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An essay from Matthew on how MAGA religiosity obscures the religious nature of liberalism, and how both obscure the underlying religion of capitalism.  Inspired by Walter Benjamin, who in 1921 wrote: One can behold in capitalism a religion, that is to say, capitalism essentially serves to satisfy the same worries, anguish, and disquiet formerly answered by so-called religion. Capitalism is a pure religious cult, perhaps the most extreme there ever was. Within it everything only has meaning in direct relation to the cult: it knows no special dogma, no theology. Show Notes Mutual Aid Hub  Martin Luther King Jr: Dialectics, Materialism, and the Black Radical Critique of Racial Capitalism with Andrew J. Douglas and Jared A. Loggins  230: How Did We Get Here? Walter Benjamin, "Capitalism as Religion [Fragment 74],"  Max Weber and Walter Benjamin Without Dream or Mercy  Has Capitalism Become Our Religion? On the Concept of History - Walter Benjamin  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

  Grace Cathedral, San Francisco, CA 2E71 All Saints Day 11:00 a.m. Baptism Sunday 3 November 2024 Daniel 12:1-3 Psalm 24 Revelation 21:1-6a John 11:32-44 “See I am making all things new… I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end” (Rev. 21). 1. In three days there will be an election. We have heard about authoritarianism and the Deep State, that this might be the last election we will ever have. We have been told that the United States Department of Justice will seek retribution against political enemies, that doctors will be prosecuted for performing health procedures like abortions or gender transition therapies, that our own armies will be deployed against regular American citizens. We are afraid that our marriages will be declared invalid and that we will be singled out for persecution.   Candidates have said that America's domestic enemies are more dangerous than our foreign ones. News broadcasters have told us that rather than protecting us from foreign dictators our political leaders admire them. We see signs that the meager efforts we are making to slow down climate change and species extinction may be undone. We have been told that the elections cannot be trusted, that immigrants are in some way unseen threats. We are reminded that the person we choose will alone have power to destroy life on earth by launching nuclear weapons.   There is so much more I could say about this but I don't need to because we are all getting five text messages a day from politicians who act as if they know us, who talk as if they alone can save us.   In 1965, 70% of Americans said that religion is very important. In our time 45% of Americans agree with this statement. [i] Some may say that we are becoming less spiritual as a society. But one might argue instead that we are less likely to express our spirituality through religious institutions and more likely to invest other parts of our life with ultimate value.   The sociologist Max Weber (1865-1920) had a theory that the evolution of religious life has led us in the modern world to have seven “value spheres” that at times compete with each other. These include: religion, family, politics, economics, art, science and eroticism. Some thinkers today believe that as people participate less in religion they invest spiritual meaning in other spheres, particularly politics.   Philip Gorski writes, “the most important form of sacrality today is arguably “the political.” For the populist right, the sacred is most often “the nation,” or ”Christian nation” or “Hindu Civilization.” For the progressive left, the sacred is more often democracy or social justice... [N]ation and state, party and ideology, race and identity, have become sacred objects of devotion for many.” [ii]   Many of our most secular friends have become missionaries writing letters and visiting distant places trying to inspire people to vote. This makes sense since the political sphere has tremendous power to control taxation, wage nuclear war, curtail climate change, preserve democracy and balance inconceivable levels of wealth inequality.   2. In the time of Jesus the Romans mercilessly demanded that subject peoples worship the emperor as a god. The situation seemed hopeless. But according to the Gospel of John, “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.” John goes on, “the true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him… but to all who received him he gave power to become children of God” (Jn. 1). This light which shone in Jesus still shines today.   The purpose of the Gospel of John is to draw us into a new world, into life in God. He writes about seven signs. The first happens when Jesus turns water into wine at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. And the last occurs when Jesus returns to enemy territory in order to bring his friend Lazarus back from the dead.   Jesus narrowly escapes being stoned to death in Judea for saying that, “The Father and I are one” (Jn. 10). Then he gets a message from two sisters that “the one you love is ill.” Jesus' friends can hardly believe it when he tells them that he is going back to the place where he was almost killed. The name Lazarus means “God is my help.” Jesus feels so deeply moved by the grief of Lazarus' sisters Martha and Mary that he himself weeps. Jesus knows that bringing his friend back to life will lead to his own death. And this is exactly what happens. Later, the authorities reason that Jesus must die because by raising the dead he will inspire the masses who will then provoke the Romans to destroy the temple and their whole culture. High Priest Caiaphas says, “it is better to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed” (Jn. 11).   The pivotal moment occurs when Jesus says to Martha, “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” The point of this is not that Martha's believing has anything to do with her brother coming back to life. It is that Martha's faith will help her to see the action of God that is already happening in Jesus.   3. And this is how faith is. We trust in God first and then we come to see the world in a completely new way. St. Augustine (354-430) was an African saint born in the fourth century. He calls this faith seeking understanding. We say yes and give our hearts to God. And then God opens our lives to the divine mystery.   St. Augustine helps me to understand these elections and Jesus' invitation into a deeper reality. In 410 Rome was sacked. Pagans argued that this defeat happened because the gods were punishing the Romans for converting to Christianity. [iii] In response Augustine wrote his book The City of God.   In it Augustine describes two cities the earthly city and the city of God. These are not distinguished by jurisdiction or location. One is not on earth and the other in the skies. Instead, they are two fundamentally different ways of organizing human community. They are distinguished by their love. The earthly city revolves around love of self, the lust for power and domination.   The city of God is characterized by love of God and neighbor. Because God values human freedom we find ourselves in a shared territory that is occupied by citizens of both cities. Now is not a time for separating the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats. We will not experience perfect justice, peace, goodness or beauty in this life. Politicians will always let us down.   In 418 Augustine puts this in another way when he writes to Boniface, the Roman general in charge of North Africa. Boniface wants to impose Christian practices with the sword. Augustine disagrees and writes, “We ought not to want to live ahead of time with only the saints and the righteous.” [iv] In other words we should not imagine that we will achieve the ideal in this world. Politics is the way that we live in the time we have now. We should expect disagreement, compromise, debate and be patient with those who disagree with us. The message is simple on All Saint's Day in San Francisco let politics have its place. But it should never become our god. Regardless of who is elected, our God is on the throne. Jesus, through his life and death ushers us into another reality. That light shines through our darkness.   Last week after church I had lunch with our former bishop Bill Swing and Cricket Jones the wife of our longtime dean Alan Jones. Alan died in January and the three of us still look visibly upset when we talk about him together. Hesitantly I asked the two about their most powerful memories of Alan and Cricket's wedding which took place in France at Chartres Cathedral.   Bishop Swing talked about drawers of vestments from the sixteenth century. Then Cricket described a moment from the service. She and Alan were perched on little chairs in front of the high altar. And as the bishop was going through the prayers she felt as if her little chair rose up into the air by four or five inches. And then she had a sense that all the saints who had ever been there were present with them. In her mind's eye she could see them standing all around the apse on each other's shoulders with such deep love. [v]   In three days there will be an election. But as we baptize children into the new life of Christ may the ones we love and all the saints be present with us. Let us have eyes to see that God is making all things new. [i] “Forty-five percent of Americans say religion is "very important" in their life, with another 26% saying it is "fairly important" and 28% saying it's "not very important." When Gallup first asked this question in 1965, 70% said religion was very important. That fell to 52% in a 1978 survey, but the percentage ticked up to nearly 60% between 1990 and 2005. Over the past 20 years, a declining share of Americans have said religion is important, dropping below 50% for the first time in 2019.” From, “How Religious Are Americans,” Gallup News, 29 March 2024. https://news.gallup.com/poll/358364/religious-americans.aspx [ii] Robert Gorski, “Disenchantment of the World” or Fragmentation of the Sacred,” in Robert N. Bellah, Challenging Modernity (NY: Columbia University Press, 2024) 319. [iii] In his book The City of God Augustine writes that rather than the gods protecting Rome, Rome protected her gods. [iv] “At the heart of Augustine's political wisdom is an awareness of what time it is. Late in his life, he counseled Boniface, a Roman general governing the precinct of Africa. In a letter from 418, Augustine addresses Boniface's frustrations with uprisings and incursions by those who despise the Christian faith. Boniface thinks he knows what the kingdom of God is supposed to look like, and he's tempted to impose it—to make the kingdom come. Augustine cautions the impatient ruler: “We ought not to want to live ahead of time with only the saints and the righteous.” Trying to “live ahead of time” means imagining we can achieve some ideal embodiment of justice—whether it's utopia or the kingdom—by imposing our will. Politics, Augustine counsels, demands patience. Politics is the art of forging a life together in the now. The institutions of our republic and the practices of democracy are eroded precisely when we imagine that we can live ahead of time. Political liberalism is accumulated wisdom about how not to live ahead of time.” James K. A. Smith, “Wisdom from Augustine in an Election Year,” The Christian Century, November 2024. https://www.christiancentury.org/features/wisdom-augustine-election-year?check_logged_in=1 [v] The novelist Susanna Clarke in an interview with the New York Times says, ““I feel very strongly that if you could see the world as it really is, if you could get further beyond your ego and the sorts of ways in which we trap ourselves, if you could just see the world beyond, every moment would be miraculous.” https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/books/susanna-clarke-strange-norrell-sequel-interview.html?campaign_id=69&emc=edit_bk_20241101&instance_id=138448&nl=books®i_id=13508633&segment_id=181999&user_id=f284507f51aad420f13c2727d615ae11

Boise State soccer head coach Jim Thomas, associate head coach Max Weber and forward Avery McBride join this episode to look back at the Broncos' clinching at least a share of the Mountain West regular season title, how it fits into the team's overall goals, what has changed in the team over the course of the season, McBride's journey back from injury to now champion, and more.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

FREE EBOOK DOWNLOAD - The Top 25 Books That Shaped My Worldview  http://www.growtribes.com/larry/join   Get Access to ALL of my content HERE - https://ideashaveconsequences.com/   Larry dives into the profound concept of 'The Grace Effect,' a principle rooted in biblical theology and recognized by theologians as 'Common Grace.' Larry revisits his 2011 interview with John Stossel on Fox News, using it as a launchpad to explore how fundamental Christian beliefs about human nature and morality influence Western culture. He contrasts the biblical perspective of human depravity and the need for grace with the secular and atheistic views of human nature put forth by historical figures like George Bernard Shaw. Through historical references, discussions on modern atheism, and an examination of the internal and external arguments for God's existence, Larry emphasizes how the infusion of Christian ethics and grace shapes societies positively. He addresses the societal ramifications of declining Christian influence, rising secularism, and the cultural impact of Islam in the West. With insights from the work of thinkers like Augustine, T.S. Eliot, and Max Weber, this episode unpacks the transformative power of grace in individual lives and broader society.     Follow me everywhere: https://linktr.ee/larrytaunton ✉️ Get all the content I can't share publicly directly in your inbox… https://join.larrytaunton.com/     Special Offers:   Purehealth Research Stay sharp with Liver Health Formula Go to https://GetLiverHelp.com/Larry to receive a FREE 1 month supply of Nano Powered Omega-3's with your order     MB01FVPGQ9C7SI3

Max Weber once remarked that bureaucracy's power comes from its massing of expert and factual knowledges. It amasses this power, in part, by keeping much of its expertise and factual knowledge from public view. Only occasionally does someone with access reveal more of what's going on behind the scenes, and how it might matter for our thinking about how facts are produced and contested, and what kinds of facts matter to policy makers and why. Sarah Ball is one such person.  In Behavioural Public Policy in Australia: How an Idea Became Practice (Routledge, 2024), the former public servant draws on interviews and ethnographic observation to chart the making of a behavioural public policy unit in the Australian public service, asking — and answering — questions about how the unit sought to make facts and establish expertise, and how the many meanings of behavioural insights were contested and accommodated along the way. If you like this episode of New Books in Interpretive Political and Social Science then you might also be interested in others in the series on the interpretation of policy, like Sarah Wiebe talking about Everyday Exposure, and more recently, José Ciro Martínez on States of Subsistence. Sarah recommends Informality in Policymaking by Lindsey Garner-Knapp and others. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Max Weber once remarked that bureaucracy's power comes from its massing of expert and factual knowledges. It amasses this power, in part, by keeping much of its expertise and factual knowledge from public view. Only occasionally does someone with access reveal more of what's going on behind the scenes, and how it might matter for our thinking about how facts are produced and contested, and what kinds of facts matter to policy makers and why. Sarah Ball is one such person.  In Behavioural Public Policy in Australia: How an Idea Became Practice (Routledge, 2024), the former public servant draws on interviews and ethnographic observation to chart the making of a behavioural public policy unit in the Australian public service, asking — and answering — questions about how the unit sought to make facts and establish expertise, and how the many meanings of behavioural insights were contested and accommodated along the way. If you like this episode of New Books in Interpretive Political and Social Science then you might also be interested in others in the series on the interpretation of policy, like Sarah Wiebe talking about Everyday Exposure, and more recently, José Ciro Martínez on States of Subsistence. Sarah recommends Informality in Policymaking by Lindsey Garner-Knapp and others. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Boise State head soccer coach Jim Thomas and associate head coach Max Weber join the podcast once again to look back at a huge weekend of crucial conference points, insight into the last-second game-tying goal at Colorado State, the week ahead at home against Air Force and Colorado College, and an analysis of Avery McBride's return from injury this season.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the idea of charismatic authority developed by Max Weber (1864-1920) to explain why people welcome some as their legitimate rulers and follow them loyally, for better or worse, while following others only dutifully or grudgingly. Weber was fascinated by those such as Napoleon (above) and Washington who achieved power not by right, as with traditional monarchs, or by law as with the bureaucratic world around him in Germany, but by revolution or insurrection. Drawing on the experience of religious figures, he contended that these leaders, often outsiders, needed to be seen as exceptional, heroic and even miraculous to command loyalty, and could stay in power for as long as the people were enthralled and the miracles they had promised kept coming. After the Second World War, Weber's idea attracted new attention as a way of understanding why some reviled leaders once had mass support and, with the arrival of television, why some politicians were more engaging and influential on screen than others. With Linda Woodhead, The FD Maurice Professor and Head of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at King's College London David Bell, The Lapidus Professor in the Department of History at Princeton University Tom Wright, Reader in Rhetoric at the University of Sussex Producer: Simon TillotsonIn Our Time is a BBC Studios Audio Production

We have created bureaucracies to get the work done and to get it done efficiently, according to 19th-century thinker Max Weber. So why are there more and more meaningless executive jobs that contribute nothing but soak up the pay? IDEAS examines the corporate tendency to "bureaumania.”