Podcast appearances and mentions of peter savodnik

Fourteen years ago, Amy Chua published Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. It was received less like a book and more like a nuclear bomb. Here are some headlines from the time: “Why I Will Never Be a Tiger Mom.” “Why Amy Chua Is Wrong About Parenting.” “Amy Chua Is a Circus Trainer, Not a Tiger Mother.” “The Human Race Needs Elephant Mothers, Not Tiger Mothers.” “Amy Chua's Recipe for Disaster and the Externalized Cost of Book Sales.” Then, just as the publicity around Tiger Mother died down, Amy came out with The Triple Package, about why some ethnic groups succeed. People called her racist. Then she came out in support of Brett Kavanaugh's court nomination in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal (before he was accused of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford). Afterward, people accused her of misogyny and grooming. And she was almost forced out of Yale for it.  Then, in 2021, she was accused of hosting boozy dinner parties during COVID lockdowns and “dinner party-gate” was born. Yale punished her by barring her from teaching her “small group” first-year student contingency.  Fast-forward to 2025. And the tables have turned. Being a strict “tiger mom”? In. Free speech? In. Wokeness and hypersensitivity? Out. Covid lockdowns? Definitely out. Vicious character assassinations at Senate confirmations? Out. As Free Press reporter Peter Savodnik just wrote: “The ideas that Chua was pilloried for are suddenly back in fashion.”  Just a few weeks ago, she attended the inauguration of the incoming president and vice president—one of whom happens to be her former student and mentee.  It's easy to be a weather vane—to go where the wind blows. It's hard to be Amy Chua—to stand up for your beliefs even when they are not popular, even when it means personal consequences. On today's episode, live in D.C. during inauguration weekend, Chua explains how and why she won—and what it feels like to be vindicated.  If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's President Donald Trump's second week in office, and he has wasted no time being the wrecking ball he promised his voters he would be. On Tuesday, he issued a memo freezing trillions of dollars in federal funding, in his attempt to purge the government of “woke ideology,” which was followed by chaos and confusion—and ultimately blocked by a federal judge. Earlier in the week, Trump convinced Colombia's President Gustavo Petro to accept deported Colombian migrants—who Petro had turned away from his borders only a day earlier—after Trump threatened a 25-percent tariff on Colombian imports to the U.S.  Back in Congress, the Senate narrowly confirmed Pete Hegseth to be secretary of defense in a dramatic tie-breaking vote cast by a hurried J.D. Vance who showed up just in the nick of time. Meanwhile, RFK Jr. is currently having his highly anticipated confirmation hearing to run the Department of Health and Human Services. Just as that began, Caroline Kennedy—the only surviving child of John F. Kennedy—came out Tuesday with a bombshell public denunciation of her cousin, calling him unqualified, “a predator,” and a hypocrite. She also alleged that he used to “put baby chickens and mice in a blender to feed to his hawks.” Can't say we had that on our 2025 bingo card… Finally, the Chinese artificial intelligence start-up DeepSeek sent tech stocks plummeting on Monday (to the tune of more than $1 trillion) after it rolled out a new app on the U.S. market that is a fraction of the cost of American AI competitors. All of which brought up questions—and panic—about our brewing AI war with China.  To talk about it all, Free Press senior editor Peter Savodnik is joined today by Brianna Wu and FP investigative reporter Madeleine Rowley, who spoke to Hegseth this week about his plans to end diversity, equity, and inclusion in the military. Get $10 for free when you trade $100+ with code HONESTLY: https://kalshi.com/honestly Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Donald Trump was inaugurated on Monday, and he came out swinging. On his first day, he signed 26 executive orders and rolled back about 80 of former president Joe Biden's executive actions. (For comparison, Biden signed nine executive orders on day one; in 2017, Trump signed one; in 2013, Obama signed zero, and in 2009, just two.) Trump was making good on the promises he campaigned on. On immigration, he's trying to end birthright citizenship. On diversity, equity, and inclusion, he's saying, “You're fired” to federal DEI employees. On trans issues, he signed an order that declares only two genders. And on “America First,” he's saying goodbye to the “Gulf of Mexico” and hello to the “Gulf of America.”  Trump also announced Stargate, gave TikTok a second life, pardoned about 1,500 January 6 rioters, and pulled out of the Paris climate agreement. Suffice it to say, there is much to discuss. Today, Bari Weiss is back with Batya Ungar-Sargon, Brianna Wu, and Free Press senior editor Peter Savodnik to unpack Trump's first week in office and what they think about…Elon's arm. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. The first 500 listeners to sign up will get $10 for free when you trade $100+ with code HONESTLY at https://Kalshi.com/Honestly. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today we are launching our second ILV book club with a series of discussions of Jonathan Rauch's forthcoming book entitled Cross Purposes: Christianity's Broken Bargain with Democracy by Brookings Institution senior fellow and best-selling author Jonathan Rauch. The book, made available to you by Yale University Press in early February, examines American pluralism and the role of religion in historical and modern democracy. Rauch, a self-described atheist, somewhat apologetically takes us on a journalistic and self-reflective tour of the intersection of religion and human nature. This book is a cultural, civic, and spiritual travel-log for believers and non-believers alike. Jonathan Rauch will join us for a livestream on February 5 at 7pm ET. In the meantime, join Jen, Elizabeth and Matt for 3 book club episodes focused on Cross Purposes. We begin our discussion with Part I, which is entitled “Thin Christianity.” Podcast Resources: Pre-order Cross Purposes Save the date for our livestream with Jonathan Rauch (both on YouTube and on @ilvalues on X) Jesus and Superman: A Liberalism and Faith Series with Angel Eduardo How Intellectuals Found God, Peter Savodnik, The Free Press The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism, Tim Alberta Walking with God through Pain and Suffering, Tim Keller Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging, Sebastian Junger On Censorship Book Club

Today Mark Reardon is joined by; Duane Patterson with HotAir.com and host of Duane's World Podcast joins to talk about his latest column that the sun is about to set on California. Rafer Weigel, Chief Communications Officer at VetComm joins with reaction to the Jussie Smollett verdict reversal. Peter Savodnik, Senior Editor for The Free Press joins to talk about his latest piece is headlined "The Case of Justine Bateman -- And Why Gen X Broke for Trump. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey joins to get his take on Matt Gaetz to withdraw his nomination for US Attorney General, Mizzou football and more. Adam Ellwanger, Professor of English at the University of Houston joins to talk about his latest piece in Real Clear Education is headlined: Make Education Great Again

Peter Savodnik, Senior Editor for The Free Press joins the show to talk about his latest piece is headlined "The Case of Justine Bateman -- And Why Gen X Broke for Trump.

In the second hour we have Sue's News. Peter Savodnik, Senior Editor for The Free Press joins the show to talk about his latest piece is headlined "The Case of Justine Bateman -- And Why Gen X Broke for Trump.

Donald Trump has been elected president of the United States. . . again. It was a historic political comeback for a candidate rejected by the people just four years ago. But this time, Trump took almost every coveted state: Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin. And he leads in Nevada and Arizona. The entire blue wall. . . turned red. And unlike 2016, this was not just an Electoral College victory. Surprising pollsters and betting markets alike, Trump also won the popular vote. To top it off, Republicans took control of the Senate, gaining four seats, and maybe more by the time this episode airs. Simply put, it was a red landslide.  It is extremely rare in our history for a president to come back after losing a reelection bid so badly. In fact, Trump's rebound is bigger than Nixon's—bigger than Napoleon's in 1815.  And yet it happened on Tuesday night with the most flawed candidate American politics has ever seen. How did he do it? If you were only watching cable news over the last few years, you would be shocked by the outcome. But if you had been reading The FP, you probably were not surprised. Yes, Kamala had the support of Beyoncé, Oprah, Taylor Swift, and almost every A-lister with a pulse. She outraised Trump by around $600 million. She was endorsed by industry leaders in science and economics. But it's been clear for some time now that the Democrats do not have the buy-in or trust of the American people. FP senior editor Peter Savodnik said it best: “They didn't lose because they didn't spend enough money. They didn't lose because they failed to trot out enough celebrity influencers. They lost because they were consumed by their own self-flattery, their own sense of self-importance.” Still, in the wee hours of Wednesday morning, CNN and MSNBC tried to explain away Trump's appeal, and the profound failure of the left, with accusations that the American people are the ones to blame. But those explanations are not right.  As exit polls came in, Trump showed strength with black and Latino voters. CNN exit polls showed he won about 13 percent of black voters (up from 8 percent in 2020) and 45 percent of Latino voters (up from 32 percent last election). It shows a massive pickup. He won among voters who make less than $100,000. And compared to 2020, Trump improved in cities, in rural areas, in suburbs. . . . as CNN's John Berman put it: “It's kind of an everywhere improvement.”   Here today to make sense of it all is FP contributor and Newsweek opinion editor Batya Ungar-Sargon, pundit and political powerhouse Brianna Wu, and FP Senior Editor Peter Savodnik.  We reflect on why Democrats lost so dramatically and decisively; how Trump's comeback happened, despite an impeachment, being found guilty of sexual assault, and 116 indictments; how Trump found success with black and Latino voters; what the next four years might look like with Trump returning to the White House; and if this will be a wake-up call for Democrats.  If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you're a listener of this show, then you've probably heard of the horseshoe theory. It's basically this idea that when you go far enough to the left and far enough to the right, the voices start to sound pretty similar. This is certainly the case when you listen to sound bites of both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump talk about trade and tariffs.  But during this time—what my colleague Peter Savodnik has called our great political scramble—some voices don't seem to fit in anywhere, voices like that of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Senator Paul is a bit of an anomaly on the American right. He's traditionally libertarian, pro free trade, pro market, and anti subsidy. He's a deficit hawk and criticizes both Trump and Biden on spending, and he is one of just seven senators who still refuses to endorse Trump. He says it's over the $1.9 trillion deficit. Senator Paul says to lower the deficit we'd need to cut military spending, cut Medicaid, cut Medicare, and cut Social Security. But neither Republicans nor Democrats will go near those sacred cows these days.  All of these attributes make him an endangered species in a party that is less fiscally conservative, more protectionist, and increasingly anti immigration—all positions that are antithetical to Rand Paul's libertarian worldview. At the same time, Senator Paul is having somewhat of a renaissance when it comes to his foreign policy outlook. The new right and the MAGA movement are the opposite of the Reagan-era neocons skeptical of our ambitions abroad, and firmly against the “forever wars.” All stances Senator Paul agrees with.  Today, we talk to Senator Paul to find out how he fits into the new right, when Republicans stopped caring about balancing the budget, why he wants to cut military spending, and cut aid to Israel. We ask if the U.S. can remain the world's hegemon, while spending less, and if that's even still a worthy goal, and finally, how Donald Trump and J.D. Vance totally lost the plot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last night was the much-anticipated presidential debate between incumbent vice president Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump. There was no live audience, but the bashing and accusations, one against the other, were all the same.  Trump called Kamala a Marxist. Kamala called Trump a liar. Kamala said Trump is for America's wealthiest. Trump said Kamala is for killing babies at term. Trump said Kamala “wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison.” And Kamala said Trump is simply a disgrace. Of course, they went head-to-head on the normal issues: the economy, tariffs, abortion, China, fracking, policing in America, January 6, foreign policy, and—eating cats!? Not so normal.  If you didn't watch the debate, if you're not on social media, or if you didn't receive memes from your family group chat, let me explain. First, Kamala baited Trump on a question about his campaign rallies. It got under his skin. He fell for it. Which then led him into a long rant about immigrants, which brings us back to the cat thing. Because in his words, immigrants are crossing the border, settling in Ohio, and stealing—and eating—our pets. The moderator fact-checked him: “We have talked to the city manager of Springfield, and there are no credible reports of pets being taken and eaten.” To which Trump responded: “But I saw it on television!” All Kamala needed to do was stand there and smile. As the debate went on, Trump reaffirmed that he thinks he won the 2020 election; He doubled down on the idea that doctors are executing babies after they're born; and he referred to the January 6 rioters as “we.” He also quoted Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orbán. And again, all Kamala needed to do was stand there and keep smiling.  So what does it all mean? What impact will it have? Will independent voters, or swing-state voters, change their mind based on Kamala and Trump's performance? Did Kamala clarify her policy positions and provide the substance that voters want to hear from her other than “joy” and “vibes”? Did the muted mics limit Trump's abrasive demeanor? And most importantly, who won the debate? The answer seems pretty clear. To discuss all this and more is Free Press contributor and opinion editor at Newsweek, Batya Ungar-Sargon; contributing writer at The Week, Newsweek, and Slate, David Faris; and Free Press writer and editor Peter Savodnik. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hour 3: Brad Young, 97.1 Legal Analyst with Harris, Dowell, Fisher and Young, joins Mark Reardon to share the latest update on the Marcellus Williams case. Then, Peter Savodnik, Senior Editor for The Free Press, joins Mark Reardon to discuss his latest piece in Senator John Fetterman. Later, Mark brings you the Audio Cut of the Day.

First, Scott Jennings shares what he's seen at the DNC, his viral CNN comments, and more & Brain Kilmeade discusses his earlier conversation with Donald Trump and his thoughts on the DNC. Then, Sue brings you today's Sue's News & Jordan Palmer explains the controversy over a Palestinian flag that Social Studies teacher Jason Kipp displayed for his students to see in his 8th-grade social studies classroom in Kirkwood. Later, Brad Young shares the latest update on the Marcellus Williams case, Peter Savodnik discusses his latest piece in Senator John Fetterman, & Mark brings you the Audio Cut of the Day.

A few weeks ago, very few people outside of the Beltway and niche media circles had ever heard the name Tim Walz. Almost overnight, the relatively obscure governor from Minnesota started to gain traction thanks to a viral clip where he called J.D. Vance “weird.” It resonated with a lot of people. He came across as direct, plainspoken, and affable. And on Tuesday, August 6, Vice President Kamala Harris officially announced him as her running mate.  The conventional wisdom was that Harris would pick a moderate Democrat. But is Walz a true moderate? Because if you go online, there is a split screen reality about who Tim Walz actually is. On one side: Midwestern nice guy Democrat who grew up in a small town in Nebraska, is a National Guard vet, was a high school teacher, a football coach, a congressman, governor, and to top it all off, a gun owner and a hunter. Policy-wise, he's worked with Republicans to pass infrastructure investments. He cut taxes for working families. He passed a law to provide paid family and medical leave to Minnesota families. But on the other side: he's as radical as radical progressives come. Here are some policies cited to support that argument: during the pandemic, Walz set up a phone line so Minnesotans could report their neighbors for violating Covid rules. He allowed Minnesota's health department to ration lifesaving Covid drugs based on race. Walz made Minnesota a “trans refuge state,” signing a law that allows the state to take custody of a child whose parents refuse “gender-affirming care.” He also established a council to implement DEI training in statewide agencies. And after George Floyd's murder, he said: “My administration will use every tool at our disposal to deconstruct generations of systemic racism in Minnesota.” This, as the city was burning. Then, there is the secondary story of Tim Walz, which is not about Tim Walz at all. Until Tuesday, Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro appeared to be the frontrunner as a charismatic, handsome, and moderate governor from a key battleground state the Democrats need to win. Why didn't Kamala choose Shapiro? Did anti-semitism play a role? To explain all of this are three of my favorite writers and thinkers: Free Press contributor Batya Ungar-Sargon, Free Press senior editor Peter Savodnik, and Free Press columnist Joe Nocera (or, as he likes to be called, our in-house-liberal). Suffice it to say, they all have very different opinions on Walz. Today: Who is Tim Walz? Why did Kamala Harris land on him? What does this choice say about the state of the Democratic Party? And in the race toward the White House, does it even matter? If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com/subscribe and become a Free Press subscriber today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

[00:10:21] Josh Kraushaar [00:18:25] Yuval David [00:36:47] Peter Savodnik [00:55:10] Chris LaCivita [01:13:31] Shannon Bream Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last week, Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny joined a long line of ordinary and noble people who were and are the victims of Stalinist tyranny and now Russian authoritarianism.  Just 10 days prior, Tucker Carlson interviewed Putin, Navalny's nemesis—and soon to be murderer—in a two-hour conversation at the Kremlin. The name Alexei Navalny never came up. Then, when Carlson appeared onstage at the World Government Summit in Dubai and was asked why he hadn't pressed Putin about Navalny, he replied: “Every leader kills people. Some kill more than others. Leadership requires killing people.” Carlson went on to talk about how wonderful the Russian capital was, how it was “so much nicer than any city in my country.” (All onstage in a country that runs on indentured servitude and sharply curbs freedom of expression, mind you.) Today, Free Press senior editor Peter Savodnik explains why Tucker Carlson—and so many on the American right—are confused about Putin's Russia, and about what Navalny—a hero of our darkening century—died for. Putin is a warden of the deepest of deep states. So why does Carlson and his lot believe he's worthy of admiration? And how did so many on the American right succumb to the same idiocy and myopia that grip so many progressive identitarians? The way the left and the right arrived at their own brand of anti-Americanism was different, Peter argues. But the outcome is the same: this is exactly what the Kremlin wants. For further reading on Navalny's death, check out: Alexei Navalny Lived and Died in Truth, by Bari Wiess Navalny's Letters from the Gulag, by the Free Press Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

[00:00:00] Michael Allen [00:18:25] Peter Savodnik [00:36:47] Chris Christie [00:55:10] Gov. Chris Sununu [01:20:25] David & Jerry Zucker, Jim Abrahams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Wednesday night, Fox Business and Rumble hosted the second Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in beautiful Simi Valley, California. Bari Weiss and The Free Press's very own Peter Savodnik watched live in the spin room as the seven candidates—Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Tim Scott, and Doug Burgum— took the stage to spar over questions about union strikes, inflation, income inequality, the cost of childcare, the border, China, crime, policing, drugs, gun violence, education, Russia, Ukraine. . . really, nothing new. But of course, the man they really wanted to spar with and the man leading the polls by a landslide still refuses to play ball. So, we sent TFP reporter Michael Moynihan to check in on the elusive Donald Trump, who spent his night on the other side of the country speaking to a crowded room, which he claimed would be full of striking auto workers. (Though, Moyihan had a hard time finding them.) Trump's Detroit visit came just one day after President Biden went to the picket line in Wayne County to march with union members outside a General Motors plant—an unprecedented move by a sitting president. On today's episode, as the two likely 2024 candidates battled to portray themselves as the voice of blue-collar Americans, what were the seven GOP hopefuls hoping to achieve by squabbling at the Reagan Library instead of marching with striking auto workers? Who were the biggest winners and losers of this very strange tale of two cities? And with nearly 60 percent of GOP voters backing Trump, is anyone emerging as a viable Trump competitor, or is it time to face the fact that we're tumbling toward a 2020 rematch between two very old men that no one really wants to see happen? Music in this episode by blue dot sessions Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Three journalists talk about where the business is going, how we got here, and what Fritz Lang would have thought about Starbucks. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Wednesday night, Fox News and the streaming platform Rumble hosted the first Republican presidential debate with the eight GOP hopefuls who made the cut: North Dakota governor Doug Burgum, former governor of Arkansas Asa Hutchinson, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, former governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, former vice president Mike Pence, biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.  Missing from the stage was Donald Trump, who refused to attend the debate. Instead, he sat down Tucker Carlson—a move that allowed him to flip the bird to the RNC and allowed Tucker to do the same to Fox, who fired him a few months ago. Trump's interview with Tucker aired exclusively on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, and more than 74 million people tuned in. Here at The Free Press, we love a good debate night, and we were up until the wee hours discussing it all. So today on Honestly, TFP reporter Olivia Reingold, TFP senior editor Peter Savodnik, and Newsweek's opinion editor Batya Ungar-Sargon are here to discuss who emerged on top? Who fell by the wayside? And did the elephant not in the room still somehow manage to dominate? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This show explores how Russia, like the Soviet Union before it, seeks to confuse and divide the west through psychological warfare and disinformation. The Russian state's cruelty is both an advantage and a liability when it comes to skullduggery. The guest is Peter Savodnik, author of the 2013 book Interloper about Lee Harvey Oswald's sojourn to the Soviet Union. The Interloper by Peter Savodnik Time Stamps: 00:02 Introduction 19:57 Interview Peter Savodnik Questions? Comments? Ideas? Contact us at Eli@nebulouspodcasts.com

---ARTICLES AND LINKS DISCUSSEDHollywood's New Rules - Peter Kiefer and Peter Savodnik:https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/hollywoods-new-rules---AFLW Pride round jumper debate provides litmus test for true inclusion and diversity – Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jan/31/alfw-pride-round-jumper-debate-provides-litmus-test-for-true-inclusion-and-diversity---More artists join Spotify boycott over Joe Rogan podcast controversy – News.com.au:https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/music/more-artists-join-spotify-boycott-over-joe-rogan-podcast-controversy/news-story/3c0f188fba8c9e9eb8868d4afb429816---SUPPORT THE NEW FLESHPatreon:https://www.patreon.com/user?u=61455803---Buy Me A Coffee:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/thenewflesh---Instagram: @thenewfleshpodcast---Twitter: @TheNewFleshpod---Follow Ricky: @ricky_allpike on InstagramFollow Jon: @thejonastro on InstagramFollow AJ: @_aj_1985 on Instagram---Logo Design by Made To Move: @made.tomove on InstagramTheme Song: Dreamdrive "Chase Dreams"

A reading of "Do Your Part," originally published on Substack on Aug. 23 (with links galore!)"Activism, Uncensored: Violence in Portland," by Matt Taibbi"After the Fall" by Peter Savodnik 

A fascinating conversation between writer/journalist Peter Savodnik and David Bernstein in which Peter talks about the current stifling atmosphere for writers and thinkers, brought about by popularization of the "impact over intent" moral paradigm. Peter describes this atmosphere as a "fraught time for Jews," due to the emergence of new types of antisemitism.

00:00 Taking an Uber/Lyft these days is like playing the lotto 02:00 On a date when surge pricing hits 03:00 My nightmare about trying to record on my iphone before a UCLA panel discussion 05:00 The Etiology of Victimology | Glenn Loury & John McWhorter, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSrDiBMHEtw 10:00 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/what-thomas-kuhn-really-thought-about-scientific-truth/ 16:00 What is post-modernism? https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=139495 24:00 Thomas Kuhn, The Spanish Flu & Covid-19, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGNqM-ChiJk 31:00 Jews under attack in USA 42:00 Matt Parrott on Unite the Right lawsuits 46:00 Ten common sense ways to avoid being sued, https://sites.hanover.com/articles/architects-engineers-avoiding-lawsuits.html 1:01:00 DAVE REILLY: THE COMMONALITY IN THE SITUATIONS OF WESTMEN AND THE PALESTINIANS, https://www.bitchute.com/video/e8GfPMotyze3/ 1:05:30 Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L70T4pQv7P8 1:09:00 Charlottesville — Unite the Right — the Aftermath | Jared Taylor/Jason Kessler, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc43nql2g_w 1:14:00 Male virgins 1:26:00 CBS Host GRILLS Netanyahu: Are You Killing People to Stay in Power?, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAzy4Z2WGgc 1:30:00 Israel's Military Inflicted a Heavy Toll. But Did It Achieve Its Aim?, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-war-ceasefire.html 1:31:00 Mike Enoch calls Vanity Fair writer Peter Savodnik about US State Dept. official Matthew Gebert's connection to TRS, https://odysee.com/@TRSDotBiz:a/say-no-ask-zionism-israel:0 1:34:00 Matthew Gebert: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know, https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/matthew-gebert/ 1:50:00 Thomas Baden-Riess vs Greg Johnson, https://odysee.com/@ThomasBadenRiess:7/FuckGregJohnson:8 1:57:00 Thomas Baden-Riess still hates Keith Woods, https://odysee.com/@ThomasBadenRiess:7/HateKeithWoods:e 2:02:20 Kevin MacDonald talks to Mike Enoch about Nathan Cofnas, https://odysee.com/@TRSDotBiz:a/the-culture-of-kmac-hour-1:0 2:11:00 Dutton and Spencer on the Impossibility of Jewish Nationalism, https://odysee.com/@radix:c/jewish-nationalism:8 2:14:00 Noah Smith: Yes, lockdowns were good, https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/yes-lockdowns-were-good 2:22:00 The evidence is clear — COVID lockdowns saved lives without harming economies, https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-05-19/covid-lockdowns-worked 2:29:45 Terry Marks-Tarlow: Embodied creativity & the courage to face uncertainty, https://www.relationalimplicit.com/marks-tarlow/ 2:40 The fear of emasculation, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=139480 2:42:00 Dennis Prager on the Left and anti-semitism 2:46:00 Deconstructing John Oliver on Israel and Palestine, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrZ9Ki1OI2o 3:04:00 GDL triggers Mersh, https://www.bitchute.com/video/sVQKAJfTCIEF/ 3:07:00 Tucker on the origins of Covid 3:20:00 Tucker on America's crime surge 3:25:20 OJ Simpson on Tim Tebow 3:27:00 MICHELLE MALKIN DISCUSSES NICK FUENTES' UNCONSTITUTIONAL PLACEMENT ON THE NO-FLY LIST 3:30:00 NICK FUENTES || WHY'S THE REGIME SUDDENLY BLAMING THE WUHAN LAB AGAIN? https://www.bitchute.com/video/Q9taWwWEqqnU/ 3:33:00 Ed Dutton: Why We're On the Brink of an Overpopulation Crisis, Famine and an Unprecedented Population Collapse, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmhEOQuUahU Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSFVD7Xfhn7sJY8LAIQmH8Q/join https://odysee.com/@LukeFordLive, https://lbry.tv/@LukeFord, https://rumble.com/lukeford https://dlive.tv/lukefordlivestreams Listener Call In #: 1-310-997-4596 Superchat: https://entropystream.live/app/lukefordlive Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lukeford/ Soundcloud MP3s: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593 Code of Conduct: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=125692

“We can't just keep funding people who are playing in make-believe-land, cranking out information to inform public policy that's completely divorced from reality. It's a recipe for cultural suicide,” says Peter Boghossian, assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University and co-author of “How to Have Impossible Conversations.” A lifelong liberal and critic of former President Trump, Boghossian believes describing people as left or right is losing utility. It's those who demand you think a certain way who are on one side, while those who do not are on the other. “We are facing an extraordinarily intolerant dangerous ideology, perpetuated by people who want to rob us of our cognitive liberty,” he says. = Correction: = This is the article by Peter Savodnik mentioned in the episode: https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbGNPS1A0M3QxRktIZ3hGSnh6SGJDcWt4a2RoUXxBQ3Jtc0ttTjdkTDVENUpnUnBndU1FUl9pZ3lKYlRvOS01N3VPYUpCQ0kxSll2MDkyQ05rQXVGOWtJQWpmZXVtQlpxOWEwb2tkdWpvU25CbFRPNFhVdElnMTJjTFRma2RuYTJBS3RCQVAzOF9xVXpOUG9YZ0JtUQ&q=https%3A%2F%2Fbariweiss.substack.com%2Fp%2Famericas-true-believers-and-their (https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/amer...) = https://www.youtube.com/hashtag/peterboghossian (#peterboghossian)​ https://www.youtube.com/hashtag/criticalracetheory (#criticalracetheory)​ https://www.youtube.com/hashtag/criticalthinking (#criticalthinking)​

“We can't just keep funding people who are playing in make-believe-land, cranking out information to inform public policy that's completely divorced from reality. It's a recipe for cultural suicide,” says Peter Boghossian, assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University and co-author of “How to Have Impossible Conversations.” A lifelong liberal and critic of former President Trump, Boghossian believes describing people as left or right is losing utility. It’s those who demand you think a certain way who are on one side, while those who do not are on the other. “We are facing an extraordinarily intolerant dangerous ideology, perpetuated by people who want to rob us of our cognitive liberty,” he says. = Correction: = This is the article by Peter Savodnik mentioned in the episode: https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/amer... = #peterboghossian​ #criticalracetheory​ #criticalthinking​

Part 1 of 3. The Truth About JFK. The Michael Medved Show.  Visit Michael Medveds history website at http://www.medvedhistorystore.com/ These courses can be a bit expensive but worth it. All of the Michael Medved History Series are highly recommended by ACU.    November 22, 1963 remains one of the darkest days in American history; comparably traumatic, for those who lived through it, to the terrorist slaughter of September 11, 2001. The sheer senseless of John F. Kennedy's assassination made his sudden death especially horrifying and the unanswered questions swirling around the tragedy have denied the nation the sense of closure and comprehension that this disaster demands. Assuming that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered the president (as all responsible historians do) why did he do it? Was Oswald's own murder by Jack Ruby a terrible coincidence or an indication of a wider conspiracy? Why do a majority of Americans to this day remain convinced that Oswald didn't act alone? And, most intriguingly, how might a second term have altered the nation's history if JFK had escaped death and won re-election in 1964? In this special history program, Michael Medved speaks with authors of some of the most important new books on the assassination and the Kennedy presidency, including Jeff Greenfield, Robert Dallek, Peter Savodnik and others. He also provides a brisk, comprehensive summary of the indisputable facts of JFK's biography and the tragic hours in Dallas that claimed his life at age 46. Throughout this comprehensive program (with four hours prepared for broadcast, instead of the usual three), Michael stresses five aspects of Kennedy's life (and death) that most Americans misunderstand. 1) His status as an underdog outsider "fighting against the establishment" 2) His youthful vigor, robust fitness and athleticism 3) His visionary "idealism" 4) His character and good judgment and 5) His death as a martyr to a noble cause. The "truth about JFK" turns out to be more complex and fascinating than air-brushed nostalgia and misleading arguments regular promoted by mainstream media.   There are four unique sections and the first one features: -Frank Sinatra singing Kennedy's campaign song "High Hopes" -Kennedy's closing statement at first debate with Nixon -movie trailer for "PT109" which featured Kennedy's war story -A clip from Kennedy's "New Frontier" speech  The second section includes: Jeff Greenfield, author of If Kennedy Lived and Camelot's Court: Inside the Kennedy White House by Robert Dallek.  The third section is a conversation with A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination by Philip Shenon and The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union by Peter Savodnik And the final section: The Kennedy Half-Century: The Presidency, Assassination, and Lasting Legacy of John F. Kennedy by Larry J. Sabato  and End of Days: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy by James L. Swanson Additional Resource: The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour M. Hersh   Total Run Time: 2hrs, 25min Available on CD and audio download   Visit Michael Medveds history website at http://www.medvedhistorystore.com/ These courses can be a bit expensive but worth it. All of the Michael Medved History Series are highly recommended by ACU. 

Part 2 of 3. The Truth About JFK. The Michael Medved Show. Visit Michael Medveds history website at http://www.medvedhistorystore.com/ These courses can be a bit expensive but worth it. All of the Michael Medved History Series are highly recommended by ACU.    November 22, 1963 remains one of the darkest days in American history; comparably traumatic, for those who lived through it, to the terrorist slaughter of September 11, 2001. The sheer senseless of John F. Kennedy's assassination made his sudden death especially horrifying and the unanswered questions swirling around the tragedy have denied the nation the sense of closure and comprehension that this disaster demands. Assuming that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered the president (as all responsible historians do) why did he do it? Was Oswald's own murder by Jack Ruby a terrible coincidence or an indication of a wider conspiracy? Why do a majority of Americans to this day remain convinced that Oswald didn't act alone? And, most intriguingly, how might a second term have altered the nation's history if JFK had escaped death and won re-election in 1964? In this special history program, Michael Medved speaks with authors of some of the most important new books on the assassination and the Kennedy presidency, including Jeff Greenfield, Robert Dallek, Peter Savodnik and others. He also provides a brisk, comprehensive summary of the indisputable facts of JFK's biography and the tragic hours in Dallas that claimed his life at age 46. Throughout this comprehensive program (with four hours prepared for broadcast, instead of the usual three), Michael stresses five aspects of Kennedy's life (and death) that most Americans misunderstand. 1) His status as an underdog outsider "fighting against the establishment" 2) His youthful vigor, robust fitness and athleticism 3) His visionary "idealism" 4) His character and good judgment and 5) His death as a martyr to a noble cause. The "truth about JFK" turns out to be more complex and fascinating than air-brushed nostalgia and misleading arguments regular promoted by mainstream media.   There are four unique sections and the first one features: -Frank Sinatra singing Kennedy's campaign song "High Hopes" -Kennedy's closing statement at first debate with Nixon -movie trailer for "PT109" which featured Kennedy's war story -A clip from Kennedy's "New Frontier" speech  The second section includes: Jeff Greenfield, author of If Kennedy Lived and Camelot's Court: Inside the Kennedy White House by Robert Dallek.  The third section is a conversation with A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination by Philip Shenon and The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union by Peter Savodnik And the final section: The Kennedy Half-Century: The Presidency, Assassination, and Lasting Legacy of John F. Kennedy by Larry J. Sabato  and End of Days: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy by James L. Swanson Additional Resource: The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour M. Hersh   The full JFK program- Total Run Time: 2hrs, 25min Available on CD and audio download   Visit Michael Medveds history website at http://www.medvedhistorystore.com/ These courses can be a bit expensive but worth it. All of the Michael Medved History Series are highly recommended by ACU. 

Part 3 of 3. The Truth About JFK. The Michael Medved Show. Visit Michael Medveds history website at http://www.medvedhistorystore.com/ These courses can be a bit expensive but worth it. All of the Michael Medved History Series are highly recommended by ACU.    November 22, 1963 remains one of the darkest days in American history; comparably traumatic, for those who lived through it, to the terrorist slaughter of September 11, 2001. The sheer senseless of John F. Kennedy's assassination made his sudden death especially horrifying and the unanswered questions swirling around the tragedy have denied the nation the sense of closure and comprehension that this disaster demands. Assuming that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered the president (as all responsible historians do) why did he do it? Was Oswald's own murder by Jack Ruby a terrible coincidence or an indication of a wider conspiracy? Why do a majority of Americans to this day remain convinced that Oswald didn't act alone? And, most intriguingly, how might a second term have altered the nation's history if JFK had escaped death and won re-election in 1964? In this special history program, Michael Medved speaks with authors of some of the most important new books on the assassination and the Kennedy presidency, including Jeff Greenfield, Robert Dallek, Peter Savodnik and others. He also provides a brisk, comprehensive summary of the indisputable facts of JFK's biography and the tragic hours in Dallas that claimed his life at age 46. Throughout this comprehensive program (with four hours prepared for broadcast, instead of the usual three), Michael stresses five aspects of Kennedy's life (and death) that most Americans misunderstand. 1) His status as an underdog outsider "fighting against the establishment" 2) His youthful vigor, robust fitness and athleticism 3) His visionary "idealism" 4) His character and good judgment and 5) His death as a martyr to a noble cause. The "truth about JFK" turns out to be more complex and fascinating than air-brushed nostalgia and misleading arguments regular promoted by mainstream media.   There are four unique sections and the first one features: -Frank Sinatra singing Kennedy's campaign song "High Hopes" -Kennedy's closing statement at first debate with Nixon -movie trailer for "PT109" which featured Kennedy's war story -A clip from Kennedy's "New Frontier" speech  The second section includes: Jeff Greenfield, author of If Kennedy Lived and Camelot's Court: Inside the Kennedy White House by Robert Dallek.  The third section is a conversation with A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination by Philip Shenon and The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union by Peter Savodnik And the final section: The Kennedy Half-Century: The Presidency, Assassination, and Lasting Legacy of John F. Kennedy by Larry J. Sabato  and End of Days: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy by James L. Swanson Additional Resource: The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour M. Hersh   Total Run Time: 2hrs, 25min Available on CD and audio download   Visit Michael Medveds history website at http://www.medvedhistorystore.com/ These courses can be a bit expensive but worth it. All of the Michael Medved History Series are highly recommended by ACU. 

For many people, the most important questions about the Kennedy assassination are “Who killed Kennedy?” and, if Lee Harvey Oswald did, “Was Oswald part of a conspiracy?” This is strange, because we know the answers to both questions: Oswald killed Kennedy and he did so alone. These facts won’t keep people from speculating–everyone loves a mystery–but they might allow us to focus on more pertinent questions about what happened on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. One such question is this: “Why did Oswald do it?” Obviously, the answer will not be straightforward. Assassinating the President of the United States is, well, not really something a rational person would attempt, so we should not expect a completely rational explanation. Oswald was not crazy, but he was doubtless mentally ill. He had “reasons” for killing the president; it’s just that his “reasons” are not going to make much sense to us. To comprehend why he did what he did, then, we must comprehend how his “reasons” made sense to him. In his insightful, well-researched book The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union (Basic Books, 2013), Peter Savodnik helps us do just this by investigating Oswald’s decision to defect to, live in, and ultimately abandon the Soviet Union. He convincingly argues that Oswald’s Soviet Period was part of a larger pattern, one that dominated his entire life: that of taking on and abandoning identities, always unsuccessfully. Even as a child (and, as Peter points out, Oswald had a horrific childhood), “Lee” never really “fit.” He could never find a group of people he could rely on, a social context in which he could thrive, a community that would respect him. As he matured, he began to search for an identity–in politics, in the Marines, and in the Soviet Union. Yet he was always, as Peter says, an “interloper”: he never lasted long in the skin of any given “Lee.” To this reader, the fact that Oswald was essentially an interloper goes a long way in explaining why he murdered Kennedy. It was his last attempt to fit in, to establish who he really was, to find an identity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For many people, the most important questions about the Kennedy assassination are “Who killed Kennedy?” and, if Lee Harvey Oswald did, “Was Oswald part of a conspiracy?” This is strange, because we know the answers to both questions: Oswald killed Kennedy and he did so alone. These facts won’t keep people from speculating–everyone loves a mystery–but they might allow us to focus on more pertinent questions about what happened on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. One such question is this: “Why did Oswald do it?” Obviously, the answer will not be straightforward. Assassinating the President of the United States is, well, not really something a rational person would attempt, so we should not expect a completely rational explanation. Oswald was not crazy, but he was doubtless mentally ill. He had “reasons” for killing the president; it’s just that his “reasons” are not going to make much sense to us. To comprehend why he did what he did, then, we must comprehend how his “reasons” made sense to him. In his insightful, well-researched book The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union (Basic Books, 2013), Peter Savodnik helps us do just this by investigating Oswald’s decision to defect to, live in, and ultimately abandon the Soviet Union. He convincingly argues that Oswald’s Soviet Period was part of a larger pattern, one that dominated his entire life: that of taking on and abandoning identities, always unsuccessfully. Even as a child (and, as Peter points out, Oswald had a horrific childhood), “Lee” never really “fit.” He could never find a group of people he could rely on, a social context in which he could thrive, a community that would respect him. As he matured, he began to search for an identity–in politics, in the Marines, and in the Soviet Union. Yet he was always, as Peter says, an “interloper”: he never lasted long in the skin of any given “Lee.” To this reader, the fact that Oswald was essentially an interloper goes a long way in explaining why he murdered Kennedy. It was his last attempt to fit in, to establish who he really was, to find an identity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For many people, the most important questions about the Kennedy assassination are “Who killed Kennedy?” and, if Lee Harvey Oswald did, “Was Oswald part of a conspiracy?” This is strange, because we know the answers to both questions: Oswald killed Kennedy and he did so alone. These facts won’t keep people from speculating–everyone loves a mystery–but they might allow us to focus on more pertinent questions about what happened on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. One such question is this: “Why did Oswald do it?” Obviously, the answer will not be straightforward. Assassinating the President of the United States is, well, not really something a rational person would attempt, so we should not expect a completely rational explanation. Oswald was not crazy, but he was doubtless mentally ill. He had “reasons” for killing the president; it’s just that his “reasons” are not going to make much sense to us. To comprehend why he did what he did, then, we must comprehend how his “reasons” made sense to him. In his insightful, well-researched book The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union (Basic Books, 2013), Peter Savodnik helps us do just this by investigating Oswald’s decision to defect to, live in, and ultimately abandon the Soviet Union. He convincingly argues that Oswald’s Soviet Period was part of a larger pattern, one that dominated his entire life: that of taking on and abandoning identities, always unsuccessfully. Even as a child (and, as Peter points out, Oswald had a horrific childhood), “Lee” never really “fit.” He could never find a group of people he could rely on, a social context in which he could thrive, a community that would respect him. As he matured, he began to search for an identity–in politics, in the Marines, and in the Soviet Union. Yet he was always, as Peter says, an “interloper”: he never lasted long in the skin of any given “Lee.” To this reader, the fact that Oswald was essentially an interloper goes a long way in explaining why he murdered Kennedy. It was his last attempt to fit in, to establish who he really was, to find an identity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For many people, the most important questions about the Kennedy assassination are “Who killed Kennedy?” and, if Lee Harvey Oswald did, “Was Oswald part of a conspiracy?” This is strange, because we know the answers to both questions: Oswald killed Kennedy and he did so alone. These facts won’t keep people from speculating–everyone loves a mystery–but they might allow us to focus on more pertinent questions about what happened on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. One such question is this: “Why did Oswald do it?” Obviously, the answer will not be straightforward. Assassinating the President of the United States is, well, not really something a rational person would attempt, so we should not expect a completely rational explanation. Oswald was not crazy, but he was doubtless mentally ill. He had “reasons” for killing the president; it’s just that his “reasons” are not going to make much sense to us. To comprehend why he did what he did, then, we must comprehend how his “reasons” made sense to him. In his insightful, well-researched book The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union (Basic Books, 2013), Peter Savodnik helps us do just this by investigating Oswald’s decision to defect to, live in, and ultimately abandon the Soviet Union. He convincingly argues that Oswald’s Soviet Period was part of a larger pattern, one that dominated his entire life: that of taking on and abandoning identities, always unsuccessfully. Even as a child (and, as Peter points out, Oswald had a horrific childhood), “Lee” never really “fit.” He could never find a group of people he could rely on, a social context in which he could thrive, a community that would respect him. As he matured, he began to search for an identity–in politics, in the Marines, and in the Soviet Union. Yet he was always, as Peter says, an “interloper”: he never lasted long in the skin of any given “Lee.” To this reader, the fact that Oswald was essentially an interloper goes a long way in explaining why he murdered Kennedy. It was his last attempt to fit in, to establish who he really was, to find an identity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For many people, the most important questions about the Kennedy assassination are “Who killed Kennedy?” and, if Lee Harvey Oswald did, “Was Oswald part of a conspiracy?” This is strange, because we know the answers to both questions: Oswald killed Kennedy and he did so alone. These facts won’t keep... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices