Podcasts about reactionaries

The last days before the Great Hunt.Book 3 in 18 parts, By FinalStand. Listen to the ► Podcast at Explicit Novels.“Can the scorpion ever stop being a scorpion? “"Do we get our legally permitted weaponry back?" The bishop still held my hand."Sure. If it makes you feel better.""I would like to meet your people then," he gave my paw one last shake then released me. "Shall we go?""I will have someone take you to your car. I want to briefly meet with the President, of Havenstone, then I'll join you in the garage. We'll drive over to JIKIT and I'll make the introductions. Good enough?""That is acceptable," he nodded."What about you two?" I regarded the nun and the Swiss Super-soldier. The nun remained vigilant, and silent. The Swiss' eyes flickered to his boss before settling back on me."It is what I volunteered for," he stated firmly."Okay. Please never say I didn't give you a chance to take the sane way out. Also, Bishop Nicolö, circumstances have conspired to up my prospective wedding date to January 1st.""That will be more difficult. Why the change?" he remained grim."We are having twins. By March, this will be very visible.""That is, unfortunate," he shook his head."You have no idea," and then a brainstorm. "And I am curious about resurrecting the Order of the Dragon, the Societas Draconistarum." Technically that meant 'Society of the Dragonists' which was more appropriate than the literal Ordo Draconis."Precisely how do you plan to recreate a crusading Christian Order which was the purview of the Hungarian monarchs?" he didn't sound the least skeptical, just curious."I have billions of euros to fund such a thing," I winked. "Of far greater critical importance, I know where I can find the supernatural guidance and spiritual imperative for such an organization.""You are going to produce a dragon?" his eyes grew larger even as he fought down his fear. Good man. He was adaptive. He'd need to be."I never said such a thing. That would make me sound crazy," I smiled broadly. "Besides, when I say 'dragon', you think 'devil' and that's way too pedestrian for where we are going.""I am not a moral relativist.""Neither am I. I'm out to save lives and nurture the drive in the human spirit to reach for freedom, love and liberty. As you might imagine, I'm pretty freaking outnumbered.""I think you are crazy," he re-evaluated things."I just might be. In all honesty, you should back out now. Take your two compadres back to 25 East 39th Street (the Holy See's Permanent Observer Offices to the UN in NYC) and report 'Mission Failure'. You'll most likely live longer," I reasoned."I am not afraid to die," Sister Rafaela Sophia finally voiced an opinion."That's idiotic," I scoffed before the bishop could reprimand her for opening her mouth. "You should be.""My soul is in God's hands," she set her jaw."Does he talk to you?" I countered."His message is clear.""Not what I asked. I asked if he specifically directed you to toss your life fruitlessly away as an object lesson for the reckless, or careless?""This is uncalled for," Nicolö intervened."Nope. I bet you a phone call to my Brother to physically restore your bishopric that there are four people in this room who have murdered in cold blood," I kept eye contact with the nun, "and she's the odd one out. Right Juanita?""Yes, Ishara," Juanita slipped up. Her spycraft, like mine, needed work."You were in the military?" the bishop asked my bodyguard."Was? I am. Right now," she related. "I will be until I die."That earned me looks from the three Catholics."She is loyal," Nicolö nodded slightly toward her, referring to Juanita's declaration."Huh? To me? Nope. She's loyal to my office, which we shan't get into right now. Back to you, Sister Rafaela Sophia. Are you out to be a martyr, or has some saint, or angel, given you a directive the other two seem to be unaware of which causes you to devalue your life?""I am devoted to the One True God, Christ, our Savior," and Juanita snorted, "and the Virgin Mary," the nun stated firmly. "I don't hear voices in my head.""Juanita, that was rude. Apologize to our guest," I kept looking forward."No." Well, fuck you too."Gun," I commanded. I held out my left hand."What? No. I will not give you one of my guns," she resisted."Juanita, give me your primary weapon, or I will ask Pamela to beat you up the moment I depart for the Great Hunt. After yesterday's stunt, you know she will," I threatened. Fair, I was not. She drew a Glock-20 and handed it to me. I went through the routine, dropped the magazine then ejected the round before opening the door.Oh look, there were four SD chicks outside, ready to escort my visitors downstairs. I didn't even need to waste a phone call. It wasn't like the conference room wasn't being monitored."Excuse me," I took a half step out the door then hurled all three items down the hall. Looking back at Juanita. "Go fetch.""Fuck you," she snapped."And insulting her faith was as degrading to both her faith and her as me doing this to you is degrading to you right now," I lectured her. "It is important to her, therefore it is important to me because she is my guest in the same way it is important to me that I let my bodyguard do her job without being a total asshole all the time. Now go get your God-damn weapon," I barked. Off she went. I left the door open."Now Sister Rafaela Sophia, the point of all this is: I don't give a crap if you are willing to die for God. In fact, that makes you less than worthless to me and the team. I want to know if you are willing to put other motherfuckers in the ground so that Bishop Nicolá, or Mathias, might get to keep doing their jobs.""Murder is a sin," she declared."Go home," I sighed while shaking my head."She answers to me, the Church and God, not you, Mr. Nyilas," the bishop stepped forward."Then you can go home too," I shrugged. "I'm not asking for remorseless killers. I'm asking for people willing to kill to get the hard work done and best of all, for people who know the difference.""Everyone on JIKIT is a professional soldier, or killer?" he asked."No, but the ones who aren't don't carry guns and know to get down when things get funky," I bantered."I vouch for her," he insisted. Juanita came running back into the room."Cool beans. I don't know you either.""You apparently know my service history," he volleyed."Yeah. Ten years a foreigner in the service of France, then you went straight into a university which turns out Jesuits," I riposted."What turned your life around?" he evaded. That was okay. I'd gotten what I wanted. I was willing to bet he had read every bit of public information about me and it was rumored the heavy Catholic membership in the FBI had its benefits to the Church as well. Not so much as to give them insight into JIKIT, but,"Someone risked their life for me. It's been pretty much downhill from there," I confessed. It was the truth. After Katrina gave me the life line on Day Two, it had all spiraled to the revelation of my heritage, Dad's death, Summer Camp, the Hamptons, Romania and Aya's kidnapping."A person, a soldier, died saving my life," the bishop empathized. "Her story is similar. She seeks redemption. She is not suicidal. I am staking both our lives on it."Did he mean him and Mathias, or him and me? I wasn't certain. Still, it was good enough for now. I'd gotten a look at their emotional make up, even the relatively quiet Swiss."Very well," I agreed. "I have to go see the President about my new job description. I'll catch up with you at your car." To the SD team leader, "Take them to the garage. I will join the group of you very soon.""Yes Ishara," she nodded. I exited the room, Juanita in tow. Two SD entered. I was gone before the Papal team left. Upstairs we went, with one last chore to discharge. I had to check on Ms. French to be absolutely freaking sure it was Shawnee, because anyone else would spell disaster.{8:30 am, Monday, September 8th. Last day}A Room full of asistants:Well, there it was, the office of the Executive Director to the President, and not 'Executive Assistant', because this was Katrina's final 'fuck you, no, just her final 'fuck you' before the Great Hunt got underway. I shouldn't assume things, dang it!Anyway, according to the gray-haired matron running gatekeeper to the Office of the President, this was where I was supposed to show up. I shot Juanita a worried look. She glanced my way and shrugged, momentarily willing to not give me shit about the past 24 hours because where I was situated would determine how easily she could do her job.In we went. In the suite were three desks, the 'big' desk situated at the far end of the office space and two far more modest ones on either side of the entryway. The room expanded beyond the chokepoint formed by the two closest desks into a cluttered area. The walls were cluttered with inset bookshelves and portraits of women. Facing one another were a loveseat on my left with bookend plush chairs in an 'L' facing and a full sofa on the right. There were end tables at the ends of the sofa and the corners between the loveseat and each chair.As the door opened, I hadn't knock as this was my office, or so it seemed, the occupants, who had all been sitting in quiet conversation in the central section, began reacting. Oh look ~ Constanza! I nearly had a heart attack before I realized there were three other Amazons also in the room. Sadly, none were behind the 'big desk', so I couldn't tell who was in charge. Two of the other three choices weren't too much better. First off,"Ishara," Marilynn Saint John stood to greet me. I'd last seen her when I'd dedicated her grandmother's (Hayden's) spirit to the halls of my ancestors, not hers, after forcing the political crisis leading to Hayden's suicide ~ her taking herself to the cliffs and in doing so, destroying the Amazon Cult of Blood Purity. Marilynne was clearly still bitter with me. Umm, I could still incite passion in women I hadn't slept with, yet, woot?"Cáel," the senior-most and only friendly face in the room spoke next. Thank goodness it was Beyoncé Vincennes, Head of House Hanwasuit and House Ishara ally."Cáel Ishara," the third individual was deferential which I wasn't sure how to take as the last time I'd encountered her, yeah, things hadn't gone well either."Beyoncé," I started off with a smile. From there, I had to figure out, ah, Beyoncé's eyes flickered to Constanza then Sabia. I knew Marilynn, with her young age, had the least seniority, "Constanza, Sabia, Marilynn. How's tricks?"Glum faces by everyone except Beyoncé. I didn't ask about Sabia's particular well-being. It had been months since I'd beaten her into the mats of the Full-blooded gym. She'd attacked Yasmin, the Brazilian Hottie and my Brazilian Jujutsu sparring buddy, and I'd retaliated by ambushed her when she turned her back on us. Besides, she'd been giving me shit before I even could see straight.Constanza was minus her left eye because of her dire insult to me. If she wasn't capable of working, she wouldn't be here. If she appreciated my 'mercy' in sparing her life ~ her insult was worthy of her death ~ Constanza hid it well. I hadn't spared her expecting a change of heart. I hadn't felt words alone warranted anyone's death. I was a big boy and could take a few insults. House Ishara, as represented by me, could care less. These days, my sisters would be less understanding despite them knowing my heart."Constanza Landau of House Jaya and Marilynn Saint John of House Anahit are Assistants to President Shawnee French," Beyoncé eased things along, "so will be working closely with us, at least for the short term. Sabia Noel of House Guabancex, who I now think you know as well, has joined you as the other 'Assistant' to the 'Executive Director to the President', (that would make me an 'adept', but adept at what?), and since two of the three Regents are unfamiliar with the workings of Havenstone proper, Shawnee has asked me to perform in that role."Beyoncé was, or had been, Havenstone HQ's CFO (Chief Financial Officer). From what I was quickly piecing together, she would essentially be making all the day-to-day decisions concerning the running of Havenstone (how the Host made the majority of its money) until the Regents got up to speed.Only Buffy had actual experience with the New York office and, from what she had told me, solely within Executive Services. While ES knew 'who' did what inside Havenstone, they weren't aware precisely how those Amazons got their jobs done. That would have been an impossible task. Katrina could do it, but she knew it was beyond the ability of most of us 'mere mortals'. Since we were currently at war, the Host needed Katrina completely focused on her duties as Chief Spy-mistress, not baby-sitting the adults.Shawnee indeed had much gravitas among the other House Heads. Not only had she risen up to lead a First House, she had performed heroically during the final days of the last Secret War. Afterwards she had moved into the realm of Amazon jurisprudence and mediation. Until yesterday, she had lived in a House Arinniti freehold in Minnesota's Great Lakes region thus her desire for the 'Training Wheels' period.The Regency would not rule through telecommunication (the upper echelons feared being eavesdropped upon beyond the standard Amazon (read: paranoid) levels) and Havenstone: New York was the center best situated for the current war-fighting operations, so here she lived. I was sure a team from Executive Services was buying, outfitting/spy-proofing and fortifying a dwelling suitable for the President of a Fortune 500 company. Hayden's home would remain the domicile of Sydney thus Marilynn.The same rigmarole would be done for Rhada and Buffy (though I imaged Buffy would bitch endlessly). Publically, they were VP's of a company worth hundreds of billions of dollars and they had to present the public trappings of such leaders.Why did the Amazons do this ~ unmask their leadership to public exposure? Legal-simple: they could request and expect all levels of public and private security for their executives who happened to also be important officials of the Host. Certainly not all executives at Havenstone were officeholders, House Heads, or House Apprentices, but the high level of competence which permitted one often led to the other.Beyonce:As an example: Beyoncé wasn't the most 'bad-ass' lethal chick in House Hanwasuit. As she was preparing to be casted, her intelligence, creativity and diligence at her future craft, finances, was noted by the Host and the members of her House. In due time her name was circulated as Apprentice and the elders approved. When her elder cousin, the prior House Head, took herself to the cliffs, Beyoncé assumed the top spot. Beyoncé wasn't even one of that woman's three daughters.Mirroring her advancement in her House was her advancement in Havenstone's Accounting, Acquisitions and Banking Divisions until she was appointed CFO Havenstone HQ ~ the supreme financial authority inside Havenstone, though the individual regional branches had a greater degree of autonomy than you might normally expect from a 21st century conglomerate, or a Bronze Age autocracy.I had to constantly remind myself, despite the near-constant feuding, Amazons exhibited a phenomenally higher level of trust than I'd ever found in any other society I'd ever witnessed, or read about, before. Though technically Beyoncé could have gone to President Hayden to enforce her decisions ~ or now the Regency ~ she was far more diplomatic in her approach in dealing with the other 'continental' CEO's and CFO's.That meant she had to wrangle the aspirations and resources from:North America (including Latin America, the 'Canadian Arctic' and the North Pacific Ocean),South America (includes both the South Atlantic and South Pacific as far as Samoa),Europe (mostly Central Europe these days plus Antarctica, the 'Russian' Arctic and the North Atlantic),Africa (mostly West-central Africa),India (the subcontinent plus the vast expanse of the Indian Ocean) and,Southeast Asia (which includes Australia)All of which suggested Havenstone hadn't redrawn the Amazons' geographic demarcations since the late 19th century. As an example, an East African venture, say in Tanzania, was as likely to be under the purview of Havenstone: India (due to its control over the Indian Ocean) as Havenstone: Africa (which traditionally had no East Coast holdings due to their constant struggles versus the Arabic slave trade).Returning to Beyoncé: initially she had held the proper 'conservative' (aka man-hating) mindset. My behavior during that first Board Meeting began to change her opinion of me and the New Directive. After the Archery Range incident, Beyoncé became a vocal proponent of the New Directive and faced challenges within her ranks. House Heads do not have to accept challenges and Beyoncé didn't, reasoning with her detractors they had no alternatives save the 'Old Ways' which spelled doom for the Amazon Race.Bing-bang-boom ~ I became the Head of a resurrected House Ishara by the Will of the Ancestors and Beyoncé was vindicated. Not necessarily in the New Directive, but in her support of me thus the rebirth of a sister First House. The purge following High Priestess' Hayden's death was her ultimate absolution. The Ancestors and Destiny had spoken and shown Beyoncé had been piloting House Hanwasuit along the proper course all along.Back to my current circumstances:Oh, why was I Assistant to the Executive Director to the President? It gave me direct access to the finances of Havenstone which was a critical leg of the war-fighting stool ~ people, morale, money and equipment. As Chief Diplomat, I helped with all four of those in varying degrees, allied troops, allied victories, allied bank accounts and allied armaments.The Great Khan, my spiritual 'Blood-Brother', was ramping up his logistic support for my Amazons in Africa, Asia and the Americas. We were 'Allies in the Struggle' and he wasn't going to wait for the Condottieri to begin coordinating with the Seven Pillars to declare them to be his enemies. They were already fighting the Amazons and 9 Clans, his allies, so their fates were sealed.In Japan, my Amazons provided small yet highly effective strike groups which the Ninja families furnished all the support services for. Everything from food to bullets to medical attention as needed. Without reservation, we shared their death-grapple with the Seven Pillars.From the dispatches I was getting back from my family members and envoys in Japan, we were making serious diplomatic inroads with the Ninja. Once again, it was the Amazons shocking capacity for violence as well as their fanaticism, professionalism and proficiency which all impressed our hosts and terrified our enemies, and this from people of a philosophical mindset which had them historically battling samurai.The Black Lotus were running around like rhesus monkeys on crack cocaine unleashed in a China Shop and given RPG's. While the Amazons couldn't help them in China, Indochina & Thailand ~ the Khanate could and was. The Amazons were of more help in the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, where the Black Lotus and Amazons were going everywhere on the offensive against the Seven Pillars while the normal tight cohesion and iron-clad confidence, traits which made the 7P's so dangerous ~ were shaken by their horrendous losses in the 'Homeland' aka Mainland China.Less we forget, the 'military intelligence' wing of their organization had been decimated by the Khanate's Anthrax attack due to members of the Earth & Sky sacrificing themselves by being injected with the toxin then allowing themselves to be captured, which always ended in torture and death.Furthermore, the People's Republic of China, while having a scary 18% of the population either captured, imprisoned, dead, or displaced due to the Khanate invasion, that had come with the loss of 63% of their landmass (they had lost all of Nei Mongol, Ningxia & Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Regions, Qinghai and Gansu as well as 90% of Yunnan, 80% of Sichuan and 20% of Shaanxi provinces) to the Khanate and the 'abomination' that was a free Tibet.Then came the Russian 'stab in the back' which entailed the loss of another 10% of their people falling under foreign dominion as well as losing 8% of their most industrialized territory, Manchuria (Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning provinces ~ the Nei Mongol portion of 'Manchuria' was in the Khanate's greedy clutches, from the viewpoint of a Seven P's warrior).Don't get me wrong, they weren't about to throw in the towel. If anything, they were becoming more dedicated to trying harder, digging deep into their knowledge of every atrocity, inhumanity and perversion now deemed necessary to re-chart history back onto its 'correct' path. It was this willingness to act in an even greater sociopathic manner which was being used against them. After all, the 7P's had plenty of proxy allies, who were starting to get really nervous about what their paymasters were now asking them to do,We Amazons were getting some extra special help too. The Booth-gan (Do not call them Thuggee ~ the confederate 9 Clan member based out of India though long since ensconced within various Hindi enclaves across the Globe) had created an all-female group of ultra-fanatical Kali-devotees ~ a gift for the upcoming battle fomented by the Will of the Goddess herself.While Aya was our Queen and the Regency would rule until she wished to assume command of the Amazon People, the nuts-and-bolts of the Host's activities were handled by Saint Marie as Golden Mare (our Minister of War) (technically she held the top spot due to our State of War, though no Golden Mare had ever exercised such authority over a Queen (and she definitely believed Aya was our Queen)), Katrina (as Minister of Intelligence and Security), Beyoncé (as Havenstone (the multinational corporation) ~ our Treasurer/Economic Tsarina) and me (our Foreign Minister).Saint Marie had decided to forgo a public face in order to better facilitate her moving around to various battle fronts and holding clandestine meetings with her junior regional commanders. Her Havenstone corporate title was 'Chief of Security Training and Certification'. As an extra level of deception, the head of Security Services wasn't even a Director-level position, instead being folded into the duties of the Office of the President.To my current circumstances ~ I had been given Constanza's house name which could only mean she wasn't currently assigned to the Security Detail; a fact that couldn't have made her bad attitude any better. Marilynn had completely lost her way as an Amazon when I first met her, burying her pain and confusion in endless partying and intoxicants. I believed only her grandmother's status as High Priestess kept her from the severest of reprimands, or death. I didn't even know what Marilynn's caste was. Sabia,"While I'm sure you are both far more qualified than I, precisely how did you two get these jobs?" I had to ask my two non-coworkers. Constanza glowered. Marilynn flinched."I have an in depth knowledge of Havenstone security procedures and resources," Constanza replied."Shawnee requested me," was Marilynn's comeback. "I also have intimate knowledge of the City of New York and its environs.""Actually, Buffy Ishara recommended you both to Shawnee," Beyoncé corrected their misconceptions. I knew the score. I'd be working intimately with the tight community around the President (Shawnee) and Vice Presidents (Buffy & Rhada). Buffy wanted me to be surrounded by women who hated my guts, so I wouldn't end up boinking them. It rarely worked that way. All too often ladies who hated my still-beating heart ended up punishing me with sex. I wasn't sure why that happened, but it did."Beyoncé, didn't the Chief Diplomat of the Host have her own office? I'm pretty sure Troika had one before her unfortunate collision with Saint Marie," I felt entitled to inquire."Do you feel you've earned that office space?" she riposted."Oh, fuck no!" I waved my hands one over the other to accentuate my denial. "I was just wondering where I could stick Juanita while I'm hanging around, here.""She has the desk right outside the door, Cáel," Beyoncé smiled knowingly. "So there is no way you can sneak past her.""Oh," I grunted. "Buffy again?""No. Pamela Pile put in that particular request.""Oh, Sweet Mother of God, now she is conspiring against me too?""Yes. Some of us realize the greatest hazard to your health is yourself, Ishara," Beyoncé chided me. "We'd like to keep you around, so we listen to those charged with that nigh impossible task.""Is she going to be hanging around the office often?" Constanza asked, either myself, Juanita, or Beyoncé; I wasn't sure. She = Pamela."Please, Constanza," I attempted to intervene, "don't make Pamela kill you. It will upset Mona." Constanza's scowl was accentuated by the eyepatch covering her ruined left socket, the one Pamela had carved out when Constanza had insulted me and House Ishara on our first day of rebirth. I didn't tell Juanita this, because Juanita might just shoot Constanza over the insult before Pamela got a chance to finish the job.The tension was palatable."Mona and I have talked, about Romania, and other things," Constanza grudgingly allowed. It took me a second to realize there was a hidden meaning to what she said. Mona was part of my personal Security Detail bodyguard unit. If she felt Constanza, the woman who had raised her after her birth-mother had died, was a threat to me, she'd feel duty-bound to snuff Constanza first. Amazons were hard-ass bitches alright and I think Mona had made that clear."I hope things can improve between us," I offered to Constanza. "Beyoncé, I just stopped in to say 'hey'. I'm off to JIKIT and I've got three of the Pope's people waiting on me in the garage so,""Vice President Varma requested a moment of your time," Beyoncé smirked. "She is in 2604.""Who?""Vice President Rhada Varma, a moment of your time, alone?" she clarified."Sure thing," I backed out of the office. Once I had some space, I turned to Juanita. "Give me three minutes then bust in and say, I don't know, a tsunami is about to overwhelm the city, or something. Otherwise, I won't get out for at least an hour and I think I've put the Bishop and his people through enough delays as it is.""Are you actually asking me to stop you from having an in-office liaison?" she studied me intently as we walked in the direction of Rhada's office."Yes. It's not likely to happen often, believe me.""Oh, I do, in that you won't ask me to do it often," she grumbled. I'd deal with Juanita's morale problem later. Right now, I had to gird my loins so they wouldn't do anything else with Rhada. I had work to do, damn it!Rhada was sitting at her desk, working on something, stylus raised up so she could chew on the end. Her hair was pulled back in a half-ponytail, the type that captured the rear half of the hair in a ponytail while leaving the front and bangs free to flow down. Rhada's blouse was white & billowy and, as I was soon to discover, her pants were ultra-tight and contour hugging."Mr. Nyilas," she greeted me. "I would like a moment of your time," she relayed what I already knew. She was more than a tad nervous to boot."Vice President Varma," I started off."When in private you may call me Rhada," she interrupted."Rhada, you look more ravishing than ever."That got up her and coming around her desk, which revealed her ultra-tight pants with no sign of her wearing underwear. Yikes! My cock was preparing to do what a cock was meant to do and I just didn't have the time, Really!"Do you have any time?" she let her bosom heave."Not today, ugh," I groaned. See, Rhada took the stylus and dragged it down her chin, throat and in between her bountiful mounds.All of which exposed the top of her black bra."Are you sure, Master?" she enticed me by turning around and then leaning over her desk, point that ass in my direction. My mouth began salivating and my groin ached. I found myself quick-stepping to her and giving those buttocks two firm slaps, one on each cheek."No, damn it, though I'm going to make you pay for this when I get back," I rumbled."Master will make me wait?" she taunted me."That will cost you even more," I growled. "I have business which simply won't wait and here is my captive teasing me with the treasures of her flesh. Bad, war captive," I spanked her yet again, hard. "Bad!" and I spanked her a fourth time. With each beating, Rhada gasped in pain and then exhaled in pleasure."If I've been bad, Master must be extra harsh with me when he returns in triumph from the Great Hunt," she gloated. Rhada had gotten what she wanted, which was another affirmation of my lust for her and our 'game'. I could provide her the release she so desperately craved while allowing her the safety of remaining in the Amazon fold. It was a perfect pairing, for her.I had other problems, such as all the other baby mamas in my life plus the extra-marital affairs I was contemplating. I still took the moments we had to snuggle with Rhada, her grinding that tush into my rod while I held both her arms tightly to her side while raining kisses down onto her neck and head."Sir! A giant tsunami is approaching the city!" Juanita exploded through the door."What?" I coughed. I had a face full of hair."Huh?" Rhada pushed up and away from me. I let her go."Right now," Juanita insisted. She really needed to stop taking me so seriously when I gave her such advice."Really?" from Rhada. She shot me a curious look so I shrugged. What else was I supposed to do with such a flimsy lie forcing our separation? At least I got out of there on time?{9:50 am, Monday, September 8th ~ Last day}(JKIT HQ)"Is this a common occurrence?" Sister Rafaela Sophia whispered to the closest woman, who happened to be Wiesława, the Polish Amazon. Since she hadn't arrived with us from Havenstone, the nun might have assumed she was with the 'Americans', or British."What?" Wiesława responded evenly."Weapons combat, they look real," the nun clarified."They are real. We always practice with real weapons.""Really?""Of course," Wiesława smiled at her. "We believe a few cuts and scrapes now will save lives when the true tests come.""Oh, you are with, Havenstone?" Rafaela clued in."Yes. I am Wiesława of House Živa. I am currently assigned to Unit L, Cáel's unit within JIKIT," she offered her hand to shake. Despite being a full-blooded Amazon from a freehold, her 'human' skills were progressing nicely. The nun shook it."I am Sister Rafaela Sophia of the Handmaids of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, that is a Roman Catholic Religious Order." Pause. "Do you hate Catholics too?""Yes. We have lived beside your people for many centuries and found your clergy to be much more dangerous than your pagan predecessors. Still, Cáel thinks you can be relied on and he's proven we can trust outsider women, which I was raised to believe was unlikely, and outsider men, which was basically anathema, so I'm willing to set aside my prejudices and judge you as an individual," the Pole imparted."Outsider men?" Rafaela mumbled."Well, yes," Wiesława smirked. "You are a nun, right?""Yes.""So you set aside the World of Men to live mostly among women, right?""Not entirely," the nun chose her words carefully. "We still rely on priests for religious rights and of course obey the life teachings of Christ and follow the leadership of his Holiness, the Pope, a man.""No one is perfect," the Amazon bantered back."Do you know the teachings of our Lord, Jesus Christ?" Rafaela ventured into dangerous waters."Yes. He was the semi-historical Son of your supposed One True God. We are not monotheists. We are Polytheists. Živa is my House's matron Goddess. It is also the name of the first woman to lead the House, her birth name surrendered to Destiny so all the daughters who came afterwards would be equals.""Oh, is Mr. Nyilas also pagan?" she inquired."I am unsure. From what I have been told, he has commended the spirit of his fallen father to your Jesus in a sacred ceremony then, in the presence of your Trinity and the Goddess Ishara, brought in new members to his House. I suspect he may be both," Wiesława reasoned. "Why don't you ask him?""Because he's fighting for his life?" Rafaela looked my way.See, the entire time their discussion had been going on, I had been sparring in a spare room at JIKIT HQ with Estere Abed, the Hashashin assassin (rather redundant ~ like saying the Sahara Desert). I had two tomahawks while she had a scimitar and curved dagger. While we sparred using the furniture as obstacles, Agent-86 was briefing me on various World events to get my input.Addison Stuart (CIA) and Lady Fathom Worthington-Burke (MI-6) were having a chat with Bishop Nicolé de Santis, verifying for themselves he was worth adding to the team. Juanita was having a similar discussion with Rikki Martin (US State Department) concerning my earlier encounter with the Papal team. Nicolé's buddy, Wachtmeister Mathias Bosshart of the Swiss Guard, was getting acquainted with the other security personnel.In comparison, those two had it easy. Both men were in their elements. Nicolé was a spook who pretended to be a diplomat for the Pope and was well acquainted with terms like 'deniable assets', 'plausible deniability' and your direct superior referring to requests concerning your identity/diplomatic status by saying 'I never heard of him and if I had, I have no idea what he was doing when you caught him doing what I don't know what he was doing', or something like that.Mathias was in the company of military-security specialists, brother professionals who were introducing him to his 'sister' professionals. Our Homeland Security gang were almost entirely former military by now. They got along with our JSOC folks and both had gained a limited acceptance with the Amazon security contingent.They bonded over the fact they were forced to work with really shady characters ~ the 9 Clans menagerie ~ who didn't always appreciate JIKIT operational security. Without going into particulars, the Wachtmeister was given the impression the abnormal was the norm and if you didn't think there was a 'down-side' to being able to carry your personally favorite bang-bang (the SG 552-2P Commando in his case) with some serious attachments (read: grenade launcher) around in downtown Manhattan, you probably didn't belong on this team.Back in the room,"He's not fighting for his life," Estere laughed. "He is fighting for mine.""Right," I responded sarcastically. We went through a flurry of exchanges, ending up with me kicking a chair at her. Estere stepped over it, colliding with me.I blocked her dagger, disarmed her scimitar and,"You are dead," she panted down at me, smiling. I was on my back, her straddling me. She had a belt-knife to my throat. I hadn't see her draw it. The scimitar 'disarm' had been a distraction."Woot!" I exhaled."But you're dead," Sister Rafaela misunderstood my good humor."He survived a minute and thirty-four seconds more today than his previous record," Estere responded. She slithered off of me, doing my arousal no good whatsoever, then offered me a hand up."And that's better?""He's a rank amateur with a few months on the job. I've been training to kill people for nearly two decades," Estere smiled. "Care to have a go?""With him, or you?""Either," Estere offered."I don't have a knife, or any hand weapons," she stated."We'll need to remedy that," Wiesława stated. "You should at least carry a knife.""Really? Why?""It is a nearly universal tool," I verbally stepped up. "Even if you are disarmed, you should be able to find one relatively easily, people are less likely to miss a stolen knife than a purloined gun, and a concealed blade could come in handy.""Do you train in knife-work?" Rafaela eye-balled me."Absolutely. It is part of my culture," I grinned."Okay. Can we spar, hand-to-hand?""Sure," I nodded. I put my tomahawks in their harnesses then put my harnesses aside. Estere gave me a wink before giving us the fighting space."So," Rafaela began to circle, "are you Christian?""By your definition, or mine?""By the definition of the Catholic Church."Oh cool, she went for a Savate stance. This was going to get ugly.My "no," was followed by her kick and my block, lunge and grapple. She wasn't nearly as good as Felix. I had her down and in a choke hold within fifteen seconds.Perhaps she thought I'd take it easy on her. She tapped out. I released her, retreated and flowed back to my boxing stance. It took her a moment to realize this was 'practice', not 'an interview'. She hadn't failed in anyone's eyes. We were both doing this to get better."See, I really, truly believe I have talked to supernatural entities ~ some who are considered divinities," I continued. This time she was more careful, trading jabs and blocks with me. "They don't claim to be the One True God. I believe in such a thing, but I also believe having been given the Message, Humanity has been left to muddle things out for ourselves."Whoops, she popped me one."The Woman-Thing this morning?""Yep," I evaded another flurry. She got cocky and I landed three blows, dropping her to the ground. I didn't help her up. Instead, I withdrew and let her get back up on her own before deciding if she wanted to continue. She did."I believe I've seen dragons and ghosts. I have felt legions of my ancestors give me quiet encouragement when I needed it. I know the dead have been brought back to life," I came at her. This time we both went for body blows, knees, elbows and fists. She was not SD-caliber and she needed to be. I grappled and she was forced to tap out again. After she regained her feet, she held up a hand for a pause."Do you believe any of that?" she addressed Estere."I am an adherent of Ismaili Islam yet nothing Cáel has encountered is contrary to my belief system. The Universe is a complex place and the Divine Light is often seen through a fractured lenses," she counseled the nun."Among the escapees were lawyer Francisco Luemba, Catholic Priest Raul Tati, economist Belchior Lanso Tati and former policeman Benjamin Fuca who are serving jail sentences of between three and six years each for supposed links to the rebel group FLEC (Frente para a Libertaé'o do Enclave de Cabinda), which carried out the attack on the Togolese football team at the start of the Africa Cup of Nations in January, 2010," Agent-86 read off yet another bit of global minutia."We need to get to them," I half turned. Sister Rafaela punched me in the gut and I folded up."Oh!" she gasped. "I'm sorry.""Okay," I mumbled. I had to keep with the plan. "Those men. We need to contact our Coils people in Kinshasa and the Warden of the Mountain Ways ('she' was the Amazon Host's leader of Africa ~ in the ancient times, the mountain ways had been the routes of southern vulnerability for the Amazon tribe thus the name).""Okay," both Agent-86 and Estere answered."Why?" 86 added."The Coils and the Host have had a serious problem with no nation in Africa giving them even back room recognition so we are going to take over our own country, Cabinda. It's been struggling to be free of Angola since 1975 and, by latest estimates, we've got strike elements of over 2,000 Amazons ready and waiting next door in Cameroon, Gabon and the Republic of Congo.""So you are going to go to war with Angola?" Estere frowned. "Don't we have enough enemies?""Au contraire," I grinned wickedly. "The resistance movement is genuine," I ticked off my points, "they have tons of offshore oil, and after we set off some spectacular explosions in the two main Angolan ports which are just down the coast, we allow global panic to bully the UN into intervening before the Angolan military launch an effective counter-offensive ~ considering the Angolan Armed Forces (I'd been reading up on a ton of CIA & MI-6 briefings) will most likely involve attrition warfare since they can't beat us in a stand-up fight.""They, the Angolans, have no overland access, they are separated by 60 kilometers of territory belonging to the Democratic Republic of Congo over some sad ass roads Plus the Congo River itself which is freaking huge by the time it gets that close to the Atlantic, Cabinda rests on the Atlantic Ocean by the way. No bridges. The Angolan Navy is anemic. Let me think."I began pacing."Hmm, they have no paratroopers though they have some Special Forces, we will need to hit as many of them in the barracks as we can. Their last invasion was from the north, overland, from the Republic of the Congo, in 1975, not likely to happen this time, though I may have my 'Brother' weasel up a battalion of Indian paratroopers to act as convincing peacekeepers after the initial take over.""Perhaps we can recruit some Vietnamese. I'm sure they'll love fighting in someone else's jungle for a change. We'll need some of 'our' guys to seize the port of Soyo, it is on the wrong side of the river, but has the major refinery the Cabindans will need. Since the entire surrounding province are the same ethnic make-up as the Cabindans, we'll have to take that too.""Man-o-man, I bet by the time this is over they'll really wish they'd given little Cabinda independence back in 1975. As for their other refinery, it is in their capital, Luanda, a few big explosions there too will get the markets jittery. Check that ~ the complete and utter destruction of their major petroleum facility will create a stampede for Peace," I continued. I walked over as our resident computer intelligence genius worked his magic."Blowing things up, you mean killing people," the nun blanched."Yes. This is what I do," I spared her a sympathetic glance. "I've got a madman roaming around in my head who provides me truly epic military advice which normally, but not always, means blowing shit up and killing folks. Welcome to the team," then as the data appeared, "Holy Shit! Did they build their oil refinery in the midst of their ghetto?" I was staggered. The refinery in Soyo was isolated from the town so it could be easily (and safely) seized. It was the one in Luanda which was the 'Holy Shit' site."It looks that way," Agent-86 agreed nonplussed. "Hmm, yeah, here is the port facility then your neighborhood of shoddily constructed one- and two-story dwellings between the refinery and the inland storage tanks, the perimeter barrier appears to be a chain link fence. I'd hate to be their Chief of Security.""Oh yeah," I choked. Estere slipped around to get a look."Whoops," she snorted."What are these people thinking?" I continued. "The whole shebang is exposed to the northern quarter of the city. The storage tanks have residential dwellings on all four sides with numerous side streets. Two teams with RPGs and four rounds apiece, Holy Crap. Sorry Sister.""But I want to save lives," she sputtered."Limiting the collateral damage could be pretty tough," Estere frowned. She toggled throw a series of maps to multiple pictures."Oh, look (dripping sarcasm); they light up the refinery at night. You can sit off the coast in a speed boat under cover of darkness and attack from there," she noted."Damn. Those are a lot of lights," Agent-86 agreed."24-7 operation," I suspected."We will need some experts," the government agent nodded."Or we are going to kill a fuck-load of innocent people. Not just the workers, but can you imagine a fire spreading to those neighborhoods? Shit," I muttered."You can't seriously be contemplating doing something like this," the nun sputtered. "It is inhumane. Think of the families, the children.""Lady, yes I am. Do you have any idea what the Human Rights record of the Angolan Army in Cabinda is? It is truly horrific and in case you missed it, one of the guys in dire need of rescuing by me, due to him being a huge rebel leader who has managed to escape, is also a Catholic priest. He's going to be part of the new government we are going to install once we kill a few hundred Angolans ~ mostly soldiers (more like well over a thousand).""We are going to kill a few hundred so a few hundred thousand can live free, democratic lives without worrying about the local police and political establishment torturing and murdering them. It is all part of the plan.""I think I need to talk with the Bishop.""Hang on. Let me finish," I forestalled her. "He'll get briefed along with everyone else. After all, it is a majority Roman Catholic country as is Angola, so I'm sure your guy can be of immense help.""The people you are putting at risk don't deserve this," she protested."They never do," I nodded in agreement with her. "It rarely stops terrible crap from happening to them though."I felt sorry for the Sister. She thought the Bishop was going to put a stop to this. Poor girl; he was going to do the exact opposite. See, the two competing forces at play here were a communistic kleptocracy (currently ruling Angola) and Catholic liberation theology united with a Cabindan national identity dating back to 1885. At stake was 900,000 barrels a day of petroleum. That was a bunch of funding for somebody. Last I checked, the state run energy conglomerate had misplaced $32 billion, in just three years.Mind you, the Coils of the Serpent and the Amazon Host didn't want to help the People of Cabinda out of the goodness of their hearts either. They wanted cover for the importation of weapons and other war-fighting material so they could kill the Condottieri in Africa. If the rebel leaders-turned-legitimate government didn't play ball well, the Coils were in the 'assassinating people' business and somewhere along the line the survivors would figure out keeping 'us' happy kept them alive. Problem solved.It was Bishop Nicolé de Santis' job to facilitate that understanding. If certain people with Vatican credentials explained the 'facts of life' to the new regime a lot more lives could be saved, Catholic lives. In turn, he could work to make sure the new group in power wasn't nearly as corrupt as the gang we were tossing out. Better education and quality of life, improved infrastructure & security and a nice shiny cathedral, or two.We, as in JIKIT and our component members, didn't want to rule the country and dominate the people's lives. We needed the ports and the airfields with a blind eye turned to our skullduggery. Sure, there would be future considerations. Amazons and Coil members would be fighting and dying for these people's freedom ~ public recognition definitely not required. No; the Amazons wanted to be left alone in their deep jungle homes which was an isolation they basically already had. This was a future chit which said 'don't come looking'.The Coils? Let's just say in the future Cabinda would have embassies around the globe and if occasionally they wanted someone to slip through under diplomatic cover ~ they were good for it. And if the Cabindans ever needed help in the future they knew they had friends in dark places who were now invested in Cabinda's survival. It was a win-win-win, unless you were an Angolan big-wig, or one of their foot-soldier currently serving in Cabinda. Amazons weren't big on taking prisoners, or even giving the opposition the option of giving up.For me, it wasn't lunch yet and here I was plotting to overthrow yet another government in yet another country ~ though in only two, small provinces this time. Thank the Goddess I had the rest of the week

Musk's Ungoverning Tactic of "Wreck Then Rob" | Inside the PRC's Secretive Internal Leadership Struggles Between Reformers and Reactionaries

Dave writes for substack and does social and political commentary.https://fiddlersgreene.substack.com/https://x.com/GreeneMan6?ref_src=twsr...PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING ONCE OR MONTHLY!https://app.redcircle.com/shows/5bd95...Follow me everywhere:https://linktr.ee/KyleMatovcikTiger Fitness! Use code "KYLE" at checkout!https://www.tigerfitness.com/KyleMFox N' Sons Coffee!Https://www.foxnsons.comUse code KYLE at checkoutGet DEEMED FIT clothing! Use code "SARAHM25" at checkouthttps://deemedfit.co/?ref=bihbnoap&fb.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/in-liberty-and-health/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In episode 479 of The Astrology Podcast, astrologers Chris Brennan and Nick Dagan Best delve into the repeating historical patterns underlying Mars retrograde in Cancer periods, specifically within the context of United States history. During the course of the episode we explore how these retrogrades, which occur roughly every 15-17 years, coincide with significant events and recurring themes in American history. By examining past instances of Mars retrograde in Cancer, our goal is to provide perspective on current events and potential future developments. The discussion begins with an explanation of the Mars retrograde cycle and its unique characteristics, including its varying durations and the signs it retrogrades through. We emphasize the importance of looking at the entire period Mars spends in Cancer, including the time before and after the actual retrograde station, to fully grasp its impact. After that we proceed to discuss the specific dates and degrees of Mars retrogrades in Cancer, starting with the year of the US Constitution's ratification and moving forward. In particular we highlight the 79-year repetition of Mars retrogrades in Cancer, which is based on the Babylonian Goal-Year periods, and how it aligns with important turning points in American history. We also note the shorter 47-year and 32-year repetitions, which coincide with other planetary cycles. During the course of the episode we explore the themes that emerge during these Mars retrograde periods, including important turning points related to immigration, civil rights, and economic shifts. The episode concludes with a reflection on the potential implications of these historical patterns for the present and future. Timestamps (00:00:00) Introduction (00:20:34) Planetary Periods (00:36:52) Immigration (01:05:28) Citizenship (01:14:09) Racism and Reactionaries (01:35:19) Boundaries and Borders (01:42:15) US-Russia Relations (02:18:59) Tariffs, Trade & Monetary Policy (03:03:38) Financial Crises (03:12:14) Homes and Housing (03:19:44) Military Debacles (03:50:33) Imperialism (04:05:02) Misc Mars Retrogrades (04:08:46) Panama Canal (04:10:32) Aviation Incidents (04:18:25) Superbowls (04:37:53) SNL Special (04:50:27) World Bank (04:53:08) Scottsboro Boys (05:00:57) Uncle Tom's Cabin (05:26:04) Compromise of 1850 (05:33:37) Andrew Jackson & National Debt (05:42:16) Panic of 1819 (05:47:09) Lewis and Clark Expedition (05:49:50) Nuremberg trials (05:52:18) Retrogrades for Rectification (05:56:46) Concluding Remarks (06:19:29) Credits Watch the Video Version of This Episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKWAaDN4rSQ - Listen to the Audio Version of This Episode Listen to the audio version of this episode or download it as an MP3:

TENE pod dips under the headlines with a network cross-section of OMB director, Russell Vought, and his familiar circle of freaks. Rey goes off on Curtis Yarvin's shockingly poor understanding of what 'reactionary' means, and the boyzies check in on how liberal media is coping with it all. Also, the US drops Kosovo Prime Minister, Albin Kurti. Subscribe to patreon.org/tenepod @tenepod.bsky.social  + twitter.com/tenepod

Alex speaks with Matt Zwolinski about whether a truly "free market" exists, delving into concepts of freedom, coercion, and property rights. They examine critiques of markets from left-leaning thinkers, such as Robert Hale, as well as conservative perspectives, while discussing libertarian approaches to balancing coercion and freedom in market societies. Zwolinski also references his own Substack essays and reflects on ideas for minimizing coercion without dismissing critiques. References Matt Zwolinski's Substack, Bleeding Heart Libertarian Link: https://bleedingheartlibertarian.substack.com/ "Coercion and Distribution in a Supposedly Non-Coercive State" by Robert Hale (1923) Link:https://www.jstor.org/stable/2142367 "The Constitution of Liberty" by Friedrich Hayek Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Constitution-Liberty-Friedrich-Hayek/dp/0226320847 "23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism" by Ha-Joon Chang Link: https://www.amazon.ca/23-Things-Dont-Tell-Capitalism/dp/1608191664 "The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice" by Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Myth-Ownership-Taxes-Justice/dp/0195150163  "Tyranny, Inc." by Sohrab Ahmari Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Tyranny-Inc-Private-American-Liberty/dp/0593443462  "The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism" by Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi Link: https://a.co/d/5lCZvGS  Thanks to our patrons including: Amy Willis, Kris Rondolo, and Christopher McDonald. To become a patron, go to patreon.com/curioustask

Watch and chat LIVE on Youtube, Rumble, Rokfin, Twitter and Instagram Tuesdays and Thursdays at 2:00PM PST/ 5:00PM EST! Support: True Hemp Science https://truehempscience.com/ PROMO CODE: MONICA First 100 customers to spend $80 or more get a free sample bottle of Hypnautica, an excellent end of the day relaxation tool and may inspire a lifted sense during your evening routines. Become a PREMIUM SUBSCRIBER on Apple Podcasts for AD FREE episodes! all for the cost of one newspaper a month-- i read the news so you dont have to! Find, Follow, Subscribe & Rate on your favorite podcasting platform AND for video and social & more... Website: https://monicaperezshow.com/ Rokfin: https://rokfin.com/monicaperez Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/monicaperezshow YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/MonicaPerez Twitter/X: @monicaperezshow Instagram: @monicaperezshow For full shownotes visit: https://monicaperezshow.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Watch and chat LIVE on Youtube, Rumble, Rokfin, Twitter and Instagram Tuesdays and Thursdays at 2:00PM PST/ 5:00PM EST! Support: True Hemp Science https://truehempscience.com/ PROMO CODE: MONICA First 100 customers to spend $80 or more get a free sample bottle of Hypnautica, an excellent end of the day relaxation tool and may inspire a lifted sense during your evening routines. Become a PREMIUM SUBSCRIBER on Apple Podcasts for AD FREE episodes! all for the cost of one newspaper a month-- i read the news so you dont have to! Find, Follow, Subscribe & Rate on your favorite podcasting platform AND for video and social & more... Website: https://monicaperezshow.com/ Rokfin: https://rokfin.com/monicaperez Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/monicaperezshow YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/MonicaPerez Twitter/X: @monicaperezshow Instagram: @monicaperezshow For full shownotes visit: https://monicaperezshow.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nate Williams talks about how not all who are friendly are friends. Conservative Christians need to be wary of Islam,  red-pill bros, and knee-jerk reactionaries.Website: www.dangerousfaith.netYouTube: Dangerous FaithRumble: Dangerous FaithInstagram: nwdangerousfaithTwitter: @FaithDangerousFacebook: @NWDangerousFaith

These insight sub-episodes are mirrored on our primary YouTube channel which can be found at https://www.youtube.com/@NilesHeckman/videos

Progressive ideology tells us that there is an exorable path to equality and fairness, and that the primary function of the state is to guide society along this inevitable path. Of course, staying on this path over time requires more-and-more of your liberty, money, and property, a curtailment of speech right, freedom of association, even a restriction of movement and travel. Obviously, this isn't freedom, but we're told that freedom isn't fair and equitable, and we need the wisdom of our intellectuals to help guide society towards a type of utopia that promises to deliver everything, but delivers less and less all the time. In case you didn't know...we never get there because there always just one more thing they need to take from us to get there. STOP FALLING FOR THIS LIE! Join me today in reviewing some of Murray Rothbard's quotes and discover the similarities between what he was saying 35 years ago with what is happening politically in America today. The Progressive Road to Socialism - Joe Salerno https://cdn.mises.org/the_progressive_road_to_socialism.pdf --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/seth-martin0/message

Greg Olear is joined by Will Bunch, the national opinion columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer. They discuss how the higher education system broke our politics, why the media fails to accurately report on the rise of American fascism, Trump's ominous re-election plans, the far right's dream of a Red Caesar, and whether the Eagles are a team of destiny. Plus: a new staffing agency.Follow Will:https://twitter.com/Will_BunchRead his columns:https://www.inquirer.com/author/bunch_will/Subscribe to his newsletter:/inquirer.com/bunchBuy his book:https://www.amazon.com/After-Ivory-Tower-Falls-Politics_and/dp/0063076993Thanks HelloFresh! Go to HelloFresh.com/prevailfree and use code prevailfree for FREE breakfast for life! One breakfast item per box while subscription is active. Subscribe to the PREVAIL newsletter:https://gregolear.substack.com/aboutWould you like to tell us more about you? http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short. *

This episode of Hub Dialogues features Matt Zwolinski, philosophy professor and director of the Center for Ethics, Economics and Public Policy at the University of San Diego, about his fascinating, co-authored book, The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism.The Hub Dialogues features The Hub's editor-at-large, Sean Speer, in conversation with leading entrepreneurs, policymakers, scholars, and thinkers on the issues and challenges that will shape Canada's future at home and abroad. The episodes are generously supported by The Ira Gluskin And Maxine Granovsky Gluskin Charitable Foundation and the Linda Frum and Howard Sokolowski Charitable Foundation.If you like what you are hearing on Hub Dialogues consider subscribing to The Hub's free weekly email newsletter featuring our insights and analysis on key public policy issues. Sign up here: https://thehub.ca/free-member-sign-up/. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For NSP 51, we spoke with online wolverine, individualist anarchist, radical liberal, and avid good-faith debater Charles G. Koch. We discuss podcaster Dave Smith, the Mises Caucus, strategies for combatting reactionary beliefs, and why Charles still identifies as a libertarian. Wikipedia will tell you that Charles G. Koch is an 87-year-old American businessman with an estimated net worth of $62 billion, most known as a financial backer for several libertarian think tanks and the secret source of all your problems. At the twitter @ worst_account, Charles G. Koch has never denied this description, but also represents himself through a painting of a wolverine in a suit and posts posts from an individualist anarchist perspective. Sometimes these posts seem to imply that he is a graduate student in philosophy. You decide. https://bsky.app/profile/worstaccount.bsky.social https://twitter.com/worst_account 0:00:56 Intro 0:07:55 Rule of Law 0:10:39 Differences with Social Anarchism 0:14:40 Hoppeans 0:17:46 Neoliberalism 0:24:48 Identifying as a Libertarian 0:32:38 Mises Caucus 0:36:12 Debating Reactionary Libertarians 0:57:14 Why Not Debate Nazis? 1:01:15 Friendship and Conversation 1:13:18 Dave Smith 1:17:34 The Problem with Simple Answers 1:23:07 Antifa and No Platforming 1:28:34 Reading Recommendations 1:31:44 Free Speech, Hate Speech, Etc. 1:38:36 Cappuccino Question 1:39:29 Closing Thanks for watching! Please like, comment, subscribe, and share! Connect with Lucy: https://mastodon.social/@LucyStag https://bsky.app/profile/lucystag.bsky.social https://twitter.com/LucyStag https://lucysteigerwald.substack.com/ --- Listen to the Non Serviam Podcast on your favorite podcast platform! iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, Soundcloud, and more. If you'd like to see more anarchist and anti-authoritarian interviews, please consider supporting this project financially by becoming a Patreon www.patreon.com/nonserviammedia Follow Non Serviam Media Collective on: Mastodon https://kolektiva.social/@nonserviammedia Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/nonserviammedia.bsky.social As well as Facebook, Instagram, and X/Twitter.

In this episode of New Ideal Live, Ben Bayer and Nikos Sotirakopoulos review Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi's new book The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism, and argue that the authors' attempt to define libertarianism demonstrates that it lacks a coherent ideological identity. Among the topics covered: Zwolinski and Tomasi's book and the liberty vs. libertarianism movements; The connection between libertarianism and the progressive left; Why libertarians share an intellectual alliance with the reactionary right; How the connections between libertarian factions are sociological rather than ideological; Why defending liberty is meaningless without a philosophical foundation; Criticizing libertarianism is not infighting but a fight over what liberty is. Mentioned in this podcast and relevant to the discussion is Peter Schwartz's 1985 article “Libertarianism: The pervasion of Liberty” in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, Foundations of a Free Society: Reflections on Ayn Rand's Political Philosophy edited by Gregory Salmieri and Robert Mayhew, and a two part lecture series by Gregory Salmieri and Onkar Ghate on "Politics, Liberty, and Objectivism." The podcast was recorded on September 27, 2023. Listen to the discussion below. Listen and subscribe from your mobile device on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify or Stitcher. Watch archived podcasts here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVnVcjW6-xQ Podcast audio:

As more and more humans came up against the edges of wilderness in American history, new laws were needed to help guide and shape what the process would look like. As time changed, so did the laws dealing with preserving nature and society's view on its importance. Jedediah Purdy is a professor of Law at Duke Law and the author of several books. His latest work is called Two Cheers for Politics: Why Democracy Is Flawed, Frightening―and Our Best Hope.Jedediah and Greg discuss the complex terrain of America's environmental laws, tracing the roots from the liberal tradition of conquering Fortuna to modern ecological movements. They also dissect the tension between preserving nature for human benefit and maintaining its mystical allure. They also talk about the often overlooked role of class in environmental politics, analyzing in-depth how this has influenced public debates over laws and public lands.Listen in and explore these intersections of politics, law, and nature with Jed Purdy.*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:On the four different visions04:02: There are definitely, even more than four kinds of ways of experiencing and relating to the natural world that exist in the broad shape of American life. And then, especially if we were to take account of the variety of indigenous ways of relating that continue to have a life and have their own kinds of futures, these are four that are really embodied in legal regimes. So, they're a way of trying to understand how environmental imagination has been very practical in lending a shape to the law's world making activity.Viewing nature as a spiritual source12:00: There is this very different way of seeing nature, which is as a spiritual source, as a way of connecting us with a meaning that goes beyond and, in a way, above our practical and material projects. And has a religious significance, whether understood theologically or in a romantic register, that replaces religion traditionally understood with aesthetic experience and mystical intuition of a sort of world soul.The paradox of political energy and political aversion35:00: The book begins with the observation that our political moment feels paradoxical and that it's extremely politically energized, but the mobilization often feels connected much more with fear and despair around politics than any real sense that it's a constructive or hopeful activity. So we're very political, but we're very, obviously, big and crude, inviting people to recognize some part of their own experience and observation. But we are also very anxious about and averse to it.Climate crisis is an everything problem, not just an environmental one54:17: I don't think anyone would want to make averting the climate crisis hang on our ability or willingness to change all of those things at once. In some ways, the environmental question finally refuses to be siloed, and it may lose some of its distinctiveness. It may even be a residual habit—that sort of category error—to think of climate as an environmental problem rather than an everything problem.Show Links:Recommended Resources:Alexis de TocquevilleJohn LockeThe Homestead Act of 1862National Park Service Organic ActThe Wilderness ActHenry David ThoreauThe Frontier ThesisGuest Profile:Faculty Profile at Duke LawHis Work:Two Cheers For PoliticsAfter Nature: A Politics for the AnthropoceneFor Common Things: Irony, Trust and Commitment in America TodayThe Meaning of Property: Freedom, Community, and the Legal ImaginationJedediah Purdy Amazon Author PageThis Land Is Our Land: The Struggle for a New CommonwealthA Tolerable Anarchy: Rebels, Reactionaries, and the Making of American FreedomBeing America: Liberty, Commerce, and Violence in an American WorldNew Yorker ArticlesThe Atlantic Articles

In The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism, authors Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi dissect the wide range of libertarian thought through history. Coauthor Matt Zwolinski discusses the book. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Professor of Philosophy at the University of San Diego Matt Zwolinski and President of Heterodox Academy John Tomasi join Kennedy to discuss their new book, The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism. They talk about the origins of political philosophy, and the six guiding principles of libertarianism, and emphasize the importance of individual freedom. Follow Kennedy on Twitter: @KennedyNation Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Matt Zwolinski reviews 200 years of libertarian intellectual history.Follow @IdeasHavingSexx on Twitter.Today's book: The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of LibertarianismFind Matt on Twitter and Substack.Matt's Recommendations: The Elements of Justice by David SchmidtzThe Structure of Liberty by Randy BarnettIndividualism and Economic Order by F.A. HayekFree Market Fairness by John TomasiLibertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know by Jason BrennanRadicals for Capitalism by Brian DohertyThe Debates of Liberty by Wendy McElroy

Is libertarianism a progressive doctrine, or a reactionary one? Does libertarianism promise to liberate the poor and the marginalized from the yoke of state oppression, or does talk of "equal liberty" obscure the ways in which libertarian doctrines serve the interests of the rich and powerful?  Through an examination of the history of libertarianism, The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism (Princeton University Press, 2023) argues that the answer is (and always has been): both. In this book, the authors explore the neglected 19th century roots of libertarianism to show that it emerged first as a radical and progressive doctrine. Libertarianism took a conservative turn in the 20th century primarily as a reaction against the rise of state socialism. Now, with international communism no longer a threat, libertarianism is in the midst of an identity crisis, with progressive and reactionary elements struggling to claim the doctrine as their own, most notably on issues of race. This book tells the history of libertarianism through an examination of six defining themes: private property, skepticism of authority, free markets, individualism, spontaneous order, and individual liberty.  Matt Zwolinski is professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego, where he is director of the Center for Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy.  John Tomasi is president of Heterodox Academy in New York City. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Is libertarianism a progressive doctrine, or a reactionary one? Does libertarianism promise to liberate the poor and the marginalized from the yoke of state oppression, or does talk of "equal liberty" obscure the ways in which libertarian doctrines serve the interests of the rich and powerful?  Through an examination of the history of libertarianism, The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism (Princeton University Press, 2023) argues that the answer is (and always has been): both. In this book, the authors explore the neglected 19th century roots of libertarianism to show that it emerged first as a radical and progressive doctrine. Libertarianism took a conservative turn in the 20th century primarily as a reaction against the rise of state socialism. Now, with international communism no longer a threat, libertarianism is in the midst of an identity crisis, with progressive and reactionary elements struggling to claim the doctrine as their own, most notably on issues of race. This book tells the history of libertarianism through an examination of six defining themes: private property, skepticism of authority, free markets, individualism, spontaneous order, and individual liberty.  Matt Zwolinski is professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego, where he is director of the Center for Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy.  John Tomasi is president of Heterodox Academy in New York City. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Is libertarianism a progressive doctrine, or a reactionary one? Does libertarianism promise to liberate the poor and the marginalized from the yoke of state oppression, or does talk of "equal liberty" obscure the ways in which libertarian doctrines serve the interests of the rich and powerful?  Through an examination of the history of libertarianism, The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism (Princeton University Press, 2023) argues that the answer is (and always has been): both. In this book, the authors explore the neglected 19th century roots of libertarianism to show that it emerged first as a radical and progressive doctrine. Libertarianism took a conservative turn in the 20th century primarily as a reaction against the rise of state socialism. Now, with international communism no longer a threat, libertarianism is in the midst of an identity crisis, with progressive and reactionary elements struggling to claim the doctrine as their own, most notably on issues of race. This book tells the history of libertarianism through an examination of six defining themes: private property, skepticism of authority, free markets, individualism, spontaneous order, and individual liberty.  Matt Zwolinski is professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego, where he is director of the Center for Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy.  John Tomasi is president of Heterodox Academy in New York City. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Is libertarianism a progressive doctrine, or a reactionary one? Does libertarianism promise to liberate the poor and the marginalized from the yoke of state oppression, or does talk of "equal liberty" obscure the ways in which libertarian doctrines serve the interests of the rich and powerful?  Through an examination of the history of libertarianism, The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism (Princeton University Press, 2023) argues that the answer is (and always has been): both. In this book, the authors explore the neglected 19th century roots of libertarianism to show that it emerged first as a radical and progressive doctrine. Libertarianism took a conservative turn in the 20th century primarily as a reaction against the rise of state socialism. Now, with international communism no longer a threat, libertarianism is in the midst of an identity crisis, with progressive and reactionary elements struggling to claim the doctrine as their own, most notably on issues of race. This book tells the history of libertarianism through an examination of six defining themes: private property, skepticism of authority, free markets, individualism, spontaneous order, and individual liberty.  Matt Zwolinski is professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego, where he is director of the Center for Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy.  John Tomasi is president of Heterodox Academy in New York City. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network.

Is libertarianism a progressive doctrine, or a reactionary one? Does libertarianism promise to liberate the poor and the marginalized from the yoke of state oppression, or does talk of "equal liberty" obscure the ways in which libertarian doctrines serve the interests of the rich and powerful?  Through an examination of the history of libertarianism, The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism (Princeton University Press, 2023) argues that the answer is (and always has been): both. In this book, the authors explore the neglected 19th century roots of libertarianism to show that it emerged first as a radical and progressive doctrine. Libertarianism took a conservative turn in the 20th century primarily as a reaction against the rise of state socialism. Now, with international communism no longer a threat, libertarianism is in the midst of an identity crisis, with progressive and reactionary elements struggling to claim the doctrine as their own, most notably on issues of race. This book tells the history of libertarianism through an examination of six defining themes: private property, skepticism of authority, free markets, individualism, spontaneous order, and individual liberty.  Matt Zwolinski is professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego, where he is director of the Center for Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy.  John Tomasi is president of Heterodox Academy in New York City. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Is libertarianism a progressive doctrine, or a reactionary one? Does libertarianism promise to liberate the poor and the marginalized from the yoke of state oppression, or does talk of "equal liberty" obscure the ways in which libertarian doctrines serve the interests of the rich and powerful?  Through an examination of the history of libertarianism, The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism (Princeton University Press, 2023) argues that the answer is (and always has been): both. In this book, the authors explore the neglected 19th century roots of libertarianism to show that it emerged first as a radical and progressive doctrine. Libertarianism took a conservative turn in the 20th century primarily as a reaction against the rise of state socialism. Now, with international communism no longer a threat, libertarianism is in the midst of an identity crisis, with progressive and reactionary elements struggling to claim the doctrine as their own, most notably on issues of race. This book tells the history of libertarianism through an examination of six defining themes: private property, skepticism of authority, free markets, individualism, spontaneous order, and individual liberty.  Matt Zwolinski is professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego, where he is director of the Center for Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy.  John Tomasi is president of Heterodox Academy in New York City. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Is libertarianism a progressive doctrine, or a reactionary one? Does libertarianism promise to liberate the poor and the marginalized from the yoke of state oppression, or does talk of "equal liberty" obscure the ways in which libertarian doctrines serve the interests of the rich and powerful?  Through an examination of the history of libertarianism, The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism (Princeton University Press, 2023) argues that the answer is (and always has been): both. In this book, the authors explore the neglected 19th century roots of libertarianism to show that it emerged first as a radical and progressive doctrine. Libertarianism took a conservative turn in the 20th century primarily as a reaction against the rise of state socialism. Now, with international communism no longer a threat, libertarianism is in the midst of an identity crisis, with progressive and reactionary elements struggling to claim the doctrine as their own, most notably on issues of race. This book tells the history of libertarianism through an examination of six defining themes: private property, skepticism of authority, free markets, individualism, spontaneous order, and individual liberty.  Matt Zwolinski is professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego, where he is director of the Center for Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy.  John Tomasi is president of Heterodox Academy in New York City. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Matt Zwolinski is professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego and the founder and director of USD's Center for Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy. Zwolinski is the co-editor of The Routledge Companion to Libertarianism, and he is the co-author, with John Tomasi, of The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism (available April 4 and available for preorder).This is the Self in Society Podcast #30.This episode also is available via YouTube.TIME MARKERS00 Intro0:54 Murray Rothbard, paleo-libertarianism, the “Mises Caucus,” and the meaning of libertarianism4:06 The “family resemblance” among strains of libertarianism6:22 Would Mises be in the “Mises Caucus”? Mises's liberalism12:57 Baggage with the libertarian label16:46 Locke's views of property rights23:24 Henry George's objections to Locke26:23 Property rights as the central conundrum of libertarianism30:18 Limits to Georgism; resources and production38:45 More on resources and production44:29 House values, NIMBYism, and rent-seeking49:35 Strategies to solve “Lockean proviso” problems52:07 Existing property rights as historically problematic58:15 Addressing the U.S. Black/white wealth gap1:00:15 Property generally as making the world a better place1:05:01 Would reparations solve past injustices better than a basic income?1:10:00 Systemic racism: criminal justice and education1:13:49 Libertarian individualism and structural racism1:15:42 Housing policy and structural racism1:17:48 Methodological individualism and social justice1:25:20 Emergent racism1:28:27 The importance of more open immigration; implications for a basic income1:33:15 A basic income as better than the existing welfare state1:41:17 Matt's forthcoming books on the basic income and exploitation1:42:36 wrap-upZwolinski's professional page offers links to his various books, including The Individualists, which comes out April 4 (available for preorder).A couple of Zwolinski's essays on the basic income are available online: “A Moral Case for Universal Basic Income” and “Property Rights, Coercion,and the Welfare State.”The Routledge Companion to Libertarianism contains the essay mentioned by Zwolinski, “Self-Ownership,” by Daniel C. Russell.April 4 Update: I published my review of the book.Music by Jordan Smith. Get full access to Self in Society at selfinsociety.substack.com/subscribe

Support the show by becoming a patron: Patreon.com/thebpdshow

The question of how the US working class will create a party of its own—a class-independent, mass socialist party—has been a foremost concern of Marxists since the earliest beginnings of the movement, both in the US and around the world. Reactionaries have long pointed to the lack of a working-class party as an indication of “American exceptionalism” and the weakness of the class struggle in the land of McCarthy. Meanwhile, revolutionaries have tirelessly maintained that a mass workers' party is an objective historical step that must be achieved in order for the US working class to fight back effectively and reverse decades of lost ground in the class struggle. In this talk from the 2023 Montreal Marxist Winter School, Tom Trottier, editor of Socialist Revolution, discusses the struggle for a workers' party in the USA.

Poll didn't go your way? Blame it on bots! If you enjoy what you hear please consider supporting this show at http://www.patreon.com/theserfs and we also stream live five days a week over at https://www.theserfs.tv/ or http://twitch.tv/theserfstv

Another all-star cast discusses some low-brow territory! We sum up some amusing 80s/90s theatrical, direct to video and TV show stars that often would be in absurd B/Z-grade pictures often kickboxing, fighting aliens (if not killer cyborgs and killer dolls) and dominated the usual trend of TNT/USA Network/HBO/Skinemax/Spike TV type programming! How many of them might you've seen on a campy adventure show (if not Highlander or Star Trek)? How many of them could've become bigger stars? How often do you geek out when you actually see them on a legit program decades later? Heather, Jason & The Reactionaries are gonna give it to you: long, frank, amusingly and nostalgia fueled!               MAIN LINKS:  LinkTree: https://linktr.ee/JURSPodcast Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/JackedUpReviewShow/ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2452329545040913 Twitter: https://twitter.com/JackedUpReview  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jacked_up_podcast/          SHOW LINKS: YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCIyMawFPgvOpOUhKcQo4eQQ   iHeartRadio: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-jacked-up-review-show-59422651/   Podbean: https://jackedupreviewshow.podbean.com   Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7Eg8w0DNympD6SQXSj1X3M   Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-jacked-up-review-show-podcast/id1494236218   RadioPublic: https://radiopublic.com/the-jacked-up-review-show-We4VjE   Overcast: https://overcast.fm/itunes1494236218/the-jacked-up-review-show-podcast   Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy9hNDYyOTdjL3BvZGNhc3QvcnNz   Anchor:  https://anchor.fm/s/a46297c/podcast/rss   PocketCasts: https://pca.st/0ncd5qp4   CastBox:  https://castbox.fm/channel/The-Jacked-Up-Review-Show-Podcast-id2591222        

Independent journalist Dylan Burns joins DOOMED with Matt Binder to discuss the right wing reactions to Ukraine and the issue of nazis in the country. Dylan also breaks down the latest going on in Russia's war in Ukraine. Dylan and Matt also discuss the conspiracy theories surrounding FTX, the crypto exchanged that worked with the Aid for Ukraine program, the Colorado shooting, right wing media, and much more. (Episode from the 11/22/22 livestream show.) Support the show: http://www.patreon.com/mattbinder

God do I hate them! Download the Callin app for iOS and Android to listen to this podcast live, call in, and more! Also available at callin.com

Become a patron: Patreon.com/thebpdshowMissed you last week as we were away because of Hurricane Ian. We were blessed to get only a little flooding. We're keeping the rest of our friends in the south in our hearts as more devastating news comes out with new death totals. Today's episode goes from Kyiv to ATL. From Putin's escalation in Ukraine, to Elon Musk's "peace" proposal, and to Kanye's provocation, the reactionaries of the world have united

This episode is from an original release in January 2022. Dr. Van Jackson sits down with John Feffer, co-director of the Foreign Policy in Focus project at the Institute for Policy Studies.  They talk about John's new book, Right Across the World: The Global Networking of the Far-Right and the Left Response.  They also talk about writing novels and plays as a foreign policy analyst, or doing foreign policy analysis as a playwright.  Remembering the way arms control used to be a reactionary arguments against disarmament.  Institute for Policy Studies: https://ips-dc.orgSplinterlands Trilogy of Novels: https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/1039-splinterlandsFoamers Novel: https://www.abebooks.co.uk/first-edition/Foamers-Berson-Jon-Scribner-New-York/231272502/bdRight Across the World Book: https://www.amazon.com/Right-Across-World-Networking-Far-Right/dp/0745341896

Reactionaries & More | The Humanist Report (8/29-9/2) by Mike Figueredo

Subscribe to Reactionary Minds: Apple Podcasts | SpotifyWelcome to the inaugural episode of Reactionary Minds, a podcast from The UnPopulist that I’ll be hosting every month. This is a show about why some people reject liberalism and what the rest of us can do about it. This first episode is all about introducing the problem Reactionary Minds exists to address. In it, Shikha Dalmia, the editor of The UnPopulist and fellow at the Mercatus Center's Program on Pluralism and Civil Exchange, discusses the biggest challenge of our times: The resurgent threat of populist authoritarianism here and abroad. Every regime has its pathologies and populist demagoguery is the pathology of democracies. The “liberal” in liberal democracies is supposed to keep this genie in the bottle, but now that it is out, can we put it back in?This transcript has been lightly edited and condensed for clarityAaron Ross Powell: Welcome to the show.Shikha Dalmia: Thanks for having me, Aaron.Aaron: What is populism?Shikha: It's a good question, and as you've noticed, the name of my newsletter is The UnPopulist, and its addressed at the authoritarian currents we are seeing around the world. Then the question arises why am I calling it The UnPopulist and not the anti-authoritarian or something like that? Partly, because it's cuter, but the more serious reason is that the kind of illiberalism and the kind of authoritarianism we are seeing around the world has what is essentially a populist element.Now there's a lot of confusion around the word populism, and there is actually a great deal of effort on the left to try and take back this word which it thinks has been unfairly characterized in the last six years with the rise of the Trump era and the MAGA era. I, in some ways, feel for some of the left-wing writers, like Thomas Frank who's a public intellectual and an author and something of a Bernie Sanders progressive. He wrote a book not too long ago defending the term populism because he sees populism as essentially a movement of the people. Roger Cohen, a New York Times columnist, similarly wrote in 2018, shortly after Trump, where he also was lamenting the fact that the term populism has acquired this negative connotation.Now, I actually feel for some of these liberals because, as you and I know, we are still grieving the loss of the term liberal. However, I think they fundamentally misunderstand what populism really means and why it has a bad connotation.To some extent, it's a semantic issue, you can give any phenomenon any name, but populism, for the longest time has had a bad odor. They [Frank et al] see populism as essentially a popular movement that is supposed to do the most good for the most people, and those most people are not the rich people. They are generally lower or middle-income people who are the vast majority of the population.But that's not what populism really is. It's not a popular movement. A populist movement, if you read the literature on it, which admittedly is murky, it's about pitting the “real” people against some other entity, and that entity is the elites. The elites are considered to be these corrupt oligarchs, and the people are supposed to be something pure, representing something good.There is instantly this division between the elite, which controls “the establishment,” and the pure people whose interests are being avoided. Now, even that exactly doesn't capture the problem with the term populism. The term populism gets its bad odor from the fact that it's not just that the real people are trying to get their way and have their preferred policies enacted, it is more that they want to flatten certain elements of liberalism, the deliberative process, the representative process, because they believe it's been captured by some bad people, by The Establishment which is not representing them.It's an effort to flatten certain institutions of liberalism, not improve them, not reform them, but simply to either side step them or do an end-run around them, or even just get rid of them so that the real people can have their will.Now, obviously, the real people can't govern. There are too many of them, somebody has to govern for them. So in some senses populist and authoritarian seem like anti-poles. But inevitably they come together because whenever you have a populist movement some authoritarian figure or demagogue arises who will say they're representing the people. And we saw very clearly with Trump, we the people became me the people…they are not representing the people, they are the people. Populism inevitably goes hand-in-hand with a certain kind of authoritarianism, and so therefore, the term unpopulist and therefore why populism is something to be worried about.Aaron: I think that's one of the interesting things about watching the rise of populism in the U.S over the last five or six or seven years, has been that it's framed as an anti-elite movement and “drain the swamp” is an anti-elite thing. We're constantly hearing about these coastal cities where these out-of-touch elites who don't understand the real people are. The real Americans in this context really just means rural working class whites. But then you look at their leadership and it is fantastically wealthy, though we don't know quite how wealthy [in Trump’s case], because his finances are a little sketchy, but a fantastically wealthy businessman.Then in Congress the figureheads for this movement, or at least people trying to claim that mantle, tend to be Ivy league law school educated, pretenders to the common-man identity. You're right, it is this odd thing what begins as a movement framing itself as of the people turns into a personality cult that's no longer about the people's identity, it’s about the people building their identity through fealty to this strong-man leader, which is then how it can very quickly turn into an authoritarian movement, because either that leader's power when he has to do something is seen as absolute, because he's the embodiment of our hopes and dreams and cultural identity, or when that leader's position is threatened, as we saw when Trump lost the election, it can morph quickly into violence in defense of that leader's status. Not so much the working class or the common man status, but defending that leader from perceived failure.Shikha: That's right. Now, populism can be of both the left wing and the right wing varieties, and we have seen them throughout history. Latin America has had populism of every strain. In every instance it has led to the cult of the personality, but there are two things in populism. There is a cult of personality, which is the leader, and then there is a cult of the people too. There is a certain deification of the people that they are true owners of the society, their will needs to be respected.The two, the cult of the leader and the cult of the people, build on each other, they both deify each other. Whether it is Hugo Chavez, whether it is Bolsonaro right now. The Bolsonaro is interesting and he's losing some of his popularity, but Trump is a classic phenomenon of a cult leader, of a demagogue who is leading in the name of the real people, and then the real people deify him. He really was a deity in certain MAGA circles, and he in turn deifies them in his rallies.If you watched some of his rallies, which I tried to avoid as much as possible, but he was constantly flattering the people there. It was, "You people are great, and you are being ignored." Yes, there is this mutual cult of the leader and the cult of the people that goes hand-in-hand in a populist movement.Nomenclature and TaxonomyAaron: I want to stay for a moment on our terms and taxonomies, because the purpose of this show, ultimately, is not just to critique illiberal and populist ideas, but to try to understand them, to try to understand where these people are coming from, what the philosophies and personality traits and historical perspectives that inform them because it's hard to challenge ideas without understanding them deeply and, to the extent you can, fairly.We've talked about what populism is, but this show is not called the authoritarian mind, it's not called the populist mind, it is called Reactionary Minds. Where does the term reactionary fit into all this?Shikha: Aaron, this is your show! You and I both talked about why we like Reactionary Minds. I'll give you my side and perhaps you can say something about why you like it. The textbook definition of reactionary is a person or a sensibility that is opposed to economic or political liberalization of any kind. Usually, it goes along with a certain conservative mentality.I think there's another element to the reactionary sensibility, and that is, it is also anti-ideas, and it's anti-intellectual. The reason is ideas and intellectual theories can lead to change. They require a certain amount of openness to the world and to knowledge, and those can be intensely threatening to existing cultural orders. In that sense, reactionary minds, I think, is a good way to describe the show because you and I are both quite troubled and perturbed by the last six years.Things are happening in America that we never thought would be possible. We think that there needs to be some kind of a response to this, but we can't really fight these ideologies unless we understand them. We do want to understand the reactionary movement that's brewing in America on its own terms. That's the reason I like the term reactionary minds.Aaron: Yes, I agree with all that. What I would add is, I think that you can make the case that political ideology, moral ideology, and so on is, to some extent, downstream of personality, that we tend to have different personal and personality preferences, and then we sometimes look around for theories or intellectual edifices that provide structure to them or support them or don't really challenge them.In that regard, reactionary it is a personality type that says I am turned off by, sometimes threatened by diversity, by change, by things being different than the way that I'm used to, or people who aren't like me being more prominent than they used to be, or higher status than they used to be, or the way we talk about language is changing and that bugs me, and I don't like these kids asking me to use different pronouns or different terminology. There is this set-in-my-ways-ness that drives a lot of this.It's not an accident that Trump when he was first running for president, he led with anti-immigration, with a xenophobic perspective and a nationalism that was the corollary of that, because for a lot of his most faithful followers, it's “America is looking different than either the way I was used to it being, or the way that I imagined it being, or the way that I would like it to look demographic.”On the far fringes of the populace, we get the Great Replacement Theory about they're trying to change the demographics of the country to make it less white than it used to be. There is this very “I don't like difference” and then reacting strongly against that, then that feeds into political preferences, which is, "I'm going to vote for the person who will stop the change, whether that's preventing immigrants who don't look and talk like me from coming into the country, or will elevate the status of the people who have the same preferences I do against the people with the diverse preferences that I dislike."That's another thing that I want to dig into on the show is the way that there is such a thing, I think, as a populist or an authoritarian or reactionary psychology as well. There are ideas that inform it, but there's also just beliefs and values and attitudes and they end up mixing together into this very toxic political outcome. That was the attraction to me of the reactionary minds, because it gets both the notion that this is an ideological perspective, but also that this is just an attitudinal perspective.Shikha: Right. That's very well stated, Aaron. I would, however, push back just slightly in that we do want to make a distinction between the conservative mind and the reactionary mind. Bill Buckley's very famous statement when he launched the National Review was he wants to stand athwart history screaming or yelling stop. There is a way in which, even though I am not a conservative, never have been, never will be, I can understand the urge to be careful about change and reform, and to be a little deliberative. You don't want to simply throw out existing social arrangements just because some fad has taken hold of the land.There is a way in which the conservatives, even though I'm not a conservative, they can be incrementalists, but not completely opposed to reform. Reactionaries, I think, is conservatism on steroids in that sense. Reactionaries simply don't want change because they don't like change. Usually, reactionariness is a phenomenon that's associated with conservatism, but to the extent that it's not just any change that reactionaries are opposed to, it's actually liberalism that they are opposed to. To the extent its liberalization they are opposed to, they can even come from the progressive side.Like communists when China liberalized its economy, there were reactionaries in China who wanted the communist order to hold and they didn't want liberalization. In that sense, I like the term reactionary because potentially, it will even capture the leftist reactionaries.Leftist ExcessesAaron: I think that often manifests in the contemporary American left as an intolerance of difference. That is, it's not the same as the intolerance of difference that we see from the right, which is obviously very much there, but rather, the left thinks we have advanced, we have liberalized, so certain behaviors that used to be socially unacceptable are now considered normal, or certain underprivileged groups that used to be underprivileged are now considered no different than everyone else.That liberalization is good. That's the kind of liberalization we want, but there is a tendency among some people on the left to then to be incredibly intolerant not of difference in the political realm. It's one thing to say yes, we should — people who want to re-criminalize gay marriage or gay relationships that's bad, but it's people who themselves in their own lives are not affirmatively supportive of these things need to be stamped out, need to be punished.This often can manifest in the lefts wanting to punish businesses that weren't supportive of gay weddings, baking cakes for gay weddings. The small conservative baker says, "That's against my conscience. I don't want to bake a cake for your wedding." In a genuinely liberal society the answer to that is, "Okay." Like, "I will go somewhere else and get a cake from somewhere else and no harm, no foul."The liberalism that manifests on the left is like, "No." It's not enough that you are just saying, "Hey, I don't want to participate." You have to participate and embrace, or we are going to, in this case, try to use the state to punish you, to destroy your business, to find you, to drive you out, because you're not one of us. That ends up with this ratcheting up of the reactionariness because then what that says to the people who are more culturally conservative is, "I need to dig in even deeper because if the culture drifts in a more liberal direction, that's even more ground for me to be punished often with state force. I need to fight even harder because  I won't be tolerated.Shikha: That's exactly the dynamic we are in right now. The problem with the left is that it's too impatient and, to some extent, one can understand its impatience. I think systemic injustices are prevalent, systemic racism is a thing! We all do need to grapple with legacies of slavery, Jim Crow, all of that is correct. But the left doesn't want to do the real hard work of changing hearts and minds. It wants to grab power nodes and exercise and push on them to engineer change.It's not just the levers of the state that they are using, it's also the levers of corporate power and what have you. Not all of [these tactics] are illicit. Some of them are perfectly acceptable. Certain kinds of boycotts against views clearly beyond the pale are probably acceptable. But they have lost the capacity of making distinctions between good-natured fear of what they are asking for — and a reactionary fear, I guess.It's this lack of calibration and this lack of finesse in their techniques, which is a big problem. This, in some ways, is driving a more reactionary attitude on the part of the conservatives, bringing out their worst tendencies.But I actually don't want to simply blame the left . I think the conservatives always wanted — there was a certain kind of conservative mind that was always uncomfortable with certain social changes, gay marriage, what have you. They've also been looking for a pretext to dig in. I think to some extent, the left is giving them a pretext [by its excesses]. It's not a reason, it's a pretext for their reactionariness. It's hard to untangle all of this, I admit, but all these currents are right now with us.Aaron: At their core they're all ultimately a rejection of genuine liberalism, which is if nothing else, it is a belief in a social tolerance and social pluralism. If we're going to live together in a big society, commonly governed, we have to get along with each other. The way that you get along with each other given our diversity of viewpoints and values and preferences and backgrounds and so on is to tolerate difference. To say: "I'm going to let you live the way that you want to live and I'm going to live the way that I want to live. Even if I'm not celebrating the choices that you make, I'm accepting them as part of this liberal consensus."So much of what we're seeing now seems to be a rejection of that liberal consensus of saying, "No, it's not just that I think I am right in… All of us think we're right in our own preferences and values or we wouldn't hold them. It's not just that, it's saying, Therefore, anyone who differs from my preferences and values is wrong and is wrong to an extent that they are dangerous or a threat or impure, or in some other way, need to be, whether it's with the state or other mechanisms, need to be shut down, excluded, punished so that we can have a higher degree of uniformity that happens to align with my preferences.Shikha: When Obama became president he was against gay marriage. He was against all kinds of pro-gay policies, and then, of course, during the course of his presidency he changed his mind. I wonder if there is any room for Obama in the current left. Room for evolution of thinking.Now I think Obama was always there and he was holding back for strategic reasons, which turned out to actually be not bad reasons. You can see the growing intolerance of the left in that it's not just being censorious against the right, but it's also being censorious toward its own. That’s why, in a way, I'm a little less worried about the left, because the left, in its demand for purity and consistency, in a way is becoming less united and is at that stage of devouring its own.The left is now generating healthy pushback. I actually think if Trump had not arrived on the horizon, there was so much concern within the left about the left that right now we would be in a much better position with respect to the left. But with Trump arriving on the scene, I feel myself pivoting. I think there is no bigger threat in this country than the right because it has become so completely not just reactionary, but authoritarian and illiberal in 30 different ways that I've had to drop my attention on the left and now right is the big problem.Before Trump arrived, I remember Vox, very much a progressive publication, had published a piece by a liberal professor saying something to the effect, "My liberal students terrify me." This piece went on to say that conservative students his class, this was a professor who's in a liberal arts college, who said the conservative students in his class will push back, might not like his ideas, but are still willing to discuss them. Liberal students were not willing to do that.Now what we are seeing on the other hand is that the right is no longer simply pushing back against what were legitimately called left-wing excesses. It wants to just crush them. Now you are seeing bills banning the teaching of critical race theory. That's where the reactionariness comes in. This is no longer now about calibrating the pace of the change, it's not about that. Now we are only going to impose our vision from like 200 years ago. Now it’s in a completely different orbit.The Roots of Modern Day Right-Wing PopulistsAaron: We talked about Trumpism as exemplary of the kind of populism that we are concerned about, but is Trump the major figure, or who are the other figures that are important to understand when looking at the lay of the land on American populism, left or right, the main, I guess, influencers, as the kids say?Shikha: Well, populism in America, depending upon how you use the term, has a long history. The first populist movement was the People's Party in 1890, which was a third party. It was this agrarian movement and labor movement against the industrialization that was happening. In the building of the railroads, lots of people were dispossessed; traditional livelihoods were lost. That is generally regarded as the first populist movement in this country. It got co-opted by the Democratic Party, which became the labor union party. The People's Party put it's a lot behind William Bryan Jennings. When he lost the election that year, it spelled the end of that party, but it got co-opted by Democrats.You've seen certain other populist movements arguably whether George Wallace, he was a populist phenomenon, very much appealing to the same kinds of anxieties that Trump now appeals to. In between, you had The Tea Party movement, you also had the Occupy Wall Street movement.The difference is that the Tea Party, I think, was the beginning of the turn towards MAGAism. Although interestingly, the Tea Party movement was very much pitching itself as this constitutional movement. It wanted to return to the Founders. It wanted to limit the scope of the government, all of which went out of the window when Trump came along.I think Trump is not sui generis. Partly, the Tea Party is behind him but partly, I think we had the phenomenon of right-wing radio with the advent of Rush Limbaugh who started pushing all kinds of populist tropes. He was a nativist. He was anti-left. The preoccupation with the leftist enemy is a huge, huge part of the right, right now. I think that's the single biggest motivating force. Even the anti-immigration and the anti-immigrant animus is not quite as powerful a force as the fear and anger and the hatred of the left, actually.I think Rush Limbaugh started stoking that, and then you had a whole slew of copycats on the right. That paved the way for Trump. The right was primed for a populist takeover, and then Trump came along with his MAGA message and at that stage, all the right wanted to do was use the levers of the state to smash the left and impose its vision of a insular, insulated, closed America polity.Aaron: This isn't new, even with Trump, even with Rush Limbaugh, this is what we watched in the '50s and '60s with anti-communism, was the Soviet Union was a legitimate threat, although maybe in retrospect, not as big of a threat as we thought it was at the time. There were communists in the country, although they weren't going to win out. America was not going to turn communist, but they did exist, and communism was very bad.The American right used that as a way to exert the power of the federal government to punish particularly culturally left people or people who were calling for liberalization of the positions of Blacks or gays or women and so on. That the urge to define an enemy and then use a potentially an inflated threat of that enemy — or mischaracterizations of that enemy or strawman version of that enemy — to justify a reactionary turn is very strong.A moment ago we were talking about Trump and you said had Trump not come along the left would have fractured more than it did. What's interesting about Trump is that he unified both the right and the left into these deeply tribally opposed camps. For decades, the conservative movement was split between — there was the base that looked very much like Trumpism does now. The conservative right’s reactionary base has been around as long as there has been a right. But you had the elites, the Bill Buckley types or the Ronald Reagan or the Paul Ryan who controlled the GOP and pushed it in a more, if not liberal, at least more liberal-adjacent on its best days direction.That went away with Trump and suddenly the elites all either swore fealty, or at least shut up about their criticisms of the really reactionary right. And then on the left, you had exactly that, that the left, those fault lines went away because we had a unified enemy. Trump won't be around forever, and so there's a sense in which that potentially gives a way out when that enemy has gone away.There are other people like what DeSantis is doing in Florida right now, he's clearly trying to tee himself up as the inheritor of the Trump mantel. But it's questionable whether any of the people trying to do that have Trump's — I'm going to call it — charisma, but a lot of people think of it as such, but Trump's showmanship. There's something about him and his celebrity and all of that that made him successful in the way that someone who had just spouted the same views probably would not have been. Is there cause for hope there that if the populist leader goes away, then the sides will become more pluralistic than they are now?MAGA’s Ugly Progeny: Integralists and NationalistsShikha: It's a good question. No, I'm actually not optimistic about that. Look, what Trump did was he didn't really unite the Republican Party, what he did was he united a certain element within the Republican Party, and the rest of those who didn't agree with him were either purged — Paul Ryan didn't last a year after Trump came on the scene — or became persona non grata within the party.That's actually a classic populist move. It's not just that they don't respect parliamentary institutions and they don't respect the opposition, they actually turn their own party into an embodiment of themselves, and you've seen that with Trump. It's literally classic populism. In that sense, I think he's been hugely damaging to the Republican Party in a way that I'm not sure the Republican Party can recover from it for a very long time. Or at least I think it has to be in the political wilderness for a very long time. It has to be punished at the polls repeatedly before it will give up this populist formula.I think even though there may not be a charismatic figure like Trump, and the reason I was laughing when you said charismatic, because I know to you and me, he's just so utterly not charismatic. It's hard for us to see his appeal, but there'll be other populists who will try and copy him. They may not be successful, but their very presence is going to be damaging. That's one.The bigger danger of Trump is not Trump but Trumpism. Trumpism is essentially an illiberal mindset that doesn't respect the checks on executive power. It gives various factions within the conservative right, therefore, the permission to use the levers of the state to promote their own vision. You've written about this, the integralist movement. Why is that emerging now? The national conservative movement, why is that emerging now?He's actually fractured whatever little uneasy fusion/consensus there was in the right and allowed these illiberal monster children of MAGAism now to assert themselves. I actually think things are going to get much worse before they get better.Aaron: Let's turn briefly to the integralist movement and the national conservatism movement which somehow overlap but are distinct in other ways because they represent an interesting move on the part of the conservative elite to try to take on the energy of Trump's populism, but intellectualize it too because, Trumpism is basically all id.There's not an intellectual philosophical through-line there, but the national conservatives and the integralist are saying, "No, there is a philosophical case against liberalism, that liberalism has failed for reasons inherent to it, and that we need to embrace non-liberal, well thought out philosophical positions." If Trump is spouting id, the integralists and the national conservatives have legitimately thoughtful and often interesting thinkers articulating these views in ways that are I think they're wrong and I think they're often dangerously wrong, but they're not stupid and they're worth wrestling with.It is interesting watching these very elites. These are law professors and philosophy professors and theologians trying to take this energy and reapply the intellectual veneer that used to exist with Buckley, the National Review but was shed under Trump.Shikha: The difference between Buckley and the [Adrian] Vermeules of the day is that Buckley was still trying to promote a certain conservatism within a broadly liberal framework and a broadly liberal understanding. He agreed that checks and balances were a good thing, checks on executive power were a good thing. All of that is now out of the window with these new movements.Discontents with liberalism are always there because liberalism is an uneasy equilibrium between all kinds of different interests that don't comfortably fit together. Minorities are not happy with liberalism because liberalism doesn't give them the levers of power to instantly correct all the injustices against them. They are always unhappy. Of course, the majority is unhappy because, especially in a liberal democratic society, if pure majoritarian rule were to exist, it would get its way far more frequently.Everybody is always unhappy with liberalism. But there has always been this understanding there that life on the other side of liberalism is nasty, brutish, and short, so we better stick with liberalism. That consensus that liberalism may be wanting, but there is no other real alternative, that understanding is completely gone because some people have come to believe, thanks to Trump's assault on liberalism, that they can have the whole cake.The integralists, and you wrote great stuff about this — integralists, as you've pointed out, are a really weird movement because they're Catholics, they are actually a minority, and integralists within Catholicism are a really small minority, so why would you want to give up liberalism? The answer is that they think that any conservative state will give them more of what they want than they'll get from a liberal state.Ultimately, even a reactionary like Trump will give them more than anybody else will. Hence they have turned on liberalism because they feel they're getting less out of it. Every faction within conservatism I think is making a similar bet. You have national conservatism, which is a very, very diverse movement. You have Yoram Hazony who's an Israeli intellectual, who's the godfather of this movement, weirdly enough. You also have standard nationalists who just feel like there should be more flag-waving in the United States. You have somebody like Rich Lowry, who was actually [initially] a Never Trumper, and now feels that there needs to be some kind of America First-ism in America. He's flirting with something like blood and soil nationalism based on geography and ancestry. That will rule me out as a robust American citizen, I'm not sure about you. Geography it means Americans need to love the landscape of this country. The Shenandoah Valley is something that every American should do a pilgrimage to. It's all goofy stuff. They all feel whatever was missing in the liberal arrangement in America now they feel it's up for grabs, and they're all trying to make a bid for it very quickly to get what they can.Aaron: In the time that we have left, I want to turn to the future of this podcast. This is the inaugural episode of Reactionary Minds, we plan to do a lot more of these. Our goals, why we created this show, and what we're hoping to get out of it. I can start on this one. I touched on this a bit earlier, but I think my goal is this rise of liberalism is really troubling. As someone who has dedicated his career to advancing a quite radical conception of individual and economic liberty and individual autonomy and self-authorship, this is a direct assault on the values that not only I hold, but I think are the ones that lead to the best world for everyone.This has always been with us, but it has ramped up considerably. We're seeing some of it on the left, we are seeing one of the two major parties, more or less, entirely overtaken by it. We have seen it embodied in a president, we are seeing an increasing number of intellectuals come out in support of it in one form or another. This is a real threat. The value of a show like this is in trying to understand where that's all coming from, and what it is the people who hold these views actually want, why they want it? What are the ideas that are leading them to it or providing support for it?I don't want this to be a superficial understanding or a dismissive or they're all just evil kind of way because that's easy and ultimately uninteresting. My goal is to really try to understand them on their own terms and then to critique it from the perspective of the value of radical liberty.Shikha: That's exactly right, Aaron. That's why I'm excited that you are doing this. I think this is going to be a great podcast. As you've said, the plan is to understand this illiberalism and its appeal at every level, psychological, social, political. I'm sure you will be having guests that address all of it. Marxism makes this distinction between theory and praxis. You and I, we both have a penchant for an intellectual understanding of things. We like to understand things at a theoretical level, it's almost an end in itself. But in this case, we cannot fight this phenomenon without actually understanding it. [On the praxis side], The UnPopulist is not going to shy away calling the right reactionary and taking on specific political figures who are behaving in an illiberal fashion. It’s not going to shy away from taking sides. We know what we are opposing. But to me the theory of Reactionary Minds is going to inform the praxis of The UnPopulist. So there is a yin and yang here that I’m super excited about. I really look forward to this. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theunpopulist.substack.com

Stop farming, rich sugary le bullsweet and throwing out recalled Disney hand sanitizers + this day in history w/the U.S. declares war on Germany and our song of the day by Jane Archer and the Reactionaries on your #MorningMonarchy for April 6, 2022.

In this episode we discuss Bill Maher, Dave Rubin, Pat Robertson, and other reactionaries.

Justin opens the show with an update and discussion of the war in Ukraine, then covers Biden's State of the Union, the reactionary trucker convoys of both Canada and the United States, and finally ends on an update of where the process to nominate Biden's first Supreme Court justice stands. Join us on patreon at patreon.com/MillennialReview.

-War in Ukraine dominates annual threats hearing  -Russia claims Ukraine has bioweapons program, Rubio helps confirm it -Reactionaries target LGBTQ+ youth across the country -US Post Office gets relief from an unlikely place

We're back! Oh man, it's been a while but we have returned for 2022. If you missed the update, you can back and listen to that. The Beijing Winter Olympics just finished but they were far from having controversy. We'll be looking at the doping scandal involving Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva who was found with a banned substance but was allowed to continue. People were quick to notice this fact and compared this to American sprinter Sha'Carri Richardson's situation last year in the lead up to the Tokyo Summer Games and how she wasn't allowed to compete. But are these two situations the same? That's it for this week. Stay tuned for an all new, all different episode dropping soon. Also, don't forget to check out the award winning podcast October Jones and Fish with Legs. Thanks for listening. Peace.

--On the Show: --Former Republican Congressman Joe Walsh joins David to discuss the fracturing of the Republican Party, the 2022 and 2024 elections, and much more --A lesson in reactionary propaganda, using a recent Glenn Beck interview with James Lindsey as an example --Cultural critic and arbiter of ideas Dave Rubin says that the unvaccinated are being treated like Jews just before the Holocaust in World War II-era Germany --Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin promises that Donald Trump will eventually pay for his "crime wave" --Joe Biden rejects a request from former President Donald Trump to shield White House visitor logs from around the time of the Trump riots, ordering those records released --Donald Trump admits that indeed his company's financial statements are inaccurate, and that his Chief Financial Officer did not pay taxes on fringe benefits received by his company --MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell confirms that his bank has indeed cancelled his bank account --Voicemail caller explains the misunderstanding about how tariffs work shared by many on the American political right wing --On the Bonus Show: Rents and home prices up sharply in the US, families of Sandy Hook victims reach $73 million settlement with gun manufacturer, Alec Baldwin sued by family of cinematographer killed on set, much more...

David L. Gray: Off Code and Off Script Stories: 1. Pressure Ramps Up on Canadian Truckers 2. Catholic Reactionaries Praise a 'Not-Friendly' 3. Illinois Man Has Police Called on Him for ATV Snow Fun 4. Joe Biden Goes Full Thomas Jefferson on Obsession Over Black Women 5. Joe Biden Practicing ASMR The post Catholic Reactionaries Lose Their Balance on Francis Obsession first appeared on David L. Gray.

David L. Gray: Off Code and Off Script Stories: 1. Pressure Ramps Up on Canadian Truckers 2. Catholic Reactionaries Praise a 'Not-Friendly' 3. Illinois Man Has Police Called on Him for ATV Snow Fun 4. Joe Biden Goes Full Thomas Jefferson on Obsession Over Black Women 5. Joe Biden Practicing ASMR The post Catholic Reactionaries Lose Their Balance on Francis Obsession first appeared on David L. Gray.

-More escalation: 3,000 US troops to Europe -MIT grad student union files for election -Ownership class ruining sports -Reactionaries rewrite school curriculum, but decry Joe Rogan “censorship” -Bezos vs. bridge  

The boys  debate the feasibility and morality  of Operation Unthinkable.  Reactionaries in the Allied nations  like Allen Dulles had  toyed with the idea of turning against the Soviets during the war, but toward the end of WWII Churchill asked his generals to draft a secret plan to attack the Red Army in July 1945.   

In the second of a special three-part series, Jamie and Josh explore how the rise of citizen journalism combined with toxic troll culture gave rise to reaction reactionaries: The people who profit most from reacting to other people's reactions. Rooted in digital technology's infrastructure and libertarian ideology, they explore how identity, language, and irony were leveraged to create an army of culture warriors. From Chan culture to John Perry Barlow's Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, they explore how we arrived in an environment where targeted harassment campaigns have become the norm. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ralph Leonard is a writer, Secular Humanist, and “Conservative Marxist” who regularly commentates on politics, economics, and the culture wars online. In this conversation we talked about the differences in how leftists (marxists, socialists, etc.) view class struggle and identity politics versus progressive neoliberals (free market capitalists). We also covered how topics of class, race, gender, and nationality have to be addressed in more all-encompassing ways than solely class or identity, how reactionary grifters hijack these complex subjects to further social capital in the name of free speech, and more. Enjoy! Follow Ralph on Twitter here: twitter.com/buffsoldier_96 Follow Ralph's writing here: medium.com/@buffsoldier_96 Hear him on the Michael Brooks Show here (patrons only): www.patreon.com/posts/71-p-clr-james-24438324

In this episode we discuss the film Planet of The Humans, directed by Jeff Gibbs and produced by Ozie Zehner and Michael Moore. The film shows how the environmental movement -- as defined by large environmental organizations, what we call big green environmentalism -- has been largely been co-opted by corporations and finance, and refocused from the natural world to so-called green technology that, despite what we may like to believe, will not and cannot solve the climate problem. The film was released on Earth Day 2020 and has been viewed over 8 million times since then. The backlash to the film by the big green environmentalists was swift; within days, many big names in these organizations had posted harsh criticism of the film. Because the film dares to question the technologies these organizations have been pushing on us -- primarily wind and solar -- most criticism focused on how the film got small and inconsequential details of these technologies wrong---for instance whether solar panels are 8% efficient or 15% efficient. Of course, this misses the point of the film entirely, which is that these technologies are simply a means to keep our industrial civilization going just a little bit longer so that we may continue to destroy what's left of the natural world. The film's detractors succeeded in removing the film from YouTube for several days in late May and early June using a copyright claim over 4 seconds of film; 4 seconds that clearly falls under fair use. The film is now available again and continues to be offered for free. We discuss some of the questions raised by the film, the authoritarian nature of modern-day solar, wind, and biomass technologies, our responses to the film, parts of the film that resonated with us most deeply, perhaps the most controversial topic touched on the film -- population, how the media fails to communicate the full impacts of technology, the film as part of the conversation about the price of technology in our lives, and more. Links: Film: https://planetofthehumans.com/ Interview with film maker Jeff Gibbs on The Green Flame: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gExefKn7XM Interview with film maker Jeff Gibbs on Resistance Radio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pila-SBBk5M Reverie (Piano Version) ft. Adarsh PV by Lahar https://soundcloud.com/musicbylahar Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported — CC BY 3.0