Podcasts about Russian Revolution

In this two-part breakdown, Bernie Sanders' candid admission on Andrew Schulz's Flagrant podcast sparks a deeper conversation about the crumbling integrity of the Democratic Party. From Sanders conceding that Democrat primaries haven't been fair since 2008, to RFK Jr. being shut out of the race through rule changes and backdoor power plays, this analysis dives into the systemic suppression of voter choice. But it doesn't stop there—host commentary draws parallels to the Russian Revolution, alleging a long-game strategy of political censorship, weaponized government agencies, and normalization of violence against dissenters. A must-hear exposé on how democracy is being dismantled from within.

In this explosive episode, Bernie Sanders appears on Andrew Schulz's Flagrant podcast and drops a shocking truth: the Democratic Party hasn't held a fair primary since 2008. From rigging elections to suppressing opposition like RFK Jr., the episode uncovers deep-rooted corruption and oligarchic control within the Democratic establishment. The host dives into the broader implications—alleged general election fraud, government censorship, and normalization of political violence—arguing that America is following a dangerous path reminiscent of the Russian Revolution. This is the episode they don't want you to hear.

The new international status quo that emerged after the first World War was very different than what came before, and Japan was poised to become a major new power in this new world.Support the show My latest novel, "Califia's Crusade," is now available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Kobo, Apple Books, Bookshop.org, and many other online platforms!

Hey Wildlings! Do you believe in rooting for the underdog? What about the under-eagle? 45 years ago the US Olympic hockey team didn't have a snowball's chance in heck of beating the stronger, faster Russian team — but somehow they did! Evan takes us back to the “Miracle On Ice” and reports in person from where the magic happened in Lake Placid, NY. Think you're sharp? See if you can hold your own in Concentration 64 as Evan and Nichole face off in this hand-clapping, rhythmic battle of wits. Nichole talks to educator and parenting expert Jayme Yannuzzi of Teach Talk Inspire about what it's like to be a momfluencer, and learns how easy it is to make the icky, gooey non-Newtonian liquid known as Oobleck. We learn about the Russian Revolution through Nichole's experience in the musical “Anastasia,” and in Cryptid Corner Evan finally features a creature that might actually exist, but also might be a Russian spy. Our newest segment “Animal Calls” features a particularly prickly little guy, and we serve up all your favorite recurring segments like jokes, Favorite Sound, Grandparent Story, and an ice-cold riddle that's sure to freeze you in your tracks. Let's get wild!Timestamps for this episode are available below. Parents: visit our website to help your kids contribute jokes or favorite sounds, or to send us a message:  www.wildinterest.com/submissions00:00 - Episode 12 Intro02:07 - Evan's Miracle on Ice07:00 - Riddle Clue07:18 - Anastasia13:07 - Animal Call Clue13:38 - Favorite Sound15:07 - Concentration 6419:13 - Animal Call Reprise19:34 - Cryptid Corner: Mermaid, Whale, or Spy?22:40 - Joke Time23:39 - Call for Submissions24:06 - Grandparent Stories: Vincas30:10 - Animal Call Reveal31:46 - Jayme Yanuzzi of Teach Talk Inspire41:11 - Riddle Answer41:32 - Preview of Episode 1341:43 - Call for Reviews + Word of Mouth42:00 - Credits42:22 - Blooperswildinterest.com

I've been in London this week talking to America watchers about the current situation in the United States. First up is Edmund Fawcett, the longtime Economist correspondent in DC and historian of both liberalism and conservatism. Fawcett argues that Trump's MAGA movement represents a kind of third way between liberalism and conservatism - a version of American populism resurrected for our anti-globalist early 21st century. He talks about how economic inequality fuels Trumpism, with middle-class income shares dropping while the wealthy prosper. He critiques both what he calls right-wing intellectual "kitsch" and the left's lack of strategic vision beyond its dogma of identity politics. Lacking an effective counter-narrative to combat Trumpism, Fawcett argues, liberals require not only sharper messaging but also a reinvention of what it means to be modern in our globalized age of resurrected nationalism. 5 Key Takeaways* European reactions to Trump mix shock with recognition that his politics have deep American roots.* Economic inequality (declining middle-class wealth) provides the foundation for Trump's political appeal.* The American left lacks an effective counter-narrative and strategic vision to combat Trumpism.* Both right-wing intellectualism and left-wing identity politics suffer from forms of "kitsch" and American neurosis.* The perception of America losing its position as the embodiment of modernity creates underlying anxiety. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, we are in London this week, looking westward, looking at the United States, spending some time with some distinguished Englishmen, or half-Englishmen, who have spent a lot of their lives in the United States, and Edmund Fawcett, former Economist correspondent in America, the author of a number of important books, particularly, Histories of Liberalism and Conservatism, is remembering America, Edmund. What's your first memory of America?Edmund Fawcett: My first memory of America is a traffic accident on Park Avenue, looking down as a four-year-old from our apartment. I was there from the age of two to four, then again as a school child in Washington for a few years when my father was working. He was an international lawyer. But then, after that, back in San Francisco, where I was a... I kind of hacked as an editor for Straight Arrow Press, which was the publishing arm of Rolling Stone. This was in the early 70s. These were the, it was the end of the glory days of Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco, the anti-war movement in Vietnam. It was exciting. A lot was going on, a lot was changing. And then not long after that, I came back to the U.S. for The Economist as their correspondent in Washington. That was in 1976, and I stayed there until 1983. We've always visited. Our son and grandson are American. My wife is or was American. She gave up her citizenship last year, chiefly for practical reasons. She said I would always feel American. But our regular visits have ended, of course. Being with my background, my mother was American, my grandfather was American. It is deeply part of my outlook, it's part of my world and so I am always very interested. I read quite a bit of the American press, not just the elite liberal press, every day. I keep an eye on through Real Clear Politics, which has got a very good sort of gazetteer. It's part of my weather.Andrew Keen: Edmund, I know you can't speak on behalf of Europe, but I'm going to ask a dumb question. Maybe you'll give me a smarter answer than the question. What's the European, the British take on what's happening in America? What's happened in this first quarter of 2025?Edmund Fawcett: I think a large degree of shock and horror, that's just the first reaction. If you'll allow me a little space, I think then there's a second reaction. The first reaction is shock and terror, with good reason, and nobody likes being talked to in the way that Vance talked to them, ignorantly and provocatively about free speech, which he feels he hasn't really thought hard enough about, and besides, it was I mean... Purely commercial, in largely commercial interest. The Europeans are shocked by the American slide from five, six, seven decades of internationalism. Okay, American-led, but still internationalist, cooperative, they're deeply shocked by that. And anybody who cares, as many Europeans do, about the texture, the caliber of American democracy and liberalism, are truly shocked by Trump's attacks on the courts, his attacks on the universities, his attack on the press.Andrew Keen: You remember, of course, Edmund, that famous moment in Casablanca where the policeman said he was shocked, truly shocked when of course he wasn't. Is your shock for real? Your... A good enough scholar of the United States to understand that a lot of the stuff that Trump is bringing to the table isn't new. We've had an ongoing debate in the show about how authentically American Trump is, whether he is the F word fascist or whether he represents some other indigenous strain in US political culture. What's your take?Edmund Fawcett: No, and that's the response to the shock. It's when you look back and see this Trump is actually deeply American. There's very little new here. There's one thing that is new, which I'll come to in a moment, and that returns the shock, but the shock is, is to some extent absorbed when Europeans who know about this do reflect that Trump is deeply American. I mean, there is a, he likes to cite McKinley, good, okay, the Republicans were the tariff party. He likes to say a lot of stuff that, for example, the populist Tom Watson from the South, deeply racist, but very much speaking for the working man, so long as he was a white working man. Trump goes back to that as well. He goes back in the presidential roster. Look at Robert Taft, competitor for the presidency against Eisenhower. He lost, but he was a very big voice in the Republican Party in the 1940s and 50s. Robert Taft, Jr. didn't want to join NATO. He pushed through over Truman's veto, the Taft-Hartley bill that as good as locked the unions out, the trade unions out of much of the part of America that became the burgeoning economic America, the South and the West. Trump is, sorry, forgive me, Taft, was in many ways as a hard-right Republican. Nixon told Kissinger, professors are the enemy. Reagan gave the what was it called? I forget the name of the speech that he gave in endorsing Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican Convention. This in a way launched the new Republican assault on liberal republicanism. Rockefeller was the loser. Reagan, as it were, handed the palm to Rocket Goldwater. He lost to Johnson, but the sermon they were using, the anti-liberal went into vernacular and Trump is merely in a way echoing that. If you were to do a movie called Trump, he would star, of course, but somebody who was Nixon and Reagan's scriptwright, forgive me, somebody who is Nixon and Reagan's Pressman, Pat Buchanan, he would write the script of the Trump movie. Go back and read, look at some of Pat Buchanan's books, some of his articles. He was... He said virtually everything that Trump says. America used to be great, it is no longer great. America has enemies outside that don't like it, that we have nothing to do with, we don't need allies, what we want is friends, and we have very few friends in the world. We're largely on our, by our own. We're basically a huge success, but we're being betrayed. We're being ignored by our allies, we're being betrayed by friends inside, and they are the liberal elite. It's all there in Pat Buchanan. So Trump in that way is indeed very American. He's very part of the history. Now, two things. One is... That Trump, like many people on the hard right in Europe, is to some extent, a neurotic response to very real complaints. If you would offer a one chart explanation of Trumpism, I don't know whether I can hold it up for the camera. It's here. It is actually two charts, but it is the one at the top where you see two lines cross over. You see at the bottom a more or less straight line. What this does is compare the share of income in 1970 with the share of the income more or less now. And what has happened, as we are not at all surprised to learn, is that the poor, who are not quite a majority but close to the actual people in the United States, things haven't changed for them much at all. Their life is static. However, what has changed is the life for what, at least in British terms, is called the middle classes, the middle group. Their share of income and wealth has dropped hugely, whereas the share of the income and wealth of the top has hugely risen. And in economic terms, that is what Trumpism is feeding off. He's feeding off a bewildered sense of rage, disappointment, possibly envy of people who looked forward, whose parents looked forward to a great better life, who they themselves got a better life. They were looking forward to one for their children and grandchildren. And now they're very worried that they're not those children and grandchildren aren't going to get it. So socially speaking, there is genuine concern, indeed anger that Trump is speaking to. Alas, Trump's answers are, I would say, and I think many Europeans would agree, fantasies.Andrew Keen: Your background is also on the left, your first job was at the New Left Reviews, you're all too familiar with Marxist language, Marxist literature, ways of thinking about what we used to call late-stage capitalism, maybe we should rename it post-late-stage-capitalism. Is it any surprise, given your presentation of the current situation in America, which is essentially class envy or class warfare, but the right. The Bannonites and many of the others on the right fringes of the MAGA movement have picked up on Lenin and Gramsci and the old icons of class warfare.Edmund Fawcett: No, I don't think it is. I think that they are these are I mean, we live in a world in which the people in politics and in the press in business, they've been to universities, they've read an awful lot of books, they spend an awful lot of time studying dusty old books like the ones you mentioned, Gramsci and so. So they're, to some extent, forgive me, they are, they're intellectuals or at least they become, they be intellectualized. Lenin called one of his books, What is to be Done. Patrick Deneen, a Catholic right-wing Catholic philosopher. He's one of the leading right-wing Catholic intellectuals of the day, hard right. He named it What is To Be Done. But this is almost kitsch, as it were, for a conservative Catholic intellectual to name a book after Vladimir Lenin, the first Bolshevik leader of the Russian Revolution. Forgive me, I lost the turn.Andrew Keen: You talk about kitsch, Edmund, is this kitsch leftism or is it real leftism? I mean if Trump was Bernie Sanders and a lot of what Trump says is not that different from Sanders with the intellectuals or the few intellectuals left in. New York and San Francisco and Los Angeles, would they be embracing what's happening? Thanks, I've got the third again.Edmund Fawcett: No, you said Kitsch. The publicists and intellectuals who support Trump, there is a Kitsch element to it. They use a lot of long words, they appeal to a lot of authorities. Augustine of Hippo comes into it. This is really kind of intellectual grandstanding. No, what matters? And this comes to the second thing about shock at Trump. The second thing is that there is real social and economic dysfunction here that the United States isn't really coping with. I don't think the Trumpites, I don't think the rather kitschy intellectuals who are his mature leaders. I don't think they so much matter. What I think matters here is, put it this way, is the silence of the left. And this is one of the deep problems. I mean, always with my friends, progressive friends, liberal friends, it's terribly easy to throw rocks at Trump and scorn his cheerleaders but we always have to ask ourselves why are they there and we're here and the left at the moment doesn't really have an answer to that. The Democrats in the United States they're strangely silent. And it's not just, as many people say, because they haven't dared to speak up. It's not that, it's a question of courage. It's an intellectual question of lacking some strategic sense of where the country is and what kinds of policy would help get it to a better place. This is very bleak, and that's part of, underlies the sense of shock, which we come back to with Trump after we tell ourselves, oh, well, it isn't new, and so on. The sense of shock is, well what is the practical available alternative for the moment? Electorally, Trump is quite weak, he wasn't a landslide, he got fewer percentage than Jimmy Carter did. The balance in the in the congress is quite is quite slight but again you could take false comfort there. The problem with liberals and progressives is they don't really have a counter narrative and one of the reasons they don't have a counter-narrative is I don't sense they have any longer a kind of vision of their own. This is a very bleak state of affairs.Andrew Keen: It's a bleak state of affairs in a very kind of surreal way. They're lacking the language. They don't have the words. Do they need to reread the old New Left classics?Edmund Fawcett: I think you've said a good thing. I mean, words matter tremendously. And this is one of Trump's gifts, is that he's able to spin old tropes of the right, the old theme music of the hard right that goes back to late 19th century America, late 19th century Europe. He's brilliant at it. It's often garbled. It's also incoherent. But the intellectuals, particularly liberals and progressives can mishear this. They can miss the point. They say, ah, it doesn't, it's not grammatical. It's incoherent. It is word salad. That's not the point. A paragraph of Trump doesn't make sense. If you were an editor, you'd want to rewrite it, but editors aren't listening. It's people in the crowd who get his main point, and his main point is always expressed verbally. It's very clever. It's hard to reproduce because he's actually a very good actor. However, the left at the moment has nothing. It has neither a vocabulary nor a set of speech makers. And the reason it doesn't have that, it doesn't have the vocabularies, because it doesn't have the strategic vision.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and coming back to the K-word you brought up, kitsch. If anything, the kitsch is on the left with Kamala Harris and her presentation of herself in this kitschification of American immigration. So the left in America, if that's the right word to describe them, are as vulnerable to kitsch as the right.Edmund Fawcett: Yes, and whether it's kitsch or not, I think this is very difficult to talk to on the progressive left. Identity politics does have a lot to answer for. Okay, I'll go for it. I mean, it's an old saying in politics that things begin as a movement, become a campaign, become a lobby, and then end up as a racket. That's putting it much too strongly, but there is an element in identity politics of which that is true. And I think identity politics is a deep problem for liberals, it's a deep problem for progressives because in the end, what identity politics offers is a fragmentation, which is indeed happened on the left, which then the right can just pick off as it chooses. This is, I think, to get back some kind of strategic vision, the left needs to come out of identity politics, it needs to go back to the vision of commonality, the vision of non-discrimination, the mission of true civic equality, which underlay civil rights, great movement, and try to avoid. The way that identity politics is encouraged, a kind of segmentation. There's an interesting parallel between identity politics and Trumpism. I'm thinking of the national element in Trumpism, Make America Great Again. It's rather a shock to see the Secretary of State sitting beside Trump in the room in the White House with a make America it's not a make America great cap but it says Gulf of America this kind of This nationalism is itself neurotic in a way that identity politics has become neurotic.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's a Linguistic.Edmund Fawcett: Neurosis. Both are neurotic responses to genuine problems.Andrew Keen: Edmund, long-time viewers and listeners to the show know that I often quote you in your wonderful two histories of conservatism and liberalism when you, I'm not sure which of the books, I think it may have been in conservatism. I can't remember myself. You noted that this struggle between the left and the right, between liberalism and conservatives have always be smarter they've always made the first move and it's always been up to the liberals and of course liberalism and the left aren't always the same thing but the left or progressives have always been catching up with conservatives so just to ask this question in terms of this metaphorical chess match has anything changed. It's always been the right that makes the first move, that sets the game up. It has recently.Edmund Fawcett: Let's not fuss too much with the metaphor. I think it was, as it were, the Liberals made the first move for decades, and then, more or less in our lifetimes, it has been the right that has made the weather, and the left has been catching up. Let's look at what happened in the 1970s. In effect. 30-40 years of welfare capitalism in which the state played ever more of a role in providing safety nets for people who were cut short by a capitalistic economy. Politics turned its didn't entirely reject that far from it but it is it was said enough already we've reached an end point we're now going to turn away from that and try to limit the welfare state and that has been happening since the 1970s and the left has never really come up with an alternative if you look at Mitterrand in France you look at Tony Blair new Labor in you look at Clinton in the United States, all of them in effect found an acceptably liberal progressive way of repackaging. What the right was doing and the left has got as yet no alternative. They can throw rocks at Trump, they can resist the hard right in Germany, they can go into coalition with the Christian Democrats in order to resist the hard right much as in France but they don't really have a governing strategy of their own. And until they do, it seems to me, and this is the bleak vision, the hard right will make the running. Either they will be in government as they are in the United States, or they'll be kept just out of government by unstable coalitions of liberal conservatives and the liberal left.Andrew Keen: So to quote Patrick Deneen, what is to be done is the alternative, a technocracy, the best-selling book now on the New York Times bestseller list is Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson's Abundance, which is a progressive. Technocratic manifesto for changing America. It's not very ideological. Is that really the only alternative for the left unless it falls into a Bernie Sanders-style anti-capitalism which often is rather vague and problematic?Edmund Fawcett: Well, technocracy is great, but technocrats never really get to do what they say ought to be done, particularly not in large, messy democracies like Europe and the United States. Look, it's a big question. If I had a Leninist answer to Patrick Deneen's question, what is to be done, I'd be very happy to give it. I feel as somebody on the liberal left that the first thing the liberal left needs to do is to is two things. One is to focus in exposing the intellectual kitschiness, the intellectual incoherence on the one hand of the hard right, and two, hitting back in a popular way, in a vulgar way, if you will, at the lies, misrepresentations, and false appeals that the hard-right coasts on. So that's really a kind of public relations. It's not deep strategy or technocracy. It is not a policy list. It's sharpening up the game. Of basically of democratic politics and they need to liberals on the left need to be much tougher much sharper much more vulgar much more ready to use the kinds of weapons the kinds of mockery and imaginative invention that the Trumpites use that's the first thing the second thing is to take a breath and go back and look at the great achievements of democratic liberalism of the 1950s, 60s, 70s if you will. I mean these were these produced in Europe and the United States societies that by any historical standard are not bad. They have terrible problems, terrible inequities, but by any historical standard and indeed by any comparative standard, they're not bad if you ask yourself why immigration has become such a problem in Western Europe and the United States, it's because these are hugely desirable places to live in, not just because they're rich and make a comfortable living, which is the sort of the rights attitude, because basically they're fairly safe places to live. They're fairly good places for your kids to grow up in. All of these are huge achievements, and it seems to me that the progressives, the liberals, should look back and see how much work was needed to create... The kinds of politics that underpinned that society, and see what was good, boast of what was and focus on how much work was needed.Andrew Keen: Maybe rather than talking about making America great again, it should be making America not bad. I think that's too English for the United States. I don't think that should be for a winner outside Massachusetts and Maine. That's back to front hypocritical Englishism. Let's end where we began on a personal note. Do you think one of the reasons why Trump makes so much news, there's so much bemusement about him around the world, is because most people associate America with modernity, they just take it for granted that America is the most advanced, the most modern, is the quintessential modern project. So when you have a character like Trump, who's anti-modernist, who is a reactionary, It's bewildering.Edmund Fawcett: I think it is bewildering, and I think there's a kind of bewilderment underneath, which we haven't really spoken to as it is an entirely other subject, but is lurking there. Yes, you put your absolutely right, you put your finger on it, a lot of us look to America as modernity, maybe not the society of the future, but certainly the the culture of the future, the innovations of the future. And I think one of the worrying things, which maybe feeds the neurosis of Make America Great Again, feeds the neurosis, of current American unilateralism, is a fear But modernity, talk like Hegel, has now shifted and is now to be seen in China, India and other countries of the world. And I think underlying everything, even below the stuff that we showed in the chart about changing shares of wealth. I think under that... That is much more worrisome in the United States than almost anything else. It's the sense that the United States isn't any longer the great modern world historical country. It's very troubling, but let's face it, you get have to get used to it.Andrew Keen: The other thing that's bewildering and chilling is this seeming coexistence of technological innovation, the Mark Andreessen's, the the Musk's, Elon Musk's of the world, the AI revolution, Silicon Valley, who seem mostly in alliance with Trump and Musk of course are headed out. The Doge campaign to destroy government or undermine government. Is it conceivable that modernity is by definition, you mentioned Hegel and of course lots of people imagine that history had ended in 1989 but the reverse was true. Is it possible that modernity is by-definition reactionary politically?Edmund Fawcett: A tough one. I mean on the technocracy, the technocrats of Silicon Valley, I think one of their problems is that they're brilliant, quite brilliant at making machines. I'm the machinery we're using right here. They're fantastic. They're not terribly good at. Messy human beings and messy politics. So I'm not terribly troubled by that, nor your other question about it is whether looming challenges of technology. I mean, maybe I could just end with the violinist, Fritz Kreisler, who said, I was against the telegraph, I was against the telephone, I was against television. I'm a progressive when it comes to technology. I'm always against the latest thing. I mean, I don't, there've always been new machines. I'm not terribly troubled by that. It seems to me, you know, I want you to worry about more immediate problems. If indeed AI is going to take over the world, my sense is, tell us when we get there.Andrew Keen: And finally, you were half-born in the United States or certainly from an American and British parent. You spent a lot of your life there and you still go, you follow it carefully. Is it like losing a lover or a loved one? Is it a kind of divorce in your mind with what's happening in America in terms of your own relations with America? You noted that your wife gave up her citizenship this year.Edmund Fawcett: Well, it is. And if I could talk about Natalia, my wife, she was much more American than me. Her mother was American from Philadelphia. She lived and worked in America more than I did. She did give up her American citizenship last year, partly for a feeling of, we use a long word, alienation, partly for practical reasons, not because we're anything like rich enough to pay American tax, but simply the business of keeping up with the changing tax code is very wary and troublesome. But she said, as she did it, she will always feel deeply American, and I think it's possible to say that. I mean, it's part of both of us, and I don't think...Andrew Keen: It's loseable. Well, I have to ask this question finally, finally. Maybe I always use that word and it's never final. What does it mean to feel American?Edmund Fawcett: Well, everybody's gonna have their own answer to that. I was just... What does it mean for you? I'm just reading. What it is to feel American. Can I dodge the question by saying, what is it to feel Californian? Or even what is to be Los Angelino? Where my sister-in-law and brother-in-law live. A great friend said, what it is feel Los Angeles you go over those mountains and you put down your rucksack. And I think what that means is for Europeans, America has always meant leaving the past behind.Edmund Fawcett was the Economist‘s Washington, Paris and Berlin correspondent and is a regular reviewer. His Liberalism: The Life of an Idea was published by Princeton in 2014. The second in his planned political trilogy – Conservatism: The Fight for a Tradition – was published in 2020, also by Princeton University Press. The Economist called it ‘an epic history of conservatism and the Financial Times praised Fawcett for creating a ‘rich and wide-ranging account' that demonstrates how conservatism has repeated managed to renew itself.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this intriguing episode of History Rage, host Paul Bavill is joined by Dr. Claire Hubbard-Hall, an intelligence historian and author of "Her Secret Service." Together, they delve into the often-overlooked contributions of women in British intelligence, challenging long-standing myths and stereotypes perpetuated by popular culture.Episode Highlights:- The Misrepresentation of Female Spies: Dr. Hubbard Hall expresses her frustration with the portrayal of women in intelligence as seductive femme fatales, arguing that most were more akin to Miss Marple than the glamorous figures depicted in films.- The Real Roles of Women in Intelligence: Discover the diverse and crucial roles women played, from handling spy communications to organising complex travel plans for agents, as exemplified by Rita Windsor and Ena Molesworth during World War II.- The Lunn Sisters: Explore the fascinating story of the Lunn sisters, whose family was divided by ideology during the Russian Revolution, with some members working for British intelligence.- Recruitment of Women in Intelligence: Learn how women were recruited into the intelligence services, often through social connections or professional roles, defying the traditional gentleman's club network.- The Influence of James Bond: Discuss the impact of James Bond on the perception of female spies and how it continues to overshadow the real stories of women in intelligence.- Millicent Bagot and Kim Philby: Delve into the role of Millicent Baggot in raising suspicions about Kim Philby and the challenges faced by women in being heard within the male-dominated intelligence community.Join us for a riveting discussion that sheds light on the true stories of women in intelligence, breaking down stereotypes and highlighting their invaluable contributions to history.Connect with Dr. Claire Hubbard Hall:- Follow Claire on Twitter: @spyhistory- Follow Claire on Instagram: @clairehubbardhall- Buy the Book: Her Secret Service from the History Rage BookshopSupport the Show:If you're fired up by this episode, consider joining the 'Angry Mob' on Patreon at patreon.com/historyrage for exclusive content, early access, and the iconic History Rage mug.Follow the Rage:- Twitter: @HistoryRage- Paul on Twitter: @PaulBavillFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/HistoryRageInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/historyrage/From all of us at History Rage, stay curious, stay passionate, and most importantly, stay angry! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A year ago, the great American historian Adam Hochschild came on KEEN ON AMERICA to discuss American Midnight, his best selling account of the crisis of American democracy after World War One. A year later, is history really repeating itself in today's crisis of American democracy? For Hochschild, there are certainly parallels between the current political situation in the US and post WW1 America. Describing how wartime hysteria and fear of communism led to unprecedented government repression, including mass imprisonment for political speech, vigilante violence, and press censorship. Hochschild notes eery similarities to today's Trump's administration. He expresses concern about today's threats to democratic institutions while suggesting the importance of understanding Trump supporters' grievances and finding ways to bridge political divides. Five Key Takeaways* The period of 1917-1921 in America saw extreme government repression, including imprisoning people for speech, vigilante violence, and widespread censorship—what Hochschild calls America's "Trumpiest" era before Trump.* American history shows recurring patterns of nativism, anti-immigrant sentiment, and scapegoating that politicians exploit during times of economic or social stress.* The current political climate shows concerning parallels to this earlier period, including intimidation of opposition, attacks on institutions, and the widespread acceptance of authoritarian tendencies.* Hochschild emphasizes the importance of understanding the grievances and suffering that lead people to support authoritarian figures rather than dismissing their concerns.* Despite current divisions, Hochschild believes reconciliation is possible and necessary, pointing to historical examples like President Harding pardoning Eugene Debs after Wilson imprisoned him. Full Transcript Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. We recently celebrated our 2500th edition of Keen On. Some people suggest I'm mad. I think I probably am to do so many shows. Just over a little more than a year ago, we celebrated our 2000th show featuring one of America's most distinguished historians, Adam Hochschild. I'm thrilled that Adam is joining us again a year later. He's the author of "American Midnight, The Great War, A Violent Peace, and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis." This was his last book. He's the author of many other books. He is now working on a book on the Great Depression. He's joining us from his home in Berkeley, California. Adam, to borrow a famous phrase or remix a famous phrase, a year is a long time in American history.Adam Hochschild: That's true, Andrew. I think this past year, or actually this past 100 days or so has been a very long and very difficult time in American history that we all saw coming to some degree, but I don't think we realized it would be as extreme and as rapid as it has been.Andrew Keen: Your book, Adam, "American Midnight, A Great War of Violent Peace and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis," is perhaps the most prescient warning. When you researched that you were saying before we went live that your books usually take you between four and five years, so you couldn't really have planned for this, although I guess you began writing and researching American Midnight during the Trump 1.0 regime. Did you write it as a warning to something like is happening today in America?Adam Hochschild: Well, I did start writing it and did most of the work on it during Trump's first term in office. So I was very struck by the parallels. And they're in plain sight for everybody to see. There are various dark currents that run through this country of ours. Nativism, threats to deport troublemakers. Politicians stirring up violent feelings against immigrants, vigilante violence, all those things have been with us for a long time. I've always been fascinated by that period, 1917 to 21, when they surged to the surface in a very nasty way. That was the subject of the book. Naturally, I hoped we wouldn't have to go through anything like that again, but here we are definitely going through it again.Andrew Keen: You wrote a lovely piece earlier this month for the Washington Post. "America was at its Trumpiest a hundred years ago. Here's how to prevent the worst." What did you mean by Trumpiest, Adam? I'm not sure if you came up with that title, but I know you like the term. You begin the essay. What was the Trumpiest period in American life before Donald Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I didn't invent the word, but I certainly did use it in the piece. What I meant by that is that when you look at this period just over 100 years ago, 1917 to 1921, Woodrow Wilson's second term in office, two things happened in 1917 that kicked off a kind of hysteria in this country. One was that Wilson asked the American Congress to declare war on Germany, which it promptly did, and when a country enters a major war, especially a world war, it sets off a kind of hysteria. And then that was redoubled some months later when the country received news of the Russian Revolution, and many people in the establishment in America were afraid the Russian Revolution might come to the United States.So, a number of things happened. One was that there was a total hysteria against all things German. There were bonfires of German books all around the country. People would take German books out of libraries, schools, college and university libraries and burn them in the street. 19 such bonfires in Ohio alone. You can see pictures of it on the internet. There was hysteria about the German language. I heard about this from my father as I was growing up because his father was a Jewish immigrant from Germany. They lived in New York City. They spoke German around the family dinner table, but they were terrified of doing so on the street because you could get beaten up for that. Several states passed laws against speaking German in public or speaking German on the telephone. Eminent professors declared that German was a barbaric language. So there was that kind of hysteria.Then as soon as the United States declared war, Wilson pushed the Espionage Act through Congress, this draconian law, which essentially gave the government the right to lock up anybody who said something that was taken to be against the war. And they used this law in a devastating way. During those four years, roughly a thousand Americans spent a year or more in jail and a much larger number, shorter periods in jail solely for things that they wrote or said. These were people who were political prisoners sent to jail simply for something they wrote or said, the most famous of them was Eugene Debs, many times the socialist candidate for president. He'd gotten 6% of the popular vote in 1912 and in 1918. For giving an anti-war speech from a park bandstand in Ohio, he was sent to prison for 10 years. And he was still in prison two years after the war ended in November, 1920, when he pulled more than 900,000 votes for president from his jail cell in the federal penitentiary in Atlanta.So that was one phase of the repression, political prisoners. Another was vigilante violence. The government itself, the Department of Justice, chartered a vigilante group, something called the American Protective League, which went around roughing up people that it thought were evading the draft, beating up people at anti-war rallies, arresting people with citizens arrest whom they didn't have their proper draft papers on them, holding them for hours or sometimes for days until they could produce the right paperwork.Andrew Keen: I remember, Adam, you have a very graphic description of some of this violence in American Midnight. There was a story, was it a union leader?Adam Hochschild: Well, there is so much violence that happened during that time. I begin the book with a graphic description of vigilantes raiding an office of the Wobblies, the Industrial Workers of the World, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, taking a bunch of wobblies out into the prairie at night, stripping them, whipping them, flogging them fiercely, and then tarring and feathering them, and firing shotguns over their heads so they would run off into the Prairie at Night. And they did. Those guys were lucky because they survive. Other people were killed by this vigilante violence.And the final thing about that period which I would mention is the press censorship. The Espionage Act gave the Postmaster General the power to declare any publication in the United States unmailable. And for a newspaper or a magazine that was trying to reach a national audience, the only way you could do so was through the US mail because there was no internet then. No radio, no TV, no other way of getting your publication to somebody. And this put some 75 newspapers and magazines that the government didn't like out of business. It in addition censored three or four hundred specific issues of other publications as well.So that's why I feel this is all a very dark period of American life. Ironically, that press censorship operation, because it was run by the postmaster general, who by the way loved being chief censor, it was ran out of the building that was then the post office headquarters in Washington, which a hundred years later became the Trump International Hotel. And for $4,000 a night, you could stay in the Postmaster General's suite.Andrew Keen: You, Adam, the First World War is a subject you're very familiar with. In addition to American Midnight, you wrote "To End All Wars, a story of loyalty and rebellion, 1914 to 18," which was another very successful of your historical recreations. Many countries around the world experience this turbulence, the violence. Of course, we had fascism in the 20s in Europe. And later in the 30s as well. America has a long history of violence. You talk about the violence after the First World War or after the declaration. But I was just in Montgomery, Alabama, went to the lynching museum there, which is considerably troubling. I'm sure you've been there. You're not necessarily a comparative political scientist, Adam. How does America, in its paranoia during the war and its clampdown on press freedom, on its violence, on its attempt to create an authoritarian political system, how does it compare to other democracies? Is some of this stuff uniquely American or is it a similar development around the world?Adam Hochschild: You see similar pressures almost any time that a major country is involved in a major war. Wars are never good for civil liberties. The First World War, to stick with that period of comparison, was a time that saw strong anti-war movements in all of the warring countries, in Germany and Britain and Russia. There were people who understood at the time that this war was going to remake the world for the worse in every way, which indeed it did, and who refused to fight. There were 800 conscientious objectors jailed in Russia, and Russia did not have much freedom of expression to begin with. In Germany, many distinguished people on the left, like Rosa Luxemburg, were sent to jail for most of the war.Britain was an interesting case because I think they had a much longer established tradition of free speech than did the countries on the continent. It goes way back and it's a distinguished and wonderful tradition. They were also worried for the first two and a half, three years of the war before the United States entered, that if they crack down too hard on their anti-war movement, it would upset people in the United States, which they were desperate to draw into the war on their side. Nonetheless, there were 6,000 conscientious objectors who were sent to jail in England. There was intermittent censorship of anti-war publications, although some were able to publish some of the time. There were many distinguished Britons, such as Bertrand Russell, the philosopher who later won a Nobel Prize, sent to jails for six months for his opposition to the war. So some of this happened all over.But I think in the United States, especially with these vigilante groups, it took a more violent form because remember the country at that time was only a few decades away from these frontier wars with the Indians. And the westward expansion of the United States during the 19th century, the western expansion of white settlement was an enormously bloody business that was almost genocidal for the Native Americans. Many people had participated in that. Many people saw that violence as integral to what the country was. So there was a pretty well-established tradition of settling differences violently.Andrew Keen: I'm sure you're familiar with Stephen Hahn's book, "A Liberal America." He teaches at NYU, a book which in some ways is very similar to yours, but covers all of American history. Hahn was recently on the Ezra Klein show, talking like you, like we're talking today, Adam, about the very American roots of Trumpism. Hahn, it's an interesting book, traces much of this back to Jackson and the wars of the frontier against Indians. Do you share his thesis on that front? Are there strong similarities between Jackson, Wilson, and perhaps even Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I regret to say I'm not familiar with Hahn's book, but I certainly do feel that that legacy of constant war for most of the 19th century against the Native Americans ran very deep in this country. And we must never forget how appealing it is to young men to take part in war. Unfortunately, all through history, there have been people very tempted by this. And I think when you have wars of conquest, such as happen in the American West, against people who are more poorly armed, or colonial wars such as Europe fought in Africa and Asia against much more poorly-armed opponents, these are especially appealing to young people. And in both the United States and in the European colonization of Africa, which I know something about. For young men joining in these colonizing or conquering adventures, there was a chance not just to get martial glory, but to also get rich in the process.Andrew Keen: You're all too familiar with colonial history, Adam. Another of your books was about King Leopold's Congo and the brutality there. Where was the most coherent opposition morally and politically to what was happening? My sense in Trump's America is perhaps the most persuasive and moral critique comes from the old Republican Center from people like David Brooks, Peter Wayno has been on the show many times, Jonathan Rausch. Where were people like Teddy Roosevelt in this narrative? Were there critics from the right as well as from the left?Adam Hochschild: Good question. I first of all would give a shout out to those Republican centrists who've spoken out against Trump, the McCain Republicans. There are some good people there - Romney, of course as well. They've been very forceful. There wasn't really an equivalent to that, a direct equivalent to that in the Wilson era. Teddy Roosevelt whom you mentioned was a far more ferocious drum beater than Wilson himself and was pushing Wilson to declare war long before Wilson did. Roosevelt really believed that war was good for the soul. He desperately tried to get Wilson to appoint him to lead a volunteer force, came up with an elaborate plan for this would be a volunteer army staffed by descendants of both Union and Confederate generals and by French officers as well and homage to the Marquis de Lafayette. Wilson refused to allow Roosevelt to do this, and plus Roosevelt was, I think, 58 years old at the time. But all four of Roosevelt's sons enlisted and joined in the war, and one of them was killed. And his father was absolutely devastated by this.So there was not really that equivalent to the McCain Republicans who are resisting Trump, so to speak. In fact, what resistance there was in the U.S. came mostly from the left, and it was mostly ruthlessly silenced, all these people who went to jail. It was silenced also because this is another important part of what happened, which is different from today. When the federal government passed the Espionage Act that gave it these draconian powers, state governments, many of them passed copycat laws. In fact, a federal justice department agent actually helped draft the law in New Hampshire. Montana locked up people serving more than 60 years cumulatively of hard labor for opposing the war. California had 70 people in prison. Even my hometown of Berkeley, California passed a copycat law. So, this martial spirit really spread throughout the country at that time.Andrew Keen: So you've mentioned that Debs was the great critic and was imprisoned and got a considerable number of votes in the election. You're writing a book now about the Great Depression and FDR's involvement in it. FDR, of course, was a distant cousin of Teddy Roosevelt. At this point, he was an aspiring Democratic politician. Where was the critique within the mainstream Democratic party? Were people like FDR, who had a position in the Wilson administration, wasn't he naval secretary?Adam Hochschild: He was assistant secretary of the Navy. And he went to Europe during the war. For an aspiring politician, it's always very important to say I've been at the front. And so he went to Europe and certainly made no sign of resistance. And then in 1920, he was the democratic candidate for vice president. That ticket lost of course.Andrew Keen: And just to remind ourselves, this was before he became disabled through polio, is that correct?Adam Hochschild: That's right. That happened in the early 20s and it completely changed his life and I think quite deepened him as a person. He was a very ambitious social climbing young politician before then but I think he became something deeper. Also the political parties at the time were divided each party between right and left wings or war mongering and pacifist wings. And when the Congress voted on the war, there were six senators who voted against going to war and 50 members of the House of Representatives. And those senators and representatives came from both parties. We think of the Republican Party as being more conservative, but it had some staunch liberals in it. The most outspoken voice against the war in the Senate was Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, who was a Republican.Andrew Keen: I know you write about La Follette in American Midnight, but couldn't one, Adam, couldn't won before the war and against domestic repression. You wrote an interesting piece recently for the New York Review of Books about the Scopes trial. William Jennings Bryan, of course, was involved in that. He was the defeated Democratic candidate, what in about three or four presidential elections in the past. In the early 20th century. What was Bryan's position on this? He had been against the war, is that correct? But I'm guessing he would have been quite critical of some of the domestic repression.Adam Hochschild: You know, I should know the answer to that, Andrew, but I don't. He certainly was against going to war. He had started out in Wilson's first term as Wilson's secretary of state and then resigned in protest against the military buildup and what he saw as a drift to war, and I give him great credit for that. I don't recall his speaking out against the repression after it began, once the US entered the war, but I could be wrong on that. It was not something that I researched. There were just so few voices speaking out. I think I would remember if he had been one of them.Andrew Keen: Adam, again, I'm thinking out loud here, so please correct me if this is a dumb question. What would it be fair to say that one of the things that distinguished the United States from the European powers during the First World War in this period it remained an incredibly insular provincial place barely involved in international politics with a population many of them were migrants themselves would come from Europe but nonetheless cut off from the world. And much of that accounted for the anti-immigrant, anti-foreign hysteria. That exists in many countries, but perhaps it was a little bit more pronounced in the America of the early 20th century, and perhaps in some ways in the early 21st century.Adam Hochschild: Well, we remain a pretty insular place in many ways. A few years ago, I remember seeing the statistic in the New York Times, I have not checked to see whether it's still the case, but I suspect it is that half the members of the United States Congress do not have passports. And we are more cut off from the world than people living in most of the countries of Europe, for example. And I think that does account for some of the tremendous feeling against immigrants and refugees. Although, of course, this is something that is common, not just in Europe, but in many countries all over the world. And I fear it's going to get all the stronger as climate change generates more and more refugees from the center of the earth going to places farther north or farther south where they can get away from parts of the world that have become almost unlivable because of climate change.Andrew Keen: I wonder Democratic Congress people perhaps aren't leaving the country because they fear they won't be let back in. What were the concrete consequences of all this? You write in your book about a young lawyer, J. Edgar Hoover, of course, who made his name in this period. He was very much involved in the Palmer Raids. He worked, I think his first job was for Palmer. How do you see this structurally? Of course, many historians, biographers of Hoover have seen this as the beginning of some sort of American security state. Is that over-reading it, exaggerating what happened in this period?Adam Hochschild: Well, security state may be too dignified a word for the hysteria that reigned in the country at that time. One of the things we've long had in the United States is a hysteria, paranoia directed at immigrants who are coming from what seems to be a new and threatening part of the world. In the mid-19th century, for example, we had the Know-Nothing Party, as it was called, who were violently opposed to Catholic immigrants coming from Ireland. Now, they were people of Anglo-Saxon descent, pretty much, who felt that these Irish Catholics were a tremendous threat to the America that they knew. There was much violence. There were people killed in riots against Catholic immigrants. There were Catholic merchants who had their stores burned and so on.Then it began to shift. The Irish sort of became acceptable, but by the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century the immigrants coming from Europe were now coming primarily from southern and eastern Europe. In other words, Italians, Sicilians, Poles, and Jews. And they became the target of the anti-immigrant crusaders with much hysteria directed against them. It was further inflamed at that time by the Eugenics movement, which was something very strong, where people believed that there was a Nordic race that was somehow superior to everybody else, that the Mediterraneans were inferior people, and that the Africans were so far down the scale, barely worth talking about. And this culminated in 1924 with the passage of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act that year, which basically slammed the door completely on immigrants coming from Asia and slowed to an absolute trickle those coming from Europe for the next 40 years or so.Andrew Keen: It wasn't until the mid-60s that immigration changed, which is often overlooked. Some people, even on the left, suggest that it was a mistake to radically reform the Immigration Act because we would have inevitably found ourselves back in this situation. What do you think about that, Adam?Adam Hochschild: Well, I think a country has the right to regulate to some degree its immigration, but there always will be immigration in this world. I mean, my ancestors all came from other countries. The Jewish side of my family, I'm half Jewish, were lucky to get out of Europe in plenty of time. Some relatives who stayed there were not lucky and perished in the Holocaust. So who am I to say that somebody fleeing a repressive regime in El Salvador or somewhere else doesn't have the right to come here? I think we should be pretty tolerant, especially if people fleeing countries where they really risk death for one reason or another. But there is always gonna be this strong anti-immigrant feeling because unscrupulous politicians like Donald Trump, and he has many predecessors in this country, can point to immigrants and blame them for the economic misfortunes that many Americans are experiencing for reasons that don't have anything to do with immigration.Andrew Keen: Fast forward Adam to today. You were involved in an interesting conversation on the Nation about the role of universities in the resistance. What do you make of this first hundred days, I was going to say hundred years that would be a Freudian error, a hundred days of the Trump regime, the role, of big law, big universities, newspapers, media outlets? In this emerging opposition, are you chilled or encouraged?Adam Hochschild: Well, I hope it's a hundred days and not a hundred years. I am moderately encouraged. I was certainly deeply disappointed at the outset to see all of those tech titans go to Washington, kiss the ring, contribute to Trump's inauguration festivities, be there in the front row. Very depressing spectacle, which kind of reminds one of how all the big German industrialists fell into line so quickly behind Hitler. And I'm particularly depressed to see the changes in the media, both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post becoming much more tame when it came to endorsing.Andrew Keen: One of the reasons for that, Adam, of course, is that you're a long-time professor at the journalism school at UC Berkeley, so you've been on the front lines.Adam Hochschild: So I really care about a lively press that has free expression. And we also have a huge part of the media like Fox News and One American Network and other outlets that are just pouring forth a constant fire hose of lies and falsehood.Andrew Keen: And you're being kind of calling it a fire hose. I think we could come up with other terms for it. Anyway, a sewage pipe, but that's another issue.Adam Hochschild: But I'm encouraged when I see media organizations that take a stand. There are places like the New York Times, like CNN, like MSNBC, like the major TV networks, which you can read or watch and really find an honest picture of what's going on. And I think that's a tremendously important thing for a country to have. And that you look at the countries that Donald Trump admires, like Putin's Russia, for example, they don't have this. So I value that. I want to keep it. I think that's tremendously important.I was sorry, of course, that so many of those big law firms immediately cave to these ridiculous and unprecedented demands that he made, contributing pro bono work to his causes in return for not getting banned from government buildings. Nothing like that has happened in American history before, and the people in those firms that made those decisions should really be ashamed of themselves. I was glad to see Harvard University, which happens to be my alma mater, be defiant after caving in a little bit on a couple of issues. They finally put their foot down and said no. And I must say, feeling Harvard patriotism is a very rare emotion for me. But this is the first time in 50 years that I've felt some of it.Andrew Keen: You may even give a donation, Adam.Adam Hochschild: And I hope other universities are going to follow its lead, and it looks like they will. But this is pretty unprecedented, a president coming after universities with this determined of ferocity. And he's going after nonprofit organizations as well. There will be many fights there as well, I'm sure we're just waiting to hear about the next wave of attacks which will be on places like the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation and other big nonprofits. So hold on and wait for that and I hope they are as defiant as possible too.Andrew Keen: It's a little bit jarring to hear a wise historian like yourself use the word unprecedented. Is there much else of this given that we're talking historically and the similarities with the period after the first world war, is there anything else unprecedented about Trumpism?Adam Hochschild: I think in a way, we have often had, or not often, but certainly sometimes had presidents in this country who wanted to assume almost dictatorial powers. Richard Nixon certainly is the most recent case before Trump. And he was eventually stopped and forced to leave office. Had that not happened, I think he would have very happily turned himself into a dictator. So we know that there are temptations that come with the desire for absolute power everywhere. But Trump has gotten farther along on this process and has shown less willingness to do things like abide by court orders. The way that he puts pressure on Republican members of Congress.To me, one of the most startling, disappointing, remarkable, and shocking things about these first hundred days is how very few Republican members to the House or Senate have dared to defy Trump on anything. At most, these ridiculous set of appointees that he muscled through the Senate. At most, they got three Republican votes against them. They couldn't muster the fourth necessary vote. And in the House, only one or two Republicans have voted against Trump on anything. And of course, he has threatened to have Elon Musk fund primaries against any member of Congress who does defy him. And I can't help but think that these folks must also be afraid of physical violence because Trump has let all the January 6th people out of jail and the way vigilantes like that operate is they first go after the traitors on their own side then they come for the rest of us just as in the first real burst of violence in Hitler's Germany was the night of the long knives against another faction of the Nazi Party. Then they started coming for the Jews.Andrew Keen: Finally, Adam, your wife, Arlie, is another very distinguished writer.Adam Hochschild: I've got a better picture of her than that one though.Andrew Keen: Well, I got some very nice photos. This one is perhaps a little, well she's thinking Adam. Everyone knows Arlie from her hugely successful work, "Strangers in their Own Land." She has a new book out, "Stolen Pride, Lost Shame and the Rise of the Right." I don't want to put words into Arlie's mouth and she certainly wouldn't let me do that, Adam, but would it be fair to say that her reading, certainly of recent American history, is trying to bring people back together. She talks about the lessons she learned from her therapist brother. And in some ways, I see her as a kind of marriage counselor in America. Given what's happening today in America with Trump, is this still an opportunity? This thing is going to end and it will end in some ways rather badly and perhaps bloodily one way or the other. But is this still a way to bring people, to bring Americans back together? Can America be reunited? What can we learn from American Midnight? I mean, one of the more encouraging stories I remember, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't it Coolidge or Harding who invited Debs when he left prison to the White House? So American history might be in some ways violent, but it's also made up of chapters of forgiveness.Adam Hochschild: That's true. I mean, that Debs-Harding example is a wonderful one. Here is Debs sent to prison by Woodrow Wilson for a 10-year term. And Debs, by the way, had been in jail before for his leadership of a railway strike when he was a railway workers union organizer. Labor organizing was a very dangerous profession in those days. But Debs was a fairly gentle man, deeply committed to nonviolence. About a year into, a little less than a year into his term, Warren Harding, Woodrow Wilson's successor, pardoned Debs, let him out of prison, invited him to visit the White House on his way home. And they had a half hour's chat. And when he left the building, Debs told reporters, "I've run for the White house five times, but this is the first time I've actually gotten here." Harding privately told a friend. This was revealed only after his death, that he said, "Debs was right about that war. We never should have gotten involved in it."So yeah, there can be reconciliation. There can be talk across these great differences that we have, and I think there are a number of organizations that are working on that specific project, getting people—Andrew Keen: We've done many of those shows. I'm sure you're familiar with the organization Braver Angels, which seems to be a very good group.Adam Hochschild: So I think it can be done. I really think it could be done and it has to be done and it's important for those of us who are deeply worried about Trump, as you and I are, to understand the grievances and the losses and the suffering that has made Trump's backers feel that here is somebody who can get them out of the pickle that they're in. We have to understand that, and the Democratic Party has to come up with promising alternatives for them, which it really has not done. It didn't really offer one in this last election. And the party itself is in complete disarray right now, I fear.Andrew Keen: I think perhaps Arlie should run for president. She would certainly do a better job than Kamala Harris in explaining it. And of course they're both from Berkeley. Finally, Adam, you're very familiar with the history of Africa, Southern Africa, your family I think was originally from there. Might we need after all this, when hopefully the smoke clears, might we need a Mandela style truth and reconciliation committee to make sense of what's happening?Adam Hochschild: My family's actually not from there, but they were in business there.Andrew Keen: Right, they were in the mining business, weren't they?Adam Hochschild: That's right. Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Well, I don't think it would be on quite the same model as South Africa's. But I certainly think we need to find some way of talking across the differences that we have. Coming from the left side of that divide I just feel all too often when I'm talking to people who feel as I do about the world that there is a kind of contempt or disinterest in Trump's backers. These are people that I want to understand, that we need to understand. We need to understand them in order to hear what their real grievances are and to develop alternative policies that are going to give them a real alternative to vote for. Unless we can do that, we're going to have Trump and his like for a long time, I fear.Andrew Keen: Wise words, Adam. I hope in the next 500 episodes of this show, things will improve. We'll get you back on the show, keep doing your important work, and I'm very excited to learn more about your new project, which we'll come to in the next few months or certainly years. Thank you so much.Adam Hochschild: OK, thank you, Andrew. Good being with you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, we dive into a mix of recommendations and a behind-the-scenes look at our podcasting journey. First, we share our love for Revolutions, the podcast by Mike Duncan, where he takes listeners through major historical revolutions, from the English and French Revolutions to the Russian Revolution and beyond. It's a fascinating, deep dive into history that we highly recommend.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/javascript-jabber--6102064/support.

Since the 1970s, historian Sheila Fitzpatrick has made invaluable contributions to our understanding of the Soviet Union. As a key figure in the "revisionist school" of Soviet history, Fitzpatrick along with other historians opposed entrenched Cold War era narratives about the USSR including (but not limited to) the "totalitarian thesis". Fitzpatrick in particular added texture and complexity in her studies of the Soviet Union by focusing on social history, perspectives "from below" and daily life as well as social and economic advancement & upward mobility during Stalinism. On today's episode, we welcome Sheila Fitzpatrick on as a guest to reflect on the development of Soviet history since the 1970s, her work and what the Soviet past looks like today. Sheila Fitzpatrick is a historian of the Soviet Union and modern Russia. Her books The Cultural Revolution in Russia, 1928-31 (1978), Education and Social Mobility in the Soviet Union, 1921-34 (1979) and The Russian Revolution (1982) were foundational to the field of Soviet social history. She taught for many years at the University of Chicago, before returning to Australia, the country of her birth. Her book, White Russians, Red Peril: A Cold War History of Migration was published by Black, Inc., Melbourne, in 2021; followed by The Shortest History of the Soviet Union in 2022. She is currently working on a monograph, Displacement: Repatriation and Resettlement of Russian and Soviet Displaced Persons after the Second World War, and a biography of Lenin's wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya, under contract to Princeton University Press. She is currently a professor at the Australian Catholic University.

In this episode of the US Navy History Podcast, hosts Dale and Christophe continue exploring World War I, focusing on the Russian Revolution and the subsequent military and political changes. They highlight the enormous impact of Russian casualties, food shortages, and the abdication of Czar Nicholas II. The podcast also covers significant battles, including the Central Powers' offensive in Romania and the role of Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Additionally, the hosts discuss the US's reluctant but eventual entry into the war, prompted by unrestricted German submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram. The episode concludes with an overview of the Ottoman Empire's involvement and the Armistice of Mudros. The episode ends with a tribute to Private First Class Donald Robert Abraham for his bravery during the battle of Iwo Jima in World War II.usnavyhistorypodcast@gmail.com@usnhistorypod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Discord⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Ships Store⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Hero Cards⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠the Grateful Nation Project — Hero Cards⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠navy-cycling.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Today Justin sits down with Janet Wallach. Janet attended New York University and her work has been published in The Washington Post Magazine, Smithsonian Magazine, and other periodicals. She's the author of 10 books and has written extensively about notable women in history, including Queen Noor of Jordan, Coco Chanel, and Gertrude Bell, among others. Janet is here today to discuss Marguerite Harrison, dubbed the socialite spy, and the story of her double life as a reporter and a spy for U.S. Army intelligence in Berlin and Moscow shortly after the Russian Revolution, and what happened to her when she was caught in the act by Soviet intelligence.Connect with Janet:janetwallach.comFacebook: Janet WallachLinkedIn: Janet WallachIG: @flirtingwdangerCheck out the book, Flirting with Danger, here.https://a.co/d/cJlz2A5Connect with Spycraft 101:Get Justin's latest book, Murder, Intrigue, and Conspiracy: Stories from the Cold War and Beyond, here.spycraft101.comIG: @spycraft101Shop: shop.spycraft101.comPatreon: Spycraft 101Find Justin's first book, Spyshots: Volume One, here.Check out Justin's second book, Covert Arms, here.Download the free eBook, The Clandestine Operative's Sidearm of Choice, here.OC Strategic AcademyLearn spy skills to hack your own reality. Use code SPYCRAFT101 to get 10% off any course!Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the show

In Section 3, I discuss some of the prominent movements and themes occurring in between two World Wars, particularly the Great Migration characterized by the movement of millions of blacks from the rural agricultural south to the urban industrial north as well as highlighting some important proponents of the Harlem Renaissance like Zora Neale Hurston, Countee Cullen, Langston Hughes (the Shakespeare of Harlem), Paul Laurence Dunbar (who inspired the movement after passing away in 1906) and others. The Harlem Renaissance influenced the Great Migration just as the Great Migration influenced the Harlem Renaissance. Not only was there a growth in a black intelligentsia or bourgeoisie, there also was an increase in the black urban worker described in past podcasts. Denied not only political protections and equality but also entry into certain occupations, housing, credit, and capital, there would be immense organization for rights. The Declaration of Rights of the UNIA, established in Harlem, would be spearheaded by perhaps the greatest black organizer in American history Marcus Garvey, who sought not only economic advancement for blacks, but support and self help through his organization for African Americans and the black diaspora around the world. Garvey, heavily influenced by Booker T. Washington yet being way more expansive in his demands for education and political opportunity, would be skeptical of the NAACP and W.E.B Du Bois limited political actualization. However, some community organizers would take it a step further than Garvey, demanding not only a radical redistribution of wealth but world revolution. In part 2 of the Great Migration, Harlem Renaissance, and World War 1915-1954, we will see an increased proclivity, prevalence, and sympathy towards communist ideology, influenced by the 1917 Russian Revolution. Not only would blacks recognize race exploitation as tied to wider class exploitation, but in doing so they would seek solidarity with other working class whites in the fight against what Cyril V. Briggs would term "Private Capitalism."Is such an ideology conducive to accommodating a liberal integrationist perspective of the future Civil Rights movement? In some ways yes and in some ways no. Without a doubt, this period saw not only a bursting of literary creativity and a fundamental critique of white oppression and caste democracy, it would also provide the seeds for marxist theories advocated by future leaders and intellectuals like Fred Hampton, Dr. Angela Davis, and Dr. Cornell West. The failures of the economic system, as evidenced by the Great Depression, only heightened a sentiment towards more radical and alternative economic perspectives. Is the problem corruption, capitalism, or political inequality? This would be a question that many people of this period from 1915-1954 would engage with as American after the Great Depression and World War II would enter an era of immense prosperity. However, within two decades it would be short lived.Next video and podcast coming out Friday February 21:Section 3- From Plantation to Ghetto: The Great Migration, Harlem Renaissance, and World War, 1915-1954 Part 2 of 2Monday February 24 will come out:Section 4- We Shall Overcome: The Second Reconstruction, 1954-1975 Part 1 of 2Tuesday February 25 will come out:Section 4- We Shall Overcome: The Second Reconstruction, 1954-1975 Part 2 of 2Friday February 28 will come out (either in 1 or 2 parts):Section 5- The Future in the Present: Contemporary African-American Thought, 1975 to the Present

What happens when war leaves millions stranded, stateless, and unwanted? In this episode of the Review of Democracy podcast, host Imogen Bayley discusses with renowned historian Sheila Fitzpatrick her latest book, LostSouls: Soviet Displaced Persons and the Birth of the Cold War. Drawing from newly uncovered archival research, Fitzpatrick explores the lives of Soviet displaced persons—those who found themselves outside the USSR at the endof World War II and refused to return, despite intense Soviet pressure. Their fates became entangled in Cold War politics, as Western governments redefined them from war victims to symbols of anti-communist resistance. From forcedrepatriations and identity manipulation to the geopolitical power struggles that shaped global refugee policy, this discussion reveals how history's displaced individuals exercised agency in ways that continue to shape modernmigration debates. Listen to our podcast on exile, political propaganda, and the lasting impact of Cold War resettlement strategies. Sheila Fitzpatrick is the author of many books, including On Stalin's Team: The Years of Living Dangerously in Soviet Politics (Princeton), The Shortest History of the Soviet Union, and The Russian Revolution. She is professor of history at the Institute of Humanities and Social Science at the AustralianCatholic University and Distinguished Service Professor Emerita at the University of Chicago. Imogen Bayley: Imogen Bayley is a historian and migration studies scholar who earned her PhD in ComparativeHistory from Central European University and is currently, as a Max Weber Fellow at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy. Her book, Postwar Migration Policy and the Displaced of the British Zone in Germany, 1945–1951.Fighting for a Future, was recently published by Palgrave Macmillan.

Shostakovich's Eleventh Symphony unfolds with the immediacy of a newsreel as it depicts the harrowing events of the 1905 Russian Revolution. Brimming with rebellious anthems and prisoners' songs, the Cold War-era score is widely heard as a veiled critique of the Soviet regime. Rachmaninov's First Piano Concerto, a farewell to Russia, features the captivating Simon Trpčeski. Learn more: cso.org/performances/24-25/cso-classical/hrusa-trpceski-and-rachmaninov

Dan and Brian continue DAD MONTH with a the Norman Jewison/John Williams adaptation of Fiddler on the Roof, a story of a Jewish dad in turn-of-the-century Russia marrying off his daughters. Join as they talk through their own relationships with their dads, their "traditions" and how they define the concept, the notion of "dad music," formative film soundtracks, Jewish identity circa the Russian Revolution, eccentric-sounding Jewish names like Lazar Wolf and Motel, dance walking, and parallels between Fiddler and 1960s and 1970s America. Dan's movie reviews: http://thegoodsreviews.com/ Subscribe, join the Discord, and find us on Letterboxd: http://thegoodsfilmpodcast.com/

pWotD Episode 2867: International Women's Day Welcome to Popular Wiki of the Day, spotlighting Wikipedia's most visited pages, giving you a peek into what the world is curious about today.With 327,957 views on Saturday, 8 March 2025 our article of the day is International Women's Day.International Women's Day (IWD) commemorates women's fight for equality and liberation along with the women's rights movement. International Women's Day gives focus to issues such as gender equality, reproductive rights, and violence and abuse against women. Spurred by the universal female suffrage movement, International Women's Day originated from labor movements in Europe and North America during the early 20th century, with the modern holiday, March 8, being declared by Vladimir Lenin.The earliest version reported was a "Woman's Day" organized by the Socialist Party of America in New York City on February 28, 1909. In solidarity with them, communist activist and politician Clara Zetkin proposed the celebration of "Working Women's Day" approved at the 1910 International Socialist Women's Conference in Copenhagen, albeit with no set date; the following year saw the first demonstrations and commemorations of International Women's Day across Europe. Vladimir Lenin declared March 8 as International Women's Day in 1922 to honour the women's role in the 1917 Russian Revolution; it was subsequently celebrated on that date by the socialist movement and communist countries. The holiday became a mainstream global holiday following its promotion by the United Nations in 1977.International Women's Day is a public holiday in several countries. The UN observes the holiday in connection with a particular issue, campaign, or theme in women's rights.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 01:55 UTC on Sunday, 9 March 2025.For the full current version of the article, see International Women's Day on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm generative Olivia.

fWotD Episode 2864: Anna Filosofova Welcome to Featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia’s finest articles.The featured article for Saturday, 8 March 2025 is Anna Filosofova.Anna Pavlovna Filosofova (Russian: Анна Павловна Философова; née Diaghileva; 5 April 1837 – 17 March 1912) was a major Russian feminist and activist of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Born into a wealthy, noble family, she married Vladimir Filosofov at a young age; they had six children. Initially concerned with the plight of serfs, Filosofova became a feminist in the late 1850s after joining the salon of Maria Trubnikova, who educated her on the subject. Alongside Trubnikova and Nadezhda Stasova, Filosofova was one of the earliest leaders of the Russian women's movement. Together, the three friends and allies were referred to as the "triumvirate". They founded and led several charitable organizations designed to promote women's cultural and economic independence, such as the Society for Cheap Lodgings and Other Benefits for the Citizens of St. Petersburg. Filosofova served as the president of that organization for several years. Subsequently, the triumvirate pressured government officials to allow higher education for women, resulting in the creation of the Vladimirskii courses and the Bestuzhev Courses. Continuing opposition meant that their successes were sometimes limited or reversed. Filosofova also founded a mixed-gender school at her own family's estate. From 1879 to 1881, Filosofova was briefly exiled on suspicion of revolutionary sympathies. After her return to Russia, she continued to work as an activist and philanthropist in support of Russian women. Outliving both Trubnikova and Stasova, she survived to participate in the Russian Revolution of 1905 and chair the first Russian women's congress in 1908, becoming a revered feminist figure. Filosofova died in 1912.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 01:03 UTC on Saturday, 8 March 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Anna Filosofova on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm generative Ayanda.

Join host Jem Duducu on Condensed Histories as he delves into Amor Towles' novel and its intriguing adaptation 'A Gentleman in Moscow.' Discover the connections to the Russian Revolution, the state of streaming entertainment, and the historical context, all inspired by a request from a listener. Explore the novel's unique premise, its TV adaptation starring Ewan McGregor, and comparisons to Soviet cinema, including the iconic 'Battleship Potemkin.' Learn about historical storytelling, the role of propaganda, and the impact of political shifts in Russia. Perfect for history buffs and fans of contemporary adaptations alike!00:00 Introduction and Listener Request01:32 Background of 'A Gentleman in Moscow'04:32 The Russian Revolution Context05:45 Ewan McGregor and Modern TV Trends09:51 Streaming Wars and Distribution Challenges20:16 Comparing 'A Gentleman in Moscow' to Soviet Cinema26:21 The Impact of the Russian Revolution39:53 Conclusion and Call to ActionSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/condensed-histories. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Capitalism's defenders love to attack communism by pointing to the atrocities perpetrated by the Stalinist regime in the USSR. Bolshevism—the ideas and methods of Lenin—can only ever result in a totalitarian dictatorship, we're told. As for capitalism, there is no alternative.In reality, a river of blood separates Bolshevism and Stalinism. This presentation will reveal the real traditions of Lenin and his Bolshevik Party, traditions with which the Bolsheviks led the Russian working class to vanquish capitalism on one sixth of the planet. And it will explain how the regime set up by the Russian Revolution—the most democratic regime in history—was hollowed out, replaced by the grotesque caricature of the Stalinist regime.Read More:In Defence of LeninRussia: From Revolution to Counter-Revolution

[About the Lecture:] The revolutions of 1917 swept away not only Russia's governing authority but also the property order on which it stood. The upheaval sparked waves of dispossession that rapidly moved beyond the seizure of factories and farms from industrialists and landowners, envisioned by Bolshevik revolutionaries, to penetrate the bedrock of social life: the spaces where people lived. In Power and Possession in the Russian Revolution, Anne O'Donnell reimagines the Bolsheviks' unprecedented effort to eradicate private property and to create a new political economy—socialism—to replace it. O'Donnell's account captures the story of property in reverse, showing how the bonds connecting people to their things were broken and how new ways of knowing things, valuing them, and possessing them coalesced amid the political ferment and economic disarray of the Revolution. O'Donnell reminds us that Russia's postrevolutionary confiscation of property, like many other episodes of mass dispossession in the twentieth century, largely escaped traditional forms of record keeping. She repairs this omission, drawing on sources that chronicle the lived experience of upheaval—popular petitions, apartment inspections, internal audits of revolutionary institutions, and records of the political police—to reconstruct an archive of dispossession. The result is an unusually intimate history of the Bolsheviks' attempts to conquer people and things. The Bolsheviks' reimagining of property not only changed peoples' lives and destinies, it formed the foundation of a new type of state—one that eschewed the defense of private property rights in favor of an enduring but enigmatic new domain: socialist state property. [About the Speaker:] Anne O'Donnell is Associate Professor of History at New York University. Her first book, Taking Stock: Power and Possession in Revolutionary Russia, charts the rise of illiberal Soviet statecraft through the conquest of the urban material environment. It is a history of market-making in reverse: of how people have lost their worlds of things; how they have taken things from one another; how they scrambled conventional indicators of value, and how these searingly intimate, yet widely shared experiences coalesced into a staging ground for socialist revolution. Her next project will be a study of the study of poverty in the post-war Soviet Union.

Has the U.S. flipped sides in the great strategic contest of the last century? With his secretary of state calling for a new "partnership" with Russia, his vice president decrying Western Europe's political condition and the president himself seemingly blaming Ukraine for the war that started on its territory three years ago, Donald Trump seems to be executing one of the most dramatic shifts in American foreign policy. Is this the end of the transatlantic alliance and what might it mean for America's larger strategic goals? On this episode of Free Expression, international relations scholar Hal Brands and author of a new book. "The Eurasian Century", tells Gerry Baker how a negotiated settlement between Russia and Ukraine was always going to be a goal for the United States no matter who won the 2024 election, how Trump may be trying to prise Russia away from China and why the U.S. still needs NATO and European allies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Phil reacts to the emerging story of a possible new British political scandal. Having come to power partly because Boris Johnson fell foul of Britain's tough Covid rules, did our current Prime Minister break them too and, if so, should it even matter? Phil's article from 2022 is also relevant here. https://thecritic.co.uk/im-done-with-po-faced-politicians/Then writer James Crossland joins Phil to discuss his fascinating and exciting book about one of the most dramatic - and scandalous - British spy stories of all time.Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart was an impressive figure: a diplomat, intelligence agent, conspirator, journalist and propagandist who played a key role in both world wars. He was a man who charmed his way into the confidences of everyone from Leon Trotsky to Anthony Eden. A man whom the influential press baron Lord Beaverbook claimed ‘could well have been prime minister'. Lockhart placed himself at the centre of world changing event during the Russian Revolution - and very nearly died as a consequence. Yet he died almost forgotten and near destitute, a footnote in the pages of history.You can buy James' book, and all the books we feature on the podcast here in our special Scandal Mongers shop, along with thousands of others...https://uk.bookshop.org/p/books/rogue-agent-the-troubled-life-and-dangerous-times-of-robert-bruce-lockhart-james-crossland/7624180?aid=12054&ean=9781783968046&Please follow James here...https://x.com/DrJCrossland***We now have a Thank You button (next to the 'three dots') for small donations that help support our work***Looking for the perfect gift for a special scandalous someone - or someone you'd like to get scandalous with? We're here to help...https://www.etsy.com/uk/shop/ScandalMongers*** If you enjoy our work please consider clicking the YouTube subscribe button, even if you listen to us on an audio app. It will help our brand to grow and our content to reach new ears.The Scandal Mongers...https://x.com/mongerspodcastPhil Craig...https://x.com/philmcraigTHE SCANDAL MONGERS PODCAST is also available to watch on YouTube...https://www.youtube.com/@thescandalmongerspodcastYou can get in touch with the show via...team@podcastworld.org(place 'Scandal Mongers' in the heading)Produced byPodcastWorld.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

An atheist, a radical for capitalism, a caricature of a greedy libertarian, a best-selling novelist, a difficult partner and passionate lover, and the self-proclaimed greatest philosopher since Aristotle: Ayn Rand was many things, and we talk about almost all of them in this epic episode. To do so, we called upon historian Jennifer Burns, whose intellectual biography, Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right , is enormously helpful in trying to understand an idiosyncratic writer who, both then and now, fits ambiguously into the "fusionist" post-war conservative movement. Rand remains a controversial figure whose ideas permeate our culture and continue to inspire some of the most consequential (and least appealing) political figures in the United States. To understand Rand and her influence, we examine her family's experiences during and after the Russian Revolution, her journey to the U.S. and early success in Hollywood, the arduous path she trod to become a writer, Rand's involvement in anti-New Deal politics in the 1930s and 40s, her ideas, philosophy, and scandalous personal life, and much more.Sources:Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead  (1943)— Atlas Shrugged (1957)— We the Living (1936)Jennifer Burns, Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right (2009)— Milton Friedman: The Last Conservative (2023)Whittaker Chambers, "Big Sister Is Watching You," National Review, Dec 28, 1957Murray Rothbard, "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult," (1972)Mary Gaitskill, Two Girls, Fat and Thin (1991)Lisa Duggan, Mean Girl: Ayn Rand and the Culture of Greed, (2019)— "Ayn Rand and the Cruel Heart of Neoliberalism," Dissent, May 20, 2019.Adam Curtis, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace, (2011)Listen again:"Milton Friedman and the Making of Our Times," Dec 3, 2023...and don't forget to subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon to listen to all of our premium episodes!

Kraven the Hunter managed to bomb without either Zach or Searnold noticing it had been released! But finally, Searnold was able to track it down and watch it, despite many warnings against such dangerous behavior. In this episode, Searnold will explain the movie to Zach, compare it to Madame Web, and explain what Kraven is like in the comics. From his 87 clones and his 3 sons, we'll discuss the entire Kravenoff line from the dawn of the Russian Revolution to the his murder zoo in the present day!

This week we team up to tell the story of Czar Nicholas II and his imperial family, and how the mad monk Rasputin contributed to their downfall. We look at the astrology for the Revolution, along with the birth chart of Rasputin himself. Ash also shines a spotlight on Aquarians for today's episode. Also join us for an abridged version of this week's astrological forecast: Tuesday, January 21st: Mercury square Chiron, Sun conjunct Pluto Thursday, January 23rd: Mars sextile Uranus, Mercury opposite Mars, Mercury trine Uranus Saturday, January 25th: Venus trine Mars Sunday, January 26th: Mercury sextile Neptune, Venus sextile Uranus ☼ ｡˚⋆ฺ ✧ ೃ༄*ੈ✩ ☼ ｡˚⋆ฺ ✧ ೃ༄*ੈ✩ Watch the video version here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HTc2Yn3bfYM ✩Instagram: ⁠@uncloudedeye⁠ ✩TikTok: ⁠@uncloudedeye⁠ ✩Website / book a reading with Ash: ⁠http://bio.site/uncloudedeye Thank you: Nick Nordfors, Erin Cross, Dawn Aquarius, Jay Caron, and to all our listeners ♡ Sources for this episode: https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/romanov-family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Nikolaevich,_Tsarevich_of_Russia https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/bloody-sunday-massacre-in-russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Rasputin

This week we entered the archives and poured through the codices and scrolls containing the wisdom of past episodes to give you this curated trash can of ideology. We highlighted some themes from the past six years of podcasting that we thought were worth underscoring and discussed relevance and how our ideas have changed. Referenced Materials:Our Underlying Philosophy of Dialectical PessimismS1/Ep5: Pessimism of the Intellect, Pessimism of the WillS1/Ep26: The Proper Amount of Bumming People Out  S4/Ep7: Death of The LeftS5/Ep21: Pessimism is an Optimism: Revisiting PessimismMaking Sense of Our PastS1/Ep27: Children of the Counterrevolution S3/Ep12: The Enlightenment is Dead, Long Live the EnlightenmentS3/Ep22: Stillborn Utopia -- The Unfulfilled Potential of the Republic S4/Ep3: Tragedy of American Socialism #1 Rethinking What It Means To “Be” RevolutionaryS1/Ep10: The Right to the City: Changing the City, to Change OurselvesS2/Ep8: We Would Prefer Not To: Against a Politics of CatharsisS5/Ep15: The Legacy of William MorrisS6/Ep15: Antifascism of FoolsA Willingness to Abandon Our Older TrajectoryS4/Ep20: Labor Theory of ApocalypseS6/Ep5: One Plus One Is Three: The Poverty of "Third Campism"S6/Ep16: The Boys Figure Out Which Marxist Tendency is Correct S6/Ep19: To Front or Not to Front: The Question of "Popular Frontism"The Major Obstacles/Challenges We FaceS3/Ep5: Happiness Industry SocialismS3*/Ep17: Everything Is Recuperated S5/Ep9: You're Not Making Liberals Socialist, You're Just Making Socialists More LiberalS5/Ep19: The Dialectic of Degrowth: Socialists and the Burden of Ecological DisasterOur Deep Skepticism/Hostility Toward Techno-SolutionsS1/Ep31: The Future Has Been Canceled -- Stalling of Culture/Technology in a Decaying SocietyS2/Ep2: Partially Automated Regular CommunismS2/Ep5: Socialism Without Sacrifice & Other Fake Futures We are Against S4/Ep4: No Ethical Technical Innovation Under CapitalismLooking AheadS4/Ep11: Marxism in Dialogue With ChristianityS5/Ep12: The Dialectic of Apotheosis -- Lunacharsky and the Godbuilders S5/Ep16: Bathing in the Warm Stream S6/Ep22: Real Grouchy Old Man Hours: What's Left of the Left?Regrettable Reading ListThe Red Jacobins: Thermidor & The Russian Revolution in 1921Party As Articulator The Tragedy of the WorkerRevolution: An Intellectual HistoryLeft Wing MelancholiaExcremental Happiness: From Neurotic Hedonism to Dialectical PessimismSend us a textSupport the show

The history of antisemitism in Europe stretches back as far as Ancient Rome, but persecutions of Jews became widespread during the Crusades, beginning in the early 11th century when the wholesale massacre of entire communities became commonplace. From the 12th century, the justification for this state-sanctioned violence became the blood libel accusation: the idea that Jews ritually murdered Christian children and used their blood in the celebration of Passover. Nowhere in Europe was the blood libel more tenacious, credible, and long lived than in the Russian Empire, particularly during the late Imperial period, which saw large scale pogroms and harsh restrictions visited upon the empire's Jewish population. The Russian Revolution of 1917 attracted many Jews to its cause, thanks in large measure to Bolshevik condemnations of antisemitism and persecution of the Jewish minority. These numbers grew in the wake of the brutal Civil War that followed from 1918 - 1922 when the White Army revived the pogrom with particular vigor. What happened after the Bolshevik victory is the subject of Elissa Bemporad's new book, Legacy of Blood: Jews, Pogroms, and Ritual Murder in the Lands of the Soviets (Oxford UP, 2019), which won the National Jewish Book Award (Modern Jewish Thought and Experience). Bemporad probes the underbelly of the "Soviet myth"— that the USSR had eradicated the pogroms, banished the notion of a blood libel to the scrapheap of other opiates for the people, and vanquished antisemitism as part of the regime's broad anti-religious campaign — and discovers that both pogroms and the blood libel had a robust afterlife in the USSR. As she traces changing attitudes towards Jews in the USSR, Bemporad also examines the uneasy and often ambivalent but mutually dependent, and ever-shifting relationship between the regime and the Jewish population as the Soviet century unfolds. Legacy of Blood looks at the re-emergence of overt antisemitism in the occupied territories of the USSR during World War II and the troubled return of the Jews to mainstream society after the war. The result is a meticulously researched, thought-provoking, and eminently readable book that adds much to both Jewish and Russian historical scholarship. Elissa Bemporad is an Associate Professor of History at CUNY Graduate Center and the Jerry and William Ungar Chair in East European Jewish History, Queens College of CUNY. She is the author of Becoming Soviet Jews: The Bolshevik Experiment in Minsk (Indiana University Press, 2013) and the forthcoming A Comprehensive History of the Jews in the Soviet Union, vol I (NYU Press). Jennifer Eremeeva is an American expatriate writer who writes about travel, culture, cuisine and culinary history, Russian history, and Royal History, with bylines in Reuters, Fodor's, USTOA, LitHub, The Moscow Times, and Russian Life. She is the award-winning author of Lenin Lives Next Door: Marriage, Martinis, and Mayhem in Moscow and Have Personality Disorder, Will Rule Russia: A Pocket Guide to Russian History. 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

The history of antisemitism in Europe stretches back as far as Ancient Rome, but persecutions of Jews became widespread during the Crusades, beginning in the early 11th century when the wholesale massacre of entire communities became commonplace. From the 12th century, the justification for this state-sanctioned violence became the blood libel accusation: the idea that Jews ritually murdered Christian children and used their blood in the celebration of Passover. Nowhere in Europe was the blood libel more tenacious, credible, and long lived than in the Russian Empire, particularly during the late Imperial period, which saw large scale pogroms and harsh restrictions visited upon the empire's Jewish population. The Russian Revolution of 1917 attracted many Jews to its cause, thanks in large measure to Bolshevik condemnations of antisemitism and persecution of the Jewish minority. These numbers grew in the wake of the brutal Civil War that followed from 1918 - 1922 when the White Army revived the pogrom with particular vigor. What happened after the Bolshevik victory is the subject of Elissa Bemporad's new book, Legacy of Blood: Jews, Pogroms, and Ritual Murder in the Lands of the Soviets (Oxford UP, 2019), which won the National Jewish Book Award (Modern Jewish Thought and Experience). Bemporad probes the underbelly of the "Soviet myth"— that the USSR had eradicated the pogroms, banished the notion of a blood libel to the scrapheap of other opiates for the people, and vanquished antisemitism as part of the regime's broad anti-religious campaign — and discovers that both pogroms and the blood libel had a robust afterlife in the USSR. As she traces changing attitudes towards Jews in the USSR, Bemporad also examines the uneasy and often ambivalent but mutually dependent, and ever-shifting relationship between the regime and the Jewish population as the Soviet century unfolds. Legacy of Blood looks at the re-emergence of overt antisemitism in the occupied territories of the USSR during World War II and the troubled return of the Jews to mainstream society after the war. The result is a meticulously researched, thought-provoking, and eminently readable book that adds much to both Jewish and Russian historical scholarship. Elissa Bemporad is an Associate Professor of History at CUNY Graduate Center and the Jerry and William Ungar Chair in East European Jewish History, Queens College of CUNY. She is the author of Becoming Soviet Jews: The Bolshevik Experiment in Minsk (Indiana University Press, 2013) and the forthcoming A Comprehensive History of the Jews in the Soviet Union, vol I (NYU Press). Jennifer Eremeeva is an American expatriate writer who writes about travel, culture, cuisine and culinary history, Russian history, and Royal History, with bylines in Reuters, Fodor's, USTOA, LitHub, The Moscow Times, and Russian Life. She is the award-winning author of Lenin Lives Next Door: Marriage, Martinis, and Mayhem in Moscow and Have Personality Disorder, Will Rule Russia: A Pocket Guide to Russian History. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The history of antisemitism in Europe stretches back as far as Ancient Rome, but persecutions of Jews became widespread during the Crusades, beginning in the early 11th century when the wholesale massacre of entire communities became commonplace. From the 12th century, the justification for this state-sanctioned violence became the blood libel accusation: the idea that Jews ritually murdered Christian children and used their blood in the celebration of Passover. Nowhere in Europe was the blood libel more tenacious, credible, and long lived than in the Russian Empire, particularly during the late Imperial period, which saw large scale pogroms and harsh restrictions visited upon the empire's Jewish population. The Russian Revolution of 1917 attracted many Jews to its cause, thanks in large measure to Bolshevik condemnations of antisemitism and persecution of the Jewish minority. These numbers grew in the wake of the brutal Civil War that followed from 1918 - 1922 when the White Army revived the pogrom with particular vigor. What happened after the Bolshevik victory is the subject of Elissa Bemporad's new book, Legacy of Blood: Jews, Pogroms, and Ritual Murder in the Lands of the Soviets (Oxford UP, 2019), which won the National Jewish Book Award (Modern Jewish Thought and Experience). Bemporad probes the underbelly of the "Soviet myth"— that the USSR had eradicated the pogroms, banished the notion of a blood libel to the scrapheap of other opiates for the people, and vanquished antisemitism as part of the regime's broad anti-religious campaign — and discovers that both pogroms and the blood libel had a robust afterlife in the USSR. As she traces changing attitudes towards Jews in the USSR, Bemporad also examines the uneasy and often ambivalent but mutually dependent, and ever-shifting relationship between the regime and the Jewish population as the Soviet century unfolds. Legacy of Blood looks at the re-emergence of overt antisemitism in the occupied territories of the USSR during World War II and the troubled return of the Jews to mainstream society after the war. The result is a meticulously researched, thought-provoking, and eminently readable book that adds much to both Jewish and Russian historical scholarship. Elissa Bemporad is an Associate Professor of History at CUNY Graduate Center and the Jerry and William Ungar Chair in East European Jewish History, Queens College of CUNY. She is the author of Becoming Soviet Jews: The Bolshevik Experiment in Minsk (Indiana University Press, 2013) and the forthcoming A Comprehensive History of the Jews in the Soviet Union, vol I (NYU Press). Jennifer Eremeeva is an American expatriate writer who writes about travel, culture, cuisine and culinary history, Russian history, and Royal History, with bylines in Reuters, Fodor's, USTOA, LitHub, The Moscow Times, and Russian Life. She is the award-winning author of Lenin Lives Next Door: Marriage, Martinis, and Mayhem in Moscow and Have Personality Disorder, Will Rule Russia: A Pocket Guide to Russian History. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies

The history of antisemitism in Europe stretches back as far as Ancient Rome, but persecutions of Jews became widespread during the Crusades, beginning in the early 11th century when the wholesale massacre of entire communities became commonplace. From the 12th century, the justification for this state-sanctioned violence became the blood libel accusation: the idea that Jews ritually murdered Christian children and used their blood in the celebration of Passover. Nowhere in Europe was the blood libel more tenacious, credible, and long lived than in the Russian Empire, particularly during the late Imperial period, which saw large scale pogroms and harsh restrictions visited upon the empire's Jewish population. The Russian Revolution of 1917 attracted many Jews to its cause, thanks in large measure to Bolshevik condemnations of antisemitism and persecution of the Jewish minority. These numbers grew in the wake of the brutal Civil War that followed from 1918 - 1922 when the White Army revived the pogrom with particular vigor. What happened after the Bolshevik victory is the subject of Elissa Bemporad's new book, Legacy of Blood: Jews, Pogroms, and Ritual Murder in the Lands of the Soviets (Oxford UP, 2019), which won the National Jewish Book Award (Modern Jewish Thought and Experience). Bemporad probes the underbelly of the "Soviet myth"— that the USSR had eradicated the pogroms, banished the notion of a blood libel to the scrapheap of other opiates for the people, and vanquished antisemitism as part of the regime's broad anti-religious campaign — and discovers that both pogroms and the blood libel had a robust afterlife in the USSR. As she traces changing attitudes towards Jews in the USSR, Bemporad also examines the uneasy and often ambivalent but mutually dependent, and ever-shifting relationship between the regime and the Jewish population as the Soviet century unfolds. Legacy of Blood looks at the re-emergence of overt antisemitism in the occupied territories of the USSR during World War II and the troubled return of the Jews to mainstream society after the war. The result is a meticulously researched, thought-provoking, and eminently readable book that adds much to both Jewish and Russian historical scholarship. Elissa Bemporad is an Associate Professor of History at CUNY Graduate Center and the Jerry and William Ungar Chair in East European Jewish History, Queens College of CUNY. She is the author of Becoming Soviet Jews: The Bolshevik Experiment in Minsk (Indiana University Press, 2013) and the forthcoming A Comprehensive History of the Jews in the Soviet Union, vol I (NYU Press). Jennifer Eremeeva is an American expatriate writer who writes about travel, culture, cuisine and culinary history, Russian history, and Royal History, with bylines in Reuters, Fodor's, USTOA, LitHub, The Moscow Times, and Russian Life. She is the award-winning author of Lenin Lives Next Door: Marriage, Martinis, and Mayhem in Moscow and Have Personality Disorder, Will Rule Russia: A Pocket Guide to Russian History. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/genocide-studies

The history of antisemitism in Europe stretches back as far as Ancient Rome, but persecutions of Jews became widespread during the Crusades, beginning in the early 11th century when the wholesale massacre of entire communities became commonplace. From the 12th century, the justification for this state-sanctioned violence became the blood libel accusation: the idea that Jews ritually murdered Christian children and used their blood in the celebration of Passover. Nowhere in Europe was the blood libel more tenacious, credible, and long lived than in the Russian Empire, particularly during the late Imperial period, which saw large scale pogroms and harsh restrictions visited upon the empire's Jewish population. The Russian Revolution of 1917 attracted many Jews to its cause, thanks in large measure to Bolshevik condemnations of antisemitism and persecution of the Jewish minority. These numbers grew in the wake of the brutal Civil War that followed from 1918 - 1922 when the White Army revived the pogrom with particular vigor. What happened after the Bolshevik victory is the subject of Elissa Bemporad's new book, Legacy of Blood: Jews, Pogroms, and Ritual Murder in the Lands of the Soviets (Oxford UP, 2019), which won the National Jewish Book Award (Modern Jewish Thought and Experience). Bemporad probes the underbelly of the "Soviet myth"— that the USSR had eradicated the pogroms, banished the notion of a blood libel to the scrapheap of other opiates for the people, and vanquished antisemitism as part of the regime's broad anti-religious campaign — and discovers that both pogroms and the blood libel had a robust afterlife in the USSR. As she traces changing attitudes towards Jews in the USSR, Bemporad also examines the uneasy and often ambivalent but mutually dependent, and ever-shifting relationship between the regime and the Jewish population as the Soviet century unfolds. Legacy of Blood looks at the re-emergence of overt antisemitism in the occupied territories of the USSR during World War II and the troubled return of the Jews to mainstream society after the war. The result is a meticulously researched, thought-provoking, and eminently readable book that adds much to both Jewish and Russian historical scholarship. Elissa Bemporad is an Associate Professor of History at CUNY Graduate Center and the Jerry and William Ungar Chair in East European Jewish History, Queens College of CUNY. She is the author of Becoming Soviet Jews: The Bolshevik Experiment in Minsk (Indiana University Press, 2013) and the forthcoming A Comprehensive History of the Jews in the Soviet Union, vol I (NYU Press). Jennifer Eremeeva is an American expatriate writer who writes about travel, culture, cuisine and culinary history, Russian history, and Royal History, with bylines in Reuters, Fodor's, USTOA, LitHub, The Moscow Times, and Russian Life. She is the award-winning author of Lenin Lives Next Door: Marriage, Martinis, and Mayhem in Moscow and Have Personality Disorder, Will Rule Russia: A Pocket Guide to Russian History. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

The history of antisemitism in Europe stretches back as far as Ancient Rome, but persecutions of Jews became widespread during the Crusades, beginning in the early 11th century when the wholesale massacre of entire communities became commonplace. From the 12th century, the justification for this state-sanctioned violence became the blood libel accusation: the idea that Jews ritually murdered Christian children and used their blood in the celebration of Passover. Nowhere in Europe was the blood libel more tenacious, credible, and long lived than in the Russian Empire, particularly during the late Imperial period, which saw large scale pogroms and harsh restrictions visited upon the empire's Jewish population. The Russian Revolution of 1917 attracted many Jews to its cause, thanks in large measure to Bolshevik condemnations of antisemitism and persecution of the Jewish minority. These numbers grew in the wake of the brutal Civil War that followed from 1918 - 1922 when the White Army revived the pogrom with particular vigor. What happened after the Bolshevik victory is the subject of Elissa Bemporad's new book, Legacy of Blood: Jews, Pogroms, and Ritual Murder in the Lands of the Soviets (Oxford UP, 2019), which won the National Jewish Book Award (Modern Jewish Thought and Experience). Bemporad probes the underbelly of the "Soviet myth"— that the USSR had eradicated the pogroms, banished the notion of a blood libel to the scrapheap of other opiates for the people, and vanquished antisemitism as part of the regime's broad anti-religious campaign — and discovers that both pogroms and the blood libel had a robust afterlife in the USSR. As she traces changing attitudes towards Jews in the USSR, Bemporad also examines the uneasy and often ambivalent but mutually dependent, and ever-shifting relationship between the regime and the Jewish population as the Soviet century unfolds. Legacy of Blood looks at the re-emergence of overt antisemitism in the occupied territories of the USSR during World War II and the troubled return of the Jews to mainstream society after the war. The result is a meticulously researched, thought-provoking, and eminently readable book that adds much to both Jewish and Russian historical scholarship. Elissa Bemporad is an Associate Professor of History at CUNY Graduate Center and the Jerry and William Ungar Chair in East European Jewish History, Queens College of CUNY. She is the author of Becoming Soviet Jews: The Bolshevik Experiment in Minsk (Indiana University Press, 2013) and the forthcoming A Comprehensive History of the Jews in the Soviet Union, vol I (NYU Press). Jennifer Eremeeva is an American expatriate writer who writes about travel, culture, cuisine and culinary history, Russian history, and Royal History, with bylines in Reuters, Fodor's, USTOA, LitHub, The Moscow Times, and Russian Life. She is the award-winning author of Lenin Lives Next Door: Marriage, Martinis, and Mayhem in Moscow and Have Personality Disorder, Will Rule Russia: A Pocket Guide to Russian History. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Palmer RaidsOn January 2, 1920, Attorney General Mitchell Palmer orchestrated a sweeping crackdown on suspected radicals in what came to be known as the "Palmer Raids." Over 500 federal agents, joined by local law enforcement, conducted coordinated raids across 33 U.S. cities, arresting between 6,000 and 10,000 individuals. The targets were primarily immigrants accused of being communists, anarchists, or other political radicals. Many of those detained were held without warrants or evidence, and legal proceedings against them often lacked due process.These raids were the culmination of the first Red Scare, a period marked by paranoia about leftist ideologies following the Russian Revolution and a wave of domestic labor unrest. Palmer justified the operation as a necessary defense against a supposed revolutionary threat, publishing his infamous article, The Case Against the 'Reds,' which fanned public fears. However, the raids quickly drew criticism for their unconstitutional practices. Detainees were denied legal counsel, held in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, and subjected to deportation without fair hearings.Prominent legal figures and organizations denounced the Palmer Raids, seeing them as a gross abuse of government power. Critics argued that Palmer's actions not only violated individual rights but also reflected an opportunistic attempt to bolster his political ambitions. The backlash led to the founding of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which emerged as a leading advocate against such government overreach.In hindsight, the Palmer Raids are a stark reminder of how fear and political expediency can undermine constitutional protections. They stand as a cautionary tale about the dangers of sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security, a pattern that has echoed through subsequent decades.Law schools are navigating significant changes as they head into 2025, with notable trends shaping the legal education landscape. Enrollment is surging, with applications for fall 2025 up 25% compared to last year. This follows a 6% increase in applicants and a 5% rise in first-year students in 2024. Interest in legal careers appears driven by the prominent role of law in current events, including the recent presidential election. The competition for spots, particularly at elite schools, is intensifying, with a sharp increase in applicants holding top LSAT scores.Diversity in law school classes remains a critical issue. While the overall diversity of the 2024 entering class held steady, Black and Hispanic enrollment at top-ranked "T-14" law schools dropped by 8% and 9%, respectively, following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 affirmative action ban. Experts anticipate further impacts on diversity as fewer undergraduates of color enter the pipeline, with effects becoming clearer by 2028. For now, Black and Hispanic applicants are up significantly, reflecting continued interest in legal education.Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is beginning to influence law school curricula, though adoption varies widely. While only a small percentage of faculty actively teach AI-focused courses, some schools, like UC Berkeley and Arizona State, now offer AI-specific degrees or certificates. Legal writing courses and law clinics are increasingly integrating AI tools, responding to the legal profession's rapid adoption of generative AI technologies. Advocates argue that law schools must accelerate these efforts to meet employer and industry demands.Law school trends to watch in 2025 | ReutersA U.S. military appeals court has upheld the validity of plea deals for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, and two accomplices. This decision follows an earlier ruling by a military judge stating that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's attempt to invalidate the agreements in August was untimely. Under these plea deals, the three men could plead guilty to their roles in the 9/11 attacks in exchange for avoiding the death penalty. The Pentagon has not commented on the ruling but previously indicated that Austin was surprised by the plea deals, which were made independently of his office. The 9/11 attacks killed nearly 3,000 people and led to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Mohammed remains one of the most notable detainees at Guantanamo Bay, a detention center established in 2002 to hold foreign militant suspects.The case has renewed criticism of Guantanamo Bay, with human rights advocates condemning the use of torture and calling for accountability. Separately, on the same day as the court ruling, the Pentagon announced the repatriation of Ridah Bin Saleh Al-Yazidi, one of Guantanamo's longest-held detainees, to Tunisia after being detained for over 20 years without charge. The facility currently houses 26 detainees, 14 of whom are eligible for transfer.US military appeals court says plea deals related to 9/11 attacks may proceed | ReutersCorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs faced mounting pressure in 2024, a trend likely to continue into 2025. Conservative activists, such as Robby Starbuck, successfully pushed major corporations like Walmart and Ford to modify or scale back their DEI initiatives. Starbuck's efforts have caught the attention of investors, with some threatening shareholder proposals in response to unwanted changes. Companies are also adjusting their language and communication around DEI to avoid political backlash, with organizations like Citigroup and Uber removing terms like "anti-racist" from corporate filings.The legal and political landscape is shifting as well. Trump's incoming administration, supported by a Republican-led Congress, plans to restrict corporate DEI through measures like prohibiting SEC workforce disclosures and barring government contracts for companies with DEI programs. Simultaneously, legal challenges from groups like America First Legal are targeting DEI policies as discriminatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, with lawsuits filed against companies like IBM's Red Hat.Some corporations now list DEI as a potential risk factor in their filings, signaling concerns about legal or reputational fallout from their diversity efforts. Despite the scrutiny, many businesses quietly continue pursuing diversity goals, while some executives maintain that inclusivity is essential for long-term success. This balancing act reflects the growing complexity of navigating DEI in a polarized environment.Corporate DEI Programs Recoil and Rebrand as Pressure MountsIn my column this week, I contend that if the Department of Government Efficiency, which will not be a real executive agency, wants to make the IRS more efficient it should do so by ordering more audits of wealthy taxpayers. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's push for government efficiency could start by significantly improving federal revenue by addressing the $696 billion annual tax gap—the difference between taxes owed and collected. Research suggests that better auditing of high-income taxpayers, without requiring new legislation, could recover substantial unpaid taxes, aligning with the duo's mission of improving efficiency. Studies show that audits of wealthier individuals yield a high return on investment, deterring future tax evasion while reinforcing compliance.The IRS, weakened by years of budget cuts, requires more personnel to handle labor-intensive audits of complex high-income returns effectively. Targeted funding has already proven successful, as the Inflation Reduction Act enabled the IRS to recover over $1 billion from high-net-worth taxpayers. For every $1 spent auditing a taxpayer in the 90th percentile, the IRS recouped $12 in taxes owed – a truly staggering return on investment. However, the agency still struggles to match its 1995 staffing levels, highlighting a critical need for further investment.Closing the tax gap would not only generate significant revenue but also restore fairness by ensuring progressive tax rates function as intended. This effort is essential for creating an accurate picture of government resources and addressing fiscal responsibility. Whether Musk and Ramaswamy's commission will embrace this nuanced approach to tax administration remains to be seen, but don't hold your breath. A successful efficiency audit of the IRS hinges on informed decision-making and precision – something neither Musk nor Ramaswamy has evinced having in matters of politics.Musk, Ramaswamy Can Target Inefficiency by Closing the Tax Gap This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The episode opens with Jerry and Stably greeting each other warmly after a holiday break, reflecting on the New Year and its opportunities for renewal. They segue into the central discussion, focusing on “Heart of a Dog” by Mikhail Bulgakov, a novella set in 1920s Moscow. Stably introduces the story, describing it as a satirical exploration of Soviet society through the transformation of Sharik, a stray dog, into a human following an experimental surgery conducted by a renowned doctor, Professor Preobrazhensky.The hosts delve into Bulgakov's critique of the Soviet regime, examining how the novella uses humor and absurdity to highlight the societal and moral dilemmas of the time. They discuss the professor's intentions behind the experiment, portraying it as a commentary on human nature and the challenges of attempting to create “ideal” citizens. Sharik's transformation is analyzed as both a metaphor for social engineering and a direct critique of the upheavals of the Russian Revolution.Stably highlights how the novella's narrative structure juxtaposes Sharik's perspective as a dog with his later experiences as a human, emphasizing the loss of innocence and the complexities of human existence. The conversation touches on Bulgakov's use of vivid imagery and allegorical elements, with Jerry noting the novella's blend of dark comedy and philosophical inquiry.The hosts also discuss specific scenes and character dynamics, such as Sharik's initial gratitude towards his rescuer and his eventual rebellion as he struggles to adapt to his new identity. They reflect on the ethical implications of the experiment and the broader questions it raises about science, power, and identity. Notable examples include the interplay between Professor Preobrazhensky and his assistant, Dr. Bormenthal, which underscores the tensions between ambition and responsibility.Concluding the discussion, Jerry and Stably agree that “Heart of a Dog” remains relevant for its incisive critique of authoritarianism and its exploration of what it means to be human. They praise Bulgakov's storytelling for its ability to provoke thought while entertaining readers, encouraging listeners to explore the novella for its rich thematic layers and enduring significance. 

Intro: Red Army is the Strongest - Alexandrov Red Army Choir Outro: You Fell Victim Further Reading Broué, Pierre. The German Revolution: 1917 - 1923. Haymarket Books, 2005. Carr, Edward Hallett. The Bolshevik Revolution 1917 - 1923. W.W. Norton & Company, 1985. Cohen, Stephen P. Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography 1888 - 1938. Knopf, 1973. Deutscher, Isaac. The Prophet: The Life of Leon Trotsky, The One-Volume Edition. Verso, 2015. ——, Stalin: A Political Biography. Vintage Books, 1960. FitzPatrick, Sheila. The Russian Revolution. Oxford University Press, 2017. Kołakowski, Leszek. Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders, the Golden Age, the Breakdown. W.W. Norton & Company, 2005. Kotkin, Stephen. Stalin: Paradoxes of Power 1878 - 1928. Penguin, 2015. Rabinowitch, Alexander. The Bolsheviks in Power: The First Year of Soviet Rule in Petrograd. Indiana University Press, 2007. Serge, Victor. Memoirs of a Revolutionary. New York Review of Books, 2012. ——., Year One of the Russian Revolution. Haymarket Books, 2015. Smith, S.A.. Russia in Revolution: Empire in Crisis 1890 - 1928. Oxford University Press, 2018. Trotsky, Leon. Military Writings. Wellred Books, 2015.

Send us a textResearch historian, data analyst, and conspiracy realist @GavinNascimento returns to unravel the hidden intricacies of the Bolshevik Revolution, the rise of Nazism, and the geopolitical power plays that shaped the 20th century on episode 184 of the Far Out with Faust podcast.A seasoned veteran of the show (links below to episodes 79, 130, 131, 152, 154), Gavin has solidified his place among the most influential truth seekers of our era. Known for his relentless pursuit of verifiable truths, Gavin continues to challenge mainstream narratives with meticulous research and compelling insights. His acclaimed work, A History of Elitism, World Government & Population Control, and his essays on platforms like The Free Thought Project have earned him a dedicated following.In this episode, Gavin and Faust delve into the far-reaching implications of WWI and WWII, exposing the external forces that influenced revolutionary movements and shaped the modern geopolitical landscape. Topics include:- The underestimated role of Western powers in financing the Bolshevik Revolution- How Zionism and Ashkenazi supremacy intersected with global political agendas- The financial and ideological connections between communism and Nazism- The Dawes and Young Plans: financial manipulation post-WWI that paved the way for WWII- Psychological manipulation stemming from economic desperation and propaganda- Historical context for the rise of authoritarian regimes like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany- The shadowy role of organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and Rockefeller Foundation in post-war global governance- The moral complexities of war and the suffering of innocents- How history is manipulated to serve modern political agendas…and much more!Explore these riveting connections between past and present to gain a deeper understanding of today's world.

In the years following the Russian Revolution, a popular resistance movement sprang up in Ukraine that drew its inspiration from a man named Nestor Makhno. Makhno went on to organize a seven-million-strong anarchist polity amidst the chaos and brutality of the Russian Civil War. Charlie Allison describes Makhno's appeal, his political beliefs, and his rejection of Bolshevism. (Encore presentation.) Charlie Allison, No Harmless Power: The Life and Times of the Ukrainian Anarchist Nestor Makhno PM Press, 2023 (Image on main page by Oleh Kushch.) The post Ukrainian Anarchist appeared first on KPFA.

Amanda Griffiths joins Nate for a fun discussion about the future of the Libertarian Party.    https://x.com/AjaxtheGriff   LP Alliance: https://discord.gg/refocuslnc (00:35) Libertarian Party and Neo-Prags Discussion   (06:04) Debate on Libertarian Party Strategies   (09:12) Trump's Influence and Libertarian Party's Future   (14:08) Presidential Pardons and Political Corruption   (17:51) Libertarian Party's Role and Strategy Moving Forward   (23:36) Reflections on Libertarian Candidates and Strategies   (36:46) LP Alliance   (37:28) Personal Involvement and Mises Caucus   (39:53) Healthcare CEO Assassination and Public Reactions   (47:37) Libertarian Party's Role and Ideological Revolution   (51:43) Global Politics and Conspiracy Theories   (01:00:10) Amanda's Parody Album and Russian Revolution

For tonight, I tell you the stories of different "lost treasures" and other legends attached to:1- The Knights Templar, a religious military order that emerged during the Crusades but became so wealthy and influential that it made powerful enemies;2- The Cathars, a Christian sect from the 12th to 14th Centuries in Southern France and Northern Italy, which was persecuted until it disappeared;3- The Fabergé Eggs, exquisite pieces of jewelry that were made for the Romanovs in Saint Petersburg in the decades before the Russian Revolution. Out of more than fifty, six eggs are now missing, but as the story of the "Third Imperial" egg indicates, they could maybe reappear one day.  Welcome to Lights Out LibraryJoin me for a sleepy adventure tonight. Sit back, relax, and fall asleep to documentary-style stories read in a calming voice. Learn something new while you enjoy a restful night of sleep.Listen ad free and get access to bonus content on our Patreon: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/LightsOutLibrary621⁠⁠⁠Listen on Youtube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@LightsOutLibraryov⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ¿Quieres escuchar en Español? Echa un vistazo a La Biblioteca de los Sueños!En Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/1t522alsv5RxFsAf9AmYfg⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠En Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/la-biblioteca-de-los-sue%C3%B1os-documentarios-para-dormir/id1715193755⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠En Youtube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@LaBibliotecadelosSuenosov⁠⁠⁠ 

for part 1 of this episode, two extra episodes each month, and exclusive content please visit: patreon.com/thenickbryantpodcast Rick Spence received his doctorate in history from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1981. He taught history at the University of Idaho starting 1986 and retired in 2020. He specializes in Russian intelligence and military history, modern espionage, anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, and the history of secret societies and the occult. Spence's published works include Boris Savinkov: Renegade on the Left, Trust No One: The Secret World of Sidney Reilly, Wall Street and the Russian Revolution: 1905-1925, and his latest offering is Secret Agent 666: Aleister Crowley, British Intelligence and the Occult.  nickbryantnyc.com EpsteinJustice.com

On this thrilling edition of Ron's Amazing Stories, we're diving deep into a tale of intrigue, espionage, and revolution, all set against the backdrop of one of the most tumultuous periods in modern history. We're heading to Russia in 1917.  A time of upheaval, where the Tsar is overthrown, and the Bolsheviks seize power. It's a dangerous game of political chess, where loyalties are tested and lives hang in the balance. And in the midst of it all, we find our hero, a British agent caught in a web of deception. Our story, The British Agent, is a gripping adaptation of the 1934 classic film recreated by Lux Radio Theater.  We'll hear about secret identities, daring escapes, and the courage it takes to stand up for what's right, even when the odds are stacked against you.  But first, Ron sets the stage.  He'll take you back to the events of the Russian Revolution, exploring the forces that brought a mighty empire to its knees.  So grab your headphones, settle in, and prepare to be transported back in time with Ron's Amazing Stories! Ron's Amazing Stories Is Sponsored by: Audible - You can get a free audiobook and a 30 day free trial at . Your Stories: Do you have a story that you would like to share on the podcast or the blog? Head to the main website, click on Story Submission, leave your story, give it a title, and please tell me where you're from. I will read it if I can. Links are below. Music Used In This Podcast: Most of the music you hear on Ron's Amazing Stories has been composed by Kevin MacLeod () and is Licensed under . Other pieces are in the public domain. You can find great free music at which is a site owned by Kevin. Program Info: Ron's Amazing Stories is published each Thursday. You can download it from , stream it on or on the mobile version of . Do you prefer the radio? We are heard every Thursday at 10:00 pm and Sunday Night at 11:00 PM (EST) on . Check your local listing or find the station closest to you at this . Social Links: Contact Links:

Highlights: Abraham Friedman (אבֿרהם פֿרידמאַן), publisher of Di Tzeitung (די צייטונג), a major weekly newspaper in the Chareidi world, especially among the Chassidic community in New York. In this interview he talks about what his newspaper offers, discusses current events recently covered by his newspaper, and a little about himself. We reached him by phone at his home in Brooklyn on Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2024. Website of די צייטונג: http://ditzeitung.com/ From our archive, outtakes from previously aired interviews that were not previously aired due to time limitations. Samuel Kassow (שמואל קאַסאָוו), professor of history, Trinity College: outtake from an interview originally aired Nov. 1, 2017, on the theme of the Russian Revolution of 1917. Original podcast: https://podcast.yv.org/episodes/samuel-kassow-elissa-bemporad Jordan Kutzik of Kinder-Loshn Publications, and David Forman, translator of the book Dos Kluge Shnayderl/The Clever Little Tailor: outtake from an interview originally aired in November, 2021. Original podcast: https://podcast.yv.org/episodes/jordan-kutzik-david-forman-dos-kluge-shnayderlthe-clever-little-tailor The above two interviews were conducted by Sholem Beinfeld, a regular contributor to The Yiddish Voice, co-Editor in Chief of the Comprehensive Yiddish-English Dictionary, and Professor of History, Emeritus, Washington University, St. Louis. Music: Intro/outro instrumental music: DEM HELFANDS TANTS, an instrumental track from the CD Jeff Warschauer: The Singing Waltz Music: Itzhak Perlman, Dov Seltzer, Israel Philharmonic Orchestra: Afn Veg Shteyt A Boym (instrumental) Air date: November 20, 2024

In the first few years after the Russian Revolution, an ideological project coalesced to link the development of what Stalin demarcated as the internal "East"—primarily Central Asia and the Caucasus—with nation-building, the overthrow of colonialism, and progress toward socialism in the "foreign East"—the Third World. Support for anti-colonial movements abroad was part of the Communist Party platform and shaped Soviet foreign policy to varying degrees thereafter. The Eastern International: Arabs, Central Asians, and Jews in the Soviet Union's Anticolonial Empire (Oxford University Press, 2024) by Dr. Masha Kirasirova explores how the concept of "the East" was used by the world's first communist state and its mediators to project, channel, and contest power across Eurasia. Dr. Kirasirova traces how this policy was conceptualised and carried out by students, comrades, and activists—Arab, Jewish, and Central Asian. It drew on their personal motivations and gave them considerable access to state authority and agency to shape Soviet ideology, inform concrete decisions, and allocate resources. Contextualising these Eastern mediators within a global frame, this book historicizes the circulation of peoples and ideas between the socialist and decolonizing world and reinscribes Soviet history into postcolonial studies and global history. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. 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

In the first few years after the Russian Revolution, an ideological project coalesced to link the development of what Stalin demarcated as the internal "East"—primarily Central Asia and the Caucasus—with nation-building, the overthrow of colonialism, and progress toward socialism in the "foreign East"—the Third World. Support for anti-colonial movements abroad was part of the Communist Party platform and shaped Soviet foreign policy to varying degrees thereafter. The Eastern International: Arabs, Central Asians, and Jews in the Soviet Union's Anticolonial Empire (Oxford University Press, 2024) by Dr. Masha Kirasirova explores how the concept of "the East" was used by the world's first communist state and its mediators to project, channel, and contest power across Eurasia. Dr. Kirasirova traces how this policy was conceptualised and carried out by students, comrades, and activists—Arab, Jewish, and Central Asian. It drew on their personal motivations and gave them considerable access to state authority and agency to shape Soviet ideology, inform concrete decisions, and allocate resources. Contextualising these Eastern mediators within a global frame, this book historicizes the circulation of peoples and ideas between the socialist and decolonizing world and reinscribes Soviet history into postcolonial studies and global history. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

for this full episode, two extra episodes each month, and exclusive content please visit: patreon.com/thenickbryantpodcast Rick Spence received his doctorate in history from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1981. He taught history at the University of Idaho starting 1986 and retired in 2020. He specializes in Russian intelligence and military history, modern espionage, anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, and the history of secret societies and the occult. Spence's published works include Boris Savinkov: Renegade on the Left, Trust No One: The Secret World of Sidney Reilly, Wall Street and the Russian Revolution: 1905-1925, and his latest offering is Secret Agent 666: Aleister Crowley, British Intelligence and the Occult.  nickbryantnyc.com EpsteinJustice.com

"I live life in the margins of society. And the rules of normal society don't apply in the margins." Welcome to the saucy, scandalous slag-paradise that is Tamara de Lempicka (1898-1980)! Tamara was a Polish-born aristocrat, bisexual painter, and Art Deco diva who took Paris by storm in the 1920s after escaping the Russian Revolution. She was known for her hunger, a deep yearning to become a great artist and gobble up anything and everyone who stood in her path. (Including her husband! Move out the way, b*tch.) As a sapphic siren of the Jazz Age, she was also part of Paris' lesbian underground, which featured clubs and bars that catered to butch and femme tastes alike. That is, before the populist Fascists came in and ruined everything (sound familiar, America?). A self-made woman who subjugated everything to her art, Tamara cared as much about poontang and diamonds as she did her reputation. She was a PR genius, but despite that, we barely talk about her today. Join me and Stephen Brower – comedian, writer, and recent cast member of LEMPICKA on Broadway – to discuss the dazzling life of this Art Deco dynamo. (Diamonds sold separately.) — If you want more from Historical Homos, you can join our cult on ⁠⁠our website⁠⁠. And follow us on ⁠Instagram⁠ and⁠ ⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Like what you hear? Please leave us a five star rating on Apple or Spotify. Do it. Yeahhhhhh just like that. Written and hosted by Bash. Edited by Alex Toskas. Guest host: Stephen Brower.

DOCTOR ZHIVAGO During the Russian Revolution, young doctor Yuri Zhivago, raised by his aunt and uncle, falls in love with the beautiful Lara, who has been having an affair with the unscrupulous businessman Victor Komarovsky. Despite marrying his cousin, Tonya, Yuri's love for Lara remains. Years later when by chance he and Lara meet again, the spark of love reignites. Craig and guest co-host Elizabeth Rappe discuss Russian history, tragic love stories, middle-aged comedies and the movie “Doctor Zhivago” on this week's Matinee Heroes. Show Notes 1:01 Craig and guest co-host Elisabeth Rappe talk about Elizabeth's movie "gaps". 8:51 Craig and Elisabeth discuss "Doctor Zhivago" 48:49 Recasting 1:09:01 Double Feature  1:12:22 Final Thoughts  1:16:01 A preview of next week's episode "Vertigo" Next week, another new movie for Craig - the Hitchcock masterpiece "Vertigo" https://youtu.be/UHhsEYDg8GI?si=O659q3JhyzEat0l3

Episode: 1274 The Maxim Gorky, largest airplane of its time.  Today, Stalin builds a big airplane.

Last time we spoke about the finale of the Northern Expedition, the reunification of China. In May the NRA advanced from the Yellow River bridgehead despite losing access to the Tianjin-Pukou railway, forcing a 60-mile march. General Chen Tiaoyuan captured Tehzhou on the 13th, as the NRA cleared northern Shandong. They then converged on Beijing, with Feng Yuxiang's 2nd Collective Army and Yan Xishan's 3rd Collective Army advancing from different directions. Yan Xishan fought the NPA, recapturing territories and capturing Nankou, which led to speculation he would enter Beijing first. Despite NPA counterattacks, the NRA forces continued their advance. By late May, the NRA's combined efforts and internal NPA issues led to a general retreat of the NPA forces. On June 6, Yan Xishan's troops entered Beijing. The NPA's Zhang Zuolin was assassinated by Japanese officers, leading to a power shift to his son Zhang Xueliang, who later aligned with Chiang Kai-Shek. By December 1928, China was unified under the KMT.   #118 The Chinese Civil War Draws First Blood Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. So I said a few times during the northern expedition that I wanted to push aside the emerging Chinese civil war. Although we loosely covered a lot of the major events, this episode is going to try and narrow and focus it down. Now please note, up until this point I have to admit I had been using sources that were either skewed towards the Chinese nationalist views or were trying to be non biased. For some of these episodes I intentionally am using some CCP aligned sources, I will try my best to balance things out. Also a large part of this is going to be a retelling of the Shanghai Massacre, but more from the point of view of the CCP. All the way back in 1926, Chiang Kai-Shek had managed to seize power over the Kuomintang. He exerted control over the party and army as he unleashed the Northern Expedition. By November 9th Chiang Kai-Shek set up a new headquarters in Nanchang. Chiang Kai-Shek was determined to purge the party of communists and began to do so here. He began by recruiting a large number of right-wing Kuomintang members such as Dai Jitao and Wu Tiecheng. Dai Jitao was a member of the Kuomintang Central Executive Committee and had served as the Minister of the KMT's propaganda department. After the death of Sun Yat-Sen, Dai Jitao had actively promoted an anti-communist movement, drawing support from warlords, right wingers and those the CCP would describe as “imperialists”. In May of 1925 with the support of Chiang Kai-Shek, Dai Jitao began an anti-communist campaign in Shanghai. He ran two successful pamphlets loosely translated in English as "The Philosophical Foundation of Sun Yat-senism" and "National Revolution and the Chinese Kuomintang”. Both worked to promote the teachings of Confucius and Mencius while distorting Sun Yat-sen's thoughts. Dai Jitao was arguing that Sun Yat-Sen's ideology chiefly came from Confucianism instead of western philosophy and that in fact the man was a traditionalist. He twisted Sun Yat-Sen's three principles, castrating them of revolutionary content. All of this quickly became a "banner" for the Kuomintang right-winger to carry out anti-communist activities. After Chiang Kai-Shek arrived in Nanchang, he immediately invited him to go north to jointly plan the purge of the party and anti-communism. Wu Tiecheng joined Dai Jitao, he was the director of the Guangzhou Public security Bureau and a well known KMT right-winger. Prior to the Zhongshan ship incident, Wu Tiecheng stated he had suggested to Chiang Kai-Shek that they impose sanctions on the CCP. In his words “with the registration materials of the special household registration of our Public Security Bureau, we can immediately arrest a dozen of the main Communist Party members, and then use a ship to transport them to a small island near Zhongshan County , or send them to Shanghai. As for the minor members, they will be temporarily detained." Chiang Kai-Shek said "I will think about it first." After the Zhongshan incident, Chiang Kai-Shek pretended to dismiss him from his post, but specially invited him later to Nanchang and dispatched him to Japan as a liaison. Another large figure who was invited over was Huang Fu, who had served as the Minister of Foreign affairs and Education for the Beiyang Government and as its Prime Minister. When Chiang Kai-Shek came to Nanchang he wrote to Huang Fu twice inviting him to come south. On December 31st, Zhang Jingjiang and Chen Guofu were also invited to Nanchang. Zhang Jingjiang was a member of the KMT's Central Supervisory Committee. After the secondary Plenary session of the second central committee, he became chairman of it. He used his authority and colluded with Chen Guofu, the Minister of Organization to dissolve the Guangzhou Municipal Party committee, which at the time was being led by left winger KMT. They did this by placing confidants in various positions to steal power. Simultaneously, they suppressed worker and peasant movements in Guangdong, even dispatching gangsters to kill their leaders and burn down the provincial and Hong Kong strike committee HQ. All of these people gathered at Nanchang formed a anti-communist cabal backing Chiang Kai-Shek. In January of 1927 these men went up Mount Lushan to a famous hotel called Xianyan where they plotted. After several days of meetings, as my source argues, mostly based on the advice of Huang Fu, these following decisions were obtained. Number 1, they would enact a policy of separating from the USSR and purging the party of CCP. Number 2, the NRA must settle the southeast by forming an alliance with the gentry and merchant class there. Number 3 in their diplomatic efforts they had to abandon the USSR and ally themselves to Japan. Number 4, to increase their military power they had to unite with Feng Yuxiangs Guominjun and Yan Xishan.   Upon returning to Nanchang, Chiang Kai-Shek took action, first by attacking Borodin. He sent a telegram to Xu Qian, the chairman of the Wuhan joint conference, stating Borodin had insulted him in public at Wuhan and demanded he be removed from his advisory position. He also recomended expell Borodin back to the USSR. The source I am reading states Chiang Kai-Shek had two rationales for going after Borodin. "Chiang Kai-Shek felt that except for Borodin, the Kuomintang leaders in Wuhan were all politically incompetent. ... As long as Borodin was there, he could not gain a dominant position. Secondly, he was using Borodin like a scape goat to hide his real anti-Soviet purpose'. At this time Chiang Kai-Shek was being labeled a USSR stooge by the NPA and a Japanese stooge by the CCP. In response, Chiang Kai-Shek stated publicly "Our alliance with Russia was left by the Prime Minister. Although its representatives have been arrogant for a long time and oppressed our party leaders in many ways, I believe that this has nothing to do with the Soviet Union's spirit of treating us equally. No matter what their personal attitudes are, we will never change our relationship with the Soviet Union towards Japan. Why should we unite with the Soviet Union? It is because the Soviet Union can treat China equally. Since the Soviet Union has not given up treating us equally, how can we give up the policy of alliance with Russia. ... Not only Japan, but any country, if it can treat China equally, then we will treat them the same way as we treat the Soviet Union. It is not impossible to unite with them. We unite with the Soviet Union to seek freedom and equality for China. It is completely based on the meaning of treating our nation equally, so we must unite with the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union does not treat us equally and oppresses us in the same way, we will also oppose them in the same way. I have said for a long time." In regards to the CCP Chiang Kai-Shek stated to his close confidants “When I was in Guangzhou, I was always paying attention to the actions of the CCP. I wanted to implement my proposal to overthrow the CCP in Guangzhou, however I did not do so. I was unable to do so because it could mean the end of the Kuomintang”. After the success of the Northern Expedition, Chiang Kai-Shek lamented to his confidants “although our army has won a great victory, I still worry the enemy is not at our front but at our rear. The CCP is causing much trouble within, we must make sure it does not split out party or even collapse our army. There are thorns everywhere”. Publically Chiang Kai-Shek stated "Now there is a rumor that I distrust and alienate my Communist comrades and have a tendency to oppose them. In fact, it cannot be said that I will not oppose the Communist Party. I has always supported the Communist Party... But that is to say, if the Communist Party becomes strong in the future and its members are arrogant and tyrannical, I will definitely correct them and punish them. ... Now many Communist Party members are actually oppressing the Kuomintang members, showing an overbearing attitude, and tend to exclude Kuomintang members, making Kuomintang members embarrassed. In this way, I can no longer treat Communist Party members with the same preferential treatment as before. If I still have the same attitude as before, then I am not in the position of a Kuomintang member, and I cannot be a Kuomintang member. Although I am not a Communist Party member, from a revolutionary perspective, I have to take some responsibility for the success or failure of the Communist Party! I am the leader of the Chinese revolution, not just the leader of the Kuomintang. The Communist Party is a part of the Chinese revolutionary forces. Therefore, if Communist Party members do something wrong or act tyrannically, I have the responsibility and power to intervene and punish them." As you can see, publicly Chiang Kai-Shek was always walking on eggshells when attacking the CCP. If you know the old boiling frog analogy, it's more or less like Chiang Kai-Shek gradually getting the public to attack the CCP. At the ceremony where Li Liejun was appointed chairman of Jiangxi, Chiang Kai-shek once again gave a speech, saying that communism was only a method of economic development, which might be applicable in some countries, but if China adopted communism, it would be a great harm and would only lead to the overthrow and revolution of China. In late January, Chiang Kai-Shek met with Momuro Keijiro, a representative sent by Japan's minister of Finance and Navy at Lushan. Chiang Kai-Shek explained to Keijiro that he understood the importance of the political and economic relationship between Manchuria and Japan. He understood the Japanese had spilt a lot of blood there during the Russo-Japanese War. He believed Manchuria required special consideration and hoped the Japanese would correctly evaluate the KMT's struggle to reunify China. Chiang Kai-Shek then met with the Japanese consul General in Jiujiang, Edo Sentaro, explaining he did not only intend to abolish the unequal treaties but would try to respect the existing conditions as much as possible, such as guaranteeing the recognition of foreign loans and repayments and respecting foreign owned enterprises.  After these meetings Chiang Kai-Shek met with representatives of the Imperial Japanese Military such as Nagami Masuki and Matsumuro Takayoshi. It was Dai Jitao who set up these meetings. Chiang Kai-Shek began the talks by making it clear the KMT would not work with the CCP and was willing to work with Japan to prevent the spread of Communism in China. Chiang Kai-Shek also met with the Japanese politician Yamamoto Jotario who would go on to say in Beijing that he believed the Generalissimo was an outstanding military leader. Needless to say, as my source would put it “Chiang Kai-Shek was closely colluding with Japanese imperialism”. He was also establishing contacts with the US. He dispatched Wang Zhengting to Shanghai to meet the American consul general there. Wang Zhengting told him the KMT had washed their hands of the communists and that there would be nor more incidents such as the one that befell Hankou. The American consul general in Guangzhou was likewise contacted through the finance minister of Guangdong, Kong Xiangxi. What the American consuls told their government was “if the powers want to drive the Soviets out of China, they should establish direct contact with Chiang Kai-Shek”. Chiang Kai-Shek also publicly expressed regret to numerous nations for incidents such as the one in Nanjing. He was gaining a reputation as being the only leader in China capable of restoring order amongst the chaos. Many of these foreign diplomats privately told Chiang Kai-Shek that if he wanted to really brush shoulders with them he had to purge the communists and soon. To truly purge the communists Chiang Kai-Shek reaches a deal with the bourgeoisie of Jiangsu and Zhejiang. They will support him economically if he helps suppress the worker movements in Shanghai. They fund Chiang Kai-Shek some 500,000 Yuan in early March, then on the 29th the Shanghai Commercial Federation pledges 5 million Yuan, with another 3 million on April 1st. Around this time Chiang Kai-Shek secretly send Wang Boling, the deputy commander of the 1st army; Yang Hu, chief of the special affairs department of the general HQ and Chen Qun the director of the political department of the eastern route army to Shanghai in disguise to meet Huang Jinrong. Huang Jinrong was a chief detective working in the French concession of Shanghai. He also happened to be one of the top three gangsters working under Du Yuesheng of the Green Gang. Huang Jinrong summoned Du Yuesheng and the other Green Gang leader Zhang Xiaolin, as they all discussed how to purge the communists. The Green Gang leaders seized the opportunity to help the KMT. They began monitoring the CCP, armed their gang members and began to attack anyone who was picketing. They formed the “China Progress Association”, which in reality was just Green Gang members. This association proceeded to attack the Shanghai General Labor Union, providing the perfect pretext for Chiang Kai-Shek to act.  On April 1st Wang Jingwei returns to Shanghai from aboard. By the 3rd Chiang Kai-Shek telegrams that Wang Jingwei is reinstated and holds secret talks with him. On the 8th Chiang Kai-Shek organizes a Shanghai Provisional Political Committee, stipulating it will decide all military, political and financial decisions and will replace the Shanghai special municipality provincial government that was established after the third Shanghai worker uprising. On the 9th he unleashes martial law prohibiting assemblies, strikes and marches, and established the Songhu Martial Law Command, with Bai Chongxi and Zhou Fengqi as the commander and deputy commander. Chiang Kai-Shek then takes his leave for Nanjing, leaving the job to Bai Chongxi who will supervise a coup in Shanghai. In a vain attempt Chen Duxiu tells the CCP to ease up on the Anti-Chiang Kai-Shek stuff. Then its announced to them that Chen Duxiu had managed to form a deal with Wang Jingwei. Chiang Kai-Shek send word from Nanjing to carry out the purge, in a very “execute order 66 fashion”.  April the 12th takes a wild turn in Shanghai. In the early morning a signal is raised over a warship anchored near the Gaochang temple. Hundreds of well armed Green Gang, Triads and some secret agents wearing blue shorts and white cloth  armbands with a black gongs on them, dispersed from the French concession in several cars. From 1 to 5am they attacked the picketing workers in Zhabei, Nanshi, Huxi, Wusong, Hongkou and other districts. The workers resisted immediately causing fierce street battles to break out. The 26th Army of the NRA, an old Sun Chuanfang unit that recently defected, came to forcibly confiscate guns while stating they were “mediating an internal strife amongst the workers”. Over 2700 armed workers in Shanghai were disarmed. More than 120 were killed with another 180 injured. The Shanghai General Labor Union club and all their associated pickets in the districts were occupied. Within the foreign concessions, foreign military and police forces arrested more than 1000 CCP members and workers who were immediately handed over to Chiang Kai-Shek's men. On the morning of the 13th, the workers from Shanghai's tobacco, silk factories, trams, municipal administration, postal services, sailors and various other industries went on strike. Over 200,000 workers took to the streets and the Shanghai General Labor Union held a mass rally in Qingyun Road Square in Zhabei with over 100,000 participants. They held a quick conference calling for resolutions. The first resolution was to hand over their weapons. Secondly those who destroyed their unions should be severely punished. Third the families of those killed needed to be compensated. Fourth protests should be made against the imperialists within the concessions. Fifth a telegram needed to be sent to the central government, then whole nation and world to demand assistance. Lastly the military authorities should be responsible for protecting the Shanghai trade unions. After the conference, the masses marched upon the headquarters of the 2nd division of the 26th army along Baoshan road to petition for the release of their comrades and for their weapons to be returned to them. They marched for a kilometer and upon reaching the Sandeli area of Baoshan road, soldiers of the 2nd division rushed out and opened fire upon them killing more than 100 on the spot. It was said Baoshan road was flooded with blood. That afternoon Chiang Kai-Sheks forces occupied the Shanghai General Labor Union and General Command of the Shanghai workers. They closed down and disbanded numerous revolutionary organizations and carried out searches and murders. Within 3 days after the Shanghai incident, more than 300 Shanghai CCP members were killed, another 500 were arrested and 5000 went “missing”. Like I said in the previous podcast on this very subject, I will leave it to you as to what missing meant. On the 15th of april the Kuomintang in Guangzhou launched their own coup. On that day more than 2000 CCP members and their supporters were arrested, 200 trade unions were closed. This all would b followed by similar activities in Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui, Fujian and Guangxi where CCP members were purged. The NPA in the north would likewise crack down on communists. Li Dazhao had been placed on the Beiyang governments list of most wanted back in 1926 following the March 18th massacre. Since then he was hiding in the Soviet Embassy in Beijing, continuing to lead political maneuvers against the warlords. When the first united front collapsed as a result of Chiang Kai-Sheks purges, Zhang Zuolin ordered troops to raid the Soviet embassy. Li Dazhao, his wife and daughter were all arrested. Among 19 other communists, Li Dazhao was executed on April 28th of 1927 by strangulation. One of the behemoths who ushered in the New Culture Movement and was a founder of the CCP had become one of its greatest martyrs. The first united front was no more and in response to this the CCP declared "Chiang Kai-shek has become an open enemy of the national revolution, a tool of imperialism, and the culprit of the white terror of massacring workers, peasants and revolutionary masses”. This was followed by a call to mobilize, unite and form a solid front to fight the warlords and KMT. In May of 1927 the Communist International issued “the May Emergency Directive” to the CCP. (1) Without land revolution, victory is impossible; without land revolution, the Kuomintang Central Committee will become a pitiful plaything in the hands of unreliable generals. Excessive behavior must be opposed, but not by the army, but through the peasant associations. (2) It is necessary to make concessions to artisans, merchants and small landowners, and to unite with these strata. Only the land of large and medium-sized landowners should be confiscated; the land of officers and soldiers should not be touched. (3) Some old leaders of the KMT Central Committee will waver and compromise. We should recruit more new leaders of workers and peasants from below to join the KMT Central Committee and renew the KMT's upper echelons. (4) Mobilize 20,000 Communist Party members and 50,000 revolutionary workers and peasants in Hunan and Hubei to form several new armies and build our own reliable army. (5) A revolutionary military tribunal headed by prominent Kuomintang and non-Communists should be established to punish those officers who persecute workers and peasants.  Wang Jingwei obtained this document from Luo Yi, the representative of the Communist International. The high-ranking officials of the Kuomintang believed that this was the Communist International's armed seizure of power and they were determined to purge the party. Thus began the Wuhan-Nanjing war. However as we saw, Wang Jingwei would perform his own purge of the communists on May 21st as he found out the Soviets were pushing the CCP to seize control over his regime. In order to resist the KMT's massacres, or as the CCP put it “the white terror”, the CCP Central Committee reorganized itself on July 12th of 1927. Chen Duxiu and other early CCP leaders who had insisted on compromising with the KMT were dismissed from their posts and labeled right-wing capitulationists. The CCP formed an alliance with left wing KMT members forming a quasi second front where they planned an armed uprising in Nanchang hoping it would spark a large peasant uprising. They were led by He Long and Zhou Enlai. He Long a ethnic Tujia and Hunanese native was born to a poor peasant family. He received no formal education and worked as a cowherder during his youth. When he was 20 he killed a local Qing tax assessor who had killed his uncle for defaulting on his taxes. From this point he fled and became an outlaw, apparently his signature weapon was a butcher knife. In 1918 he raised a volunteer revolutionary army aligned with an emerging Hunanese warlord. By 1920 he joined the NRA and began brushing shoulders with CCP members. During the northern expedition he commanded the 1st division, 9th corps and served under Zhang Fakui. By late 1926 he joined the CCP. When the first united front collapsed he joined up with the CCP and took command of the 20th corps, 1st column of the Red Army. Zhou Enlai was born in Huai'an of Jiangsu in 1898. He was born to a scholarly family, many of them officials, but like many during the late 19th century in China suffered tremendously. Zhou Enlai was adopted by his fathers youngest brother Zhou Yigan who was also ill with tuberculosis. The adoption was more of a way to cover Zhou Yigans lack of an heir. Zhou Yigan died soon after and Zhou Enlai was raised by his widow Chen. He received a traditional literacy education. Zhou Enlai's biological mother died when he was 9 and Chen when he was 10. He then fell into the care of his uncle Zho Yigeng in Fengtian. Zhou Enlai continued his education at Nankai Middle School who were adopting an educational model used at the Philipps academy in the US. Zhou Enlai excelled at debate, acting, drama the sort of skill sets needed for public service. Like many students of his day he went to Japan in 1917 for further studies. He tried to learn Japanese to enter Japanese schools but failed to do so. He also faced a lot of racism in Japan, prompting him to become quite anti japanese. While in Japan he became very interested in news about the Russian Revolution. This led him to read works from Chen Duxiu.  In 1919 he returned to Tianjin where it is said he led student protests during the May Fourth movement, though a lot of modern scholars don't believe he did. Zhou Enlai then became a university student at Nankai and an activist. He led the Awakening Society and would find himself arrested. During this time he became familiar with Li Dazhao and Chen Duxiu. Then in 1920 he went to study in Marseille. In 1921 he joined a Chinese Communist Cell while in Paris. By 1922 he helped found a European branch of the CCP. When the first United Front began he joined the KMT and in 1924 was summoned back to China. He joined the Political department of the Whampoa military academy. He was made Whampoa's chief political officer, but he also took the post as secretary of the CCP of Guangdong, Guangxi and served as a Major-General. Soon he became the secretary of the CCP's Guangdong Provincial committee. In 1925 he got his first taste of military command against Chen Jiongming, accompanying the Whampoa cadets as a political officer. When Chen Jiongming regrouped and attacked Guangzhou again that year, Chiang Kai-Shek personally appointed Zhou Enlai as director of the 1st corps political department. Soon after he was appointed a KMT party representative as chief commissar of the 1st corps. With the newfound position he began appointing communists as commissars in 4 out of the 5 corps divisions. However his work at Whampoa came to an end during the Zhongshan Warship incident as Chiang Kai-Shek began purging communists from high ranking positions. Whampoa was a significant part of his career providing him with skills and a network. Until the first united fronts collapse he worked to form numerous armed CPP groups. He was sent to Shanghai where he was part of the effort to stage an uprising there. During the massacre he was arrested and nearly killed if not for the work of Zhao Shu, a representative of the 26th army who released him. From there he fled to Hankou where he participated in the CCP's 5th national congress. When Wang Jingwei unleashed his purge, Zhou Enlai went into hiding. When the CCP called for an uprising in Nanchang, Zhou Enlai as a CCP secretary was in a unique position to lead it. The CCP designated Zhou Enlai, Li Lisan, Yun Daiying and Peng Pai to form a Front Committee. The troops available to them were the 24th and 10th divisions of the 11th army of the 2nd front army, the entire 20th army, 73rd and 75th regiment of the 25th division of the 4th army and part of the officer training corps of the 3rd army of the 5th front army led by Zhu De. He Long was the commander in chief of the 2nd front army, Ye Ting was his deputy and acting front line commander. Zhou Enlai was the chief of staff with Liu Bocheng as director of the political directorate. At this time, the main force of the 3rd Army of the 5th Front Army of the Kuomintang Wuhan Government was located in Zhangshu, Ji'an; the main force of the 9th Army was located in Jinxian and Linchuan; and the main force of the 6th Army was advancing to Nanchang via Pingxiang; the rest of the 2md Front Army was located in Jiujiang; only the 5th Front Army Guard Regiment and parts of the 3rd, 6th, and 9th Armies, totaling more than 3,000 people, were stationed in Nanchang and its suburbs. The CCP Front Committee decided to launch an uprising on August 1 before the arrival of reinforcements. At 2:00am on August 1st the Nanchang uprising began. The 1st and 2nd division of the 20th army launched attacks against the defenders of the Old Fantai Yamen, Dashiyuan street and the  Niuxing railway station. Meanwhile the 24th division of the 11th army attacked the Songbaixiang catholic church, Xinyingfang and Baihuazhou. The bloody battle lasted until dawn inflicting 3000 casualties and capturing more than 5000 small arms of various types, 700,000 rounds of ammunition and a few cannons. During the afternoon the 73rd regiment of the 25th division station at Mahuiling, 3 battalions of the 75th regiment and a machine gun company of the 74th regiment led by Nie Rongzhen and Zhou Shidi revolted and came to Nanchang by the 2nd of august.  For the moment it seemed the CCP had achieved a grand success at Nanchang. The CCP then began proclaiming Chiang Kai-Shek and Wang Jingwei had betrayed the revolution and that of Sun Yat-Sens three principles by choosing to side with the imperialists and warlords. Meanwhile the CCP aligned military units began to gather in Nanchang requiring a reorganization. It was decided the uprising army would continue to use the designation of 2nd front army of the NRA with He Long serving as its commander in chief and Ye Ting as his deputy. Ye Ting would also command the 11th army consisting of the 24th, 25th and 10th divisions, Nie Rongzhen would be his CCP party representative; He Long would command the 20th Army consisting of the 1st and 2nd divisions with Liao Qianwu as his CCP party representative. Zhou Enlai with Zhu De as his deputy would lead the 9th army with Zhu Kejing as his CCP party representative. Altogether they were 20,000 strong and now very well armed. There was to be a great celebration, it seemed this was the grand moment the CCP would take the center stage. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. The Chinese Civil War had officially just begun. Chiang Kai-Shek and Wang Jingwei purged their respective regimes of communists unleashing a white terror. In a scramble to survive the CCP reorganized itself and sought revenge with their first target being Nanchang. From here until 1949, the CCP and KMT would fight for the future of China.  

1/2: UKRAINE: The incursion. Anatol Lieven, Quincy Institute. 1920 Russian Revolution