Podcast appearances and mentions of tom paine

Few figures of the American Revolution wielded words as powerfully as Thomas Paine. In this episode of the Revolution 250 Podcast, host Professor Robert Allison is joined by historian and journalist Jack Kelly, author of Tom Paine's War, for a wide-ranging conversation about Paine's outsized influence on the Revolutionary cause.Kelly explores how Paine's pamphlet Common Sense transformed colonial resistance into a popular movement for independence, reaching audiences far beyond elite political circles. The discussion traces Paine's role as a wartime propagandist, the impact of The American Crisis during the darkest days of the war, and George Washington's strategic use of Paine's words to sustain morale in the Continental Army.The episode also examines Paine's complicated personality, his transatlantic radicalism, and his uneasy place in the postwar United States, where the man who helped ignite the Revolution found himself increasingly marginalized. Together, Allison and Kelly consider why Paine mattered so deeply in his own time and why his ideas about liberty, democracy, and popular sovereignty continue to resonate 250 years later.A compelling look at the power of ideas in wartime America, this episode reminds us that the Revolution was fought not only with muskets and cannon, but with ink, paper, and the force of persuasion.Tell us what you think! Send us a text message!

w/ Prof. Harvey J. Kaye

In this episode of the Technology & Security podcast, host Dr. Miah Hammond-Errey is joined by lawyer and digital rights activist, Lizzie O'Shea. This episode explores Australia's technology debates from a security and legal lens—addressing copyright, creativity, AI, and the legal structures, including class action, that shape society and security. We discuss how so often in the AI discussion we are asked to make trade-offs about immense future potential with real present harms in the now. This episode breaks down why proposals to let large language models freely train on the copyrighted works of Australians have rattled artists, news media, and civil society. Lizzie explains the Productivity Commission's push for a data mining exemption, unpacks strong community reaction, the distinction between fair use and fair dealing and highlights what's at stake for creative industry sustainability and fair compensation in the digital age. We also explore recent legal action against Google and Apple–in Australia–and  the breadth of big tech legal and enforcement action globally, and what this means. The episode also covers the changing nature of US and Chinese AI strategies and approaches to the Indo Pacific, as well as an increase in big tech spending in Australian policy and research landscape. We explore the vulnerability of allowing mass data collection, noting that while data minimisation, and prioritising strong cybersecurity are understood priorities we question whether they are they really supported by legislative regimes. We discuss the significance of incentivising feedback in AI systems to integrate them into businesses in productive ways and crafting successful narratives for cautious adoption of AI. Finally, we look at why litigation has become central to holding digital giants accountable, and how Australians' blend of healthy scepticism and tech enthusiasm might finally force smarter AI regulation. The conversation highlights how quick fixes and premature adoption, risk deeper, lasting social harms and national security threats. Resources mentioned in the recording: ·       Future Histories, What Ada Lovelace, Tom Paine, and the Paris Commune Can Teach Us about Digital Technology, by Lizzie O'Shea, Shortlisted for the Victorian Premier's Literary Awards 2020 Award. https://lizzieoshea.com/future-histories/·       Burning Platforms podcast, https://percapita.org.au/podcasts/·       Empire of AI by Karen Hao ·       Digital Rights Watch https://digitalrightswatch.org.au This podcast was recorded on the lands of the Gadigal people, and we pay our respects to their Elders past, present and emerging. We acknowledge their continuing connection to land, sea and community, and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Thanks to the talents of those involved. Music by Dr Paul Mac and production by Elliott Brennan. 

Send us a textFrom accidentally stealing the spotlight on David Letterman's show as a teenager to voicing beloved animated characters for two decades, James Urbaniak's acting journey reads like a masterclass in versatility and perseverance. In this wide-ranging conversation, Urbaniak reveals the unexpected path that took him from New Jersey community theater to New York's experimental off-off-Broadway scene in the late 1980s. With remarkable candor, he shares how challenging theatrical experiences—like performing a 75-minute solo monologue in "Tom Paine"—helped develop his craft before independent filmmaker Hal Hartley introduced him to the different demands of screen acting.Fans of Adult Swim's cult classic "The Venture Bros." will delight in Urbaniak's behind-the-scenes stories from his 20-year tenure voicing Dr. Rusty Venture and other characters. He recounts the surreal experience of having a makeup artist on the set of an HBO film tell him she was more excited to meet the voice of Dr. Venture than Al Pacino himself—a testament to the profound connection voice actors can forge with audiences.Urbaniak's philosophy of acting—describing himself as "a skeptic who likes to be surprised"—offers valuable insight into navigating the entertainment industry's inherent uncertainty. Whether discussing his brief but memorable appearance in Christopher Nolan's "Oppenheimer," his experience playing Robert Crumb in "American Splendor," or his current work on Apple TV+'s "Palm Royale," Urbaniak demonstrates why character actors are often the secret ingredient that elevates productions across all media.For aspiring actors, film buffs, animation fans, or anyone fascinated by the creative process, this conversation provides a rare glimpse into the life of a working actor who has successfully built a diverse career by embracing opportunities across multiple entertainment platforms.Support the show

Hi Loyal Readers. I have two pieces of good news to begin this week's newsletter:* Many of you reached out after last week's issue to say kind things. Thank you.* Several of you signed up for our discussion of “The Egg” on April 27That's what Article Club is all about. We're a kind, thoughtful community that likes to read and discuss the best articles on race, education, and culture. Whether you're a new or not-so-new subscriber, thank you for being here.Over the last 5 ½ years, one consistent feature of this newsletter has been its monthly interviews with authors. We launched with Jia Tolentino back in January 2020 and have never looked back. This week, I'm excited to share a conversation that my co-host Melinda Lim had with Susan Berfield, who co-wrote “The Egg” with a team of investigative journalists at Bloomberg. My hope is that you'll listen to the interview and then sign up for our discussion on April 27.If learning more about the human egg trade is not your thing, scroll down past the fold for two other pieces that I feel are worthy of your time and attention. They're about:* A librarian in New York who reminds us there was a time before Google* A college student who wanted to fit in at his fraternity, no matter the costAs always, thank you for trusting me to supply you with things to read. My hope is that they spark new thinking, expand your empathy, and bring you joy.An interview with Susan Berfield, author of “The Egg”The more I re-read “The Egg,” the more I respect Susan Berfield and her colleagues at Bloomberg who brought us this robust report on the human egg trade. If you haven't had a chance to read it yet, I highly recommend you do:Original Article • Gift Link • Google Docs version • Audio versionSadly, this kind of journalism — big investigative journalism — rarely exists anymore. That is why I am so grateful that Susan Berfield generously said yes to sharing her thoughts with us at Article Club.In her interview with Melinda, Ms. Berfield shares the impetus for the article, how she and her team went about reporting it, and the lessons she learned along the way. I appreciated how Ms. Berfield characterizes the tension between the opportunity and the exploitation that women experience in selling their eggs.It's a thoughtful conversation on an important topic — one that seems to be receiving a lot of attention lately. I hope you take a listen and let me know your thoughts.Thanks again to Ms. Berfield. Here's more on her work:Susan Berfield is an award-winning investigative reporter and editor for Bloomberg Businessweek and Bloomberg News where she's exposed how Walmart spies on its workers and McDonald's made enemies of its Black franchisees. She uncovered a con man who talked a small Missouri town out of millions and revealed how Beverly Hills billionaires bought up an enormous water supply in the Central Valley. Her story about the biggest food fraud in U.S. history was the basis for an episode of the Netflix documentary series, Rotten.2️⃣ The Department Of EverythingStephen Akey: “⁠How do you find the life expectancy of a California condor? Google it. Or the gross national product of Morocco? Google it. Or the final resting place of Tom Paine? Google it. There was a time, however — not all that long ago — when you couldn't Google it or ask Siri or whatever cyber equivalent comes next. You had to do it the hard way—by consulting reference books, indexes, catalogs, almanacs, statistical abstracts, and myriad other printed sources. Or you could save yourself all that time and trouble by taking the easiest available shortcut: You could call me.”By Stephen Akey • The Hedgehog Review • 8 min • Gift Link3️⃣ Greek Tragedy: A Drowning At DartmouthSusan Zalkind: “Signs of Won Jang's mounting distress appeared almost immediately after he pledged the Beta Alpha Omega fraternity in the fall of 2023. During calls and visits home, his parents noticed their once-confident son had lost his spark, increasingly preoccupied with his standing among fraternity brothers. He worried about how he fit in — or didn't — with the brothers and about the ‘vibe' of his house. ‘I could see that it was very stressful because he didn't feel like he fit into the mold of what a person from that house would be,' a college friend later explained, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of student blowback. ‘He wasn't a white athlete. He wasn't tall. He wasn't from an affluent family. And he felt like he had to compensate for that.' ”By Susan Zalkind • Boston Magazine • 26 min • Gift LinkThank you for reading this week's issue. Hope you liked it.

As the 250th anniversary of the start of the American revolution approaches and with America in crisis it's time to return to the Founders' Words. In the first of an occasional feature, FRDH podcast host reads through Tom Paine's pamphlet Common Sense for words of wisdom to help guide people through Trump and Musk's destructive takeover of the American government. You should listen because as Paine wrote 250 years ago, "The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind."

Buckle up, Liberty Lovers! We're about to take a passionate safari into the cultural killing fields where that most sacred of American idols, the Second Amendment, still stands battle-scarred but defiantly undefeated against the unending onslaught of soul-sculpted statists. No minced words here - that most hallowed provision granting the unassailable right for citizens to stay strapped has been on the Adderall-addled academics' surgical table for an autopsy more times than Jeffery Dahmer's icebox. From the pathologically Centrist "common sense" cowards all the way over to the authoritarian left's rainbow-haired Bolshevik-lings...they've all taken their whacks at trying to gaslight the proverbial buffalo into placid submission.But not on our watch, Rambos! We don't just pay lip service to ‘cold dead hands' and Molon Labe decals - that unnegotiable self-reliance mantra pumps through our veins hotter than a recently cycled AP5 barrel. The individually conscious among us intuitively grasp this primordial truth - any notion of hard-won freedom starts first...and foremost...with the inherent right of armed self-preservation against all potential depredations.Our Crayola-brained colleagues might whine about hypothetical "well-regulated militia" stipulations until their gender studies diplomas turn blue. However, that semantic squabble disregards the core tenet which deposited 1776's revolutionary well-digger's ass directly onto Concord's hallowed acreage in the first place. Where institutional authorities overextended their capricious tentacles, the quintessential American spirit would inevitably arise to reciprocally administer a mandatory re-education program...usually by way of mandated lead poisoning therapy. The Founding Dads weren't just rebelling against King George's taxing tantrums - they were throwing world-historical shade at the entire cancerous concept of despotic rulers lording over souls never meant to be governed. “All men created” equal, yadda yadda yadda...so the story goes. True Liberty isn't some ripe fruit dangling from a democratic tree; it flows through our very DNA as the blind force animating all life in this crazy cosmos.So these radicals free-birthed a nation premised on constantly testing the limits of that foundational truth. And their experiment was simplicity itself: take a fractious cluster of territorial pissants, hand them the modern world's most disruptive technologies, and remind them in no uncertain brimstonian terms that any roving tax-farmer who came collecting too much coinage risked the very literal lead shower curtain. Constitutional crisis, meet hot lead Affirmatrix.Fast-forward a couple of hard-fought centuries, and that timeless liberty quintessence still courses through our nation's bedrock every bit as robustly as it did when the first pearled crowd-courter caught a hand-crafted musket ball from a wised-up Son of Liberty's Brown Bess. We don't simply retain this immutable self-defense doctrine as some archaic abstract any more than we reflexively phone a Harvard president for ethical perspective. This philosophical life raft remains as compulsory to our civilized equilibrium as low earth orbit's inescapable gravitational influence. Because firmly planted in their heart of hearts, they knew the impenetrable truth - our most fundamental liberties have always coexisted with the most primal human capability to lock, load, and say "No &@$*in' more, Jack" to any would-be oligarch lacking a proper sense of humility. Tom Paine may have penned the verbal ammo, but Sam Colt's actual sermons landed with far more immediate velocity.At the end of every freshly blazed theoretical trail...as sure as those winter sunsets glinting ruby-red off the frosted Berkshire pines...stands cold, undeniable pragmatism. A need as immutable as the poor poet's hunger. The incorrigible prepper's obsession. Curbside sanity's final salvo against the onslaught of encroaching philosophical chaos. You can call it Maslow's hierarchy, the will to survive, mankind's primal instinct - whatever semantic flourish conveniently facilitates your psychological dissonance.Just ask the Redcoats who kept rudely questioning these colonists' asserted right to purchase high-capacity muskets on a Tuesday. They ended horizontal at a little local opera called "The Eight Worldly Winds" - or as we refer to it here in the Cradle of Persevered Liberty: Concord's Lively Bridge Party. The Lobsterbacks learned the hard-crenelated way that day - revering the Second Amendment isn't about deer jerky and duck blinds. It's a periscope peer review of one's concept of selfhood and expresses renunciation of the sutured self-mutilation required to perceive one's relation to power through the diseased liberal lenses.At the end of the Socratic circumnavigation, all trails merge into the final applicable maxim...the common sense citizens' endowment that hardens our latent survival instincts into a philosophical palisade safeguarding every other individual indulgence. You want to keep respiring and propagating, don't you? Then arm those neural pathways accordingly! It's the last existential perimeter around our self-determination...and we don't need no stinkin' dissertation to keep reaffirming its propriety.We were born into a heritage honoring only the most robustly centered individualities articulated by our Founding Dads who had the pamphleteered cojones to go full-immersive into History's smeltery furnace, quivering with individually actualized potential.So reload that philosophical lodestar, my erudite logistical Rambos! Re-temper those mind's eye crosshairs. Socratic trailblazers like us never lose the highroads while plumb lines stay taut. Because it isn't about embossing political philosophies or manifesting ideological statecraft...it's about the retained self-sovereignty to entertain such privileges in their proper dioramas. Let those tenured charlatans and butt munchers keep proselytizing their reductive social theories into an endless rhetorical abyss. Make sure your cognitive powder's always dry enough to uphold rectitudinous primacies!For the audibly impatient, the short version is: stay locked, stay loaded, and maintain situational awareness. The Second Amendment has your back. Remember, Freedom cannot exist without the healthy exercise of individual responsibility. Failure to do so will always result in the Government making decisions for you. Thanks. Please hold your applause.Oh. You were holding your applause.Thanks for listening. Or reading. Or just not dozing off. If you'd like a copy of the speech, suitable for framing, training puppies, or gift-wrapping fish, feel free to Print away! Or forward it to your favorite anti-gun fanatic! Brian Wilson Writes is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Thank you for reading Brian Wilson Writes. This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Brian Wilson Writes at brianwilsonwrites.substack.com/subscribe

In my view, the greatest of America's “Founding Fathers” was not Washington or Jefferson – nor, technically, he wasn't even an American. Rather, he was a British immigrant and itinerate agitator for real democracy, enlightenment, and universal human rights.He was Thomas Paine, a prolific, profound, persuasive, and widely popular pamphleteer in the movement for American Independence. With plain language and genuine passion for the cause, Paine's 47-page pamphlet, Common Sense, was so compelling in its support of the Revolution that it was passed around from person to person – and even read aloud in taverns! But Paine wasn't content with democratic rhetoric – he actually believed in an egalitarian society, and his post-revolution writings (including Age of Reason, and Agrarian Justice) unabashedly demanded that the new hierarchy of US leaders fulfill the promise of democracy.Even before the War for Independence, Paine called for slaves to be freed and slavery prohibited. After the war, he terrified most of the gentlemen of means who'd signed the Declaration of Independence by insisting that non-landowners be eligible to vote and hold office (John Adams was so appalled by this that he decried Common Sense as a “crapulous mess”).  But Paine just kept pushing, calling for women's suffrage, progressive taxation, state-funded childcare, a guaranteed minimum income, universal public education, strict separation of church and state, and adoption of some of the democratic principles of the Iroquois Nation.This is Jim Hightower saying… Don't tell small-minded, right-wing demagogues like Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott – but Thomas Paine was WOKE! Some 250 years before their push to impose autocracy, plutocracy, and theocracy over us, this revolutionary founder championed social justice and economic fairness. As one historian noted, “we are today all Paine's children,” for he imbued America's destiny with democratic impulse and aspiration.PS, from the staff— Hightower was recently given the Thomas Paine award by the Florida Veterans for Common Sense, where he learned a ton about Paine that he never knew. Hence the inspiration for this commentary! Thanks FLVCS!Jim Hightower's Lowdown 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 jimhightower.substack.com/subscribe

In my view, the greatest of America’s “Founding Fathers” was not Washington or Jefferson – nor, technically, he wasn’t even an American. Rather, he was a British immigrant and itinerate agitator for real democracy, enlightenment, and universal human rights.

Para los ciudadanos periodistas, Toni Kroos es un enigma envuelto en un misterio. Y siempre ha sido así, desde que llegó. Han intentado medirle y valorarle con sus típicos criterios de siempre, y el resultado ha sido siempre un fracaso. Los parámetros por los que se mueve Toni Kroos no encajan en los encorsetados esquemas de la prensa patria, porque no es un futbolista normal, en el sentido de habitual, ni dentro ni, sobre todo, fuera del terreno de juego. Min. 01 Seg. 45 - Intro Min. 07 Seg. 24 - Menos mal que no hay delanteros-tanque Min. 14 Seg. 04 - Hablar por no callar Min. 21 Seg. 24 - Soldados de Ancelotti Min. 27 Seg. 28 - Radiografía de un marciano Min. 35 Seg. 02 - Que todo vaya mal para que se quede Min. 40 Seg. 02 - Apuestas, intuiciones y sensaciones Min. 48 Seg. 48 - Los cuatro magníficos Min. 52 Seg. 53 - Mejor perder con dignidad (ahora) que ser vapuleados (después) Min. 56 Seg. 47 - Despedida Dick Gaughan (Bath 26/11/2010) Tom Paine's Bones Lament For Owen Roe O'Neill Both Sides The Tweed Whatever Happened No Gods (And Precious Few Heroes) When I'm Gone Song For Autumn (Now Westlin Winds) What You Do With What You've Got Shipwreck Stevie Ray Vaughan - Voodo Child (Slight Return) (Nashville 06/09/1987)

We must listen to each otherEfforts by the British government and the unionist parties to stymie the conversation on future constitutional change has actually brought a greater focus on the growing momentum around the upcoming unity referendum.  The criticism of An Taoiseach Leo Varadkar by the British Secretary of State and a range of unionist voices for daring to suggest that a United Ireland will happen in his lifetime is the latest example of unionist and Tory efforts to delegitimize the goal of Irish Unity.My Big ToeJim Donnelly is a Springhallion. His mother, May Donnelly, was one of the indomitable warrior women from the Upper Springfield who faced down hordes of British soldiers and RUC officers for decades while also combatting poverty and discrimination and rearing a good family. These mighty women are to be found in communities everywhere. The local ones are too many to name but I remember them all and I am grateful for their friendship and protection and comradeship. And I am always uplifted by the tenacity and good humour of these working class heroines, mostly mothers of large families, including Mrs Donnelly.Tom Dunn – the Peasant PatriotWell done to the people of Rostrevor who last week invited former President Mary McAleese to unveil a bronze statue to Tom Dunn – the Peasant Patriot - a local hedge school master and United Irish leader who taught ‘The Rights of Man' by Tom Paine and the writings of Wolfe Tone to local patriots. 

Jessi got the opportunity to speak to Tom Paine on site during the build at Glastonbury 2023, who has run […]

For this DHP episode, CJ was very happy to be joined by Dave Benner, who is the author of a recently published biography of Thomas Paine entitled Thomas Paine: A Lifetime of Radicalism. Join CJ & Dave as they discuss Thomas Paine's life & career, & the excellent, impressively researched book Dave wrote about them. Links Purchase Thomas Paine: A Lifetime of Radicalism! Attend the 2023 Self Reliance Festival (at which CJ will be a speaker!) Get CJ's Dangerous American History Bibliography for FREE! Support the Dangerous History Podcast via Patreon or SubscribeStar! Kick in to CJ's still-ongoing Indiegogo campaign! Subscribe to CJ's recently-launched Dangerous History Podcast Youtube channel! CJ's DHP Amazon Wish List Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's a sick, sad world — but worth improving. Here's how, from Paul Jacob. ThisIsCommonSense.org. Tom Paine's Common Sense: https://wirkman.com/celebrations/classics/common-sense-by-thomas-paine-condensed/

In 1765, colonised America was hit by a British stamp tax. A group of local businessmen in Boston calling themselves the Loyal Nine began meeting in secret to plan a series of protests against the Stamp Act. They gathered under a large tree to protest against the act. Only a few years later in 1790, a similar tree was planted in Vienne in France as a mark of protest, which eventually led to the French Revolution. Later in the Greek revolution of 1821, a thousand such trees were brought to resist the Turks. How is this particular tree showing up in multiple national revolutions? This week, we travel to 18th century America and France, and uncover the story of a tree, which played a pivotal role in the formation of these modern nations. And along the way, discover the story of the evolution of modern paper.Till then Check out the other episodes of "Ireland Untravelled"Lost Treasures, Dynamite and the Irish Nation : https://ivm.today/3okwxm5Gaelic and the stunning decline of the Irish Language : https://ivm.today/3zmhE9iTrinity Long Room and the Soul of the Irish Nation : https://ivm.today/3PnZkSEU2, Body Snatching and the Irish Way of Death : https://ivm.today/3IQ6fl3Bombay, Paris and the improbable victory for LGBTQ+ rights in Ireland : https://ivm.today/3AJLa9BIrish roads that go nowhere, Houses no one lives in : https://ivm.today/3PGG95XTitanic, Mosul and the Global shame of Western Museums : https://ivm.today/3R9uBceThree Irish Women, Emigration and India's National Anthem : https://ivm.today/3KfZdqzYou can check previous episodes of 'Podcasts from Nowhere' on IVM Podcasts websitehttps://ivm.today/3xuayw9You can reach out to our host Utsav on Instagram: @whywetravel42(https://www.instagram.com/whywetravel42)You can listen to this show and other awesome shows on the IVM Podcasts app on Android: https://ivm.today/android or iOS: https://ivm.today/ios, or any other podcast app. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After giving ten years of service in a high-flying corporate job where Tom Paine received seven promotions, he starts interrogating his life's purpose. In his journey to become a life coach, he overcame imposter syndrome, gaining the confidence lost over time. Today, Tom Paine coaches people who are suffering from similar difficulties. THE BRAND CALLED YOU is proud to welcome certified life coach and founder of Tom Paine Life Coaching. About Tom Paine Tom is the Founder of Tom Paine life coaching. Paine is among the Top 12 Life Coaches 2022. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/tbcy/support

In 1815, John Adams wrote to a correspondent of the importance, of all things, of the Boston Committee of Correspondence in the 1760s: …I never belonged to any of these Committees and have never Seen one of their Letters Sent or received... But in my Opinion the History of the United States never can be written, till they are discovered. What an Engine! France imitated it, and produced a Revolution. England and Scotland was upon the Point of imitating it, in order to produce another Revolution and all Europe was inclined to imitate it for the Same Revolutionary Purposes. The History of the World for the last thirty Years is a Sufficient Commentary upon it. That History ought to convince all Mankind that Committees of Secret Correspondence are dangerous Machines. That they are Causticks and Inscision Knives, to which Recourse Should never be had but in the last Extremities of Life; in the last question between Life and Death. My guest Micah Alpaugh believes that John Adams was, despite his typical gift for epistolary hyperbole, absolutely and interestingly correct. And Alpaugh makes that argument in his new book Friends of Freedom: The Rise of Social Movements in the Age of Atlantic Revolutions. Micah Alpaugh is Associate Professor of History at the University of Central Missouri; this is his second book. For Further Investigation The English cartoonist James Gillray, who has claim to be the first great political cartoonist, made the London Corresponding Society a frequent target of his artistic abuse. The "London Corresponding Society, Alarm'd" imagined the members of the corresponding societies as feral subhumans, alarmed at the charges made against Tom Paine for the second part of his Rights of Man. On the other hand "Copenhagen House" was an almost sympathetic depiction of a mass-meeting of corresponding societies–with plenty of dissenters and abolitionists among them. A related conversation, covering the curious connections between revolutions in Europe and the Americas, was in Episode 176: Men on Horseback, or, What Charisma Has to Do With It. And for a deep dive into the French Revolution, see the conversation with Jeremy Popkin  in Episode 144: The French Revolution; and Episode 234: The Fall of Robespierre      

Join Asher and Luxa, siblings extraordinaire, as they explore the life of Thomas Paine, one of the most influential political philosophers of the modern era. Check us out on Instagram @adhochistory

Mike Isaacson: If your free speech requires an audience, might I suggest a therapist? [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Welcome once again to The Nazi Lies Podcast. I am joined by two historians today. With us is Evan Smith, lecturer at Flinders University in Adelaide, and David Renton, who taught at a number of universities in the UK and South Africa before leaving the academy to practice law, though he still finds time to research and write. Each of them has a book about today's topic: the free speech crisis. Dr. Smith's book, No Platform: A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and the Limits of Free Speech, chronicles the No Platform policy of the National Union of Students in the UK from its foundation in 1974 to the present day. Dr. Renton's book, No Free Speech for Fascists: Exploring ‘No Platform' in History, Law and Politics, tells a much longer story of the interplay of radical leftist groups, organized fascists, and the state in shaping the UK's speech landscape and their significance in politics and law. Both are out from Routledge. I have absolutely no idea how we've managed to make the time zones work between the three of us, but welcome both of you to the podcast. Evan Smith: Thank you. David Renton: Thanks, Mike. Mike: So David, I want to start with you because your book goes all the way back to the 1640s to tell its history. So what made you start your story in the 1640s, and what did contention over speech look like before Fascism? David: Well, I wanted to start all that time back more than 300 years ago, because this is the moment when you first start to see something like the modern left and right emerge. You have in Britain, a party of order that supports the state and the king, but you also have a party which stands for more democracy and a more equal distribution of wealth. And essentially, from this point onwards in British, European, American politics, you see those same sites recreating themselves. And what happens again, and again, and again from that point onwards for hundreds of years until certainly say 50 years ago, you have essentially the people who are calling for free speech, whether that's the levellers in 1640s, Tom Paine 100 years later, J.S. Mill in the 19th Century. The left is always the people in favor of free speech. In terms of the right, if you want a kind of the first philosopher of conservatism, someone like Edmund Burke, he's not involved in the 1640s. He's a bit later, about a century and a half later. But you know, he supports conservatism. So what's his attitude towards free speech? It's really simple. He says, people who disagree with him should be jailed. There should be laws made to make it harder for them to have defenses. And more and more of them should be put in jail without even having a trial. That's the conservative position on free speech for centuries. And then what we get starting to happen in the late 20th century, something completely different which is a kind of overturning of what's been this huge, long history where it's always the left that's in favor of free speech, and it's always the right that's against it. Mike: Okay. Now, your contention is that before the appearance of Fascism, socialist radicals were solidly in favor of free speech for all. Fascism changed that, and Evan, maybe you can jump in here since this is where your book starts. What was new about Fascism that made socialists rethink their position on speech? Evan: So fascism was essentially anti-democratic and it was believed that nothing could be reasoned with because it was beyond the realms of reasonable, democratic politics. It was a violence, and the subjugation of its opponents was at the very core of fascism. And that the socialist left thought that fascism was a deeply violent movement that moved beyond the traditional realm of political discourse. So, there was no reasoning with fascists, you could only defeat them. Mike: So, let's start with David first, but I want to get both of you on this. What was the response to Fascism like before the end of World War II? David: Well, what you do is you get the left speaking out against fascism, hold demonstrations against fascism, and having to articulate a rationale of why they're against fascism. One of the things I quote in my book is a kind of famous exchange that takes place in 1937 when a poet named Nancy Cunard collected together the writers, intellectuals, and philosophers who she saw as the great inspiration to– the most important writers and so on that day. And she asked them what side they were taking on fascism. What's really interesting if you read their accounts, whether it's people like the poet W.H. Auden, novelist Gerald Bullitt, the philosopher C.E.M Joad, they all say they're against fascism, but they all put their arguments against fascism in terms of increased speech. So C.E.M Joad writes, "Fascism suppresses truth. That's why we're against fascism." Or the novelist Owen Jameson talks about fascism as a doctrine which exalts violence and uses incendiary bombs to fight ideas. So you get this thing within the left where people grasp that in order to fight off this violence and vicious enemy, they have to be opposed to it. And that means, for example, even to some extent making an exception to what's been for centuries this uniform left-wing notion: you have to protect everyone's free speech. Well people start grasping, we can't protect the fascist free speech, they're gonna use it to suppress us. So the Left makes an exception to what's been its absolute defense of free speech, but it makes this exception for the sake of protecting speech for everybody. Mike: Okay. Evan, do you want to add anything to the history of socialists and fascists before the end of World War Two? Evan: Yeah. So just kind of setting up a few things which will become important later on, and particularly because David and I are both historians of antifascism in Britain, is that there's several different ways in which antifascism emerges in the interwar period and several different tactics. One tactic is preventing fascists from marching from having a presence in public. So things like the Battle of Cable Street in 1936 is a very famous incident where the socialists and other protesters stopped the fascists from marching. There's also heckling and disrupting of fascist meetings. So this was big meetings like Olympia in June 1934, but then also smaller ones like individual fascist meetings around the country were disrupted by antifascists. There was also some that are on the left who also called for greater state intervention, usually in the form of labor councils not allowing fascists to congregate in public halls and stuff like that. So these kinds of arguments that fascism needs to be confronted, disrupted, obfuscated, starts to be developed in the 1930s. And it's where those kinds of free speech arguments emerge in the later period. Mike: Now immediately after the Second World War, fascist movements were shells of their former selves. They had almost no street presence and their organizations usually couldn't pull very many members. Still, the response to fascism when it did pop up was equally as vehement as when they organized into paramilitary formations with membership in the thousands. Something had qualitatively changed in the mind of the public regarding fascism. What did the immediate postwar response to public fascist speech look like, and what was the justification? Evan, let's start with you and then David you can add anything he misses. Evan: David probably could tell the story in a lot more detail. In the immediate post-war period in Britain, Oswald Mosley tries to revive the fascist movement under the title The Union Movement, but before that there's several kind of pro-fascist reading groups that emerge. And in response to this is kind of a disgust that fascists who had recently been imprisoned in Britain and their fellow travellers in the Nazis and the Italian Fascists and the continental fascists had been, you know, it ended in the Holocaust. There was this disgust that fascists could be organizing again in public in Britain, and that's where it mobilizes a new kind of generation of antifascists who are inspired by the 1930s to say "Never again, this won't happen on our streets." And the most important group and this is The 43 Group, which was a mixture of Jewish and communist radicals, which probably David can tell you a little bit about. David: I'd be happy to but I think before we get to 43 Group, it's kind of worth just pausing because the point Mike's left is kind of around the end of the Second World War. One thing which happens during the Second World War is of course Britain's at war with Germany. So what you start to get is Evan talked about how in the 1930s, you already have this argument like, “Should stopping fascism be something that's done by mass movements, or should it be done by the state?” In the Second World War the state has to confront that question, too, because it's got in fascism a homegrown enemy, and the British state looks at how all over Europe these states were toppled really quickly following fascist advance, and very often a pro-fascist powerful section of the ruling class had been the means by which an invading fascism then found some local ally that's enabled it to take over the state and hold the state. So the British state in 1940 actually takes a decision to intern Oswald Mosley and 800 or so of Britain's leading fascists who get jailed initially in prisons in London, then ultimately on the Isle of Man. Now, the reason why I'm going into this is because the first test of what the ordinary people in Britain think about the potential re-emergence of fascism comes even before the Second World War's ended. When Oswald Mosley is released from internment, he says he has conditioned phlebitis, he's very incapacitated, and is never going to be politically active again. And the British state buys this. And this creates–and an actual fact–the biggest single protest movement in Britain in the entire Second World War, where you get hundreds of people in certain factories going on strike against Oswald Mosley's release, and high hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions demanding that he's reinterned, and you start to get people having demonstrations saying Mosley ought to go back to jail. That kind of sets the whole context of what's going to happen after the end of the Second World War. Mosley comes out and he's terrified of public opinion; he's terrified about being seen in public. He's convinced that if you hold meetings you're going to see that cycle going on again. So for several years, the fascists barely dare hold public meetings, and they certainly don't dare hold meetings with Mosley speaking. They test the water a bit, and they have some things work for them. Evan's mentioned the 43 Group so I'll just say a couple sentences about them. The 43 Group are important in terms of what becomes later. They're not a vast number of people, but they have an absolute focus on closing down any fascist meeting. We're gonna hear later in this discussion about the phrase "No Platform" and where it comes from, but you know, in the 1940s when fascist wanted to hold meetings, the platform means literally getting together a paste table and standing on it, or standing on a tiny little ladder just to take you a couple of foot above the rest of your audience. The 43 Group specialize in a tactic which is literally knocking over those platforms. And because British fascism remained so isolated and unpopular in the aftermath of the Second World War, you know, there are 43 Group activists and organizers who look at London and say, "All right, if there going to be 12 or 13 public meetings in London this weekend, we know where they're going to be. If we can knock over every single one of those other platforms, then literally there'll be no fascists to have any chance to find an audience or put a public message in Britain." That's kind of before you get the term 'No Platform' but it's almost in essence the purest form of No Platforming. It's people being able to say, "If we get organized as a movement outside the state relying on ordinary people's opposition to fascism, we can close down every single example of fascist expression in the city and in this country." Mike: Okay. So through the 50's and 60's, there were two things happening simultaneously. On the one hand, there was the largely left wing student-led free speech movement. And on the other hand, there was a new generation of fascists who were rebuilding the fascist movement in a variety of ways. So let's start with the free speech movement. David, you deal with this more in your book. What spurred the free speech movement to happen? David: Yeah. Look in the 50s and 60s, the free speech movement is coming from the left. That's going to change, we know it's going to change like 20 or 30 years later, but up to this point we're still essentially in the same dance of forces that I outlined right at the start. That the left's in favor of free speech, the right is against it. And the right's closing down unwanted ideas and opinion. In the 50s and 60s, and I'm just going to focus on Britain and America, very often this took the form of either radicals doing some sort of peace organising–and obviously that cut against the whole basic structure of the Cold War–or it took the form of people who maybe not even necessarily radicals at all, just trying to raise understanding and consciousness about people's bodies and about sex. So for the Right, their counterattack was to label movements like for example in the early 60s on the campus of Berkeley, and then there's originally a kind of anti-war movement that very quickly just in order to have the right to organize, becomes free speech movements. And the Right then counter attacks against it saying, "Essentially, this is just a bunch of beats or kind of proto-hippies. And what they want to do is I want to get everyone interested in drugs, and they want to get everyone interested in sexuality, and they want everyone interested in all these sorts of things." So their counterattack, Reagan terms this, The Filthy Speech Movement. In the late 60s obviously in states, we have the trial of the Chicago 7, and here you have the Oz trial, which is when a group of radicals here, again that their point of view is very similar, kind of hippie-ish, anti-war milieu. But one thing is about their magazines, which again it seems very hard to imagine today but this is true, that part of the way that their their magazine sells is through essentially soft pornographic images. And there's this weird combination of soft porn together with far left politics. They'll get put on trial in the Oz trial and that's very plainly an attempt– our equivalent of the Chicago 7 to kind of close down radical speech and to get into the public mind this idea that the radicals are in favor of free speech, they're in favor of extreme left-wing politics, and they're in favor of obscenity, and all these things are somehow kind of the same thing. Now, the point I just wanted to end on is that all these big set piece trials–another one to use beforehand is the Lady Chatterley's Lover trial, the Oz trial, the Chicago 7 trial, all of these essentially end with the right losing the battle of ideas, not so much the far right but center right. And people just saying, "We pitched ourselves on the side of being against free speech, and this isn't working. If we're going to reinvent right-wing thought, make some center right-wing ideas desirable and acceptable in this new generation of people, whatever they are, then we can't keep on being the ones who are taking away people's funds, closing down ideas. We've got to let these radicals talk themselves out, and we've got to reposition ourselves as being, maybe reluctantly, but the right takes the decision off of this. The right has to be in favor of free speech too. Mike: All right. And also at this time, the far right was rebuilding. In the UK, they shifted their focus from overt antisemitism and fascism to nebulously populist anti-Black racism. The problem for them, of course, was that practically no one was fooled by this shift because it was all the same people. So, what was going on with the far right leading into the 70s? Evan, do you want to start? Evan: Yeah. So after Mosley is defeated in Britain by the 43 Group and the kind of antifascism after the war, he moves shortly to Ireland and then comes back to the UK. Interestingly, he uses universities and particularly debates with the Oxford Union, the Cambridge Union, and other kind of university societies, to find a new audience because they can't organize on the streets. So he uses–throughout the '50s and the '60s–these kind of university platforms to try and build a fascist movement. At the same time, there are people who were kind of also around in the '30s and the '40s who are moving to build a new fascist movement. It doesn't really get going into '67 when the National Front is formed from several different groups that come together, and they're really pushed into the popular consciousness because of Enoch Powell and his Rivers of Blood Speech. Enoch Powell was a Tory politician. He had been the Minister for Health in the Conservative government, and then in '68 he launches this Rivers of Blood Speech which is very much anti-immigration. This legitimizes a lot of anti-immigrationist attitudes, and part of that is that the National Front rides his coattails appealing to people who are conservatives but disaffected with the mainstream conservatism and what they saw as not being hard enough in immigration, and that they try to build off the support of the disaffected right; so, people who were supporting Enoch Powell, supporting the Monday Club which is another hard right faction in the conservatives. And in that period up until about the mid 1970s, that's the National Front's raison d'etre; it's about attracting anti-immigrationists, conservatives to build up the movement as an electoral force rather than a street force which comes later in the '70s. Mike: There was also the Apartheid movement, or the pro-Apartheid movement, that they were building on at this time as well, right? Evan: Yeah. So at this time there's apartheid in South Africa. In 1965, the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia has a unilateral declaration of independence from Britain to maintain White minority rule. And a lot of these people who are around Powell, the Monday Club, the National Front, against decolonization more broadly, and also then support White minority rule in southern Africa. So a lot of these people end up vocalizing support for South Africa, vocalizing support for Rhodesia, and that kind of thing. And it's a mixture of anti-communism and opposition to multiracial democracy. That's another thing which they try to take on to campus in later years. Mike: So finally we get to No Platform. Now, Evan, you contend that No Platform was less than a new direction in antifascist politics than a formalization of tactics that had developed organically on the left. Can you talk a bit about that? Evan: Yeah, I'll give a quick, very brief, lead up to No Platform and to what's been happening in the late '60s. So Enoch Powell who we mentioned, he comes to try and speak on campus several times throughout the late 60s and early 70s. These are often disrupted by students that there's an argument that, "Why should Enoch Powell be allowed to come onto campus? We don't need people like that to be speaking." This happens in the late 60s. Then in '73, Hans Eysenck, who was a psychologist who was very vocal about the connection between race and IQ, he attempts to speak at the London School of Economics and his speech is disrupted by a small group of Maoists. And then also– Mike: And they physically disrupted that speech, right? That wasn't just– Evan: Yeah, they punched him and pushed him off stage and stuff like that. And a month later, Samuel Huntington who is well known now for being the Clash of Civilizations guy, he went to speak at Sussex University, and students occupied a lecture theater so he couldn't talk because they opposed his previous work with the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. This led to a moral panic beginning about the end of free speech on campus, that it's either kind of through sit-ins or through direct violence, but in the end students are intolerant. And that's happening in that five years before we get to No Platform. Mike: One thing I didn't get a good sense of from your books was what these socialist groups that were No Platforming fascists prior to the NUS policy stood for otherwise. Can we talk about the factionalization of the left in the UK in the 60s and 70s? David, maybe you can help us out on this one. David: Yeah, sure. The point to grasp, which is that the whole center of British discourse in the ‘70s was way to the left of where it is in Britain today, let alone anywhere else in the world. That from, say, ‘64 to ‘70, we had a Labour government, and around the Labour Party. We had really, really strong social movements. You know, we had something like roughly 50% of British workers were members of trade unions. We'll get on later to the Students Union, that again was a movement in which hundreds of thousands of people participated. Two particular groups that are going to be important for our discussion are the International Socialists and International Marxist Group, but maybe if I kind of go through the British left sort of by size starting from largest till we get down to them. So the largest wing we've got on the British left is Labour Party. This is a party with maybe about half a million members, but kind of 20 million affiliated members through trade unions, and it's gonna be in and out of government. Then you've got the Communist Party which is getting quite old as an organization and is obviously tied through Cold War politics to the Soviet Union. And then you get these smaller groups like the IS, the IMG. And they're Trotskyist groups so they're in the far left of labor politics as revolutionaries, but they have quite a significant social heft, much more so than the far left in Britain today because, for example, their members are involved in editing magazines like Oz. There is a moment where there's a relatively easy means for ideas to merge in the far left and then get transmitted to the Labour Party and potentially even to Labour ministers and into government. Mike: Okay, do you want to talk about the International Marxist Group and the International Socialists? Evan: Do you want me to do that or David? Mike: Yes, that'd be great. Evan: Okay. So as David mentioned, there's the Communist Party and then there's the International Socialists and the International Marxist Group. The International Marxist Group are kind of heavily based in the student movement. They're like the traditional student radicals. Tariq Ali is probably the most famous member at this stage. And they have this counter cultural attitude in a way. International Socialists are a different form of Trotskyism, and they're much more about, not so much interested in the student movement, but kind of like a rank and file trade unionism that kind of stuff, opposition to both capitalism and Soviet communism. And the IS, the IMG, and sections of the Communist Party all coalesce in the student movement, which forms the basis for pushing through a No Platform policy in the Nationalist Union of Students in 1974. Mike: Okay. So in 1974, the National Union of Students passes their No Platform policy. Now before we get into that, what is the National Union of Students? Because we don't have an analogue to that in the US. Evan, you want to tackle this one? Evan: Yeah. Basically, every university has a student union or a form of student union–some kind of student body–and the National Union of Students is the national organization, the peak body which organizes the student unions on all the various campuses around the country. Most of the student unions are affiliated to the NUS but some aren't. The NUS is a kind of democratic body and oversees student policy, but individual student unions can opt in or opt out of whether they follow NUS guidelines. And I think what needs to be understood is that the NUS was a massive organization back in those days. You know, hundreds of thousands of people via the student unions become members of the NUS. And as David was saying, the political discourse is much bigger in the '60s and '70s through bodies like this as well as things like the trade union movement. The student movement has engaged hundreds of thousands of students across Britain about these policies much more than we see anything post the 1970s. David: If I could just add a sentence or two there, that's all right. I mean, really to get a good sense of scale of this, if you look at, obviously you have the big set piece annual conventions or conferences of the National Union of Students. Actually, it doesn't even just have one a year, it has two a year. Of these two conferences, if you just think about when the delegates are being elected to them how much discussion is taking place in local universities. If you go back to some local university meetings, it's sometimes very common that you see votes of 300 students going one way, 400 another, 700 going one way in some of the larger universities. So there's an absolute ferment of discussion around these ideas. Which means that when there are set piece motions to pass, they have a democratic credibility. And they've had thousands of people debating and discussing them. It's not just like someone going on to one conference or getting something through narrowly on a show of hands. There's a feeling that these debates are the culmination of what's been a series of debates in each local university. And we've got over 100 of them in Britain. Mike: Okay, how much is the student union's presence felt on campus by the average student? Evan: That'd be massive. David: Should I do this? Because I'm a bit older than Evan and I went to university in the UK. And it's a system which is slowly being dismantled but when I was student, which is like 30 years ago, this was still largely in place. In almost every university, the exceptions are Oxford and Cambridge, but in every other university in Britain, almost all social activity takes place on a single site on campus. And that single site invariably is owned by the student's union. So your students union has a bar, has halls, it's where– They're the plumb venues on campus if you want to have speakers or if you want to have– Again, say when punk happened a couple of years later, loads and loads of the famous punk performances were taking place in the student union hall in different universities. One of the things we're going to get onto quite soon is the whole question of No Platform and what it meant to students. What I want to convey is that for loads of students having this discussion, when they're saying who should be allowed on campus or who shouldn't be allowed on campus, what's the limits? They feel they've got a say because there are a relatively small number of places where people will speak. Those places are controlled by the students' union. They're owned and run by the students' union. It's literally their buildings, their halls, they feel they've got a right to set who is allowed, who's actually chosen, and who also shouldn't be invited. Mike: Okay, cool. Thank you. Thank you for that. That's a lot more than I knew about student unions. Okay. Evan, this is the bread and butter of your book. How did No Platform come about in the NUS? Evan: So, what part of the fascist movement is doing, the far-right movement, is that it is starting to stray on campus. I talked about the major focus of the National Front is about appealing to disaffected Tories in this stage, but they are interfering in student affairs; they're disrupting student protests; they're trying to intimidate student politics. And in 1973, the National Front tried to set up students' association on several campuses in Britain And there's a concern about the fascist presence on campus. So those three left-wing groups– the IMG, the IS and the Communist Party–agree at the student union level that student unions should not allow fascists and racists to use student buildings, student services, clubs that are affiliated to the student union. They shouldn't be allowed to access these. And that's where they say about No Platform is that the student union should deny a platform to fascists and racists. And in 1974 when they put this policy to a vote and it's successful, they add, "We're going to fight them by any means necessary," because they've taken that inspiration from the antifascism of the '30s and '40s. Mike: Okay. Now opinion was clearly divided within the NUS. No Platform did not pass unanimously. So Evan, what was opinion like within the NUS regarding No Platform? Evan: Well, it passed, but there was opposition. There was opposition from the Federation of Conservative Students, but there was also opposition from other student unions who felt that No Platform was anti-free speech, so much so that in April 1974 it becomes policy, but in June 1974, they have to have another debate about whether this policy should go ahead. It wins again, but this is the same time as it happens on the same day that the police crackdown on anti-fascist demonstration in Red Lion Square in London. There's an argument that fascism is being propped up by the police and is a very real threat, so that we can't give any quarter to fascism. We need to build this No Platform policy because it is what's standing in between society and the violence of fascism. Mike: Okay. I do want to get into this issue of free speech because the US has a First Amendment which guarantees free speech, but that doesn't exist in Britain. So what basis is there for free speech in the law? I think, David, you could probably answer this best because you're a lawyer. David: [laughs] Thank you. In short, none. The basic difference between the UK and the US– Legally, we're both common law countries. But the thing that really changes in the US is this is then overlaid with the Constitution, which takes priority. So once something has been in the Constitution, that's it. It's part of your fundamental law, and the limits to it are going to be narrow. Obviously, there's a process. It's one of the things I do try and talk about in my book that the Supreme Court has to discover, has to find free speech in the American Constitution. Because again, up until the Second World War, essentially America has this in the Constitution, but it's not particularly seen as something that's important or significant or a key part of the Constitution. The whole awe and  mysticism of the First Amendment as a First Amendment is definitely something that's happened really in the last 40-50 years. Again, I don't want to go into this because it's not quite what you're getting at. But certainly, in the '20s for example, you get many of the big American decisions on free speech which shaped American law today. What everyone forgets is in every single one of them, the Supreme Court goes on to find some reason why free speech doesn't apply. So then it becomes this doctrine which is tremendously important to be ushered out and for lip service be given to, just vast chunks of people, communists, people who are in favor of encouraging abortion, contraception, whatever, they're obviously outside free speech, and you have to come up with some sophisticated justifications for that. In Britain, we don't have a constitution. We don't have laws with that primary significance. We do kind of have a weak free speech tradition, and that's kind of important for some things like there's a European Convention on Human Rights that's largely drafted by British lawyers and that tries to create in Articles 10 and 11 a general support on free speech. So they think there are things in English legal tradition, in our common law tradition, which encourage free speech.  But if we've got it as a core principle of the UK law today, we've got it because of things like that like the European Convention on Human Rights. We haven't got it because at any point in the last 30, or 50, or 70 or 100 years, British judges or politicians thought this was a really essential principle of law. We're getting it these days but largely by importing it from the United States, and that means we're importing the worst ideological version of free speech rather than what free speech ought to be, which is actually protecting the rights of most people to speak. And if you've got some exceptions, some really worked out well thought exceptions for coherent and rational reasons. That's not what we've got now in Britain, and it's not what we've really ever had. Mike: Evan, you do a good job of documenting how No Platform was applied. The experience appears to be far from uniform. Let's talk about that a little bit. Evan: Yeah, so there's like a debate happening about who No Platform should be applied to because it states– The official policy is that No Platform for racists and fascists, and there's a debate of who is a racist enough to be denied a platform. There's agreement so a group like the National Front is definitely to be No Platform. Then there's a gray area about the Monday Club. The Monday Club is a hard right faction within the conservatives. But there's a transmission of people and ideas between National Front and the Monday Club. Then there's government ministers because the British immigration system is a racist system. The Home Office is seen as a racist institution. So there's a debate of whether government politicians should be allowed to have a platform because they uphold institutional racism. We see this at different stages is that a person from the Monday Club tries to speak at Oxford and is chased out of the building. Keith Joseph, who's one of the proto-Thatcherites in the Conservative Party, comes to speak at LSE in the 1977-78 and that there is a push to say that he can't be allowed to speak because of the Conservative Party's immigration policies and so forth like that. So throughout the '70s, there is a debate of the minimalist approach with a group like the International Socialists saying that no, outright fascists are the only ones to be No Platformed. Then IMG and other groups are saying, "Actually, what about the Monday Club? What about the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children? What about Conservative Ministers? Are these people, aren't they also sharing that kind of discriminatory agenda that shouldn't be allowed a platform?" Mike: Okay, and there were some objections within the National Union of Students to some applications of No Platform, right? Evan: Yeah, well, not so much in the '70s. But once you get into the '80s, there's a big push for it. But probably the biggest issue in the '70s is that the application of No Platform to pro-Israel groups and Jewish student groups. In 1975, there's a UN resolution that Zionism is a form of racism, and that several student groups say, "Well, pro-Israel groups are Zionists. If Zionism is a form of racism and No Platform should be applied to racists or fascists, shouldn't they the pro-Israel groups then be denied a platform? Should pro-Israel groups be disaffiliated from student unions, etc.?" Several student unions do this at the local level, but there's a backlash from the NUS at the national level so much so the NUS actually suspends No Platform for about six months. It is reintroduced with an explicit piece of it saying that if No Platform is reinstituted, it can't be applied to Zionists groups, to pro-Israel groups, to Jewish societies. But a reason that they can't, the NUS can't withhold No Platform as a policy in the late 1970s is because they've been playing catch up because by this time, the Anti-Nazi League, Rock Against Racism are major mass movements of people because the National Front is seen as a major problem, and the NUS has to have some kind of anti-Fascist, anti-racist response. They can't sit on their hands because they're going dragged along by the Anti-Nazi League. Mike: One thing that you talked about in your book, David, is that simultaneous to No Platform was this movement for hate speech prohibitions. Talk about how these movements differed. David: Well, I think the best way to convey it is if we go back to the motion that was actually passed at the National Union of Students spring conference in May '74. If you don't mind, I'll just begin by reading it out. Conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance, financial or otherwise, to openly racist or fascist organizations or societies (e.g., Monday Club, National Front, Action Party, Union Movement, National Democratic Party) and to deny them a platform. What I want to try and convey is that when you think about how you got this coalition within the National Union of Students in support of that motion, there were like two or three different ideas being signaled in that one motion. And if you then apply them, particularly what's happening as we're talking 50 years later now, if you apply them through the subsequent 50 years of activism, they do point in quite different directions. To just start up, “conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance” dadadada. What's really been good at here, I'm sure some of the people who passed No Platform promotion just had this idea, right? What we are, we're a movement of students' unions. We're a movement of buildings which are run by students and are for students. People have said to themselves, all this motion is really committing us to do is to say that we won't give any assistance to racist or fascist organizations. So what that means in practice is in our buildings, in our halls, we won't invite them in. Now, it may be that, say, the university will invite a conservative minister or the university will allow some far-right person to have a platform in election time. But the key idea, one key idea that's going on with this, just those things won't happen in our students' unions. They're our buildings; they're our halls. To use a term that hasn't really been coined yet, but this is in people's heads, is the idea of a safe space. It's just, student unions are our safe space. We don't need to worry about who exactly these terrible people are. Whoever and whatever they are, we don't want them on our patch. That's idea number one. Idea number two is that this is really about stopping fascists. It's not about any other form of discrimination. I'll come on to idea three in a moment. With idea three, this is about fascist organizations. You can see in a sense the motion is talking to people, people coming on and saying like I might not even be particularly left wing, but I don't like fascists. Evan talked about say for example, Zionist organizations. Could a Zionist organization, which is militantly antifascist, could they vote this motion? Yes. And how they'd sell it to themselves is this is only about fascism. So you can see this in the phrase, this is about refusing systems to “openly racist or fascist organizations,” and then look at the organizations which are listed: the National Front, well yeah, they're fascists; the Union Movement, yeah, they're fascists; the National Democratic Party, they're another little fascist splinter group.And then the only one there that isn't necessarily exactly fascist is the Monday Club who are a bunch of Tories who've been in the press constantly in the last two years when this motion is written for their alliance with National Front holding demonstrations and meetings together. So some people, this is just about protecting their space. Some people, this is about excluding fascists and no one else. But then look again at the motion, you'll see another word in there. “Conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance to openly racist or fascist organizations.” So right from the start, there's a debate, what does this word racist mean in the motion? Now, one way you could read the motion is like this. From today, we can all see that groups like the National Front are fascists. Their leaders can spend most of the rest of the decade appearing constantly in literature produced by anti-fascist groups, identifying them as fascist, naming them as fascist, then we have to have a mass movement against fascism and nazism. But the point is in 1974, that hadn't happened yet. In most people's heads, groups like the National Front was still, the best way to describe them that no one could disagree to at least say they were openly racist. That was how they described themselves. So you could ban the National Front without needing to have a theological discussion about whether they fitted exactly within your definition of fascism. But the point I really want to convey is that the motion succeeds because it blurs the difference between saying anything can be banned because it's fascist specifically or anything can be banned because it's racist or fascist. This isn't immediately apparent in 1974, but what becomes pretty apparent over time is for example as Evan's documented already, even before 1974, there have been non-fascists, there have been conservatives going around student unions speaking in pretty racist terms. All right, so can they be banned? If the answer is this goes to racists or fascists, then definitely they can be banned. But now wait a second. Is there anyone else in British politics who's racist? Well, at this point, both main political parties are standing for election on platforms of excluding people from Britain effectively on the basis of the color of their skin. All right, so you can ban all the main political parties in Britain. All right, well, how about the newspapers? Well, every single newspaper in Britain, even the pro-Labour ones, is running front page articles supporting the British government. All right, so you could ban all newspapers in Britain. Well, how about the television channel? Well, we've only got three, but the best-selling comedies on all of them are comedies which make fun of people because they're foreigners and because they're Black. You can list them all. There's dozens of these horrible programs, which for most people in Britain now are unwatchable. But they're all of national culture in Britain in the early '70s. Alright, so you say, all right, so students we could ban every television channel in Britain, every newspaper in Britain, and every political party in Britain, except maybe one or two on the far left. It's like, wait a second people, I've only been doing racism. Well, let's take seriously the notion, if we're against all forms of racism, how can we be against racism without also being against sexism? Without being against homophobia? So the thing about No Platform is there's really only two ways you can read it in the end, and certainly once you apply it outside the 1970s today. Number one, you can say this is a relatively tightly drawn motion, which is trying to pin the blame on fascists as something which is growing tremendously fast in early 1970s and trying to keep them out. Maybe it'd be good to keep other people out too, but it's not trying to keep everyone out. Or you've got, what we're confronting today which is essentially this is an attempt to prevent students from suffering the misery, the hatred, the fury of hate speech. This is an attempt to keep all hate speech off campus, but with no definition or limit on hate speech. Acceptance of hate speech 50 years later might be much more widely understood than it is in early '70s. So you've got warring in this one motion two completely different notions of who it's right politically to refuse platforms to. That's going to get tested out in real life, but it's not been resolved by the 1974 motion, which in a sense looks both ways. Either the people want to keep the ban narrow or the people want to keep it broad, either of them can look at that motion and say yeah, this is the motion which gives the basis to what we're trying to do. Mike: Okay. I do want to get back to the notion of the maximalist versus the precisionist view of No Platform. But first before that, I want to talk about the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism to just get more of a broader context than just the students in Britain in terms of antifascism. David, do you want to talk about that? David: Okay. Well, I guess because another of my books is about Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League, so I'll try and do this really short. I'll make two points. First is that these movements which currently ended in the 1970s are really very large. They're probably one of the two largest street movements in post-war British history. The only other one that's candidate for that is the anti-war movement, whether that's in the '80s or the early 2000s. But they're on that same scale as amongst the largest mass movements in British history. In terms of Rock Against Racism, the Anti-Nazi League, the total number of people involved in them is massive; it's around half a million to a million people. They're single most famous events, two huge three carnivals in London in 1977, which each have hundreds of thousands of people attending them and bring together the most exciting bands. They are the likes of The Clash, etc, etc. It's a movement which involves people graffitiing against Nazis, painting out far-right graffiti. It's a movement which is expressed in streets in terms of set piece confrontations, clashes with far-right, Lewisham in ‘76, Southall in ‘79. These are just huge movements which involve a whole generation of people very much associated with the emergence of punk music and when for a period in time in Britain are against that kind of visceral street racism, which National Front represents. I should say that they have slightly different attitudes, each of them towards the issue of free speech, but there's a massive interchange of personnel. They're very large. The same organizations involved in each, and they include an older version of the same activist who you've seen in student union politics in '74 as were they you could say they graduate into involvement in the mass movements like Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League. Now, I want to say specifically about the Anti-Nazi League and free speech. The Anti-Nazi League takes from student politics this idea of No Platform and tries to base a whole mass movement around it. The idea is very simply, the National Front should not be allowed a platform to speak, to organize, to win converts anywhere. Probably with the Anti-Nazi League, the most important expressions of this is two things. Firstly, when the National Front tries to hold election meetings, which they do particularly in the run up to '79 election, and those are picketed, people demonstrated outside of them  A lot of them are the weekend in schools. One at Southall is in a town hall. These just lead to repeated clashes between the Anti-Nazi League and the National Front. The other thing which the Anti-Nazi League takes seriously is trying to organize workers into closing off opportunities for the National Front spread their propaganda. For example, their attempts to get postal workers to refuse to deliver election materials to the National Front. Or again, there's something which it's only possible to imagine in the '70s; you couldn't imagine it today. The National Front is entitled to election broadcasts because it's standing parliament. Then the technical workers at the main TV stations go on strike and refuse to let these broadcasts go out. So in all these ways, there's this idea around the Anti-Nazi League of No Platform. But No Platform is No Platform for fascists. It's the National Front should not get a chance to spread its election message. It's not yet that kind of broader notion of, in essence, anything which is hate speech is unacceptable. In a sense, it can't be. Because when you're talking about students' unions and their original No Platform motion and so forth, at the core of it is they're trying to control their own campuses. There's a notion of students' power. The Anti-Nazi League, it may be huge mass movement and may have hundreds of thousands people involved in it, but no one in Anti-Nazi League thinks that this organization represents such a large majority that they could literally control the content of every single TV station, the content of every single newspaper. You can try and drive the National Front out, but if people in that movement had said right, we actually want to literally carve out every expression of racism and every expression of sexism from society, that would have been a yet bigger task by another enormous degrees of scale. Mike: Okay, I do want to talk a little bit more about Rock Against Racism just particularly how it was founded, what led to its founding. I think it gives a good sense of where Britain was at, politically. David: Right. Rock Against Racism was founded in 1976. The two main events which are going on in the heads of the organizers when they launched it, number one, David Bowie's weird fascist turn, his interview with Playboy magazine in which he talks about Hitler being the first rock and roll superstar, the moment where he was photographed returning from tours in America and comes to Victoria Station and appears to give a Nazi salute. The reason why with Bowie it matters is because he's a hero. Bowie seems to represent the emergence of a new kind of masculinity, new kind of attitude with sexuality. If someone like that is so damaged that he's going around saying Hitler is the greatest, that's really terrifying to Bowie fans and for a wider set of people. The other person who leads directly to the launch of Rock Against Racism is Eric Clapton. He interrupts a gig in Birmingham in summer '76 to just start giving this big drunken rant about how some foreigner pinched his missus' bum and how Enoch Powell is the greatest ever. The reason why people find Eric Clapton so contemptible and why this leads to such a mass movement is weirdly it's the opposite of Bowie that no one amongst the young cool kids regards Clapton as a hero. But being this number one star and he's clearly spent his career stealing off Black music and now he's going to support that horror of Enoch Powell as well, it just all seems so absolutely ridiculous and outrageous that people launch an open letter to the press and that gets thousands of people involved. But since you've asked me about Rock Against Racism, I do want to say Rock Against Racism does have a weirdly and certainly different attitude towards free speech to the Anti-Nazi League. And this isn't necessarily something that was apparent at the time. It's only kind of apparent now when you look back at it. But one of the really interesting things about Rock Against Racism is that because it was a movement of young people who were trying to reclaim music and make cultural form that could overturn British politics and change the world, is that they didn't turn around and say, "We just want to cut off all the racists and treat them as bad and shoot them out into space," kind of as what the Anti-Nazi League's trying to do to fascists. Rock Against Racism grasped that if you're going to try and change this cultural milieu which is music, you actually had to have a bit of a discussion and debate and an argument with the racists, but they tried to have it on their own terms. So concretely, what people would do is Rock Against Racism courted one particular band called Sham 69, who were one of the most popular young skinhead bands, but also had a bunch of neo-nazis amongst their roadies and things like that. They actually put on gigs Sham 69, put them on student union halls, surrounded them with Black acts. Knew that these people were going to bring skinheads into the things, had them performing under Rock Against Racism banner, and almost forced the band to get into the state of practical warfare with their own fans to try and say to them, "We don't want you to be nazis anymore. We want you to stop this." That dynamic, it was incredibly brave, was incredibly bold. It was really destructive for some of the individuals involved like Jimmy Pursey, the lead singer of Sham 69. Effectively saying to them, "Right, we want you to put on a gig every week where you're going to get bottled by your own fans, and you're going to end up like punching them, just to get them to stop being racist." But we can't see any other way of shifting this milieu of young people who we see as our potential allies. There were lots of sort of local things like that with Rock Against Racism. It wasn't about creating a safe space in which bad ideas couldn't come in; it was about going onto the enemy's ideological trend and going, "Right, on this trend, we can have an argument. We can win this argument." So it is really quite an interesting cultural attempt to change the politics of the street. Mike: Okay, now you two have very different ideas of what No Platform is in its essence. Evan, you believe that No Platform was shifting in scope from its inception and it is properly directed at any institutional platform afforded to vociferous bigots. While David you believe that No Platform is only properly applied against fascists, and going beyond that is a dangerous form of mission creep. Now, I absolutely hate debates. [laughter] I think the format does more to close off discussion than to draw out information on the topic at hand. So, what I don't want to happen is have you two arguing with each other about your positions on No Platform (and maybe me, because I have yet a third position). David: Okay Mike, honestly, we've known each other for years. We've always been– Mike: Yeah, yeah, yeah. David: –your listeners will pick up, there's loads we agree on, too. So I'm sure we can deal without that rubbish debate. [Evan laughs] Mike: All right. So what I'd like to do is ground this discussion as much as possible in history rather than abstract moral principles. So in that interest, can each of you talk a bit about the individuals and groups that have taken the position on No Platform that you have, and how they've defended their positions? David let's start with you. What groups were there insisting that No Platform was necessary but its necessity was limited to overt fascists? David: Well, I think in practice, that was the approach of Rock Against Racism. They took a very different attitude towards people who were tough ideological fascists, to the people who were around them who were definitely racist, but who were capable of being argued out of that. I mean, I've given the example of the policy of trying to have a debate with Sham 69 or use them as a mechanism to change their audience. What I want to convey is in every Rock Against Racism group around the country, they were often attempts to something very similar. People talk about Birmingham and Leeds, whether it be sort of local Rock Against Racism groups, they might put on– might get a big band from some other city once a month, but three weeks out of four, all they're doing is they're putting on a local some kind of music night, and they might get a hundred people there. But they'd go out of the way to invite people who they saw as wavering supporters of The National Front. But the point is this wasn't like– We all know how bad faith debates work. It's something like it's two big ego speakers who disagree with each other, giving them half an hour each to debate and know their audience is already persuaded that one of them's an asshole, one of them's great. This isn't what they were trying to do. They were trying to win over one by one wavering racists by putting them in an environment where they were surrounded by anti-racists. So it was about trying to create a climate where you could shift some people who had hateful ideas in their head, but were also capable of being pulled away from them. They didn't do set piece debates with fascists because they knew that the set piece debates with fascists, the fascists weren't going to listen to what they were going to say anyway. But what they did do is they did try to shift people in their local area to try and create a different atmosphere in their local area. And they had that attitude towards individual wavering racists, but they never had that attitude towards the fascist leaders. The fascist leaders as far as they're concerned, very, very simple, we got to close up the platform to them. We got to deprive them of a chance. Another example, Rock Against Racism, how it kind of made those sorts of distinctions. I always think with Rock Against Racism you know, they had a go at Clapton. They weren't at all surprised when he refused to apologize. But with Bowie, there was always a sense, "We want to create space for Bowie. We want to get Bowie back because Bowie's winnable." That's one of the things about that movement, is that the absolute uncrossable line was fascism. But if people could be pulled back away from that and away from the ideas associated with that, then they wanted to create the space to make that happen. Mike: Okay, and Evan, what groups took the Maximalist approach to No Platform and what was their reasoning? Evan: Yeah. So I think the discussion happens once the National Front goes away as the kind of the major threat. So the 1979 election, the National Front does dismally, and we can partially attribute that to the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism, kind of this popular antifascist movement. But there's also that Margaret Thatcher comes to power, and there's an argument that's made by historians is that she has pulled away the racist vote away from the National Front back to the conservatives. It's really kind of a realignment of leftwing politics under Thatcher because it's a much more confrontational conservative government, but there's also kind of these other issues which are kind of the new social movements and what we would now term as identity politics, they're forming in the sixties and seventies and are really big issues in the 1980s. So kind of like feminism, gay rights, andthat,  there's an argument among some of the students that if we have a No Platform for racism and fascism, why don't we have a No Platform for sexism? Why don't we have a No Platform for homophobia? And there are certain student unions who try to do this. So LSE in 1981, they endorse a No Platform for sexist as part of a wider fight against sexism, sexual harassment, sexual violence on campus is that misogynist speakers shouldn't be allowed to have a presence on campus. Several student unions kind of have this also for against homophobia, and as a part of this really divisive issue in the mid 1980s, the conservative government is quite homophobic. Section 28 clause 28 is coming in in the late eighties. It's a whole kind of homophobia of AIDS. There's instances where students object to local Tory politicians who were kind of outwardly, explicitly homophobic, that they should be not allowed to speak on stage. Then also bubbling along in the background is kind of the supporters of apartheid, so South African diplomats or kind of other people who support the South African regime including Conservative politicians, is that several times throughout the 1980s, they are invited to speak on campus, and there's kind of a massive backlash against this. Sometimes the No Platform policy is invoked. Sometimes it's just simple disruption or kind of pickets or vigils against them. But once fascism is kind of not the main issue, and all these different kind of politics is going on in the eighties, is that there's argument that No Platform for fascism and racism was important, but fascism and racism is only one form of hate speech; it's only one form of discrimination; it's only one form of kind of bodily violence; and we should take them all into consideration. Mike: Okay. Now there's been a fair bit of backlash against No Platform in kind of any of its forms from various sectors, so let's talk a bit about that. Let's start with the fascist themselves. So their response kind of changed somewhat over time in response to No Platform. David, you talk about this. David: Yeah. In the early ‘70s in Britain or I suppose in the late ‘70s too, what's extraordinary is how little use fascist make out of saying, "We are being attacked, free speech applies. We've got to have the right to be heard." I made the point earlier that Britain doesn't have a strong legal culture of free speech. We do have some culture of free speech. And again, it's not that the fascists never use these terms at all, they use them, but they use them very half-heartedly. Their dominant approach is to say, "We are being attacked by the left. The left don't understand we have better fighters than them. If they attack us on the streets, we'll fight back. In the end, we'll be the ones who win in a kind of battle of machismo, street fighting power." Now A, that doesn't happen because actually they lose some set piece confrontations, mostly at Lewisham in 1977. But it's interesting that they don't do the kind of thing which you'd expect the far right to do today, which is to say, like the British far right does today, they constantly say, "We're under attack. Free speech demands that we be heard. We're the only people who take free speech seriously." There's a continuous process in the British far right these days of endlessly going on social media every time anyone even disagrees with them a little bit, they immediately have their faces taped up and present themselves as the victim of this terrible conspiracy when in the mid-'70s when there really were people trying to put the far right out of business, that isn't what the far right did. I think, in essence, a whole bunch of things have to change. You have to get kind of a hardening of the free speech discourse in the United States; you have to have things like the attack on political correctness; the move by the American center-right from being kind of equivocal on free speech to being extremely pro-free speech; and you need to get the importation into Britain of essentially the same kind of free speech discourse as you have in States. Once we get all of that, the British far right eventually twigs that it's a far more effective way of presenting themselves and winning supporters by posing as the world's biggest defenders of free speech.  But in the ‘70s, they haven't learned that lesson yet, and their response is much more leaden and ineffective. In essence, they say, "No Platform's terrible because it's bullying us." But what they never have the gumption to say is, "Actually, we are the far right. We are a bunch of people putting bold and dangerous and exciting ideas, and if we are silenced, then all bold and dangerous and difficult ideas will be silenced too." That's something which a different generation of writers will get to and will give them all sorts of successes. But in the ‘70s, they haven't found it yet. Mike: Okay. Now fascists also had some uneasy allies as far as No Platform is concerned among Tories and libertarians. So let's talk about the Tories first, what was their opposition to No Platform about? Evan, you talk about this quite a bit in your book. Evan: Yeah. So the conservative opposition to No Platform is essentially saying that it's a stock standard thing that the left call everyone fascist. So they apply it to broadly and is that in the ‘80s, there's a bunch of conservative politicians to try to go onto campus, try to speak, and there's massive protests. They say that, "Look, this is part of an intolerant left, that they can't see the distinction between fascism and a Conservative MP. They don't want to allow anyone to have free speech beyond that kind of small narrow left wing bubble." In 1986, there is an attempt, after a kind of a wave of protest in '85, '86, there is an attempt by the government to implement some kind of protection for free speech on campus. This becomes part of the Education Act of 1986, that the university has certain obligations to ensure, where practical, free speech applies and no speech is denied. But then it's got all kind of it can't violate the Racial Discrimination Act, the Public Order Act, all those kind of things. Also, quite crucially for today, that 1986 act didn't explicitly apply to student unions. So student unions argued for the last 30 years that they are exempt from any legislation and that they were legally allowed to pursue their No Platform policy.

Well we have come full circle now. Tom Paine in The Age of Reason (1794)... “We have gone from the ridiculous to the sublime.” N95 face masks are now being issued to schoolchildren. What was once patently absurd is now public policy! Would you strap an N95 on your children?

It has become almost cliché to note that “the pen is mightier than sword.” Years before this aphorism entered the popular imagination, however, it was John Adams who exclaimed, “Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain.” Prior to the American Revolution, the sword tended to have the upper hand – with the strongest Kings and Tyrants justifying their power on the basis of force and divine right, not lofty principles like equality and liberty for all. Thomas Paine may not be enshrined in any monuments in Washington D.C., but the other more cherished founders saw the gifted pamphleteer as one of the key players in the American Revolution, and the subsequent upheaval of monarchies around the world. In his recent biography of the “Apostle of Liberty,” historian Harlow Giles Ungers quotes John Adams again, asserting:“I know not whether any man in the world has had more influence on its inhabitants or its affairs for the last thirty years than Tom Paine. Call it then the Age of Paine.”So how did this “father to the founding fathers” end up as a relatively obscure historical figure, known almost exclusively by his early pamphlet, “Common Sense”? Unger joins me this Sunday to explore the full, fascinating story of Paine's life, prolific writings, his travels, and his prominent role in the French Revolution.Thomas Paine and the Clarion Call for American Independence is the latest in the long line of Unger's highly readable biographies of America's founders. Much like the subject of his book, Unger writes in a way that is accessible to all audiences – from the uneducated layperson to the scholar of American history alike. Don't miss the in-depth exploration of the man whose writings roused Washington's soldiers to victory across the Delaware on Christmas morning.

Ben Railton's book Of Thee I Sing: The Contested History of American Patriotism (Rowman & Littlefield, 2021) is a cogently written history of the idea of American patriotism. Railton argues that there are four distinct forms of patriotism as practiced in the United States (U.S.) including (1) celebratory, or the communal expression of an idealized America, (2) mythic as based on national myths that exclude specific communities, (3) active, or acts of service and sacrifice for the nation, and (4) critical as expressed in arguments about how the nation has fallen short of its ideals in the interest of bringing the nation towards a more perfect union. He uses the four verses of “America the Beautiful” as a backdrop to illustrate the four versions of American patriotism while tracing the history of the idea from the American Revolution to the 1980s. Railton's text includes an “Introduction,” eight concise chapters, and a “Conclusion” section. In the “Introduction,” a robust argument is made for the existence of competing visions of American patriotism. Railton begins here with the story of Army Lt. Colonel and National Security official Alexander Vindman who provided damaging testimony against Donald Trump regarding a call Trump had with the president of the Ukraine. Vindman and his brother were subsequently criticized by Trump and his supporters and removed from their prestigious positions. This story is used as an example to demonstrate the competing forms of patriotism that are at times predicated on acts of service to the nation (such as with military service) or defined by a celebratory patriotism as the author notes, “What underlies such attacks on Vindman's truth telling as unpatriotic is a definition of patriotism that equates it with a celebration of the nation.” Railton further argues that this “celebratory patriotism in embodied in shared communal rituals” such as with the singling of the national anthem, with hand on heart and hat in hand, reciting the pledge of allegiance, and closing speeches with phrases like “God bless the United States of America.” These are acts that “require from their participants an endorsement of the celebratory vison of the nation.” The remaining chapters outline the various forms of American patriotism over time. In the first three chapters, the origins of celebratory patriotism in the era of the Revolutionary War, the rise of mythic patriotism in the early nineteenth century, and the emergence of active patriotism in the Civil War Era are discussed. Expressions of celebratory patriotism were produced by Revolutionary Era writers such as Tom Paine and Benjamin Franklin who communicated “foundational visions of an ideal America worth fighting for.” During the nineteenth century, mythic patriotism expanded out of events such as the War of 1812 and the creation of the national anthem. This was also a time of reform and “critical patriots” such as David Walker, William Apess, and Maria Sedgwick took the nation to task over issues such as slavery in an attempt to forge a “more inclusive vision of America.” The Civil War Era ensured the further development of critical patriotism as expressed by Frederick Douglass, Lucy Larcom, and Martin Delany. Ben Railton is Professor of English and Coordinator of American Studies at Fitchburg State, and the author of We the People: The 500 Year Battle of Who is American (Rowman & Littlefield, 2019). Hettie V. Williams Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of African American history in the Department of History and Anthropology at Monmouth University where she teaches courses in African American history and U.S. history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Ben Railton's book Of Thee I Sing: The Contested History of American Patriotism (Rowman & Littlefield, 2021) is a cogently written history of the idea of American patriotism. Railton argues that there are four distinct forms of patriotism as practiced in the United States (U.S.) including (1) celebratory, or the communal expression of an idealized America, (2) mythic as based on national myths that exclude specific communities, (3) active, or acts of service and sacrifice for the nation, and (4) critical as expressed in arguments about how the nation has fallen short of its ideals in the interest of bringing the nation towards a more perfect union. He uses the four verses of “America the Beautiful” as a backdrop to illustrate the four versions of American patriotism while tracing the history of the idea from the American Revolution to the 1980s. Railton's text includes an “Introduction,” eight concise chapters, and a “Conclusion” section. In the “Introduction,” a robust argument is made for the existence of competing visions of American patriotism. Railton begins here with the story of Army Lt. Colonel and National Security official Alexander Vindman who provided damaging testimony against Donald Trump regarding a call Trump had with the president of the Ukraine. Vindman and his brother were subsequently criticized by Trump and his supporters and removed from their prestigious positions. This story is used as an example to demonstrate the competing forms of patriotism that are at times predicated on acts of service to the nation (such as with military service) or defined by a celebratory patriotism as the author notes, “What underlies such attacks on Vindman's truth telling as unpatriotic is a definition of patriotism that equates it with a celebration of the nation.” Railton further argues that this “celebratory patriotism in embodied in shared communal rituals” such as with the singling of the national anthem, with hand on heart and hat in hand, reciting the pledge of allegiance, and closing speeches with phrases like “God bless the United States of America.” These are acts that “require from their participants an endorsement of the celebratory vison of the nation.” The remaining chapters outline the various forms of American patriotism over time. In the first three chapters, the origins of celebratory patriotism in the era of the Revolutionary War, the rise of mythic patriotism in the early nineteenth century, and the emergence of active patriotism in the Civil War Era are discussed. Expressions of celebratory patriotism were produced by Revolutionary Era writers such as Tom Paine and Benjamin Franklin who communicated “foundational visions of an ideal America worth fighting for.” During the nineteenth century, mythic patriotism expanded out of events such as the War of 1812 and the creation of the national anthem. This was also a time of reform and “critical patriots” such as David Walker, William Apess, and Maria Sedgwick took the nation to task over issues such as slavery in an attempt to forge a “more inclusive vision of America.” The Civil War Era ensured the further development of critical patriotism as expressed by Frederick Douglass, Lucy Larcom, and Martin Delany. Ben Railton is Professor of English and Coordinator of American Studies at Fitchburg State, and the author of We the People: The 500 Year Battle of Who is American (Rowman & Littlefield, 2019). Hettie V. Williams Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of African American history in the Department of History and Anthropology at Monmouth University where she teaches courses in African American history and U.S. history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Ben Railton's book Of Thee I Sing: The Contested History of American Patriotism (Rowman & Littlefield, 2021) is a cogently written history of the idea of American patriotism. Railton argues that there are four distinct forms of patriotism as practiced in the United States (U.S.) including (1) celebratory, or the communal expression of an idealized America, (2) mythic as based on national myths that exclude specific communities, (3) active, or acts of service and sacrifice for the nation, and (4) critical as expressed in arguments about how the nation has fallen short of its ideals in the interest of bringing the nation towards a more perfect union. He uses the four verses of “America the Beautiful” as a backdrop to illustrate the four versions of American patriotism while tracing the history of the idea from the American Revolution to the 1980s. Railton's text includes an “Introduction,” eight concise chapters, and a “Conclusion” section. In the “Introduction,” a robust argument is made for the existence of competing visions of American patriotism. Railton begins here with the story of Army Lt. Colonel and National Security official Alexander Vindman who provided damaging testimony against Donald Trump regarding a call Trump had with the president of the Ukraine. Vindman and his brother were subsequently criticized by Trump and his supporters and removed from their prestigious positions. This story is used as an example to demonstrate the competing forms of patriotism that are at times predicated on acts of service to the nation (such as with military service) or defined by a celebratory patriotism as the author notes, “What underlies such attacks on Vindman's truth telling as unpatriotic is a definition of patriotism that equates it with a celebration of the nation.” Railton further argues that this “celebratory patriotism in embodied in shared communal rituals” such as with the singling of the national anthem, with hand on heart and hat in hand, reciting the pledge of allegiance, and closing speeches with phrases like “God bless the United States of America.” These are acts that “require from their participants an endorsement of the celebratory vison of the nation.” The remaining chapters outline the various forms of American patriotism over time. In the first three chapters, the origins of celebratory patriotism in the era of the Revolutionary War, the rise of mythic patriotism in the early nineteenth century, and the emergence of active patriotism in the Civil War Era are discussed. Expressions of celebratory patriotism were produced by Revolutionary Era writers such as Tom Paine and Benjamin Franklin who communicated “foundational visions of an ideal America worth fighting for.” During the nineteenth century, mythic patriotism expanded out of events such as the War of 1812 and the creation of the national anthem. This was also a time of reform and “critical patriots” such as David Walker, William Apess, and Maria Sedgwick took the nation to task over issues such as slavery in an attempt to forge a “more inclusive vision of America.” The Civil War Era ensured the further development of critical patriotism as expressed by Frederick Douglass, Lucy Larcom, and Martin Delany. Ben Railton is Professor of English and Coordinator of American Studies at Fitchburg State, and the author of We the People: The 500 Year Battle of Who is American (Rowman & Littlefield, 2019). Hettie V. Williams Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of African American history in the Department of History and Anthropology at Monmouth University where she teaches courses in African American history and U.S. history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Ben Railton's book Of Thee I Sing: The Contested History of American Patriotism (Rowman & Littlefield, 2021) is a cogently written history of the idea of American patriotism. Railton argues that there are four distinct forms of patriotism as practiced in the United States (U.S.) including (1) celebratory, or the communal expression of an idealized America, (2) mythic as based on national myths that exclude specific communities, (3) active, or acts of service and sacrifice for the nation, and (4) critical as expressed in arguments about how the nation has fallen short of its ideals in the interest of bringing the nation towards a more perfect union. He uses the four verses of “America the Beautiful” as a backdrop to illustrate the four versions of American patriotism while tracing the history of the idea from the American Revolution to the 1980s. Railton's text includes an “Introduction,” eight concise chapters, and a “Conclusion” section. In the “Introduction,” a robust argument is made for the existence of competing visions of American patriotism. Railton begins here with the story of Army Lt. Colonel and National Security official Alexander Vindman who provided damaging testimony against Donald Trump regarding a call Trump had with the president of the Ukraine. Vindman and his brother were subsequently criticized by Trump and his supporters and removed from their prestigious positions. This story is used as an example to demonstrate the competing forms of patriotism that are at times predicated on acts of service to the nation (such as with military service) or defined by a celebratory patriotism as the author notes, “What underlies such attacks on Vindman's truth telling as unpatriotic is a definition of patriotism that equates it with a celebration of the nation.” Railton further argues that this “celebratory patriotism in embodied in shared communal rituals” such as with the singling of the national anthem, with hand on heart and hat in hand, reciting the pledge of allegiance, and closing speeches with phrases like “God bless the United States of America.” These are acts that “require from their participants an endorsement of the celebratory vison of the nation.” The remaining chapters outline the various forms of American patriotism over time. In the first three chapters, the origins of celebratory patriotism in the era of the Revolutionary War, the rise of mythic patriotism in the early nineteenth century, and the emergence of active patriotism in the Civil War Era are discussed. Expressions of celebratory patriotism were produced by Revolutionary Era writers such as Tom Paine and Benjamin Franklin who communicated “foundational visions of an ideal America worth fighting for.” During the nineteenth century, mythic patriotism expanded out of events such as the War of 1812 and the creation of the national anthem. This was also a time of reform and “critical patriots” such as David Walker, William Apess, and Maria Sedgwick took the nation to task over issues such as slavery in an attempt to forge a “more inclusive vision of America.” The Civil War Era ensured the further development of critical patriotism as expressed by Frederick Douglass, Lucy Larcom, and Martin Delany. Ben Railton is Professor of English and Coordinator of American Studies at Fitchburg State, and the author of We the People: The 500 Year Battle of Who is American (Rowman & Littlefield, 2019). Hettie V. Williams Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of African American history in the Department of History and Anthropology at Monmouth University where she teaches courses in African American history and U.S. history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Ben Railton's book Of Thee I Sing: The Contested History of American Patriotism (Rowman & Littlefield, 2021) is a cogently written history of the idea of American patriotism. Railton argues that there are four distinct forms of patriotism as practiced in the United States (U.S.) including (1) celebratory, or the communal expression of an idealized America, (2) mythic as based on national myths that exclude specific communities, (3) active, or acts of service and sacrifice for the nation, and (4) critical as expressed in arguments about how the nation has fallen short of its ideals in the interest of bringing the nation towards a more perfect union. He uses the four verses of “America the Beautiful” as a backdrop to illustrate the four versions of American patriotism while tracing the history of the idea from the American Revolution to the 1980s. Railton's text includes an “Introduction,” eight concise chapters, and a “Conclusion” section. In the “Introduction,” a robust argument is made for the existence of competing visions of American patriotism. Railton begins here with the story of Army Lt. Colonel and National Security official Alexander Vindman who provided damaging testimony against Donald Trump regarding a call Trump had with the president of the Ukraine. Vindman and his brother were subsequently criticized by Trump and his supporters and removed from their prestigious positions. This story is used as an example to demonstrate the competing forms of patriotism that are at times predicated on acts of service to the nation (such as with military service) or defined by a celebratory patriotism as the author notes, “What underlies such attacks on Vindman's truth telling as unpatriotic is a definition of patriotism that equates it with a celebration of the nation.” Railton further argues that this “celebratory patriotism in embodied in shared communal rituals” such as with the singling of the national anthem, with hand on heart and hat in hand, reciting the pledge of allegiance, and closing speeches with phrases like “God bless the United States of America.” These are acts that “require from their participants an endorsement of the celebratory vison of the nation.” The remaining chapters outline the various forms of American patriotism over time. In the first three chapters, the origins of celebratory patriotism in the era of the Revolutionary War, the rise of mythic patriotism in the early nineteenth century, and the emergence of active patriotism in the Civil War Era are discussed. Expressions of celebratory patriotism were produced by Revolutionary Era writers such as Tom Paine and Benjamin Franklin who communicated “foundational visions of an ideal America worth fighting for.” During the nineteenth century, mythic patriotism expanded out of events such as the War of 1812 and the creation of the national anthem. This was also a time of reform and “critical patriots” such as David Walker, William Apess, and Maria Sedgwick took the nation to task over issues such as slavery in an attempt to forge a “more inclusive vision of America.” The Civil War Era ensured the further development of critical patriotism as expressed by Frederick Douglass, Lucy Larcom, and Martin Delany. Ben Railton is Professor of English and Coordinator of American Studies at Fitchburg State, and the author of We the People: The 500 Year Battle of Who is American (Rowman & Littlefield, 2019). Hettie V. Williams Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of African American history in the Department of History and Anthropology at Monmouth University where she teaches courses in African American history and U.S. history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

Ben Railton's book Of Thee I Sing: The Contested History of American Patriotism (Rowman & Littlefield, 2021) is a cogently written history of the idea of American patriotism. Railton argues that there are four distinct forms of patriotism as practiced in the United States (U.S.) including (1) celebratory, or the communal expression of an idealized America, (2) mythic as based on national myths that exclude specific communities, (3) active, or acts of service and sacrifice for the nation, and (4) critical as expressed in arguments about how the nation has fallen short of its ideals in the interest of bringing the nation towards a more perfect union. He uses the four verses of “America the Beautiful” as a backdrop to illustrate the four versions of American patriotism while tracing the history of the idea from the American Revolution to the 1980s. Railton's text includes an “Introduction,” eight concise chapters, and a “Conclusion” section. In the “Introduction,” a robust argument is made for the existence of competing visions of American patriotism. Railton begins here with the story of Army Lt. Colonel and National Security official Alexander Vindman who provided damaging testimony against Donald Trump regarding a call Trump had with the president of the Ukraine. Vindman and his brother were subsequently criticized by Trump and his supporters and removed from their prestigious positions. This story is used as an example to demonstrate the competing forms of patriotism that are at times predicated on acts of service to the nation (such as with military service) or defined by a celebratory patriotism as the author notes, “What underlies such attacks on Vindman's truth telling as unpatriotic is a definition of patriotism that equates it with a celebration of the nation.” Railton further argues that this “celebratory patriotism in embodied in shared communal rituals” such as with the singling of the national anthem, with hand on heart and hat in hand, reciting the pledge of allegiance, and closing speeches with phrases like “God bless the United States of America.” These are acts that “require from their participants an endorsement of the celebratory vison of the nation.” The remaining chapters outline the various forms of American patriotism over time. In the first three chapters, the origins of celebratory patriotism in the era of the Revolutionary War, the rise of mythic patriotism in the early nineteenth century, and the emergence of active patriotism in the Civil War Era are discussed. Expressions of celebratory patriotism were produced by Revolutionary Era writers such as Tom Paine and Benjamin Franklin who communicated “foundational visions of an ideal America worth fighting for.” During the nineteenth century, mythic patriotism expanded out of events such as the War of 1812 and the creation of the national anthem. This was also a time of reform and “critical patriots” such as David Walker, William Apess, and Maria Sedgwick took the nation to task over issues such as slavery in an attempt to forge a “more inclusive vision of America.” The Civil War Era ensured the further development of critical patriotism as expressed by Frederick Douglass, Lucy Larcom, and Martin Delany. Ben Railton is Professor of English and Coordinator of American Studies at Fitchburg State, and the author of We the People: The 500 Year Battle of Who is American (Rowman & Littlefield, 2019). Hettie V. Williams Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of African American history in the Department of History and Anthropology at Monmouth University where she teaches courses in African American history and U.S. 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 dream house, the successful business, the perfect job, a happy family. Well, the life that you've always aspired to have starts with that visualization.” Valeria Teles interviews Tom Paine — a life coach and speaker. After leaving University in 2009 with a degree in English and Journalism, Tom went backpacking around India, Nepal, Australia and Thailand to discover himself - finding a deep love for adventure, fun and culture along the way. On his return, he went back to University to study for an MA in Journalism, combining his studies with his love of music. Over a 13-year period, Tom would DJ at weekends in clubs from Manchester to London, Ibiza to Moscow - loving every minute.  Professionally, Tom spent 10 years working in the Recruitment sector, where he built an excellent reputation as a specialist IT Consultant, eventually becoming a Business Manager, leading sales teams responsible for £8m annual turnover for global and SME organizations moving to London and Manchester. At its peak, Tom's sales team was at 18 people, ranging from Junior Consultants to Principals, Managers and Team Leaders.  Tom excels in getting the best out of people, he has a natural flair for business development, and has a track record of starting new exciting recruitment businesses from scratch. His passion for coaching others, has enabled Tom to improve the individuals around him, giving them the confidence to achieve more. What Tom loves about Life Coaching is the potential to dramatically improve the lives of others. He believes that anyone can benefit from working with a Life Coach, if they are willing to commit to the change that they desire. He is confident that he can work with anyone who is willing to put in the necessary work to achieve their greatest goals.  Tom offers a natural balance between being patient with his clients as they transform, and the discipline to push to get the best from people. This allows his clients to feel comfortable, yet inspired, to start to live the life of their dreams! To learn more about Tom Paine and his work, please visit: https://www.tompainelifecoaching.com/   — This podcast is a quest for well-being, a quest for a meaningful life through the exploration of fundamental truths, enlightening ideas, insights on physical, mental, and spiritual health. The inspiration is Love. The aspiration is to awaken new ways of thinking that can lead us to a new way of being, being well.   

Professor Cotlar specializes in the history of the United States in the years between the American Revolution and the Civil War. His first book - Tom Paine's America: The Rise and Fall of Trans-Atlantic Radicalism in the Early Republic - won the Best First Book Prize from the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic. We discuss teaching politics in an objective way, forming evidence based arguments, and the difference in controversy between the 1619 and 1776 projects.

In episode twelve we will discuss the end of the so called "quiet period" with the passage of the Tea Act in 1773. The Boston Tea Party and Parliamentary reaction; the First and Second Continental Congress and efforts at reconciliation. We will examine the impact to Tom Paine's earth-shaking pamphlet Common Sense. The drafting, editing, and political theory underpinning the Declaration of Independence and finally the Revolutionary War and the strategies that led to America's improbable victory. 

This past week, the Australian government passed a law called the News Media Bargaining Code - designed to force Facebook and Google to pay up for the news content that ends up on their platforms.The tech giants have long resisted this idea, but things are changing. This is a story about value - how much news is worth, who should be funding it and how.Contributors:Lizzie O'Shea - author of Future Histories: What Ada Lovelace, Tom Paine, and the Paris Commune Teach Us about Digital TechnologyJames Temperton - digital editor, Wired UKParis Marx - host, Tech Won't Save UsJames Meese - senior lecturer, RMIT UniversityOn our radarAl Jazeera Media Network launches a new platform, aimed at a new audience. The clue is in the name: Rightly.Iconic, absurd, haunting: Ten years since Gaddafi's 'Zenga Zenga' speechOn February 22, 2011, with Libya in a state of revolt over his 42 years in power, Muammar Gaddafi decided it was time to take to the airwaves. For Libyans all too familiar with political repression, the "Zenga Zenga" speech, as it came to be known, was equal parts chilling and bizarre. Ten years on, we look back at one of the Arab Spring's most extraordinary media moments.Contributors:Sherine El Taraboulsi-McCarthy - senior research fellow, Overseas Development InstituteMansour El-Kikhia - professor of political science, University of TexasAbdulkader Assad - columnist, The Libya Observer- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe - Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish - Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera - Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

Paris Marx is joined by Lizzie O’Shea to discuss how Australia’s plan to make Google and Facebook pay news publishers entrenches a data-extractive business model and aligns the interests of tech giants and media companies against those of the public.Lizzie O’Shea is a human rights lawyer and the founder of Digital Rights Watch. She’s also the author of “Future Histories: What Ada Lovelace, Tom Paine, and the Paris Commune Can Teach Us about Digital Technology.” Follow Lizzie on Twitter as @Lizzie_OShea.Tech Won’t Save Us offers a critical perspective on tech, its worldview, and wider society with the goal of inspiring people to demand better tech and a better world. Follow the podcast (@techwontsaveus) and host Paris Marx (@parismarx) on Twitter, and support the show on Patreon.Find out more about Harbinger Media Network at harbingermedianetwork.com.Also mentioned in this episode:Lizzie wrote about the problems with this plan for Overland Journal and Nikkei Asia.Paris wrote about why we shouldn’t link big tech and news giants for Tribune Magazine.Facebook restricted news sharing in Australia, while Google has signed deals with News Corp, Nine Entertainment, Seven West Media, and more for its News Showcase.Australia has among the most concentrated media ownership in the world. Former prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull called for a royal commission on Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.Australia’s competition regulator released a digital platforms report with recommendations that included the bargaining code in 2019.Canada and the European Union may copy Australia’s model. French publishers are already getting paid by Google.Support the show (https://patreon.com/techwontsaveus)

Martin Armstrong Founder of Armstrong Economics and Author of The Cycle of War & the Coronavirus and Manipulating the World Economy The Cycle of War & the Coronavirus is the most comprehensive review of the cycle of war and civil unrest throughout history. This covers everything from tax rebellions that spark revolutions such as “No Taxation Without Representation” to international wars instigated by lies and deceptions. This goes into the rise of Marxism and its fall yet we still face yet another attempt to conquer the world by the left. You will find the entire world covered from Europe and Asia to Russia and the Middle East. Armstrong Economics offers unique perspective intended to educate the general public and organizations on the underlying trends within the global economic and political environment. Our mission is to research historical cyclical patterns and market behavior in timing, price and crisis to better understand and identify potential future trends, using an extensive monetary database and advanced proprietary models. Show highlights: Government bonds and “elastic debt” explained What is the difference between the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank? The Supreme Court dodged the issue of “Steal the Vote.” Martin Armstrong talks about the Dred Scott decision and its effect on the American Civil War. Who is the Triumvirate behind the Great Reset? Four million people died during the Hong Kong flu in the 1960s — compared to one million from COVID — but “Woodstock occurred in the middle of it.” “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.” What does Klaus Schwab really mean when he says this? China is “going to be the big boy on the block” by 2035. Martin Armstrong explains how and why China will become so economically successful and will soon be the chief financial center of the world. China is setting up their own digital currency outside of the SWIFT system. What is creating world peace? Is it nuclear arms or is it the economy? What created ancient Rome’s success? Why did Julius Caesar change the calendar as soon as he crossed the Rubicon? How did he “clean the swamp”? Martin Armstrong’s latest book is The Cycle of War and the Coronavirus (2020). How do financial cycles work? Patrick asks, “Who are the forces trying to get Donald Trump out of office?” People are protesting for Trump all around the world. What level of voter fraud occurred? Why does the aristocracy fear populism? Who was behind putting Christine Lagarde in charge of the International Monetary Fund? What’s going on “behind the curtain”? “You have to understand the difference between a sophisticated investor and someone standing in line at Starbucks,” says Martin Armstrong. What part did Tom Paine play in precipitating the American Revolution? How does that apply today? What about gold back when Jimmy Carter was in the White House? Dick Cheney ran the country during the George W. Bush administration. The bureaucracy wanted someone “stupid.” The same goes for Joe Biden. Joe Biden was picked because he won’t stand in the way of the Great Reset. Patrick asks, “How did you get in with the big boys?,” and Martin Armstrong explains. Most schools don’t teach anything about foreign exchange. What’s the difference between the “political jargon” in Europe compared to the U.S.? Is there any money to be made in today’s currencies? What about COVID? Do viruses run in cycles? COVID “is the most corrupt piece of propaganda in history,” affirms Martin Armstrong. The next big crisis will be in Europe. “Capital always runs away from where the problem is.” “The Fed doesn’t have the power to cancel the currency in the U.S. European central banks do have the power.” How will digital currency affect the Federal Reserve? “Where Trump has been wrong is it’s not a swamp. It’s an ocean!” Martin Armstrong has the only fully functioning Artificial Intelligence forecasting system in the world — Socrates.

Full Urdu Audiobook of تھامس پین - کامن سینس Common Sense Tom Paine Urdu You can listen to the full audiobook via our Youtube Channel playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3GEqwP6dqmhDNfaFH1PpiKJgXMqzKPD3 Abaseen Podcast.

Last but not least, our concluding episode of 2020 is with James Cameron. No not the director, but he is doing radical things in a suit (this will make more sense once you press play). Find out why Tom Paine was an important inspiration for his career, what the WTO needs to do to progress and trade in post-Brexit UK. Bio James Cameron is a barrister, independent adviser and social entrepreneur, and a recognised leader of the global climate change community. He is an expert on sustainability and trade policy – and as you can imagine he’s very much in demand in Britain right now, not only with the post-Brexit negotiations, but also since he was appointed as a ‘Friend of the COP’ for COP26, advising the Presidency. James is a senior advisor for Pollination, a climate change advisory and investment firm, as well as System IQ, Tulchan Communications and AVAIA Capital. He also sits on the Advisory Board for Heathrow 2.0 and is a London Sustainable Development Commissioner. James was a co-founder and chair of Climate Change Capital, the world’s first green investment bank and sat on the board of GE Ecomagination, Green Running and ET Index. Before that, James was co-founder of the climate change practice at Baker McKenzie, a negotiator on behalf of the Association of Small Island States (AoSIS) at the UNFCCC, and Senior Advisor to the Morocco and Fiji COP Presidencies. He has been a member of the UK Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Group and for eight years was Chair of the Overseas Development Institute (ODI). James has held academic posts at Cambridge, London, Bruges and Sydney and is currently affiliated with the Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy. Key links Official Website: https://www.james-cameron.co.uk/ The Precautionary Principle: A Fundamental Principle of Law and Policy for the Protection of the Global Environment (1991) https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol14/iss1/2/ Carbon Disclosure Project https://www.cdp.net/en Pollination https://pollinationgroup.com/ ODI https://www.odi.org/ London Sustainable Development Commission (LSDC) https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/organisations-we-work/london-sustainable-development-commission ‘Big Ideas’ theme in the co-authored Epilogue entitled ‘How to make big ideas work’ in Dan Esty’s book; ‘A Better Planet’ (July 2020) https://www.james-cameron.co.uk/big-ideas/a-better-planet-40-ideas-for-a-sustainable-future Webinar: Climate Change and Carbon as an Emerging Asset Class (17 Sep 2020) https://www.james-cameron.co.uk/big-ideas/carbon-cap-webinar-climate-change-and-carbon-as-an-emerging-asset-class Climate Negotiations and Policy (November 2018) https://www.james-cameron.co.uk/big-ideas/yale-podcast-climate-negotiations-and-policy About Cleaning Up Once a week Michael Liebreich has a conversation (and a drink) with a leader in clean energy, mobility, climate finance or sustainable development. Each episode covers the technical ground on some aspect of the low-carbon transition – but it also delves into the nature of leadership in the climate transition: whether to be optimistic or pessimistic; how to communicate in order to inspire change; personal credos; and so on. And it should be fun – most of the guests are Michael’s friends. Follow Cleaning Up on Twitter: [https://twitter.com/MLCleaningUp](https://twitter.com/MLCleaningUp) Follow Cleaning Up on Linkedin: [https://www.linkedin.com/company/cleaning-up-with-michael-liebreich](https://www.linkedin.com/company/cleaning-up-with-michael-liebreich) Follow Cleaning Up on Facebook: [https://www.facebook.com/MLCleaningUp](https://www.facebook.com/MLCleaningUp) Links to other Podcast Platforms: [https://www.cleaningup.live/](https://www.cleaningup.live/)

We're two weeks out from the U.S. presidential election and the way I see things now, this is our moment to stand up and demand these people stop beating us or we're going to get everything we deserve from them.The choice now is between struggle sessions and secession. But secession starts in your heart and your head. Become #Ungovernable or be destroyed, because that is the choice in front of you. No deep political strategy this week just a Tom Paine like call to arms and to remind all those cheering the apparent victory of Joe Biden over populism, that which you steal will be taken back and you won't like the way that happens.If you aren't outraged you aren't paying attention. Show Notes:Unraveling the Deep State Couphttps://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/11/unraveling-the-deep-state-coup.htmlHungary and Poland Scuttle the EU 7 Year Budgethttps://www.rt.com/news/506885-hungary-poland-veto-eu-budget/

 Listen to the Show Right Click to Save GuestsLess Than Three Conspiracy PlayTrinity Street Players I Am the Mask You Wear What We Talked AboutAmerican Utopia (HBO) Hell You Talmbalt by Janelle Monae VideoWhat the Constitution means to me (Prime) David Byrne & Heidi Schreck Don’t use Memory – Betty Buckley & ALW Hamilton Adams RapMa Rainey’s Black Bottom Trailer (12/18) The Prom Trailer Broadway Access Pro Hyde Park – Will Eno’s Tom Paine (based on Nothing).. next up: Raul Garza’s Running Bear (11/21) Austin Playhouse – Red hot patriot. Vortex – FutureX –11/6-21 Thank you to Dean Johanesen, lead singer of "The Human Condition" who gave us permission to use "Step Right Up" as our theme song, so please visit their website.. they're good! (that's an order)

We begin the extraordinary journey of Tom Paine's life.

Episode SummaryHistorian and optimist Eric Foner grew up through McCarthyism and the Civil Rights Movement and learned that one of the best ways to interpret history is that no matter how things are there is an opportunity to make them better. Syd and Eric talk about how the issues of the past are the issues of today, the dangers of romanticizing our history, and how some things never change. Professor Foner gives an unvarnished primer in American History and you might be surprised at how current it sounds, in this episode of The Sydcast.Syd FinkelsteinSyd Finkelstein is the Steven Roth Professor of Management at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College. He holds a Master's degree from the London School of Economics and a Ph.D. from Columbia University. Professor Finkelstein has published 25 books and 90 articles, including the bestsellers Why Smart Executives Fail and Superbosses: How Exceptional Leaders Master the Flow of Talent, which LinkedIn Chairman Reid Hoffman calls the “leadership guide for the Networked Age.” He is also a Fellow of the Academy of Management, a consultant and speaker to leading companies around the world, and a top 25 on the global Thinkers 50 list of top management gurus. Professor Finkelstein's research and consulting work often relies on in-depth and personal interviews with hundreds of people, an experience that led him to create and host his own podcast, The Sydcast, to uncover and share the stories of all sorts of fascinating people in business, sports, entertainment, politics, academia, and everyday life. Eric FonerEric Foner, DeWitt Clinton Professor Emeritus of History at Columbia University, is one of this country's most prominent historians. He received his doctoral degree at Columbia under the supervision of Richard Hofstadter. He is one of only two persons to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians, and one of a handful to have won the Bancroft and Pulitzer Prizes in the same year.Professor Foner's publications have concentrated on the intersections of intellectual, political, and social history and the history of American race relations. His books have been translated into Chinese, Korean, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish. Eric Foner is a winner of the Great Teacher Award from the Society of Columbia Graduates (1991), and the Presidential Award for Outstanding Teaching from Columbia University (2006). He was named Scholar of the Year by the New York Council for the Humanities in 1995. In 2006, he received the Kidger Award for Excellence in Teaching and Scholarship from the New England History Teachers Association. In 2014 he was awarded the Gold Medal by the National Institute of Social Sciences. In 2020 he received the Anisfield-Wolf Book Award for Lifetime Achievement (the award honors literature that confronts racism and explores diversity), and the Roy Rosenzweig Distinguished Service Award from the Organization of American Historians. He is an elected fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the British Academy, the American Philosophical Society, and the American Academy of Political and Social Science. He has been awarded honorary degrees by Iona College, Queen Mary University of London, the State University of New York, Dartmouth College, Lehigh University, and Princeton University. He serves on the editorial boards of Past and Present and The Nation, and has written for the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, London Review of Books, and many other publications, and has appeared on numerous television and radio shows, including Charlie Rose, Book Notes, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, Bill Moyers Journal, Fresh Air, and All Things Considered, and in historical documentaries on PBS and the History Channel. He was the on-camera historian for "Freedom: A History of Us," on PBS in 2003 and the chief historical advisor for the award-winning PBS documentary series on Reconstruction and its aftermath broadcast in 2019. He has lectured extensively to both academic and non-academic audiences. Professor Foner retired from teaching in 2018. Insights from this episode:Details on Reconstruction in America, what it was, what went wrong, and how it changed the world.Strategies for staying objective and finding truth when everyone seems to be living in different realities at the same time in history.How to be hopeful about when current events make the future seem bleak.Benefits of learning history, how it shapes our ideals today, and what our present can teach us about our future.Details about Abraham Lincoln and what his principles and methods can teach us today about developing our own standards.Reasons why books written about history are subjective and need to be more objective.Quotes from the show:“Things are always inevitable after they've happened.” – Eric Foner“I grew up understanding how fragile liberty is in our country, or in any other country.” – Eric Foner“It's not just a historical debate. The issues of Reconstruction are the issues of today.” – Eric FonerOn Reconstruction: “The tragedy was not that it was attempted, but that it failed and that left, for a century almost, this question of racial justice in the United States.” – Eric Foner“History is in the eye of the beholder.” – Syd Finkelstein“Being objective does not mean you have an empty mind … it means you have an open mind. You have to be willing to change your mind.” – Eric Foner“History is an ongoing process of reevaluation reinterpretation. There is never just the end of the story.” – Eric FonerOn Professor Foner's lecture on Reconstruction: “It's a statement about what kind of country should America be.” – Syd FinkelsteinOn what a professor does: “The creation and dissemination of knowledge.” – Syd FinkelsteinOn Abraham Lincoln: “We've had many presidents, including the current one, who can not stand criticism, Lincoln welcomed it. He thought he could learn. He thought his entire life he could learn new things.” – Eric Foner“That's what makes you a historian. You have to be able to weigh evidence, judge evidence, balance things out.” – Eric Foner“The historical narrative is an act of the imagination by the historian … what you leave out is as important as what you put in.” – Eric FonerOn the primary system of voting: “It enables the motivated electorate, which is a small percentage, to have an unbelievable influence.” – Syd FinkelsteinBooks by Eric FonerFree Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (1970; reissued with new preface 1995) Tom Paine and Revolutionary America (1976)Nothing But Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy (1983)Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 (1988) (winner, among other awards, of the Bancroft Prize, Parkman Prize, and Los Angeles Times Book Award) The Reader's Companion to American History (with John A. Garraty, 1991)The Story of American Freedom (1998)Who Owns History? Rethinking the Past in a Changing World (2002) Give Me Liberty! An American History (2004) The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery (2010) (winner, among other awards, of the Bancroft Prize, Pulitzer Prize for History, and The Lincoln Prize) Gateway to Freedom: The Hidden History of the Underground Railroad (2015) (winner of the American History Book Prize by the New-York Historical Society)The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution (2019)Lectures by Eric FonerDuring the 2014-15 academic year, his Columbia University course on The Civil War and Reconstruction was made available online, free of charge, via ColumbiaX and EdX. They can also be found on YouTube.PART 1: THE COMING OF THE CIVIL WARPART 2: THE CIVIL WARPART 3: RECONSTRUCTIONStay Connected: Syd FinkelsteinWebsite: http://thesydcast.comLinkedIn: Sydney FinkelsteinTwitter: @sydfinkelsteinFacebook: The SydcastInstagram: The SydcastEric FonerWebsite: www.ericfoner.comSubscribe to our podcast + download each episode on Stitcher, iTunes, and Spotify.This episode was produced and managed by Podcast Laundry (www.podcastlaundry.com)

Who doesn't like a lefitst folk song?! Given their lack of popularity, probably a lot of people! Anyway, this is unfair - whatever your political inclination, there's lots of great music to listen to within this general field. Here I talk with my friend Richard about some of the more (even more than usual) underrated and overhated lefty folky songs (a couple aren't actually folk, but I need a catchy title). Enjoy! Here's the playlist of the songs we talk about: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0Rw99Fn3lq8LJEt1H5SDuY?si=Em2-BhAuRRC5oF5MkfxNgA

In the midst of a terrifying pandemic, Bob Dylan has released his first original song in eight years. “Murder Most Foul” is a 17 minute long epic about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. But as with much of Dylan's work, a closer look reveals much more.So what is Bob Dylan's brand new song “Murder Most Foul” about?This episode is a reflection not only on this song, but also on what it means to be a Bob Dylan fan in this day and age.I have tried to put my initial thoughts into words, but unravelling all the cultural references alone could take hours!I hope you enjoy it, and if you do, please share!Definitely Dylan is now on Patreon, where you can support my work and get access to bonus episodes and more content.Here's the Spotify playlist with all the music referenced in “Murder Most Foul”:Also, here's the link to the Tom Paine award speech and the apology letter, and you might be interested in these Kennedy poems, which Dylan wrote shortly after the JFK assassination.If you want more original analysis of Bob Dylan's work, and tons of great and rare Dylan performances, check out all episodes of the Definitely Dylan radio show on DefinitelyDylan.com.I hope you're holding up out there and taking care of yourself both physically and mentally. -Laura

The House votes on the war powers resolution and we are NOT at war with Iran today -- for comment and analysis we turn to John Nichols. Next up, progressive politics in the red, purple and blue districts of Orange County -- Gustavo Arellano reports. Plus: Fires continue to devastate Australia; Lizzie O'Shea reports from Melbourne. Also, we talk about her new book, 'Future Histories: What Ada Lovelace, Tom Paine, and the Paris Commune Can Teach Us About Digital Technology'.

This week, Amazon's new robots can replace its warehouse workers, San Francisco bans facial recognition, spyware in your systems right now (and how to fix it), new stuff from Google's I/O web developer conference, and much more.  Headlines Exclusive: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs San Francisco Bans Facial Recognition Technology Silicon Valley will soon get its own stock exchange Update WhatsApp now to avoid spyware installation from a single missed call Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Mozilla release patches for ZombieLoad chip flaws Audible Book of the Week Future Histories: What Ada Lovelace, Tom Paine, and the Paris Commune Can Teach Us About Digital Technology By Lizzie O'Shea Sign up at AudibleTrial.com/TheDrillDown Music Break: We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together by Taylor Swift Hot Topics Supreme Court deals Apple major setback in App Store antitrust case It's Time to Break Up Facebook Chris Hughes's Call to Break Up Facebook: 5 Takeaways Breaking Up Facebook Is Not the Answer Zuckerberg says breaking up Facebook “isn't going to help” Music Break: Let's Stay Together  by Al Green Final Word The 8 biggest announcements from the Google I/O 2019 keynote The Drill Down Video of the Week Google I/O 2019 event in 13 minutes Subscribe! The Drill Down on iTunes (Subscribe now!) Add us on Stitcher! The Drill Down on Facebook The Drill Down on Twitter Geeks Of Doom's The Drill Down is a roundtable-style audio podcast where we discuss the most important issues of the week, in tech and on the web and how they affect us all. Hosts are Geeks of Doom contributor Andrew Sorcini (Mr. BabyMan), marketing research analyst Dwayne De Freitas, and Vudu product manager Tosin Onafowokan.

Michael Anton's controversial 2016 essay “ The Flight 93 Election” was compared to Tom Paine's Common Sense as a tract that grabbed the public imagination. Michael is back now with a new book, After the Flight 93 Election: The Vote That Saved America and What We Still Have to Lose. Steve Hayward talked with Michael Sunday afternoon, bringing us up to date on the Flight 93 thesis two years into the... Source

Dr. Edward Gray is Professor of History at Florida State University where he teaches a range of courses in U.S. history, Native American history, and the history of the Pacific in the age of Captain James Cook. He was named a Top Young Historian by History News Network and was a Fulbright Distinguished Lecturer in Japan in 2014. In this episode he discusses his book "Tom Paine's Iron Bridge: Building a United States."

Michial Farmer moderates a conversation with David Grubbs and Nathan Gilmour about death as a concept, running from Biblical takes on death (there are several) and running from Greco-Roman to existentialist conceptions of human demise, with a significant spell spent on the transition from medieval memento-mori traditions into Enlightenment conceptions of medicine as exclusively the art of staving off death. Among the texts, writers, and other realities discussed are Psalm 90, the death of Bede, the death of Caedmon, Tom Paine's "The Age of Reason," Heidegger's "Being and Time," and Paradise Lost.

Pages 135-140 in the text, as narrated by Floy Lilley. From Part 4 of Conceived in Liberty, Volume IV: "America Declares independence."