Podcasts about world war one

In the second of our special interviews for the War in the Air series, we are joined by historian and broadcaster Josh Levine to discuss the war in the air in WW1, based on his best-selling book On A Wing and A Prayer.Josh's book 'On A Wing and A Prayer' is now published in paperback at Fighter Heroes of WW1 ( Harper Collins 2011)Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.We now have a shop for Old Front Line Merch: Old Front Line shop.Send us a textSupport the show

Episode DescriptionThe Great Depression sucked, the Dust Bowl made it even worse. We discuss how American greed destroyed both the economy and the land. Buckle up.-Support the Showhttps://buymeacoffee.com/amhistoryremix-Find the full transcript of this episode including citations at our website:https://www.americanhistoryremix.com/episodeguide/depression-dust -In this episode we cover….Introduction [00:00-03:50]World War One & Wheat [03:50-07:06]1920s Economy [07:06-09:29]Overproduction of Wheat [09:29-11:09]Consumption & Progress [11:09-12:49]Economic Downturn [12:49-14:03]Market Crash [14:03-16:04]Causes of Depression [16:04-19:45]The Great Depression–General [19:45-20:57]Life During the Depression [20:57-25:34]Bonus Army [25:34-27:39]Legacy of the Depression [27:39-28:23]Dust Storms [28:23-33:40]Okies [33:40-35:47]Roosevelt Elected [35:47-37:29]The New Deal [37:29-41:19]Rural Reform [41:19-46:11]Evaluation of the New Deal [46:11-49:35]World War II [49:35-52:44]Dust Bowl Ends [52:44-54:51]Conclusion [54:51-56:40]-To dive deeper into these topics (affiliate links):James N. Gregory, American Exodus: The Dust Bowl Migration and Okie Culture in California. https://tinyurl.com/Gregory-American-ExodusDavid M. Kennedy, Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945. https://tinyurl.com/Kennedy-FreedomMaury Klein, Rainbow's End: The Crash of 1929.https://tinyurl.com/Klein-Rainbows-EndDon Nardo, ed. The Great Depression.  https://tinyurl.com/Nardo-The-Great-DepressionEric Rauchway, The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction. https://tinyurl.com/Rauchway-The-Great-DepressionDonald Worster, Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s.  https://tinyurl.com/Worster-Dust-Bowl-Support the showSupport the Show https://buymeacoffee.com/amhistoryremix

RNIB Connect Radio's Toby Davey is joined again by Vidar Hjardeng MBE, Inclusion and Diversity Consultant for ITV News across England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands for the next of his regular audio described theatre reviews for 2025 This week we have an extraordinary journey from the fields of rural Devon to the trenches of First World War France for young Albert's beloved horse Joey as the current tour of the National Theatre's acclaimed production of War Horse visited the Alexandra Theatre in Birmingham with description by Professional Audio Describer Theo Hornsby-Walsh. About ‘War Horse' The National Theatre's acclaimed production is now on a major UK & Ireland Tour.  War Horse is an unforgettable theatrical experience which takes audiences on an extraordinary journey from the fields of rural Devon to the trenches of First World War France. Based on the beloved novel by Michael Morpurgo, this powerfully moving and imaginative drama, filled with stirring music and songs, is a show of phenomenal inventiveness. At its heart are astonishing life-sized horses by South Africa's Handspring Puppet Company, who bring breathing, galloping, charging horses to thrilling life on stage. At the outbreak of World War One, Joey, young Albert's beloved horse, is sold to the Cavalry and shipped to France. He's soon caught up in enemy fire, and fate takes him on an extraordinary journey, serving on both sides before finding himself alone in No Man's Land. Albert, who remained on his parents' Devon farm, cannot forget Joey. Though still not old enough to enlist, he embarks on a treacherous mission to find Joey and bring him home. For more about the current UK and Ireland tour of ‘War Horse' including details of dates and times of performances near you do visit the production website - https://www.warhorseonstage.com (Image shows the RNIB Connect Radio logo. On a white background ‘RNIB' written in bold black capital letters and underline with a bold pink line. Underneath the line: ‘Connect Radio' is written in black in a smaller font)

For our 250th episode of the podcast, and as part of our continuing Air War series, we are joined by aviation historian and author Andy Saunders to look at the life, and death, of Edward 'Mick' Mannock VC DSO & Two Bars, MC & Bar and the search for his potential burial place on the Western Front. Is the grave of an Unknown Aviator at Laventie British Cemetery Mick Mannock's final resting place?Andy's book: Mannock: The Life and Death of Major Edward Mannock VC, DSO, MC, RAF by Frank, Norman and Saunders, Andy. (Grub Street 2008)Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.We now have a shop for Old Front Line Merch: Old Front Line shop.Send us a textSupport the show

EI's Paul Lay joins historian Andrew Lambert to discuss his book ‘No More Napoleons: How Britain Managed Europe from Waterloo to World War One', Lambert's provocative new study of how Britain maximised its naval and diplomatic prestige to maintain a stable, post-Napoleonic Europe. Image: 'A squadron of the Royal Navy running down the Channel' by Samuel Atkins (c. 1760-1810). Credit: Pictorial Press Ltd

For the start of our War in the Air Month, we begin with a look at the real story of the 'Twenty Minuters', the Royal Flying Corps and Royal Air Force in the First World War. We look at its history from formation in 1912, its role in the opening months of the conflict, and how the war on the Western Front changed military aviation forever.A good overview of the Air War from the Imperial War Museum: What impact did the First World War have on aircraft and aerial warfare?Photographs of some of the aircraft mentioned in the podcast can be found here: Old Front Line website.Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us a textSupport the show

Windsor became the official surname of the British Royal family on 17th July 1917, when King George V issued a proclamation declaring that “The Name of Windsor is to be borne by His Royal House and Family and Relinquishing the Use of All German Titles and Dignities.” The decision to change the family name came amid strong anti-German feeling following air raids over London, and in particular the bombing of a school in the East End by Gotha bombers - by coincidence, the same name as the royal family. In this episode, Arion, Rebecca and Olly discover who was responsible for picking ‘Windsor' as the family's new name; uncover the Royal Albert Hall's flawed response to the onset of World War One; and reveal the REAL Royal surname… Further Reading: • ‘British royal family change their name to Windsor' (The Guardian, 1917): https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/from-the-archive-blog/2017/jul/17/british-royal-family-windsor-name-change-1917 • ‘Jeremy Paxman: A hundred years of Windsors but still the Queen is partly German (FT, 2017): https://www.ft.com/content/b80a9dde-f1f0-11e6-95ee-f14e55513608 • ‘'The British Royal Family Needed to Seem Less German During WWI' (Smithsonian Channel, 2019): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZaOlJajows This episode originally aired in 2023 Love the show? Support us!  Join 

About seventy-five years ago, scholar Philip Young's “wound theory” revolutionized Hemingway studies with a thesis that argued that Hemingway's entire body of work was a series of responses to the injury he suffered in 1918 during World War One.Young's audacious theory invited a slew of biographical and psychological readings of Hemingway's work. Scholars incorporated trauma theory, ecology, history, and gender. Young inspired generations of scholars and also generated harsh responses, including Hemingway's own vitriolic reaction.Debra Moddelmog, the great Hemingway scholar who studied with Young at Penn State, unpacks the wound theory for us and sheds light on the man who developed it. She describes different applications of the theory, its limitations, the texts it illuminates, and its relevance to 21st-century readings.Join us as we discuss the single most important theoretical model in the history of Hemingway studies and its iconic creator.

Who doesn't like beer? Lots of people, apparently. As Americans sought to remedy the ills plaguing their society, beer was caught in the cross hairs. We tell the story of how the American beer industry rose to defend itself against Progressive Era reforms in a decades-long fight. And it almost worked.Find the full transcript of this episode including citations at our website:https://www.americanhistoryremix.com/episodeguide/american-beer-In this episode we cover…Introduction [0:00-04:01]Beer in Early America [04:01-08:06]Early Reform Movements [08:06-11:54]Beer Responds to Temperance [11:54-12:46]Moderate Success [12:46-14:03]Growth of the Beer Industry [14:03-16:37]Second Wave of Temperance [16:37-17:46]Women, Alcohol, & Women's Rights [17:46-21:30]Beer as Medicine [21:30-24:04]Beer & the Economy [24:04-24:45]Failures of the Second Wave of Temperance [24:45-26:26]Saloons [26:26-30:22]Local Option [30:22-32:29]Pure Food Movement [32:29-36:20]Beer & Pure Food [36:20-37:48]     Tax Revenue & Regulation [37:48-41:18]Beer on the Defense [41:18-42:42]World War One [42:42-44:47]Anti-German Sentiment [44:47-46:23]Beer & WWI [46:23-47:47]Prohibition & Other Reforms [47:47-49:46]Conclusion-To dive deeper into these topics (affiliate links):Stanley Baron, Brewed in America: A History of Beer and Ale in the United States.https://tinyurl.com/Baron-BrewedThomas C. Cochran, The Pabst Brewing Company: The History of an American Business. https://tinyurl.com/Cochran-PabstPerry R. Duis, The Saloon: Public Drinking in Chicago and Boston, 1880-1920.https://tinyurl.com/Duis-The-SaloonRichard F. Hamm, Shaping the Eighteenth Amendment: Temperance Reform, Legal Culture, and the Polity, 1880-1920. https://tinyurl.com/Hamm-ShapingLisa McGirr, The War on Alcohol: Prohibition and the Rise of the American State. https://tinyurl.com/McGirr-The-War-Support the show

For our latest questions submitted by podcast listeners, we examine what my first visit to the battlefields of the Great War with my school meant to me, ask what the Wiltshire Regiment did in the First World War, what sources in English can we look at to understand the German side of WW1 and what did British veterans think of their German foe?Brigadier E.A. James book - British Regiments 1914-1918. Main image: Group portrait of officers of the 1st Battalion, Wiltshire Regiment, after their return from fighting at Thiepval, photographed at Bouzincourt, September 1916. (IWM Q1151 - photo by Ernest Brookes)Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us a textSupport the show

Set in a fictional European republic in the years leading up to World War One, The KingmakerHistories follows an assistant tailor named Colette who becomes the unwitting host for a deadlyalien power source- the Kingmaker Diamond. Hunted by a host of enemies who wish to use herpowers for their own gain, Colette's only hope is to join up with a pair of career criminals andembark on a bizarre road trip, smuggling and thieving across Belle Epoque Europe as she seeks toget rid of her lethal new head-mate.A comedic adventure that is half fantasy and half crime caper, the Kingmaker Histories is a showabout living through interesting times without losing your head. For a full list of cast and credits and more information, go to - https://kingmakershow.podbean.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our latest questions from podcast listeners discuss what role German steel helmets, Stahlhelm, had on the First Day of the Somme, how did Great War veterans feel about WW2, how were women who fell pregnant from British soldiers treated during the conflict, and when we visit British and Commonwealth cemeteries are we walking over the graves of those buried there?For more information on the Battlefield Tours I do: Leger Battlefields.Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us a textSupport the show

Matt, hey, my friends, welcome to the off the wire podcast. My name is Matt Wireman, and with over 25 years of coaching experience, I bring to you a an integrated approach to coaching where we look at mind, body and soul. So this being my little corner of the universe, welcome we cover everything from spiritual formation or the interior life all the way to goal setting and how to make your life better with life hacks, and I cover everything in between. So whatever it fits my fancy, I'm going to share with you, and I'm so thankful for your time, and I hope this episode helps you. All right. Well, hey, welcome, welcome to another episode of Off The Wire. This is Matt, still I haven't changed, but I do have with me, my friend. Really proud to call him a friend. And from seminary days, Dr Josh chatro, who is the Billy Graham chair for evangelism and cultural engagement at Beeson. That's a mouthful. Josh, well done. And then he is also, they just launched a concentration in apologetics at Beeson, which is really exciting. They got a conference coming up this summer. Is that also an apologetics Josh,its own preaching and apologetics? Okay? Awesome.And, and largely, you're also, you're also part of the Tim Keller Center for Cultural apologetics, and then also a, they call them fellows at the Center for Pastor theologians as well. That's right, yeah. And you in, you have been at Beeson for a couple years, because prior to that, you were at a you were heading up. And what was it largely an apologetics group, or was it, was it more broad than that in Raleigh?Yeah, it was. It was much more expansive than that. Evangelism and apologetics is part of what we were doing, but it was the Center for Public Christianity, okay? It was also very much in the work and faith movement. And I was also resident theologian at Holy Trinity Anglican in Raleigh. We were there for five years,excellent and and you don't know this because you don't keep tabs on who bought your book, but I've got every one of your books brother, so every every book you put out, and I'm like, I love this guy, and I'm gonna support him and buy his book. So it started all the way back, if you remember, with truth matters, yeah. And I use that book for one of the classes that I built here where I teach. And then then I want to go through the Litany here and embarrass you a little bit. And then it goes to apologetics, at the Cross Cultural Engagement, telling a better story, surprised by doubt. And then one that you just released called the Augustine way, retrieving a vision for the church's apologetic witness. So do you write much on apologetics? Is that kind of your thing?Yeah, I've written a few books on that.So why? Like, what is it about apologetics that has really captured your heart, in your mind and like, as opposed to just teaching theology, yeah, it's a certain it's a certain stream. If folks are first of all, folks are curious, like, What in the world is apologetics? Are you apologizing to folks? Like, are you saying I'm sorry?Well, I do have to do that. I'm sorry a lot. That's a good practice. That's not quite what apologetics is. Okay. Okay, so we, one of the things I would say is, and when I meet, when I meet up with old friends like you, sometimes they say, What have you been doing? Because we didn't see this coming. And when we were in seminary together, it wasn't as if I was, you know, reading a lot of apologetic works. And so one of the things is,and you weren't picking fights on campus too much. You were always a really kind person. And most, most time, people think of like apologists as, like, real feisty. And you're not a feisty friend. I'm not. I actually, unless you start talking about, like, soccer and stuff like that, right? Yeah,yeah, I'm not. Yeah, I don't. I don't love, I don't love, actually, arguments I'd much rather have, which is an odd thing, and so I need to tell how did I get into this thing? I'd much rather have conversations and dialog and kind of a back and forth that keeps open communication and and because, I actually think this ties into apologetics, most people don't make decisions or don't come to they don't come to any kind of belief simply because they were backed into an intellectual corner. And but now maybe I'll come back to that in a second. But I got into this because I was doing my PhD work while I was pastoring. And when you do yourpH was that in in Raleigh, because you did your PhD work at Southeastern, right?That's right, that's right. But I was actually, we were in southern, uh. In Virginia for the first half, we were in a small town called Surrey. It was, if you know anything about Tim Keller, it was he served in Hopewell, Virginia for seven or nine years before he went to Westminster and then to New York. And we were about 45 minutes from that small town. So if you've read Colin Hansen's book, he kind of gives you some background on what is this, these little communities, and it does, does kind of match up the little community I was serving for two years before moving to another little community in South Georgia to finish while I was writing. And so I pastored in both locations. So these aren't particularly urban areas, and yet, people in my church, especially the young people, were asking questions about textual criticism, reliability of the Bible.Those are any topics forfolks like, yeah, something happened called the Internet, yes. All of a sudden now, things that you would, you would get to, maybe in your, you know, thm, your your master's level courses, or even doctoral level courses. Now 1819, year old, 20 year olds or 50 year olds had questions about them because they were reading about some of this stuff on the internet. And because I was working on a PhD, I was actually working on a PhD in biblical theology and their New Testament scholar, people would come to me as if I'm supposed to know everything, or you know. And of course, of course, when you're studying a PhD, you're you're in a pretty narrow kind of world and very narrow kind of lane. And of course, I didn't know a lot of things, but I was, I kind of threw myself into, how do I help people with these common questions. So it wasn't as if, it wasn't as if I was saying, oh, I want to study apologetics. I kind of accidentally got there, just because of really practical things going on in my church context. And and then as I was reading and I started writing in response to Bart Ehrman, who is a is a agnostic Bible scholar. Wrote four or five New York Times bestsellers, uh, critical of the New Testament, critical of the Bible, critical of conservative Christianity. I started writing those first two books. I wrote with some senior scholars. I wrote in response. And then people said, so your apologist? And I said, Well, I guess I am. And so that, yeah, so I'm coming at this I'm coming at this area, not because I just love arguments, but really to help the church really with really practical questions. And then as I began to teach it, I realized, oh, I have some different assumptions coming at this as a pastor, also as a theologian, and trained in biblical theology. So I came with a, maybe a different set of lenses. It's not the only set of lens. It's not the it's not the only compare of lenses that that one might take in this discipline, but that's some of my vocational background and some of my kind of journey that brought me into apologetics, and in some ways, has given me a little bit different perspective than some of the dominant approaches or dominant kind of leaders in the area.That's great. Well, let's go. Let's get after it. Then I'm gonna just throw you some doozies and see how we can rapid fire just prove all of the things that that are in doubt. So here we go. Okay, you ready? How do we know that God exists?Yeah, so that word no can have different connotations. So maybe it would be better to ask the question, why do we believe God exists? Oh,don't you do that? You're you can't, you can't just change my question. I was kidding. Well, I think, I think you bring up a great point, is that one of the key tasks in apologetics is defining of terms and understanding like, Okay, you asked that question. But I think there's a question behind the question that actually is an assumption that we have to tease out and make explicit, right? Because, I mean, that's, that's part of you. So I think sometimes people get into this back and forth with folks, and you're like, Well, you have assumptions in your question. So go ahead, you, you, you go ahead and change my question. So how do we knowthe issue is, is there is that when we say something like, you know, we people begin to imagine that the way Christianity works is that we need to prove Christianity in the way we might prove as Augustine said this in confessions, four plus six equals 10. And Augustine, early church father, and he's writing, and he's writing about his own journey. He said I really had to get to the point where I realized this is not how this works. Yeah, we're not talking about, we do not one plus one, our way to God.Yeah. And when is Augustine writing about When? When? So people are, yeah, 397,at. This point. So he's writing right at the, you know, right right before the fifth century, okay? And, and, of course, Augustine famously said, we have to believe to understand, for most believers, God is intuitive, or what? Blaise Pascal, the 17th century Christian philosopher He called this the logic of the heart. Or I can just cite a more contemporary figure, Alvin planeta, calls this basic belief that. He says that belief in God is a basic belief, and and for So, for for many believers, they would say something like this. And I think there's validity in this so is that God just makes sense, even if, even if they haven't really worked out arguments that they they say, Well, yeah, this God makes sense to me. Now I can kind of begin to explore that. I will in just a second, but I just want to say there's, for most of your listeners, it's something like, I heard the gospel and this and the stories of Jesus, and I knew they were true, right? And as kind of insiders here, we would say that's the Spirit's work. The Holy Spirit is working, and God speaks through creation and his word, and people believe. And so that's that's why we believe now, of course, once we say that people have these kinds of intuitions, or as theologians would put it, this sense of God kind of built into them, I would want to say, as an apologist, or even as a pastor, just a minister, you don't have to be apologist to say this is that we can appeal to those intuitions and make arguments in many different types of ways. Well,hold on one second. Isn't that a little too simplistic, though? Because, I mean, you have the Greeks who believed in all the different gods, and the Romans who adopted those gods and changed their names and like, how do we assimilate that? You know, where, you know Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins famously say, Well, I don't, I don't believe in Zeus. So does that make me an atheist? It would have made me an atheist back in, you know, you know Roman and Latin and Greek times. So, so there's an intuition, but, but how do we delineate that? Well, that's not the right object of that intuition.Like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So we have this intuition, you know, we could say Romans, Romans, one is pointing us to, this is what I would argue, this sense of God, and yet we're, we're fallen, according to the Christian story. And so even though we have this sense of God, we suppress that, and we worship false gods, or we worship the created, rather than the Creator. So the Christian story as a as a Christian, helps make sense of both the kind of why? Well, although we have this sense this, there's this common sense of God, it goes in many different directions and and I would argue that even if you deny kind of transcendence altogether, you're still going to have you're going to still make something kind of a god. You're going to you're going to want to worship something. And I think that's that's part of the point of Romans, one, you end up going to worship the created rather than the Creator. So does that get out what you're asking Matt or Yeah,I think so. I think sometimes the arguments that are real popular, even now is like, well, I just don't, I just don't, I just don't believe that God exists, just like I don't believe that Zeus exists, like, what's, what's the big deal? Why? Why are you so adamant that I believe in that God exists? Like to because I don't, I don't know that God exists because I don't see him. So how would you respond to somebody who says, Well, this Intuit intuition that that you say we all have, and that Romans one says we have, I just don't buy it, you know, because, I mean, I'm, I wouldn't believe that Zeus exists, because there's no empirical evidence to show me otherwise. So how would you respond to somebody that's equivocating or saying that, you know, Yahweh of the Old Testament, the God of the, you know, the God of the Bible is, this is just a tribal deity, just like Zeus is. So, how should we? Iwould, I would say so. So I think we can make kind of arguments for some kind of for transcendence. So there's ways to make arguments against naturalism. That's that's what's being promoted. And there's various different kinds of, you know. So sometimes these kinds of arguments that are in the Christian tradition are used to say, hey, we're going to prove God's existence using these arguments. I think I'm not. Are typically comfortable with the language of prove and how it's used in our context today, again, we get into the math, kind of two plus two equals four. Kind of thinking, yep. But I think a lot of those arguments are appealing to both intuitions and they they work much more effectively as anti naturalistic arguments. Not so much saying, Okay, we know a particular God through, say, the moral argument, okay, that we're but, but it's arguing against simply a naturalistic, materialistic. You know, even Evans, who's a longtime professor at Baylor, makes this argument that those, those types of arguments are really good against pushing back against naturalism. So plan again, has a famous argument that says, if naturalism and evolutionary theory are both true because of how evolution theory works, it's not about right thinking, but right action that you perform certain things to survive. Then, if both of those are true, you have no reason to trust your kind of cognitive faculties.Can you tease that one out a little bit? I kind of lost on that one. He said,What planet is arguing? Is he saying? Look, if, if all of our kind of cognitive faculties are just a product of evolution, okay? And by the way, not only does it's not just a plan. Ago makes this argument, it's actually kind of interesting figures who were like Nietzsche and others made this argument that basically, if, if evolution and naturalism is true that all we are is energy and manner and this product of evolutionary process, then we would have no reason to actually trust kind of our rationality, and that's what rationality is actually mapping onto reality. All of our our brains and our minds are really just producing certain conclusions to help us survive. So it would undercut the very foundations of that position. Now again, yeah, being able to observe, yeah, yeah. So, so with that, again, I think that's an example of an argument that doesn't so much. You know, say this is the Christian God. This supports the belief in Christian God. But what it does is it from within their own thinking. It challenges that. It undercuts their own way of thinking, which is what you're assuming and what you're kind of pushing back on, is a kind of naturalistic world. And I think we can step within that try to understand it and then challenge it on its own terms. And I think that's the real strength of planning this argument. What he's doing now, go ahead.Well, that's it, yeah, in his, in his, like, the the Opus is, uh, warranted. Christian belief is that what you're referencing the the big burgundy book.I can't remember where he makes this argument? Yeah, I can'tremember exactly. But like, if all your cognitive faculties are working, somebody who believes that God exists does not mean that they does not negate all of the other cognitive faculties that they're like if they're in their rational mind, that they have warrants for their belief. But, but that's what I what I think, where I'm tracking with you, and I love this is that even like, it still holds true, right? Like there's not one silver bullet argument to say now we know, like, that's what you were challenging even in the question is, how do you know that you know that you know that God exists? Well, you have to layer these arguments. And so this is one layer of that argument that even the Greeks and the Romans had a sense of transcendence that they were after, and they identified them as gods. But there's this other worldliness that they're trying to attribute to the natural world that they observe, that they can't have answers for, and that we can't observe every occurrence of reality, that there has to be something outside of our box, so to speak, out of our naturalistic tendencies. And so even that can be helpful to say, well, that kind of proves my point that even the Greeks and the Romans and other tribal deities, they're after something outside of our own experience that we can experience in this box. Yeah, that'sright. And there's a, I mean again, this, this argument, isn't intellectually coercive, and I don't think any of these are intellectually coercive. What I mean by that is you can find ways out. And so the approach I would take is actually called an abductive approach, which says, Okay, let's put everything on the table, and what best makes sense, what best makes sense, or what you know, what story best explains all of this? And so that way, there's a lot of different angles you can take depending on who you're talking to, yep, and and so what one of the, one of the ways to look at this and contemporary anthropology? Psycho psychologists have done work on this, to say, the kind of standard, what we might call natural position in all of human history, is that there's there's transcendence. That's, it's just the assumption that there's transcendence. Even today, studies have been shown even people who grow kids, who grew up in a secular society will kind of have these intuitions, like, there is some kind of God, there is some kind of creator, designer. And the argument is that you actually have to have a certain kinds of culture, a particular culture that kind of habituate certain thinking, what, what CS Lewis would call, a certain kind of worldly spell to to so that those intuitions are saying, Oh no, there's not a god. You know, there's not transcendence. And so the kind of common position in all of human history across various different cultures is there is some kind of transcendence. It takes a very particular, what I would say, parochial, kind of culture to say, oh, there's probably no there. There's not. There's, of course, there's not. In fact, Charles Taylor, this is the story he wants to tell of how did we get here, at least in some secular quarters of the West, where it was just assumed, of course, there's, of course, there's a God to 500 years of to now, and at least some quarters of the West, certain, certain elite orsecular? Yeah? Yeah, people. And even then, that's a minority, right? This is not a wholesale thing, yeah.It seems to be. There's something, well, even Jonathan height, uh, he's an atheist, says, has acknowledged that there seems to be something in humans. That's something like what Pascal called a God shaped hole in our heart, and so there's this kind of, there's this deep intuition. And what I'm wanting to do is, I'm wanting in my arguments to kind of say, okay, given this as a Christian, that I believe we have this sense of God and this intuition of God, these intuitions, I want to appeal to those intuitions. And so there's a moral order to the universe that people just sense that there is a right and wrong. There's certain things that are right and certain things are wrong, even if a culture says it is, it is, it is fine to kill this group of people, that there's something above culture, that even there's something above someone's personal preference, that is their moral order to the universe. Now, given that deep seated intuition, what you might call a first principle, what makes best sense of that, or a deep desire, that that, that nothing in the universe seems to satisfy that we have. This is CS Lewis's famous argument. We have these desires, these natural desires for we get thirsty and there's there's water, we get hungry and there's food, and yet there's this basically universal or worldwide phenomenon where people desire something more, that they try to look for satisfaction in this world and they can't find it. Now, what best explains that? And notice what I'm doing there, I'm asking that the question, what best explains it? Doesn't mean there's, there's not multiple explanations for this, but we're saying, What's the best explanation, or profound sense that something doesn't come from nothing, that intelligence doesn't come from non intelligence, that being doesn't come from non being. Yeah, a deep sense that there's meaning and significance in life, that our experience with beauty is not just a leftover from an earlier primitive stage of of evolution. And so we have these deep experiences and intuitions and ideas about the world, and what I'm saying is particularly the Christian story. So I'm not, I'm not at the end, arguing for just transcendence or or kind of a generic theism, but I'm saying particularly the Christian story, best, best answers. Now, I'm not saying that other stories can't incorporate and say something and offer explanations, but it's a, it's a really a matter of, you know, you might say out narrating or or telling the Gospel story that maps on to the ways we're already intuiting about the world, or experiencing or observing the world.Yeah, so, so going along with that, so we don't have, like, a clear cut case, so to speak. We have layers of argument, and we appeal to what people kind of, in their heart of hearts, know, they don't have to like, they have to be taught otherwise. Almost like, if you talk to a child, they can't, they kind of intuit that, oh, there's something outside, like, Who created us? Like, who's our mom? You know, like, going back into the infinite regress. It's like, okay, some something came from nothing. How does that even how is that even possible? So there has to be something outside of our. Experience that caused that to happen. So, so say you, you go there, and then you help people. Say, help people understand. Like, I can't prove God's existence, but I can argue that there are ways of explaining the world that are better than other ways. So then, how do you avoid the charge that, well, you basically are a really proud person that you think your religion is better than other religions. How, how could you dare say that when you can't even prove that you're you know? So how? How would you respond to somebody who would say, like, how do you believe? Why do you believe that Christianity is a one true religion? Yeah, um,well, I would say a couple of things. One is that, in some sense, everyone is staking out some kind of claim. So even if you say you can't say that one religion is true or one one religion is the one true religion, that is a truth claim that you're staking out. And I think it's fine that this for someone to say that they just need to realize. I mean, I think they're wrong, but I think they're they're making a truth claim. I'm making a truth claim. Christians are making truth so we're, we all think we're right, and that's fine. That's fine, but, but then we but then once you realize that, then you're not saying, Well, you think you're right, but I just, I'm not sure, or it's arrogant to say you're right. I think, of course, with some some things, we have more levels of confidence than other things. And I think that's the other thing we can say with Christian with as Christians, it's saying, Hey, I believe, I believe in the resurrection. I believe in the core doctrines of Christianity. It doesn't mean that everything I might believe about everything is right. It doesn't even mean all my arguments are are even 100% always the best arguments, or I could be wrong about a particular argument and and I'm also not saying that you're wrong about everything you're saying. Okay, so, but what we are saying is that, hey, I I believe Jesus is who he said he was, and you're saying he's not okay. Let's have a conversation. But it's not, rather, it's not a matter of somebody being air. You know, you can hold those positions in an arrogant way. But simply saying, I believe this isn't in itself arrogance, at least, I think how arrogance is classically defined, yeah. And what is this saying? I believe this, and I believe, I believe what Jesus said about himself. And I can't go around and start kind of toying with with, if I believe he's Lord, then it's really not up to me to say, okay, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna, kind of take some of what he said, but not all of what he said. If you actually believe he rose from the dead and he is Lord and He is God, then then you take him at his word.What is it, as you think about cultural engagement, cultural apologetics that you've written on like, what is it in our cultural moment right now where people you say that thing, like Jesus said, You know, he, he, he said, I'm God, you know, not those explicit words, right? That's some of the argument. Like, no, but you look at the narrative he did, and that's why he was going to be stoned for blasphemy. That's why all these things. But that's, that's another conversation for another day. But, and then you talk to someone, you're like, Well, I don't believe he was God. I don't believe His claims were. Like, why then do you do we oftentimes find ourselves at a standstill, and people just throw up their hands like, well, that's your truth, and my truth is, I just don't, like, just don't push it on me. Like, why do we find ourselves in this? And it's not new. I mean, this is something that goes back to, you know, hundreds of years ago, where people are making arguments and they're like, Well, I just don't know. So I'm gonna be a transcendentalist, or I'm gonna be a deist, or I'm gonna whatever. So how do we kind of push back on that a little bit to say, No, it's not what we're talking about. Is not just a matter of preference, and it's not just a matter of, hey, my truth for me and your truth for you. But we're actually making it a claim that is true for all people. Like, how do we kind of encourage people to push into that tendency that people have to just throw up their hands and say, whatever? Pass the piece, you know? Well,okay, so I think let me answer that in two ways. One's philosophically, and then two are practically. One philosophically. I do think it's, you know, CS Lewis was on to this, as he often was way ahead of the curve on certain things, but on an abolition of man. When he talked, he's talking about the fact value distinction and how we've separated. You know, you have your facts, and then everything you know, where, classically, you would kind of recognize that courage, you know, is a virtue, and that's, it's a, it's a, it's also a fact that we should pursue courage and rather than just my preference of kind of and so there's actually. Be this, but now we have, well, that's a value, kind of courage, and say you should do something, but it's, it's, that's your value and and so we have this distinction between facts, which is, follow the science, and then values over here. And as that has opened up. You have both a kind of, on one hand, a very, very much, a people saying in a very kind of hard, rationalistic way, you know, science has said, which, that would be another podcast to kind of dive into that more science is good and, yeah, and, but science doesn't say anything. So I'm a fan of science, but it doesn't say anything. We interpret certain things, but, but so you can kind of have a hard rationalism, but you also combine with a kind of relativism, or at least a soft relativism that says, Well, this is my truth, because values become subjective. So that's the philosophical take. But the kind of practical thing, I would say, is they need people. One of the reasons people do that is because, it's because they've seen kind of these to reference what you're talking about earlier this hey, this person's coming in wanting to talk about my worldview, and it just becomes this fierce, awkward encounter, and I don't want anything to do with that type of thing, like I don't, I don't want to go down the dark corners of of the Internet to have these, to have these intellectual just like Charles Taylor says, a lot of the kind of arguments are, I have three reasons why your position is untenable. He says something like untenable, wrong and totally immoral. Now, let's have a conversation. It just and so it's kind of like, no thanks. I don't think I want to have that conversation. You do you. And so there's, there is a part that, culturally, something is going on which needs to be confronted. And Lewis was doing that work, and a lot of philosophers have followed him in that but there's also a side of of maybe where our own worst enemies here, and the way that we try to engage people, and where we start with people, and we think, Okay, let's start in this kind of, you know, apologetic wrestling match with people. And a lot of times, people are just looking to cope. People are just looking to survive. They have mental health issues going on, and they don't want another one to pop up because of the apologist. And so they're just looking to try to skirt that conversation and get to feeding their kids or dealing with their angry neighbor. And so we've got to kind of take stock on kind of where people are at, and then how to engage them with where they're at. Now I'm going to apologize. I think all of those arguments are helpful in a certain context, but a lot of times, we've been our own worst enemy, and how we try to try to engage so what I what I encourage students and ministers to do is is start talking about people's stories, and you know how life is going and where what's hard, and asking really good questions, and kind of having a holy curiosity and and often, I was in an encounter with a guy who came up to me after a kind of a university missions thing, and he was an atheist, and he wanted to talk about the moral argument. And I was happy to do that for a few minutes, but then I just asked him. I said, what you know, what do you love to do? Tell me about yourself, and where do you really find joy in life? And he looked at me, and he started to tear up, and he said, You know, I'm really lonely right now, you know, go figure this moment in our world, the kind of fragmented world we live in. And he said, what's really meaningful to me is my is my pet, because he provides solace. And there's this moment where, of course, I mean, here's an atheist wanting to show up at a Christian event, right? And because Christians were nice to him, and he's deeply lonely, and we got to have a pretty meaningful conversation about, you know, the benefits of following Christ in the community, communion with not only God, but with others, yeah, but if I would have just left it at, let's go to the more we would have never got there. But it took me kind of asking the question, which is, in essence, what I was trying to ask is what, I didn't put it like this, but what are you seeking? What are you really after here? And where are you really getting joy in life, and what's going on? And I if we can learn to go there, I think we'll have much more productive conversations. And then just kind of, I heard chatro talk about the, you know, ontological argument. Now let me throw that out there at somebody. I think that's why apologists and apologetics have sometimes been given a bad name. But if you. Actually look at the tradition, the the larger tradition. There's so many resources, and there's so many people, apologists, doing lots of different things, that I think gives us kind of way to actually engage people where they're at.Yeah, yeah. No, that's great. Well, I It reminds me, I believe it was Schaefer who talked about the the greatest apologetic, at least his time, and I think it stands true even now, is welcoming people and being hospitable towards people, welcoming the questions, not looking at folks as adversaries, but fellow pilgrims. And then you welcome them into that space, into that community. And then they're they see that, quite frankly, the faith works. The Christian ethic actually works, albeit imperfect, by imperfect people in imperfect ways. But you know, as we go through pain and suffering, as we go through, you know, elation and disappointment, like there's still a lot that that we can demonstrate to the world through our testimony that it works. You know, so to speak. So I'd love to hear you kind of help walk us through how the Christian story tells a better story about pain and suffering, because that's that's a fact of every person listening is that there's some modicum of pain and suffering in their life at any moment. And then you look at the grand scale of the world and all these things, but just even we can go down to the individual level of the why is there pain and suffering in my life and in the world and, you know, in general. But I like, like for you to just kind of riff on that for a little bit for us, to helpus, yeah. And in some ways, this question, and the apologetic question is a kind of real, a snapshot into the into what we're talking about with, how do we respond to that? Not just as Okay, an intellectual question, yeah, yeah, but it's also a profoundly experiential question. And there's youmean, you mean, and how, in the moment when you're saying, in the moment when somebody asks you the question, not getting defensive, but being being willing to listen to the question, Is that what you mean by that? And yeah,well, what I mean is, that's certainly true. Matt, what I was really thinking, though, is how this is not just something kind of an abstract, intellectual question. Oh, okay, but it's a profound experiential and there's different angles that we might take into it. But I mean, as a kind of snapshot or a test case in our apologetic is, I think there's ways to answer that question that are sterile, that are overly academic, and I and that also, I would say, rushes in to give an answer. And I would want to argue that Christianity doesn't give an answer to evil and suffering, but it gives a response. And let me make, let me explain that, yeah, is, is an answer. Tries in the way I'm using it, at least tries to say, I'm going to solve this kind of intellectual problem, and the problem of evil and suffering in the world, of why a good God who's all powerful would allow the kind of evil and suffering we see in the world is, is one that we might say, Okay, now there's the problem. Now let me give the solution. And this is often done, and we've you maybe have been in this if you're listening into a certain context where a kind of famous apologist says, Here is the answer, or famous Christian celebrity says, Here is the answer to evil, and this solves all the problems, until you start thinking about it a little bit more, or you go home, or three or four years, and you grow out of that answer and and so I think we need to be real careful here when we say we have the answer, because if you keep pushing that question back in time, or you start asking questions like, well, that that bullet that hit Hitler in World War One and didn't kill him? What if the God of the Bible, who seems to control the wind and everything, would have just blown it over and killed Hitler. It seems like maybe it could have been a better possible world if Hitler, you know, didn't lead the Holocaust. Okay, so, so again, I think, I think pretty quickly you begin to say, Okay, well, maybe some of these theodicies Don't actually solve everything, although I would say that some of the theodicies that are given things like free will, theodicy or or the kind of theodicies that say God uses suffering to to grow us and develop us. And I think there's truth in all of that, and there's but what it does. What none of them do is completely solve the problem. And so I think that there's value in those theodicies in some extent.Hey, did you know that you were created to enjoy abundance? I'm not talking about getting the latest pair of Air Jordans or a jet plane or whatever that this world says that you have to have in order to be happy. Instead, I'm talking about an abundant life where you are rich in relationships, you're rich in your finances, but you are rich in life in general, that you are operating in the calling that God has for you, that He created you for amazing things. Did you know that? And so many times we get caught up in paying our mortgage and running hither and yon, that we forget that in this world of distractions that God has created you for glorious and amazing things and abundant life. If you would like to get a free workbook, I put one together for you, and it's called the my new rich life workbook. If you go to my new rich life.com my new rich life.com. I would be glad to send you that workbook with no strings attached, just my gift to you to help you. But here'sthe thing, here's what I want to go back to with a question. Is that the Odyssey as we know it, or this? And what I'm using theodicy for is this, this responsibility that that we feel like we have to justify the ways of God, is a particularly modern phenomenon. I think this is where history comes and helps us. Charles Taylor talks about this in that the kind of way we see theodicy and understand theodicy was really developed in the middle of the 1700s with figures like Leibniz, and then you have particularly the Lisbon earthquakes in the middle of the 18th century. And that was this kind of 911 for that context. And in this 911 moment, you have philosophers being saying, Okay, how do we justify the ways of God? And are trying to do it in a very kind of this philosophical way to solve the problem. But from for most of human history and history of the West, of course, evil and suffering was a problem, but it wasn't a problem so much to be solved, but it was a problem to to cope with and and and live in light of, in other words, what you don't have in the Bible is Job saying, Okay, well, maybe God doesn't exist. Or the psalmist saying, maybe God doesn't exist because I'm experiencing this. No, they're ticked off about it. They're not happy about it. They're struggling to cope with it. It is, it is a problem, but it's not, then therefore a problem. That says, well, then God doesn't exist. Yeah. And it didn't become a widespread kind of objection against God's very existence, until certain things have happened in the kind of modern psyche, the kind of modern way of imagining the world. And here is what's happened. This is what Charles Taylor says. Is that Taylor says what happened is kind of slowly through through different stages in history, but but in some sorry to be gloved here, but it's, it's a very kind of, you know, long argument. But to get to the point is, he says our view of God became small, and our view of humans became really big. And so God just came became kind of a bigger view of version of ourselves. And then we said, oh, if there is a reason for suffering and evil, we should be able to know it, because God's just a bigger kind of version of us, and he has given us rational capacities. And therefore if we can't solve this, then there must not be a god. That's kind of where the logic goes. And of course, if you step into the biblical world, or what I would say a more profoundly Christian way of looking at it is God. God isn't silent, and God has spoken, has given us ways to cope and live with suffering and ways to understand it. But what he what he doesn't give us, is that we're going to he actually promises that, that we're not going to fully understand His ways that, that we're going to have to trust Him, even though we can't fully understand why he does what he does in history all the time. And so this leads into what, what's actually called. There's, this is a, this is a weird name if you're not in this field, but it's called skeptical theism. I'm a skeptical theist. And what skeptical theists Are you is that we're not skeptical about God, but we're skeptical about being able to neatly answer or solve the problem of evil. But we actually don't think that's as big of a deal, because, simply because. I don't understand why God, God's simply because I don't understand God's reasons. Doesn't mean he doesn't have reasons. Yeah, yeah. Andso just beyond your the your finite, uh, temporo spatial understanding of things, right? Like you don't understand how this horrible situation plays out in a grander narrative,right? So it's Stephen wickstra. He had this famous argument. I'll riff off of it a little bit. I mean, just metaphor. He says, if you have a if you have a tent, and we go camping together, Matt and and I open the tent and say, there's a giant dog in there. And you look in there, there's no dog, you would say, Yeah, you're either crazy or a liar. But if I open the tent and say there's tiny bugs in there, and they're called no see ums, you wouldn't, you wouldn't know. You wouldn't be in a position to know. You wouldn't be in an epistemological position to know whether there's a bug in there or not. So you would simply have to decide whether you're going to trust me or not. And then, you know, the claim of the non Christian might be, well, yeah, why would I trust the God given the kind of crap that I see in the world? And I would say, well, a couple reasons. One is most profoundly because God has entered into this world. He has not sat on the sidelines. So even though we don't fully understand it, he has in the person of Jesus Christ, he has suffered with us and for us. So this is a God who says, I haven't given you all the answers, but I have given you myself. And that's I think both has some rational merit to it, and profoundly some intellectual merit to that. I'd also say that the Christian story actually gets at some deep intuitions, kind of underneath this challenge or this problem. It was CS Lewis, who was an atheist in World War One, and and he was very angry at God because of the evil and violence and his his mom dying at an early age, and was an atheist. But then he realized that in his anger against God, that he was assuming a certain standard, a certain kind of moral standard, about how the world should be, that there is evil in the world and that it shouldn't be so, and this deep intuition that it shouldn't be so that certain things aren't right. Actually, you don't have if you do away with God's existence, you just you have your preferences. But in a world of just energy and matter, why would the world not be absurd? Why would you expect things not to be like this. Why would you demand them not to be like this?So a deeply embedded sense of morality that can't be explained by naturalism is what you're getting, yeah?That that we have a certain problem here, or certain challenge with not fully being able to answer the question, yeah, but they have, I would say, a deeper challenge, that they don't have even the kind of categories to make sense of the question. So that's those are some of the directions I would go, and it's first stepping inside and kind of challenging against some of the assumptions. But then I'm as you, as you can tell, then I'm going to say how the Christian story does make sense of these deep intuitions, our moral intuitions, that are underneath the problem, or the challenge of evil and suffering. And then also going to Jesus in the Gospel. And the Gospel story,one of the questions I had on our on the list of questions was, how do we know the Bible is true? But I want to delve into more of this understanding of doubt and how that plays, because you've written a lot on this. But I'd like, could you just direct us to some resources, or some folks, if folks are interested in, how do we know the Bible is true? I'm thinking real popular apologist right now is Wesley. Huff is a great place to go. But are there other like, hey, how do I know that the Bible is true? Because you keep appealing to Christianity, which is in for is the foundation of that is the Bible. So could you give us a few resources so people could chase those down.Peter Williams has written a couple little good books on the Gospels. AndPeter Williams Williams, he's in Cambridge, right, orTyndale house, over there and over the pond. And he's written a book on the Gospels. And I can't think of the name, but if you put it on the internet, it'll show up. And the genius of Jesus as well. Okay, little books, and I think both of those are helpful as far as the Gospels go. Richard, Richard balcom is really good on this, Jesus and the eyewitnesses. As well as a little book that most people haven't heard of. It's a, it's an introduction to the Gospels in that off in an Oxford series, which is, you know, kind of a brief introduction to the Gospels. And he, especially at the very beginning, he gives us John Dixon, who's at Wheaton now, has written a lot of good books on on on this. And it's got this series called skeptics guide to and it does both Old Testament and New Testament kind of stuff. So that little series is, is really helpful. So those are some places I would start. And in my books, I typically have, you know, chapters on this, but I haven't, haven't written, you know, just one book, just on this. The early books, truth matters and truth in a culture of doubt, were, were engaging Bart airman. But really, Bart airman not to pick on on Airmen, but just because he was such a representative of a lot of the the views that that we were hearing, he ended up being a good kind of interlocutor. In those I would just say, I know you didn't. You just asked for books. And let me just say one thing about this is I, I think if you are trying to engage, I think if you take the approach of, let me prove the Bible, let me take everything and just, yeah, I don't think that's the best way. I think you often have to give people some you know, whether it's, you know, the beginning of Luke's Gospel, where he's saying, This is how I went about this. And I actually did my homework to kind of say, this is at least the claim of the gospel writers say, and then, but the real way that you you come to see and know, is you have to step into it and read it. And I think one of the apologetic practices I would want to encourage, or just evangelistic practices, is is offering to read the gospels with people and and working through it. And then certain things come up as you read them, apologetically that you'll, you'll want to chase down and use some of those resources for but I think often it's, it's saying, hey, the claims are, at least that, you know, these guys have done their homework and and some of the work Richard welcome is doing is saying, you know, the Gospel traditions were, were were pinned within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and this. And so that's some of the work that that balcom has helpfully done that kind of help us get off the ground in some of these conversations.Would that be your go to gospel Luke or, like, if you're walking with players, or a go to like,some people say more because of the shortness or John, I I'm happy with them. Allfour should be in the canon. Yeah, no, that's great. And I think a couple other books I'm thinking of Paul Wagner's from text from text to translation, particularly deals with Old Testament translation issues, but then text critical pieces, but then also FF. Bruce's canon of Scripture is a real, solid place to go, if people are interested in those big pieces, but those, I mean, yeah, Richard Bauckham work was really helpful for me when I was like, How do I even know, you know the starting place is a good starting place. So, yeah, thank you for that. Sowhat the challenge is, people have got to make up their mind on Jesus. Yeah. I mean, I think that's where I want to kind of triage conversations and say, Hey, I know the Bible is a big book and there's a lot going on. First things you gotta make a call on. So that's where I'm going to focus on, the Gospels. That'sgreat. No, that's great. Well, you know, a lot of times you, and you've mentioned this earlier, that sometimes in our attempts to give reasons for our faith, we can come to simplistic answers like, Okay, this is, here you go. Here's the manuscript evidence, for example. Or, hey, here's the evidence for the resurrection. Oh, here. You know, this is pain and suffering, Romans, 828, you know, having these quick answers. And I think it stems from a desire to want to have a foundation for what we stand on. But a lot of times, and I think what we're seeing in our culture, and this is not anything new, this topic of deconstruction is not really a new topic is, you know, it's what's been called in the past, apostasy, or just not believing anymore. But now it's gotten a more, you know, kind of sharper edges to it. And and I would love for you to you know how you would respond to someone who is deconstructing from their faith because it didn't allow for doubt or because they were raised in perhaps a really strict Christian home. So how would you respond to somebody who says, I don't I don't like the. Had answers anymore, and I don't, you know, it's just too simplistic, and it doesn't, it's not satisfying. So how would you, because I encounter a lot of folks that are in that vein, the ones who are deconstructing, it's, it's not, you know, there's definitely intellectual arguments, but there's something else in back of that too, I think. So I'd love to hear you just kind of, how would you respond to someone who is deconstructing or has deconstructed in their faith?Yeah, yeah. And of course not. In that situation, my first response it's going to be, tell me more. Let's, let's talk more. I want to hear, I want to hear your story. I want to hear your deconversion story, or where you're at and and to have some real curiosity. Rather than here, let me tell you what your problem is. And let me tellyou, yeah, you just don't want to believe because you got some secret sin or something. Yeah? Oh, goodnessno. I mean, it's right faith, unbelief and doubt is complex, and there's lots of forms of doubt. And we use that word I mean, it has quite the semantic range, and we use in lots of different ways. And of course, the Bible, by no means, is celebrating doubt. The Bible, it's, you know, that we is saying we should have faith. It calls us to faith, not to doubt, but doubt seems to be a couple things to say. We talk about, we talk about ourselves as Christians, as new creations in Christ, but we also recognize that we still sin, we still we still have sinful habits. We're still sinful, and in the same way we we we believe, but we can struggle with doubt, and that's a reality. And it seems to me that that doesn't mean, though, that then we celebrate doubt, as if doubts this great thing, no, but at the same time, we need to be realistic and honest that we do. And there's certain things culturally that have happened, because we now live in a pluralistic world where people seem very sane and rational and and lovely, and they believe radically different things than we do. And just that proximity, Peter Berger, the late sociologist, did a lot of work on this area. This is just it. It creates these kinds of this kind of contestability, because, well, we could imagine even possibly not believing, or kids not believing, in a way that, again, 500 years ago, you know you Luther was wrestling with whether the Roman Catholic Church had everything right, but he wasn't wrestling and doubting the whole the whole thing, yeah, God. So that creates certain pressures that I think we need to be honest about, and but, but with, and part of that honesty, I think, in that kind of conversation to say, Hey, you're not alone and you're not just simply crazy because you're you're raising some of these things because, I mean, that's in many ways, understandable. Yeah, okay, yeah. I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's understandable. And I hear what you're saying, and I'm, let's talk about it now. The the kind of metaphor that that I use is to think about Christianity as a house. Of course, that's not my metaphor. I'm I'm borrowing from CS Lewis, who talked about Christianity as a house and in Mere Christianity, Lewis said he wanted to get people through non Christians into the hallway, and so he wanted to get them into the door so that they would and then they could pick up a particular tradition, they could enter a room. But his approach in Mere Christianity was to represent kind of the whole house. And what I think is happening in many cases is that people, now, I'm riffing off of his metaphor, people in the church. People have raised in the church, so they've grew up their whole life in the house, but it's actually in the what I would call the attic. And the attic as as I talk about it is, is in the house. It's, it's a Christian community, but it was, it was many times they're built out of a kind of reactionary posture against culture, without a deep connection to the rest of the house. It's kind of like, Hey, we're scared, and understandably so, the kind of decadent morality, certain shifts happening in the west with Can you giveus a couple examples of what you're thinking like? What would a person living in the attic like? What would their tradition kind of. Look like,yeah. So a couple of things. One in response to, in some cases, in response to the kind of intellectual movements, the kind of sex, secular and, you know, thinking they would say, you know, intellectualism is bad, that would be one response from the attic, like, don't worry about, you know, thinking. Just believe your problem is you're just thinking too much. So that would be one response, a kind of anti intellectualism. The other response is what I would call a kind of, depending on what kind of mood I'm in, I would call it a kind of quasi intellectual that, and that sounds harsh that I say what kind of mood I'm in, but a kind of quasi intellectual response, which is like, Oh, you want arguments. You want evidence. We'll give you two plus two equals equals God, and we'll kind of match, you know, fire with fire, and we can prove God's existence. And oftentimes, those kinds of apologetic reactions, I would call them, sometimes they're kind of quasi intellectual, because I don't think that's how the kind of bit we come to the big decisions. I don't think it's rational enough about a rationality about kind of what type of humans we are, and how we come to the big decisions and the big truths and and so I think that's one response, and that's why you have a kind of industry of apologetics sometimes. And the way they do it, I'm not saying in some ways it can be helpful, but in other ways, it can cause problems down down the road, and we've seen that at least, like, for instance, with the evil and suffering kind of conversation we were having before. If people say, actually, those arguments actually don't make, don't fully do what they were. We you claim too much for your arguments. Let's just say, like that. Okay, so that's one kind of, so there's a there's a kinds of, well, Christianity, in that side can kind of become this kind of intellectual, sterile work where you're just kind of trying to prove God, rather than this, than this way of life, where does worship come in? Where does devotion come in? What is And so very quickly it becomes, you know, this intellectual game, rather than communion with the living God. And so the emphasis understandably goes a certain way, but I would say understandably wrong goes a certain way, and that argument should be part of this deeper life of faith that we live and so we again, I'm wanting to say the motives aren't necessarily, aren't wrong, but where we get off because we're too reactionary, can go off. Let me give you one other ones. And I would say, like the purity culture would be another kind of side of this where we see a morally decadent culture of sexuality, and we want to respond to that we we don't want our kids to grow up believing those lies. Yeah, as as a friend of mine says, you know that the sexual revolution was actually and is actually bad for women, and we need to say that. We need to say that to people in the church, absolutely. But in response to that, then we create what, what has been called a purity culture, which, which has, has kind of poured a lot of guilt and have made have over promised again, if you just do this, you'll have a wonderful life and a wonderful marriage if you just do this, and then if you mess up, oh, you've, you've committed this unpardonable sin, almost. And so there's a lot of pressure being put on, particularly young women and then, and then over promising and so all of this,can people see that the House of Cards is coming down because they're like, Yeah, my marriage is horrible.It creates this pressure, right where you have to. You have to think a certain way. You have to behave this very kind of way. It's reaction to want to protect them. So again, I'm saying, Yes, I understand the reactions, yeah, and, but, but, and this is, I think, a key part of this, because it's not connected well to the rest of the house. It often reacts, rather than reflected deeply on the tradition and helps fit your way, the centrality of the Gospel, the centrality of what's always been, Christian teaching and coming back to the main things, rather than kind of reacting to culture because we're nervous, and doing it in such a way that, you know, well, people will begin to say, That's what Christianity is about. Christianity is really about, you know, your politics, because that's all my pastor is talking about, interesting, you know, and this is all they're talking about. So that becomes the center,even though the ethic is is, is, becomes the. Center, as opposed to the the philosophy and theology guiding the ethic, is that, would that be another way to put it, like how you live, become, becomes preeminent to, you know, wrestling with doubt and and trying to bring God into the space of your doubt and that kind of stuff is, that, is that?Yeah, I mean, so that, I think one of the things that the the early creeds help us to do is it helps us to keep the main thing. The main thing, it helps us to keep, rather than saying, well, because culture is talking about this, we're going to, you know, kind of in our churches, this becomes the main thing, is reacting or responding, maybe, whether it's with the culture and certain movements or against the culture, yeah. But if you're anchored to the kind of the ancient wisdom of the past you're you do have, you are at times, of course, going to respond to what's going on culturally, yeah, but it's always grounded to the center, and what's always been the center, yeah? And I think so when you're in a community like this, like this, the pressure of, I've gotta think rightly. I've gotta check every box here, yes, and oh, and I've, I've been told that there is proofs, and I just need to think harder. I just, you know, even believe more, even Yeah, if I just, if I just think harder, then I'll eliminate my doubt, but my doubts not being eliminated. So either I'm stupid or maybe there's a problem with the evidence, because it's not eliminating all my doubt, but this creates this kind of melting pot of anxiety for a lot of people as their own Reddit threads and their Oh, and then this, trying to figure all this out, and they're Googling all these answers, and then the slow drip, oh, well, to be honest, sometimes the massive outpouring of church scandal is poured into this, yeah. And it just creates a lot of anxiety amongst young people, and eventually they say, I'm just going to jump out of the attic, you know, because it looks pretty freeing and it looks like a pretty good way of life out there. And what, what I say to people is two things. Number one, rather than simply jumping out, first look what you're about to jump into, because you have to live somewhere, and outside the attic, you're not just jumping into kind of neutrality, you're jumping into cultural spaces and assumptions and belief. And so let's, let's just be just as critical as, yeah, the attic or house as you are will be mean, be just as critical with those spaces as you have been with the attic. So you need to explore those. But also, I'm wanting to give them a framework to understand that actually a lot of the ways that you've kind of grown up is actually been in this attic. Why don't you come downstairs, and if you're going to leave the house, explore the main floor first.And what would be the main floor? What would you say? The main floor?Yeah. I would say themain orthodox historic Christianity, like, yeah. Orthodox historic Christianity, Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, just kind of go into the Yeah. And whatI would say is, for instance, the apostle creed gives us kind of what I would call load bearing walls in the house. So it gives us the places where you don't mess like load bearing walls. You don't you don't knock those down if you're going to do a remodel, and, and, and. So you would recognize the difference between load bearing walls, walls that are central versus actual different rooms in the house, and how? Well, these aren't load bearing walls, but they're, they're, they're, they're how certain people in Christian communities, churches at particular times, have articulated it and and some of these, you could deny certain things, but you could, but those are more denominational battle lines, rather than the kind of load bearing things that you if you pull out the resurrection of Jesus, if you pull out the the deity of Christ and the full humanity of Christ, If you pull out the Trinity. So let's go back to the core. And if you're going to reject, if you're going to leave, leave on the basis of those core things, not okay. I've had these bad experiences in the church now, yeah, what I think this to kind of wrap this up on this is what often happens, or what can happen if someone says, Well, yeah, I've done that, and I still don't, I don't believe Okay, yep, that's going to happen. Yep. But one of the things I suggest, in at least some cases, is that the addict has screwed people up more than they realize, and that the way that they approach. Approach the foundation and the the main floor, it's still in attic categories, as in, to go back to our first question, well, I can't prove this, yeah. And I was always told that I should be able to prove it. Well, that's not how this works, yeah. And so they they reject Christianity on certain enlightenment terms, but they don't reject Christianity as Christianity really is. So people are going to interact with Christianity, I would say sometimes your people are investigating, say the resurrection, and reflecting more on on these central claims, but they're still doing it as if, if it doesn't reach kind of 100% certainty that I can't believe. And that's just not how this works.Yeah, that's, that's food for thought, because there, there's so many people that I interact with that I try to encourage. Like, yeah, your experience was really bad, like I'm affirming that, and that was messed up. That's not That's not Christianity, that is a branch on this massive tree trunk that stinks and that needs to be lamented and grieved and also called out as wrong. So I'm using another metaphor of a tree instead. But I love the because the house metaphor is something that you use in the telling a better story. Isn't that surprised bydoubt? Surprised by doubt? Yes, that's that's what we use, and we march through things, and we use that as, really our guiding metaphor through all the chapters. And that's what I would encourage if you're if you have somebody who's struggling with this, or you're struggling with this yourself, that's That's why a friend of mine, Jack Carson, that's why we wrote the book together, because obviously this is a we had a lot of friends and acquaintances and people who were coming to us and we weren't fully satisfied with all of the kind of works, yeah, that were responding and so this, this was our attempt to try to helppeople. Well, the book right after that was, is telling a better story. And one of the things I've really appreciated in your emphasis over the last few years has been, I would call a more humane apology, apologetic in that, you know, not giving into, okay, we're gonna give you want evidence. We're gonna give you evidence, as opposed to like, okay, let's just talk about being a huma

Tonight's guest joins us from Bonn, Germany — and from the far side of the clock, where it's 2 a.m. local time! Lars Lowinski is a seasoned meteorologist with international experience spanning Europe and New Zealand. He now works with WetterOnline, one of Europe's largest weather platforms, where he connects their U.S. business operations with German-based product development and training. He's also an avid storm chaser who's pursued Great Plains supercells and participated in the Hazardous Weather Testbed in Norman, Oklahoma. Lars has been a loyal WeatherBrains listener since 2008 — and we're thrilled to finally have him on the show!  Thanks for joining us tonight. Our email officer Jen is continuing to handle the incoming messages from our listeners. Reach us here: email@weatherbrains.com. Is tornado season over?  (02:30) Forecasting in the Southern Hemisphere and working with oil and gas industry (17:50) Compare/Contrast experiences in NOAA Hazardous Weather Testbed (20:00) Importance of doing a thorough hand analysis before utilizing model data when assimilating forecasts (21:00) Discussing the European Severe Storms Laboratory (23:00) Importance of working together internationally/globally when communicating severe weather risks (28:00) Breaking down barriers in the science of meteorology through simple human interaction (35:00) Approaches/challenges in weather messaging across different cultures and languages across the world (35:30) Looking back at Lars's storm chasing experiences (45:30) Discussion of deadly July 1916 Austria tornado and it's experiences lost in history due to World War One (55:00) European severe weather warning process vs U.S. severe weather warning process (57:45) Weather-aware subculture in the United States (01:13:00) Rise of Digital Meteorologists (01:16:00) NWS budget update/analysis (01:29:30) The Astronomy Outlook with Tony Rice (01:26:20) This Week in Tornado History With Jen (01:28:00) E-Mail Segment (No segment this week) and more! Web Sites from Episode 1015: Lars Lowinski Photography Picks of the Week: Lars Lowinski - Monster HP supercell in France (06/13/2025) James Aydelott - James Aydelott on Facebook: Three feet of rain in Tulsa, OK since January 1st/Wettest April 1-June 30 on record in Tulsa (Back to 1931) Jen Narramore - Lightning strike injures 2 at Northland HS soccer field in Columbus Rick Smith - Out Troy Kimmel - Out Kim Klockow-McClain - Earth's Clouds on the Move John Gordon - Kyle J Gillett on X: Panhandle, TX boundary collision John Gordon - Ronca-HohnWx on X: Memphis, TN boundary collision Bill Murray - Out James Spann - June 28th, 2025 Deuel County, South Dakota tornado The WeatherBrains crew includes your host, James Spann, plus other notable geeks like Troy Kimmel, Bill Murray, Rick Smith, James Aydelott, Jen Narramore, John Gordon, and Dr. Kim Klockow-McClain. They bring together a wealth of weather knowledge and experience for another fascinating podcast about weather.

As the anniversary of the Battle of the Somme approaches, we walk part of the battlefield across the iconic Mash Valley, visit Ovillers Military Cemetery and walk through Ovillers village to the far end of the valley facing the Pozières Ridge.Alf Razzell discusses the burial of the dead at Ovillers: A Game of Ghosts.Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us a textSupport the show

The gang discusses topics such as a British Army regiment that vanished in 1915 during the Battle of Gallipoli, the bizarre twists in the Miracle of Lourdes story and the secret behind the Vatican's hush-hush UFO observatory. Also, Five Questions for Lonely Larry, plus Clubb requests a dress code for the show.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/paranormal-uk-radio-network--4541473/support.

It's time to journey from the beautiful green landscapes of Devon to war-torn Europe - then back to a now very orange Devon - in Steven Spielberg's World War One drama WAR HORSE. Based on Michael Morpurgo's children's book as well as it's hugely successful stage adaptation, we welcome friend and history-buff - and star of Zombey - Ben Weldon to join us on the journey of innocence lost and the struggle to maintain a sense of decency in a world gripped by violence - from the perspective of a horse. We get into Morpurgo's original inspiration, to what pulled Spielberg to the story, before diving into its success as a World War One story and what its multiple story strands offer to the overall pictorial canvas of Spielberg's lush war epic. Saddle up and join us, won't you? Follow the podcast on Twitter (@RamblinAmblin), Instagram (@ramblinamblinpod) and Blusky (@ramblinamblin.bsky.social). Be sure to like and subscribe so you don't miss an episode! Get in touch with us either via our socials or email rambinaboutamblin@gmail.com. Please feel free to give us a 5-star review, share your favourite Amblin movies and tell us if ET makes you cry.Ramblin is created and produced by Andrew Gaudion and Joshua Glenn. A special thanks as always to Emily Tatham for the artwork, and Robert J. Hunter & Greg Sheffield for the theme music.

Sarah Dunant discusses with Ivan six things which should be better known. Sarah Dunant studied history at Newnham College, Cambridge from where she went on to become a writer, broadcaster, teacher and critic. She has written twelve novels, four of which have been short-listed for awards, and edited two books of essays. She is an accredited lecturer with The Arts Society, lecturing on Italian history and renaissance art, has taught renaissance studies at Washington University, St Louis and creative writing at University of Oxford Brookes. Her new novel is The Marchesa, which is available at https://www.sarahdunant.com/the-marchesa. The Discovery of the Laocoon, 1st century roman sculpture in Rome in 1506. One of those fluke stories history throws up that just gets richer and richer the more you dig (literally) into it. Erich Maria Remarque. He was a 17-year-old soldier in World War One, who goes on to to write the most famous novel on war. He ends up in Switzerland with a Hollywood film star wife, Paulette Goddard. The Last Supper by Plautilla Nelli. In the museum of Santa Maria Novella – a great church in Florence, there is a painting of the Last Supper done in the 1560s, by a nun who spent her whole life in a convent in Florence, who was entirely self-taught as a painter Newark Park. It started as a Tudor hunting lodge. It was donated to the National Trust in 1949 and, in a state of decay, was then saved by an American, Bob Parsons. Sailing to Philadelphia by Mark Knopfler. This is like listening to a short story by John Carver. American poet and master of realism and creating worlds within a couple of pages. Machiavelli's Farm House. This is the place where Machiavelli went after he lost his job as a diplomat in Florence and was sent into exile in 1512. This podcast is powered by ZenCast.fm

Our latest questions from listeners range from could Britain have stood back from conflict in 1914 and not been part of the Great War, how accurate was the final dugout scene in the film 1917, what duties did Royal Field Artillery Drivers have on the battlefields of WW1 and what was the story of the Canadian soldiers who rioted in Britain in 1919 while awaiting demobilisation?The Old Front Line Youtube Channel: Old Front Line on YouTube.Recommended novel on 1914: Robert Harris - Precipice (Penguin 2024)Books on The Canadian Riots:The story of the Kinmel Park Camp Riots in 1919 by Julian Putkowski (1989)Riots Death and Baseball - Robert H. Griffiths (2019)Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us a textSupport the show

The gang discusses topics such as a British Army regiment that vanished in 1915 during the Battle of Gallipoli, the bizarre twists in the Miracle of Lourdes story and the secret behind the Vatican's hush-hush UFO observatory. Also, Five Questions for Lonely Larry, plus Clubb requests a dress code for the show.

The RMS Titanic is history’s most famous shipwreck, but it wasn’t the only ship of its kind. The White Star Line built two other nearly identical vessels: The RMS Olympic and Britannic. The Olympic carried passengers until 1935 and can be visited today. The Brittanic sank only four years after her sister ship the Titanic off the Greek island of Kea in the Aegean Sea like due to striking a German mine while serving as a hospital ship during World War One. It sank in only 55 minutes (compared to 160 minutes for the Titanic) but only 30 of the 1066 passengers due to better lifeboat procedures, warmer waters, and being closer to land. What While the wreck of the Titanic is 2 miles below the surface and rapidly deteriorating, the Britannic is much more accessible (only 400ft down) and remains largely intact. It’s in “shallow” enough waters that divers can reach it, although submersibles do most of the investigation work. What can the ship tell us about the sinking of the Titanic, the lives of its passengers in the early 20th century, and whether something nefarious happened that caused it to sink, as some claim (like German sabotage). These are the questions that today’s guest, Simon Mills, tried to answer when bought the wreck of the Britannic in 1996. He is a maritime historian who has coordinated multiple expeditions into the underwater wreckage and most recently finished extensive internal surveys in 2021 and 2023. He’s also the author of the new book Inside the Britannic which is the sum of decades of work covering every inch of the ship. We discuss exactly how this ship sunk, what happened during the frantic 50 minutes of its sinking, what happened to the survivors, and other unanswered mysteries.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On 28 June 1919, in the Palace of Versailles in Paris the signing of the Treaty of Versailles took place. It was a peace agreement that marked the end of World War One.The terms of the treaty punished Germany for their involvement in starting the war. British journalist, William Norman Ewer attended the signing. He told his story to the BBC World Service in 1967. He recalls the moment of the signing and the treatment of the German delegates in this fascinating account.Produced and presented by Gill Kearsley. Eye-witness accounts brought to life by archive. Witness History is for those fascinated by the past. We take you to the events that have shaped our world through the eyes of the people who were there. For nine minutes every day, we take you back in time and all over the world, to examine wars, coups, scientific discoveries, cultural moments and much more. Recent episodes explore everything from football in Brazil, the history of the ‘Indian Titanic' and the invention of air fryers, to Public Enemy's Fight The Power, subway art and the political crisis in Georgia. We look at the lives of some of the most famous leaders, artists, scientists and personalities in history, including: visionary architect Antoni Gaudi and the design of the Sagrada Familia; Michael Jordan and his bespoke Nike trainers; Princess Diana at the Taj Mahal; and Görel Hanser, manager of legendary Swedish pop band Abba on the influence they've had on the music industry. You can learn all about fascinating and surprising stories, such as the time an Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at the President of the United States in protest of America's occupation of Iraq; the creation of the Hollywood commercial that changed advertising forever; and the ascent of the first Aboriginal MP.(Photo: Treaty of Versailles is signed by Prime Minister Clemenceau. Credit: Photo12/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

If you were alive between 1918 and 1940, it is absolutely certain that you would have heard of Alvin York’s famous exploits in World War One. But would you know the truth about the man, and about what he did one desperate day on the battlefield? Chances are you’d only know part of his story. But the tale behind his actual heroism is far more interesting, and far more human. Get early, ad-free access to episodes of Medal of Honor by subscribing to Pushkin+ on Apple Podcasts or Pushkin.fm. Pushkin+ subscribers can access ad-free episodes, full audiobooks, exclusive binges, and bonus content for all Pushkin shows. Subscribe on Apple: apple.co/pushkinSubscribe on Pushkin: pushkin.fm/plusSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

9 Hours and 17 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.This is the complete audio to the World War One series Thomas777 did with Pete.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

I have mentioned before a program I attend entitled Podapalooza. This quarterly event brings together podcasters, would-be podcasters and people interested in being interviewed by podcasters. This all-day program is quite fun. Each time I go I request interview opportunities to bring people onto Unstoppable Mindset. I never really have a great idea of who I will meet, but everyone I have encountered has proven interesting and intriguing.   This episode we get to meet Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett who I met at Podapalooza 12. I began our episode by asking Laura to tell me a bit about her growing up. We hadn't talked about this before the episode. The first thing she told me was that she was kind of an afterthought child born some 12.5 years after her nearest sibling. Laura grew up curious about many things. She went to University in Calgary. After obtaining her Master's degree she worked for some corporations for a time, but then went back to get her Doctorate in Organization Psychology.   After discussing her life a bit, Dr. Laura and I discussed many subjects including fear, toxic bosses and even something she worked on since around 2005, working remotely. What a visionary Laura was. I like the insights and thoughts Dr. Lovett discusses and I think you will find her thoughts worth hearing.   On top of everything else, Laura is a podcaster. She began her podcast career in 2020. I get to be a guest on her podcast, _Where Work Meets Life_TM, in May of 2025. Be sure to check out her podcast and listen in May to see what we discuss.   Laura is also an author as you will learn. She is working on a book about toxic bosses. This book will be published in January of 2026. She also has written two fiction books that will soon be featured in a television series. She tells us about what is coming.       About the Guest:   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett is an Organizational Psychologist, Keynote Speaker, Business Leader, Author, and Podcast Host. She is a sought-after thought leader on workplace psychology and career development internationally, with 25 years of experience. Dr. Laura is a thought leader on the future of work and understands the intersection of business and people.     Dr. Laura's areas of expertise include leadership, team, and culture development in organizations, remote/hybrid workplace success, toxic leadership, career development, and mental health/burnout. She holds a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the University of Calgary, where she is currently an Adjunct Professor.     As a passionate entrepreneur, Dr. Laura has founded several psychology practices in Canada since 2009, including Canada Career Counselling, Synthesis Psychology, and Work EvOHlution™ which was acquired in 2021.  She runs the widely followed podcast _Where Work Meets Life_TM, which began in 2020.  She speaks with global experts on a variety of topics around thriving humans and organizations, and career fulfillment.     In addition to her businesses, she has published two psychological thrillers, Losing Cadence and Finding Sophie. She hopes to both captivate readers and raise awareness on important topics around mental health and domestic violence.  These books are currently being adapted for a television series.  Dr. Laura received a Canadian Women of Inspiration Award as a Global Influencer in 2018. Ways to connect with Dr. Laura:   Email: Connect@drlaura.live   Website: https://drlaura.live/    LinkedIn: @drlaurahambley/    Keynotes: Keynotes & Speaking Engagements   Podcast: Where Work Meets Life™ Podcast   Author: Books   Newsletter: Subscribe to Newsletter   Youtube: @dr.laurawhereworkmeetslife   Facebook: @Dr.Laura.whereworkmeetslife   Instagram: @dr.laura__   Tik Tok: @drlaura__   X: @DrLaura_   About the Host:   Michael Hingson is a New York Times best-selling author, international lecturer, and Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe. Michael, blind since birth, survived the 9/11 attacks with the help of his guide dog Roselle. This story is the subject of his best-selling book, Thunder Dog.   Michael gives over 100 presentations around the world each year speaking to influential groups such as Exxon Mobile, AT&T, Federal Express, Scripps College, Rutgers University, Children's Hospital, and the American Red Cross just to name a few. He is Ambassador for the National Braille Literacy Campaign for the National Federation of the Blind and also serves as Ambassador for the American Humane Association's 2012 Hero Dog Awards.   https://michaelhingson.com https://www.facebook.com/michael.hingson.author.speaker/ https://twitter.com/mhingson https://www.youtube.com/user/mhingson https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhingson/   accessiBe Links https://accessibe.com/ https://www.youtube.com/c/accessiBe https://www.linkedin.com/company/accessibe/mycompany/ https://www.facebook.com/accessibe/       Thanks for listening!   Thanks so much for listening to our podcast! If you enjoyed this episode and think that others could benefit from listening, please share it using the social media buttons on this page. Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a comment in the section below!   Subscribe to the podcast   If you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher. You can subscribe in your favorite podcast app. You can also support our podcast through our tip jar https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/unstoppable-mindset .   Leave us an Apple Podcasts review   Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts, which exposes our show to more awesome listeners like you. If you have a minute, please leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts.       Transcription Notes:     Michael Hingson ** 00:00 Access Cast and accessiBe Initiative presents Unstoppable Mindset. The podcast where inclusion, diversity and the unexpected meet. Hi, I'm Michael Hingson, Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe and the author of the number one New York Times bestselling book, Thunder dog, the story of a blind man, his guide dog and the triumph of trust. Thanks for joining me on my podcast as we explore our own blinding fears of inclusion unacceptance and our resistance to change. We will discover the idea that no matter the situation, or the people we encounter, our own fears, and prejudices often are our strongest barriers to moving forward. The unstoppable mindset podcast is sponsored by accessiBe, that's a c c e s s i capital B e. Visit www.accessibe.com to learn how you can make your website accessible for persons with disabilities. And to help make the internet fully inclusive by the year 2025. Glad you dropped by we're happy to meet you and to have you here with us.     Michael Hingson ** 01:21 Well, hi everyone, wherever you happen to be, I want to welcome you to another episode of unstoppable mindset. I am your host, Mike hingson, and we have, I think, an interesting guest today. She's an organizational psychologist. She is a keynote speaker, and she even does a podcast I met Dr Laura through a function that we've talked about before on this podcast, Pata palooza. We met at pollooza 12. So that goes back to January. I think Dr Laura is an organizational psychologist. As I said, she's a keynote speaker. She runs a podcast. She's written books, and I think you've, if I'm not mistaken, have written two fiction books, among other things, but we'll get to all that. But Laura, I want to welcome you to unstoppable mindset. And thank you very much for being here.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 02:12 Well, thank you for having me, Michael. I really think the world of you and admire your spirit, and I'm just honored to be here speaking with you today. Well,   Michael Hingson ** 02:22 as I tell people when they come on the podcast, we do have one hard and fast rule, and that is, you're supposed to have fun. So if you can't have fun, forget about   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 02:30 it. Okay, alright, I'm willing to There   Michael Hingson ** 02:34 you go see you gotta have a little bit of fun. Well, why don't we start as I love to do with a lot of folks tell us kind of about the early Laura, growing up and all that, and kind of how you got where you are, if you will. Oh, my goodness, I know that opens up a lot of options.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 02:52 I was an afterthought child. I was the sixth child of a Catholic mother who had five children in a row, and had me 12 years later, unplanned, same parents, but all my siblings are 12 to 19 years older than me, so I was caught between generations. I always wanted to be older than I was, and I felt, you know, I was almost missing out on the things that were going on before me. But then I had all these nieces and nephews that came into the world where I was the leader of the pack. So my niece, who's next in line to me, is only three years younger, so it just it makes for an interesting dynamic growing up where you're the baby but you're also the leader. Well,   Michael Hingson ** 03:39 lot of advantages there, though I would think,   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 03:42 Oh yeah, it taught me a lot about leadership. It taught me about followership. It taught me about life and learning the lessons from my older siblings of what you know, they were going through and what I wanted to be like when I grew up.   Michael Hingson ** 03:58 So, so what kind of things did you learn from all of that? And you know, what did, what did they teach you, and what did they think of you, all of your older siblings? Oh, they loved me. I was, I bet they were. Yeah, you were the baby sister.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 04:13 But I should add my mom was mentally ill, so her mental illness got worse after having me, I think, and I know this about postpartum, as you get older and postpartum hits, it can get worse later on and and she suffered with a lot of mental health challenges, and I would say that that was the most challenging part of growing up for me.   Michael Hingson ** 04:42 Did she ever get over that? Or?   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 04:45 No, we just, I mean, it had its ups and downs. So when times were good, she was great, she was generous, she was loving. She was a provider, a caretaker. She had stayed at home her whole life, so she was the stay at home mom, where you'd come home from school. And there'd be hot, baked cookies and stuff, you know, she would really nurture that way. But then when she had her lows, because it was almost a bipolar situation, I would, I would say it was undiagnosed. I mean, we never got a formal diagnosis, but she had more than one psychotic break that ended her in the hospital. But I would say when she was down, she would, you know, run away for a few days and stay in another city, or have a complete meltdown and become really angry and aggressive. And, I mean, it was really unpredictable. And my father was just like a rock, just really stable and a loving influence and an entrepreneur like I am, so that, you know, he really helped balance things out, but it was hard on him as well,   Michael Hingson ** 05:48 I'll bet. Yeah, that's never easy. Is she still with us, or is she passed?   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 05:53 No, she got dementia and she passed. The dementia was about 12 years of, you know, turning into a baby. It's so sad that over 12 years, we just she lost her mind completely, and she died in 2021 and it was hard. I mean, I felt like, oh, man, you know, that was hard. I you know, as much as it was difficult with her and the dementia was difficult. I mean, she was my mother, and, yeah, it was a big loss for me. And I lost my father at age 21 and that was really hard. It was a very sudden with an aneurysm. And so that was in 1997 so I've been a long time without parents in my life.   Michael Hingson ** 06:30 Wow. Well, I know what you mean. My father, in this is his opinion, contracted some sort of a spore in Africa during World War Two, and it manifested itself by him losing, I think it was white blood cells later in his life, and had to have regular transfusions. And eventually he passed in 1984 and my belief is, although they classified it as congestive heart failure, he had enough other diseases or things that happened to him in the couple of years before he passed. I think it was actually HIV that he died from, because at that time, they still didn't understand about tainted blood, right? And so he got transfusions that probably were blood that that was a problem, although, you know, I can't prove that, and don't know it, but that's just kind of my opinion.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 07:34 Oh, I'm so sorry to hear that, Michael, that is so, so sad.   Michael Hingson ** 07:38 Yeah. And then my mom was a smoker most of her life, and she fell in 1987 and broke her hip, and they discovered that she also had some some cancer. But anyway, while she was in the hospital recovering from the broken hip, they were going to do some surgery to deal with the cancer, but she ended up having a stroke and a heart attack, and she passed away. So Oh, my God. I lost my mom in 1987   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 08:04 and you know, you were young. Well,   Michael Hingson ** 08:08 I was, I was 37 when she died. So still, I missed them both, even today, but I I had them for a while, and then my brother, I had until 2015 and then he passed from cancer. So it happens, and I got married in 1982 to my wife, Karen, who was in a wheelchair her whole life, and she passed in 2022 so we were married 40 years. So lots of memories. And as I love to tell people all the time, I got to continue to be a good kid, because I'm being monitored from somewhere, and if I misbehave, I know I'm going to hear about it. So,   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 08:49 you know, well, that's a beautiful, long marriage that the two of you had   Michael Hingson ** 08:55 was and lots of memories, which is the important things. And I was blessed that with September 11 and so on, and having written thunder dog, the original book that I wrote about the World Trade Center and my life, it was published in 2011 and I was even reading part of it again today, because I spoke at a book club this morning, it just brings back lots of wonderful memories with Karen, and I just can't in any way argue with the fact that we did have a great 40 years. So no regrets.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 09:26 Wow, 40 years.   Michael Hingson ** 09:30 Yeah. So, you know, it worked out well and so very happy. And I know that, as I said, I'm being monitored, so I I don't even chase the girls. I'm a good kid. Chris, I would point out none of them have chased me either. So, you know,   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 09:49 I love your humor. It's so awesome. So we gotta laugh, Mark, because the world's really tricky right now. Oh gosh, isn't it? It's very tricky. And I'd love to talk. About that today a bit, because I'm just having a lot of thoughts about it and a lot of messages I want to get across being well, you are well psychologist and a thought leader and very spiritual and just trying to make a difference, because it's very tricky.   Michael Hingson ** 10:16 So how did you get into psychology and all that. So you grew up, obviously, you went to college and tell me about that and how you ended up getting into the whole issue of psychology and the things that you do. Well,   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 10:30 I think being the youngest, I was always curious about human dynamics in my family and the siblings and all the dynamics that were going on, and I was an observer of all of that. And then with my mother and just trying to understand the human psyche and the human condition. And I was a natural born helper. I always wanted to help people, empathetic, very sensitive kid, highly sensitive person. So then when I went into psycho to university. We University. We call it up here for an undergrad degree, I actually didn't know what I wanted to do. I was a musician as well. I was teaching music throughout high school, flute and piano. I had a studio and a lot of students. And thought, well, maybe do I want to do a music degree? Or, Oh, maybe I should go into the family business of water treatment and water filtration that my father started for cities, and go in and do that and get a chemical engineering degree. Not really interested in that, though, no. And then just kind of stumbled my way through first year. And then I was really lost. And then I came across career counseling. And I thought, Okay, this is going to help me. And it did. And psychology lit up like a light bulb. I had taken the intro to psych course, which is more of a hodgepodge mix of topics. I'm like, yeah, and then, but when I looked at the second year courses in the third year and personality and abnormal psych and clinical psych and all of that. I thought, Oh, I found my place. This is juicy. This is interesting. And I want to help people. Is   Michael Hingson ** 12:09 this to say you fit right in when you were studying Abnormal Psychology? Just checking,   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 12:14 yeah, probably okay. I actually didn't go down the clinical psych route, which is where it's the clinical psych and the psychiatrists that tackle more of the personality disorders. So I went into counseling psych, which is the worried well. We call it the worried well. So people like you and I who are going through life, experiencing the various curve balls that life has to offer, and I know you've been through more than your fair share, but it's helping people get through the curve balls. And I specialized in career, I ended up saying people spend most of their waking lives, you know, working or thinking about work as part of their identity. So I specialized in career development psychology in my master's degree.   Michael Hingson ** 13:01 Yeah, well, that's, that's certainly, probably was easier than flute and piano. You couldn't do both of those at the same time.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 13:07 I ended up having to, yeah, it became too much. I tried to for a while.   Michael Hingson ** 13:13 Yeah, you can play the flute or the piano, but kind of hard to do both at the same time. Oh,   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 13:18 at the same time, yeah, unless you play with your toes, which I've seen people actually people do that, yeah, do Yeah. There's this one speaker in our national speakers group, and he he does a lot with his toes, like I remember him playing the drums with his toes at his last keynote. So I was just amazed. So horn with no arms and does everything with his feet. So I bet he could do some piano too. There you go.   Michael Hingson ** 13:49 But then, of course, having no arms and he would also have a problem doing piano at the same time. But, you know, that's okay, but still, so you went into to psychology, which I find is a is a fascinating subject. Anyway, my interest was always in the physical sciences, so I got my master's degree in physics, although I did take a couple of psychology courses, and I enjoyed it. I remember the basic intro to psych, which was a lot of fun, and she's had a real hodgepodge, but still it was fascinating. Because I always was interested in why people behave the way they do, and how people behave the way they do, which is probably why I didn't go into theoretical physics, in a sense. But still it was and is very interesting to see how people behave, but you went off and got your masters, and then you also got a PhD along the line, huh?   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 14:47 Yeah, that was interesting. I did the Masters, and then I always did things a little differently. Michael, so all of my peers went on to become registered psychologists, which, which means you have. To go through a registration process, and instead, I got pulled into a.com company. We called them dot coms at the time, because in 1999 when I started with a.com It was a big thing. I mean, it was exciting, right? It was and it was a career development related.com that had a head office in New York City, and I ended up leading a team here in Calgary, and we were creating these technologies around helping people assess their passions, their interests, their skills, and then link to careers. We had about 900 careers in our database, and then linking people to educational programs to get them towards those careers. So I remember coming up a lot of times to Rutgers University and places like that, and going to New York City and dealing with that whole arena. So I was, you know, from a young age, I'd say I was too young to rent a car when I flew there, but I had a team of about 15 people that I oversaw, and it was great experience for me at an early age of, okay, you know, there's a lot I'm learning a lot here, because I really wasn't trained in Business and Management at that time, right?   Michael Hingson ** 16:17 But you But you did it.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 16:20 I did it, yeah, I did it. And then I ended up working for another consulting firm that brought me into a whole bunch of organizations working on their competency models. So I did a lot of time in the Silicon Valley, working in different companies like Cisco, and I was just in this whole elaborate web of Okay. Organizations are quite interesting. They're almost like families, because they have a lot of dynamics there. It's interesting. And you can make a difference, and you can help the organization, the people in the workplace, you know, grow and thrive and develop. And I'm okay, you know, this is interesting, too. I like this. And then at that time, I knew I wanted to do a doctorate, and I discovered that organizational Psych was what I wanted to do, because it's the perfect blend of business and psychology. Because I'm a serial entrepreneur, by the way, so entrepreneurship, psychology, business, kind of the best of both worlds. Okay, I'm going to do that, so that's what I did.   Michael Hingson ** 17:24 That certainly is kind of cool. So when did you end up getting your doctorate?   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 17:28 I finished that in 2005   Michael Hingson ** 17:31 okay, were you working while you were doing that? Or did you just go back to school full   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 17:36 time? I had to go back to school because the program was very heavy. It was a program where you could not work full time during it. I still worked part time during it. I was working hard because I was registering as a psychologist at the same time, I knew I wanted to register and become a psychologist, and I knew I wanted to get that doctorate, and there were times when I almost stepped away, especially at the beginning of it, because when you're out in the real world, and then you go back into academia, it's just such a narrow How do I explain this? How does this, how is this relevant? You know, all these journal articles and this really esoteric, granular research on some little itty, itty bitty thing. And I just really struggled. But then I said, So I met with someone I remember, and she she said, Laura, it's like a car. When you buy a car, you can choose your own car seats and color, and you know, the bells and whistles of your car, and you can do that for the doctorate. And I said, Okay, I'm going to make the doctorate mine, and I'm going to specialize in a topic that I can see being a topic that the world of work will face in the future. So I specialized in remote leadership, and how you lead a team when they're not working in the same office, and how you lead and inspire people who are working from home. And that whole notion of distributed work, which ended up becoming a hot topic in the pandemic. I was, I was 20 years, 15 years ahead of the game. Yeah. Well, that,   Michael Hingson ** 19:09 of course, brings up the question of the whole issue of remote work and stuff during the pandemic and afterward. What do you what do you think has been the benefit of the whole concept of remote work. What did people learn because of the pandemic, and are they forgetting it, or are they still remembering it and allowing people to to work at home? And I ask that because I know in this country, our illustrious president is demanding that everybody go back to work, and a lot of companies are buying into that as well. And my thought has always been, why should we worry about where a person works, whether it's remote or in an actual office, so long as they get the work? Done, but that seems to, politically not be the way what people want to think of it today.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 20:06 Yeah, it's, I mean, I have a lot to say on it, and I have years and years of data and research that supports the notion that it's not a one size fits all, and a blend tends to be the best answer. So if you want to preserve the culture and the collaboration, but yet you want to have people have the flexibility and autonomy and such, which is the best of both worlds. Because you're running a workplace, you're not running a daycare where you need to babysit people, and if you need to babysit people, you're hiring the wrong people. So I would say I'm a biggest fan of hybrid. I think remote works in some context, I think bringing everyone back full time to an office is very, very old school command and control, leadership, old school command and control will not work. You know, when you're trying to retain talent, when it's an employer's market, yes, you'll get away with it. But when it goes back to an employee's market. Watch out, because your generation Z's are going to be leaving in droves to the companies that offer flexibility and autonomy, same with some of your millennials, for sure, and even my generation X. I mean, we really value, you know, a lot of us want to have hybrids and want to be trusted and not be in a car for 10 to 20 hours a week commuting? Yeah? So,   Michael Hingson ** 21:27 yeah, I know I hear you, and from the baby boomer era, you know, I I think there's value in being in an office that is, I think that having time to interact and know colleagues and so on is important. But that doesn't mean that you have to do it every day, all day. I know many times well. I worked for a company for eight years. The last year was in New York because they wanted me to go to New York City and open an office for them, but I went to the office every day, and I was actually the first person in the office, because I was selling to the east coast from the west coast. So I opened the office and was on the phone by 6am in the morning, Pacific Time, and I know that I got so much more done in the first two to three hours, while everyone else was slowly filtering in, and then we got diverted by one thing or another, and people would gossip and so on. Although I still tried to do a lot of work, nevertheless, it got to be a little bit more of a challenge to get as much done, because now everybody was in and they wanted to visit, or whatever the case happens to be, and I think there's value in visiting, but I think from a working standpoint, if I'd been able to do that at home, at least part of the time, probably even more would have been accomplished. But I think there's value also in spending some time in the office, because people do need to learn to interact and know and trust each other, and you're not going to learn to trust if you don't get to know the other people.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 23:08 Yeah, totally. I agree with you 100% and I know from it. I on my own podcast I had the founder of four day work week global, the four day work movement. I did four episodes on that topic, and yeah, people are not productive eight hours a day. I'll tell you that. Yeah, yeah. So just because you're bringing them into an office and forcing them to come in, you're not gonna it doesn't necessarily mean more productivity. There's so much that goes into productivity, apart from presenteeism, yeah,   Michael Hingson ** 23:45 yeah, I hear what you're saying, and I think there's, there's merit in that. I think that even when you're working at home, there are rules, and there you're still expected to do work, but there's, I think, room for both. And I think that the pandemic taught us that, but I'm wondering if we're forgetting it.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 24:06 Oh yeah, that's the human condition. We forget, right? We, we forget. We it's almost I envision an icy ski slope. I'm a skier, you know, being up here in Canada and the Rocky Mountains, but it's a ski slope, and you walk up a few steps, and then you slide back so easily, because it's icy, right? Like you gotta just be aware that we slide back easily. We need to be intentional and stay on top of the why behind certain decisions, because the pendulum swings back so far so easily. And I mean, women's issues are one of those things we can slide back so quickly. After like, 100 years of women fighting for their rights, we can end up losing that very, very quickly in society. That's just one of many examples I know all the D, E and I stuff that's going on, and I. I mean, it's just heartbreaking, the extent of that pendulum slapping back the other way, so hard when we need to have a balance, and you know, the right balance, because the answer is never black and white, black or white, the answer is always some shade of gray.   Michael Hingson ** 25:20 How do we get people to not backslide? And I know that's a really tough question, and maybe there's no there, there very well may not really be an easy answer to that, but I'm just curious what your thoughts are.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 25:37 That's a great question. Michael, I would envision almost ski poles or hiking poles. It's being grounded into the earth. It's being grounded into what are the roots of my values? What are my the values that we hold dear as human beings and as society, and sticking to those values, and, you know, pushing in to the earth to hold those values and stand up for those values, which I know is easier said than done in certain climates and certain contexts. And I mean, but I think it's really important to stand strong for what our values   Michael Hingson ** 26:20 are, yeah, I think that's really it. It comes down to values and principles. I know the late president, Jimmy Carter once said that we must adjust to changing times while holding to unwavering principles. And it seems to me you were talking about this being a tricky world. I thought that was an interesting way to express it. But I'm wondering if we're seeing all too many people not even holding to the unwavering principles, the sacrificing principles for political expediency and other things, yeah,   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 26:53 yes, exactly. And we know about values that sometimes values clash, right? So you might have a value that you want to have a lot of money and be financially, you know, successful, yet you have the value of work life balance and you want a lot of time off and and sometimes those values can clash, and sometimes we need to make decisions in our lives about what value takes precedence at this time in our life. But I think what you're right is that there's a lot of fear out there right now, and when the fear happens, you can lose sight of why those values are important to you for more of a shorter term, quick gain to get rid of the fear, because fear is uncertain and painful for humans.   Michael Hingson ** 27:44 Well, I wrote live like a guide dog, which is the latest book that was, that was published in August of last year, and it's all about learning to control fear, really. And the reality is, and what I say in the book, essentially is, look, fear is with us. I'm not going to say you shouldn't be afraid and that you can live without fear, but what you can do is learn to control fear, and you have the choice of learning how you deal with fear and what you allow fear to do to you. And so, for example, in my case, on September 11, that fear was a very powerful tool to help keep me focused going down the stairs and dealing with the whole day. And I think that's really the the issue is that fear is is something that that all too many people just have, and they let it overwhelm them, or, as I put it, blind them, and the result of that is that they can't make decisions, they can't move on. And so many things are happening in our world today that are fomenting that fear, and we're not learning how to deal with it, which is so unfortunate.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 29:02 Yeah, you're right. And I back to your World Trade Center. So you were on, was it 778? 78 oh, my god, yeah. So to me, that must have been the scariest moment of your life.   Michael Hingson ** 29:17 I'm missing in a in a sense, no only until later, because none of us knew what was happening when the plane hit the building, which it did on the other side of the building from me and 1000s of others, and it hit above where we were. So going down the stairs, none of us knew what happened, because nobody saw it. And as I point out, Superman and X ray vision are fiction. So the reality is, it had nothing to do with blindness. The fact is, none of us knew going down the stairs. We figured out a plane hit the building because we smelled something that I eventually identified as burning jet fuel fumes, because I smell it every time I went to an airport. But we didn't know what happened. And. And and in a sense, that probably was a good thing for most people. Frankly, I would rather have known, and I can, I can say this, thinking about it a lot as I do, I would rather have known what happened, because it would have affected perhaps some of the decisions that I made later. If I had known that the buildings had been struck and there was a likelihood that they would collapse. I also know that I wouldn't have panicked, but I like information, and it's something that I use as a tool. But the fact is that we didn't know that. And so in a sense, although we were certainly worried about what was going on, and we knew that there was fire above us, we didn't know what it was all about.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 30:41 Wow. And I would say, so glad you got out of there. I Yeah, what a horrific experience. I was up there the year before it happened. And I think being up there, you can just sense the the height of it and the extent of it, and then seeing ground zero after and then going there with my son last June and seeing the new world trade, it was just really, I really resonate with your or not resonate, but admire your experience that you got out of there the way you did, and thank goodness you're still in this world. Michael,   Michael Hingson ** 31:17 it's a weird experience having been back, also now, going through the museum and being up in the new tower, trying to equate where I was on September 11 and where things were with what it became when it was all rebuilt. There's no easy reference point, although I did some of the traveling around the area with someone who knew what the World Trade Center was like before September 11. And so they were able to say, Okay, you're standing in such and such a place, so you're standing right below where Tower One was. And then I could kind of put some reference points to it, but it was totally different. Needless to say,   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 32:05 Yeah, no kidding, but I think the fear that you go through during a disaster, right, is immediate like so the fight flight response is activated immediately, and you're, you're put into this almost state of flow. I call it a state where you time just is irrelevant. You're just putting one foot ahead of the other, right, right, right? Whereas the fear that society is going through right now, I think, is a projecting out into the future fear. It's not surviving this moment. It's more about I want to make sure I have enough money in the future, and I want to make sure I have safety in the future, or whatever it is, and you're projecting out, and you're living in the future, and you're worrying about the future, you're not living in the present, and it makes people kind of go crazy in the end, with anxiety, because we're not meant to be constantly worried about the Future. The only thing we can control is today and what we put into place for a better tomorrow, but fearing tomorrow and living in anxiety is so unhealthy for the human spirit,   Michael Hingson ** 33:13 and yet that's what people do, and it's one of the things we talk about and live like a guide dog. Worry about what you can control and don't worry about the rest. And you know, we spend so much time dealing with what if, what if this happens? What if that happens? And all that does, really is create fear in us, rather than us learning, okay, I don't really have control over that. I can be worried about the amount of money I have, but the real question is, what am I going to do about it today? And I know one of the lessons I really learned from my wife, Karen, we had some times when when we had significant debt for a variety of reasons, but like over the last few years of her life, we had enough of an income from speaking and the other things that I was doing that she worked really hard to pay down credit card bills that we had. And when she passed, most all of that was accomplished, and I was, I don't know whether she thought about it. She probably did, although she never got to the point of being able to deal with it, but one of the things that I quickly did was set up with every credit card company that we use paying off each bill each month, so we don't accrue credit, and so every credit card gets paid off, because now the expenses are pretty predictable, and so we won't be in that situation as long as I continue to allow things to get paid off every month and things like that. But she was the one that that put all that in motion, and it was something she took very, very seriously, trying to make sure. It. She brought everything down. She didn't really worry so much about the future. Is, what can I do today? And what is it that my goal is? Well, my goal is to get the cards paid off. I can do this much today and the next month. I can do this much today, which, which I thought was a great way and a very positive way to look at it. She was very methodical, but she wasn't panicky.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 35:24 Mm, hmm. No, I like that, because panic gets us nowhere. It just It ruins today and it doesn't help tomorrow, right? Same with regret, regret you can't undo yesterday, and living in regret, guilt, living in the past is just an unhealthy place to be as well, unless we're just taking the learnings and the nuggets from the past. That's the only reason we need the past is to learn from it. You   Michael Hingson ** 35:52 have to learn from it and then let it go, because it's not going to do any good to continue to dwell on it.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 35:57 Yeah, exactly.   Michael Hingson ** 36:00 Well, so you, you, you see so many things happening in this world. How do we deal with all of it, with all the trickiness and things that you're talking about?   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 36:10 Do you like that word, tricky? I like it. That's a weird word.   Michael Hingson ** 36:14 Well, I think it's, it's a different word, but I like it, it, it's a word that I think, personally, becomes non confrontive, but accurate in its descriptions. It is tricky, but, you know, we can, we can describe things in so many ways, but it's better to do it in a way that isn't judgmental, because that evokes attitudes that we don't need to have.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 36:38 Yeah, if I use the word scary or terrible, or, I think those words are, yeah, just more anxiety provoking. Tricky can be tricky. Can be bad, tricky can be a challenge,   Michael Hingson ** 36:52 right? Like a puppy, unpredictable, or, you know, so many things, but it isn't, it isn't such a bad thing. I like that.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 37:03 How do we navigate a tricky world? Well, we we need to focus on today. We need to focus on the things that we can control today, physically, mentally, emotionally, socially and spiritually, the five different arenas of our life and on any given day, we need to be paying attention to those arenas of our life and how are they doing. Are we healthy physically? Are we getting around and moving our bodies? Are we listening to our bodies and our bodies needs? Are we putting food into our bodies, and are we watching what we drink and consume that could be harming our bodies, and how does it make us feel? And are we getting enough sleep? I think sleep is a huge issue for a lot of people in these anxiety provoking times.   Michael Hingson ** 37:56 Well, I think, I think that's very accurate. The question is, how do we learn to do that? How do we teach ourselves?   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 38:07 How do we learn to do all that   Michael Hingson ** 38:09 stuff? How do we how do we learn to deal with the things that come up, rather than letting them all threaten us and scare us?   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 38:20 Oh, that's a big question. I think that well, the whole the five spheres, right? So if you're taking care of your physical health and you're making that a priority, and some people really struggle with that, and they need a buddy system, or they need professional helpers, right, like a coach or a trainer or a psychologist like me, or whatever it is that they need the extra supports in place, but the physical super important, the making sure that we are socially healthy and connectedness is more important than ever. Feeling connected to our tribe, whatever that is, our close friends. You know, whether we have family that we would consider friends, right? Who in our team is helpful to us and trusted allies, and if we can have the fingers of one hand with close people that we trust in our lives, that's that's great, right? It doesn't have to be 100 people, right? It can be a handful, over your lifetime of true allies to walk through this world together.   Michael Hingson ** 39:26 One of the things that I've talked about it a bit on this podcast, but I I love the the concept that I think I've come up with is I used to always say I'm my own worst critic, and I said that because I love to record, and I learned the value of recording speeches, even going back to when I worked at campus radio station at kuci in Irvine campus radio station, I would listen to my show, and I kind of forced all the On Air personalities. 90s to listen to their own shows by arranging for their shows to be recorded, because they wouldn't do it themselves. And then I sent recordings home with them and said, You've got to listen to this. You will be better for it. And they resisted it and resisted it, but when they did it, it was amazing how much they improved. But I as I recorded my talks, becoming a public speaker, and working through it, I kept saying, I record them because I'm my own worst critic. I'm going to pick on me harder than anyone else can. And it was only in the last couple of years because I heard a comment in something that I that I read actually, that said the only person who can really teach you anything is you. Other people can present information, they can give you data, but you are really the only one who can truly teach you. And I realized that it was better to say I'm my own best teacher than my own worst critic, because it changes the whole direction of my thought, but it also drops a lot of the fear of listening or doing the thing that I was my own worst critic   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 41:10 about. I love that, Michael. I think that's genius. I'm my own best teacher, not my own worst critic,   Michael Hingson ** 41:19 right? It's it's positive, it's also true, and it puts a whole different spin on it, because one of the things that we talk about and live like a guide dog a lot is that ultimately, and all the things that you say are very true, but ultimately, each of us has to take the time to synthesize and think about the challenges that we face, the problems that we faced. What happened today that didn't work well, and I don't use the word fail, because I think that also doesn't help the process. But rather, we expected something to happen. It didn't. It didn't go well. What do we do about it? And that ultimately, taking time at the end of every day, for example, to do self analysis helps a lot, and the result of that is that we learn, and we learn to listen to our own inner mind to help us with that   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 42:17 exactly, I think that self insight is missing in a lot of us, we're not taking the time to be still and to listen to the voice within and to listen to what we are thinking and feeling internally, because we're go, go, go, go, go, and then when we're sitting still, you know what we're doing, we're on our phones,   Michael Hingson ** 42:41 and That's why I say at the end of the day, when you're getting ready, you're in bed, you're falling asleep. Take the time. It doesn't take a long time to get your mind going down that road. And then, of course, a lot happens when you're asleep, because you think about it   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 43:01 exactly. And you know, I've got to say, however spirituality is defined, I think that that is a key element in conquering this level of anxiety in society. The anxiety in society needs to be conquered by a feeling of greater meaning and purpose and connectedness in the human race, because we're all one race, the human race, in the end of the day, and all these divisions and silos and what's happening with our great you know, next door neighbors to each other, the US and Canada. It's the way that Canada is being treated is not not good. It's not the way you would treat a neighbor and a beloved neighbor that's there for you. In the end of the day, there's fires in California. We're sending our best fire crews over. You know, World War One, where my grandpa thought and Vimy Ridge, Americans were struggling. British could not take Vimy. It was the Canadians that came and, you know, got Vimy and conquered the horrific situation there. But in the end, we're all allies, and we're all in it together. And it's a tricky, tricky world,   Michael Hingson ** 44:11 yeah, and it goes both ways. I mean, there's so many ways the United States has also helped. So you're not, yeah, you're not really in favor of Canada being the 51st state, huh?   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 44:26 You know, no, yeah, I love America. I mean, I have a lot of great friends in America and people I adore, but I think Canada is its own unique entity, and the US has been a great ally in a lot of ways, and we're in it together, right, right? I mean, really in it together, and we need to stay as allies. And as soon as you start putting up a fence and throwing rocks over the fence to each other, it just creates such a feud and an unnecessary feud, yeah.   Michael Hingson ** 44:55 Well, very much so. And it is so unfortunate to see. It happening. And as you said, I think you put it very well. It's all about we're friends and friends. Don't treat friends in this way. But that is, that is, unfortunately, what we're seeing. I know I've been looking, and I constantly look for speaking opportunities, home, and I've sent emails to some places in Canada, and a few people have been honest enough to say, you know, we love what you do. We love your story. But right now, with what's going on between the United States and Canada, we wouldn't dare bring you to Canada, and while perhaps I could help by speaking and easing some of that a little bit. I also appreciate what they're saying, and I've said that to them and say, I understand, but this too shall pass. And so please, let's stay in touch, but I understand. And you know, that's all one can do.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 46:01 Yeah, and it, it too shall pass. I mean, it's just all and then anxiety takes over and it gets in the way of logic. Michael Hingston would, hingson would be our best speaker for this option, but the optics of it might get us into trouble, and they just get all wound up about it. And I you know, in the end of the day this, this will pass, but it's very difficult time, and we need to say, Okay, we can't control what's going to happen with tariffs or next month or whatever, but we can control today. And, yeah, I just went on a walk by the river. It was beautiful, and it was just so fulfilling to my soul to be outside. And that's what I could control the day   Michael Hingson ** 46:41 that's right? And that walk by the river and that being outside and having a little bit of time to reflect has to help reduce fear and stress.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 46:54 It does it very much, does   Michael Hingson ** 46:58 and and isn't that something that that more people should do, even if you're working in the office all day, it would seem like it would be helpful for people to take at least some time to step away mentally and relax, which would help drop some of the fear and the stress that they face. Anyway,   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 47:20 100% and I am at my office downtown today, and I can see the river right now from my window. And there's research evidence that when you can see water flowing and you can see trees, it really makes a difference to your mental health. So this office is very intentional for me, having the windows having the bright light very intentional.   Michael Hingson ** 47:44 I have a recording that I listen to every day for about 15 minutes, and it includes ocean sounds, and that is so soothing and just helps put so many things in perspective. Now it's not quite the same as sitting at the ocean and hearing the ocean sounds, but it's close enough that it works.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 48:06 That's beautiful. And you're going to come on to my podcast and we're going to talk a lot more about your story, and that'll be really great.   Michael Hingson ** 48:14 We're doing that in May.   48:16 Yeah,   Michael Hingson ** 48:17 absolutely, and I'm looking forward to it. Well, how did you get involved in doing a podcast? What got you started down that road? Oh, your tricky podcast. Yeah.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 48:32 So I was running my company. So I have a company of psychologists in Canada, and we operate across the country, and we do two things really, really well. One is helping people navigate their careers at all ages and stages and make find fulfilling career directions. And then our other thing we do well is helping organizations, helping be healthier places to work, so building better leaders, helping create better cultures in organizations. So that's what we do, and we have. I've been running that for 16 years so my own firm, and at the same time, I always wanted a podcast, and it was 2020, and I said, Okay, I'm turning 45 years old. For my birthday gift to myself, I'm going to start a podcast. And I said, Does anyone else on the team want to co host, and we'll share the responsibilities of it, and we could even alternate hosting. No, no, no, no, no, no one else was interested, which is fine, I was interested. So I said, this is going to be, Dr Laura, then this podcast, I'm going to call it. Dr Laura, where work meets life. So the podcast is where work meets life, and then I'm Dr Laura, Canada's. Dr Laura,   Michael Hingson ** 49:41 yeah, I was gonna say there we've got lots of dr, Laura's at least two not to be   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 49:44 mixed up with your radio. One not to be mixed up completely different, right, in approach and style and values. And so I took on that started the podcast as the labor of love, and said, I'm going to talk about three. Three things, helping people thrive in their careers, helping people thrive in their lives, and helping organizations to thrive. And then, oh yeah, I'll throw in some episodes around advocating for a better world. And then the feedback I got was that's a lot of lanes to be in, Laura, right? That is a lot of lanes. And I said, Yeah, but the commonality is the intersection of work and life, and I want to have enough variety that it's stuff that I'm genuinely curious to learn, and it's guests that I'm curious to learn from, as well as my own musings on certain topics. And so that's what's happened. So it's it's 111 episodes in I just recorded 111 that's cool, yeah. So it's every two weeks, so it's not as often as some podcasts, but every episode is full of golden nuggets and wisdom, and it's been a journey and a labor of love. And I do it for the joy of it. I don't do it as a, you know, it's not really a business thing. It's led to great connections. But I don't do it to make money, and, in fact, it costs me money, but I do it to make a difference in the tricky world,   Michael Hingson ** 51:11 right? Well, but at the same time, you get to learn a lot. You get to meet people, and that's really what it's all about anyway.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 51:21 Oh, I've met some incredible people like you through doing it, Michael and like my mentor, Sy Wakeman, who wrote the book no ego that's behind me in my office, and who's just a prolific speaker and researcher on drama and ego in the workplace. And you know, I've, I've met gurus from around the world on different topics. It's been fabulous,   Michael Hingson ** 51:47 and that is so cool. Well, and you, you've written some books. Tell us about your books, and by the way, by the way, I would appreciate it if you would email me photos of book covers, because I want to put those in the show notes.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 52:03 Oh, okay, I'm going to start with my current book that it actually, I just submitted my manuscript the other day, and it's, it's about toxic bosses, and how we can navigate and exit and recover from a toxic boss. And I saw this as a huge problem in the last couple of years, across different workplaces, across different people, almost everyone I met either had experienced it or had a loved one experience a toxic boss. And so I said, What is a toxic boss? First of all, how is this defined, and what does the research say? Because I'm always looking at, well, what the research says? And wait a minute, there's not a lot of research in North America. I'm an adjunct professor of psychology. I have a team of students. I can do research on this. I'm going to get to the bottom of toxic bosses post pandemic. What? What are toxic bosses? What are the damage they're inflicting on people, how do they come across, and what do we do about it? And then, how do we heal and recover? Because it's a form of trauma. So that's what I've been heavily immersed in, heavily immersed in. And the book is going to really help a lot of humans. It really is. So that's my passion right now is that book and getting it out into the world in January 2026, it's going to be   Michael Hingson ** 53:27 published. What's it called? Do you have a title   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 53:30 yet? I do, but I'm not really okay title officially yet, because it's just being with my publisher and editor, and I just don't want to say it until actually, Michael, I have the cover so it's going through cover design. I have a US publisher, and it's going through cover design, and that's so important to me, the visual of this, and then I'll share the I'll do a cover reveal. Good for you, yeah, and this is important to me, and I think it's timely, and I really differentiate what's a difficult boss versus a toxic boss, because there's a lot of difficult bosses, but I don't want to mix up difficult from toxic, because I think we need to understand the difference, and we need to help difficult bosses become better. We need to help toxic bosses not to do their damage and organizations to deal with them. And it's just there's so many different legs to this project. I'll be doing it for years.   Michael Hingson ** 54:24 So what's the difference between difficult and toxic? Or can you talk about that?   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 54:29 Yeah, I can talk about, I mean, some of the differences difficult bosses are frustrating, annoying. They can be poor communicators, bad delegators. They can even micromanage sometimes, and micromanagement is a common thing in new leaders, common issue. But the difference is that they the difficult boss doesn't cause psychological harm to you. They don't cause psychological and physical harm to you. They're not. Malicious in their intent. They're just kind of bumbling, right? They're just bumbling unintentionally. It's unintentional. The toxic boss is manipulative, dishonest, narcissistic. They can gaslight, they can abuse, they can harass, all these things that are intentional. Negative energy that inflicts psychological and or physical harm.   Michael Hingson ** 55:27 And I suspect you would say their actions are deliberate for the most part, for the most part, at   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 55:35 least, yeah. And that's a whole Yeah, yeah. I would say whether they're deliberate or not, it's the impact that matters. And the impact is deep psychological hurt and pain, which is, and we know the Psych and the body are related, and it often turns into physical. So my research participants, you know, lots of issues. There's there's research. Cardiovascular is impacted by toxic bosses. Your mental health is your your heart rate, your your digestion, your gut. I mean, all of it's connected. When you have a toxic Boss,   Michael Hingson ** 56:09 what usually creates a toxic boss? It has to come from somewhere   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 56:18 that stems back to childhood. Typically got it. And we get into a whole you know about childhood trauma, right? Big T trauma and little T trauma. Little T trauma are almost death by 1000 paper cuts. It's all the little traumas that you know you you went through, if they're unaddressed, if they're unaddressed, big T trauma is you were sexually assaulted, or you were physically abused, or you went through a war and you had to escape the war torn country, or those sorts of things I call big T and I've learned this from other researchers. Little Ts are like this. You know, maybe microaggressions, maybe being teased, maybe being you know, these things that add up over time and affect your self confidence. And if you don't deal with the little Ts, they can cause harm in adulthood as well. And so that's what, depending on what went on earlier, whether you dealt with that or not, can make you come across into adulthood as a narcissist, for example,   Michael Hingson ** 57:21 right? Well, you've written some other books also, haven't   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 57:25 you? Oh, yeah, so let's cheer this conversation up. I wrote two psychological thrillers. I am mad. I have an active imagination. I thought, what if someone got kidnapped by a billionaire, multi billionaire ex boyfriend who was your high school sweetheart, but it was 10 years later, and they created a perfect life for you, a perfect life for you, in a perfect world for you. What would that be like? So it's all about navigating that situation. So I have a strong female protagonist, so it's called losing cadence. And then I wrote a sequel, because my readers loved it so much, and it ended on a Hollywood cliffhanger. So then I wrote the sequel that takes place 12 years later, and I have a producing partner in in Hollywood, and we're pitching it for a TV series filmed as a three season, three seasons of episodes, and potentially more, because it's a really interesting story that has you at the edge of your seat at every episode.   Michael Hingson ** 58:28 Have those books been converted to audio? Also?   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 58:33 No, no, I never converted them to audio. But I should. I should.   Michael Hingson ** 58:37 You should, you should. Did you publish them? Or did you have a publisher? I   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 58:41 published these ones. Yeah, a decade ago, a decade ago,   Michael Hingson ** 58:45 it has gotten easier, apparently, to make books available on Audible, whether you read them or you get somebody else to do it, the process isn't what it used to be. So might be something to look at. That'd be kind of fun.   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 59:00 I think so. And I'll be doing that for my toxic boss book. Anyway, Michael, so I'm going to learn the ropes, and then I could do it for losing cadence and finding Sophie,   Michael Hingson ** 59:09 you'd find probably a lot of interested people who would love to have them in audio, because people running around, jogging and all that, love to listen to things, and they listen to podcasts, yours and mine. But I think also audio books are one way that people get entertained when they're doing other things. So yeah, I advocate for it. And of course, all of us who are blind would love it as well. Of   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 59:34 course, of course, I just it's on my mind. It's and I'm going to manifest doing that at some point.   Michael Hingson ** 59:41 Well, I want to thank you for being here. This has been absolutely a heck of a lot of fun, and we'll have to do it again. We'll do it in May, and we may just have to have a second episode going forward. We'll see how it goes. But I'm looking forward to being on the your podcast in May, and definitely send me a. The book covers for the the two books that you have out, because I'd like to make sure that we put those in the show notes for the podcast. But if people want to reach out to you, learn more about you, maybe learn what you do and see how you can work with them. How do they do that?   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 1:00:14 Sure, that's a great question. So triple w.dr, Laura all is one word, D R, L, A, u, r, a, dot live. So Dr, Laura dot live is my website, and then you'll find where work meets life on all the podcast platforms. You'll find me a lot on LinkedIn as Dr Laura Hambley, love it, so I love LinkedIn, but I'm also on all the platforms, and I just love connecting with people. I share a lot of videos and audio and articles, and I'm always producing things that I think will help people and help organizations.   Michael Hingson ** 1:00:52 Well, cool. Well, I hope people will reach out. And speaking of reaching out, I'd love to hear what you all think of our episode today. So please feel free to email me at Michael H I M, I C H, A, E, L, H i at accessibe, A, C, C, E, S, S i b, e.com, or go to our podcast page, which is w, w, w, dot Michael hingson.com/podcast and Michael hingson is m, I C H, A, E, L, H i N, G, s o n.com/podcast, wherever you're listening, please give us a five star rating. We value that. If you don't give us a five star rating, I won't tell Alamo, my guy dog, and so you'll be safe. But we really do appreciate you giving us great ratings. We'd love to hear your thoughts. If any of you know of anyone else who ought to be a guest on our podcast, or if you want to be a guest, and of course, Laura, if you know some folks, we are always looking for more people to come on unstoppable mindset. So please feel free to let me know about that. Introduce us. We're always looking for more people and more interesting stories to tell. So we hope that that you'll do that. But I want to thank but I want to thank you again for coming on today. This has been fun,   Dr. Laura Hambley Lovett ** 1:02:07 definitely, and I really admire you, Michael, and I can't wait to have you on where work meets life.   **Michael Hingson ** 1:02:18 You have been listening to the Unstoppable Mindset podcast. Thanks for dropping by. I hope that you'll join us again next week, and in future weeks for upcoming episodes. To subscribe to our podcast and to learn about upcoming episodes, please visit www dot Michael hingson.com slash podcast. Michael Hingson is spelled m i c h a e l h i n g s o n. While you're on the site., please use the form there to recommend people who we ought to interview in upcoming editions of the show. And also, we ask you and urge you to invite your friends to join us in the future. If you know of any one or any organization needing a speaker for an event, please email me at speaker at Michael hingson.com. I appreciate it very much. To learn more about the concept of blinded by fear, please visit www dot Michael hingson.com forward slash blinded by fear and while you're there, feel free to pick up a copy of my free eBook entitled blinded by fear. The unstoppable mindset podcast is provided by access cast an initiative of accessiBe and is sponsored by accessiBe. Please visit www.accessibe.com . AccessiBe is spelled a c c e s s i b e. There you can learn all about how you can make your website inclusive for all persons with disabilities and how you can help make the internet fully inclusive by 2025. Thanks again for Listening. Please come back and visit us again next week.

Founder of the Raising Capitalists Foundation and previous co-host of The Real Estate Guys Radio show, Russell Gray, joins Keith to discuss the historical and current devaluation of the U.S. dollar, its impact on investors, and the broader economic implications. Gray highlights how the significant increase in interest rates has trapped equity in properties and affected development. He explains the shift from gold-backed currency to paper money, the role of the Federal Reserve, and the impact of the Bretton Woods Agreement.  Gray emphasizes the importance of understanding macroeconomic trends and advocates for Main Street capitalism to decentralize power and promote productivity. He also criticizes the idea of housing as a human right, arguing it leads to inflation and shortages. Resources: Connect with Russell Gray to learn more about his "Raising Capitalists" project and his plans for a new show. Follow up with Russell Gray to get a copy of the Beardsley Rummel speech transcript from 1946. follow@russellgray.com Show Notes: GetRichEducation.com/558 For access to properties or free help with a GRE Investment Coach, start here: GREmarketplace.com GRE Free Investment Coaching: GREinvestmentcoach.com Get mortgage loans for investment property: RidgeLendingGroup.com or call 855-74-RIDGE  or e-mail: info@RidgeLendingGroup.com Invest with Freedom Family Investments.  You get paid first: Text FAMILY to 66866 Will you please leave a review for the show? I'd be grateful. Search “how to leave an Apple Podcasts review”.  For advertising inquiries, visit: GetRichEducation.com/ad Best Financial Education: GetRichEducation.com Get our wealth-building newsletter free— text ‘GRE' to 66866 Our YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/c/GetRichEducation Follow us on Instagram: @getricheducation Complete episode transcript:   Automatically Transcribed With Otter.ai  Keith Weinhold  0:01   Welcome to GRE. I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, what's the real backstory on why we have this thing called the dollar? Why it keeps getting debased? What you can do about it and when the dollar will die? It's a lesson in monetary history. And our distinguished guest is a familiar voice that you haven't heard in a while. Today on get rich education.   Mid south home buyers, I mean, they're total pros, with over two decades as the nation's highest rated turnkey provider, their empathetic property managers use your ROI as their North Star. So it's no wonder that smart investors just keep lining up to get their completely renovated income properties like it's the newest iPhone. They're headquartered in Memphis and have globally attractive cash flows and A plus rating with a better business bureau and now over 5000 houses renovated. There's zero markup on maintenance. Let that sink in, and they average a 98.9% occupancy rate, while their average renter stays more than three and a half years. Every home they offer has brand new components, a bumper to bumper, one year warranty, new 30 year roofs. And wait for it, a high quality renter. Remember that part and in an astounding price range, 100 to 180k I've personally toured their office and their properties in person in Memphis, get to know Mid South. Enjoy cash flow from day one. Start yourself right now at mid southhomebuyers.com that's mid south homebuyers.com   Russell Gray  1:54   You're listening to the show that has created more financial freedom than nearly any show in the world. This is get rich education.   Keith Weinhold  2:10   Welcome to GRE from St John's Newfoundland to St Augustine, Florida and across 188 nations worldwide. I'm Keith weinholden. You are inside get rich education. It's 2025. The real estate market is changing. We'll get into that in future. Weeks today. Over the past 100 years plus, we've gone from sound money to Monopoly money, and we're talking about America's currency collapse. What comes next and how it affects you as both an investor and a citizen.   I'd like to welcome in longtime friend of the show and someone that I've personally learned from over the years, because he's a brilliant teacher, real estate investors probably haven't heard his voice as much lately, because until last year, he had been the co host of the terrific real estate guys radio show for nearly 20 years. Before we're done today, you'll learn more about what he's doing now, as he runs the Main Street capitalist platform and is also founder of the raising capitalists foundation. Hey, it's been a few years. Welcome back to GRE Russell Gray.   Russell Gray  3:19   yeah, it's fun. I actually think it's been maybe 10 years when I think about it, I remember I was at a little resort in Mexico recording with you, I think in the gym. It was just audio back then, no video.    Keith Weinhold  3:24   Yeah, I remember we're trying to get the audio right. Then I think you've been here more recently than 10 years ago. But yeah, now there's this video component. I actually have to sit up straight and comb my hair. It's ridiculous. Well, Russ, you're also a buff of monetary history. And before we discuss that, talk about the state of the real estate market today, just briefly, from your vantage point.   Russell Gray 1  3:55    I think the big story, and I'm probably not telling anybody anything they don't know, but the interest rate hike cycle that we went through this last round was quite a bit more substantial, I think, than a lot of people really appreciated, you know. And I started talking about that many years ago, because when you hit the zero bound and you have 6,7,8, years of interest rates below half a point, the change when they started that interest rate cycle from point two, 525 basis points all the way up to five and a quarter? That's a 20x move. And people might say, well, oh, you know, I go back to what Paul Volcker did way back in the day, when he took interest rates from eight or nine to 18. That was only a little bit more than double. Double is a far cry from 20x so we've never seen anything like that. Part of the fallout of that, as you know, is a lot of people wisely, and I was on the front end of cheerleading This is go get those loans refinanced and lock in that cheap money for as long as possible, because a loan will actually become an asset. The problem is, when you do that, you're kind of married to that property. Now it's not quite as bad. As being upside down in a property and you can't get out of it, but it's really hard to walk away from a two or 3% loan in a Six 7% market, because you really can't take your same payment and end up getting more house. And so that equity is kind of a little bit trapped, and that creates some opportunities, but I think that's been the big story, and then kind of the byproduct of the story. Second tier of the story was the impact it had on development, because it made it a lot harder for developers to develop, because their cost of funds and everything in that supply chain, food chain, you marry that to the 2020, COVID Supply Chain lockdown and that disruption, which, you know, you don't shut an economy down and just flick a switch and have it come back on. And so there's all of that. And then the third thing is just this tremendous uncertainty everybody has, because we just went from one extreme to another. And I think people, you know, they don't want to, like, rock the boat, they're going to kind of stay status quo for a little bit, whether they're businesses, whether they're homeowners, whether they're anybody out there that's thinking about moving them, unless life forces you to do it, you're going to try to stay status quo until things calm down. And I don't know how close we are to things calming down.   Keith Weinhold  6:13   One word I use is normalized. Both the 30 year fixed rate mortgage and the Fed funds rate are pretty close to their long term historic average. It just doesn't feel that way, because it was that rate of increase in 2022 that caught a lot of people off guard, like you touched on Well, Russ, now that we've talked about the present day, let's go back in time, and then we'll slowly bring things up to the present day. The dollar is troubled. It's worth perhaps 3% of what it was 100 years ago, but it's still around since it was established in the Coinage Act of 1792 and it's still the world reserve currency. In fact, only three currencies have survived longer than the dollar, the British pound, the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc. So talk to us about this really relentless debasement of the dollar over time, including the creation of the Fed and the Bretton Woods Agreement and all that.   Russell Gray 7:09   That's a big story, as you know, and I always like to try to break it down a little bit. One of my specialties I'd like to believe, is I speak macro and I speak Main Street. And so when I try to break macroeconomics down, I start out with, why do I even care? I mean, if I'm a main street investor, why do I even care? In 2008 as you know, is a wipeout for me. Why? Because I didn't think anything had happened in the macro I didn't think Wall Street bond market. I didn't think that affected me. One thing I really cared about was interest rates. And I had a cursory interest in the bond market. We just try to figure out where interest rates were going. But for the most part, I thought, as a main street real estate investor, I was 100% insulated. I couldn't have been more wrong, because it really does matter, because the value of the dollar, in other words, the purchasing power of the dollar, and usually you refer to that as inflation, right? If inflation is there, the dollar is losing its purchasing power, and so the higher the inflation rate, the faster you're losing that purchasing power. And you might say, well, maybe that matters to me. Maybe it does. But the people who make the money available to the mortgage community, right to the real estate community to borrow that comes out of the bond market. And so when people go to buy a bond, which is an IOU, they're going to get paid back in the currency that they lent in, in this case, dollars. And if they know, if they're making a long term investment in a long term bond, and they're going to get paid back in dollars, they're going to be worth a whole lot less when they get them back. One of the things they're going to want is compensation for that time risk, and that's called higher interest rates. Okay, so now, if you're a main street investor, and higher interest rates impact you, now you understand why you want to pay attention. Okay, so let's just start with that. And so once you understand that the currency is a derivative of money, and money used to be you mentioned the Coinage Act Keith money, which is gold, used to be synonymous with the dollar. The dollar was only a unit of measure of gold, 1/20 of an ounce. It was a unit of measure. So it's like, the way I teach people is, like, if you had a gallon of milk and you traded, I'm a farmer, and I had a lot of milk, and so everybody decided they were going to use gallons of milk as their currency. Hey, where there's a lot of gallons of milk. He's got a big refrigerator. We'll just trade gallons of milk. Hey, Keith, I really like your beef. I you know, will you sell me some, a side of beef, and I'll give you, you know, 100 gallons of milk, you know, like, Oh, that's great. Well, I can't drink all this milk, so I'm going to leave the milk on deposit at the dairy, and then later on, when I decide I want a suit of clothes, I'll say, well, that's 10 gallons of milk. So I'll give the guy 10 gallons of milk. So I just give him a coupon, a claim, a piece of paper for that gallon of milk, or 20 gallons of milk, and he can go to the dairy and pick it up, right? And so that's kind of the way the monetary system evolved, except it wasn't milk, it was gold. So now you got the dollar. Well, after a while, nobody's going to get the milk. They don't care about the milk. And so now. Now, instead of just saying, I'll give you a gallon of milk, you just say, well, I'll give you a gallon. And somebody says, Okay, that's great. I'll take a gallon. They never opened the jug up. They never realized the jug is empty. They're just trading these empty jugs that used to have milk in them. Well, that's what the paper dollar is today. It went from being a gold certificate payable to bearer on demand, a certain amount of gold, a $20 gold certificate, what looks exactly like a $20 FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE. Today they look exactly the same, except one says FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE, which is an IOU backed by nothing, and the other one said gold certificate, which was payable to bearer on demand, real money. So my point is, is he got money which is a derivative of the productivity, the beef, the soot, the milk, whatever, right? That's the real capital. The real capital is the goods and services we all want. Money is where we store the value of whatever it is we created until we want to trade it for something somebody else created later. And it used to be money and currency were one in the same, but now we've separated that. So now all we do is trade empty gallons, which are empty pieces of paper, and that's currency. So those are derivatives, and the last derivative of that chain is credit. And you had Richard Duncan on your show more than once, and he is famous for kind of having this term. We don't normally have capitalism. We have creditism, right? Everything is credit. Everything is claims on wealth, but it's not real wealth, and it's just when we look at what's going on with our current administration and the drive to become a productive rather than a financialized society, again, as part of this uncertainty that everybody has. Because this is not just a subtle little adjustment on the same course. This is like, No, we're we're going down a completely different path. But fundamentally, your system operates on this currency that is flowing through it, like the blood flowing through your body. And if the blood is bad, your body's sick. And right now, our currency is bad, and so it creates problems, not just for us, but all around the world. And now we're exacerbating that. And I'm not saying it's bad. In fact, I think it's actually it's actually good, but change is what it is, right? I mean, it can be really good to go to the gym and work out before we started recording, you talked about your commitment to fitness, and that if you stop working out, you get unfit, and it's hard to start up again. Well, we've allowed our economy to get very unfit. Now we're trying to get fit again, and it's going to be painful. We're going to be sore, but if we stick with it, I think we can actually kind of save this thing. So I don't know what that's going to mean for the dollar ultimately, or if we end up going to something else, but right now, to your point, the dollar is definitely the big dog still, but I think it's probably even more under attack today than it's ever been, and so it's just something I think every Main Street investor needs to pay attention to.    Keith Weinhold  12:46   And it was really that 1913 creation of the Fed, where the Fed's mandates really didn't begin to take effect until 1914 that accelerated this slide in the dollar. Prior to that, it was really just periods of war, like, for example, the Civil War, where we had inflation rise, but then after wars abated, the dollar's strength returned, but that ceased to happen last century.   Russell Gray  13:11   I think there's a much bigger story there. So when we founded the country, we established legal money in the Coinage Act of 1792 we got gold and silver and a specific unit of measure of gold, a specific unit, measure of silver was $1 and that's what money was constitutionally. Alexander Hamilton advocated for the first central bank and got it, but it was issued by Charter, which meant that it was operated by the permission of the Congress. It wasn't institutionalized. It wasn't embedded in the Constitution. It was just something that was granted, like a license. You have a charter to be able to run a bank. When that initial charter came up for renewal, Congress goes, now we're not going to renew it. Well, of course, that made the bankers really upset, because bankers have a pretty good gig, right? They get to just loan people money. They don't have to do any real work, and then they make money on just kind of arbitraging, you know, other people's money. Savers put their money in, and they borrowed the money out, and then they with fractional reserve, they're able to magnify that. So it's, it's kind of a cool gig. And so what happened? Then he had the first central bank, so then they got the second central bank, and the second central bank was also issued by charter this time when it came up for renewal, Congress goes, Yeah, let's renew it, right? Because the bankers knew we got to go buy a few congressmen if we want to keep this thing going. But President Andrew Jackson said, No, not going to happen. And it was a big battle. Is a famous quote of him just calling these bankers a brood of vipers. And I'm going to put you down. And God help me, I will, right? I mean, it was like intense fact, I do believe he got shot at one point. I think he died from lead poisoning, because he never got the bullet out. So, you know, when you go to up against the bankers, it's not pretty, but he succeeded. He was the last president that paid off all the debt, balanced budget, paid off all the debt, and we got kind of back on sound money. Well, then a little while later, said, Okay, we're going to need, like, something major, and this would. I should put on. I got my, this is my hat, right now, I'll kind of put it on. This is my, my tin foil hat. Okay? And so I put this on when I kind of go down the rabbit trail a little bit. No, I'm not saying this is what happened, but it wouldn't surprise me, right? Because I know that war is profitable, and so sometimes, you know, your comment was, hey, there's the bank, and then there was, you know, the war, or there's the war, then there's a bank, which comes first the chicken or the egg. I think there's an article where Henry Ford and Thomas Edison went to Congress. I think it was December. The article was published New York Tribune, December 4. I think 1921 you can look it up, New York Tribune, front page article   Keith Weinhold  15:38   fo those of you in the audio only. Russ started donning a tin foil looking hat here about one minute ago.    Russell Gray  15:45   I did, yeah, so I put it on. Just so fair warning. You know, I may go a little conspiratorial, but the reason I do that is I just, I think we've seen enough, just in current, modern history and politics, in the age of AI and software and freedom of speech and new media, there's a lot of weird stuff going on out there, but a lot of stuff that we thought was really weird a little while ago has turned out to be more true than we thought. When you look back in history, and you kind of read the official narrative and you wonder, you kind of read between the lines. You go, oh, maybe some stuff went on here. So anyway, the allegation that Ford made, smart guy, Thomas Edison, smart guy. And they go to Congress, and they go, Hey, we need to get the gold out of the banker's hands, because gold is money, and we need money not to revolve around gold, because the bankers control gold. They control the money, and they make profits, his words, not mine, by starting wars, because he was very upset about World War One, which happened. We got involved right after Fed gets formed in 1913 World War One starts in 1914 the United States sits off in the background and sells everybody, everything. It collects a bunch of gold, and then enters at the end and ends it all. And that big influx created the roaring 20s, as we all know, which ended big boom to big bust. And that cycle, which then a crisis that created, potentially a argument for why the government should have more control, right? So you kind of go down this path. So we ended up in 1865 with President Lincoln suppressing states rights and eventually creating an unconstitutional income tax and then creating an unconstitutional currency. That's what Abraham Lincoln did. And then on the back end of that, you know, it didn't end well for him, and I don't know why, but all I know is that we had a financial crisis in 1907 and the solution to that was the Aldrich plan, which was basically a monopoly on money. It's called a money trust. And Charles Lindbergh, SR was railing against it, as were many people at the time, going, No, this is terrible. So they renamed the Aldrich plan the Federal Reserve Act. And instead of going for a bank charter, they went for a constitutional amendment, and they got it in the 16th Amendment, and that's where we got the IRS. That's where we got the income tax, which was only supposed to be 7% only affect like the top one or 2% of earners, right? And that's where we got, you know, the Federal Reserve. That's where all that was born. Since that happened, to your point, the dollar has been on with a slight little rise up in the 20s, which, you know, there's a whole thing about whether that caused the crash or not. But at the end of the day, if you go look at St Louis Fed, which you go look at all the time, and you just look at the long term trend of the dollar, it's terrible. And the barometer, that's gold, right? $20 of gold in 1913 and 1933 and then 42 in 1971 or two, whatever it was, three, and then eventually as high as 850 but at the turn of the century, this century, it was $250 so at $2,500 it would have lost 90% in the 21st Century. The dollars lost 90% in the 21st Century, just to 2500 that's profound to go. That's right, it already lost more than 90% from $20 to 250 so it lost 90% and then 90% of the 10% that was left. And that's where we're at. We're worse than that. Today, no currency, as far as I understand, I've been told this. Haven't done the homework, but it's my understanding, no currency in the history of the world has ever survived that kind of debasement. So I think a lot of people who are watching are like, okay, it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. And then the big question is, is when that when comes? What does the transition look like? What rises in its place? And then you look at things like a central bank digital currency, which is not like Bitcoin, it's not a crypto, it's a centrally controlled currency run by the central bank. If we get that, I would argue that's not good for privacy and security. Could be Bitcoin would be better. I would argue, could go back to gold backing, which I would say is better than what we have, or we could get something nobody's even thought of. I don't know. We don't know, but I do think we're at the end of the life cycle. Historically, all things being equal. And I think all the indication with a big run up of gold, gold is screaming something's broken. It's just screaming it right now, not just because the price is up, but who's buying it. It's just central banks.   Keith Weinhold  20:12   Central banks are doing most of the buying, right? It's not individual investors going to a coin shop. So that's really screaming, telling you that people are concerned. People are losing their faith in giving loans to the United States for sure. And Russ, as we talk about gold, and it's important link to the dollar over time, you mentioned how they wanted it, to get it out of the bank's hands for a while. Of course, there was also a period of time where it was illegal for Americans to own gold. And then we had this Bretton Woods Agreement, which was really important as well, where we ended up violating promises that had to do with gold again. So can you speak to us some more about that? Because a lot of people just don't understand what happened at Bretton Woods.   Russell Gray  20:56   What happened is we had the big crash in 1929 and the net result of that was, in 1933 we got executive order 6102 In fact, I have a picture of it framed, and that was in the wake of that in 1933 and so what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did in signing that document, which was empowered by a previous act of Congress, basically let him confiscate all The money. It'd be like right now if, right now, you know, President Trump signed an executive order and said, You have to take all your cash, every all the cash that you have out of your wallet. You have to send it all, take it into the bank, and they're going to give you a Chuck E Cheese token, right? And if you don't do it, if you do it, it's a $500,000 fine in 10 years in prison. Right? Back then it was a $10,000 fine, which was twice the price of the average Home huge fine, plus jail time. That's how severe it was, okay? So they confiscated all the money. That happened in 33 okay? Now we go off to war, and we enter the war late again. And so we have the big manufacturing operation. We're selling munitions and all kinds of supplies to everybody, all over the world, right? And we're just raking the gold and 20,000 tons of gold. We got all the gold. We got the biggest army now, we got the biggest bomb, we got the biggest economy. We got the strongest balance sheet. Well, I mean, you know, we went into debt for the war, but, I mean, we had a lot of gold. So now everybody else is decimated. We're the big dog. Everybody knows we're the big dog. Nine states shows up in New Hampshire Bretton Woods, and they have this big meeting with the world, and they say, Hey guys, new sheriff in town. Britain used to be the world's reserve currency, but today we're going to be the world's reserve currency. And so this was the new setup. But it's okay. It's okay because our dollar is as good as gold. It's backed by gold, and so anytime you want foreign nations, you can just bring your dollars to us and we'll give you the gold, no problem. And everyone's like, okay, great. What are you going to say? Right? You got the big bomb, you got the big army. Everybody needs you for everything to live like you're not going to say no. So they said, Yes, of course, the United States immediately. I've got a speech that a guy named Beardsley Rummel did. Have you ever heard me talk about this before? Keith, No, I've never heard about this. So Beardsley Rummel was the New York Fed chair when all this was happening. And so he gave a speech to the American Bar Association in 1945 and I got a transcript of it, a PDF transcript of it from 1946 and basically he goes, Look, income taxes are obsolete. We don't need income tax anymore because we can print money, because we're off the gold standard and we have no accountability. We just admitted it, just totally admitted it, and said the only reason we have income tax is to manipulate behavior, is to redistribute wealth, is to force people to do what we want them to do, punish things and reward others, right? Just set it plain language. I have a transcript of the speech. You can get a copy of you send an email to Rummel R U, M, L@mainstreetcapitalist.com I'll get it to you. So it's really, really interesting. So he admitted it. So we went along in the 40s and the 50s, and, you know, we had the only big manufacturing you know, because everybody else is still recovering from the war. Everything been bombed to smithereens, and we're spending money and doing all kinds of stuff. And having the 50s, it was great, right, right up until the mid 60s. So the mid 60s, it's like, Okay, we got a problem. And Charles de Gaulle, who was the president of France at the time, went to a meeting. And there's a YouTube video, but you can see it, he basically told the world, hey, I don't think the United States is doing a good job managing this world's reserve currency. I don't think they've got the gold. I think they printed too much money. I think that we should start to go redeem our dollars and get the gold. That was pretty forward thinking. And he created a run on the bank. And at the same time, we passed the Coinage Act in 1965 and took all the silver out of the people's money. So we took the gold in 33 and then we took the silver in 65 right? Because we got Vietnam and the Great Society, welfare, all these things were going on in the 60s. We're just going broke. Meanwhile, our gold supply went from 20,000 tons down to eight and Richard. Nixon is like, whoa, time out. Like, this is bad. And so we had inflation in 1970 August 15, 1971 year before August 15, 1971 1970 Nixon writes an executive order and freezes all prices and all wages. It became illegal by presidential edict for a private business to give their employee a raise or to raise their prices to the customers.    Keith Weinhold  25:30   It's almost if that could happen price in theUnited States of America, right?    Russell Gray  25:36   And inflation was 4.4% and it was a national emergency like today. I mean, you know, a few years ago, like three or four years ago, we if we could get it down 4.4% it'd be Holly. I'd be like a celebration. That was bad. And so that's what happened. So a year later, that didn't work. It was a 90 day thing. It was a disaster. And so in a year later, August 15, 1971 Nixon came on live TV after Gunsmoke. I think it was, and I was old enough I'm watching TV on a Sunday night I watched it. Wow. So I live, that's how old I am. So it's a lot of this history, not the Bretton Woods stuff, but from like 1960 2,3,4, forward. I remember I was there.    Keith Weinhold  26:13   Yeah, that you remember the whole Nixon address on television. We should say it for the listener that doesn't know. Basically the announcement Nixon made, he said, was a temporary measure, is that foreign nations can no longer redeem their dollars for gold. He broke the promise that was made at Bretton Woods in about 1945   Russell Gray  26:32   Yeah. And then gold went from $42 up to 850 and a whole series of events that have led to where we're at today were put in place to cover up the fact that the dollar was failing. We had climate emergency. We were headed towards the next global Ice Age. We had an existential threat in two different diseases that hit one right after the other. First one was the h1 n1 flu, swine flu, and then the next thing was AIDS. And so we had existential pandemic, two of them. We also had a oil shortage crisis. We were going to run out of fossil fuel by the year 2000 we had to do all kinds of very public, visible, visceral things that we would all see. You could only buy gas odd even days, like, if your license plate ended in an odd number, you could go on these days, and if it ended on an even number, you could go on the other days. And so we had that. We lowered our national speed limit down to 55 miles an hour. We created the EPA and all these different agencies under Jimmy Carter to try to regulate and manage all of this crisis. Prior to that, Nixon sent Kissinger over to China, and we opened up trade relations. And we'd been in Vietnam to protect the world from communism because it was so horrible. And then in the wake of that, we go over to Communist China, Chairman Mao and open up trade relations. Why we needed access to their cheap labor to suck up all the inflation. And we went over to the Saudis, and we cut the petro dollar deal. Why? Because we needed the float. We needed some place for all these excess dollars that we had created to get sucked up. And so they got sucked up in trading the largest commodity in the world, energy. And the deal was, hey, Saudis, here's the deal. You like your kingdom? Well, we got the big bomb. We got the big army. You're going to rule the roost in the in the Middle East, and we'll protect you. All you got to do is make sure you sell all your oil in dollars and dollars only. And they're like, Well, what if we're selling oil to China, or what if we're selling oil to Japan? Can they pay in yen? Nope, they got to sell yen. Buy dollars. Well, what do we do with all these dollars? Buy our treasuries. Okay, so what if I got this? Yeah, and so that was the petrodollar system. And the world looked at everything went on, and the world is like, Hmm, the United States coming back to Europe, and Charles de Gaulle, they're like, the United States is not handling this whole dollar thing real well. We need an alternative. What if all of us independent nations in Europe got together and created a common currency? We don't want to be like one country, like the United States, but we want to be like an economic union. So let's create a current let's call it the euro. And they started that process in the 70s, but they didn't get it done till 99 and so they get it done in 99 as soon as they get it done, this guy named Saddam Hussein goes, Hey, I'm now the big dog here. I got the fourth largest army in the world. I'm here in, you know, big oil producing nation. Let's trade in the euro. Let's get off the dollar. Let's do oil in the euro. And he's gone. I'm not sure I should put my hat back on. I'm not sure, but somehow we went into Afghanistan and took a hard left and took this guy out.   Keith Weinhold  29:44   Some credence to this. Yes, yeah, so. But with that said,   Russell Gray  29:47   you know, we ended up with the Euro taking about 20% of the global trade market from the United States, which is about where it sits today. And the United States used to be up over 80% and now we're down below 60% still. The Big Dog by triple and the euro is not in a position to supplant the US, but I think China, whose claim to fame is looking at other people's technology and models and copying it, looked at what the United States did to become the dominant economic force, and I think they've systematically been copying it. I wrote a report on this way back in 2013 when I started really paying attention to it and began to chronicle all the things that they were doing, this big D dollarization movement that I think still has legs. It's the BRICS movement. It's all the central banks buying gold. It's the bilateral trade agreements where people are doing business outside the dollar. There's been not just that, but also putting together the infrastructure, right? The Asian Infrastructure Bank is an alternative to the IMF looking, if you have you read Confessions of an economic hitman. No. Okay, so this is a guy that used to work in the government, I think, CIA or something, and he would go down and he'd cut deals with leaders of countries to get them to borrow from the United States to put in key infrastructure so they could trade with the US. And then, of course, if they defaulted, then the US owned that in the infrastructure. You can look it up. His name is Perkins, right. Look it up confessions of economic hit now, but you see China doing the same thing. China's got their Belt and Road Initiative. And you go through, and if you want to trade with China on that route, you have traded, you're gonna have to have infrastructure. You can eat ports. You're gonna need terminals for distribution. But you, Oh, you don't have the money. We'll loan it to you, and we'll loan it to you and you want. Now we're creating demand for you want, and we also are enslaving borrower servant to the lender. We're beginning to enslave these other nations under the guise of helping them by financing their growth so they can do business with us. It's the same thing the United States did and Shanghai Gold Exchange, as opposed to the London Bullion exchange. So all of the key pieces of infrastructure that were put in place to facilitate Western hegemony in the financial markets the Chinese have been systematically putting in place with bricks, and so there's a reason we're in this big trade war right now. We recognize that they had started to get in a position where they were actually a real threat, and we got to cut their legs out from underneath them before they get any stronger. Again, I should put my hat back on. Nobody's calling me up and telling me, I'm just reading between the lines. Sure,   Keith Weinhold  32:23   there certainly are more competitors to the dollar now. And can you imagine what rate of inflation that we would have had if we had not outsourced our labor and productivity over to a low wage place like China in the east? Russ and I have been talking about the long term debasement of the dollar and why. More on that when we come back, including what Russ is up to today. You're listening to get rich education. Our guest is Russell Gray. I'm your host, Keith Weinhold, the same place where I get my own mortgage loans is where you can get yours. Ridge lending group and MLS, 42056, they provided our listeners with more loans than anyone because they specialize in income properties. They help you build a long term plan for growing your real estate empire with leverage. Start your pre qual and even chat with President Chaley Ridge personally while it's on your mind, start at Ridge lendinggroup.com that's Ridge lendinggroup.com. You know what's crazy? Your bank is getting rich off of you. The average savings account pays less than 1% it's like laughable. Meanwhile, if your money isn't making at least 4% you're losing to inflation. That's why I started putting my own money into the FFI liquidity fund. It's super simple. Your cash can pull in up to 8% returns, and it compounds. It's not some high risk gamble like digital or AI stock trading. It's pretty low risk because they've got a 10 plus year track record of paying investors on time, in full every time. I mean, I wouldn't be talking about it if I wasn't invested myself. You can invest as little as 25k and you keep earning until you decide you want your money back. No weird lockups or anything like that. So if you're like me and tired of your liquid funds just sitting there doing nothing. Check it out. Text family, 266, 866, to learn about freedom family investments, liquidity fund again. Text family, 266, 866,   Garrett Sutton  34:36   hi. This is Rich Dad advisor, Garrett Sutton. You're listening to the always valuable. Get rich education with Keith Weinhold, don't quit your Daydream.    Keith Weinhold  34:52   Welcome back to get rich education. We're talking with the main street capitalists Russell gray about this long term debasement of the dollar. It's an. Inevitable. It's one of the things we actually can forecast with pretty good predictability that the dollar will continue to debase. It's one of the few almost guarantees that we have in investing. So we can think about how we want to play that Russ one thing I wonder about is, did we have to completely de peg the dollar from gold? Couldn't we have just diluted it where we could instead say, Well, hey, now, instead of just completely depegging the dollar from gold, we could say, well, now it takes 10 times as many dollars as it used to to redeem it for an ounce of gold. Did it make it more powerful that we just completely de pegged it 100%   Russell Gray  35:36   it would disempower the monopoly. Right? In other words, I think that the thing from the very beginning, was scripted to disconnect from the accountability of gold, which is what sound money advocates want. They want some form of independent Accountability. Gold is like an audit to a financial system. If you're the bankers and you're running the program, the last thing in the world you want is a gold standard, because it limits your ability to print money out of thin air and profit from that. So I don't think the people who are behind all of this are, in no way, shape or form, interested in doing anything that's going to limit their power or hold them accountable. They want just the opposite. I think if they could wave a magic wand and pick their solution to the problem, it would be central bank digital currency, which would give them ultimate control. Yeah. And it wouldn't surprise me if we maybe, perhaps, were on a path where some crises were going to converge, whether it's opportunistic, meaning that the crisis happened on its own, and quote Rahm Emanuel and whoever he was quoting, you know, never let a good crisis go to waste, and you're just opportunistic, or, you know, put the conspiracy theory hat on, and maybe these crises get created in order to facilitate the power grab. I don't know. It really doesn't matter what the motives are or how it happens at the end of the day, it's what happens. It happened in 33 it happened in 60. In 71 it's what happens. And so it's been a systematic de pegging of any form of accountability. I mean, we used to have a budget ceiling. We used to talk about now it's just like, it's routine. You blow right through it, right, right. There's you balance. I mean, when's the last time you even had a budget? Less, less, you know, much less anything that looked like a valid balanced budget amendment. So I think there's just no accountability other than the voting booth. And, you know, I think maybe you could make the argument that whether you like Trump or not, the public's apparent embrace of him, show you that the main street and have a lot of faith in Main Street. I think Main Street is like, you know what? This is broken. I don't know what's how to fix it, but somebody just needs to go in and just tear this thing down and figure out a new plant. Because I think if you anybody paying attention, knows that this perpetual debasement, which is kind of the theme of the show is it creates haves and have nots. Guys like you who understand how to use real estate to short the dollar, especially when you marry it to gold, which is one of my favorite strategies to double short the dollar, can really magnify the power of inflation to pull more wealth onto your balance sheet. Problem is the people who aren't on that side of the coin are on the other side of the coin, and so the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Well, the first order of business in a system we can't control is help as many people be on the rich get richer. That's why we had the get rich show, right? Let's help other people get rich. Because if I'm the only rich guy in the room, all the guns are pointed at me, right? I wanted everybody as rich as possible. I think Trump and Kiyosaki wrote about that in their book. Why we want you to be rich, right? When everybody's prospering, it's it's better, it's safer, you have people to trade with and whatnot, but we have eviscerated the middle class because industry has had to go access cheap labor markets in order to compensate for this inflation. And you know, you talk about the Fed mandate, which is 2% inflation, price inflation, 2% so if you say something that costs $1 today, a year from now, is going to cost $1 too, you think, well, maybe that's not that bad. But here's the problem, the natural progression of Business and Technology is to lower the cost, right? So you have something cost $1 today, and because somebody's using AI and internet and automation and robots and all this technology, right? And the cost, they could really sell it for 80 cents. And so the Fed looks at and goes, Let's inflate to $1.02 that's not two cents of inflation. That's 22 cents of inflation. And so there's hidden inflation. The benefits of the gains in productivity don't show up in the CPI, but it's like deferred maintenance on an apartment building. You can make your cash flow look great if you're not setting anything aside for the inevitable day when that roof is going to go out and that parking lot is going to need to be repaved, right? And you don't know how far out you are until you get there and you're like, wow, I'm really short, and I think that we have been experiencing for decades. The theft of the benefit of our productivity gains, and we're not just a little bit out of position. We're way out of position. That's   Keith Weinhold  40:07   a great point. Like I had said earlier, imagine what the rate of inflation would be if we hadn't outsourced so much of our labor and productivity to low cost China. And then imagine what the rate of inflation would be as well, if you would factor in all of this increased productivity and efficiency, the natural tendencies of which are to make prices go lower as society gets more productive, but instead they've gone higher. So when you adjust for some of these factors, you just can't imagine what the true debased purchasing power of the dollar is. It's been happening for a long time. It's inevitable that it's going to continue to happen in the future. So this has been a great chat about the history and us understanding what the powers that be have done to debase our dollar. It's only at what rate we don't know. Russ, tell us more about what you're doing today. You're really out there more as a champion for Main Street in capitalism.   Russell Gray  41:04   I mean, 20 years with Robert and the real estate guys, and it was fantastic. I loved it. I went through a lot, obviously, in 2008 and that changed me a little bit. Took me from kind of being a blocking and tackling, here's how you do real estate, and to really understanding macro and going, you know, it doesn't matter. You can do like I did, and you build this big collection. Big collection of properties and you lose it all in a moment because you don't understand macro. So I said, Okay, I want to champion that cause. And so we did that. And then we saw in the 2012 JOBS Act, the opportunity for capital raisers to go mainstream and advertise for credit investors. And I wrote a report then called the new law breaks Wall Street monopoly. And I felt like that was going to be a huge opportunity, and we pioneered that. But then after my late wife died, and I had a chance to spend some time alone during COVID, and I thought, life is short. What do I really want to accomplish before I go? And then I began looking at what was going on in the world. I see now a couple of things that are both opportunities and challenges or causes to be championed. And one is the mega trend that I believe the world is going you know, some people call it a fourth turning whatever. I don't consider that kind of we have to fall off a cliff as Destiny type of thing to be like cast in stone. But what I do see is that people are sick and tired of monopolies. We're sick and tired of big tech, we're sick and tired of big media, we're sick and tired of big government. We're sick and tired of big corporations, we don't want it, and big banks, right? So you got the rise of Bitcoin, you got people trying to get out from underneath the Western hegemony, as we've been talking about decentralization of everything. Our country was founded on the concept of decentralization, and so people don't understand that, right? It used to be everything was centralized. All powers in the king. Real Estate meant royal property. That's what real estate it's not like real asset, like tangible it's royal estate. It's royal property. Everything belonged to the king, and you just got to work it like a serf. And then you got to keep 75% in your produce, and you sent 25% you sent 25% through all the landlords, the land barons, and all the people in the hierarchy that fed on running things for the king, but you didn't own anything. Our founder set that on, turn that upside down, and said, No, no, no, no, no, it's not the king that's sovereign. It's the individual. The individual is sovereign. It isn't the monarchy, it's the individual states. And so we're going to bring the government, small. The central government small has only got a couple of obligations, like protect the borders, facilitate interstate commerce, and let's just have one common currency so that we can do business together. Other than that, like, the state's just going to run the show. Of course, Lincoln kind of blew that up, and it's gotten a lot worse after FDR, so I feel like we're under this big decentralization movement, and I think Main Street capitalism is the manifestation of that. If you want to decentralize capitalism, the gig economy, if you want to be a guy like you, and you can run your whole business off your laptop with a microphone and a camera, you know, in today's day and age with technology, people have tasted the freedom of decentralization. So I think the rise of the entrepreneur, I think the ability to go build a real asset portfolio and get out of the casinos of Wall Street. I think right now, if we are successful in bringing back these huge amounts of investment, Trump's already announced like two and a half or $3 trillion of investment, people are complaining, oh, the world is selling us. Well, they're selling stocks and they're selling but they're putting the money actually into creating businesses here in the United States that's going to create that primary driver, as you well know, in real estate, that's going to create the secondary and tertiary businesses, and the properties they're going to use all kinds of Main Street opportunity are going to grow around that. I lived in Silicon Valley, when a company would get funded, it wasn't just a company that prospered, it was everything around that company, right? All these companies. I remember when Apple started. I remember when Hewlett Packard, it was big, but it got a lot bigger, right there. I watched all that happen in Silicon Valley. I think that's going to happen again. I think we're at the front end of that. And so that's super exciting. Wave. The second thing that is super important is this raising capitalist project. And the reason I'm doing it is because if we don't train our next generation in the principles of capitalism and the freedom that it how it decentralizes Their personal economy, and they get excited about Bitcoin, but that's not productive. I'm not putting it down. I'm just saying it's not productive. You have to be productive. You want to have a decentralized currency. Yes, you want to decentralize productivity. That's Main Street capitalism. If kids who never get a chance to be in the productive economy get to vote at 1819, 2021, 22 before they've ever earned a paycheck, before they have any idea, never run a business. Somebody tells them, hey, those guys that have all that money and property, they cheated. It's not fair. We need to take from them. We need to limit them, not thinking, Oh, well, if I do that, when I get to be there, that what I'm voting for is going to get on me. Right now, Keith, there are kids in ninth grade who are going to vote for your next president, right?   Keith Weinhold  45:56   And they think capitalism is evil. This is part of what you're doing with the raising capitalists project, helping younger people think differently. Russ, I have one last thing to ask you. This has to do with the capitalism that you're championing on your platforms now. And real estate, I continue to see sometimes I get comments on my YouTube channel, especially maybe it's more and more people increasingly saying, Hey, I think housing should be a human right. So talk to us about that. And maybe it's interesting, Russ, if I take the other side of it and play devil's advocate, people who think housing is a human right, they say something like, the idea is that housing, you know, it's a fundamental need, just like food and clean water and health care are without stable housing. It's incredibly hard for a person to access opportunities like work and education or health care or participate meaningfully in society at all. So government ought to provide housing for everybody. What are your thoughts there?   Russell Gray  46:54   Well, it's inherently inflationary, which is the root cause of the entire problem. So anytime you create consumption without production, you're going to have more consumers than producers, and so you're going to have more competition for those goods. The net, net truth of what happens in that scenario are shortages everywhere. Every civilization that's ever tried any form of system where people just get things for free because they need them, end up with shortages in poverty. It doesn't lift everybody. It ruins everything. I mean, that's not conjecture. That's history, and so that's just the way it works. And if you just were to land somebody on a desert island and you had an economy of one, they're going to learn really quick the basic principles of capitalism, which is production always precedes consumption, always 100% of the time, right? If you're there on that desert island and you don't hunt fish or gather, you don't eat, right? You don't get it because, oh, it's a human right to have food. Nope, it's a human right to have the right to go get food. Otherwise, you're incarcerated, you have to have the freedom of movement to go do something to provide for yourself, but you cannot allow people to consume without production. So everybody has to produce. And you know, if you go back to the Plymouth Rock experiment, if you're familiar with that at all, yeah, yeah. So you know, just for anybody who doesn't know, when the Pilgrims came over here in the 1600s William Bradford was governor, and they tried it. They said, Hey, we're here. Let's Stick Together All for one and one for all. Here's the land. Everybody get up every day and work. Everybody works, and everybody eats. They starved. And so he goes, Okay, guys, new plan. All right, you wine holds. See this little plot of land, that's yours. You work it. You can eat whatever you produce. Over there, you grace. You're going to do yours and Johnson's, you're going to do yours, right? Well, what happened is now everybody got up and worked, and they created more than enough for their own family, and they had an abundance. And the abundance was created out of their hunger. When they went to serve their own needs, they created abundance forever others. That's the premise of capitalism. It's not the perfect system. There is no perfect system. We live in a world where human beings have to work before they get to eat. When I say eat, it could be having a roof over their head. It could be having clothes. It could be going on vacation. It could be having a nice car. It could be getting health care. It doesn't matter what it is, whatever it is you need. You have the right, or should have, the right, in a free system to go earn that by being productive, but the minute somebody comes and says, Oh, you worked, and I'm going to take what you produced and give it to somebody else who didn't, that's patently unfair, but economically, it's disastrous, because it incentivizes people not to work, which creates less production, more consumption. I have another analogy with sandwich makers, but you can imagine that if you got a group if you got a group of people making sandwiches, one guy starts creating coupons for sandwiches. Well then if somebody says, Okay, well now we got 19 people providing for 20. That's okay, but then all the guys making sandwiches. Why making sandwiches? I'm gonna get the coupon business pretty soon. You got 18 guys doing coupons, only two making sandwiches. Not. Have sandwiches to go around all the sandwiches cost tons of coupons because we got way more financialization than productivity, right? That's the American economy. We have to fix that. We can't have people making money by just trading on other people's productivity. We have to have people actually being productive. This is what I believe the administration is trying to do, rebuild the middle class, rebuild that manufacturing base, make us a truly productive economy, and then you don't have to worry about these things, right? We're going to create abundance. And if you don't have the inflation is which is coming from printing money out of thin air and giving to people who don't produce, then housing, all sudden, becomes affordable. It's not a problem. Health care becomes affordable. Everything becomes affordable because you create abundance, because everybody's producing the system is fundamentally broken. Now we have to learn how to profit in it in its current state, which is what you teach people how to do. We also have to realize that it's not sustainable. We're on an unsustainable path, and we're probably nearing that event horizon, the path of no return, where the system is going to break. And the question is, is, how are you going to be prepared for it when it happens? Number two, are you going to be wise enough to advocate when you get a chance to cast a vote or make your voice heard for something that's actually going to create prosperity and freedom versus something that's going to create scarcity and oppression? And that's the fundamental thing that we have to master as a society. We got to get to our youth, because they're the biggest demographic that can blow the thing up, and they're the ones that have been being indoctrinated the worst.   Keith Weinhold  51:29   Yes, Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself said that we live in a economic system today that is unsustainable. Yes, the collectivism we touched on quickly descends into the tyranny of the majority. And in my experience, historically, the success of public housing projects has been or to mixed at best, residents often don't respect the property when they don't have an equity stake in it or even a security deposit tied up in it, and blight and high crime rates have often followed with these public housing projects. When you go down that path of making housing as a human right, like you said earlier, you have a right to go procure housing for yourself, just not to ask others to pay for it for you. Well, Russ, this has been great. It's good to have your voice back on the show. Here again, here on a real estate show. If people want to connect with you, continue to see what you've been up to and the good projects that you're working on, promoting the virtues of capitalism. What's the best way for them to do that?   Russell Gray  52:31   I think just send an email to follow at Russell Gray, R, U, S, S, E, L, L, G, R, A, y.com, let you know where I am on social media. I'll let you know when I put out new content. I'll let you know when I'm a guest on somebody somebody's show and I'm on the cusp of getting my own show finally launched. I've been doing a lot of planning to get that out, but I'm excited about it because I do think, like I said, The time is now, and I think the marketplace is ripe, and I do speak Main Street and macro, and I hope I can add a nuance to the conversation that will add value to people.   Keith Weinhold  53:00   Russ, it's been valuable as always. Thanks so much for coming back onto the show. Thanks, Keith.   Yeah, terrific, historic outline from Russ about the long term decline of the dollar. It's really a fresh reminder and motivator to keep being that savvy borrower. Of course, real estate investors have access to borrow giant sums of dollars and short the currency that lay people do not. In fact, lay people don't even understand that it's a viable strategy at all. Like he touched on, Russ has really been bringing an awareness about how decentralization is such a powerful force that reshapes society. In fact, he was talking about that the last time that I saw him in person a few months ago. Notably, he touched on Nixon era wage and price controls. Don't you find it interesting? Fascinating, really, how a few weeks ago, Trump told Walmart not to pass tariff induced price increases onto their customers. Well, that's a form of price control that we're seeing today to our point, when we had the father of Reaganomics, David Stockman here on the show, five weeks ago, tariffs are already government intervention into the free market, and then a president telling private companies how to set their prices, that is really strong government overreach. I mean, I can't believe that more people aren't talking about this. Maybe that's just because this cycle started with Walmart, and that's just doesn't happen to be a company that people feel sorry for. Hey, well, I look forward to meeting you in person in Miami in just four days, as I'll be a faculty member for when we kick off the terrific real estate guys Investor Summit and see and really getting to know you, because we're going to spend nine days together. Teaching, learning and having a great time on a cruise ship in the Caribbean. Until then, I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, don't quit your Daydream.   Speaker 3  55:13   Nothing on this show should be considered specific, personal or professional advice. Please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate, financial or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own. Information is not guaranteed. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. The host is operating on behalf of get rich Education LLC, exclusively.   Keith Weinhold  55:36   You know whatever you want, the best written real estate and finance info. Oh, geez, today's experience limits your free articles access and it's got pay walls and pop ups and push notifications and cookies disclaimers. It's not so great. So then it's vital to place nice, clean, free content into your hands that adds no hype value to your life. That's why this is the golden age of quality newsletters, and I write every word of ours myself. It's got a dash of humor, and it's to the point because even the word abbreviation is too long, my letter usually takes less than three minutes to read. And when you start the letter, you also get my one hour fast real estate video. Course, it's all completely free. It's called the Don't quit your Daydream letter. It wires your mind for wealth, and it couldn't be easier for you to get it right now. Just text. GRE to 66866, while it's on your mind, take a moment to do it right now. Text, GRE to 66866   The preceding program was brought to you by your home for wealth, building, getricheducation.com.

In a Trench Chat special we speak to the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre Commemorations team - otherwise known as 'The MOD War Detectives' - who work to recover and identify the dead on the former battlefields of the Great War. Thanks to the Ministry of Defence for their help in making this possible, and special thanks to Rosie Barron, Nichola Nash and Alexia Clark who all appear in this episode. The images used are Crown Copyright.Discover more about the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre Commemorations team and visit their Facebook page.Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us a textSupport the show

Our listeners have a few intriguing questions: Is there still live ordnance in the moat at the Ypres Ramparts? What exactly was the role of Inland Waterways Transport during the First World War? How would the French portrayal of the Last Hundred Days differ from the traditional British narrative? And finally, if you could take any piece of modern military technology back to the Great War, what would it be, and why? You can watch the Old Front Line Youtube Channel here and remember to Like and Subscribe! Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us a textSupport the show

In this episode we travel to the Arras Memorial to the Missing, where we explore the powerful story of over 35,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers with no known grave. In this episode, we uncover the personal histories of men from the British Army, Royal Naval Division, and Royal Flying Corps and Royal Air Force, whose names are etched into the stone. We then walk through the Faubourg d'Amiens Cemetery, visiting notable graves—including those of soldiers Shot at Dawn. Discover the human stories behind the statistics in this compelling look at remembrance, sacrifice, and the legacy of the First World War.On the Old Front Line YouTube Channel: The Arras Memorial to the Missing.Articles on Identity Discs are found here: A Guide to Identity Discs by Dave O'Mara and Military Identification: Identity Discs and the Identification of British War Dead, 1914-18 by Dr Sarah Ashbridge.Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.6mcpeqwsSend us a textSupport the show

Prattville artist Julianne Hansen tells the story of the Alabama Poppy Project and how World War One and Flanders Field inspired it.

In this episode we discuss the improvised gas masks used by British and Commonwealth soldiers in 1915, the advancement in medical treatment during the Great War, whether soldiers were told in advance about the explosion of mines on the battlefield and the use of soldiers packs in WW1.Our episode on Gas Warfare in WW1 is available here: Gas! Gas! Gas!JD Hutt's YouTube Channel: The History Underground.Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us a textSupport the show

Japan emerges as a major player among world powers as their ambassadors helped finalize the postwar treaties and create a new international body meant to stop large-scale wars before they began: The League of Nations. However, trouble continued brewing on the Korean Peninsula as a new mass movement for national liberation took to the streets.Higher Listenings: Joy for EducatorsA new podcast from Top Hat delivering ideas, relief, and joy to the future of teaching.Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the show My latest novel, "Califia's Crusade," is now available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Kobo, Apple Books, Bookshop.org, and many other online platforms!

In this episode we start a look at some of the Forgotten Memoirs of the First World War, starting with Percy Croney's 'Soldiers Luck' published in the mid-1960s. Croney was a 1914 volunteer who served with the Essex Regiment and Scottish Rifles at Gallipoli and on the Western Front, being wounded several times and taken prisoner in March 1918. We ask what the value of memoirs like this are to our understanding of the Great War. Percy Croney - Soldier's Luck on Open LibraryGot a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us a textSupport the show

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

The eastern front of the first world war was much busier than its western counterpart and the stakes for one nation were much higher. When the war finally ended with the Entente triumphant, Japan was poised to enjoy the advantages of supporting the winning side.Support the show My latest novel, "Califia's Crusade," is now available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Kobo, Apple Books, Bookshop.org, and many other online platforms!

9 Hours and 17 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.This is the complete audio to the World War One series Thomas777 did with Pete.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

In this episode of podcast listeners questions we ask: what Great War items would you take to a Desert Island, how was cause of death accurately reported or not by the military authorities, how did men on the front line get news of other fronts and their own, and were truces to bury the dead common on the Western Front?Book Recommendation: Frederick Manning Her Privates We/Middle Parts of Fortune.Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us a textSupport the show

Cultural and Media CritiquesDisney's Hypocrisy and Cultural Influence (00:06:44 - 00:21:52)Travis exposes Disney's contradictory stance, operating a UAE theme park despite local anti-homosexuality laws while promoting progressive agendas in the U.S. He labels Disney a “grooming syndicate” driven by greed, citing Bob Iger's opposition to Florida's anti-grooming bill and inappropriate content in Star Wars: Andor as evidence of cultural manipulation.Critique of Modern Art and Hollywood (00:24:24 - 00:27:14)Travis denounces Hollywood and modern art for their soulless, ironic output, citing a Luigi Mangione musical as disrespectful. He accuses them of Marxist influences (e.g., Saul Alinsky) and spinelessness, failing to engage reality with depth or sincerity.Encouraging Christian Art (00:30:34 - 00:33:55)Travis calls for Christians to create art to counter demonic cultural influences, praising Doctor Universalis for its depiction of communion and emphasizing self-publishing's accessibility as a tool for cultural resistance.Hollywood's Decline and AI Art (00:36:29 - 00:39:07)Travis attributes Hollywood's decline to satanic influences and corporate control (e.g., BlackRock). He notes AI-generated art replicates vapid content, lacking depth and serving corporate quotas, reflecting a broader cultural decay.Political and Bureaucratic IssuesNew Pope's Background (01:03:09 - 01:06:25)Travis discusses the new American pope, Robert Prevost (Pope Leon XIV), highlighting his opposition to same-sex marriage and gender studies. He criticizes the media's focus on political metrics (e.g., Trump support) over theological substance.China-Russia Alliance (01:39:39 - 01:44:46)Travis warns of Xi Jinping and Putin's alliance to counter Western hegemony, noting their pursuit of power rather than anti-globalism. He predicts escalating U.S. conflict as a result of this geopolitical shift.Bureaucracy's Treason (01:50:50 - 01:54:22)Travis invokes Julien Benda's The Treason of the Clerics to critique intellectuals' political passions, calling Trump weak for failing to confront bureaucratic resistance and questioning his commitment to reform.War and Its ImpactsWar's Brutality in Storm of Steel (01:19:47 - 01:26:39)Travis reflects on Ernst Jünger's Storm of Steel, reading passages about World War I's romanticized yet brutal reality. He rejects notions of “safe” war, emphasizing its unchanging horror through vivid soldier experiences.Technology and SocietyAI in Courtroom (00:41:25 - 00:43:50)Travis finds an AI-generated victim impact statement in an Arizona courtroom alarming, warning of future psychological programming abuses and comparing it to dystopian scenarios.Automotive Industry (Eric Peters Interview)Loss of Driving Freedom (02:06:05 - 02:09:27)Travis and Eric lament the erosion of driving freedom due to regulations, high costs, and police presence. Eric sees an agenda to discourage car ownership, contrasting past affordability with modern constraints.Car Complexity and Debt Cycles (02:12:36 - 02:15:27)Eric and Travis critique modern cars' complexity and planned obsolescence, which trap consumers in debt. They view cars as shackles rather than symbols of freedom, reflecting broader societal control.Authoritarian Aesthetics (02:21:46 - 02:24:48)Eric links bland, uniform car designs to authoritarian ugliness (e.g., East Germany), while Travis mourns homogenized city skylines, both seeing a loss of beauty driven by regulatory and corporate forces.Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

Cultural and Media CritiquesDisney's Hypocrisy and Cultural Influence (00:06:44 - 00:21:52)Travis exposes Disney's contradictory stance, operating a UAE theme park despite local anti-homosexuality laws while promoting progressive agendas in the U.S. He labels Disney a “grooming syndicate” driven by greed, citing Bob Iger's opposition to Florida's anti-grooming bill and inappropriate content in Star Wars: Andor as evidence of cultural manipulation.Critique of Modern Art and Hollywood (00:24:24 - 00:27:14)Travis denounces Hollywood and modern art for their soulless, ironic output, citing a Luigi Mangione musical as disrespectful. He accuses them of Marxist influences (e.g., Saul Alinsky) and spinelessness, failing to engage reality with depth or sincerity.Encouraging Christian Art (00:30:34 - 00:33:55)Travis calls for Christians to create art to counter demonic cultural influences, praising Doctor Universalis for its depiction of communion and emphasizing self-publishing's accessibility as a tool for cultural resistance.Hollywood's Decline and AI Art (00:36:29 - 00:39:07)Travis attributes Hollywood's decline to satanic influences and corporate control (e.g., BlackRock). He notes AI-generated art replicates vapid content, lacking depth and serving corporate quotas, reflecting a broader cultural decay.Political and Bureaucratic IssuesNew Pope's Background (01:03:09 - 01:06:25)Travis discusses the new American pope, Robert Prevost (Pope Leon XIV), highlighting his opposition to same-sex marriage and gender studies. He criticizes the media's focus on political metrics (e.g., Trump support) over theological substance.China-Russia Alliance (01:39:39 - 01:44:46)Travis warns of Xi Jinping and Putin's alliance to counter Western hegemony, noting their pursuit of power rather than anti-globalism. He predicts escalating U.S. conflict as a result of this geopolitical shift.Bureaucracy's Treason (01:50:50 - 01:54:22)Travis invokes Julien Benda's The Treason of the Clerics to critique intellectuals' political passions, calling Trump weak for failing to confront bureaucratic resistance and questioning his commitment to reform.War and Its ImpactsWar's Brutality in Storm of Steel (01:19:47 - 01:26:39)Travis reflects on Ernst Jünger's Storm of Steel, reading passages about World War I's romanticized yet brutal reality. He rejects notions of “safe” war, emphasizing its unchanging horror through vivid soldier experiences.Technology and SocietyAI in Courtroom (00:41:25 - 00:43:50)Travis finds an AI-generated victim impact statement in an Arizona courtroom alarming, warning of future psychological programming abuses and comparing it to dystopian scenarios.Automotive Industry (Eric Peters Interview)Loss of Driving Freedom (02:06:05 - 02:09:27)Travis and Eric lament the erosion of driving freedom due to regulations, high costs, and police presence. Eric sees an agenda to discourage car ownership, contrasting past affordability with modern constraints.Car Complexity and Debt Cycles (02:12:36 - 02:15:27)Eric and Travis critique modern cars' complexity and planned obsolescence, which trap consumers in debt. They view cars as shackles rather than symbols of freedom, reflecting broader societal control.Authoritarian Aesthetics (02:21:46 - 02:24:48)Eric links bland, uniform car designs to authoritarian ugliness (e.g., East Germany), while Travis mourns homogenized city skylines, both seeing a loss of beauty driven by regulatory and corporate forces.Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

The assassination of an Austrian Archduke sparks a chain reaction which would ignite a global conflict on a scale never seen before.If you'd like to read the complete "Literary Digest History of the World War," all ten volumes are available for free on the internet archive here.Support the show My latest novel, "Califia's Crusade," is now available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Kobo, Apple Books, Bookshop.org, and many other online platforms!

In a special Trench Chat we speak to Philipp Cross who has written a superb book about his great-great grandfather's war as an officer in the German Army. Alexander Pfeifer served from the very beginning until the very end of the conflict on three fronts, and we discover how Philipp researched and wrote the book, and what it tells us about the Great War.Buy The Book on Amazon: The Other Trench.The Other Trench website: The Other Trench.The Other Trench on Facebook: The Other Trench.Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us a textSupport the show

Jesse Alexander is a public historian based in Vienna, Austria. He holds an MA in Modern History from the University of Vienna, where he focused on propaganda in World War One. Jesse has also researched, written, and hosted documentary films on 19th and 20th century conflict, including “The Great War” series.----------LINKS:https://x.com/jesse_historyhttps://www.jessealexanderhistory.net/https://www.youtube.com/realtimehistory ⁨@realtimehistory⁩  https://www.youtube.com/@TheGreatWar ⁨@TheGreatWar⁩  https://both-sides-of-the-wire.com/en-gbp/https://www.curiosityu.com/instructors/jesse-alexander/----------SUPPORT THE CHANNEL:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtainhttps://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain----------TRUSTED CHARITIES ON THE GROUND:Save Ukrainehttps://www.saveukraineua.org/Superhumans - Hospital for war traumashttps://superhumans.com/en/UNBROKEN - Treatment. Prosthesis. Rehabilitation for Ukrainians in Ukrainehttps://unbroken.org.ua/Come Back Alivehttps://savelife.in.ua/en/Chefs For Ukraine - World Central Kitchenhttps://wck.org/relief/activation-chefs-for-ukraineUNITED24 - An initiative of President Zelenskyyhttps://u24.gov.ua/Serhiy Prytula Charity Foundationhttps://prytulafoundation.orgNGO “Herojam Slava”https://heroiamslava.org/kharpp - Reconstruction project supporting communities in Kharkiv and Przemyślhttps://kharpp.com/NOR DOG Animal Rescuehttps://www.nor-dog.org/home/----------PLATFORMS:Twitter: https://twitter.com/CurtainSiliconInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/siliconcurtain/Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/4thRZj6NO7y93zG11JMtqmLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/finkjonathan/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain----------Welcome to the Silicon Curtain podcast. Please like and subscribe if you like the content we produce. It will really help to increase the popularity of our content in YouTube's algorithm. Our material is now being made available on popular podcasting platforms as well, such as Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

In this episode we ask were there any 'Thankful Villages' in France where everyone came home, what was 'Camp Elisabeth' at Verdun as visited by Professor Richard Holmes in the 1990s, did Great War soldiers experience any spiritual or paranormal activity on the battlefields and how did the presence of British and Commonwealth soldiers impinge on life behind the lines in France.BBC Report: France's Thankful Village With No War Memorial.The Richard Holmes Episode mentioned in the podcast: Western Front Verdun 1916.Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us a textSupport the show

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

In this episode we travel to the last major battlefield of the Great War on the Western Front - the Sambre Canal. Here we follow the story of the infantry and the engineers who attacked the Canal on 4th November 1918, including the 2nd Battalion Royal Sussex Regiment. We also see what remains of the battlefield today.The interview with Josh Grover MM is on the IWM website here: Josh Grover MM interview.Recommended Book: Decisive Victory by Derek Clayton.Thread on the Great War Forum: Royal Sussex Regiment at Lock No 1.Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us a textSupport the show

Our questions and answers in this episode look at what happened to trench systems when they met a road, was the Battle of the Somme a victory, how France remembers the Great War, and the role of the Army Service Corps in the conflict.Somme Book Recommendations: Gary Sheffield Forgotten Victory and also Paddy Griffith Battle Tactics on the Western Front.Book Recommendations: Michael Young Postcards of the Army Service Corps and Michael Young Army Service Corps 1902-1918.Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us a textSupport the show

Have any interesting stories to tell us? Lets us know here!Do you enjoy learning about horrifying methods of execution?! Well you found the right place, as this week's episode covers the history of crucifixion from ancient time, world wars, and shockingly recent true crime stories. Just us as we learn about some of the facts lost to time for being a little to...macabre. ANY FOLLOWS AND RATINGS HELP THE SHOW A TON!Check out our stuff, but also don't if you don't want to, whateverTiktok and YouTube  - imnotcrazypodcastInstagram - imnotcrazynyIf you enjoyed the show, please follow us on whatever podcast app you are using. If you'd like to take it further, a like and review helps as well. It means a ton. Thank you for listening!

Continuing our journeys along the roads which crisscross the landscape of the Western Front, we travel to Flanders in Belgium, and take the old Roman road between the city of Ypres and the town of Menin which follows the story of four years of conflict here in the First World War and discuss once more the 'culture' of The Old Front Line.Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us a textSupport the show

This week we discuss the background to the names British soldiers gave their German counterparts - names like Fritz and Bosch - we examine the role Portugal had on the Western Front and discuss where they are memorialised, look out how modern development has changed The Old Front Line and who was Princess Patricia of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry?You can find the Old Front Line YouTube Channel here: Old Front Line on YouTube.Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us a textSupport the show