#podcast germany

[nr1-logo-design-inspiration]

Letter G + guitar logo ☆☆☆

Get your unique & creative logo design!💌

[littlewomenpodcast]

Little Women Inspirations: Friedrich Schiller (With Hejar Sinem) Part 4

Niina: What you said about Schiller made me wonder if Schiller was the one who Friedrich was named after in Little Women, or maybe it was Friedrich De La Motte Foque? I have a feeling it might have been Schiller.

Sinem: Yeah, me too. Yes, that's of course my own theory, but like I said, I also think that besides Goethe, I think Schiller also may have had an impact on Louisa, because in The Robbers, I think it's called, in Schiller's first novel, there's a female character called Amalia, I don't know how to pronounce her name in English, but she is very sweet, very generous. She is like Beth, she is very kind and giving and generous, and she only wants the best for everyone. So I found some parallels between Schiller's work and Louisa's work.

Niina: That's really interesting. What was the name of that book?

Sinem: It was called The Robbers. It's his first novel, he wrote that one when he was 17.Suppose he was not allowed to write at that time, I forgot why he wasn't allowed, and I think it's funny that he made a story that is close to Louisa May Alcott’s Blood and Thunder stories, and the main character Karl is very much an archetype of the movement that was around in Germany at that time.

Niina: I was just saying that in Rose In Bloom, Mac reads Goethe, but I realized he doesn't read Goethe, he actually reads Henry David Thoreau. In Little Women, there's a moment in part one where John translates a poem from Schiller to Meg.

Sinem: Yes, that is very cute, and it's also very funny, because John also knows German, and it's also funny if you think about it, it's like the whole March family is very interested in German culture. I think Meg was also very eager to hear the translation a bit, and John was also like, Yeah, I'll help you translate it, or I can teach you with German, I think he said that, I'm not sure, but I think he said that, and it was also very sweet.

Niina: Yes, I have forgotten about that, I love it. It kind of goes along with my theory that Louisa May Alcott planned Jo's marriage years before she wrote Little Women, because it does feel like a natural thing to do, to introduce a German character to this family that is really obsessed about everything that comes from Germany.

Sinem: I have to say, the first thing that comes to my mind when I see people saying Louisa was forced to marry Jo off is, well, but what if she was forced? Why in the world would Louisa May Alcott write so many things about Jo’s and the March family’s love for Germany?

Niina: I think we can all agree that this really comes from that the quote that she wrote in her journal was about reuniting with her loved one in the afterlife, so Little Women is a wish fulfillment.

Sinem: Yes, that's true, when people read it, I think it's also kind of racist of them to state that he was shoveled into the novel, because, I mean, they know Friedrich is German, and it almost always feels like they dislike him, especially because he is German, even people today are like, meh, she should have stayed single or with Laurie, which, to be honest, I can't stand either. I could never stand the thought that Jo might have ended with Laurie or alone, especially after reading the chapters All Alone and Surprises, because in these two chapters, you can see how lonely Jo is, and then there are people who say she only married Friedrich because Friedrich was invented, because Louisa May Alcott was forced to marry him.

Niina: I think you are correct about the racism, because I have read so many Louisa May Alcott studies that are like, Jo should have married Laurie or Jo should have been alone. There usually is a racist undertone when they start to speak about Friedrich's character, and then they do not include these parts in Little Women, where Jo clearly loves everything that comes from Germany, or Louisa May Alcott’s adoration to Germany. In Rose in Bloom there is a Chinese character, and he marries an American girl.

Sinem: She made him marry an American because it shows how inclusive she is and while I know that many people are like, well, yes, but Louisa May Alcott had something against the Irish, while I can read a bit of it in their novels, we don't know what happened to her.

Niina: I think it was a common at the time to mock the Irish people, unfortunately. I spoke with someone who was working in the Orchard House, and they said that it was really more about the effect of the time period. I don't know. Yeah, Irish people don't really get a good reputation in Little Women, because when Amy's limes are thrown into the snow, they are the Irish girls who are picking on her.

Sinem: We don't know. But it's also kind of funny, because Hannah herself is Irish, and Hannah is portrayed in a good light, though. I agree with you. I think it is more like the effect of the time, because, I mean, if Louisa May Alcott included Chinese and Asian characters in one of her novels, had this person marry an American, and it was portrayed as a good thing, then why should she be completely against the Irish? Since Hannah was portrayed in such a good light.

Niina: I think it's the same with the Italians, because on one hand, we have Louisa May Alcott, who shows what she considered good qualities of Italians, and maybe the less good qualities, but there was lots of hate against Italians at the time period. So it's quite remarkable that Laurie is half Italian in the book, and Germans were also really disliked during this time period in America, in certain circles.

Sinem: I also think it's very important, the way Mr. Lawrence is actually portrayed. He's a very kind and giving and lovable person, but he has a flaw, in part one, we learn that his son married an Italian and he was against it. Mrs. March states that he never could like the lady, even though she was very kind and loving, and overall a very nice person, and Mr. Lawrence couldn't like her, even though she was very kind to him and all that stuff, simply because he represented, the culture or the society around that time.

Niina: If Mr. Lawrence was raised in an environment where there is lots of pre-consumption against Italians, then he would be part of that kind of generation that sort of automatically sees them as lower than he. It sucks, but that's the way a lot of people are, even still today.

Sinem: Yes, sadly, but I also have tosay, I really love how Louisa May Alcott made the interracial marriages in Little Women work so well. Whenever I read those passages between the couples, except for Meg and John, they are both American, they are still a lovely couple, though, but whenever I read them, I love the way Louisa May Alcott writes these couples, Amy and Laurie, and Jo and Friedrich, because it really gets lost in all of the adaptations. I think the only couple which gets marriage time, is the one between John and Meg, only because Meg is the first one to marry, I assume, but then, the movie-makers all like everything is about Jo and Laurie, and it doesn't feel right,

Niina: Because that's not the way things happen in the novels, and because Laurie is partially based on Laddie Wisniewski, and the more I have read about Louisa May Alcott’s relationship with Laddie Wisniewski, it more and more feels like a mother and son relationship.

Sinem: Little Women would not have been the masterpiece, as I call it, if Jo had ended up with Laurie, because first of all, Louisa May Alcott based all the characters around someone she loved, who she cared about, and it would not have been right for her to marry Jo and Laurie, because Laddie is one of the inspirations for Laurie, and she did not end up with Laddie and I don't think it will work, because I know it's only semi-autobiographical, but it would not have felt right, because in the proposal scene, which I rather call the harassing scene, in that one you see in the novel, of course, only, because why would the movie-makers do such a wonderful thing, they very much don't show that in the movies, Jo really, talks to Laurie, as if he was her child. She's like, you will meet an accomplished woman, you sensible good boy, and all that stuff.

That is really there, and the movie-makers just don't use it. Okay, the movie-makers, for me, are more likely to be after the money, because Little Women is such a beloved tale, but that's another thing.

Niina: I agree, and we will get into this chapter soon. Throughout this chapter, Jo refers to Laurie and Amy as children.

Sinem: Yes, that is also very cute and funny, and it also shows that Joehas always been much more mature than Laurie. I can't say whether she was more mature than Amy, after Amy grew up, but I think it shows that, while Jo is a free spirit and independent and, I will not say egoistic, but sometimes, she says, I only want to do things for myself. She cares very much about herself, and she also respects herself very much, and I love that she calls them children, because, first of all, it's cute, second of all, it shows that she is very much mature.

Niina: I think in part one of Little Women, Jo is more egoistic, but so is Amy, and so are Meg and Laurie, because they are teens, and when you are a teenager, your life pretty much centers around yourself.

Sinem: Yes, that's true. I also have to say, I really love how Jo evolves in the end, because many people are like, she was such a feminist in the first book, and then in Good Wives, or part two, as I call it, they are like she is so anti-feminist, and she's very man-loving, that's not the Jo we love blah blah blah, and then I'm like, I think the toxic masculinity of Jo shows even in chapter three, when she goes to Laurie, when he's sick, and she's like, why don't you invite somebody so you have company, he says, well, I don't know, the boys are too loud, etc., and then she's like, well, then why don't you call a girl, because girls are quiet and they like to play nurse.

Niina: I see what you mean.

Sinem: I get why people would fall for the idea that Jo is a feminist in the first part, but that is not the case, she loves men very much, she idealizes them, and she thinks it's a shame to be a woman, and that is the complete opposite of what feminism is about. I think it's very important that we study it, and later parts, when, for example, Laurie, her sister, and all of Beth’s deatH and twins birth, Jo grows to be a feminist, because she accepts that having feminine empathy, feminine kind of interests, isn't a bad thing, it's more a bad thing to be everything female is bad, and everything male is wonderful.

For Beth fans @fandomsarefamily1966

@princesssarisa

[sebtember5]

SEB AND HANNA CONTENT ALERT🥰 Parents 🥹

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Gertz at MMFA:

Tucker Carlson no longer shapes national media narratives the way that he did at Fox News, but he may be more powerful than ever within the Republican Party. Behind the scenes, Carlson reportedly lobbied former President Donald Trump to pick Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance as his running mate and midwifed Robert F. Kennedy’s endorsement of the GOP presidential nominee. He addressed the Republican National Convention in July and has a series of public events lined up featuring guests including Vance and Donald Trump Jr.

Carlson’s increased GOP prominence has coincided with his descent to new levels of unhinged crackpottery: The latest edition of his eponymous program dabbles in Holocaust denial and presents “Zionist” financiers as a motive force behind World War II. On Monday, Carlson published a two-hour interview with Darryl Cooper, the right-wing host of the history podcast Martyr Made. Previewing their discussion on X, Carlson wrote: “Darryl Cooper may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States. His latest project is the most forbidden of all: trying to understand World War Two.”  Carlson praised his guest at the top of their discussion, comparing him favorably to popular historians like Jon Meacham and Anne Applebaum, whom he described as “the dumbest people in the country” who are also “dishonest political actors.”

“For those people who aren’t familiar with who you are, I want people to know who you are, and I want you to be widely recognized as the most important historian in the United States, because I think that you are,” he added. (On his Fox show in 2021, Carlson praised Cooper for a “really smart” thread validating Trump supporters who claim the 2020 presidential election was stolen.) Cooper explained to Carlson and his audience his view that legitimate German grievances are treated too unsympathetically by historians and that British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was “the chief villain” of World War II because he continued the conflict rather than admitting the Germans had triumphed in Western Europe in 1940. His argument effectively excises the Nazi ideology and the resulting genocidal slaughter of European Jews. Cooper has repeatedly demonstrated “a strange fondness for Adolf Hitler,” as Mediaite documented, including posting side-by-side a photo of Adolf Hitler and other Nazis marching in front of the Eiffel Tower and a photo of a drag performance during the 2024 Paris Olympics opening ceremony with the comment, “This may be putting it too crudely for some, but the picture on the left was infinitely preferable in virtually every way than the one on the right” (he later deleted the post).

“Throwing people in jail” for “taboo” views of WWII

Cooper presented World War II to Carlson’s audience as one of several topics that are part of our “founding mythology” in which “taboos” about how to discuss it ensure it is “profoundly misunderstood.”  Churchill, who served as prime minister of the United Kingdom from May 1940 through July 1945, emerges in Cooper’s view as “the chief villain” of the war. 

[...]

Why Churchill “wanted a war” and “wanted to fight Germany”

Having erased the historical mass murder of European Jews, Cooper went on to suggest they were to blame for the war’s expansion.  He argued that when Churchill became prime minister in May 1940 and then evacuated British forces from Dunkirk as western and northern Europe came under Nazi control, the war was effectively already over and the Germans had won. But Churchill refused to give up in the face of German peace proposals because he “wanted a war, he wanted to fight Germany,” and continued the fight in hopes of eventually convincing the Americans to join the Allies.

[...]

People “we only talk about privately” caused “the destruction” of the West

Carlson and Cooper went on to discuss their simpatico views on a variety of topics, from mass immigration to the United States (Carlson: “Clearly, the point of it now is to tear the place down”) and Europe (Cooper: “Those people are in the process right now of forever losing the only spot of land that they have on this Earth”) to the civil rights movement (Cooper: It was used by people seeking “a wedge issue to spark revolution in one sense or another” and bring about the “disintegration of the country”) to Trump, Viktor Orban, and Vladimir Putin (Carlson: “They’re all kind — you know, in the 1984, -5, -6, context they would be sort of moderate, maybe conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans. Like, they’re not at all what people claim they are”). Toward the end of the discussion, they tied together their discussions of World War II and modern immigration to the United States and Europe. Carlson commented that he “can’t get over the fact that the West wins” the war “and is completely destroyed in less than a century” due to immigration. “Somehow, the United States and Western Europe won — that’s the conventional understanding — and both have now look like they lost a world war,” he added. “So, like, what the hell was that? Like, there’s something very, very heavy.”

Former Fox “News” host Tucker Carlson is platforming Nazi apologia and Holocaust denialism, and Monday’s episode of The Tucker Carlson Show on his Tucker Carlson Network (TCN) reveals that depravity, as he interviewed Martyr Made podcast host Darryl Cooper.

[8iunie]

Lowkey Deep Podcast | Berlin, Germany | 16.01.2023

🎥 krassandraa

[solarpunkpresentspodcast]

Hi, friend!

Hiya Tumblr friends! This is the official Solarpunk Presents podcast account, which will be posting our podcasts (bimonthly... every two weeks ... however you like to say it), posts from our site https://solarpunkpresents.com and reblogging / liking excellent solarpunk content.

We also have a YouTube and a Mastodon, if you do those kind of things - please give us a like/subscribe and check us out there! We even have an Instagram, which is mostly run by Christina, so if you want some pics of rural Germany and chickens, give it a follow!

The podcast is cohosted by Christina De La Rocha and Ariel Kroon, who is the one writing this post and talking about herself in third person like a weirdo. We're in the middle of our third season right now, which is pretty rad. If you like the episodes you listen to, please give us a rating / review on your podcatcher of choice!

Actually, if you have some money to spare and would like to support solarpunk content with it, we also have a Patreon, where Patrons get early access to our episodes + bonus content when we get a minute (it has been ... a Summer).

Keep dreaming, and keep up the good work!

-Ariel

[shitpostingfromthebarricade]

Les Misérables is written about three or four different time periods depending on the given chapter and the level on which you're reading it (literally versus historically versus philosophically, etc.). I don't think I appreciated until episode 7.13 of Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast when he broke down how intensely all of the political factions involved in the 1848 revolutions were influenced by their opinions of the French Revolution, however, how much Les Mis talks about 1848.

I'm gonna be making a post later with a theory about Hugo's characters and structure they pertain to this history and these factions and most especially Cosette's future, but in the meantime, I've transcribed from around 13:10 to nearly the end of the episode so that you all can also appreciate how many levels were involved and have it in writing to refer to and research as you like, because I think it also summarizes pretty well the non-Bonapartist political forces in play at any point in the bricc.

(I also cannot recommend this podcast highly enough for jumping into not just the world of French Revolutions but also Western Revolutions in general.)

So at one end of the spectrum, we have those who looked back at the French Revolution with nothing but horror and disgust and who believed that above all and no matter what the cost, Europe must be kept free of the menace of revolution.  But this category of anti-revolutionaries divided up into three broad groups who agreed on practically nothing but the fact that revolution was abhorrent.

First and most obviously, we had the conservative absolutists who returned to power after the Congress of Vienna. The chief leading light of this group was Metternich, and the spectre of the French Revolution haunted no man so much as Metternich. Men like Metternich were so opposed to revolution that they were even opposed to reform. King Louis XVI had invited reform in 1789, and look what had happened to him. So across Europe in 1848 there were conservative writers and members of the clergy and major landowners who believed that you could not even let three guys sit down for a drink or they'd start plotting revolution. You certainly couldn't have a free press. You had to be stubborn, unfair, and ruthless. It was simply too dangerous to be anything less. And this extended to things even as seemingly banal as allowing a kingdom to have a nominal constitution, because in the conservative mind, once you granted the premise that rights came up from the people, rather than down from God through the king, you could just kiss the whole thing goodbye. These conservatives still pined for the days before 1789, and they hated the memory of even the most moderate of French revolutionaries, whose seemingly innocent and earnest appeals for reform had simply been the thin end of the wedge.

But absolutist conservatives were not the only ones who recoiled at the memory of the French Revolution and who wanted to do everything in their power from ever letting it happen again. So this second group of anti-revolutionaries were constitutional liberals who worshiped the rule of law and for whom revolution was anathema to everything they held dear. In France, we would put both Louis Philippe and François Guizot into this category, even if they had oh-so-ironically come to power thanks to the July Revolution [of 1830]. Both men admired the principles that had animated the men of 1789 but who had nonetheless concluded, no less than Metternich, that acquiescing to reform was only the beginning of a very slippery slope. Guizot himself had written a history of France and believed that the king's concessions in the early days of the Estates-General had led directly to the Reign of Terror — and remember, Guizot's father had perished in the Terror, as had King Louis Philippe's [Louis Philippe II, Philippe Égalité]. By the mid-1840s, both men had become stubbornly convinced that everything that needed to be achieved had been achieved and that any further reform would invite that slip into radicalism and the return of Madame la Guillotine. This kind of thinking could also be detected in the minds of rulers over in [modern-day] Germany, where we've discussed that there were these constitutional regimes — Ludwig in Bavaria, Leopold of Baden, and Frederick Augustus in Saxony. Those constitutions existed more as a stopper to prevent revolution than any kind of liberal expressionism.

Finally, there was a third group that cringed at the idea of the French Revolution but who drew the opposite conclusion from Guizot and Metternich: where Guizot and Metternich thought that reform was an invitation to revolution, they felt that reform was a necessary release valve to prevent revolution.  So in this category you would find Odilon Barrot and the dynastic left in France who wanted to save the monarchy by reforming the monarchy.  You would also find in here a guy like Alexis de Tocqueville, who would go on to write his own book on the French Revolution where he would argue that all of the quote-unquote “gains” of the French Revolution had already started under the Ancien Régime and that basically you didn’t need revolution to change society, you just needed continuous, gradual improvement.  We’ve also discussed so far two massively influential reformers in [modern-day] Italy and Hungary who fit this same basic mold.  In Italy, we talked about the Count of Cavour in episode 7.09, and in episode 7.08 I introduced István Széchenyi.  Both of these guys have broad, sweeping visions for the futures of their respective countries.  They believed in liberal constitutional government, economic modernization and social improvement, they simply did not believe revolution was the means of achieving their ends; in fact, this was the very lesson they had drawn from the French Revolution, that the ends had been just, but the means counterproductive.  The attempt to cram a century’s worth of work into a single year had not just had disastrous consequences, but they had upset the whole project of reform.  I would also throw into this group of anti-revolutionary reformers all of the Austrian liberals in Vienna, who we also talked about in episode 7.08. They believed that the stubborn brittleness of Metternich’s government was inviting a revolutionary upheaval that could be headed off by intelligent and necessary reform.

So those are the guys who desperately wanted to avoid another French Revolution, who instantly shuddered at the idea of ever having something like that happen again. But is that how everyone felt? Oh my goodness, no. There were those who had picked up the thesis of Adolphe Thiers and believed that the revolution of 1789 had been a good thing, a project launched for noble reasons and in fact launched because the existing regime was simply too stubborn to change without revolutionary energy. In this telling, men like Lafayette and Mirabeau were heroes to be emulated while you kept on constant guard against villains like Robespierre and Saint-Just. As you can imagine, this was a very attractive thesis among liberals in Germany and the Austrian empire who saw their own situation as analogous to the Ancien Régime of 1789. Their kingdoms were reeling from an economic crisis, their governments were financially shaky, their natural rights were trampled on by tyrants. So the French Revolutionary project that unfolded between 1789 and 1792 was absolutely a model to be emulated. Bring the liberal, educated intellectuals of the country together and force the kings to grant them a constitution and to guarantee basic civil rights. If they were going to be denied a constitutional place in government, if their local assemblies were going to be neutered, if they were not allowed to vote, if the government was unresponsive, then it was perfectly acceptable to look to 1789 and say, “Yes, we want that too. A moment when men of good will and conscience join together to define the rights of man and the citizen.” Now of course, these neo-1789ers knew the lesson of history well, and they knew that they would need to guard against the villains of 1792, but they did not believe that the Reign of Terror was necessarily inevitable. It had simply happened that way in France thanks to a variety of coincidences, mistakes, and bad luck, so liberals across Europe believed that they could forge constitutional governments that defined civil rights and popular sovereignty without falling prey to the Reign of Terror. Thus, the spectre of the French Revolution would loom very large indeed in the minds of these liberal revolutionaries as the course of 1848 rapidly progressed faster than they could keep up with. As we will see, they will all hit a moment of truth where they have to decide whether to keep pushing and join with more radical forces or quit the whole project, reconcile with the old conservative order, and fight against those radical forces that might lead to the new Reign of Terror.

But there were also those who rejected this whole contrived moralizing of the “good” revolution of 1789 and the “bad” revolution of 1792.  They did not recoil from the insurrection of August the 10th, the First French Republic, or the Jacobin Committee of Public Safety.  They idolized not the buffoon Lafayette and hypocritical traitor Mirabeau, but rather, the steely resolve of men like Danton and Robespierre and Saint-Just and Marat.  These had been men who saw the tyrants of Europe for what they were and knew that one must stand up when the going got tough, not go hide in the corner.  These more radical republicans further believed that there was just as much injustice perpetrated by comfortable liberals as conservative absolutists, so they saw the Revolution of 1789 as merely the precursor for the much more important, much more glorious, and much more necessary Revolution of 1792.  So though they were enemies of each other, these radicals actually agreed with Metternich that reform really was just the thin edge of the wedge, that it would lead to a greater revolution that would overthrow the despotic monarchies of Europe.  In their minds, the widespread slandering of the First French Republic and even the portrayal of the Reign of Terror as the most terrible crime in the history of the world was the nefarious propaganda of the comfortable classes, whether of conservative or liberal stripe.  Their propaganda emphasized the dramatic horror of the guillotine in order to cover up the horrors the common people of Europe lived with every day, and the best summation of this argument actually comes from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, Mark Twain. 

Now the book wasn’t published until 1889, but in it, Twain writes a passage that would have had a lot of radicals nodding their heads in 1848.  He wrote, “There were two reigns of terror, if we would but remember and consider it.  The one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood.  The one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years.  The one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons; the other, upon a hundred million.  But our shudders are all for the horrors of the minor terror, the momentary terror so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of the swift ax compared with lifelong death from cold, hunger, insult, cruelty, and heartbreak?  What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake?  A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror, which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over.  But all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real terror, that unspeakably bitter and awful terror, which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.” 

(Sounds an awful lot like like a certain conversation our favorite bishop has with a certain conventionist, no?)

Now granted, I don’t think many of these radicals were actively pursuing a new Reign of Terror, but they were also not planning to settle for a constitutional monarchy bought by and for the richest families of their country.  And as we’ve already seen in France, these guys were not going to let the blood of patriots be spilled simply so they could swap one Bourbon for another and give another hundred thousand bankers and industrialists the right to vote.  What in that represented the nation?  Where in that were the people?  Where was liberty leading the people?  Oh right, that painting was locked now in the attic so it did not offend the forces of order.  In Italy, these radical republican forces who celebrated 1792 rallied around Giuseppe Mazzini and later Garibaldi; in Hungary they would rally around Lajos Kossuth, and when I get back from the book tour, I will introduce you to the radical leaders in Germany, who would not be satisfied by the mere token reforms promised by men who celebrated 1789 but feared 1792, men like Friedrich Hecker, Robert Blum, and Gustav Struve.  Everywhere, they would find their support not solely in the salons and cafés but among artisans and workers and students.  Those who would mount the barricades not just for the right to publish an article or to mildly criticize the government or the right to vote if you made a gargantuan amount of money: they fought to topple the king and to bring power to the people — all of the people.

So, so far we have men who idolize the conservatives of 1788, men who idolize the liberal nobles of 1789, and men who idolize the Jacobin republicans of 1792.  Well, there was also in 1848 also [sic] now emerging a small clique of men for whom even 1792 was not enough.  These guys believed that 1789 had been merely a step to 1792, but also believed that 1792 was simply a step to something greater.  So where did these guys look?  That’s right: they looked to 1796.  “1796?” you say.  “  What are you talking about?  The Directory?  Surely not.  Nobody says, ‘Ah, yes, the good old days of the French Directory, let’s definitely go back to that.’”  And no, of course I’m not talking about the directory, I’m talking about Gracchus Babeuf and the Conspiracy of Equals.  With the small but ever-growing, increasingly influential spirit of socialism and communism beginning to take root, men like Louis Blanc and Karl Marx looked to Babeuf and his gang as the first example of what the force of history was aiming to make of humanity.  Communities and nations that shared not just political rights but the wealth of the nation.  How indeed are you going to sit back and say, “Ah, yes, the declaration of the rights of man and the citizen, and one citizen should have one vote,” and then call it a day when so few had so much and so many had so little?  The vote was nothing to an entire family — dad, mom, children, who were all stuck working eighteen hours a day for starvation wages.  It was thus not the spirit of 1789 or the spirit of ‘92 that moved them, but the spirit of 1796; and it was not the name Robespierre that got their hearts thumping, but rather Babeuf.  Babeuf had been among the very first of the socialist revolutionaries who had not stopped short at merely answering the political question, but who wanted to answer the social question as well.  And as we’ll see as we move further down the road on 1848, that the memory of Gracchus Babeuf was not simply a matter of picking some obscure hero out of the historical record: there was actually a direct line of revolutionary succession, because one of Babeuf’s fellow conspirators in the Conspiracy of Equals was an Italian revolutionary socialist named Phillipe Buonarroti [Filippo Buonarroti].  Buonarroti was in prison but later released and would then go onto a long and active career inside the revolutionary secret societies that sprang up after the Congress of Vienna, and we’re gonna talk more about the role that Buonarroti played in kindling and spreading this revolutionary socialism, but for his small cadre of disciples, the revolutions of 1848 would be a chance not to complete the work of Lafayette in 1789 or Robespierre in 1792, but the work of Babeuf in 1796.

[batri-jopa]

I finally finished this pyrographic picture and I'd like to share it with joy and pride:

Note: the design itself is not mine (learn more under cut) but please consider that this circle is 80 cm in diameter and turning it into pyrographic picture required almost hundred hours of work (imagine that just the central part with the cradle, mother, baby and toddler took me 3 hours, the whole picture took about 2 years) so I guess I do deserve to be proud of myself for doing a good job!😁

First - have some more details of my work:

And the picture I spotted when visiting Germany in May 2017, exactly at Jugendburg Ludwigstein castle (which BTW is very beautiful on its own - check the link).

Me and my family liked it a lot (funny part is I only noticed this picture after returning home with my photos). But unfortunately I have no idea who the author of this artpiece is so I can't credit them😒 We call it "Circle of Life"

[dimidesan]

Πολύ καλησπέρα άπαντες!✨️

Σταθερά συνεχίζεται το ιστορικό οδοιπορικό με νέο, αρκετά σκοτεινό επεισόδιο.

Ο Γιόζεφ Μένγκελε, γνωστός και ως «Άγγελος του Θανάτου», ήταν ναζιστής γιατρός που διεξήγαγε ιατρικά πειράματα σε κρατούμενους στο στρατόπεδο συγκέντρωσης Άουσβιτς κατά τη διάρκεια του Β' Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου. Το όνομά του είναι συνώνυμο με μερικά από τα πιο φρικτά και απάνθρωπα ιατρικά πειράματα που έγιναν ποτέ σε ανθρώπους. Οι πράξεις του Μένγκελε αποτέλεσαν μια μαύρη κηλίδα στην ιστορία της ιατρικής και μια υπενθύμιση των φρικαλεοτήτων που διαπράχθηκαν κατά τη διάρκεια του Ολοκαυτώματος.

Ας ξεκινήσουμε...

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

On July 7, 2023, the hosts of the Fresh & Fit Podcast had white nationalist Nick Fuentes as a guest on a pair of livestreams. During these livestreams, Fuentes engaged in his usual displays of bigotry: calling for a majority white country, condemning interracial relationships and women’s rights, praising Adolf Hitler, denying the Holocaust and, at one point, using the N-word.

The hosts of the show, Myron Gaines and Walter Weekes, often encouraged and agreed with Fuentes, and would play a sound effect of a cash register whenever Jewish people were mentioned.

During the first Fresh & Fit Podcast livestream, which was three hours long and aired on both YouTube and Rumble, Fuentes said that “women shouldn’t be getting educated” and shouldn’t have the right to vote. Myron Gaines said that women should be able to vote, but added that a “female’s vote should be half of a man’s vote” because men register for selective service.

When asked for his thoughts on “mass immigration,” Fuentes said he was “totally against it,” claiming that America was “founded, built, inhabited by white people” and “should remain that way.” Fuentes asked where white people will be “evacuated to” in the event that America is “taken over” and “they’re killin’ white people and we’re 30% of the population.”

Gaines also asked Fuentes if he’s actually an anti-semite for criticizing Israel or Jewish people since, in his opinion, a “small group of” Jews are “overrepresented” in certain careers or industries. Fuentes complained that if you suggest the Holocaust was “exaggerated,” or accuse Jewish people of dual loyalty, or suggest that Jews are part of a global conspiracy you’re considered anti-semitic.

“The FBI, the State Department says you’re an anti-semite if: Holocaust exaggerated, you think Jews are loyal to Israel, if you think Jews conspire in the world — which they do!” he exclaimed. “I mean what’s the World Jewish Congress? I mean what is that other than a global conspiracy?”

Fuentes blamed Jewish people for the murder of Jesus Christ (a belief renounced by the Catholic Church in 1962), and voiced support for the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy theory which posits that Jewish people carried out the Russian Revolution of 1917. “So it’s not just any group that’s running the society, it’s not just any group that wields its influence,” he said. “It’s a group that hates God. It’s a group that hates Christians. It’s a group that, historically, has hated Europeans.”

Co-host Walter Weekes chimed in to say that Jews “will inevitably bring about the end of the world,” and cited the Book of Revelation. “So what did the Devil do? Everything opposite [of what God wants],” Weekes added. “What are the Jews doing? The opposite.” Myron Gaines said he looked at the issue from a “geopolitical angle” and claimed that there is “100% proof that there was Israeli intelligence involved in” 9/11.

In a second livestream that lasted four hours and is now set to private on the Fresh & Fit Podcast YouTube channel, which has over 1.4 million subscribers, Gaines and Weekes included Fuentes on a panel alongside several Black women.

Early on in the show, Fuentes told the other panelists that he “support[s] most of” what Adolf Hitler did, and that he doesn’t believe that the Holocaust happened. Later on when they revisited these comments, Fuentes called Hitler a “good guy” and cited the work of David Irving, a notorious racist and Holocaust denier, to suggest that the Nazis did not carry out a genocide.

Irving denies the existence of Nazi gas chambers and once remarked that “I don’t think there was any overall Reich policy to kill the Jews. If there was, they would have been killed and there would not be now so many millions of survivors.”

Fuentes referred to Irving, who unsuccessfully sued historian Deborah Lipstadt for libel after she called him a Holocaust denier, as “one of the preeminent World War II historians in the history of the world.” Fuentes cited Irving’s false claims that Nazi concentration camps were not, in fact, “death camps,” and that Jewish prisoners mainly died of disease and starvation.

“And so when you see these pictures of people being shoveled in and the mass graves and things like that, maybe it’s not gas chambers. Maybe it’s not an extermination. Maybe these were people who still, unfairly and in a discriminatory way, were locked up for being Jewish. But maybe these technological horrors are exaggerated. Maybe the numbers are exaggerated,” he said, summarizing Irving’s position.

Fuentes concluded that “it’s a lot more plausible that this is being used to bully people into not talking about certain topics.”

Three hours into the livestream, in response to a viewer question about whether Fuentes had “support from a black / hispanic [sic] audience,” Fuentes replied that “Blacks love me because I’m honest.” When other panelists reacted to his use of the word “Blacks,” Fuentes said that they didn’t “want to hear my second choice.” After being egged on by other panelists, Fuentes then said the N-word into his mic.

[littlewomenpodcast]

Little Women Inspirations: Friedrich Schiller (With Hejar Sinem) Part 3

Sinem: It is such a great example on how caring and sweet he is, he is very important in the novel as well, and I just love him even more for that, that he's so caring, and so sweet, and it's kind of funny, I also wrote to you, these kind of characters, like the ones who are very caring, who are very open about their feelings, who work for their loved ones, often are women in these kind of fictions, and I also think it's very important that Friedrich is a male, because he kind of unifies men and women in his character.

Niina: Yes, he has a very empathic nature, that is often considered to be more feminine.

Sinem: Yes, that's true, but I think, for me... I'm not in the age right now, but if there was somebody I'd like to marry, or somebody I would fall in love with, that would probably be somebody who's empathetic, who loves me, who respects me, it's of such importance for a person to be empathetic.

Niina: That was such a big deal for Louisa May Alcott, that she found it very important that people did feel empathy others, especially those in bad situations, because she came from such a poor background herself.

Sinem: Definitely, and I think it's very important that, unlike many fans who actually wanted Jo and Laurie to be together, I think it is perfect that she made Jo and Friedrich an official couple, because, in part 1, there are the Hummels, they are German, and besides Beth, I think Jo is the one who cares for them the most. They are German, they are poor, and that is the same as Friedrich is. He's German, he's poor, and I think it is also very important that she showed that interracial relationships are important, and that there are marriages between couples that aren’t the same nationality.

Niina: I think still today you can get some backlash if you are dating someone who is not from the same culture than you are, but in those times it was even more scandalous, and then we have Amy and Laurie, and Laurie is half Italian, and Italians were not treated with respect in the 19th century America.

Sinem: I think his Italian side only shows when he does one of his rounds, like when he's angry, or when he's happy, or something like that, only then do we see that he is Italian, but I think it's that people who are from southern Europe, they are temperamental.

Niina: There are some scenes in Little Women where Laurie mentions how he wants to connect more with his Italian roots, and I think that's why he's also very artistic. He's interested in music and art and things like that, and to him Italy represents those things. I think it has a parallel to Jo, because for Jo, Germany and Goethe, and German Romanticism, it really represents high literature, high poetry, theater pieces, and all these great things that come from Germany, so not only is Louisa May Alcott a Germanophile, but Jo is also a Germanophile.

Sinem: Yes, that is very much true and I also want to specify, I love it, that both Jo and Luisa May Alcott are very interested in German culture and German language. I know it came much later, but when you think of World War II, especially, to me, it is also very important that a novel at that time portrayed the German culture, German language, etc as a very good and new thing, because mostly, when I now look at movies or something like that, it is mostly propagandic that all Germans are bad, and I think that is a very sad thing, because, I mean, everybody has a good and a bad side inside of themselves, and I think it should be balanced and I really love that, unlike most people of her time, Louisa May Alcott didn't treat German people with disrespect, but with very much respect, especially because she was a transcendentalist, and transcendentalism was very much inspired by a German philosophy that was also stated by Friedrich in their 1994 adaptation and I also think it is very important to acknowledge the fact that, unlike most people of her time, Louisa May Alcott did love Germany and German people, because diversity is very important and respect is very important.

Niina: Yes, I think you are actually the person who might be able to tell about this. Louisa May Alcott loved Goethe, and Goethe is really a big part of German culture in general. How do you see Goethe in Germany? What is his presence?

Sinem: We have read a few poems of Goethe. My father, he has Faust, I think, both in Turkish and German In the German class, we discussed a poem of Goethe, where he looked at Schiller's skull, because the two were very close. When he looked at Schiller's skull, that's when he wrote the poem. I think Goethe is very important, because he portrays such a positive aspect of German culture. I think it's sad that the teenagers of this time, which I used to be, but I'm not longer. Many people in my classes, they dislike poems in general, so they also kind of dislike Goethe's poems and then I am there, I adore his poems, because first of all, his language is very wonderful. I have a knack, a flavor for interesting people, so I guess I'll someday read all of Goethe's novels or when I find a good biography, I'll also plan on reading one, because I also think that it's very important to know about people who shaped our culture.

[cinematicnomad]

Would you rather be forced to eat human clothing or human meat? (From someone who is alright to eat and consented to it)

a wild question, but i guess i would go with eating human clothing??? i dunno, consent doesn't really play into my feelings on the morality of hypothetical cannibalism lol

i mean, if we're talking like, this is a situation like the donner party or the franklin expedition or what have you, and i'm literally starving and someone is saying it's ok? yeah i'd probably eat the leather boots first, but i wouldn't be shocked if i'd eventually cave to the meat option. i wouldn't be surprised if in a desperate situation like that i might lean on my catholic upbringing and rationalize it as being like the eucharist etc the same way the survivors in the andes plane crash did.

✨sleepover saturday✨

[malibu-barb]

📷: hereisstella

[chicagobeerpass]

Chicago Beer Pass: Oktoberfest Time Again

Welcome to the Chicago Beer Pass: Your ticket to all the great beer events happening in and around Chicago.

On this episode of Chicago Beer Pass, Brad Chmielewski and Nik White start their Oktoberfest off with a bang by having some cans from Spiteful Brewing. Brad picked these up on a recent stop where he got sucked into the Oktoberfest season with Half Acre's Lager Town and Spiteful’s Oktoberfest. There are events for Oktoberfest happening for the next couple weekends, so grab your Lederhosen and meet up with Brad and Nik for a liter or two.

Having issues listening to the audio? Try the MP3 (63.2 MB) or subscribe to the podcast on

[screamscenepodcast]

Your hosts travel to West Germany for EIN TOTER HING IM NETZ aka THE CORPSE IN THE WEB (1960) from director Fritz Böttger! This "nudie" horror film offers an early attempt at bridging sex appeal and horror, but is not necessarily successful at it.

Context setting 00:00; Synopsis 11:00; Discussion 16:48; Ranking 31:05

[channelping]

🎧Channelping.com✨We love to share your posts. Let’s spread the music! @quelza_m @electrip.trip DJProducer⭐️Quelza ▶️Electrip: Sat 28 Jan 2023 @ Eliptica Club & LFT, Cali, Colombia 🇨🇴 📀Protein Chords (Fabric Selects I) - Available @bandcamp @spotify … #channelping#dj#musicproducer#quelza#france#germany#cali#colombia#techno#technofamily#melodichouse#dance#techhouse#housemusic#podcast#hardstyle#nightclub#electronicmusic#radio#undergroundtechno#clubbing#psytrance#recordlabels#soundcloud#beatport#musicfestival#spotify#bandcamp#soundtrack#technoclub https://www.instagram.com/p/CntOU3CsQul/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=