• Skip to content

Grégoire Canlorbe

Donald Trump

A conversation with Igal Hecht, for Gatestone Institute

A conversation with Igal Hecht, for Gatestone Institute

by Grégoire Canlorbe · Mai 5, 2025

In 1999, Igal Hecht created Chutzpa Productions Inc. His award winning films have been described as controversial and thought provoking. His films have dealt with human rights issues to pop culture. Throughout his twenty-year career, Igal Hecht has been involved in the production of over fifty documentary films and over twenty television series. Igal’s films and television series have been screened nationally and internationally on Netflix, Prime, BBC, Documentary Channel, CBC, YES-TV (Canada), HBO Europe and many others.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: The Killing Roads investigate the pogrom perpetrated across the Gaza envelope on October 7, 2023, with special attention paid to the attacks launched on the roads in southern Israel. How did you proceed with gathering, and crafting, the introduced testimonies and audiovisual material?

  Igal Hecht: When October 7th unfolded, I began collecting and archiving every piece of footage that emerged—raw, unfiltered, and often horrifying. As the days passed and the scale of the atrocities became undeniable, I knew I had to make a film. But with so much devastation, I needed to focus on a specific, often overlooked aspect of the attack.

  In November, Haaretz and The New York Times published articles about the massacres on the roads. That became my focal point. I began researching, speaking to survivors, and quickly realized that aside from Israeli TV, no one was truly exposing what happened, particularly on Route 232 and Route 34. On those roads alone, Palestinian terrorists, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and civilians from Gaza (as if there’s any real distinction between them) murdered around 250 innocent people.

  A few months in, I started reaching out to survivors, and with my trusted collaborator, Lior Cohen, who I’ve made over 25 films with, we set off to Israel. In early 2024, I spent a month filming in and around Route 232, Route 34, Sderot, the Nova festival grounds, kibbutzim, and cities like Sderot and Ofakim. We conducted over 20 interviews and shot nearly 40 hours of footage. Ultimately, we focused on seven stories. They were each distinct, each offering a different angle of the carnage that unfolded on those roads.

  The visual evidence was crucial. We incorporated footage from survivors, Hamas propaganda videos, security footage, and, thanks to Hatzalah, we obtained 50 hours of raw material from ambulance teams. These first responders documented everything. Every horror, every burned-out car, every bullet-ridden body, from the moment the attack began.

  This wasn’t just a massacre; it was a Nazi-style atrocity committed by Palestinian terrorists. The Killing Roads doesn’t rely on rhetoric, rather, it presents the truth, unfiltered and undeniable. The horror is laid bare, and it must be seen to ensure that no one can ever deny or rewrite what happened.

  On October 7th, Palestinian terrorists and civilians from Gaza committed a mini-Shoah against Jews in Israel. They didn’t just murder—they raped, burned, and mutilated women, children, and men because they were Jewish. And if that wasn’t enough, their woke progressive and Islamist sympathizers in Europe, the U.S., Canada, and Australia celebrated the bloodshed. That is the grotesque reality Jews around the world are facing today.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: Genocide is a reality you had already covered—through documentaries on the Holocaust, as well as on Rwandan, Bangladeshi, Cambodian, and Yezidi genocides. How did it feel, this time?

  Igal Hecht: This time, it was personal. My family lives in that region. I had family members in Sderot fighting off terrorists. I lost brave colleagues. The victims weren’t nameless figures from history books; they were my people.

  And what made it worse was the reaction in Canada. People I thought were friends, colleagues I had worked with, openly supported or excused the butchery. October 7th stripped away the masks. It revealed a deep-seated antisemitism that had always been there, lurking just beneath the surface.

  For me, making this film wasn’t just about documenting history, rather it was a mission. It was my way of saying fuck you to every person who tried to justify, minimize, or celebrate this slaughter. That’s why I made The Killing Roads freely available online. Unlike many filmmakers who compromise to appease broadcasters—who bend to absurd rules like not calling Hamas “terrorists”—I refused to sanitize the truth.

  This film doesn’t offer excuses or euphemisms. It shows, in brutal clarity, what Israelis endured that day. And it does so without concern for political correctness or the fragile sensibilities of those who sympathize with murderers.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: In Canada, what is the average perception of Israel, the Hamas (and similar organizations like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), and Donald Trump’s Middle-East policy?

  Igal Hecht: Under Justin Trudeau, Canada has become the leading hub for Islamist terrorism support in North America. That’s not hyperbole. This is a fact.

  The very day of the October 7th massacre, Muslim activists and their woke, antisemitic allies flooded the streets of Toronto and Montreal, chanting in Arabic for the extermination of Jews. I filmed it. I published it. Nothing happened. Apparently, Canadian police can’t find a single Arabic translator.

  From the start, the Trudeau government’s priority wasn’t justice—it was appeasement. Canada, like the UK and much of Europe, has chosen to bend the knee to Islamic fundamentalism.

  The average Canadian gets their information from a publicly funded broadcaster that pumps out anti-Israel propaganda daily, much like the BBC. These journalists take Hamas press releases as gospel and only issue weak retractions after the damage is done. We’ve seen it repeatedly, from The New York Times parroting Hamas casualty figures to the BBC recently producing outright propaganda films.

  And the result? A 630% rise in antisemitic attacks in Canada. Synagogues vandalized. Jews beaten in the streets. Jewish students in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver physically blocked from attending school—just like in Nazi Germany. Yet, the media downplays it, and politicians look the other way.

  If this unchecked immigration and tolerance for Islamist extremism continue, Canada will follow the path of the UK, France, and the Netherlands. In 10 to 15 years, we’ll see the same no-go zones, the same normalization of antisemitism, and the same erosion of Western values. That’s the trajectory unless people wake up.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: Do you see some impact of the Abraham Accords with respect to the partnership between Israeli filmmaking and the movie industry in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and other Sunni states?

  Igal Hecht: To be honest, I don’t know. It’s not my world.

  What I do know is that the Abraham Accords were a game-changer, and President Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for them. Of course, he won’t get one—Obama got his for good intentions, while Trump actually delivered peace. That tells you everything.

  The Sunni states are waking up to a simple truth: the main obstacle to peace isn’t Israel. Rather, it’s the so-called Palestinians and their genocidal fantasies. Remove that factor from the equation, and Israel and the Arab world can thrive together.

  The Palestinian issue has been the Middle East’s perpetual cancer. More Arab leaders are starting to see that. Hopefully, the rest of the world will, too.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: You wrote, produced, and shot Streets of Jerusalem and several other documentaries set in the holy town. How do you sum up the sort of cinematographic aesthetics the light and architecture in Jerusalem allow for?

  Igal Hecht: Jerusalem is visually unparalleled. It’s not just a setting, it’s a character.  I’ve filmed there for 25 years, and there isn’t a corner of the city my team and I haven’t explored. The aesthetic contrast is breathtaking. The ancient architecture interwoven with the modern, the energy of the people, the ever-present layers of history. You can set up a camera in the Old City or Mahane Yehuda market and capture something cinematic without even trying. Every frame tells a story. It’s why I keep going back and hopefully will again for my next project with Lior Cohen.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: Please tell us about Easter in the Holy Land, which covers Christian pilgrimages in the Land of Israel in the Easter season. When it comes to conveying mystical experience, is movie as eloquent a medium as are literature and painting?

  Igal Hecht: Easter in the Holy Land is a feature-length documentary (or a three-part series) that I’m incredibly proud of. I had the privilege of working alongside cinematographers Lior Cohen and Gabriel Volcovich, as well as filming myself. Every frame is meticulously crafted—each shot looks like a painting.

  We filmed across some of the most sacred Christian sites, Bethlehem, Nazareth, the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and, of course, Jerusalem, particularly the Old City. The film is a visual and spiritual celebration of Easter, offering audiences an intimate view of the deep significance of this holy season in the very land where it all began. More than that, it highlights a truth that is often ignored or distorted: Christian pilgrims in Israel experience absolute religious freedom.

  Despite the lies spread by far-right Christian antisemites and Arab nationalist propagandists, Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Christians can freely and safely celebrate their faith. In contrast, throughout the surrounding region, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and the Palestinian Authority-controlled areas, Christians face persecution, intimidation, and even violence. Yes, there have been isolated incidents in Israel, and they are regrettable. But unlike in many other places, here, those who commit crimes against Christians are arrested and held accountable.

  Ultimately, Easter and Christmas in Israel serve as testaments to the reality that Christian minorities here can observe their holiest days without fear. This is something that is virtually impossible anywhere else in the Middle East.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: Do you plan to direct an equivalent documentary on Jewish and Muslim pilgrimages in the Holy Land?

  Igal Hecht: I haven’t given that much thought, but it would be fascinating to create a trilogy covering all three Abrahamic faiths. The challenge, as always, is funding and securing a broadcaster willing to take it on.  People don’t realize how difficult it is to produce content that explores faith and religion, especially for mainstream television. It’s not impossible, but there’s a definite bias against it. I’ve been fortunate to work with broadcasters who see the value in faith-based programming, but they are few and far between. The reality is that many networks shy away from religious content unless it fits a specific agenda.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: What is your view about the filmic treatment of Jerusalem in the time of the crusades? How do you assess, in particular, Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven?

  Igal Hecht: Aesthetically, Kingdom of Heaven is a stunning film. This is exactly what you’d expect from a director like Ridley Scott, with his massive budget and extraordinary craftsmanship. Beyond that? It’s all subjective. The film, like most historical dramas, takes artistic liberties. But that’s the nature of cinema… especially when dealing with a time period as complex and politically charged as the Crusades.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: In another recent documentary, The Jewish Shadow, you address the condition of Ukrainian Jews in the 1970s, under soviet rule. What did you choose to highlight about their condition—and how it has been evolving after the Soviet Union’s fall?

  Igal Hecht: The Jewish Shadow is an incredibly personal film. It was shot long before the war in Ukraine, and it focuses on the life my parents lived under Soviet rule.  To be honest, I have mixed feelings about it. This is not because it isn’t a good film, but because of how I approached it. I told my parents we were making a family roots documentary, but in reality, I pushed them to confront the antisemitism they endured. In the end, I apologized to them for putting them through that.

  Ukraine has a dark and undeniable history of antisemitism. One that still lingers in certain parts of the country today. But when the war broke out, it complicated everything. I had to grapple with the realization that my view of Ukraine is shaped by generations of Jewish persecution, whereas my parents, despite everything they went through, still have a deep attachment to the place. They lived there. They had friends, careers, and a sense of home… even if antisemitism was a constant shadow over their existence.

  That, in many ways, encapsulates Jewish life in the Diaspora. We integrate, contribute, and flourish; until history repeats itself. Until the inevitable moment when we are reminded that, no matter how much we belong, we will always be seen as different. And because of that so-called difference in the minds of antisemites, the hatred against us is justified. Or, as we are seeing now in places like Canada and many parts of Europe even celebrated and encouraged.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: Thank you for your time. Is there anything you would add?

  Igal Hecht: You can watch The Killing Roads at www.thekillingroads.com or catch it on the Documentary Channel at www.documentarychannel.com.   For additional information about Igal Hecht and his films, visit www.chutzpaproductions.com


That conversation was originally published on Gatestone Institute, in March 2025

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Canadia, Donald Trump, Easter in the Holy Land, genocide, Grégoire Canlorbe, Igal Hecht, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Kingdom of Heaven, Ridley Scott, The Abraham Accords, The Jewish Shadow, The Killing Roads, Ukraine

A conversation with Robert B. Ekelund, for Man and the Economy

A conversation with Robert B. Ekelund, for Man and the Economy

by Grégoire Canlorbe · Nov 26, 2020

  Robert B. Ekelund is eminent scholar emeritus at Auburn University. Besides authoring The Marketplace of Christianity and Economic Origins of Roman Christianity, he co-authored with Robert F. Hebert A History of Economic Theory and Method, and with Mark Thornton Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: You claim the mercantilist doctrine to have been first and foremost a rationalization of rent seeking—and the balance-of-trade objective a by-product of mercantilism rather than the primary motive for the latter. Could you come back to this subject?

  Robert B. Ekelund: Yes, so-called “state policies” remain a rationalization of rent-seeking today as they do and did in any society when political or other institutions are able to grant privileges to individuals or groups at the expense of societal welfare. The book with my late friend Bob Tollison (Mercantilism as a Rent-Seeking Society: Economic Regulation in Historical Perspective, 1981) argued that there is no “state” interests, per se, but individual or group self interest molding and guiding economic policy within a polity. Rationalization of the balance-of-trade theory (or tariffs and subsidies) is merely an expression of a process of particular rent- or profit-seeking individuals or groups or institutions. Tollison and I argued that this approach describes mercantilism better than a rosary of so-called “characteristics” that evolved in the literature. This process was as alive in ancient Egypt as it was in medieval Europe under the aegis of Roman Catholic Church control or as it is in modern day United States or France.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: After the Obama Administration’s commitment to drive America down the road to serfdom, many expected Trump to be a sort of Reagan on strong steroids—and to dismantle the socialist agenda of his predecessor just like Reagan did with Carter’s. For now has Trump been up to this mission?

  Robert B. Ekelund: Assessing the success or failure of any political administration is always difficult. Obama inherited a set of institutions—including a monetary policy of madness over the Bush years—and left a set for Mr. Trump. Obamacare, if that’s what you refer to as a “road to serfdom,” was merely an evolution to an inevitable single-payer Canadian/European medical system. One must look to the history of rent-seeking in medicine and all allied fields. Physicians demanded and received state (and then federal) regulations at the end of the 19th century to stabilize and increase their incomes. That tentacular control ultimately led to the limitation in the number of doctors, the number of hospitals and regulation of all ancillary fields, including medical insurance and pharmaceuticals. The number of physicians has not kept up with population growth; hence the march to some kind of “socialized” system. Such rent-seeking cannot be undone due to the institutionalization of profit-seeking interests. The damage that Mr. Trump’s administration has done to the institutions of a free society dwarfs Obama’s or any president before him. The deficit and debit (before the Covid crisis) ballooned under Trump. It declined under Obama. Trump’s trade policies could not withstand the logic of Economics 101. His assaults on the freedom of the press and the freedom from religion would give Thomas Jefferson apoplexy. Trump’s only mission has resulted in a march to tyranny and not one to socialism, although at some points they overlap. If Obama’s policies were a road to serfdom, Trump’s are a super-highway.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: You have been highly active in the field known as economics of art. You have been as much involved in the historical study of the Catholic Church as an economic firm. How do those combined approaches enlighten the flourishing of painting and sculpture during the Italian Renaissance?

  Robert B. Ekelund: The Catholic Church acted as super-national government prior to and during the Italian Renaissance. In the Italian case, the Church supported those families who oversaw the Church’s vast financial empire, especially the Medici’s. (Italy was an agglomeration of political powers rather than a unified nation). These powers were competitive in all things, including art and scientific patronage. Artists also competed to become patrons of particular rulers and formed a stable of intellects and talents that reflected upon the glories of their supporters. Great art and sculpture were one result. (We find a similar situation in the high-stakes commoditization of art today among the uber wealthy). In addition to patronage the Church used various tactics—for example, threats to eternal salvation, a chief aspect of their monopoly—to obtain great art. Michelangelo’s homosexuality was used against him as a cudgel to complete the Sistine Chapel and other projects. His sublime productions for the Church may be looked upon as a kind of “penance.” Forgiveness of sins and special blessings were used in trade to get artists and sculptors to produce. Valuable emoluments in all fields from members at all levels of society were obtained in this manner. Why? Because the Church, at that time and place, had a monopoly on assurances of eternal salvation. It manipulated theology, marriage and usury, among many other policies, to maximize wealth and membership. The road to heaven was a toll road.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: As a historian of economic thought you especially dedicated yourself to exhuming the pioneer contributions by Jules Dupuit and Sir Edwin Chadwick—in the respective fields of microeconomics and the economics of regulation. How do you sum up their work?

  Robert B. Ekelund: Dupuit and Chadwick were pioneers for quite different reasons. My career-long study of 19th century engineers, the French engineer Jules Dupuit (1804-1864) in particular, yielded an astonishing result. In work joined by my friend and colleague Robert Hebert, we established that Dupuit had uncovered and developed traditional contemporary (neoclassical) microeconomics in its full measure before the mid-19th century. Our research is reported in Secret Origins of Modern Microeconomics: Dupuit and the Engineers (1999). Those inventions include standard market theory, monopoly theory including a sophisticated discussion of the degrees of discrimination, welfare theory, marginal cost pricing, spatial analysis, time and transport costs, and empirical economics. In short, the origins of partial equilibrium “Marshallian” economics are French, not British and they occurred before the middle of the nineteenth century. In contrast, my work on Edwin Chadwick, alone and with others, focuses on his prescient theoretical anticipation of the modern field of law and economics, including Coase’s analysis of social cost and proposals for franchise bidding in natural monopolies. While Dupuit and Chadwick studied different issues, their attempt to invent and integrate theory, institutions and policy analysis was astonishing for their time or in any time.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: While Austrian economics endorses the law of supply and demand—the selling of any commodity, not necessarily at a profitable price, but at least at a price equalizing the supply and the demand which are linked to the aforesaid price—it claims to dismiss the ideal assumptions of neoclassical economics. Yet those assumptions—convex preferences, “perfect” competition, and demand independence—are seemingly the theoretical conditions under which the law of supply and demand is operative. How do you make sense of the Austrian position?

  Robert B. Ekelund: I have sometimes noted that in some areas of economic theory the distinction between Austrian and neoclassical economics is a distinction without a difference. Marshall, and Dupuit before him, expressed a formal theory of supply and demand using ceteris paribus assumptions together with the factors you describe. The emphasis was on continuity in expressing demand curves and they are amenable to mathematical manipulation. Although standard neoclassical theory and Austrian theorists both emphasized rational behavior, the Austrian theories of demand and production featured discontinuities rather than continuities—a feature of both Marshallian and Walrasian versions of competition. When probabilities are added to the latter, prediction is possible. Thus, while both approaches to economic behavior are similar, the Austrian version eschews prediction in favor of description in analysing economic functioning. Thus, both versions of neoclassical economics reemphasize rational behavior and economizing but Austrian economics “do” economics differently than orthodox Marshallians.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: You rightly point out the fact that Stuart Mill was the first to show how the law of markets—the profitable equalization between aggregate supply and aggregate demand notwithstanding the below-cost sales which may happen locally—was rendered inoperative in the presence of hoarding. In classical economics another acknowledged limitation to the law of markets lied in the periodic outbreak of entrepreneurial mistakes—by reason of factors such as the distorting of interest rates by excessive credit creation. How do you assess the pertinence and the originality of Keynes in this context?

  Robert B. Ekelund: Hoarding does undermine the law of markets but only in a short run context. But what is the cause of hoarding? Not markets, but something like an invasion or a virus which causes an abrupt increase in demand and decrease of supply which temporarily makes price vanish. Hoarding may also be created by a sudden change in risk aversion. Spikes of entrepreneurial errors due to excessive credit creation also seems to undermine the law of markets, i.e., Say’s Law, but what is the cause of excessive credit creation? The British monetary debates tried to identify and fix this cause without much success. This is the economics that Keynes was taught. He apparently just assumed that such flaws were inherent to the market (a liquidity trap?) and the solution was exogenous, i.e., something the government should fix. That it was a short-term fix with deleterious consequences was not emphasized.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: A well-known investigation on your part covers the ascent of Christianity in the Roman empire’s religion marketplace. Should Saint Paul be credited for giving a universal dimension to the nascent Christian message—a pretension to welcome Pagans without asking them to join the Jewish community and to espouse its mores and national destiny?

  Robert B. Ekelund: There is some truth to the statement that without St. Paul there would likely have been no Christianity, at least as we know it. That was due to his entrepreneurial skills which included at least in part a victory over St. Peter’s belief that to become Christian one first had to be Jewish. This meant that non-Jews, courted by Paul’s famous epistles, could become Christians without first converting to Judaism. Males would not have to undergo circumcision (as adults) to join the Christian faith. Apparently, this was an important element in the rapid early spread of Christianity and St. Paul certainly gave a universal dimension to the religion in this regard. Assurances of eternal salvation were the ultimate linchpin in the success of Christian monotheism. The apostles (broadly conceived), with Paul the most significant, were able to analyze that critical aspect of Christian religion.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: Do you subscribe to the claim that the adoption of Christianity as a state religion was decisive in triggering the fall of the Roman empire? What may be the economic and politic interests leading nowadays the Catholic Church to promote ecologism and a variety of causes detrimental to the West?

  Robert B. Ekelund: Geopolitical and other factors—“barbarian” invasions, the rise of Moslem religion, the general incompetence of Roman leaders in the first three centuries of Roman rule and the fragmentation of multiple deity worship by the early 4th century—all contributed to the fall of the Roman empire. However Constantine (306-337 CE), ostensibly goaded on by his mother St. Helena, made Christianity—composed of the then-most-popular texts—the official religion of the Empire. The growth and emerging political power of Christians were probably more influential propellants to Constantine. This gave him the power to loot temples and properties of the various “pagan” sects. Later emperors outlawed all other religions and Christian entrepreneurs (apostles) set out to Christianize the world. So, yes, Christianity played a role in the declension of empire, but it was not the only factor. The modern Catholic Church equates the teachings of Jesus to a kind of social democratic polity, one that underlines redistributions and respect for the environment. Right-wing groups, whose political and economic interests are all too obvious, oppose the Church whose grounds are chiefly theological and moral. That does not mean that economics does not underlie the latter as well.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: You wrote about the socioeconomic realities of the American Civil War. Could you remind us of the outlines of your approach? Regarding the economics of the Crusades in the medieval era, what are the main facts which deserve to be highlighted here?

  Robert B. Ekelund: Our approach to the American Civil War revolves around the use of basic economic analysis to reveal how blockades, tariffs and monetary matters were conducted on both sides of the War. The North had an overwhelming advantage in the terms of population and industrial development, but the struggle lasted far longer than anticipated by the North. One fundamental issue was that the South was at a disadvantage as a “confederacy” wherein the states did not present a united policy effort. Both economies resorted to the printing press, but the Southern economy was more adversely affected by inflation than was the Northern economy. Most historians focus on battles, armies, and generals to describe the outcome of the war. We emphasize the war at sea. Blockades are typically not very effective because of the incentive of higher prices on both imports and exports mean high profits, plus the possibility of adopting new technologies, i.e., blockade runners. However, in this case the Confederacy adopted policies that disincentivized the blockade runners. In 1864 the Confederacy passed trade legislation that prevented importing luxury goods, put price controls on other goods, and commandeered half of the shipping space on blockade runners. This ruined the blockade running business and the Confederacy began to experience severe shortages and increasing losses on the battlefield.

  The medieval Crusades were (in part) a spiritual device to extend the monopoly of Christianity to Moslem-controlled areas of the East. But attending these organized wars the Church and Church interests received substantial revenue and rent flows. In terms of direct flows, the Church received revenues from tourism and relics. (St Helena initiated the relic hunt in her 4th century trips to the Holy Land). There was an impetus for cathedral building to house such relics providing awe and grandeur “capital” to members. Additionally, another direct revenue source from the Crusades was the “buy-back” of crusading vows by those who subsequently regretted their pledges. Excommunication was the alternative. Numerous indirect benefits to the Church were attached to the Crusades. Peace, order, and enhanced authority were benefits to society as well as to the Christian monopoly. For the individuals who participated there were spiritual benefits (remission of sins) and temporal benefits. Pillage and plunder of “infidels” was legitimized and classes of “warrior monks” (e.g., the Knights Templars, the Hospitallers, and the Teutonic Knights) emerged to fight the Church’s enemies and to spread potentially taxable membership.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: Thank you for your time. Is there something you would like to add?

  Robert B. Ekelund: I enjoyed the discussion. Clearly my interests in economics have been diverse. There is one strand that is woven through them—the application of microeconomics, including monopoly theory, industrial organization and law and economics, to a multiplicity of problems. Institutional change has also been a large aspect of my interest in the field. Economic issues are everywhere from the regulation of cosmetology to religion and art. I have tried to find interesting applications in these and other areas and to encourage my students to do so as well.


  That conversation was originally published in Man and the Economy, in their December 2020 issue

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: American Civil War, Barack Obama, Catholic Church, Christianity, Crusades, Donald Trump, Edwin Chadwick, Grégoire Canlorbe, Italian Renaissance, Jules Dupuit, Mark Thornton, Mercantilism, Robert B. Ekelun

A conversation with Howard Bloom, for The Postil Magazine

A conversation with Howard Bloom, for The Postil Magazine

by Grégoire Canlorbe · Mai 4, 2020

Howard Bloom photo 2  Howard Bloom started in theoretical physics and microbiology at the age of ten and spent his early years in science. Then, driven by the desire to study mass human emotion through the lens of science, he went into a field he knew nothing about, popular culture. He founded the biggest PR firm in the music industry and worked with superstars like Prince, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, Billy Joel, Queen, AC/DC, Aerosmith, Billy Idol, Joan Jett, Styx, Hall and Oates, Simon & Garfunkel, Run DMC, and Chaka Khan. Bloom went back to his formal science in 1988 and, since then, has published seven books on human and cosmic evolution, including The God Problem, Global Brain, and The Lucifer Principle. Called “next in a lineage of seminal thinkers that includes Newton, Darwin, Einstein, [and] Freud” by Britain’s Channel 4 TV, and “the next Stephen Hawking” by Gear magazine, he is the subject of BRIC TV’s documentary The Grand Unified Theory of Howard Bloom.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: As an entrepreneur in the public relations industry, you were particularly active under the Reagan era. How do you explain that the eighties saw both a return to some conservative values and an explosion of creativity and coolness in music and movies?

  Howard Bloom: That’s a very good question. I’ve never thought of that connection before. My wife had been a socialist when I met her in the 1960s. And then in the 1970s she became a conservative. So she was siphoning money out of our bank account and giving it to Ronald Reagan’s political campaigns—without telling me. She knew I hated Reagan. But I never connected Ronald Reagan with what was going on in popular music at that point. In the 1960s popular music was the music of rebellion. Rock music was about raising your fist and saying to adults: “I have a right to be an individual. I have a right to exist.” Rock was in tune with the hippie philosophy: “Don’t trust anyone over 30.” And, “We’re here to overturn the establishment.” In other words, rock and roll was part of a rebellion whose political activists were working to toss people our parent’s age out of power. That was the 1960s. But there was no overt philosophy—there was no ideology—of rebellion in the 1970s and the 1980s. However if you look at the attitude of the artists who emerged, it was sheer rebellion.

  Joan Jett got onstage and raised her fist. And the way she raised her fist was the strongest part of her message. She was a woman. And as a woman, you were expected to be like Grace Slick or Janis Joplin: the guys had the guitars, the power instruments, and you did not. You simply crooned into the microphone. But Joan was saying: “I’m going to take over the fucking guitar, myself. I have the power. I own the power on stage. And I am going to rebel as a self-contained entity not needing the “weapons” of “males with guitars.” My band? Hey, that’s just an extension of me.” Joan’s was the rebellion of girls who had been raised with working mothers. And for a middle class girl to be raised by a working mother was something brand new. It was a result of the invention of indoor plumbing, the washing machine, the drier, and the dishwasher. Women were no longer the slaves of water-hauling and clothes washing. And the women’s liberation movement had given them the freedom to compete with men in the workplace. Now the daughters of these liberated women had a very new experience of what it meant to be female. And that sense came to a head in Joan Jett. Or it came to a fist. But as for men, I mean, look at several of my other clients. Billy Idol also raised his fist in a gesture of rebellion. Did the anger of these fists have anything to do with the Reagan era? It’s hard to tell.

  John Mellencamp also came to the lip of the stage with his fist raised. If you were here, I could show you the difference between the raised fist of each of those three artists. Each made a slightly different muscular statement—a statement made with muscles. And then, there were bands that were already slipping into acceptance of a parent’s generation, and acceptance of an older generation. Not rebellion, but acceptance. And those were bands like Spandau Ballet, Berlin, which were both my bands, and a bunch of others. Later, the whole attitude of rebellion would disappear from popular music. At least, it would be minimized significantly. In fact, Michael Jackson would live with his mother, his father, and his brothers—an unthinkable act among the rock rebels. And that business of raising your fist on stage would no longer be part of the package, if you were a rock ‘n’ roller. In Michael Jackson it would be replaced by fierce pointing.

[Read more…] about A conversation with Howard Bloom, for The Postil Magazine

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Big Bagel Theory, Billy Idol, China, COVID-19, Donald Trump, Grégoire Canlorbe, Howard Bloom, Joan Jett, Michael Jackson, Prince, Ronald Reagan

A conversation with Daryl Kane, for The Postil Magazine

A conversation with Daryl Kane, for The Postil Magazine

by Grégoire Canlorbe · Avr 1, 2020

Daryl Kane  Daryl Kane is an American politician best known for his book Cultural Cancer: Treating the Disease of Political Correctness, his podcast Right Wing Road Trip, and the journal Revenge of the Patriot whose editor he is. He runs as a Republican candidate for POTUS in 2024.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: You are campaigning for the presidential election of 2024 under the banner of Christian morality, economic freedom, ethnic identity, and the fight against leftist cultural cancer. On the issue of immigration, how exactly does your program stand in relation to Trump’s politics?

  Daryl Kane: Immigration obviously is such an important topic and I give Trump credit for emphasizing it in his campaign. Rhetoric aside, how much has he achieved? I’m not sure, I think a lot of good has been done but really when he, when we’re talking about slowing, even stopping the tide, this is a stopgap mentality, it’s not a conversation about solutions. Very clearly, the American people, and really just about all citizens of Western nations—look, this is has been political warfare and the damage sustained is reaching, has really passed a point where we can just end this nonsense without also taking remedial, restorative measures. This is naturally a very charged topic and one which must be approached with sobriety but also with care and humanity. On the one hand we have a ship that is sinking and you know, we can’t just plug the holes, we have to also start removing some of the water. But we’re not talking about water, we’re talking about God’s children so you know, perhaps to the chagrin of some, no I’m not just going to arbitrarily throw everyone out. But you know, I actually don’t think we really have to either. One big talking point for Trump is about moving us to fully merit based immigration which strikes most conservatives as a tough, sensible response. Certainly this is better than the prior lunacy, things like “diversity visas” which for me is a term that I often instruct people to pause for a moment and think about. What exactly is a “diversity visa?” Well, obviously it’s a seat in our country which we are setting aside, reserving for people on the basis of them being less similar to our current citizens than other would be immigrants. For me, you know, I’m not sure we do want to move away from identity based immigration. I think maybe we keep a lot of that stuff, and by the way this pertains to domestic programs as well, where you know we spend billions a year to promote this or that group, really any group that we don’t usually associate with mainstream Americanism. Maybe we keep a lot of this diversity infrastructure, at least the concept of them but we actually invert them, or you know replace them with a desire to reinforce or advocate for traditional Western identity. Maybe we start setting visas aside for, oh I don’t know, white, English speaking Christians? (Laughs)

  You see, no one ever really bothered to explain to Americans why they needed things like diversity visas, diversity scholarships, etc. They were just sort’ve injected in, draped in this very flowery, humanistic rhetoric. I think it’s time to start talking about things like homogeny visas and see what happens when the Left has to justify why it’s ok for them to play this game but not us. Let’s have a national dialogue about the benefits of both ends of spectrum and let’s see which of the two seems more beneficial at this point in time. And look, I’ve said this too, I’m not an anti diversity person. Diversity can be good, it can be bad. I do like being able to enjoy all sorts of unique ethnic cuisine in cities and things of that nature. A lot of people scoff at equality now and you know, I don’t know, that ideal still resonates with me and I don’t want us to lose that ability to make friends from different places, to connect and be decent to one another. But I think quite clearly the level of diversity which we now have, frankly—and this is putting it mildly, it’s plenty.

[Read more…] about A conversation with Daryl Kane, for The Postil Magazine

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: cultural Marxism, Daryl Kane, Donald Trump, Grégoire Canlorbe, immigration, Iran, neoconservatism, Revenge of the Sith, Star Wars

A conversation with Joachim Son-Forget, for Gatestone Institute

A conversation with Joachim Son-Forget, for Gatestone Institute

by Grégoire Canlorbe · Déc 27, 2019

1200px-Joachim_Son-Forget_16312  Joachim Jean-Marie Forget, also known as Joachim Son-Forget, is a South Korean-born, French politician and professional radiologist. Since 2017, he has been a member of the French National Assembly (lower house of the French Parliament) representing French residents overseas. He works part-time as a radiologist in Switzerland. He has held Kosovar citizenship since 2018. Adopted by a French family as a child, and holder of a doctorate in cognitive neuroscience, Son-Forget was previously active within the French Socialist Party and later La République En Marche (LaREM) until he resigned from the party in late 2018. He has since founded his own political party, first called “Je suis français et européen” (JSFee), then “Valeur absolue.”

  The following conversation with political journalist Grégoire Canlorbe happened in December 2019, in Paris. An abridged version was first published by Gatestone Institute, in December 2019.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: You are known for your stormy positions, for example on ART [assisted reproductive technology]. Do you espouse Julie Graziani’s polemical claim that (in substance) it is better not to divorce for a woman who lives on minimum wage, knowing that everyone, rich or poor, must shoulder its responsibilities?

  Joachim Son-Forget: My point about ART is different from that of pro-life parties, in that it does not carry a desire to discriminate against homosexual people who would like to educate a child. I only notice that nature has made that two men together or two women together cannot give life, and I think we should have the wisdom to respect nature in that case. Certainly we were able—thankfully!—to go beyond nature in various fields: thanks to modern medicine, infant mortality has become practically insignificant in the West (whereas before the nineteenth century, one child in four died before the age of one, and one child in two reached the age of ten). Technical progress has given us opportunities for transportation and communication that were inconceivable for our ancestors. But all of that is out of proportion with the fact of wanting to go beyond nature in the field of gestation. It is a barrier that it would be unwise to cross… were it only out of regard for the existential questions of children born through surrogacy.

  Once again, there is no homophobic discrimination in my speech: I cannot find fault with entrusting orphans to homosexual couples, on the contrary! Regarding Julie Graziani, whom I do not know, and whom I believe is absolutely unknown in France beyond a meager buzz already forgotten, I usually try to look up, and to comment, if not renowned thinkers, at least people who are somewhat existing. So expressing myself about what the housewife of the neighborhood thinks (perhaps her opinion is, in fact, more valid than that of that lady), no I wouldn’t do that! Now, to answer you on the subject matter: family is indeed the traditional economic model of survival in a precarious situation. For those who are penniless, and who live in the anxiety of a blackout or a banking ban, getting married was—and could still be—the opportunity to found a tribe whose members will provide for the needs from each other and will bring assistance, comfort and solidarity to each other. In a world subject to biological or social determinisms like ours, it is a bit illusory to call people to “shoulder their responsibilities.” Epigenetics teaches us how acquired traits such as violence can be rendered heritable (via the messenger RNA game). Certainly education can, in part, remedy determinism just like the eviction of deleterious conditions… at least I like to think it to keep a bit of utopia to move forward.

[Read more…] about A conversation with Joachim Son-Forget, for Gatestone Institute

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Claude Lévi-Strauss, Donald Trump, epigenetics, Grégoire Canlorbe, Japan, Joachim Son-Forget, Julie Graziani, Korean genetics, Maoist China, Mullahs' Iran, North Korea, Park Chung-hee, South Korea

A conversation with John Christy, for Association des climato-réalistes

A conversation with John Christy, for Association des climato-réalistes

by Grégoire Canlorbe · Juin 28, 2019

johnchristy  John Raymond Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change. In February 2019 he was named as a member of the EPA Science Advisory Board.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: You have been at pains to show that climate models are over-predicting warming by roughly a factor of two. Could you come back to this alleged falsification?

  John Christy: We should be applying the scientific method to claims scientists (and others) are making about the climate. In this case I downloaded the output from 102 climate model simulations used by the IPCC and compared the tropospheric temperature since 1979 between the models and several observational datasets, including the satellite dataset we generate. The models on average were warming the atmosphere at a rate significantly greater than the observations. This is a test result from which we can say the models failed, and thus one shouldn’t depend on model output to characterize the future climate.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: You are notably known for your involvement—along with Roy Spencer—in devising the first successful satellite temperature record. It turns out that beforehand you had already built your “first climate datasets” at the age of twelve, “using a mechanical pencil, graph paper, and long-division (no calculators back then.)” Could you tell us more about this life of invention?

  John Christy: I was fascinated with the weather conditions around my home in the San Joaquin Valley of California (a desert basically) and the contrast with the climate of the Sierra Nevada Mountains immediately to the East. I was curious as to why some years were wet, others dry… why the Sierras had more precipitation and why the snow levels varied so much. I was the first high school student in California to write a simple program to predict the weather and to calculate the snow level in the mountains. These were very crude, statistical models in 1968, written for computers that were far less sophisticated than today’s cell phone. But, they introduced me to computer coding and to the power that was required to study. That was over 50 years ago.

[Read more…] about A conversation with John Christy, for Association des climato-réalistes

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: climate warming, CO2, Donald Trump, Grégoire Canlorbe, John Christy, neoconservative movement, Notre-Dame de Paris fire

A conversation with former Czech President Václav Klaus, for John Bolton’s Gatestone Institute

A conversation with former Czech President Václav Klaus, for John Bolton’s Gatestone Institute

by Grégoire Canlorbe · Nov 30, 2018

Vaclav_Klaus_headshot  Václav Klaus is a Czech economist and politician who served as the second President of the Czech Republic from 2003 to 2013. He also served as the second and last Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, federal subject of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, from July 1992 until the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in January 1993, and as the first Prime Minister of the newly-independent Czech Republic from 1993 to 1998. He is known for his euroscepticism, denial of man-caused global warming, opposition to mass immigration, and support of free market capitalism.

  This conversation with Grégoire Canlorbe took place in Paris, in December 2017. It was first published on John Bolton’s Gatestone Institute. You may find the Czech translation here.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: People are often defined by a common worldview rather than by genetics or where they live. In view of the situation in the Czech Republic, do you agree?

  Václav Klaus: I would return the issue to the defense of the Nation-State. I truly believe in the Nation-State, therefore I am so critical of the continental ambitions of many European officials. I do not believe in the European Union or the European integration. This is for me the starting point.

  For me, the Nation-State is the only possible way to have democracy. Democracy simply cannot exist at a higher level, as in continents, let alone global democracy in the world. So, my starting point is the Nation-State, the defense of the Nation-State, and the fighting continental integration.

  In this respect, I am in favor of Trump. Donald Trump is not my cup of tea personally, intellectually, but his position on many issues is a positive one. I especially think of his refusal to sign the Paris Agreement, his important speeches like that in Warsaw in the summer or that in the United Nations in September, defending the Nation-States, culture, traditions, habits, mores and behaviors, lifestyles. It is something that I feel is with Trump, something that Hillary Clinton would never, never say.

[Read more…] about A conversation with former Czech President Václav Klaus, for John Bolton’s Gatestone Institute

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Czech Republic, Donald Trump, European Union, Grégoire Canlorbe, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, mass migration, Nation-State, ré-émigration, Václav Klaus

Next Page »

Copyright © 2025 · No Sidebar Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

  • Information
  • Privacy policy