For the first time, I’m bringing a book into this space — because it moved something in me that theory never could.

Reading Qui a tué mon père by Édouard Louis forced me to confront a reality I had only understood abstractly: what it actually feels like to be born into poverty and never escape it. To grow up in a body worn down by labor. To be shaped — and crushed — by policies written by people who will never live their consequences.

This episode is in the end about anger, again. Legitimate anger. The kind we’re quick to dismiss when it turns toward right-radical parties. Instead of asking “How could they vote like that?”, I’m asking: What did we fail to see? Who benefits from keeping people trapped in misery? And how do we — as progressive, educated people — participate in that failure?

It’s an uncomfortable & humbling lecture, and I hope this episode will give you a glimpse in what it made me feel.

Society tells us we should be happy on our own.
That autonomy is fulfillment.
That love is optional.

We hear that single women are happier than those in relationships.
That humans are not necessarily made for monogamy.
That freedom means not needing anyone.

And yet—despite knowing all this—we still invest enormous amounts of time, energy, emotion, and imagination into the search for one person. Someone with whom happiness might feel steadier. Someone with whom a life could take shape.

Why is that?

In this episode, I explore why the couple narrative continues to hold such power—even among progressive, emancipated minds; even among women who reject traditional roles; even among people who don’t want marriage, or children, or prescribed futures.

Setting aside social expectations and organizational norms, I turn to the individual question:
Why are we still drawn to this partnership ?
What is it, deep down, that we are looking for in another person?

A reflection on intimacy not as conformity, but as the human desire to be seen, accompanied, and known—over time, in the ordinary, in the unfinished.

Walking down the street shouldn’t feel like a battle — but it often does.

In this episode, I talk about learning to stand tall, to build that quiet confidence that keeps you unbothered when men with bad intentions won’t leave you alone.

But what if that composure often turns into distance? If the armor that protects also isolates through the mask of indifference?

...until the street becomes a place where no one meets the other’s eyes. A reflection on confidence, vulnerability, and what is lost in the silent negotiations of safety.

-----

Readings mentioned

Example of a study on gendered occupation of playgrounds

Karsten, L. (2003). Children’s Use of Public Space: The Gendered World of the Playground: The Gendered World of the Playground. Childhood, 10(4), 457-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568203104005 (Original work published 2003)

You just wanted to check the news — and twenty minutes later, you're lost between memes, outrage, and breaking stories.

In this episode, we talk about that strange tension between wanting to be informed and getting sucked into the digital carnival.

Why does it feel so addictive? Why does it mess with our emotions?

And what does it say about the way information itself has changed?

Let's deep-dive into this craziness for a few minutes, taking a step back to contemplate what's happening online and within ourselves.

We’re taught to calm down, let go, rise above — but what if anger isn’t something to suppress, but something to understand?

What if Anger is just a misunderstood friend?

In this episode, I explore what anger really is: where it comes from, what it’s trying to protect, and how it can become a quiet force for transformation instead of destruction.

Civil rights defenders and activists have long known the true power of anger — how it can turn pain into movement, despair into demands for a better world.

Together, we look at the fine line between anger born from care for the world and anger that only guards our own wounds.

A bit of philosophy, a bit of current affairs, and this core question at the center: what if feeling angry means we still believe things can change?

---

Content mentioned:

1. Papers about anger being a driver of political activism

- Ost, David. 2004. Politics as the Mobilization of Anger.

- Jasper M. J. 1998. The Emotions of Protest: Affective and Reactive Emotions in and around Social Movements.

2. Frankl, V. 1946. Man's search for Meaning.

In this book, Viktor Frankl reflects on his experience as a Holocaust survivor and the lessons he learned about human resilience. He argues that life's primary drive is not pleasure or power, but suffering. Through his observations, he developed logotherapy, a psychotherapy centered on finding purpose through work, love or how one endures hardship.

3. Aurelius, M. 2002. Meditations

In Meditations, Marcus Aurelius reflects on anger as a destructive emotion that undermines rational judgment and harmony with nature. Through the Stoic lens, he urges self-discipline and perspective-taking—reminding himself that others act out of ignorance, not malice. By mastering one’s reactions rather than external events, Aurelius models how Stoicism transforms anger into understanding and inner peace.

PS: Unfortunately I couldn't find the instagram reel of the demonstration, but I hope I can trust you believe in my good faith <3

PPS: Apologies about the loud breathing noises, the cold in Berlin hasn't been kind to me :/

“Is Democracy Doomed? (Or Just Having a Bad Day)”

This time I sit down with my girl Maxi, a fellow political science student at the University of Münster, who bravely took a break from writing her master’s thesis on populism in Europe to talk about—well—populism in Europe. Together we ask why everyone keeps saying democracies are in danger. Which danger, exactly? Who’s threatening whom? And which direction do we need to go to resist the authoritarian conquest?

We zoom in on the endogenous threats— coming from within democratic systems themselves. Why are today’s democracies standing in the way of their own survival?

Let’s deep dive into how populist parties hurt institutions from the inside, into why left-leaning parties seem to be losing their grip on defending democratic norms, and whether democracy as it is actually doomed… or just needs a strong cup of coffee.

---

Content mentioned:

- Citations on democracy ! A few mistakes !

In “The Republic,” Plato does not consider monarchy to be the best form of government; but aristocracy ruled by philosopher-kings, the wisest individuals, for the benefit of the entire city.

• Abraham Lincoln. 1863. Gettysburg Address. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people"

• Jean-Jacques Rousseau. 1762. Du contrat social or Principes du droit politique.

• Winston Churchill. House of Commons. 1947. !Quoting someone anonymous other person to debunk it! “[I]t has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule [...]”

---

- Steven Levitsky, Daniel Ziblatt. 2018. How Democracies die.

Comparative historical analysis of several regimes (Russia, Venezuela, Hungary) showing how elected leaders can gradually subvert the democratic process to increase their power resulting in democratical backsliding.

- Crouch, C. 2004. Post-Democracy. Polity.

On the loss of political identity and party identification, showing how the vote became more complex after globalization.

- France Inter. Geoffroy de Lagasnerie. 2021. Entretien. « Manifestations et grèves sont des formes d’expression, mais plus d’action » https://youtu.be/5VVCrFhJ9vk?feature=shared

Interview of French Sociologist and Philosopher Geoffroy de Lagasnerie. He is explaining the limited reach of demonstrations and the need to infiltrate institutions as progressive/leftist people.

- Ford, Robert/Will Jennings, 2020. The Changing Cleavage Politics of Western Europe. Annual Review of Political Science 23(1): 295–314.

Comparative study of the different demographical explanations of cleavages showing that education as most distinguishing criteria but minor in explaining the populist vote.

- Ivarsflaten, E. (2008). What Unites Right-Wing Populists in Western Europe?

On the populist vote being explained first and foremost by anti-immigrant attitudes.

- Manow, P. (2023, October 25). Populism is a symptom of democracy’s deeper crisis. https://symposium.org/populism-is-a-symptom-of-democracys-deeper-crisis/

On the idea that the democratical crisis is a means to make our democracies more democratic.

Why do we make choices that don’t really make sense for us—just so we’re not the last in line?

No one wants to be the loser at musical chairs—but what happens when that same fear runs our social and political choices? In this episode, I explore how the anxiety of “not being last” sneaks into our decisions.

Starting with David Ricardo’s comparative advantage theory (don’t worry, it’s more fun than it sounds), we’ll connect the dots to modern life.

Why do some women throw feminism under the bus?

Why people vote far right just to keep a scapegoat below them?

Don't we all sometimes play moves that make no real sense—except to soothe that deep fear of being left behind?

---

Related readings

Explaining in-group/out-group dynamics and strategies individuals use to balance belonging to the in-group

1. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979).
An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348648205_Tajfel_and_Turner_Intergroup_Conflict_Theories_1997

2. Brewer, M. B. (1991).
The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167291175001

This episode was sparked by a Netflix dating show (because of course). We dive into how conservative religious ideas continue to shape how we date, love, and plan our futures—even if we’ve long stopped going to church. From timelines to “shared values,” these old scripts are hard to shake. Breaking free can feel like a liberation... until you’re left staring into the abyss of “figure it all out yourself.”

In the second half, we zoom out to look at the bigger picture: yes, conservative dogmas and religious institutions can be deeply problematic—especially when it comes to gender roles, social rights, and individual freedoms. But they also give people something many of us still crave: moral guidance, belonging, and a space to grow. So what fills that gap for the non-religious?

This episode isn’t about choosing sides. It’s about questioning both the baggage and the benefits— sit with contradictions, and rethink the foundations we build our lives on.