Bob Schwartz

Everybody should be familiar with and hopefully study the decades (1968-2002) of Whole Earth publications and ideas that began with the first Whole Earth Catalog in 1968.

This includes issues of Whole Earth Catalog, CoEvolution Quarterly, Whole Earth Software Review, Whole Earth Review and Whole Earth Magazine.

It is not hyperbole to say that few ongoing modern publications/cultural phenomena, if any, have been so continuously inspirational and idea/life generative. If it sounds as if Whole Earth changed lives and minds, that is exactly it. It might change yours.

The great news is that the entire archive of Whole Earth publications is now available for viewing and download at Whole Earth Index.

If you are someone who thinks of yourself open to possibilities, this is for you. If you are someone who wonders whether something first born in 1968 can have anything to offer you in 2025, you may not be as open as you think.

Please explore and enjoy.

I have been an avid news consumer for as long as I could read, starting around age eight, when I scurried down to the local 7-11 to pick up the fat Sunday newspapers (when newspapers were fat and only on paper). I watched TV news too. This has gone on, with digital additions, for decades.

I am pretty good at discerning news quality—clarity, depth, intelligence, fairness and independence. There have long been publications, and later broadcasters, that stood above the rest. News gatherers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and even the Wall Street Journal, which with a very strong editorial and opinion point of view, left the reporting side to do their work unhindered. On TV, the legacy networks of CBS, NBC and ABC built respected news operations. Then CNN came along and invented quality news reporting 24/7.

Which is what makes being skeptical, if not downright dismissive, of these news media difficult. The fact is I still subscribe to and read the Times, the Post and the Journal. And I still check in with CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC once in a while, though always now with a jaundiced eye and ear.

My first and primary read each day is the Guardian, my best weekly read is the Economist, both world-class news publications from the UK. First TV watch are Sky News and BBC ( both UK) and CBC (Canada). Besides their quality, the reason is simple.

Many American news media, including some of the historically legendary ones, are either afraid of the administration or sympathetic with its goals and strategies—or at least not doggedly pursuing unavoidable and undeniable truths.

It’s one thing to learn that a great musical artist you have loved had unfortunate ideological leanings. Well, you might reason, the politics are despicable but the songs remain irreplaceably great. I’ll keep listening and loving.

For the once-unassailable news media who, if not turning to the dark side, are at least averting their attention—and ours—it’s different. The news is their music. If what they are playing doesn’t sound as good and clear as it used to, we are, reluctantly, going to stop listening and trusting their clarity, depth, intelligence, fairness and independence.

We would love to come back to them. We’ll be back as soon as they are.

If Trump is trying to break America, he is doing a good job.

Republicans in Congress could try to stop him. They haven’t and there is no indication they will.

Trump’s reason for breaking America is, appropriately for him, simple and primal. He is the boss and would be boss of a broken America, so he could reshape and rebuild it any way he wanted, to the advantage of himself and his friends.

Republicans in Congress are in part scared of losing their jobs and their power, such as it is. But many of them may also believe that current America is just too far gone for conventional reformation. It is, they believe, in need of a total tear down and new construction—with Trump, his circle and his party as architects.

Far-fetched? If that once had any meaning in imagining American governance, it doesn’t right now.

“In the Nazi worldview, there was a close link between the German spirit and productive labor for the advancement of the Volksgemeinschaft. Tapping the full potential of worker productivity rested on improving worker morale and increasing worker support for the regime more generally.”

The Washington Post writes:

Labor Department social media campaign depicts a White male workforce

The campaign has drawn scrutiny, with critics saying the agency is not realistically portraying the diversity of the country and is sending messages that feel exclusionary.

While the male whiteness of the campaign is problematic, that wasn’t my first impression. What it looked like to me was a workforce campaign you might have seen in Nazi Germany, not just because of the handsome and rugged Aryan men, but in the very style of the art. The inclusion of the word “homeland” doesn’t help, although it is better than “Build Your Fatherland’s Future.”

Or am I just oversensitive to those visual and verbal echos?