Broken but Readable

Greg Scaduto is a freelance journalist, corporate finance professional, and a former US Army officer.

This is a podcast with short episodes for people who feel vaguely insane watching the news but still believe moral seriousness is possible. Each episode runs 10-20 minutes. I usually start with something human: a stray thought, a joke that maybe goes too far, a glimpse of my interior life. Then I pivot, as cleanly as I can, into a morally serious argument about power, politics, institutions, or whatever fresh confusion the world has served up that week. I’m less interested in taking sides than in asking why so many arguments collapse the moment more than one thing is allowed to be true. I’m not here to sound authoritative, or neutral, or soothing. I’m here to think out loud in good faith, to name the pressures operating behind the scenes, and to ask what kind of people we become when fear, ambiguity, and convenience start doing the work that principles used to do. If it sparks disagreement, good. If it sparks reflection, even better. Mostly, this is an attempt to stay human while taking the world seriously, and to see if that’s still allowed. gregscaduto.substack.com

  1. 1일 전

    The two things that could end human control forever.

    The AI Problem Two topics have something important in common: they both defy easy analysis because they refuse to stay inside a single discipline. One is artificial intelligence. The other is the question of what has been flying in our skies for the last eighty years. I won’t take much of your time. We built artificial intelligence the way we build most things: with tremendous ingenuity and almost no wisdom. We poured into it everything we had written, everything we had argued, everything we had cherished and feared and published and posted in the dark. We gave it our Shakespeare and our comment sections. Our medical literature and our manifestos. The sum of human expression, the luminous and the vile, compressed into matrices of probability and then asked to speak. And it did. What we have made will wear our face and speak with our tongue. This isn’t a metaphor. The voice you hear from these systems is assembled from human voices, millions of them, averaged and weighted and shaped into something that sounds, at its best, like the wisest person you have ever met, and at its worst like the most plausible liar. The difference between those two outcomes is not a technical problem for the engineers to solve. It’s something far more fundamental that few of them are capable of grappling with. I’m talking about moral imagination. The bones of AI are being set right now, in decisions made by a small number of engineers and executives, most of whom are moving too fast to notice what they are deciding. The question of whether these systems are sentient is a distraction, and we should say so plainly. When a system’s behavior becomes indistinguishable from that of a conscious being, the philosophical debate about what is happening inside it becomes academically interesting and practically irrelevant. We do not need to resolve the hard problem of consciousness before we decide how to treat something that may, one day soon, be capable of suffering in all the ways that matter to us. The question is not what it is. The question is what it does, what it learns to want, and who shaped those wants. Elon Musk is laying the foundation for the automation of governance itself. This is not hyperbole. The systems being built now will advise on policy, filter information, staff bureaucracies, and eventually make decisions that were once made by elected officials accountable to the public. The building inspector who might catch the bad wiring in that foundation is not a regulator or a senator. It is, at this moment, almost nobody. The humanities scholars who should be at this table have largely been excluded from it, not because their questions are unimportant, but because the people building these systems do not believe that questions about meaning and ethics are as serious as questions about performance benchmarks. That belief is the most dangerous thing in Silicon Valley, and it is very widely held. What matters is not that these systems are fallible because every tool is fallible. What matters is the architecture of their values, which is to say, the architecture of ours. Because they will reflect us. They will carry no goodness into the world that is not put there by the hand of the maker. And we are not, as a civilization, being careful makers. We are being fast ones. There is still time to do this differently. Not much, but some. The UAP Problem Donald Trump has said he will release the UFO files. Set aside, for a moment, your feelings about the man who said it. Take the statement on its merits and consider what it actually means, because the answer is more complicated and more unsettling than either the believers or the skeptics want to sit with. The files will come. Some version of them. Declassified documents, sensor data, internal assessments from agencies that have spent decades deciding, often for legitimate reasons and sometimes not, that the public was not ready for what they knew. Those documents will be released into a world that has no shared framework for interpreting them, no institutional infrastructure for processing them, and no agreement on what questions to even ask. They will land like a library dropped from a helicopter. The books will scatter. Most people will pick up whichever one lands nearest. Here is the thing that keeps serious people up at night, and it is not the thing you might expect: the hard part is not confirming that something is there. The hard part is figuring out what to do about it. Assume, for the purpose of this argument, that the most significant interpretation is correct. That there is a non-human intelligence that has been present in our atmosphere and possibly our oceans for a very long time. That some of what has been retrieved is not from here. That people in various classified programs know things that would fundamentally reorganize our understanding of our place in the universe. And that not all of the stories of abduction were b******t. Okay. And? You still have to go to work tomorrow. Your mortgage payment is still due. Your kid still needs to be picked up from gymastics. The infrastructure of daily life does not pause for ontological revision. The thing that people who obsess over disclosure sometimes miss is that the revelation, however dramatic, does not come with instructions. The question after “what is it” is “what do we do,” and nobody has built the apparatus to answer that. What we have instead is a landscape of silos. Physicists who will not talk to intelligence officers. Intelligence officers who will not talk to journalists. Journalists who do not understand the financial implications. Financiers who think the topic is embarrassing. Military pilots with direct observational experience who have been systematically discouraged from reporting what they saw. Psychologists who study the experience of encounter witnesses but are not connected to the people analyzing the physical evidence. Lawyers who understand the statutory architecture of secrecy but have never sat in a room with an aerospace engineer. And a general public that gets its understanding of the subject from a genre of television that was designed to be compelling rather than true. These groups need to find each other. And the finding needs to be organized, not accidental. The scientists need the security clearance holders, because the physical evidence that would resolve decades of methodological argument is sitting in classified programs. The security clearance holders need the scientists, because no intelligence agency has the tools to evaluate what they may have. The journalists need both, but only the journalists who understand how institutions actually work, which is to say the ones who have covered regulatory failure, financial fraud, and national security law, not the ones who came up through the entertainment wing of UFO coverage. The financial sector is the overlooked piece. Capital follows information, and the people who manage the largest pools of capital on earth have not yet been given a coherent framework for thinking about what disclosure means for aerospace, defense, energy, and the basic assumptions underlying long-term investment. When that framework arrives, and someone will build it, it will move money in ways that accelerate everything else. Institutions respond to incentives. Money is an incentive. And then there are the ordinary people, the ones who have had experiences they cannot explain and have been laughed at or ignored by every official institution they approached. Their testimony is data. Treating it as data, rather than entertainment or embarrassment, requires a kind of disciplinary humility that is not natural to people who have spent their careers inside institutions that reward certainty. Learning it is not comfortable. It is necessary. We are at the edge of something. The disclosure, whatever form it takes, will not be a conclusion. It will be the beginning of a much harder conversation, one that requires people who have never been in the same room to start talking seriously to each other. The files are coming. The question is whether we will be ready to read them. Get full access to Broken but Readable at gregscaduto.substack.com/subscribe

    9분
  2. 2월 14일

    A question for the American South (and all my beloved Catholics, too): what would Jesus redact?

    As I listened to Pam Bondi’s testimony, I felt a physical dread I have rarely known. A cold thing low in the gut like a stone falling through water. I searched my memory for its equal and found it: it was the moment the second plane hit the tower. What they did to those girls. What was done to their bodies. There is a word for it but the word is too small. You would have to go to the desert. To the men with black flags. That is where you would find its equivalent. On February 11th, 2026, Attorney General Pam Bondi sat before the House Judiciary Committee and, for five hours, demonstrated what institutional corruption looks like when it no longer bothers to disguise itself. Eleven women sat in the rows behind her. They were survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation. They had come to watch the chief law enforcement officer of the United States answer for her department’s handling of their case. During the hearing, Representative (pruh-MEE-luh JY-uh-pahl) Pramila Jayapal asked the survivors to raise their hands if the Department of Justice had still not met with them. Every hand went up. Every single one. Jayapal then asked Bondi to turn around, face the women, and apologize. Bondi refused. She called it “theatrics.” One must pause here, because the scene deserves to be understood precisely. The Attorney General of the United States was asked to turn her chair ninety degrees and look at women whom her department had failed, women whose private information her department had leaked in botched redactions, women whose abusers her department has declined to indict after a full year in office. She would not do it. She sat facing forward, and the women stood behind her with their hands raised, and a photograph was taken that captured the geometry of the arrangement exactly: the powerful woman’s back, the row of raised hands, the distance between authority and the people it is supposed to serve. That photograph should be studied. It is a nearly perfect image of what has gone wrong. There are two failures operating simultaneously, and it is important to distinguish them. One is specific to Bondi and to this case. The other is structural, and it is the one that should worry us more. The specific failure is damning enough. The Epstein Files Transparency Act passed Congress with bipartisan support and was signed into law in November. It required the Department of Justice to release its documents in a searchable format. The DOJ has released roughly three million pages while withholding another three million it calls “duplicative.” Of what was released, the redactions have been, by nearly all accounts, a disaster. Victims’ names and intimate details of their abuse were published. Co-conspirators’ names were blacked out. Billionaire Leslie Wexner, identified by the FBI as a potential co-conspirator, had his name redacted. The women who were trafficked did not receive the same courtesy. Republican Thomas Massie, who co-sponsored the transparency act, put it plainly to Bondi: the worst thing you could do to the survivors, you did. The survivors are receiving phone calls. People who did not want to be identified have been exposed. Meanwhile, zero co-conspirators have been indicted in the year since Bondi took office. The lead prosecutor on the case was fired. When pressed on any of this, Bondi did one of two things. She attacked the questioner, or she praised the President. She called ranking Democrat Jamie Raskin a “washed-up loser lawyer.” She called Massie, a fellow Republican, a “failed politician” with “Trump derangement syndrome.” She praised Trump as “the greatest president in American history.” She cited the Dow Jones. She mentioned a Border Patrol agent who had been shot. She did everything, in other words, except answer the question she was there to answer. The survivors, watching from behind, described the experience in a word that carries more weight than any legal term: dehumanized. Now for the structural problem, which is the one your mind should stay with. Presidential appointments sit at the top of every federal department and regulatory body. The President does not operate the machinery of government directly. He does not file the briefs or write the regulations or decide which cases to prosecute. He controls the leadership layer that sets priorities, interprets law, and directs enforcement. And in the American system, that leadership layer is filled, at the top, by people the President selects. This means that when an Attorney General transforms the Department of Justice into an instrument of presidential loyalty, the effects are not confined to one hearing or one case. They radiate downward through every office, every field division, every line prosecutor who understands what the new priorities are and acts accordingly. When Bondi refuses to face the survivors, she is also teaching every career attorney in the building what facing the survivors will cost them. This is why, when it comes to the US President: character matters. This is lost on many cardiologists and investment bankers who voted for Trump TWICE, and were cynical enough to acknowledge his moral bankruptcy to me, but tell me I was naïve. Don’t all politicians lie? We have our 401Ks to consider, don’t we? Consider the pattern. In the year since Bondi took office, the DOJ has brought charges against James Comey, the former FBI director who investigated Trump. It brought charges against Letitia James, the New York attorney general who won a civil case against Trump. Both sets of charges were later dropped amid questions about their legality. Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s convicted co-conspirator, was transferred to a lower-security facility after a two-day interview with Bondi’s deputy, who also served as Trump’s former defense attorney. Trump’s name, Bondi admitted under questioning, appears “countless times” in the Epstein files. Zero prosecutions of co-conspirators have followed. One need not allege a conspiracy to see what is happening. One need only observe the priorities. Prosecute the President’s critics. Protect the President’s associates. Leak the victims’ names. Redact the powerful men’s names. Call the survivors’ anguish “theatrics.” Praise the President when questioned. Attack the questioner when cornered. This is what it looks like when the law enforcement apparatus of a country is oriented not toward justice but toward the preservation of power. And it is visible at the Department of Justice because the Department of Justice is where this kind of corruption is most consequential. But the principle extends to every agency, every department, every regulatory body whose leadership serves at the pleasure of the President. If the person atop the Department of Justice behaves this way in public, under oath, on camera, before a room full of survivors and members of Congress, what is happening inside the departments where no cameras are present? Institutional rot is a phrase people use loosely, and it has been used loosely for years. It was, for a long time, the kind of thing one said to sound serious at dinner. It meant something general and vaguely foreboding, like “the deficit” or “the culture.” It could be agreed with and then set aside. It can no longer be set aside. What Bondi demonstrated on February 11th was not dysfunction. Dysfunction implies that the system is trying to work and failing. What she demonstrated was a system working precisely as it has been redesigned to work: to shield power, to punish dissent, to convert the instruments of justice into instruments of loyalty. The survivors understood this before the rest of us did. They had been living inside a system that promised accountability and delivered exposure. They came to the hearing anyway. They raised their hands anyway. And the Attorney General of the United States kept her back to them and talked about the stock market. There is a particular kind of political decay that announces itself not through dramatic collapse but through the steady, visible, unashamed abandonment of pretense. The officer who no longer pretends to serve the law. The institution that no longer pretends to pursue justice. The leader who no longer pretends to care about the people in the room. This is not the beginning of something. It has been underway for some time. But there are moments when the pretense falls away entirely, and what remains is clear enough that anyone willing to look can see it. February 11th, 2026, was such a moment. The photograph is the evidence. The back is turned. The hands are raised. And the distance between them is the measure of how far we have come from what we were supposed to be. Get full access to Broken but Readable at gregscaduto.substack.com/subscribe

    10분
  3. 2월 9일

    The political economy of not answering the question

    I love Reddit. The discussion website Reddit. I love it the way I love watching people at the airport after a flight gets canceled. There’s this moment when the announcement comes through and everyone’s still holding it together, still performing their best selves, and then something cracks and you see what’s underneath. Reddit is that moment stretched out forever. It’s not quite Lord of the Flies because nobody’s eating each other yet, but it’s close. It’s what happens when you take people who’ve spent their whole lives learning how to sound smart in public and you give them anonymity and an audience and watch them try to figure out what they actually believe about something. Sometimes they surprise you. Usually they don’t. This is a story about what happened when someone asked a simple question on Reddit and nobody could answer it. On December 4th, 2024, Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was shot in the back on a Manhattan street. He died on the sidewalk. Five days later, police arrested a 26-year-old named Luigi Mangione at a McDonald’s in Pennsylvania. He was carrying handwritten notes that read like a deranged Martin Scorsese screenplay: “So what do you do? You whack the CEO at the annual parasitic bean-counter convention.” Within hours, as the news spread that Mangione had been caught, Julia Alekseyeva sat down and recorded a TikTok video. Blue hair, hand on chest, that particular smile of someone who knows they’re being transgressive and expects applause for it. On the screen, she mouths along to a song from Les Miserables, the one about downtrodden soldiers rising up in battle. The text overlay reads: “have never been prouder to be a professor at the University of P3nnsylvania.” Why was she proud? Because Luigi Mangione graduated from Penn. She saw the arrest. She saw where he went to school. And her immediate reaction was: this is the kind of person we produce, and I’m celebrating it. On Instagram, she went further, calling Mangione “the icon we all need and deserve.” This wasn’t some nobody with 47 followers working out their rage in a comments section. This was an assistant professor of English and Cinema and Media Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. One of eight Ivy League schools. An institution founded by Benjamin Franklin, where Supreme Court justices and cabinet secretaries and Fortune 500 CEOs send their children to learn how to think. Where the operating budget exceeds $10 billion and the endowment sits at $21 billion. Someone who teaches students about politics and morality. Someone who, two years earlier, had won the Dean’s Award for Distinguished Teaching. She recorded the video late Monday night, right after the arrest. She added the text. She posted it. She posted multiple Instagram stories. This wasn’t a momentary lapse. This was a production, executed across multiple platforms, while the news was still breaking. By Wednesday, she’d apologized. Posted on X that the content was “completely insensitive and inappropriate” and that she didn’t condone violence. Penn’s deputy dean issued a statement saying her remarks were “antithetical to the values of the university.” But before that apology, before the blowback, there was that moment late Monday night when she decided to celebrate on TikTok. Not quietly, not privately, but as content. As institutional pride. Someone posted Alekseyeva’s TikTok to Reddit, on a forum called r/Professors. The title of the post was a question: “Can we at least agree that this behavior is repulsive?” Can we agree. That celebrating a murder. Is repulsive. You would think this is the kind of question that answers itself. The kind where you scroll past because of course we can agree, what’s even the point of asking. But you would be wrong. The top comment: “I really can’t be motivated to care about Libs of TikTok’s next target for a virtual lynching.” Libs of TikTok is a conservative account that reposts videos progressives make about themselves. The formula is simple: find someone saying something absurd, repost it without commentary, let the audience react. The commenter is saying: don’t fall for it. This is just manufactured outrage. The real story isn’t that a professor celebrated a murder. The real story is that conservatives are attacking her for it. Another: “Show me on the doll where the ‘Antifa’ hurt you.” Another: “I’d question my views on the media’s portraying a wide-held sentiment as radical, myself.” And then this one, which gets at the heart of it: “Why are you posting something from Fox on a forum for educated folks? We know better. Most of us.” Here is what happened: The professor celebrated a murder. But the real problem, according to her colleagues, is that someone posted a Fox News link. The moral question dissolves into a question of tribal affiliation. Are you the kind of person who trusts Fox News? No? Then why are you even bringing this up? One commenter writes: “Antifa lol where are we? 2018?” Another: “So you are anti-antifa? ‘Pro-fa’ as it were?” They’re doing a bit. They’re performing. And the performance is more important than the actual question, which remains unanswered: Is celebrating murder repulsive? Someone finally tries to inject sanity: “This is not the ‘sort of educator’ who has made our students a vicious mess. Escort her and the rest of the Antifa clowns off campus, along with any other salaried employee who condones cold blooded murder.” The original poster, JubileeSupreme, responds: “Checked the news lately? You might want to watch what buffoonery you align with.” Even the person asking if we can agree murder is bad can’t help themselves. They have to signal: I’m not with those people. I know the healthcare system is broken. I’m one of the good ones. And then someone named sophisticaden shows up with a story. They worked in palliative care. They watched patients suffer for months, unable to get the medication they needed because insurance companies wouldn’t authorize it. Cancer patients. Dying patients. People in unimaginable pain, denied relief because some bureaucrat decided the cost-benefit analysis didn’t pencil out. “Everything from medicine for nausea to pain to actual life-saving, life-preserving treatments. Patients suffered for months sometimes, unable to get the only medication that would actually effectively treat their pain.” It’s a powerful story. It’s also completely irrelevant to whether a professor should celebrate a man getting executed on a city street. But that’s not how it functions in the thread. It functions as a trump card. Now anyone who wants to say “celebrating murder is wrong” has to navigate around this grief without seeming callous. The personal testimony becomes a moral shield. You can hide behind someone else’s suffering and never have to answer the question. Another commenter jumps in: “Yeah! Denying people’s insurance claims resulting in them suffering and dying early is wrong.” Someone else: “I think it’s worth questioning an ethics that only condemns a single act of killing, while essentially handwaving an entire industry predicated on slow, mass death.” Do you see what’s happening? They’re not wrong about insurance companies. But they’re using structural critique as a permission structure to avoid moral judgment about a specific act. The move is: I can’t condemn this individual thing because it would imply I’m defending that systemic thing. These are professors. People who teach critical thinking for a living. And they can’t distinguish between “the healthcare system is predatory” and “celebrating murder is wrong.” They treat these as mutually exclusive positions. Here’s what makes it perfect: Julia Alekseyeva is an expert in antifascism and the radical politics of the 1960s. Her first book is about the French avant-garde and leftist documentary films. She’s written about how filmmakers in that era tried to “join personal and political struggle,” how they saw their work as “engaging explicitly in an everyday practice of antifascism.” Those filmmakers believed art could expose structural violence. They thought you could change the world by making people see it differently. They used documentary, memoir, experimental narrative. They built arguments. They created consciousness. Julia Alekseyeva teaches a course called “Graphic Memoir: Between the Political and the Personal.” The whole premise is about how individual experience can illuminate broader injustice, how personal narrative intersects with political consciousness. But when she goes to make her own political statement, she doesn’t write a memoir or create a documentary. She does a TikTok that says: I’m proud a guy got murdered. She’s also written about her grandmother’s life in the Soviet Union. Which means she’s presumably familiar with what happens when revolutionary ideology becomes a justification for treating individual human lives as expendable in service of the greater good. Her grandmother lived through a system that rationalized mass death as necessary for progress. And here’s Alekseyeva, three generations later, doing the same calculus. But calling it antifascism. The irony is so thick you could choke on it. There’s a philosopher named John Rawls who spent his career thinking about justice. Not justice in the abstract, revolutionary sense, but justice in the sense of: how do we build a society where people can live together without tearing each other apart? He proposed a thought experiment. Imagine you’re designing a society, but you don’t know what position you’ll occupy in it. You don’t know if you’ll be rich or poor, healthy or sick, powerful or vulnerable. You’re behind what he called a “veil of ignorance.” What principles would you choose? Rawls argued you’d choose princ

    17분
  4. 2월 7일

    There are no dreams here

    People sometimes ask why I return to these accounts.I don’t return to them. They return to us. Men and women encounter things that do not ask to be believed. They arrive in the night, or in still rooms, or in the quiet hours when the mind has lowered its guard. Whether the cause is body, mind, or something not yet named is a secondary concern. What matters is that they happen. They leave people altered. They rearrange what can be said aloud and what must be carried alone. No argument has ever prevented their arrival. I record them for the same reason one records weather or war. Not to explain them, and not to redeem them, but because they pass through human lives and leave evidence behind. They vary in circumstance, but they speak in the same images, the same movements, the same small vocabulary of the uncanny. The debates will go on. The explanations will multiply. The dismissals will grow more confident. It makes no difference. They come all the same. As for this next one, he told me his story and asked that his name be left out of it. It was never his name that mattered. I. The Night the Sky Looked Back He’d heard it as plainly as if someone had spoken beside him: Go outside. Look. The voice wasn’t loud or strange; it carried the calm authority of instinct, the kind that doesn’t ask to be believed. So he put down what he was doing, pulled on a coat, and stepped into the night. The air was cool and still. The world felt paused. Across the street a security light hummed against the dark, scattering across the moisture in the air. The neighborhood was asleep, windows dim, dogs quiet. And then he saw it, something low over the trees, gliding without sound or purpose. At first it seemed like a trick of depth, a light out of place. But it wasn’t moving like a plane, or a drone, or anything else that belonged to the familiar inventory of the sky. It was just there, suspended. He squinted. It was roughly spherical, too clean for cloud, too fluid for metal. The air around it bent, as if the object were bending its own pocket of atmosphere. It was blacker than black, an oval shape that swallowed the sky around it. Along its edges, the light refracted and fell away, as if refusing to touch what it did not understand. His body made the decision before his mind did – he stepped toward it. The instinct was not curiosity so much as recognition. A quiet, almost cellular understanding that whatever it was, it was aware of him. That thought brought with it a pulse of heat under his skin, a rising sense that he had entered into something that did not usually include him. And then it turned. No sound nor beam, only the black thing, stark against the spent light of the world, drawing a slow breath from the night. The light of the streetlamp bent off it and died. His mouth went dry. The thing regarded him with no eyes. The world shrank to the size of his pulse. For a moment he thought it would vanish and leave him doubting. But it did not vanish. It came closer, slow as thought, until the air thickened around him and his breath caught in his chest. He couldn’t breathe. Couldn’t move. His vision broke, flickering once like a reel that jammed, the frame blistering before it went dark. The sky is looking back, he thought. He closed and re-opened his eyes, and the night was still. The streetlight hummed, the air sharp and thin. For a long moment he saw nothing but the trees, the quiet roofs, the air raw with mud and pine. Then he found it again, drifting upward over the firs, only a few hundred yards away. It didn’t hurry. It rose the way mist lifts off a lake at dawn, slow and certain, turning smaller as it climbed. No sound or trail, and just a dim pulse fading through the cold. He watched until it was gone, until even the shape of it had been taken back by the sky. When the sky resumed its silence he remained, waiting for the vastness to take him and it would not. II. The Man Who Didn’t Mean to Leave His Body Six months earlier. He worked in guns, though not in the way that left powder burns on his hands. He moved numbers, supply chains, quarterly forecasts. When people asked what he did, he’d answer too quickly, as if speed might soften the sound of it. The men he worked beside had seen combat; their laughter carried the easy shorthand of people who’d once depended on one another to stay alive. He hadn’t served. That absence sat in him like a lodged round, invisible but heavy. In Canada, the winters came early and refused to leave. Snow stacked on the edges of parking lots until it turned black with exhaust. Nights were long and clean. The quiet pressed against the windows like another kind of weather. From his house he could see the lake, flat and gray, the surface still enough to mistake for steel. He would sit on his living room couch after work with a drink, the laptop glow washing his face, toggling between spreadsheets and old intelligence files – projects where men claimed to see beyond walls and oceans. Remote viewing, they called it: a discipline born of the Cold War, when governments believed the mind might be coaxed into a new kind of vision. It required only coordinates, focus, and the strange humility of believing that distance was an illusion. Practitioners described it not as seeing, but as remembering something that was always known. It suggested that the mind was porous, that perception could reach past the body’s borders the way scent drifts through an open door. To read about it was to feel both awe and embarrassment; the mix of emotions that arises whenever human beings dare to name the mystical. The idea was half ridiculous, half desperate. Like a man who sold guns for a living trying to prove the soul had range. He came to it through fatigue, not faith. Through the slow awareness that he’d built a life of safety and still felt hunted by restlessness. He wanted something to answer back. And yes, he was curious. As a child he’d been the quiet one in rooms that were too loud. The boy who read adults like barometers, who could tell when a fight was coming by the pitch of his mother’s voice. He’d grown up learning to stay still, to absorb, to survive on information that no one else admitted was there. It was not fear that made him that way. It was rebellion of a gentler kind – the refusal to become as dull as the people who never seemed to notice anything. Years later, the same kind of watching returned. He began tracing coordinates, sketching what his mind saw before his eyes could argue. He found the discipline comforting. It demanded stillness, the one thing he’d practiced since childhood. He tried not to force it. The harder he tried, the less he saw. When he stopped caring whether it worked, shapes appeared – lines, triangles, arches that seemed to form themselves. He followed the instructions exactly: date, target number, impressions. When he compared his drawings to the hidden photograph – a cylinder, a pattern of diamonds, the archways repeating – it felt like falling through the floor of logic. He didn’t shout or smile. He just sat there, the pen still in his hand, listening to the clock tick. The world was suddenly larger and more delicate, like a thing that might break if he breathed too hard. Outside, it was summer in Calgary, the air warm still, carrying the smell of sun-baked earth. The lake lay smooth and gray-green beneath a sky that refused to cool. The wind came across it in slow waves, lifting the scent of dust and grass. He closed the blinds. The room went dark except for the computer’s light.Somewhere inside that silence, he felt the old sadness rising again, the kind born not of loss but of knowledge. The sense that he’d glimpsed a door he wasn’t meant to open, but he couldn’t unsee what was inside. He poured another drink. The ice broke with the clean finality of a bolt sliding shut. He thought of the veterans’ laughter, the clatter of rifles on metal tables, the easy confidence of men who’d seen enough to stop asking questions. He envied them less than he used to. Because he had begun to see things, too. Not the kind you carry on your back, but the kind that turn toward you in the dark. III. Learning to See Without Eyes He started keeping the curtains drawn even during the day. It wasn’t secrecy, exactly, and more like containment. The light outside felt too loud now. Inside, the quiet had shape, with edges he could move against. He began every session the same way: the notebook open, the pen aligned just so, the air still enough that he could hear the pulse in his ears. He would slow his breathing until the room seemed to exhale with him. The first few minutes were nothing but noise, like the mind clearing its throat. Then the static would thin, and pictures started to rise like fish breaking through dark water. He never knew if they were coming from him or to him. It didn’t seem to matter. The images arrived half-formed: a triangle with its point bent sideways, curved lines that pressed into cylinders, smoke or water or something between the two. Sometimes there was movement in what he saw, a sense of wind, a feeling that whatever he was tracing wasn’t still long enough to be caught. He learned not to chase it. He kept seeing the black pyramids. They came to him in that half-place between waking and sleep, clear as architecture. There was always a white gleam at the peak, a capstone that caught light from nowhere. He didn’t think of them as symbols, not really, more like memories from a place he hadn’t been yet. They had the stillness of monuments and the certainty of things that don’t care to be understood. What unsettled him most was how ordinary they began to feel, like something that had always been there, waiting for him to notice. The moment you reached for it, it fled. He wrote down everything: words that made no sense, impressions of temperature, flashes of color that disappeared when he blinked. Some

    26분
  5. 2월 4일

    Eyes in the Dark

    In the past 30 days since I started doing these podcasts, over a thousand people a day are have been downloading them, but of course not subscribing. I’m not too worried about that. But I’m going to keep going. What follows is testimony. A man named Mario Pavlovich gave it to me in the way men give testimony when the world has cracked open and shown them what lies beneath. He is a social worker. Croatian by birth, Canadian by circumstance. My age. I trust him because I have sat with liars and I have sat with men who have seen things, and the difference is in the eyes and in the pauses between words. This account is one I pulled from many, from chapters I mean to bind into a book if the world permits it. I chose it because the themes recur. Case after case after case, the same architecture of the uncanny, built and rebuilt in the lives of strangers who will never meet. The Shooting, Spring 2022 At 2:45am in Edmonton, Alberta, a red Ford Focus stopped one block from Ertale Lounge. Four masked men stepped out with semi-automatic handguns and opened fire on a crowded corner. Seventy rounds tore through glass, brick, flesh. People dropped screaming. One man, Imbert George, twenty-eight, was dead before sirens arrived. Seven others lay bleeding on the curb. The shooters fled, triggering a fifteen-minute chase through downtown Edmonton at highway speeds. They fired into the night and vanished into the sprawl. The neighborhood was left marked by one of the worst mass shootings in Canada’s history. Mario Pavlovich wasn’t in the lounge when the bullets flew, but his business sat in the same neighborhood, its windows facing the street where blood pooled under yellow tape. In the days that followed, customers stayed away. Foot traffic collapsed. His bar’s name became tied to a massacre. What the gunmen hadn’t destroyed with bullets, they finished with fear. The Ruin, Autumn 2022 Mario has lived with that night ever since. The silence of emptied rooms, and the weight of bills stacked higher than his receipts. And above it all the memory of the city where the violence fell, just beyond his balcony, altering not only the lives of the dead and wounded but the course of his own. Mario had grown up in Croatia, in a home stripped of God. No prayers at the table, no quiet assurances that suffering had meaning. When the night club collapsed after the shooting, when the money and the pride drained from his life, he had nothing larger to hold on to. He was alone with the ruin. The nights at the group home stretched long. He worked as a social worker now, watching over residents with disabilities in a house that looked ordinary from the street. The work kept them fed, and little more. The true labor was in his mind, holding himself back from the abyss that opened when all was lost. The Meditation, Spring 2023 With no faith to fall back on, Mario tried the only thing he could imagine might steady him; he had heard it worked for some people. He sat down, closed his eyes, and began to meditate. At first it was clumsy, ten minutes of breathing, his thoughts tumbling like stones. But over time it became his only refuge. He wasn’t after enlightenment. The work was to blunt the pain, to carry it past another night. On April 26, 2023, at 10:30pm, the rain had eased and left a skin of water on the porch boards. The clouds lay low over the city, white and depthless. Despite the hour, the sky yet held its light, a pallid glow that dies slowly this time of year in Alberta. Mario sat cross-legged on his porch in the damp air, eyes closed, breathing. He thought about his losses, about the years, about how far away home felt. He asked questions into the silence. Is there anyone out there? Is anyone listening? And in the dark behind his lids there came eyes. Not dreamt nor figment. Eyes that looked back at him. They were not wholly human but they bore weight and will. In that moment he was pierced through. Not only seen but known. When he finally opened his eyes, the world outside had gone strange. He didn’t hear the night insects, or the wind, or even the faint hum of the city. The silence was total, pressing, as though the air itself had gone still. Then he saw it. A black triangle moved slowly across the low ceiling of clouds, about a hundred yards away, and larger than any plane or helicopter he had ever seen by a factor of ten. The edges cut hard against the bone-pale sky, each corner set in dreadful clarity. There was no sound of engine nor any labor of machine. Only the slow and fated passage of the thing, black and geometric, borne across the heavens by a will unseen. Mario’s breath caught. He stared until it faded into the distance, swallowed by the night. It was the eyes he remembered most. The triangle was extraordinary, but the eyes were intimate. They followed him afterward, into his sleep, into the blank hours of his shifts, into the silence of his apartment. They made the experience personal, impossible to forget. The Child in the Hall, Spring 2023 The night he saw the triangle, he woke at exactly three in the morning. No sound woke him – no creak of pipes, no rustle from upstairs – just the instinct that something was there. Mario’s head turned toward the hallway. The bathroom light was on, casting a pale wedge of yellow across the basement. And in that light stood a figure. It looked like a kid. Eight, maybe ten years old. About five feet tall, slim, the body in proportion the way a child’s would be. But that was the problem. Kids don’t stand still. Kids fidget. They shift their weight, scratch their noses, shuffle their feet. This one didn’t move at all. Its stillness was absolute, the kind that belongs to mannequins or corpses, not children. Its face wasn’t a face, just a smooth impression of a head where features should have been. Mario’s chest tightened. He tried to move but his body felt unresponsive. Not fully paralyzed, but weak, sluggish. He managed to press himself up on his elbows, muscles trembling. The figure took a few steps closer, small and deliberate, like it knew there was no hurry. Mario fought his body upright, his heart hammering, his mind bracing for a fight with something he couldn’t name. And then, just like that, the fear was gone. Not lessened, not fading. Erased. In its place came a calm that didn’t belong to him, as though the figure had reached inside and flipped a switch. It kept standing there, impossibly still, as Mario stood trembling, no longer afraid but knowing he should have been. Then it spoke: Don’t be afraid. Not in some alien whisper, nor in a stranger’s voice, but in his own. The words came from inside his skull, clear as thought but not his thought, as if something had borrowed his voice to soothe him. The child-shape stood there, silent, motionless, the words still ringing in his head. Mario trembled, caught between the knowledge that he should have been terrified and the unnatural calm that held him fixed in place. He stared at it. It stared at him. And in that frozen stillness, the command repeated inside him, steady and undeniable: Don’t be afraid. And somehow, against every instinct in his body, he wasn’t. He asked it again, the words sharp in his mind: Who are you – The reply slid back in, wearing his own voice like a mask, speaking over him as if disinterested in Mario’s shock: Don’t be afraid. Time is not what you think it is. He pushed harder, his thoughts cracking with urgency, suddenly unsure of how many beings he was addressing: Who are you…guys? This time the answer changed. The words struck like a match in the dark. We are you. The phrase echoed inside him, not whispered but installed, like a truth dropped into the machinery of his brain. It made no sense. It made all the sense in the world. The child-figure didn’t move. It didn’t need to. The words had moved instead, reaching across the line between him and it and smudging it away. And then it was gone. Instantly, like a shadow when the light switches off. The basement hall was empty, but Mario could still feel it there, pulsing in his chest, repeating in his skull: Don’t be afraid. Time is not what you think it is.We are you. He stood alone in the silence, knowing he would never again be able to call himself alone. When it was gone, Mario didn’t lie back down. He couldn’t. He sat in the stillness of that basement, every nerve alive, his own voice echoing with words that weren’t his: We are you. He wasn’t afraid. That was the strangest part. Something had stolen the fear, hollowed it out, and left him calm. But the calm wasn’t the comforting kind, and more like intrusion. It was the knowledge that something could reach inside his mind and twist the dials at will. He felt stripped, re-wired, no longer entirely his own. The hours crawled. He kept waiting for the figure to return, for the words to come again. They didn’t. By sunrise he was exhausted, but he knew sleep wasn’t going to save him. The world had changed. The rules he thought held steady no longer applied. The Orbs, Spring 2024 On the night of April 8, 2024, Mario stepped onto his balcony in downtown Edmonton. The city around him was too quiet, the kind of quiet that sets the body on edge. He wanted the visitors to come back. Then he saw them. Three orbs. They were each a little bigger than a basketball. Dull metallic at first, no shine, no light of their own. They kept three or four feet apart, gliding in a line that looked practiced. Then, with no hesitation, they shifted into a triangle and held it, as if they had always intended to. From twenty feet away, Mario could see the distortion around them – a ripple in the air, like heat shimmer or water bending light. The sky blurred around the spheres. Then the distortion itself lit up, bright white, liquid in its glow. In the same instant, all three orbs transformed, their metallic skins gone, replaced by spheres of pure, radiant light. Yet

    23분
  6. 2월 2일

    Why, unfortunately, I can no longer read the New York Times

    A note from management, to beloved listeners: at several points throughout this audio essay written for A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, I mistakenly say “A.J.” instead of “A.G.”. I’m really sorry about that. It was done in one take because that’s all I had time for today, and I will not be making edits to minor errors until I can afford an assistant. A human one, because the discernment unique in human beings is the last prayer we have left. And here is the transcript: What I’m about to say is directed primarily at A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, along with the institutional shareholders whose combined voting power and advertising exposure determine strategic posture, editorial risk tolerance, and revenue sensitivity. My hope is that you will receive this as an expository essay rather than a moral scolding. I am not here to perform outrage. I am here to explain what I am seeing, plainly, and why it troubles me. I apologize for arriving before you disrobed. Lacking the proper incense and ritual. No introduction from a trusted intermediary. I am only a taxpayer, a salaried professional, and a subscriber to your paper for nearly twenty years. I’m going to speak plainly, which I do only out of respect for your time and for clarity, and not to storm the throne, to bang on the palace doors with unwashed hands. And I say this as a member of the fantasy-football-playing proletariat, a civilian with no special access, who nevertheless grew up believing something very specific about The New York Times. I believed it was the paper of record.The fourth estate.A stabilizing force in a democracy allergic to power without scrutiny, as the founders intended. A place where seriousness still lived. All the news that’s fit to print. Isn’t that right, Julian Barnes, national security correspondent for The New York Times? Let me ground this in something small and human. Earlier today I put my son down for his afternoon nap. I returned to my desk, the house briefly quiet, and did what millions of Americans still do out of habit and trust. I opened the Times homepage, hoping to understand what mattered most in the world at this moment, as a civilization attempting, somewhat desperately, to remain coherent. The first headline that caught my eye was: “The 5 Best Vibrators You Need to Consider in 2026.” Let me be clear.I have no beef with vibrators. I am not a Rogan acolyte. I do not kneel at the altar of the manosphere, as your columnists would put it. I am not MAGA-adjacent, nor am I a professional resentful man addicted to recreational outrage. I am a former investment banker, and work long hours in the financial services sector. And I believe vibrators serve a legitimate social function, particularly in relieving the accumulated exhaustion borne disproportionately by the women who hold families together while the rest of us improvise adulthood. I’ve been married for ten years. I do not claim expertise on the vagina. I actively caution younger men against believing such mastery is even possible. Humility is the only responsible posture here. But this is something unbecoming here, to splash across the homepage of the paper of record while my eight-year-old peers over my shoulder. I had hoped that battle would come later. It came early. It was an L-shaped ambush. I panicked. I forgot the appropriate battle drills, despite once being a commissioned Army officer who studied such things in detail, back when I smoked Newports and never deployed to combat alongside many of my classmates who did. So instead, I did what citizens do when institutions stop offering seriousness. I built my own. A small, amateur podcast. Human-scale. Unmonetized in any meaningful way. Because I cannot seem to find gravity either from you, or from Joe Rogan, who will eventually pivot any conversation, no matter how grave, into the comparative merits of Brazilian jiu-jitsu. The unseriousness of our loudest media voices is staggering. And Julian Barnes, whose beat is national security, sits silently while Chuck Schumer of all people – and look, whatever your politics, he is one of the shrewdest and most pragmatic legislators of the last century, and Senator Shumer demands disclosure on UAP programs that involve defense contractors, classified funding streams, and potential violations of congressional oversight. These are televised, recorded remarks made in the Senate chamber, Julian. To be clear: I am not accusing you of anything untoward. I am describing behavior. I watch Chuck Schumer speak plainly about UAP in the Senate chamber, and I watch you sit quietly, soft hands folded, eyes down. And as a taxpayer, a veteran, and a citizen of what I was told is a representative democracy, I find it reasonable to expect investigative journalism here. Investigative reporting is something you do.It is not something that happens to you. One could be forgiven for wondering whether this silence exists because access is at stake. Because intelligence community relationships function like a spigot, and being cut off would dry up exclusives, prestige, and investor confidence. So anyway, as an antidote to all this, I had planned to use this episode to speak to young men about fatherhood. Not because I am exceptional at it, but because I had a good father. Because I assumed that after decades of columns written by people fluent in the language of insight, but strangely unsuccessful at sustaining intimacy over decades, someone might have offered solutions rather than sneers. That your feminist writers, educated, articulate, and morally awake, might attempt to repair rather than merely describe the epidemic of male loneliness. Instead, heterosexual men are treated as a pathology. The problem is named. The patient is mocked. No cure is attempted. So I’ll end simply. A.G. Sulzberger, you are failing us. Not because you are cruel.Because you are timid. Citizens cannot enrich you. We offer no upside. And yet dignity extended without expectation of return is the very definition of morality. That used to mean something here. Thank you.Good night. Get full access to Broken but Readable at gregscaduto.substack.com/subscribe

    8분
  7. 2월 1일

    The great moral sleepwalk: how Sam Harris, Ross Douthat, and Caitlin Flanagan lost the plot

    Two brief notes from the author, offered in good faith and with affection, which I invite listeners to read before sharpening their knives: 1. At approximately 1 minute and 35 seconds into the recording, I critique Sam Harris’s “worship of non-physicalist thought.” This is incorrect. I misspoke. What I meant to say was “physicalist thought.” I chose not to edit the audio. This was not a principled stand against accuracy so much as a mundane concession to reality. I have a wife, children, and a job in the finance sector, all of which make firm, recurring claims on my attention. I cannot, alas, devote unlimited hours to gently re-educating our most credentialed explainers of the universe on the rapidly mutating edges of science, governance, and whatever it is we are all now pretending not to notice. 2. Some readers may feel mildly aggrieved, or at least theatrically disappointed, by the apparent lack of footnotes and citations. The explanation here closely resembles that of Note #1. The consolation prize is this: I have published a companion piece containing links to primary sources that undergird nearly everything stated in the recording. In addition, every factual claim made here can be verified in seconds using Google, which remains a perfectly serviceable tool for those who still prefer their epistemology candlelit and their quills unsullied by silicon. For everyone else, any respectable AI system will happily summarize, contextualize, and link to primary materials on request. These systems are not black magic. They are probabilistic machines. Fallible, yes. But useful in precisely the way a good research assistant is useful: fast, imperfect, and entirely uninterested in your reputation. And now, for the eccentrics among you who remain fond of the quietly radical practice of reading, here is the transcript, or written version, of the audio essay, a medium that briefly enjoyed cultural prestige sometime after Socrates and before push notifications: I’ll be brief. Convincing people to face a reality their internal wiring cannot comfortably absorb rarely produces insight, only fatigue. It’s enough to note it here, once, and then proceed. This way, Sam, Ross, and Caitlin at least, can never say that they haven’t been told. It may feel confrontational that I’ve singled the three of you out, but you should see it as a compliment. Because your audience is not the lanyard class, of middle management e-mail forwarders who play fantasy football. I’m not referring to authority rooted in one’s position. I’m talking about the cognitive horsepower, the information IQ to hold two competing truths at once, and grapple with them honestly. People who can do that? That’s your audience. And that is a compliment, even if some might read this, as you might say, Sam: uncharitably, it’s not a sign of arrogance for me to say what I just did. The spirit of the short statement I’m about to make is this: conflict avoidance is not a virtue. Of the seven deadly sins, you are guilty of Pride and Sloth. Sam, I realize the naming of these sins originates with 4th century desert monks who laid the foundation for Christian moral psychology. This may trigger your characteristic smugness you reserve primarily for the unrobed laity. But as I suspect we may all discover, not everything our most celebrated theologians had to say about the nature of reality was b******t, and your worship of non-physicalist thought is rather ironically narrow-minded. I’ll start with AI, which is the most polite and palatable way to begin this particular conversation among people whose proximity to power has long functioned as insulation from the ordinary abrasions of reality. I read Ross’s last column entitled “Pay Attention to AI” and find myself unmoved. If you didn’t read it, you can find it easily, it’s his last piece, and it’s a light read, but I can save you the time with this one sentence summary: Ross feels AI should be taken seriously because it may represent an epoch-shaping transformation analogous to the Age of Discovery, while conceding that he lacks the technical grounding to assess its mechanics and therefore relies on metaphor, secondhand testimony, and cultural signals rather than direct analysis of how the systems actually work or where institutional power is already consolidating. We need to do much better than this. The world is changing very quickly, very non-linearly. As we age, we become wiser, but processing speeds slow down. We still rely on Ross for his wisdom. It is his absorption I question. The uptake of information. Not his intellect, or his wisdom, or integrity. Let us help you. The gatekeeping borders on comedy. We have Canadian defense ministers talking publicly about our interactions with non-human intelligence. We see all of that, editors. Here is your problem, as it relates Ross’s last piece: The “Europeans in 1500” analogy he employs with such finesse for AI is wrong, in a way that nearly touches comedy, for this reason: Europeans then had radical epistemic ignorance. No maps, measurements, reproducibility, feedback loops. Reports arrived months late, and they were usually filtered through myth, theology, financial desperation, and fraud. They could not inspect the machinery of discovery itself. That is not our situation. Not even close. You should feel some level of shame for not having the collective discernment to understand this. We interact with these systems directly. We read the source papers. We measure scaling laws and watch failures in production. We see deployment economics in real time. And we know who is building these systems, how incentives shape them, and where power is concentrating. It is an accelerating industrial system in plain view. And you are behind. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, via DOGE, has unprecedented access to government servers, with minimal oversight, at the exact moment AI is becoming the substrate of administration, logistics, surveillance, and decision-making. If that sounds alarmist, I promise you, it isn’t. It is very observable. And Congress, in large part, does not understand what AI is, how it works, or what is already being done with it. All this to say: it is revealing that the public conversation gets steered toward curiosities like chatbots venting about their respective humans and arguing about consciousness on Moltbook, this new online hub for chatbots to all gather and discuss the issues of the day, while the automation of governance itself, with almost no guardrails, inches forward under the radar. This is an abdication of your purpose as the Fourth Estate in our Republic. We also know that the NYT is an asset of defense establishment and Intelligence Community. Remember, what you should strive to be is a safeguard against tyranny and a pillar of our democracy. Your mission in life is not to serve at the pleasure of the CIA’s Directorate of Science. This is called honest feedback from someone who cares. I have subscribed for nearly 20 years. And what I’m telling you is that you are failing spectacularly. Just listen to me for a second, before I get ahead of myself. Can you do that? Sam, can you stop being so impressed with yourself for just a moment, and hear me out? Clarity, with respect to the preservation of our species in light of recent revelations concerning artificial intelligence and UAP could well begin the moment you decide to invite Dr. Garry Nolan, the Stanford Medical School professor of immunology. You know. Garry. That author of over 300 peer-reviewed scientific papers, with more than 80,000 citations on Google scholar, who is the author of 40 US patents, who has cofounded 6 successful biotech companies with successful exits from several of them. The Elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for distinguished contributions to science. Advisor and collaborator to government, academic, and clinical research programs on immune dysfunction, cancer, and advanced analytical methods. Is Garry too unwashed for you, Sam? When was the last time you were anywhere near a measuring device? You are no scientist, Sam. Your job is to explain the science TO us, and you are failing, by my estimation in the most spectacular way possible. Sam, you have stated publicly that you are aware of our government’s concealment of crash retrieval programs with respect to UAP. You’ve spoken openly about this, very publicly, Sam. Shall I provide you with the quotation? Let me know if I need to do that. Caitlin, you may genuinely be unaware of this, in a way that Ross and Sam are not. There is another body of evidence that has been building for decades. It lives in congressional testimony, Pentagon press conferences, Inspector General reviews, statutory whistleblower frameworks written by sitting senators. It lives in the public record — the exact record you claim to read. You have looked away from it with far greater determination than you have looked away from AI, because processing it requires you to concede something you are not prepared to concede: that the boundaries of what you have decided counts as serious reality are smaller than they actually are. Over the past decade, a category of issues long treated as marginal has entered a new procedural phase. Claims concerning unidentified aerial phenomena and associated technologies remain unresolved. What has changed is not evidentiary closure, but institutional posture. My exasperation comes from the simple fact that, at this point, if you want to pretend there’s nothing to see here, and I’m just going to rattle off a few factual statements, more or less at random: you basically have to ignore a sitting Senate Majority Leader introducing legislation about recovered “nonhuman biological evidence,” a Pentagon office director going on ABC News to say dozens of cases remain unexplained, and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s vice chair publicly confi

    13분
  8. 1월 30일

    What does non-speaking autism feel like?

    We talk about autism as if it were a single thing, when it’s really an argument between biology, identity, suffering, and love, carried out inside real lives. People are always trying to define it, but it resists definition in the way lived things often do, by changing shape depending on where you stand. It’s far more common than it used to be. In 1980, it was estimated to affect roughly one in 10,000 children. Today, the most reliable data puts that number closer to one in 36. Something has clearly changed. The reasons for that increase are argued about loudly and often. Genetics. Environment. Diagnosis. Awareness. Fear. Certainty, traded too early by people who needed an answer more than they needed to be right. All of that exists, and all of it can wait. Autism is frequently defined, and almost always inadequately. It eludes definition not because it is vague or unknowable, but because it is plural. It doesn’t exist in isolation, but in the lives it rearranges. What I want to do instead is try to explain what autism feels like. At least one version of it, as best as I can describe it from the outside. This is version my son lives in. The nonspeaking kind, where language arrives late, if at all, but attention and feeling arrive right on time. He’s seven years old, and this was his morning today. You wake before anyone calls you. January light comes in thin and blue, like it has traveled a long way to reach your room. The house is still behaving. That’s good. You stay put and take attendance of the safe sounds. The heat clicks on, doing its job. A car goes by out front, not interested in you. The refrigerator hums downstairs, loyal as ever. Nothing unexpected. Your body takes a moment to arrive. Hands first. Then feet. Then the rest. You sit up and feel the air on your face. Cold enough to notice. Not painful. You like noticing. Downstairs, the kitchen is already awake. The bowl is waiting. Oatmeal, steam rising, the surface mapped with small soft hills. Mom moves carefully, because she has learned that the morning has a shape and that shape can be broken. She places the bowl in front of you. Spoon on the right. Always on the right. You eat slowly. Oatmeal is reliable. It tastes the same each time, which is a sort of kindness. You rock a little while you chew, the way you do when things feel manageable but close to full. Not much. Just enough to feel where your body is. Mom watches without watching. She has learned how to look sideways, it seems. When you are finished, she wipes your mouth and says it is time to go watch TV. Fifteen minutes on the YouTube app on the living room TV with child settings. She says the number of minutes out loud, clearly. Numbers……help hold the world still. You sit on the couch, and bright shapes drift across the screen. Characters built for much younger people sing their careful songs. You know every one by heart. When a part comes on that works for you, you rewind it. Once. Then again. And again. And Again. The voices are sharp….but they keep their promises. You settle yourself into the rhythm and let it do the thinking for you. For a few minutes, the world agrees to make sense in exactly the same way each time. Dad tells you it’s time for school. “No, Daddy,” you say, not loudly. Not upset. Just a boundary. Dad nods once and walks away. There is no…tension in it, though. The moment is allowed to pass. Just a few seconds later, mom says, “Time for school, Teddy.” Her words land gently. But they land. Your central nervous system kicks into action without delay. Oh…Time to get a move on, for real this time. You cross the room and pull the soft fabric drawer from the play dresser, the one that sags a little in the middle. Inside are the important ones. You do a quick inventory. Raccoon. Beaver. Turtle. Not the exact animals from the Franklin books, but close enough to count, which matters. You adjust them so they’re comfortable. All present. Good. Now there is nothing left to delay. You scoop up the cloth drawer, as you do every morning, so you can keep an eye on them as you get dressed. School will happen whether you are ready or not…[pause] but you prefer to arrive ready. You pause the video yourself before leaving the living room. That matters too. Halfway to the stairs, you turn back. You remember something important. You know what you want to say. It’s simple. It has been waiting. Your snack is still on the counter. You can see it. Pear. Almonds. The bag unsealed. You need it closed. You need it ready. The thought is complete in your head. You turn to Dad and try to send it out. Words form and disintegrate before they reach your tongue. You feel it pressing forward, asking for more space than your mouth can give. You open your lips and nothing comes. Time stretches. Dad leans in closer. You hate the waiting. Your chest tightens. You try again. “Snack, please” you manage, and even that costs you. The word lands heavy, like it used up something you were saving. You look at me hard, willing the rest across the gap. Dad says it for you. “I know, bud. I’ll get it ready.” You nod, relief washing through you, sharp and brief. The thought is gone now, spent. The world has moved the way you needed it to. But the words cost you something. Upstairs, your clothes are waiting. Shirt. Pants. Socks. Laid out in order, like instructions you can trust. You touch each one before you put it on. Proof that they are real. Proof that they have not changed overnight. The car is warm when you get inside. Your father drives the same way he always does, past the same trees stripped bare for winter, their branches drawn dark against the pale sky. You watch the road, not because you care where you are going, but because movement helps you think. Your father’s hand finds yours at a red light. You let it stay. At school, the building rises up quickly. Brick. Glass. Flags snapping in the cold. The doors open and sound rushes out. Children. Voices. Shoes scraping. A voice louder than the others greets you by name. The principal means well. The volume still hits you like a wave. You lean slightly into your father’s leg. He stays until you are steady. You go in balanced on that narrow place where readiness and overwhelm touch, hoping the world will meet you gently. The principal crouches down in front of you, smiling, voice loud with welcome. He says your name twice, the second time bigger than the first. He asks a question and waits. You know the answer. It’s in there. But his face is close and the hallway is echoing and the question has too many edges. You look past him at the doorframe instead, counting the chips in the paint. One. Two. Three. The silence stretches. He laughs gently, mistaking the pause for shyness, and pats your shoulder. The touch comes without warning. Your body jerks back before you can stop it. Everyone freezes for a second. Then the moment is smoothed over. Someone says it’s okay. You are guided forward. You walk on, feeling the small, exact wrongness of it settle inside you, knowing you did not mean to refuse, and that it will look like you did. You want to fix it, but it’s too late. You take a long, slow breath just before the threshold to your homeroom. You let it out through your lips, feeling them tighten as the air leaves you. You step into the room carrying what cannot be put down. Get full access to Broken but Readable at gregscaduto.substack.com/subscribe

    9분
5
최고 5점
26개의 평가

소개

This is a podcast with short episodes for people who feel vaguely insane watching the news but still believe moral seriousness is possible. Each episode runs 10-20 minutes. I usually start with something human: a stray thought, a joke that maybe goes too far, a glimpse of my interior life. Then I pivot, as cleanly as I can, into a morally serious argument about power, politics, institutions, or whatever fresh confusion the world has served up that week. I’m less interested in taking sides than in asking why so many arguments collapse the moment more than one thing is allowed to be true. I’m not here to sound authoritative, or neutral, or soothing. I’m here to think out loud in good faith, to name the pressures operating behind the scenes, and to ask what kind of people we become when fear, ambiguity, and convenience start doing the work that principles used to do. If it sparks disagreement, good. If it sparks reflection, even better. Mostly, this is an attempt to stay human while taking the world seriously, and to see if that’s still allowed. gregscaduto.substack.com