What Would They Think?

Jonathan Millard

5.0 (1)
History
Updated Weekly

What Would They Think explores the gap between the world that was imagined and the one we’re actually living in. Through ironic, often uncomfortable comparisons, it brings the voices of the past into today’s headlines—technology, culture, power, and belief—and asks how they would interpret the systems, behaviors, and contradictions that define modern life. The result is less explanation, more confrontation.

3d ago

What Would Thomas Aquinas Think About Ozempic?

What would Thomas Aquinas think of a world where one American adult in nine has bought their way out of hunger — the oldest appetite there is, switched off weekly by injection, marketed as health, resented as cheating, and moralized over by everyone except the man who defined the sin? He answered this around 1272. He sat down — an enormous man, silent in class, mocked by his own classmates as the Dumb Ox — and wrote six articles on gluttony, and in all six he never once mentions the size of a body. Gluttony is not eating too much. Gluttony is disordered desire, and it is not the food but the wanting that is at fault. Then he lists five ways to commit it, and only one of the five has anything to do with quantity. The sin was never in the flesh. It was in the appetite — and he wrote that as the fattest man in the room. Seven centuries took that idea and did the one thing to it he had specifically refused to do: they moved the sin out of the desire and into the body. Kept the shame, threw away the definition. He put the fault somewhere a person could actually do something about — in the wanting, which is invisible, and adjustable, and nobody else's business. We put it somewhere a person can only be looked at. He judged the appetite so the man could go free; we judge the man and call it concern. Same word, opposite target. He aimed it at the hunger. We aim it at the hungry, and then we call the aiming health. And he'd know the mechanism cold, because he built it. Temperance, in his system, is not the will beating the appetite into submission — that's continence, and he ranked it lower. The higher state is the one where the appetite is already quiet and there is no fight at all, which is precisely what people on the drug describe: not victory, just silence. He wrote the exemption in advance, too — reducing appetite for the sake of the body's health, he says plainly, is right reason and no vice whatsoever. And then, in the same passage, the trap. There is a sin called taking too little pleasure in food. Insensibility. Nature attached the pleasure for a reason, and the man who no longer wants his dinner has not arrived at virtue; he has gone past it and out the other side. He named that vice in the thirteenth century and nobody has needed it until now. This episode puts the fat theologian who wrote the last word on appetite in front of a medicine that deletes it. He has opinions. On the "easy way out" — a 2025 study found people rate weight loss as less admirable when a drug was involved, even when the person also dieted and exercised, and he never once said the suffering was the point. On the five species — praepropere, laute, nimis, ardenter, studiose — four of which convict the thin wellness influencer with the beautiful bowl faster than they convict anyone eating an ordinary dinner. On the lizard, since the entire drug class came out of the venom of a desert animal that can go four months without eating and does not appear to mind. On who can afford it, because he held that surplus belongs to the poor as a matter of justice and not charity, and the thing reaches Lagos as a counterfeit before it reaches Lagos as a medicine. And on this year, when a Catholic medical ethics journal published a full argument in his own terms and concluded the drug risks the exact vice he named. The man who located the sin in the wanting meets the first medicine that removes it. Both understood the same thing — that the appetite was always the real question, that whoever governs the wanting governs the man, that quiet is not the same as good. Only one of them asked what it was for. Episode 21.What Would They Think?
Jul 21

What Would Alfred Hitchcock Think About True Crime Podcasts?

What would Alfred Hitchcock think of a world where the most gripping thing in your earbuds is a real murder — a stranger's last hour, withheld and doled out and scored, pressed play on by millions for the pleasure of the dread, and called caring? He answered this in 1960. He put a woman in a shower and killed her — forty-five seconds, some fifty cuts, and the knife never once touches her skin. The blood was chocolate syrup. Janet Leigh got up, dried off, and went to lunch. The terror was total and the body was perfectly safe, and the safety was the point. The horror was never in the wound. It was in the cut. Fear is not filmed. It is built — and he built it on a woman who was paid to scream. True crime took that idea and did the one thing to it he'd have found funniest and worst: it kept the machine and cut the actress. He aimed the dread at fiction on purpose — the mask of a set, a star, an "it's only a movie" — so the audience could feel the fear without a victim paying for it. The mask was the mercy. True crime points the identical machine at the morgue: the same withheld reveal, the same ticking clock, the same delicious complicity of the watcher — except the woman is real, and dead, and does not get up when the episode ends. Same machine. He aimed it at no one; they aim it at the morgue and call it respect. He masked the corpse so you could look at it and live. They tore the mask off and called it the truth. And he'd know the mechanism cold, because he built it. The bomb under the table — tell the audience it's there and let them watch the clock, and every dull second becomes unbearable; that's "she had no idea she had four hours to live," a half-century early. Rear Window — he made you the Peeping Tom and then held up the mirror, so you could never quite enjoy the spying cleanly. Rope — he took a real child's murder and staged it as a cocktail party with the body in the room, and he knew it was obscene; he built the obscenity in. And Psycho itself was already true crime: the real Ed Gein, a Wisconsin killer, masked as Norman Bates so you could stand near the horror and survive it. He reached the morgue on purpose, put a mask over it, and called the mask mercy. This episode puts the man who built the machinery of dread — and kept it pointed at fiction — in front of a genre that runs it on the real dead. He has opinions. On the Peeping Tom who is now told he's an advocate — the voyeurism rebranded as awareness, the mirror quietly taken down. On the wrong man, the terror of his own childhood, when a policeman locked him in a cell to teach him a lesson — now crowdsourced, a mob convicting whoever looks guilty for the pleasure of the hunt. On the AI channel that pulled millions of views with a hundred and fifty murders that never happened — proof the corpse was always optional, the dread manufactured just as well from nothing. And on October 2025, when a streaming service dramatized the real Ed Gein — the corpse behind Psycho — under his own name, and put Hitchcock himself in the frame as a fellow voyeur: the man who masked the body, now unmasked beside it. The man who proved the terror was manufactured meets the genre that forgot to ask what it's manufactured from. Turns out both understood the same thing — that the horror is in the withholding, that the body is beside the point, that whoever gets to hold back the reveal owns the room. Only one of them cast an actress. Episode 20.What Would They Think?
Jul 14

What Would Marcel Duchamp Think About NFTs?

What would Marcel Duchamp think of a world where the hardest thing to own is a picture anyone can copy for free — a JPEG, right-click-saved a million times, yet trading for tens of millions because one instance of it was signed? He answered this in 1917. He bought a urinal — mass-produced, common, worth a few dollars — laid it on its back, signed it "R. Mutt," titled it Fountain, and dared a committee that had promised to exhibit anything to hang it. They hid it behind a wall. And in the defense that followed he laid down the whole law a century early: whether the man made it with his own hands is of no importance — he chose it. The object was nothing. The choosing was everything. Art is not made. It is declared. The NFT took that idea and did the one thing to it he'd have found funniest and worst: it removed the joke. He aimed the readymade at the market — to prove the worship of the precious object was a con, that a signature could transfigure a piece of plumbing and therefore the whole racket was belief, administered. The NFT points the identical gesture for the market — to manufacture a new precious object out of the least precious thing there is, and sell it at Christie's for sixty-nine million. Same crowbar. Opposite door. He prised the vault open to show it was empty; they welded it shut with a JPEG inside and charged admission. And he'd know the mechanism cold, because he built it. He drew a fake cheque to pay his dentist, worth more than its face because he signed it. He issued a speculative bond as an artwork in 1924 — signed, numbered, editioned: an NFT made of paper. He turned his own work into editions, authorized replicas of objects that were never unique, and let the "real" Fountain be a designation with no stable object at all — the original thrown away, surviving as a photograph and a signature. He reached the emptiness on purpose and called it freedom. This episode puts the man who proved the object never mattered in front of a market that spent a decade, and a fortune, learning it the hard way. He has opinions. On the spectator who is now also the speculator — the crowd that prices what it praises, so "this is significant" and "this is up forty percent" come out of the same mouth. On the mask — R. Mutt, Rrose Sélavy — worn to free the work from the man, versus the pseudonymous wallet worn to move the money past the state. On MoMA, in December 2025, accessioning a free-to-claim pixel avatar into the permanent collection beside The Starry Night — the readymade's forty-year march into the museum, run in eight. On a market where ninety-six percent of the tokens now point at nothing, immutable and permanent, certifying files that no longer load. The man who declared value by signature meets the machine that automated the signature. Turns out both understood the same thing — that the object is beside the point, that whoever gets to designate owns the room. Only one of them was joking. Episode 19.What Would They Think?
Jul 7

What Would Marie Antoinette Think About Cancel Culture?

What would Marie Antoinette think of a world where a person can be destroyed before lunch — by a sentence they never spoke, a clip cut from its meaning, an image that was never real — and millions will believe it, repeat it, and never once check? She is the one soul in history most qualified to answer, because it is exactly how she died. The most famous words ever put in her mouth — let them eat cake — she never said. The line was already in print, pinned on some nameless princess, when she was a nine-year-old in Vienna who didn't yet speak French. It was welded to her name after her death, by people who found the doll more useful than the woman. And it worked. Two centuries of historians have failed to unstick it. She was not the airhead of the caricature. She was a foreign girl married off at fourteen, undressed at a border and remade as someone else's symbol, watched by a whole court from her wedding night to her last morning. The monster was manufactured: the anonymous pamphlets, pornographic, mass-produced, printed abroad and funded by her enemies — the deepfake, drawn by hand. The diamond necklace she was convicted of buying, she never touched; a con artist forged her signature and hired a look-alike, and the public believed it because it fit. That was the whole trick, then and now: the lie doesn't need to be true, it needs to fit. Octavian at least had to invent his slander himself. In 2026 the machine writes it for you, aims it at a stranger, and sells the outrage by the click. This episode sets the most successfully cancelled woman in history — killed by a quote she never said, framed by a jewel she never wore — in front of the descendants who do the same thing to each other for free, a new face a day. From the pamphlet to the feed. She has opinions. On the fabricated quote-card, her own invention, still circulating. On the screenshot — the necklace with diamonds, a tidy artifact of a story that never happened. On the crowd that thinks it's a jury when it's really a supply chain: sincere, lethal, certain this time the target deserves it. On the one thing that stops her scolding anyone — she wasn't innocent. She did spend while France starved. They were wrong about the necklace and right about the palace, and they killed her for the necklace anyway. Both knew the same thing: the story always beats the truth, and a lie that fits can outlive the person it's about. But she got a trial — a rigged one, a monstrous one, but a date, a charge, an end, and eventually an appeal. The people we cancel get no court, no verdict, no morning it's over. She was executed once, cleanly, and history could reopen the file. We built something that kills slower and never finishes. She was destroyed by a sentence she never said. We write ours by the million and call it justice. Episode 18. What Would They Think?
Jun 30

What Would Cleopatra Think About The Beauty Industry?

What would Cleopatra think of a world where the face is the job — where millions paint and edit and inject not to take a throne but to be seen taking the trouble, and the proof is a face four million filters have already smoothed into the same one? She spent her life proving beauty was a weapon you aimed, not a debt you paid forever: to hold a kingdom you staged your own face, sailed up a river dressed as a goddess, struck your profile across an empire and dared Rome to look away. The authority was never the beauty — the best witness she has says her looks were nothing that would startle you; the power was the voice, the presence, the nerve. On the one image she controlled, the coins, she chose a hard hooked nose and a jutting chin, because she meant to read as a sovereign, not a girl. She didn't even keep the story. Octavian needed a war he couldn't declare on a Roman, so he invented a seductress — and the slander outlived the strategist by two thousand years. The feed runs her idea backward. The reach is real, infinite, instant — but the face is shot to apologize now, not to command. Beauty as power, reversed into beauty as confession. This episode sets the woman who made the most powerful face of her millennium — a queen's self-portrait, struck in silver — in front of the descendants who turned her weapon into a half-trillion-dollar trade. From the coin to the filter. She has opinions. On the players who each look like a beauty — the creator with the ring light and the brand deal, the "no-makeup" look that's the most produced face of all, the twelve-year-old in the Sephora aisle buying a serum to reverse an age she hasn't reached. On Octavian, reborn in 2026 as the app that scans your face, names three flaws you hadn't noticed, and sells the cure to the problem it invented. On the crowd she summoned: she proved a face could be a weapon, so she can't scold the millions now wielding theirs. The woman sold for two thousand years as the most beautiful who ever lived — who was, on her own coins, a sharp-nosed administrator, and proud of it — meets the people who can hand anyone her legend with a filter. Both knew the same thing: whoever owns the image owns the room. She made one face say I am power. We make a billion say I am not enough. Episode 17. What Would They Think?
Jun 24

What Would Marco Polo Think About Travel Influencers?

What would Marco Polo think of a world where the journey is the job — where millions cross the earth not to see it but to be seen having seen it, and the proof is a photograph of a thing four million phones have already photographed? He spent his life proving the opposite was hard: that to reach the marvel you walked for years, across deserts that called your name and mountains where the fires burned low, and came home unable to be checked because no one else had gone. His authority was never the truth. It was the eyewitness, performed — I saw it with my own eyes — and the marvel, administered, sized to an audience that would never go. He didn't even write the book. He dictated it in a Genoa prison to a romance novelist, who punched up the wonders; his neighbours nicknamed it "the Million Lies"; and we still argue, seriously, whether he reached China at all. He named the marvels the world would chase for centuries. The feed took that idea and removed the going from it. The reach is real — infinite, instant — but the wonder is shot from a drone, beautiful and known and already seen, the desert engineered away. The content creator without the journey. This episode puts the man who made the most influential travel story of his millennium — a merchant's road trip, sold as the edge of the world — in front of the descendants who turned his trade into a profession. From the manuscript to the feed — from the road to the geotag. He has opinions. On the players who each look like a traveller — the comped creator with the brand deal, the "off-the-beaten-path" reel that's the most produced shot of all, the Bali gate that floats above a reflection with no water under it — none of whom he can quite tell actually went. On Columbus, who read his book as a map and sailed an ocean chasing gold Marco never saw — reborn in 2026 as the couple who drove three hours to ride an AI cable car that doesn't exist. On the crowd he himself summoned: he opened a hemisphere, so he can't scold the residents firing water guns at the tourists in Barcelona. The man who crossed the world to see a unicorn, and found a muddy, foul-tempered rhinoceros, meets the people who've geotagged every rhinoceros on earth. Turns out both understood the same thing — that the marvel is the metric, that whoever tells the story owns the room. He saw an ocean and told a cup of it. We tell the whole ocean, and see a cup. Episode 16.What Would They Think?
Jun 16

What Would Cecil Rhodes Think About Bitcoin?

What would Cecil Rhodes think of a world where the hardest money on earth is a thing that doesn't exist — no metal, no vault — trading for tens of thousands of dollars, mined by machines that burn the power of small nations, kept scarce by no chairman — only a line of code no one can revise? He spent his life proving the opposite: that scarcity is built and policed. Diamonds are not rare; he made them rare — cornered the supply at Kimberley, folded it into De Beers, taught the world to pay a fortune for a stone he knew to be nearly worthless. His power was never the gem. It was the belief, administered — and the hand on the supply, kept closed with barbed wire, locked compounds, and the X-raying of the Black men who dug. Funded by the Rothschilds, he named a country after himself. He, and he alone, decided how much the world would ever see. Bitcoin took that idea and removed him from it. The scarcity is real — twenty-one million, forever — but enforced by arithmetic, not by a man who dies at forty-eight murmuring "so little done, so much to do." The cartel without a king. This episode puts the man who made the most valuable illusion of his century — a common stone, sold as eternity — in front of the one market he could never have built. From the compound to the blockchain — from barbed wire to math. He has opinions. On the names that each look like a chairman — the man who swore never to sell, the funds that hold the keys, the state that calls it a reserve — none of whom can mint a twenty-second coin. On De Beers, his own machine, dying in 2026, written down and sold off, killed by the lab-grown stone — the supply break he spent a century preventing. On a thing that bears no man's face outlasting the country that bore his. The master of the cornered market meets the market that can't be cornered. Turns out both understood the same thing — that value is only belief, that whoever controls the supply owns the room. Only one of them ever needed to be the owner. Episode 15. What Would They Think?
Jun 9

What Would Gandhi Think About the Ambani Wedding?

What would Gandhi think of a world where a single family's wedding runs for the better part of a year and costs, by estimates no one will confirm, hundreds of millions of dollars — staged in his own country, on the same stretch of Gujarat coast that bore him, and reckoned to the last rupee in currency that carries his face? He'd spent two decades building a movement and managing its image before he ever took off his shirt. In Madurai, in 1921, he put down all but a strip of hand-spun cotton, and a half-naked man in a loincloth went on to break an empire's claim to rule a fifth of the human race. His weapon was cloth. He asked every Indian to spin their own — coarse, cheap, made by the hand that would wear it — and set the spinning wheel at the heart of the movement's flag. He was funded the whole time by the richest men in the country, and he died in the garden of one of their mansions. His power was never the poverty. It was that the maker and the wearer were the same person. So he put the cloth back in the hands that made it. The wedding took it as far from them as cloth can go. This episode puts the man who made a length of homespun cotton the most powerful image of the century in front of the most expensive image his country has ever staged. From the charkha to the couture — from cloth made to free people to cloth made to crown them. He has opinions. On a guest list that reads like a market dressed as a sacrament. On a fortune that began, two generations back, as another length of Gujarati cloth. On the most beautiful garments in India, sewn by some of its poorest hands. The apostle of renunciation meets the apex of display. Turns out both understood the same thing — that what you wear is an argument, that whoever owns the image owns the room. Only one was arguing for less. Dead saints. Modern fortunes. Fully AI.Episode 14.What Would They Think?

What Would They Think explores the gap between the world that was imagined and the one we’re actually living in. Through ironic, often uncomfortable comparisons, it brings the voices of the past into today’s headlines—technology, culture, power, and belief—and asks how they would interpret the systems, behaviors, and contradictions that define modern life. The result is less explanation, more confrontation.

Creator

Jonathan Millard
Years Active

2026
Episodes

21
Rating

Clean
Copyright

© Jonathan Millard
Show Website

What Would They Think?