Keen On America

“You would not want to be me.” — Elon Musk

Yesterday I argued that Dario Amodei is the most interesting man in America because he’s doing something nobody else has the balls to do: acting like a human being in public. Elon Musk is the opposite. He has the balls — nobody would deny that — but what’s missing is the human-being. Or perhaps Elon is all-too-human, which explains why so many of us — including myself — loathe him.
Charles Steel, a London investor, doesn’t loathe Elon. In fact, he’s self-published a book about him: The Curious Mind of Elon Musk: Nine Ways He Thinks Differently. Rather than an Elon hagiography, Steel insists, it’s an attempt to explain why Musk admirers don’t fully understand him, and the Hate-Elon crowd would probably loathe him for different reasons even if they had full navigation rights to his mind.
As I said, I’m in the second camp. My dislike of Musk is political — the cosying up to Trump, the DOGE fiasco, the embrace of far-right groups, the transformation of Twitter into a safe space for misanthropes. But Steel makes a case that, in our therapeutic culture, might be harder for some to dismiss: Musk’s “curious mind” is the product of childhood bullying, high-functioning autism, an abusive father, and an existential crisis resolved not by philosophy but by The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Apparently Elon read Nietzsche and that, of course, only compounded his existential crisis. Probably because Nietzsche was warning us about a future dominated by philistines like Elon Musk.
In navigating the Musk mind, Steel discovers three traits: hyper-rationality, existential angst, and belligerence. Lots of Silicon Valley founders have the first. Some have the second. Almost none have the third. The combination produces a man who genuinely believes that the scientific method — the right of anyone to criticize anything — is a secular religion, and that “wokeness” is a competing religion that must be destroyed. Whether or not you buy this self-serving argument, Steel might be right to stress a Musk worldview — even if that worldview is often childishly indefensible.
I suggested to Steel that Musk is trapped in a Hobbesian state of nature — frozen alone, unable to read other people, incapable of separating himself from himself. A kind of naturally narcissistic state. This is what I most dislike about Elon. That he’s normalizing this state of nature. Nietzsche might (like his contemporary disciple Peter Thiel) have called him the Anti-Christ. He’s certainly the anti-Dario.
 
Five Takeaways

•       Musk Is the Anti-Dario: Amodei acts like a human being in public. Musk has the balls but what’s missing is the human-being. Or perhaps he’s all-too-human, which explains why so many of us loathe him. The contrast between them is the story of Silicon Valley in 2026.
•       Steel’s Case Is Harder to Dismiss Than You’d Think: Musk’s “curious mind” is the product of childhood bullying, high-functioning autism, an abusive father, and an existential crisis resolved not by philosophy but by The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. He read Nietzsche and it made things worse. Probably because Nietzsche was warning us about philistines like Musk.
•       Three Traits: Hyper-Rationality, Angst, and Belligerence: Lots of Silicon Valley founders have the first. Some have the second. Almost none have the third. The combination produces a man who believes the scientific method is a secular religion and wokeness is a competing one that must be destroyed. Whether or not you buy this self-serving argument, Steel might be right to stress a Musk worldview — even if it’s often childishly indefensible.
•       Trapped in a Hobbesian State of Nature: Musk is frozen alone, unable to read other people, incapable of separating himself from himself. A kind of naturally narcissistic state. What’s most dangerous about Elon is that he’s normalising this state of nature for the rest of us.
•       The Anti-Christ and the Anti-Dario: Nietzsche might, like his contemporary disciple Peter Thiel, have called Musk the Anti-Christ. He’s certainly the anti-Dario. The contrast between Amodei and Musk is the story of Silicon Valley — and perhaps America — in 2026.
 
About the Guest

Charles Steel is a London-based investor and writer. He has worked with Tony Blair and Save the Children. His book The Curious Mind of Elon Musk: Nine Ways He Thinks Differently is self-published and out now. His next project is on Albert Camus.
References:

•       The Curious Mind of Elon Musk: Nine Ways He Thinks Differently by Charles Steel — the book under discussion.
•       Episode 2835: Why Dario Amodei Might Be the 21st Century’s First Real Leader — yesterday’s TWTW, the direct counterpoint.
•       Zero to One by Peter Thiel — referenced by Steel on Asperger-like traits and Silicon Valley success.
•       The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams — the book Musk credits with resolving his existential crisis.
•       The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus — Steel’s next project, and the question he’d most like to discuss with Musk.
About Keen On America

Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.
Website

Substack

YouTube

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

 
Chapters:

(00:00) - Introduction: I'm not a great fan of Elon Musk

(02:05) - Is Musk on the spectrum?

(03:56) - The meaning of life and the philosophy of curiosity

(05:58) - Childhood bullying, an abusive father, and Musk as casualty

(06:53) - “You would not want to be me”

(08:38) - Hobbes, the state of nature, and Musk as pre-social man

(10:29) - Should we try to be less normal?

(12:15) - Racism, empathy, and the missing human attributes

(14:14) - Goebbels comparison: when does curiosity become offensive?

(15:52) - Why is it always the right? Musk and wokeness

(17:18) - The curious mind as mirror of ou...

“Whether you like Amodei or not, at least he’s a leader.” — Andrew Keen

Dario Amodei is the most interesting man in America right now. Not because he runs a $500 billion company or because he’s suing the Trump administration or because Anthropic’s Claude topped the iPhone charts. But because he’s doing something nobody else in Silicon Valley has the balls to do: he’s acting like a human being in public. He has principles, he states them, and he accepts the consequences. That’s leadership. It shouldn’t be remarkable. In 2026, it is.
This week’s That Was The Week is about how America both loves and hates AI. An NBC poll found 60–70% of Americans are concerned about AI — making it even less popular than the Democratic Party (quite an achievement). A hundred planned data centers have been cancelled because of local protests. 10,000 authors published an anti AI manifesto at the London Book Fair this week. Each week, in contrast, a billion people used ChatGPT, but these users often seem oblivious to its weaknesses. So Keith’s AI-generated video for the show was, by universal agreement (including his own), not going to win an Oscar tomorrow. Except for Most Sloppy AI generated video.
Every road this week led back to Amodei who is anything but sloppy. He’s become a Rorschach test for the entire industry. Tech progressives Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway are lauding him. The MAGA crowd — including David Sacks, Trump’s AI czar — on the All In podcast are doing the opposite. Keith thinks Dario is a naive CEO making bad business decisions — comparing him to his own doomed battle in the late Nineties against Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer. It’s a fair point. Should a tech CEO really be setting AI policy? Keith’s answer is no — that’s for people like David Sacks appointed by executive, legislative, and judicial branches. I’m not so sure. In an America defined by its dysfunctional political system, we need leaders like Amodei to take ethical stands. If not, then who?
The IPO race this year between Anthropic, OpenAI and xAI makes this particularly interesting. I wonder whether Amodei might use the IPO itself to force a public debate that nobody in government is willing to have. Not just about guardrails or weapons — but about what kind of society AI is building and who gets to decide what does and doesn’t get used. Musk, by publicly embracing white racists and other groups of hate, is making his politics clear. Sam Altman, as always, is wearing every hat simultaneously. Amodei, in contrast, knows his hat. Rather than MAGA, it should say: The Most Interesting Man in America. He’s got my vote. Even if he’s not running for office.
 
Five Takeaways

•       AI Is Less Popular Than the Democrats: An NBC poll found 60–70% of Americans are concerned about AI. A hundred data centres have been cancelled due to local protests. 10,000 authors published an anti-AI manifesto at the London Book Fair. Close to a billion people use ChatGPT each week — but the haters are the non-users, and they outnumber the lovers by a wide margin.
•       Amodei Is the 21st Century’s First Real Leader: He’s suing the Trump administration. He’s refusing to let Claude be used for autonomous weapons. He’s accepting the business consequences. Keith thinks he’s naive. I think he’s the only person in Silicon Valley acting like a human being in public. The debate between us is the show.
•       Keith Compares Amodei to His Own Doomed Battle Against Ballmer: In the late Nineties, Keith fought Microsoft with RealNames and lost. He sees Amodei on the same trajectory — noble, principled, already finished. I compared Keith to Pete Hegseth declaring the Iranian regime defeated. The MAGA crowd on All In, including Trump’s AI czar David Sacks, agree with Keith. That alone should give him pause.
•       The IPO Race Will Force the Debate: Anthropic, OpenAI and xAI are all expected to go public this year. Amodei could use the IPO to force a conversation about what kind of society AI is building — a conversation nobody in government is willing to have. Musk is making his politics clear by embracing white racists. Altman is wearing every hat. Amodei knows his.
•       In the Absence of Leadership, Fear Thrives: Keith’s best point of the week. Nobody is setting AI policy. The politicians are clowns. The tech CEOs are children. In the vacuum, fear wins. Amodei is trying to fill it. Whether he succeeds or not, at least he’s trying. That’s more than anyone else can say.
 
About the Guest

Keith Teare is the publisher of That Was The Week and co-founder of SignalRank. He is a serial entrepreneur, former CEO of RealNames, and a regular sparring partner on Keen On America.
References:

•       That Was The Week: AI Loved and Hated — Keith Teare’s editorial.
•       Rex Woodbury, “Why Does Everybody Hate AI?” — Digital Native.
•       Josh Dzieza, The Verge — on lawyers, PhDs, and scientists in the AI gig economy.
•       Noah Smith — “Something Feels Weird About This Economy.”
•       Meta’s acquisition of Moltbook — the AI agent social network.
About Keen On America

Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.
Website

Substack

YouTube

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

 
Chapters:

(00:00) - Introduction: AI loved and hated

(01:17) - NBC poll: AI less popular than the Democrats

(03:10) - Rex Woodbury and the haters: is it really AI people hate?

(04:21) - AI slop and Keith’s terrible video

(07:28) - The adoption curve: AI companies are isolated from mainstream opinion

(07:51) - Dario Amodei as the answer to both lovers and haters

(10:14) - Keith vs Ballmer redux: why Amodei has already lost

(12:09) - OpenAI and Google employees rush to Anthropic’s defense

(14:24) - Woodbury, The Verge, and AI taking jobs

(16:51) - Keith’s Apple TV app: vibe coded in a weekend

(19:29) - AI will destroy universities: cheating at apocalyptic levels

(21:41) - Noah Smith: something feels weird about this economy

(27:00) - The IPO race: Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX

(30:42) - Could Amodei blow up the IPO proce...

“I can point to things. But is that a systemic explanation? I think there the answer is a little less clear. I mean, surely people need love and all of that, but then there’s this risk of just devolving into platitude.” — David Sussillo

David Sussillo is a big time neural reverse engineer. The Stanford brain scientist worked at Google Brain with Geoffrey Hinton, and now is at Meta Reality Labs. What distinguishes Sussillo, however, is not his Silicon Valley good luck, but the bad luck of his origins. In his memoir, Emergent: A Memoir of Boyhood, Computation, and the Mysteries of the Mind, Sussillo begins at the Albuquerque Christian Children’s Home — a modern-day orphanage — and the Milton Hershey School, the boarding school endowed by the chocolate magnate for kids with nowhere else to go. Both his parents were addicts. His mom died young. His dad spent his life as an untrained preacher ministering to homeless people on the streets of Albuquerque while managing a lifelong heroin habit.
The book’s thesis borrows from the science he studies: “emergence” — simple things interacting to produce complex behaviour that none of them could produce alone. His life is both proof of and a challenge to this concept. He made it out. Most of the kids he grew up with didn’t. He can point to moments — a gifted-and-talented test in third grade, an aunt and uncle’s intervention at nine, a first love in college — but he can’t build an explanatory system from these haphazard events. The Sussillo quilt doesn’t have an innate pattern. It just has patches.
What makes Sussillo unusual as a memoirist is his refusal to sentimentalise. Twenty years of psychotherapy, he confesses, has taught him something most authors never learn: that understanding your own story doesn’t mean you’ve explained it. His science can’t explain his childhood either. “The big dirty secret of neuroscience,” he says, “is that we don’t really understand much in the ways that people would love us to understand.” The man who reverse-engineers neural networks can’t reverse-engineer himself.
I asked him whether having children would have been harder than writing the book. Yes, he said. With the book, you can take a break. With kids, you relive things through a very specific way of relating. He and his wife chose not to. His mentors all told him he’d have been great at it. He’s not so sure. That honesty — the willingness to say “I don’t know” and mean it — runs through everything Sussillo does. He says he’s happy, claiming to have found peace with his past. But he still carries the baggage. Who wouldn’t? He’s just learned to manage it. Emergent, not emerged.
 
Five Takeaways

•       From Orphanage to Google Brain: Both parents were heroin addicts. Sussillo grew up in a modern-day orphanage in Albuquerque and then the Milton Hershey School. He went on to work at Google Brain with Geoffrey Hinton, now works at Meta Reality Labs, teaches at Stanford. Most of the kids he grew up with didn’t make it.
•       Emergence as Autobiography: The book’s thesis borrows from the science he studies: simple pieces combining into complicated outcomes. His life is the proof of concept and the counter-example simultaneously. The quilt doesn’t have a pattern. It just has patches.
•       The Dirty Secret of Neuroscience: The man who reverse-engineers neural networks can’t reverse-engineer himself. “We don’t really understand much in the ways that people would love us to understand.” Twenty years of therapy taught him more than the science.
•       Would Kids Have Been Harder Than the Book? Yes. With the book, you can take a break. With kids, you relive trauma through a very specific way of relating. He and his wife chose not to have children. His mentors told him he’d have been great at it. He’s not so sure.
•       Emergent, Not Emerged: Sussillo has found peace with his past. He’s happy. He still carries the baggage from his childhood. He’s just learned how to manage it. The emergence is ongoing.
 
About the Guest

David Sussillo is a research scientist at Meta Reality Labs and a consulting professor at Stanford University. He previously worked at Google Brain. His memoir is Emergent: A Memoir of Boyhood, Computation, and the Mysteries of the Mind. He grew up in the Albuquerque Christian Children’s Home and the Milton Hershey School. He lives in New Mexico.
References:

•       Emergent: A Memoir of Boyhood, Computation, and the Mysteries of the Mind by David Sussillo — the book under discussion.
•       The Albuquerque Christian Children’s Home — the group home where Sussillo spent five years of his childhood.
•       The Milton Hershey School — founded in 1906 by the Hershey chocolate magnate for children with nowhere else to go. Sussillo spent four years there.
•       Google Brain — the lab where Sussillo worked alongside Geoffrey Hinton on the neural network research that became the foundation of modern AI.
•       John Conway’s Game of Life — the cellular automaton simulation Sussillo cites as an early example of emergence: complicated outcomes from simple rules.
About Keen On America

Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.
Website

Substack

YouTube

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

 
Chapters:

(00:00) - Introduction

(01:30) - The Albuquerque Christian Children’s Home and Milton Hershey School

(03:30) - Why write a memoir? Five years and twenty years of therapy

(05:00) - Heroin-addicted parents: the origin story

(08:00) - A father as untrained preacher on the streets of Albuquerque

(10:00) - Which parent had more impact?

(12:00) - The gifted-and-talented test that changed everything

(15:00) - From Milton Hershey to Carnegie Mellon: the jump

(18:00) - Life falls apart at 23: panic attacks and psychotherapy

(21:00) - Neural networks, Google Brain, and the dirty secret of neuroscience

(25:00) - Would having kids have been harder than writing the book?

(28:00) - The Albanian friend and the beach: what America gets right

(31:00) - Silicon...

“They all did it. They’re all guilty.” — Amy Littlefield

Who killed Roe? Amy Littlefield, the abortion access correspondent at The Nation and big time Agatha Christie fan, has written a true crime book about it. Literally. Killers of Roe treats the death of the constitutional right to abortion as a murder mystery in the Poirot or Miss Marple tradition, complete with suspects, motives, and a forensic reconstruction of the 50-year crime scene. The suspects have Christie-style names: the Racist (Jesse Helms), the Little Brother (James Buckley), the Devout Bureaucrat (Paul Herring), the Closeted Congressman (Bob Bauman), and of course Mr Hyde Amendment himself, Henry Hyde — six foot three, helmet of white hair, serial groper of women who ensured poor women lost access first.
The Hyde Amendment is where the crime begins: 1976, a ban on federal funding of abortion. If you’re poor, the Supreme Court ruled, that’s your problem. The constitutional right exists, but don’t expect anyone to pay for it. Surprise surprise. Black women, low-income women, women on Medicaid understood immediately. Democrats and mainstream pro-choice groups took longer to notice. By which time the damage was done — and the playbook established: chip away at access rather than try to ban it outright.
Littlefield is more Miss Marple than Poirot — unassuming, persistent, sitting with her suspects for hours until they tell her why they did it. The devout bureaucrat, Paul Herring, spent their interviews trying to convert her to Catholicism. Henry Hyde made a pass at the president of Planned Parenthood during a commercial break on the Phil Donahue show. Bob Bauman — closeted, adopted, alcoholic — confessed to her that his anti-abortion politics may have come from identifying with the unwanted fetus, because that could have been him. These are complicated people doing terrible things for reasons they believe are righteous.
And the ending? Littlefield steals it from Murder on the Orient Express. They all did it. Every suspect is guilty — including the Democrats who failed to defend poor women, and the pro-choice movement that didn’t fight hard enough for the most vulnerable. Since the Dobbs decision in 2022: 59 excess pregnancy-associated deaths, 500 additional infant deaths, 22,000 additional births. The numbers aren’t a Miss Marple mystery. The crime is ongoing. And Trump, who declared himself “very pro-choice” before he appointed the justices who drove the final nail in, is the ultimate opportunist — a fat, orange haired version of Hyde. Murder on the Abortion Express. They all did it. All the men, at least.
 
Five Takeaways

•       The Hyde Amendment Is Where the Crime Begins: 1976. A ban on federal funding of abortion. Poor women lost access first. Black women, women on Medicaid understood immediately. Democrats and mainstream pro-choice groups took longer to notice. By which time the playbook was established.
•       The Anti-Abortion Movement Stole the Language of Civil Rights: White conservatives who didn’t want to think about the harms of white supremacy found an escape valve: their own civil rights movement, with the fetus — almost always imagined as white — as the victim.
•       The Suspects Are Complicated. The Crime Is Not: Henry Hyde groped women during commercial breaks. Bob Bauman — closeted, adopted, alcoholic — identified with the unwanted fetus. Paul Herring tried to convert Littlefield to Catholicism. Complicated people, terrible consequences.
•       The Numbers Are Real: Since the Dobbs decision in 2022: 59 excess pregnancy-associated deaths. 500 additional infant deaths. 22,000 additional births. The crime is ongoing.
•       They All Did It: Littlefield steals her ending from Murder on the Orient Express. Every suspect is guilty — including the Democrats who failed to defend poor women, and the pro-choice movement that didn’t fight hard enough for the most vulnerable. All the men, at least.
 
About the Guest

Amy Littlefield is the abortion access correspondent at The Nation. Her new book is Killers of Roe: My Investigation into the Mysterious Death of Abortion Rights. She is based in Boston.
References:

•       Killers of Roe by Amy Littlefield — the book under discussion.
•       The Hyde Amendment (1976) — the ban on federal funding of abortion that first stripped access from poor women on Medicaid.
•       The Helms Amendment — Jesse Helms’ restriction on abortion funding abroad through USAID, leading to thousands of preventable deaths worldwide.
•       Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) — the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.
•       Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie — the structural model for Littlefield’s conclusion: they all did it.
About Keen On America

Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.
Website

Substack

YouTube

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

 
Chapters:

“It’s about blood. I cover a lot of bloodshed in the book, but I also talk about a different kind of blood: blood that ties, blood that binds families across time and distance.” — Jazmine Ulloa

Kristi Noem is gone. Under her tenure, 32 people died in ICE custody in 2025 — double the previous year’s toll. But Jazmine Ulloa, the New York Times’ national immigration reporter, doesn’t think much will change. Noem wasn’t really the point, she insists. The MAGA spectacle rolls on. Stephen Miller’s violently anti-immigrant agenda remains. And hysterical conservatives like Peter Schweizer are still writing books about how the Mexican government is “weaponizing” immigration by sending their people over the border.
Ulloa grew up three minutes from the Walmart where a self-proclaimed white supremacist drove nine hours from North Texas in August 2019, opened fire, and told an officer he was there to kill Mexicans. Her closest friend’s father escaped the parking lot as the shooting started. And it inspired her to write El Paso: Five Families and 100 Years of Blood, Migration, Race, and Memory — a chronicle of El Paso as the 21st century Ellis Island.
Her argument, made through five families over a century, is that El Paso is not an exception to America. It is America. Latino identity has always been American identity. The Southwest sat on Mexican land before it was American. The border was never a clean line — it was always a contested negotiation, shifting beneath the feet of families who crossed it for work, for survival, for birthday parties in Juárez. The “detention and deportation machine,” she is careful to note, was built by both parties over many decades. Trump didn’t invent it. He simply applied his scattershot cruelty to it.
What does feel new, Ulloa says, is how El Paso has become every American city — the same tactics long deployed at the border now rolling into Minneapolis and Chicago, snagging US citizens on the basis of how they look or how they speak. Some think this represents uncharted civil liberties territory. Border communities have been sounding this alarm for years, Ulloa notes. Nobody listened. Perhaps they will now.
Jazmine Ulloa’s El Paso is also, quietly, a love letter — to the city, to its 80% Hispanic population, to the corrido tradition, to a place where magical realism is not a literary device but a way of life. Ulloa wanted the prose to sound like your tío telling stories over coffee. “Borders or bridges?” is the question El Paso has always been answering for generations. Now America is asking the same question.
 
Five Takeaways

•       The Machine Predates Trump: The deportation and detention apparatus dominating today’s headlines was constructed under both Democratic and Republican administrations across many decades — a bipartisan inheritance that Trump has amplified but did not originate.
•       Noem’s Exit Changes Nothing: Relief crossed party lines when she was fired, but Ulloa is clear-eyed: Stephen Miller’s agenda remains intact, border crossings remain suppressed, and the same systemic challenges will persist under whoever takes over DHS.
•       El Paso Is America’s Ellis Island — and Its Mirror: The city, 80% Hispanic and straddling two nations, has long been the place where immigration policy is made in the flesh. American identity has always been a negotiation — never a fixed truth, always contested terrain.
•       Nativism Is Not an Aberration: From the Chinese Exclusion Acts to the KKK-backed Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, fear of the outsider has been a structural feature of US immigration policy — not a deviation from American values, but an uncomfortable expression of them.
•       The Border Is Moving Inward: What was once contained to border communities — racial profiling, mass sweeps, civil liberties erosions — is now spreading into the American heartland. What Ulloa sees as genuinely new is the response: ordinary citizens coming out in their pajamas to document it.
 
About the Guest

Jazmine Ulloa is the national immigration reporter for the New York Times. She is a former State House reporter for the Los Angeles Times and previously covered national politics for the Boston Globe. Her new book is El Paso: Five Families and 100 Years of Blood, Migration, Race, and Memory (Dutton/Penguin Random House, 2026). Born and raised in El Paso, she lives there now.
References:

•       El Paso: Five Families and 100 Years of Blood, Migration, Race, and Memory by Jazmine Ulloa (Dutton/Penguin Random House, 2026).
•       Episode 2830: So Are All Immigrants Manchurian Candidates? Peter Schweizer on Weaponizing Immigration — Schweizer’s conspiracy-inflected reading directly challenged by Ulloa.
•       The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 — the Coolidge-era immigration law, backed by the KKK, that used national-origin quotas to bar Southern and Eastern European and Asian immigration.
•       The El Paso Walmart massacre, August 3, 2019 — 23 people killed by a white supremacist who posted a manifesto echoing the “Great Replacement” theory.
•       One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez — the magical-realist tradition Ulloa draws on.
About Keen On America

Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.
Website

Substack

YouTube

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

 
Chapters: