Podcasts about etymologically

News; birthdays/events; a new twist on the morning alarm; word of the day. News; smartest dogs according to University of Helsinki study; game: mindtrap; is it wrong to laugh at someone when they bite it in public? (sfa). News; how long can you leave wet clothes in the washer?; game: The Godfather movie trivia; do you prefer to buy things new or are you ok with 'gently used items' in your house? News; best age in life to do things (Pew research); game: movies trivia; goodbye/fun facts....Scribble Day is all about celebrating the creativity and the art associated with scribbling, which anyone can do regardless of their artistic abilities. Scribbling is sometimes referred to as doodling and the terms are often used interchangeably but there is a slight underlying difference between both the acts and the origin of the words. The word scribble can be traced back to the Latin ‘scribere,' which actually means ‘to write'. To scribble is to write letters or words hastily, often in an illegible manner. Doodle, on the other hand, refers to drawing or amateur art. Etymologically, the word doodle is derived from the German ‘Dudeltopf' or ‘Dudeldop,' meaning ‘simpleton'.  it's not a distraction, as it's commonly thought to be. In fact, it improves cognitive functioning.

Transcript:Hello! This is Pastor Don of Christ Redeemer Church. Welcome to The Kingdom Perspective! The Bible presents the devil as a grumbler, always finding fault, always accusing. He's the poster child for the unhappy grump. Now, why is the devil so unhappy? Well, he's so unhappy because he's so ungrateful. He doesn't have a thankful bone in his body. He's utterly discontent. Nothing is ever good enough for him. Heaven and all the joys of God were not good enough for him! It wasn't fair enough. It wasn't equitable enough. It wasn't glorious enough. C.S. Lewis famously wrote: “Hell begins with a grumbling mood….” You see, grumbling is the devil's original recipe. The devil hops from relationship to relationship, from family to family, from office to office, from church to church—complaining, accusing, and grumbling. The Greek term for the “devil” is comprised of two words suggesting the idea to “launch” an attack that “pierces through”. Etymologically its related to the English word “ballistic”. The devil is the one who postures superiority and hurls insults, complaints, and accusations intended to pierce others and bring them down. And so, the devil is always finding fault, pointing fingers, and throwing stones. Slandering, maligning and condemning! He's a backbiter, liar, and malicious gossip—always bringing charges, rehearsing grievances, tearing others down to bring himself up. Not surprising, he's called the “accuser” of God's people (Job 1, Zechariah 9, and Revelation 12) Nothing is ever good enough for devil! Is it for you? Are you walking in the pattern of the grumbler, or are you leaning into an attitude of gratitude? Something to think about from The Kingdom Perspective. “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. The Lord said to Satan, ‘From where have you come?' Satan answered the Lord and said, ‘From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.' And the Lord said to Satan, ‘Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?' Then Satan answered the Lord and said, ‘Does Job fear God for no reason? Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.' And the Lord said to Satan, ‘Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.' So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.”~ Job 1:6-12 (ESV)

Catholic Church CatechismArticle 9 The Ninth CommandmentTHE NINTH COMMANDMENTYou shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.298 Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.2992514 St. John distinguishes three kinds of covetousness or concupiscence: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life.300 In the Catholic catechetical tradition, the ninth commandment forbids carnal concupiscence; the tenth forbids coveting another's goods.2515 Etymologically, "concupiscence" can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. the apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the "flesh" against the "spirit."301 Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man's moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.3022516 Because man is a composite being, spirit and body, there already exists a certain tension in him; a certain struggle of tendencies between "spirit" and "flesh" develops. But in fact this struggle belongs to the heritage of sin. It is a consequence of sin and at the same time a confirmation of it. It is part of the daily experience of the spiritual battle:For the Apostle it is not a matter of despising and condemning the body which with the spiritual soul constitutes man's nature and personal subjectivity. Rather, he is concerned with the morally good or bad works, or better, the permanent dispositions - virtues and vices - which are the fruit of submission (in the first case) or of resistance (in the second case) to the saving action of the Holy Spirit. For this reason the Apostle writes: "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit."303The ninth commandment in the Catholic Bible is "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's". The scripture for this commandment is Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21.   Here are some related Bible passages and Catholic teachings about the ninth commandment:  The sixth commandment The sixth commandment is "Thou shalt not commit adultery". The ninth commandment is related to the sixth commandment because both address the proper propagation of life.  Lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life St. John distinguishes three kinds of covetousness: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life. The tension between the “flesh” and the “spirit” The ninth commandment addresses the tension between the “flesh” and the “spirit”.  Purity of heart and temperance Purity of heart and temperance are crucial to overcoming lust of the flesh.  The good of community Coveting is related to the good of community. The Hebrew word for coveting The Hebrew word for coveting suggests not simply desire but desire that leads to action. 

Catholic Church CatechismArticle 9 The Ninth CommandmentTHE NINTH COMMANDMENTYou shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.298 Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.2992514 St. John distinguishes three kinds of covetousness or concupiscence: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life.300 In the Catholic catechetical tradition, the ninth commandment forbids carnal concupiscence; the tenth forbids coveting another's goods.2515 Etymologically, "concupiscence" can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. the apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the "flesh" against the "spirit."301 Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man's moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.3022516 Because man is a composite being, spirit and body, there already exists a certain tension in him; a certain struggle of tendencies between "spirit" and "flesh" develops. But in fact this struggle belongs to the heritage of sin. It is a consequence of sin and at the same time a confirmation of it. It is part of the daily experience of the spiritual battle:For the Apostle it is not a matter of despising and condemning the body which with the spiritual soul constitutes man's nature and personal subjectivity. Rather, he is concerned with the morally good or bad works, or better, the permanent dispositions - virtues and vices - which are the fruit of submission (in the first case) or of resistance (in the second case) to the saving action of the Holy Spirit. For this reason the Apostle writes: "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit."303The ninth commandment in the Catholic Bible is "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's". The scripture for this commandment is Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21.   Here are some related Bible passages and Catholic teachings about the ninth commandment:  The sixth commandment The sixth commandment is "Thou shalt not commit adultery". The ninth commandment is related to the sixth commandment because both address the proper propagation of life.  Lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life St. John distinguishes three kinds of covetousness: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life. The tension between the “flesh” and the “spirit” The ninth commandment addresses the tension between the “flesh” and the “spirit”.  Purity of heart and temperance Purity of heart and temperance are crucial to overcoming lust of the flesh.  The good of community Coveting is related to the good of community. The Hebrew word for coveting The Hebrew word for coveting suggests not simply desire but desire that leads to action. 

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these actions resulted in mass death. In total, Stalin is responsible for the murder of roughly 10 million Soviet citizens. Again, this is well established. What is not well established is what to call Stalin's crimes. As Norman Naimark points out in his thought-provoking Stalin's Genocides (Princeton UP, 2010), historians and others have been peculiarly conflicted about this issue. Everyone agrees it's mass murder. But is it “genocide,” with all that term entails? Etymologically, it doesn't seem so: gens is Latin for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. The Kulaks were not a gens. Historically, genocide doesn't fit well either: after World War II, the UN decided that it would mean “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial religious group, as such.” Again, the Kulaks are none of these things. Naimark, however, argues Stalin's crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First, he demonstrates that some of Stalin's attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, he demonstrates that international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition. Some might ask “What does it matter what we call it?” I think it matters a lot. Words are not only an interpretation of the world, but they are also a reflection of who we are. The words the Nazis used to describe their crimes–“final solution,” “transport to the East,” “special handling”–tell us much about them. The words the Stalinists used to describe their crimes–“purge,” “evacuation,” “re-education”–tell us much about them as well. And so we have to ask: What does our persistent failure to call Stalin's crimes “genocide” say about us? Nothing very good, I think. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven't already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/central-asian-studies

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these actions resulted in mass death. In total, Stalin is responsible for the murder of roughly 10 million Soviet citizens. Again, this is well established. What is not well established is what to call Stalin's crimes. As Norman Naimark points out in his thought-provoking Stalin's Genocides (Princeton UP, 2010), historians and others have been peculiarly conflicted about this issue. Everyone agrees it's mass murder. But is it “genocide,” with all that term entails? Etymologically, it doesn't seem so: gens is Latin for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. The Kulaks were not a gens. Historically, genocide doesn't fit well either: after World War II, the UN decided that it would mean “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial religious group, as such.” Again, the Kulaks are none of these things. Naimark, however, argues Stalin's crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First, he demonstrates that some of Stalin's attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, he demonstrates that international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition. Some might ask “What does it matter what we call it?” I think it matters a lot. Words are not only an interpretation of the world, but they are also a reflection of who we are. The words the Nazis used to describe their crimes–“final solution,” “transport to the East,” “special handling”–tell us much about them. The words the Stalinists used to describe their crimes–“purge,” “evacuation,” “re-education”–tell us much about them as well. And so we have to ask: What does our persistent failure to call Stalin's crimes “genocide” say about us? Nothing very good, I think. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven't already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

Monday, 26 August 2024   and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” Matthew 3:2   “and saying, ‘Reconsider! For it has neared – the kingdom of the heavens'” (CG).   In the previous verse, John the Baptist was introduced, noting that he came proclaiming in the wilderness of Judea. The words now continue with his message. He was proclaiming “and saying, ‘Reconsider!'”   The Greek verb metanoeó is introduced here. It is almost always translated as “repent,” a word that has such a different meaning in today's society that it is no longer acceptable as a translation. The word comes from meta, with, and noeó, to exercise the mind, such as in observing or comprehending. Thus, the word signifies “‘think differently after,' ‘after a change of mind'” (HELPS Word Studies).   It thus signifies a mental assertion that the thought process has been incorrect and needs to be adjusted. To get the sense, imagine being a Democrat who supports abortion, thinking that a woman's right to choose trumps the right to life that was generated in her womb. One day this person realizes that her stand is completely immoral and perverse. She then changes her mind about her stand.   It deals with the mind, not the actions. Any actions would follow from the change of mind but are not necessarily a required condition of that change. A person who mentally supports abortion but who never participated in an abortion and who will never face such a decision would not have any actions to back up the change of mind.   Ellicott says, “Etymologically, the word ‘repent,' which has as its root-meaning the sense of pain, is hardly adequate as a rendering for the Greek word, which implies change of mind and purpose. In the Greek version of the Old Testament, the word is used of divine rather than human repentance, i.e., of a change of purpose implying pity and regret.”   Cambridge says, “The original implies more than ‘feel sorrow or regret for sin,' it is rather ‘change the life, the heart, the motive for action.' It was a call to self-examination and reality of life.” Note: as long as “change the life” means a change in the inner disposition, this analysis is correct.   Bengel says, “A lovely word (see verses 8, 11), implying change your disposition, put on a disposition royal, heavenly, worthy the kingdom of heaven.”   Vincent's Word Studies says, “A word compounded of the preposition μετά [meta], after, with; and the verb νοέω [noeó], to perceive, and to think, as the result of perceiving or observing. In this compound the preposition combines the two meanings of time and change, which may be denoted by after and different; so that the whole compound means to think differently after. Μετάνοια (repentance [reconsideration]) is therefore, primarily, an after-thought, different from the former thought; then, a change of mind which issues in regret and in change of conduct. These latter ideas, however, have been imported into the word by scriptural usage, and do not lie in it etymologically nor by primary usage. Repentance, then, has been rightly defined as ‘Such a virtuous alteration of the mind and purpose as begets a like virtuous change in the life and practice.' Sorrow is not, as is popularly conceived, the primary nor the prominent notion of the word. Paul distinguishes between sorrow (λύπη) and repentance (μετάνοια), and puts the one as the outcome of the other. ‘Godly sorrow worketh repentance [reconsidering]' (2 Corinthians 7:10).” Note: Vincent's is careful to distinguish the actual meaning and its common use. Any change that takes place in a person is the result of the mental reconsideration, not a part of it.   Each of these explanations shows that a change in life follows, not precedes or is necessarily in conjunction with, a change of mind. Logically, it must be this way. Of this reconsideration, John the Baptist next says, “For it has neared – the kingdom of the heavens.”   The word “heavens” is plural, following the Hebrew word shamayim, heavens. This phrase is used many times by Matthew and is unique to his gospel. He is expressing the Hebrew thought, demonstrating that his epistle is particularly directed toward the Hebrew or Semitic mindset. Vincent's Word Studies does an excellent job of explaining the phrase –   “It is a kingdom of heaven because its origin, its end, its king, the character and destiny of its subjects, its laws, institutions, and privileges - all are heavenly. In the teaching of Christ and in the apostolic writings the kingdom of the Messiah is the actual consummation of the prophetic idea of the rule of God, without any national limitation, so that participation therein rests only on faith in Jesus Christ, and on the moral renewal which is conditioned by the same. It is the combination of all rights of Christian citizenship in this world, and eternal blessedness in the next. All its senses are only different sides of the same great idea - the subjection of all things to God in Christ.”   This is correct. His words “without any national limitation” mean exactly what Paul explains in Galatians –   “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise” Galatians 3:26-29   In this kingdom, such distinctions – even if there are these differences – are eliminated. This new economy in the redemptive scenario was coming. John the Baptist was the one to prepare the nation of Israel for the Messiah who would establish it.   Life application: Today, people use the word repentance in a manner that is synonymous with, “remove the sin from your life.” In other words, “You must do this before your salvation is realized.” This is an incorrect and harmful addition to the gospel based on a misinterpretation and misapplication of the word “repent,” which is now different from what it once meant.   The meaning of words often changes over time. For example, the words awesome and awful used to be essentially synonymous. However, this began to change. Now, awesome signifies something marvelous or wonderful while awful signifies something very bad, bordering on terrible.   This is what has happened to the word “repent” in the church today. It has been so misapplied that it no longer means to reconsider but to repair through action. The problem with this is that it makes the idea of repentance one of “fixing your life of sin before God will accept you.” That is not the biblical understanding of salvation. Though a descriptive passage, the account in Acts 10 reveals this –   “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.” Acts 10:44-46   Likewise, Paul says –   “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory.” Ephesians 1:13, 14   The process of salvation is to hear the word, believe it is so through reconsideration of who Jesus is and what He has done, or reconsideration of who God is and what He has done. The reconsideration is based upon past understanding and a new faith, not on a change in lifestyle. And change in lifestyle is subsequent to this change in mental thought.   Think it through – how many things are Christians to do or not to do as detailed in the epistles? The answer is “a lot.” However, there are those who have been in Christ for many years and who have never learned the Bible. They have not had a change in action even though they are saved.   Logically, one must know what pleases God before he can do it. Thus, to expect a change in action without even knowing what that change is cannot be a condition for salvation. Belief (faith alone) must be the only condition for salvation. To say otherwise is to present a false gospel. If you are presenting a false gospel you must reconsider!   Lord God, may we be careful to never add to the gospel of our salvation as we proclaim it to others. What we are asked for is faith in what Christ has done, not in what we must do. Once we believe, we can spend whatever time it takes to then be obedient to the things laid out in Your word. Help us, Lord, to not assume we can merit our salvation through our own deeds. Amen.  

Title: King Herod's Demise Text: Acts 12:18-25 FCF: We often struggle trusting the Lord because we doubt that He is truly in control. Prop: Because God's Sovereign hand destroys the wicked and rescues the righteous, we must trust Him in all things. Scripture Intro: [Slide 1] Turn in your bible to Acts chapter 12. In a moment I'll begin reading from the Legacy Standard Bible beginning in verse 18. You can follow along in the version of your preference. Last week we saw the miraculous release of Peter from prison. We noted God's ability to save and keep saving His people. He is able to do abundantly more than we can ask or think and has given us great promises. While we saw that He doesn't always protect us from physical harm or even death, we do know that He sometimes does rescue us from these and will ultimately deliver us safely into His Kingdom. Today, we will continue this thread in what could be a part two of the previous sermon. Today we will see the further defeat and ultimate demise of Herod along with the success of God's people despite Herod's efforts to undo them. It is the thrilling conclusion to this episode where the united church has faced great peril and triumphantly endured. Stand with me out of respect for and to focus on the reading of the Word of God. Invocation: Father, in our distress, we call upon you Lord; to You we cry for help. From Your temple, hear our voice; may our cry reach Your ears. We long to meet You and commune with Your Spirit and be nourished by Your Word today. Our afflictions are great, but You are greater. Mercifully visit us in our need, we pray. In Jesus name. Amen. Transition: We have much to get to today. Let's dive right into the text. I.) God sovereignty puts to shame the wisdom and power of wicked men, so we must trust Him in all things. (18-19) a. [Slide 2] 18 - Now when day came, there was no small disturbance among the soldiers as to what had become of Peter. i. Remembering the miraculous circumstances of Peter's escape, we can imagine the pandemonium that was the next morning. ii. Further proving my point that Peter's guards did not merely fall asleep, nor were they negligent, but they did, in fact, remain alert and vigilant through the night – we see here that they struggle to understand exactly what had become of Peter. iii. Had they fallen asleep or been negligent, they certainly would have known at least some of what had become of him. iv. But here is what I imagine happened. v. Probably sometime after the fourth watch began, Peter escaped. vi. So, when the day shift came to relieve the fourth watch at around 6am, they came into the cell to find two guards dutifully standing next to the prison bed. vii. At which point the day shift point to the bed and ask… “where is the prisoner?” viii. At that point the guards look down and realize that they are chained to air and are guarding an empty bed. ix. It would all be very hilarious if it didn't end so poorly for these guards. We'll get to that. x. In any case there is no doubt that following this realization they commenced a lock down, a search, and after no doubt several minutes… a message sent to Herod, that his prize – you know, the one who was supposed to be executed in a few hours - had escaped. And no one knows how. b. [Slide 3] 19 - And when Herod had searched for him and had not found him, he examined the guards and ordered that they be led away to execution. i. Although Luke is sparing with the details, we can surmise that Herod began searching all of Jerusalem for Peter. ii. After all, what was sure to be a very public and immensely popular execution now threatens to be an extremely public embarrassment to him. iii. Nevertheless, Herod cannot find him. We have no idea how long Herod searched. It could have been hours or even weeks. But Peter made himself scarce in Jerusalem. And Herod could not discover him. iv. After this, Herod sought to blame someone for this outrage. Probably as a way to save face with the Jewish people. Poor leaders always seek to blame others for their failures. Herod is no exception. v. Herod questions the guards, no doubt all 16, looking to reconstruct every moment of the evening in which Peter escaped. vi. No doubt Herod was not thrilled with or convinced by the guard's explanation of the events. 1. “Well sir, you see, I honestly thought he was still in chains. I neither saw nor heard nor felt any thing to the contrary. I swear I did not fall asleep and I swear I could even hear him snoring.” 2. Would you believe them if you were Herod? I know I wouldn't. vii. So, Herod has them executed. viii. 2 thoughts concerning their execution. 1. First, there was an existing Roman law that stated that if a prisoner escaped, the guards would pay for it with their lives. a. Not being a true Roman, Herod would not necessarily need to follow such a law, but as we said, someone has to pay for this. It might as well be the guards who let him escape. b. We don't know if Herod executed all 16 or just those who were on watch while he escaped. c. Was Herod just to punish these soldiers in this way? Such a question is difficult to answer. But we won't go down that rabbit trail this morning. Why? d. Because there is an even more important question we must answer concerning the justice or injustice of these men's execution. 2. [Slide 4] Was God unjust in the death of these men? a. The easy answer is… no… God was not unjust here. Why? Because God is Just. That is an attribute He possess. Which means that everything He does is Just. b. But wait a moment… although that is the right answer… let's first hear the case against God. Because it seems to be a strong one. c. Number 1, God certainly knew this law of the Romans and knew that it was at least a possibility if not a probability that these soldiers would die so Peter could go free. God knew Herod well enough to know that his embarrassment would certainly lead to repercussions for the guards. In short, God, being all-knowing, means He cannot have been ignorant of what could have happened to the soldiers. d. Number 2, Acts so far has emphasized the Sovereignty of God to do as He wishes. This opens up two difficult things for us. i. First, if God is Sovereign to do as He wills… could He not have taken Peter in a way that would not have led to these men's deaths? 1. What about at the trial? Could God have simply picked him up and carried him several miles away like He did with Phillip? 2. What if during his execution he was not able to die? Like the 3 Hebrew boys in Babylon or like tradition says John was boiled in oil and escaped unscathed. 3. We believe that God is all powerful. There is nothing within His will that He cannot do. Nor does he strain to do what He desires. He could have rescued Peter in a thousand different ways that did not end with the death of these men. ii. Second, since God is Sovereign, wouldn't He have more than just known that these men COULD be killed? 1. Doesn't God's Sovereignty extend beyond knowing the possibility of things to knowing the certainty of things? 2. Doesn't God claim to have appointed each man a day to die and then be judged? 3. This is more than knowing the possibility of when a man could die. 4. This is even more than knowing the certainty of when a man will die. 5. This is decreeing, ordering, appointing the exact moment of when a man will die. 6. We confessed this this very morning about God's Decree. 7. That means that these men died directly because of what God did to save Peter. 8. God killed them. Furthermore, God decreed this as their death day. This is premediated murder, right? e. [Slide 5] So, we come back to the question. Did God show injustice? Well, we know that God is Just, meaning that everything He does is Just. So, if we think that an injustice has occurred, our only available option is that our sense what is Just… is broken. i. So, let's go down that rabbit hole for a second. How could our sense of justice be flawed to accommodate for God choosing to kill these soldiers in order to save His apostle, yet remaining just in doing so? 1. As is true of so many other problems of false teaching and thinking… it comes down to anthropology. Our understanding of mankind. 2. We look at the events here and we see men who didn't do anything deserving death. God actually prevented them from doing their job which ultimately led to their death. We assume that this makes them innocent. 3. But all men deserve to die and be judged bearing the wrath of God for their sin. The fact that these soldiers lived to an age old enough to be guards at a prison is an act of mercy from the Lord. ii. God is not unjust to take human life in order to accomplish His will. He created it, and sinners deserve death both physical and eternal, for their sin. 1. That is why Jesus had to die. Because that is what every single predestined member of the bride of Christ had earned. He was our substitute. Our scapegoat. He took our place. He bore God's wrath for us. 2. If we do not consider THIS to be unjust of God – to bear our wrath Himself – then we ought not consider God unjust when he allows or even appoints others to inherit the consequences of their sin. f. The bottom line is that we are all God's to do with as He pleases. g. We are quite fortunate that God is also Good and shows common grace and mercy to all men and special grace to His people. c. [Slide 6] Then he went down from Judea to Caesarea and was spending time there. i. Herod leaves Judea and goes “down” to Caesarea. ii. Caesarea is north of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is on a mountain top though. So everywhere is down from Judea. iii. But why did Herod leave Jerusalem? iv. Well, we aren't told, but perhaps the execution of the soldiers did not do enough to offset the shame of losing Peter. v. Caesarea is a much wealthier and more affluent area with a better palace. It is most likely that this was where He chose to move his base of operations after this embarrassing event. d. [Slide 7] Summary of the Point: In this point we see that God's Sovereign hand puts to shame the power and wisdom of wicked men. God took Herod from being potentially the most popular King in Israel since his grandfather Herod the Great, to being a laughingstock overnight. Not only could Herod not keep Peter. He couldn't find him after losing him either. In this, God made Herod look quite foolish. So, what does that mean for us? Although no command is given in the text, it is not difficult to surmise what it might require of us in knowing these things of our God. Only Trust Him. Yes? If God's Sovereign hand can easily put to shame the power and wisdom of wicked men, if God mocks the wicked, even though they be powerful and wealthy, giants among men… then we can trust Him in all things. Physical or Spiritual. Transition: [Slide 8 (blank)] What else does God's Sovereign hand do that earns our trust? How else has God demonstrated His control over all things and how does that motivate us to trust Him? II.) God's sovereignty raises up and destroys rulers, so we must trust Him, in all things. (20-23) a. [Slide 9] 20 - Now he was very angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; i. Looking back through extra biblical history we aren't really sure exactly what was going on in this event. ii. We do know that this occurs in AD 44 because Luke is giving us a record of Herod Agrippa the First's death. iii. Most likely this occurs in August of that year meaning this is approximately 5 months after the escape of Peter which occurred during Passover which would have been in March. iv. But no one is really sure what happened between Herod and the people of Tyre and Sidon. v. We do know that Herod was very angry with these people. We are just unsure why although it seems to be related to economics and potentially politics. b. [Slide 10] and with one accord they came to him, and having won over Blastus the king's chamberlain, they were asking for peace, because their country was fed by the king's country. i. The two cities sent delegates to Herod seeking peace with him. ii. We learn from this verse that Herod's country (Judea and Samaria) is responsible for vital trade to Tyre and Sidon. iii. In reality this has always been true of Tyre and Sidon. We read about their need to trade with Israel even as far back as I and II Kings. iv. No doubt different grains, which would not grow well along the coast, would be present in Galilee and other regions that Herod controlled. v. Since there was trouble and Tyre and Sidon made Herod angry, we can assume he probably set up some kind of trade embargo. vi. Now they wish to reestablish peace and restore trade. vii. We are told that they had been able to win over Herod's chamberlain. It is difficult to parse out what a Chamberlain did exactly. Etymologically it is someone who watches over the bed. Basically, a keeper of the private life of the King. viii. However, at this time this role may have taken a much more influential position. Almost as a personal advisor to the King. ix. There is some debate as to whether “win over” means that they bribed Blastus or merely convinced him. x. In either case, Herod's ear is bent to hear these delegates' pleas for peace. c. [Slide 11] 21 - And on an appointed day Herod, having put on his royal apparel and sitting on the judgment seat, began delivering an address to them. i. At first the relationship with the events of verse 21 and the events preceding is a bit muddled. ii. Theophilus would have remembered this day well enough to not have the details spelled out for him clearly. iii. For us we must do a little digging. iv. A feast and celebration in honor of Herod's benefactor and current emperor of Rome, Claudius, had been arranged for some time. v. This probably occurred on Claudius' birthday, August 1st. vi. It was at this celebration that Herod agreed to sit in judgment and deliver an address to the people of Tyre and Sidon. vii. It would be here that he would render a verdict concerning the trade arrangements between his country and theirs. viii. Josephus, the well-known Jewish Historian records for us that Herod Agrippa the First's royal robes were made of silver weave. ix. Meaning he would have literally glittered and shimmered in the sun as he sat in judgment over the people. d. [Slide 12] 22 - And the assembly kept crying out, “The voice of a god and not of a man!” i. After studying Herod Agrippa the First for the last few weeks, and understanding him from history, it is abundantly clear that he was an excellent politician. And yes, I mean that in the worst way possible. ii. He was drunk on power and prestige. He loved having influence over and the admiration of the people. And he knew how to manipulate people to get what he desired. iii. He appears as a spectacle to behold, and sits on the judgment seat to decide the fate of two enormous cities. iv. Josephus adds to what Luke has said, describing how the people asked him for mercy and favor. And imbued him with divine qualities. Now such descriptions and titles would not be uncommon for Gentile people to give to their rulers. v. For thousands of years, Gentile Kings of various degrees considered themselves gods or at least demigods. vi. But Herod was not a Gentile, was he? vii. No. He was a Jew. And a good Jew at that. viii. He affirmed the Pharisee Party who would have considered the text from Isaiah 45:5-6 to be given by God as binding Scriptures – “I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me, that they may know from the rising of the setting of the sun that there is no one besides Me. I am Yahweh, and there is no other. “ ix. He affirmed the 10 commandments, the first three of which warn against polytheism or elevating any creature to godhood or demigodhood. x. As a good Jew, who knows and believes these things, what ought to have been Herod's response to the repeated statement “He has the voice of a god and not a man!”? xi. How about, “Silence! I am just a man like you!” He should have said what Peter said to Cornelius when he fell at Peter's feet to venerate him. xii. Stand up! I am just a man! xiii. But… He didn't. xiv. He drank his own koolaid. xv. And for that… not for harming, executing, and imprisoning God's church… but for not refusing blasphemous worship… God did something. e. [Slide 13] 23 - And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, i. He knew better. ii. To whom much is given, much is required. iii. The Lord gave His law to Israel. And all who had been taught under that law were held accountable for what they had received. iv. Herod knew better than to receive this worship. He started believing his own propaganda. And that was it for him. v. God, for the second time in this chapter, sends an angel. And for the second time in this chapter an angel strikes someone. vi. But this time, the only thing awoken by the angel's strike… are worms. f. [Slide 14] and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last. i. Luke's editorial summarization of this event could lead us to believe that Herod died immediately. ii. However, Luke doesn't actually say that at all. iii. Looking at Josephus we learn that during the celebration Herod doubled over and collapsed because of extreme abdominal pains. He was taken from the festival and spent the next 5 days in agony until he eventually died. iv. Some scholars suggest that the statement “eaten by worms” is a hyperbolic expression to refer to the death of a tyrant. v. But I find their arguments less than convincing. vi. It seems like the best explanation is to take what Luke has said here at face value. vii. Herod was, over a period of 5 days, slowly eaten alive from the inside out by parasites. viii. Herod, another enemy of the church and blasphemer of God, was dead. g. [Slide 15] Summary of the Point: Pharoah, Og, Sennacherib, Belshazzar, Herod Agrippa the First, and an untold number of other Kings, have met their demise at the direct hand of Yahweh because they blasphemed Him. He is God and there is no other. He will not allow blasphemies against Him to go unchecked. Notice how God did not kill Herod for persecuting His church. God gives mercy, even to evil and wicked kings who do wicked things but do not blaspheme. But Herod accepting worship as a demigod, this would not be tolerated. God sovereignty raises and lowers leaders. He puts Leaders in their place and He can take them out of their place. Again, what does this mean for us? We must trust Him. If something as big as rulers being raised and lowered from power is in His hands… we must trust Him in all things. In our day to day and for our eternity. Transition: [Slide 16(blank)] But there is one more reason from this text that we must trust the Lord. We've seen two, somewhat negative reasons. He exercises His sovereignty to embarrass and even destroy leaders who stand in His way. This fosters our trust. But what else does He do, positively, that encourages us to trust Him completely? III.) God's sovereignty protects, provides for, grows and sustains His people, so we must trust Him in all things. 3 (24-25) a. [Slide 17] 24 - But the word of the Lord continued to grow and to be multiplied. i. Despite Herod's efforts to subdue and inhibit the church, the word of God continued to be spread and the church grew. ii. Although this says that the word of the Lord grew… we should understand this as a shorthand way of saying that the gospel's influence and power grew. Ie. The church. iii. The true church advanced. An unstoppable force that goes on undaunted. iv. Persecution only spreads it. Hardship only deepens it. Hatred only validates it. Trouble only purifies it. And unconditional sacrificial love characterizes it. v. The church… is united and triumphant. b. [Slide 18] 25 - And Barnabas and Saul returned to Jerusalem, fulfilling their ministry, i. There is a textual problem here that unfortunately we don't have the time to cover. I only mention it to affirm to those who might check up on me that I know its there.

Tune into this 4th episode of a 10 Part series, "Designer's Digest” with @chitrav89 (Chitra Vishwanath) - Principal Architect and Managing Director of BIOME Environment Solutions (@biomearchitecture) This series is created by Audiogyan in partnership with @godrejdesignlab Designer's Digest series is about Design as a profession, it's daily grind, the secrets to climbing the design career ladder, and what edge we'll need to thrive in the captivating world of design.   Chitra Vishwanath is an Indian architect based in Bengaluru who works on themes related to ecology and architecture. She has been running her own architectural firm since 1991, working with other architects on many projects of all sizes. She is currently the Principal Architect and Managing Director of BIOME Environment Solutions. She firmly believes that the true essence of a remarkable firm lies in the gradual fading of its founder's individual prominence. The establishment of a firm is influenced not only by the founder's drive but also by various contextual factors. Chitra cannot be solely identified as Chitra Vishwanath without acknowledging the integral role of Biome. Similarly, Biome's existence in its current capacity is inseparable from the contributions of her colleagues. BIOME has been involved in more than 700 projects encompassing the construction of buildings of all sizes and water harvesting and sanitation structures with specific relevance to the ecology of the sites. With earth as a basic material input in construction, BIOME has designed and built many structures. We'll be talking about ecological architecture in today's episode. Questions We often use “architect” as a word who guides, designs, and oversees. Etymologically as well, it's derived from arkhi-, chief + tekton, builder - chief builder. Who according to you is an architect? What constitutes an ecological architecture? Could you talk about the 4 aspects of architecture from your TEDx talk, resourceful spaces, designing construction systems, water and waste management? Maybe by taking an example of one of the many schools you have built. What is Maximise to minimize? Good design is no design at all, right? How do you strive to create a positive impact while building structures? What are the key principles and values you live by? What should be / can be the index/metric of good ecological architecture? Why? What according to you is the biggest role of architects in India, given the current time? Over the last 31 years, you have grown to 31 member strong team. Seems a conscious choice to stay lean. Why? You have a lot of Junior architects on the team. What are their primary job responsibilities? For Biome, every project is a test bed for developing a collaborative multidisciplinary approach grounded in informed decisions. How does Biome onboard, execute, and deliver any project? Where and how are Junior architects involved? What do you expect from them? What according to you is a good measure of an ecologically sensitive outlook in a student or junior architect entering this field of architecture? What kind of architects do we need for India's future? What tips/suggestions would you like to give young architects? Reference Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chitra_Vishwanath https://www.instagram.com/chitrav89/?hl=en https://www.biome-solutions.com/about-us/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/chitra-vishwanath-8513593/?originalSubdomain=in https://www.archdaily.com/tag/chitra-vishwanath https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMiekG0IJfM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41tlOqU-6PM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlf3TyKdcAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EviAtiqoLTE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlwbK-ybQX0 https://dev.earth-auroville.com/chitra-vishwanath-architects/ https://www.e-coexist.com/mailchimp/building-small-chitra-vishwanath.html https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/know-your-architects/a686-chitra-vishwanath-creating-an-ecofriendly-way-of-living/ https://medium.com/@ar.aesha/ar-chitra-vishwanath-and-her-design-philosophy-282b64a99f83 https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/case-studies/a5644-the-paper-workshop-by-chitra-vishwanath-architectural-semantics-with-vernacularism/ https://www.facebook.com/chitra.vishwanath.3/ https://www.instagram.com/biomearchitecture/ https://www.biome-solutions.com/ https://audiogyan.com/2022/01/10/design-of-wells/    

Content warning for discussion of genocide and mention of suicide. Hey, Hi, Hello, this is the History Wizard and welcome back for Day 6 of Have a Day w/ The History Wizard. Thank you to everyone who tuned in for Day 5 last week, and especially thank you to everyone who rated and/or reviewed the podcast. I hope you all learned something last week and I hope the same for this week. This week we're going to, finally, be stepping outside of the Western sphere of influence and migrating over towards Jin Dynasty China to learn about an event that is sometimes known as the Upheaval of the Five Barbarians. This refers to the genocide of many non-Han tribes from China that took place in the beginning of the 4th century CE. As always, we will start with that most important of set dressings, context. The thing that, without, all of history would just be one shot DnD stories told around a table. But before even that, let's talk about the word barbarian. Etymologically the word barbarian comes to us from the Greek word barbar, meaning a non-Greek person or someone who didn't speak ancient Greek. Meaning that, technically, we are all barbarians. In a more modern context the word has a far more pejorative connotation. It's used in the same contexts as words like savages or uncivilized. It becomes an inherently stigmatizing term. One designed to make the people being referred to by it inherently lesser than those using it. The is one of our first instances of dehumanization being used in a historic genocide. The Romans didn't see the Carthaginians as animals or subhuman, merely as a threat to the Roman way of life and to Roman hegemony over the Mediterranean. Pontus didn't see the Romans as barbarians or savages, merely a threat to Pontus's control over Asia Minor. But the Five Barbarian Tribes? They were inherently less. They were, to be sure, a threat to Jin dynastic control over China, but more than that, they weren't Han Chinese, and so they were ethnically inferior. The Jin Dynasty emerged from the chaos and turmoil of the Three Kingdoms Period. Following the end of the Han Dynasty the Three Kingdoms of Cao Wei, Shu Han, and Eastern Wu dominated China from 220 to 280 CE. The Sima clan from the Cao Wei kingdom rose to prominence in 249 CE after staging a coup against the Cao clan. By 263 Sima Yi had conquered both the kingdom of Cao Wei and the Kingdom of Shu Han. Sima Yi would die in 265 CE, but his son Sima Yan would go on to conquer the kingdom of Eastern Wu in 280 CE, uniting China once again and declaring himself the first emperor of the Jin Dynasty. Sima Yan would die 10 years later, in 290 CE and would be called Emperor Wu, the Martial Emperor of Jin, posthumously. The death of Emperor Wu would spark a succession war that would come to be known as the War of the Eight Princes, and it would be within the context of this war that the Upheaval of the Five Barbarians would occur. See, after Emperor Wu died he was succeeded by his son, Sima Zhong, also known as Emperor Hui. Hui was developmentally disabled. We don't know the exact nature of his disability, but records show that, while he could read and write just fine, he was unable to make traditionally logical decisions on his own. So, despite ruling as emperor for 17 years, Emperor Hui never exercised any real authority on his own, instead coming under the control of 9 different regents over the course of his reign. It was because of Emperor Hui's disabilities and the relative ease with which he could be controlled by a regent that the War of the Eight Princes began in earnest. The War of the Eight Princes, which lasted from 290 until 306 CE is somewhat akin to the Hundred YEars War in that it was not an extended period of continuous fighting. It was stretches of relative peace, interspersed with massive amounts of lethal violence that saw shifts in power each time. First, after Emperor Wu died he named his father in law Yang Jun, and the Prince of Ru'nan, Sima Liang, as coregents of his second son, Sima Zhong. Yang Jun though didn't want to share power and managed to get Sima Liang sent away from court to Xucheng, leaving himself in sole control over the imperial court. Yang Jun, however, was wildly unpopular and was soon deposed by Jia Nanfeng, the new Empress of Jin and Sima Liang, who became the first of the Eight Princes in this war. The rest were Sima Wei, Sima Lun, SIma Jiong, Sima Ai (sometimes written as Sima Yi), Sima Ying, Sima Yong, and Sima Yue. All of these men were rulers over certain administrative zones within the control of the Jin Dynasty and some of them, like Sima Wei, ruled for just days before being captured and killed by other princes. The third prince, Sima Lun, was the tutor of the crown prince, son of Sima Zhong, Sima Yu. Empress Jia, fearing a loss of her own power should Sima Yu come of age and inherit the throne had him arrested. This led some Chinese government officials to reach out to Sima Lun to gain his aid in overthrowing the Empress, who had been ruling as regent since Sima Wei had been executed. Lun not only captured the Empress, but also forced her to commit suicide by making her drink gold powdered wine. Sima Lun gaining control of the regency caused many of the other princes to join forces Sima Jiong, who had been discontented by his position in the government following the overthrow of Empress Jia and sent to Xuchang, Sima Ying, and Sima Yong. Sima Ying joined with Sima Jiong after the latter declared rebellion against Sima Lun, and Sima Yong was originally on the side of Sima Lun, but defected to the other side once he realized that Sima Jiong and Ying had a larger and more powerful army. Sima Lun was defeated in relatively short order, and much like Empress Jia, was forced to commit suicide. Once Emperor Hui was reinstated on the throne he declared a grand celebration in the form of a five day, non stop, drinking binge. The emperor's drink of choice was likely wine or a fermented spirit called baijiu which is made from sorghum. SIma Jiong was eventually betrayed by his allies Sima Ying and Yong and was killed by his own troops. It was actually Sima Ai who captured the capital after Sima Jiong death, but he elected to share authority with his brother, Sima Ying. Ying wasn't happy about this though and colluded with Sima Yong to try and have Sima Ai assassinated, though this plot would fail. War would once again break out between SIma Ai and Sima Ying and Yong, only this time SIma Ai would ultimately fall to his brother and Sima Yong.  Sima Yue, the Prince of Donghai, eventually rebelled against SIma Ying, and though being defeated was appointed to the preposition ot Grand Tutor to try and make peace between the two sides. This peace wouldn't last as in 305 SIma Yue would raise troops against SIma Yong. Yue would ultimately be victorious over both Ying and Yong and would rule as the last regent before Emperor Hui died on January 8, 307 CE after eating poisoned bread. There is some debate over whether or not Sima Yue was responsible for the Emperor's death. But, after Emperor Hui died he was succeeded by his brother, Sima Chi, known as Emperor Huai. Huai needed no regent, and so ruled in his own right. Though he would oversee the loss of much of the Jin Dynasty's territory following the Upheaval. Now, so far we've talked a lot about princes, but very little about Barbarians. So now it's time to shift our focus. Both of these events happened roughly concurrently, and while there was certainly some overlap between them, they were two different events. The Five Barbarians was a name applied to various nomadic tribes later in history. Those tribes being the Xiongnu, the Jie, the Xianbei, the Qiang, and the Di. All of these tribes (although the Xiongnu is technically a tribal confederation) are also often referred to under the exonym Hu. Now, various tribes and tribal confederacies had been immigrating into China since the later days of the Han Dynasty, and while relations between these tribes and the people of China wasn't always sunshine and roses it was good enough that these peoples could live together. With China being thrown into chaos by the Three Kingdoms Period and the War of the Eight Princes many of the tribes went into rebellion. And so in 304 CE, before the War of the Eight Princes even ended, China entered the Sixteen Kingdoms period as various, often short lived, dynastic kingdoms were founded in the northern parts of China. As one might expect, the Jin Dynasty refused to accept these new kingdoms as distinct from it, and it also refused to accept them as political equals. For example, envoys from the Shi Zhao dynasty, an ethnically Jie dynasty ruled over by Shi Le, a man who had once been an indentured farmer before rising to power during Liu Yuan's rebellion that established the Han Zhao dynasty, were expelled and all of their gifts they brought for Sima Chi were burnt. You might be wondering what all of the 16 kingdoms were, well The term "Sixteen Kingdoms" was first used by the 6th-century historian Cui Hong in the Spring and Autumn Annals of the Sixteen Kingdoms and refers to the five Liangs (Former, Later, Northern, Southern and Western), four Yans (Former, Later, Northern, and Southern), three Qins (Former, Later and Western), two Zhaos (Han/Former and Later), Cheng-Han and Xia. There was even a brief period between 376 and 383 when the Former Qin dynasty reunited all of northern China. In 386 Northern China would be fully reunited under the Northern Wei dynasty and by 420 southern China was fully reunited under the Liu Song dynasty, but to find our genocide we actually need to go a little further back in time. We've drifted too far forward. We now find ourselves in the Later Zhao dynasty, also known as the Shi Zhao dynasty. Remember that Shi Le was part of one of the Five Barbarian tribes. He was of Jie ethnicity. Shi Le and his adoptive brother Shi Hu had long standing habits and traditions of adopting other people into their clans. Bringing into the family through law, if not necessarily by blood. One such man was Ran Zhan, an ethnically Han man who would be adopted under the name Shi Min. Shi Min gained power over the Shi Zhao dynasty through the methods you might expected after listening to everything else in this episode. He lied, cheated, and staged a coup. While in control of the Shi Zhao dynasty, Shi Min survived no fewer than three assassination attempts in the first year of his rule. This lead Shi Min to conclude that he couldn't trust any of his followers, but he was especially wary of the Jie and the various other tribes as they were refusing to fall in line with his edicts. See, Shi Min, in his paranoia ordered that all Hu people be disarmed and be banned from carrying weapons (disarmament of a particular segment of the population is often an initial step towards genocide as it prevents them from being able to fight back when you ultimately decide to kill them.) When non-Chinese tribes began to flee the capital city of Ye, Shi Min realized that he would not be able to use the Hu, so he issued an order (this is generally referred to as a culling order) to the ethnic Chinese according to which each civil servant who killed one Hu and brought his head to him would be promoted in rank by three degrees, and a military officer would be transferred to the service at his Supreme Command. Shi Min himself led Chinese in killing the Hu people without regard for sex or age; during the day tens of thousands of heads were severed. In total over 200 thousand people were killed; their bodies were dumped outside the city. Troop commanders in various parts of the state received a rescript from Shi Min to kill the Hus; as a result half of the people with high noses and bushy beards were killed. Among the 200,000 people who died in the massacre many were in fact ethnic Chinese who had high big noses, deep-set eyes and thick full beards, which in combination were considered to be the indicators of non-Hanness. This brings us an important point when talking about genocides which is, how do perpetrators identify their victim groups? Well, the simple answer is, they don't. In most cases the identifying features or characteristics that perpetrators use are arbitrary and are not particular to one group of people. The Nazis misidentified thousands of people as Jewish based solely on the size and shape of their nose or whether or not they were circumcised. I, myself, have been misidentified as Jewish by neo Nazis on the internet because of the size of my nose. Shi Min chose a big nose and a full beard as distinctly “barbarian” features, completely ignoring that many ethnically Han people would share those features. There is no logic in how genocidal regimes operate. Never was, never will be. Another thing I want to highlight is the use of the word cull when referring to the orders Shi Min gave in 349 CE. Words like cull or purge can be seen often when discussing genocide. You will find euphemism in all aspects of genocide. Now, obviously the word genocide didn't exist in 349 CE, so there was no way to call it that, but words like purge or cull are designed to be clinical and detached from the act of killing. There's no direct call to murder, or slaughter, or massacre. There's a call to cull the divisive, lesser, elements from our society. This allows people to remove themselves by one step from the violence they are about to commit. It doesn't change facts, it doesn't make something any less of a genocide, but it does make it easier for people to be convinced to carry one out. That's it for this week folks. Thanks so much for tuning in and sticking around. We have some more reviews to read this week, so let's get right to that. Thank you all so much, and now for the outro Have a Day! w/ The History Wizard is brought to you by me, The History Wizard. If you want to see/hear more of me you can find me on Tiktok @thehistorywizard or on Instagram @the_history_wizard. Please remember to rate, review, and subscribe to Have a Day! On your pod catcher of choice. The more you do, the more people will be able to listen and learn along with you. Thank you  for sticking around until the end and, as always, Have a Day

My links: My patreon: ⁠https://www.patreon.com/user?u=103280827 My Ko-fi: https://ko-fi.com/rhetoricrevolution Send me a voice message!: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/liam-connerly TikTok: ⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@mrconnerly?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc⁠ Email: ⁠rhetoricrevolution@gmail.com⁠ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/connerlyliam/ Podcast | Latin in Layman's - A Rhetoric Revolution https://open.spotify.com/show/0EjiYFx1K4lwfykjf5jApM?si=b871da6367d74d92 Gut Guardian Discount Code: https://www.feelgoods.co/discount/LIAM64728 "Pathos" (-pathy) is a Greek word that means "suffering" or "experience/feeling." Here are some words that are derived from it: Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. Etymologically, "empathy" comes from the Greek "empatheia," which means "passion" or "state of emotion." Sympathy: feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune. Etymologically, "sympathy" comes from the Greek "sympatheia," which means "feeling with someone else." “sym-/syl-/syn-” = “together/with” syllable  Synonym “Homo” - “same”;  homonym- Bat (baseball) Bat (creature) Pathetic: evoking feelings of pity, sadness, or sorrow. Etymologically, "pathetic" comes from the Greek "pathetikos," which means "capable of feeling." Pathology: the study of diseases and their effects. Etymologically, "pathology" comes from the Greek "pathologia," which means "study of suffering." -OLOGY;  Biology - “the study of life” Scientology - “the study of knowing”  Science Conscientious - “with what's known” Con-artist Connotation Connect - “bound with/together” Apathy: lack of interest, enthusiasm, or emotion. Etymologically, "apathy" comes from the Greek "apatheia," which means "freedom from suffering." “a-/ab” - “without” + “feeling”  Antipathy: a strong feeling of dislike or aversion towards someone or something. Comes from the Greek roots "anti" (against) and "pathos." Pathetic fallacy: a literary device in which inanimate objects are given human emotions or characteristics to reflect the mood of a scene. Comes from the Greek roots "pathos" and "phallos" (deception). Empathetic: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. Comes from the Greek roots "em" (in) and "pathos." Pathogen: a bacterium, virus, or other microorganism that can cause disease. Comes from the Greek roots "pathos" and "gen" (to produce). Genos (n.) - “type,class,clan” Generation Geneology Gender Pathognomonic: a symptom or sign that is characteristic of a particular disease. Comes from the Greek roots "pathos" and "gnomon" (indicator). Sympathetic: showing or feeling concern for someone else's suffering. Comes from the Greek roots "syn" (together) and "pathos." Apathetic: showing or feeling no interest, enthusiasm, or concern. Comes from the Greek roots "a" (not) and "pathos." These words all have their roots in the Greek word "pathos," but they have taken on different meanings and connotations over time. Despite their differences, they all share a common thread of emotion and feeling

My links: My patreon: ⁠https://www.patreon.com/user?u=103280827 My Ko-fi: https://ko-fi.com/rhetoricrevolution Send me a voice message!: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/liam-connerly TikTok: ⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@mrconnerly?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc⁠ Email: ⁠rhetoricrevolution@gmail.com⁠ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/connerlyliam/ Podcast | Latin in Layman's - A Rhetoric Revolution https://open.spotify.com/show/0EjiYFx1K4lwfykjf5jApM?si=b871da6367d74d92 Gut Guardian Discount Code: LIAM64728 Plasticity: The quality or condition of being pliable or moldable, often used to refer to brain plasticity. Etymologically, from the Greek “plassein”, meaning “to shape or form”. Plastic: Any synthetic material composed of polymers that can be molded into various shapes and forms. Etymologically, from the Greek “plassein”, meaning “to shape or form”. Plasterer: A worker who applies plaster or plasterboard to interior walls and ceilings. Etymologically, from the Greek “plassein”, meaning “to shape or form”. Plasmon: A collective oscillation of free electrons in a metal or other conductor. Etymologically, from the Greek “plassein”, meaning “to shape or form”. Plasticize: To make a material more plastic or pliable. Etymologically, from the Greek “plassein”, meaning “to shape or form”. Plastid: An organelle found in eukaryotic cells that is responsible for the synthesis, storage, and/or metabolism of specific nutrients. Etymologically, from the Greek “plassein”, meaning “to shape or form”. Plasmolysis: The shrinking of a cell when placed in a concentrated solution, resulting in dehydration. Etymologically, from the Greek “plassein”, meaning “to shape or form”. Plasmodium: A genus of parasitic protists that can cause diseases in humans, such as malaria. Etymologically, from the Greek “plassein”, meaning “to shape or form”. Plasmin: An enzyme that helps dissolve the clotting of blood during the healing process. Etymologically, from the Greek “plassein”, meaning “to shape or form”. Plasmapheresis: A medical procedure involving the removal of plasma from the blood and its replacement with a plasma substitute. Etymologically, from the Greek “plassein”, meaning “to shape or form”. Plastron: The bony or armored ventral surface of the body in a turtle or tortoise. Etymologically, from the Greek “plassein”, meaning “to shape or form”. Plasticizer: A substance added to a material to increase its flexibility, workability, and/or durability. Etymologically, from the Greek “plassein”, meaning “to shape or form”. Hyperplasia (Greek root: hyper, "over, above, excessive" + plassein, "to form, mold") Actual Definitions 1. Excessive or abnormal cell growth or multiplication of cells in an organ or tissue due to increased activity of the cells. 2. Enlargement of an organ due to increased cell proliferation. Etymological Definitions 1. Hyperplastic: Having cells which form abnormally or excessively. 2. Hyperplastically: Characterized by or caused by excessive or abnormal cell growth or multiplication.

From Amon Dîn to Halifirien, the Man of the West takes a deep dive into the names of each of the beacons of Gondor — well, those of northern Gondor at least.

What is the True meaning of Christmas, etymologically? Examine the etymology of Christmas and unearth its TRUE meaning. For those who may not hold a belief in a personal God, what significance does Christmas carry for them? It's a call for more understanding and a plea for less judgment. In the current narrative of Jesus in America, let's explore how we can honor our individual beliefs while bestowing blessings upon others, irrespective of their faith. Embark on a journey of inspiration and allow yourself to be moved, embracing a reservoir of HOPE. Join us on today's Way of Warrior broadcast, where we champion the cause of Fighting the Good Fight. In this episode, discover God in a captivating story involving a man, a boy, and an unexpected combination of Twinkies and Rootbeer. Additionally, hear the tale of Hiroo Onoda, a man who, 29 years post-World War 2, relinquished his post in the Philippines upon hearing the words, "Well done, soldier, but the war is over." Let these narratives inspire you to engage in your own Good Fight! Learn about our non profit work at www.likeitmatters.net/nonprofit. Check out our website www.LikeItMatters.Net.  Be sure to Like and Follow us on our facebook page. Get daily inspiration from our blog www.wayofwarrior.blog.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"Pathos" is a Greek word that means "suffering" or "experience." Here are some words that are derived from it: Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. Etymologically, "empathy" comes from the Greek "empatheia," which means "passion" or "state of emotion." Pathetic: evoking feelings of pity, sadness, or sorrow. Etymologically, "pathetic" comes from the Greek "pathetikos," which means "capable of feeling." Pathology: the study of diseases and their effects. Etymologically, "pathology" comes from the Greek "pathologia," which means "study of suffering." Apathy: lack of interest, enthusiasm, or emotion. Etymologically, "apathy" comes from the Greek "apatheia," which means "freedom from suffering." Sympathy: feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune. Etymologically, "sympathy" comes from the Greek "sympatheia," which means "feeling with someone else." Antipathy: a strong feeling of dislike or aversion towards someone or something. Comes from the Greek roots "anti" (against) and "pathos." Pathetic fallacy: a literary device in which inanimate objects are given human emotions or characteristics to reflect the mood of a scene. Comes from the Greek roots "pathos" and "phallos" (deception). Empathetic: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. Comes from the Greek roots "em" (in) and "pathos." Pathogen: a bacterium, virus, or other microorganism that can cause disease. Comes from the Greek roots "pathos" and "gen" (to produce). Pathognomonic: a symptom or sign that is characteristic of a particular disease. Comes from the Greek roots "pathos" and "gnomon" (indicator). Sympathetic: showing or feeling concern for someone else's suffering. Comes from the Greek roots "syn" (together) and "pathos." Apathetic: showing or feeling no interest, enthusiasm, or concern. Comes from the Greek roots "a" (not) and "pathos."

Why does the act of deciding inspire such feelings of fear & finality? Well, turns out it's not just you being dramatic and/or indecisive...! Etymologically speaking, it actually makes a lot of sense that we take decisions so dang seriously. This episode explains why "deciding" really does inspire fear, and how indecision becomes the norm when FEAR is your decision-making baseline. To get free from indecision, you have to shift your baseline out of fear. We explore 4 steps to do just that in this episode! More links! Decision Masters Podcast Ep #29: The Cure for "If Only..." Agony The FREE Get Shit Done Decision-Making Workshop is available for FREE Instant Access Get the Clarity Workshop right frickin' now Book your free consult to talk about hiring me to help you make faster, easier, clearer decisions & unleash your Inner Decisive Self!

Be sure to follow me on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0EjiYFx1K4lwfykjf5jApM?si=5845a6619f0e4b90 Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/latin-in-laymans-a-rhetoric-revolution/id1570726046 Email: liamconnerly@gmail.com _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. Etymologically, "empathy" comes from the Greek "empatheia," which means "passion" or "state of emotion." Pathetic: evoking feelings of pity, sadness, or sorrow. Etymologically, "pathetic" comes from the Greek "pathetikos," which means "capable of feeling." Pathology: the study of diseases and their effects. Etymologically, "pathology" comes from the Greek "pathologia," which means "study of suffering." Apathy: lack of interest, enthusiasm, or emotion. Etymologically, "apathy" comes from the Greek "apatheia," which means "freedom from suffering." Sympathy: feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune. Etymologically, "sympathy" comes from the Greek "sympatheia," which means "feeling with someone else." Antipathy: a strong feeling of dislike or aversion towards someone or something. Comes from the Greek roots "anti" (against) and "pathos." Pathetic fallacy: a literary device in which inanimate objects are given human emotions or characteristics to reflect the mood of a scene. Comes from the Greek roots "pathos" and "phallos" (deception). Empathetic: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. Comes from the Greek roots "em" (in) and "pathos." Pathogen: a bacterium, virus, or other microorganism that can cause disease. Comes from the Greek roots "pathos" and "gen" (to produce). Pathognomonic: a symptom or sign that is characteristic of a particular disease. Comes from the Greek roots "pathos" and "gnomon" (indicator). Sympathetic: showing or feeling concern for someone else's suffering. Comes from the Greek roots "syn" (together) and "pathos." Apathetic: showing or feeling no interest, enthusiasm, or concern. Comes from the Greek roots "a" (not) and "pathos." --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/liam-connerly/support

The term hypothalamus originates from the Greek words "hypo" and "thalamus," which mean "below" and "chamber," respectively. This term was first coined by German anatomist Johann Christian Reil in 1809. The hypothalamus is a small region of the brain located at the base of the brain, just above the brain stem. It is responsible for regulating homeostasis and controlling many of the body's automatic responses such as hunger, thirst, body temperature, and hormones. It also plays a role in emotion and behavior. The hypothalamus is responsible for releasing hormones that help to regulate other systems in the body, such as the endocrine and autonomic nervous systems. It is connected to the pituitary gland, which helps to control the release of hormones from the hypothalamus. 1. Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone (CRH): A peptide hormone produced by the hypothalamus that stimulates the release of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) from the pituitary gland. Etymologically, its name is derived from the Greek words ‘kortiko', meaning ‘outer' and ‘tropin', which means ‘to turn'. 2. Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone (GnRH): A peptide hormone released by the hypothalamus that stimulates the release of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) from the pituitary gland. Its name is derived from the Greek words ‘gonad', meaning ‘ovaries' and ‘tropin', meaning ‘to turn'. 3. Thyrotropin-Releasing Hormone (TRH): A peptide hormone produced by the hypothalamus that stimulates the release of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) from the pituitary gland. Its name is derived from the Greek words ‘thyro', meaning ‘thyroid' and ‘tropin', meaning ‘to turn'. 4. Growth Hormone-Releasing Hormone (GHRH): A peptide hormone produced by the hypothalamus that stimulates the release of growth hormone (GH) from the pituitary gland. Its name is derived from the Greek words ‘growth' and ‘tropin', meaning ‘to turn'. 5. Prolactin-Releasing Hormone (PRH): A peptide hormone produced by the hypothalamus that stimulates the release of prolactin (PRL) from the pituitary gland. Its name is derived from the Greek words ‘pro', meaning ‘in front of' and ‘lactin', meaning ‘milk'. 6. Oxytocin: A peptide hormone produced by the hypothalamus that stimulates the contraction of the uterus and milk production. Its name is derived from the Greek words ‘oxys', meaning ‘swift' and ‘tocos', meaning ‘birth'. 7. Vasopressin (ADH): A peptide hormone produced by the hypothalamus that regulates water balance in the body and increases blood pressure. Its name is derived from the Latin words ‘vas', meaning ‘vessel' and ‘press', meaning ‘to press'. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/liam-connerly/support

Generalized Mental Disorders: 1. Anxiety: Anxiety is an emotion characterized by feelings of tension, worried thoughts, and physical changes like increased blood pressure. Anxiety disorders often involve intense, excessive, and persistent worry and fear about everyday situations. The etymology of the word “anxiety” is derived from the Latin anxietas, meaning “anxiety, agitation, distress.” 2. Depression: Depression is a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest in activities. It affects how you feel, think, and behave and can lead to a variety of emotional and physical problems. The word “depression” is derived from the Latin word depressio, meaning “lowered.” 3. Bipolar Disorder: Bipolar disorder is a mental disorder characterized by periods of depression and periods of elevated mood. It is also known as “manic-depressive disorder” and is one of the most common mental illnesses. The etymology of the word “bipolar” is derived from the Latin words biparus and bi-polaris, meaning “two poles.” 4. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): PTSD is a mental health condition triggered by a traumatic event. It can cause intrusive thoughts, nightmares, flashbacks, and difficulty sleeping. The etymology of the word “post-traumatic” is derived from the Latin post, meaning “after,” and traumaticus, meaning “injury or wound.” 5. Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD): OCD is a mental disorder characterized by obsessions (recurrent and persistent thoughts, feelings, or urges) and compulsions (repetitive behaviors or mental acts). The etymology of the word “obsessive” is derived from the Latin obsessio, meaning “besiege.” The word “compulsive” comes from the Latin compulsio, meaning “compel.” 2. Schizophrenia: Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by abnormal social behavior and failure to recognize what is real. The etymology of the word “schizophrenia” comes from the Greek words schizein, meaning “to split,” and phren, meaning “mind.” 7. Addiction - Addiction is a mental health condition characterized by a compulsive engagement in substance use or other behaviors, despite associated risks and consequences. People with addiction may find it difficult to quit these behaviors, despite their awareness of negative outcomes. Etymologically speaking, the word addiction derives from the Latin verb addicere, which means to bind or surrender. 8. Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) - ADHD is a mental disorder characterized by a pattern of impaired attention control and hyperactive, impulsive behavior. People with ADHD may find it difficult to focus on tasks or remain productive, may become easily distracted or aroused, and may be prone to acting without thinking. Etymology: The term Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) dates back to 1902 when George Still described what has come to be known as the “Still's disease” of childhood. ADHD was first formally recognized as a mental disorder in 1980 and has been a part of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) ever since. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/liam-connerly/support

The word “inflammation” is derived from the Latin verb “inflammare”, which means “to set on fire”. This provides insight into the actual definition of inflammation, which is a protective response of the body to injury or infection. It is characterized by redness, warmth, swelling, and pain, and is the body's attempt to remove harmful stimuli, such as damaged cells, irritants, or pathogens, and to begin the healing process. 1. Inadequate: Not sufficient, lacking in quality. Etymologically, this word comes from the Latin in- and adaequare, meaning "not equal". 2. Inanimate: Not alive; without life or animation. Etymologically, this word comes from the Latin in- and anima, meaning "without spirit". 3. Inaudible: Not able to be heard. Etymologically, this word comes from the Latin in- and audire, meaning "not to hear". 4. Illogical: Not rational, not based on sound reasoning. Etymologically, this word comes from the Latin illogicus, meaning "not reasonable". 5. Immaterial: Not composed of physical matter; having no material form. Etymologically, this word comes from the Latin in- and materia, meaning "without matter". 6. Impossible: Not able to be done or accomplished. Etymologically, this word comes from the Latin in- and possibilis, meaning "not able to be done". 7. Inaction: not taking action; inactive. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin, “inactus”, meaning “not active”. 8. Inadaptable: not able to adjust. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin, “inadaptabilis”, meaning “not able to be adapted”. 9. Impertinent: not appropriate; rude. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin, “impertinens”, meaning “not pertinent”. 10. Illiterate: not able to read; ignorant. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin, “illiteratus”, meaning “not literate”. 11. Impenetrable: not penetrable; impossible to understand. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin, “impenetrabilis”, meaning “not able to be penetrated”. 12. Impolite: not polite; rude. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin, “impolitus”, meaning “not polished”. 13. Incompatible: not compatible; unable to coexist. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin, “incomparabilis”, meaning “not equal”. 14. Impractical: not practical; not useful. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin, “impracticus”, meaning “not able to be done”. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/liam-connerly/support

Heresy. A word that usually evokes the image of a radical opposer of doctrine, of people burned at the stake, of violence and of religious conflict. But the Greek origin of the word is not so conflagrant. Etymologically, heresy means "choice". In this Easter Special, interdisciplinary performer Jo Blake returns to In the Borderlands to talk about her upcoming show "The Witness" about the relationship and balance between Jesus and Mary Magdalene and how his story became History and her story became Heresy. www.jo-blake.co.uk www.jo-blake.co.uk/portfolio/heresy In the Borderlands www.intheborderlands.com REFERENCES Archetype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype Holy Grail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Grail The Davinci Code by Dan Brown (Book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Da_Vinci_Code Mater https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mater The Wounded Researcher by Robert D. Romanyshyn (Book) https://www.routledge.com/The-Wounded-Researcher-Research-with-Soul-in-Mind/Romanyshyn/p/book/9780367468422 Inanna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inanna Ereshkigal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ereshkigal Isis (Goddess) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis Osiris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris Harrowing of Hell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell Alchemy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy Carl Jung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung Catharism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism Individuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_psychology#Individuation

1. Cranium: The skull, or the bone that houses and protects the brain. Etymologically, the word “cranium” comes from the Latin “cranium”, meaning “skull”. 2. Maxilla: The upper jawbone, which forms the upper part of the face and houses the upper teeth. The word “maxilla” comes from the Latin “maxilla”, meaning “jawbone”. 3. Mandible: The lower jawbone, which forms the lower part of the face and houses the lower teeth. The word “mandible” comes from the Latin “mandibula”, meaning “lower jaw”. 4. Clavicle: The collarbone, which connects the shoulder blade to the sternum. The word “clavicle” comes from the Latin “clavicula”, meaning “small key”. 5. Scapula: The shoulder blade, which connects the upper arm to the rib cage. The word “scapula” comes from the Latin “scapula”, meaning “shoulder blade”. 6. Ribs: The bones of the rib cage, which protect the chest organs. The word “ribs” comes from the Old English “ribban”, meaning “ribs”. 7. Sternum: The breastbone, which connects the ribs and provides support for the chest organs. The word “sternum” comes from the Latin “sternum”, meaning “chest”. 8. Vertebrae: The bones of the spine, which form the spinal column. The word “vertebrae” comes from the Latin “vertebra”, meaning “joint”. 9. Sacrum: The triangular bone at the base of the spine, which connects the spine to the hipbones. The word “sacrum” comes from the Latin “sacrum”, meaning “sacred”. 10. Coccyx: The tailbone, which is the remnant of the tail in humans. The word “coccyx” comes from the Greek “kokkyx”, meaning “cuckoo”. 11. Pelvis: The pelvic bone, which connects the legs to the spine. The word “pelvis” comes from the Latin “pelvis”, meaning “basin”. 12. Femur: The thigh bone, which is the longest bone in the body. The word “femur” comes from the Latin “femur”, meaning “thigh”. 13. Patella: The kneecap, which provides protection and stability to the knee joint. The word “patella” comes from the Latin “patella”, meaning “plate”. 14. Tarsals: The seven bones of the ankle, which form the ankle joint. The word “tarsals” comes from the Latin “tarsus”, meaning “ankle”. 15. Metatarsals: The five bones of the foot, which form the arch of the foot. The word “metatarsals” comes from the Greek “metatarsos”, meaning “longer bones”. 16. Phalanges: The bones of the fingers and toes, which form the joints of the hands and feet. The word “phalanges” comes from the Greek “phalanges”, meaning “fingers”. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/liam-connerly/support

1. Anatomy: The branch of science concerned with the structure of living organisms and their parts. Etymologically, it is derived from the Greek ἀνατομία, anatomia, meaning "dissection". 2. Physiology: The branch of science concerned with the normal functioning of living organisms and their parts. Etymologically, it is derived from the Greek φυσιολογία, physis, meaning "nature" and logos, meaning "study of." 3. Pathology: The branch of medicine concerned with the causes, processes and effects of diseases. Etymologically, it is derived from the Greek παθολογία, pathos, meaning "suffering" and logos, meaning "study of." 4. Diagnosis: The process of identifying a medical condition or disease from its symptoms. Etymologically, it is derived from the Greek διαγνωστικός, diagignos, meaning "to distinguish." 5. Prognosis: The prediction of the course, outcome or treatment of a medical condition or disease. Etymologically, it is derived from the Greek προγνωστικός, prognostikos, meaning "to foresee." 6. Pharmacology: The branch of science concerned with the study of drugs and their effects. Etymologically, it is derived from the Greek φάρμακον, pharmakon, meaning "drug" and logos, meaning "study of." 7. Surgery: The branch of medicine concerned with the treatment of disease, injury or deformity by manual or operative means. Etymologically, it is derived from the Greek χειρουργία, cheirourgia, meaning "hand work." 8. Therapy: The treatment of a medical condition with drugs or other medical interventions. Etymologically, it is derived from the Greek θεραπεία, therapeia, meaning "treatment." of nature”.  7. Cytology: The study of the structure, function, and diseases of cells. Etymologically, cytology comes from the Greek word κυτολογία, meaning “study of cells”.  8. Immunology: The branch of medical science that deals with the body's natural resistance to disease. Etymologically, immunology comes from the Greek word ἰμουνολογία, meaning “study of immunity”.  9. Endocrinology: The branch of medical science that deals with the study of the endocrine glands and their secretions. Etymologically, endocrinology comes from the Greek word ἔνδον, meaning “inside”, and κρεων, meaning “secretion”.  10. Radiology: The branch of medical science that deals with the use of x-rays and other forms of radiation to diagnose and treat diseases. Etymologically, radiology comes from the Latin word radius, meaning “ray”. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/liam-connerly/support

1. Arthritis: A chronic inflammatory disorder affecting the joints, often causing pain and stiffness; from the Greek ‘arthron' meaning joint, and ‘itis' meaning inflammation. 2. Gastritis: Inflammation of the lining of the stomach; from the Greek ‘gastēr' meaning stomach, and ‘itis' meaning inflammation. 3. Sinusitis: Inflammation of the sinuses; from the Greek ‘sinus' meaning a channel, and ‘itis' meaning inflammation. 4. Peritonitis: Inflammation of the membranes lining the abdominal cavity; from the Greek ‘peritonaion' meaning a membrane covering the intestines, and ‘itis' meaning inflammation. 5. Appendicitis: Inflammation of the appendix; from the Greek ‘appendis' meaning an appendage, and ‘itis' meaning inflammation. 6. Bronchitis: Inflammation of the bronchi, the passages that carry air to and from the lungs; from the Greek ‘bronchus' meaning a windpipe, and ‘itis' meaning inflammation. 1. Allergitis: An allergic reaction, often characterized by inflammation of the skin or airways. Etymologically, it comes from the Greek roots “allos” (other) and “itis” (inflammation). 5. Colitis: Inflammation of the colon. Etymologically, it comes from the Greek root “colo” (large intestine) and “itis” (inflammation). 6. Dermatitis: Any inflammation of the skin, often caused by an allergic reaction or infection. Etymologically, it comes from the Greek roots “derm” (skin) and “itis” (inflammation). 7. Endocarditis: Inflammation of the inner lining of the heart. Etymologically, it comes from the Greek roots “endo” (inner) and “card” (heart) and “itis” (inflammation). 9. Glomerulitis: Inflammation of the glomeruli, which are the microscopic filters of the kidneys. Etymologically, it comes from the Greek root “glomerul” (small ball) and “itis” (inflammation). 10. Hepatitis: Inflammation of the liver, usually caused by a virus or other infection. Etymologically, it comes from the Greek root “hepat” (liver) and “itis” (inflammation). 11. Meningitis: Inflammation of the membranes covering the brain and spinal cord, usually caused by infection. Etymologically, it comes from the Greek root “mening” (membrane) and “itis” (inflammation). 12. Myocarditis: Inflammation of the heart muscle, usually caused by a virus. Etymologically, it comes from the Greek roots “myo” (muscle) and “card” (heart) and “itis” (inflammation). 13. Nephritis: Inflammation of the kidneys, usually caused by infection or irritation. Etymologically, it comes from the Greek root “nephro” (kidney) and “itis” (inflammation). 14. Pericarditis: Inflammation of the membrane surrounding the heart, usually caused by infection. Etymologically, it comes from the Greek roots “peri” (around) and “card” (heart) and “itis” (inflammation). 15. Prostatitis: Inflammation of the prostate gland, usually caused by infection. Etymologically, it comes from the Greek root “prostata” (prostate) and “itis” (inflammation). 16. Sinusitis: Inflammation of the sinuses, usually caused by infection. Etymologically, it comes from the Greek root “sinus” (cavity) and “itis” (inflammation). 17. Tendonitis: Inflammation of the tendons, usually caused by overuse or injury. Etymologically, it comes from the Greek root “tendo” (tendon) and “itis” (inflammation). 18. Urethritis: Inflammation of the urethra, usually caused by infection. Etymologically, it comes from the Greek root “urethr” (urethra) and “itis” (inflammation). --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/liam-connerly/support

1. Actio: A legal action or suit in Roman law; from Latin actio, from agere “to do.” 2. Adjudicatio: A court decree or judgement; from Latin adjudico, from ad “to” and judicare “to judge”. 3. Actori incumbit probatio: The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff; from Latin actori incumbit probatio, from actor “plaintiff” and incumbere “to impose”. 4. Brevi manu: By order of the court; from Latin brevi manu, from brevis “short” and manus “hand”. 5. Caveat emptor: Let the buyer beware; from Latin caveat emptor, from cavere “to beware” and emptor “buyer”. 6. Damnum emergens: Loss arising from a breach of contract; from Latin damnum emergens, from damnum “loss” and emergere “to arise”. 7. Ex aequo et bono: According to equity and good conscience; from Latin ex aequo et bono, from ex “from” and aequus “equal” and bonus “good”. 8. Ex debito justitiae: Out of a sense of justice; from Latin ex debito justitiae, from ex “out of”, debito “debt” and justitiae “justice”. 9. In personam: Against a specific person; from Latin in personam, from in “into” and persona “person”. 10. In rem: Against a thing or property; from Latin in rem, from in “into” and rem “thing”. 11. Inter vivos: Between living persons; from Latin inter vivos, from inter “between” and vivos “living”. 12. Jus cogens: Compulsory law; from Latin jus cogens, from jus “law” and cogere “to compel”. 13. Pacta sunt servanda: Agreements must be kept; from Latin pacta sunt servanda, from pacta “agreements”, sunt “are” and servanda “to be kept”. 14. Qui facit per alium, facit per se: He who acts through another, acts himself; from Latin qui facit per alium, facit per se, from qui “who”, facit “makes”, per “through”, alium “other” and se “self”. 15. Res judicata: A matter already adjudicated; from Latin res judicata, from res “thing” and judicata “adjudicated”. 6. Fiat Lux – Let there be light. (Latin: fiat, let; lux, light). Etymologically, fiat lux literally means “let there be light” and is used to refer to the creation of light. 8. Mea Culpa – My mistake; my fault. (Latin: mea, my; culpa, fault). Etymologically, mea culpa literally means “my fault” and is used to refer to an admission of guilt or responsibility for a mistake. 9. Moot Point – A point or issue that is no longer relevant or applicable. (Latin: mūtāre, to change). Etymologically, moot point literally means “to change” and is used to refer to a point or issue that is no longer relevant or applicable. 10. Res Ipsa Loquitur – The thing speaks for itself; an inference that a person is responsible for an accident or injury because they were in control of the situation. (Latin: res, thing; ipsa, itself; loquitur, speaks). Etymologically, res ipsa loquitur literally means “the thing speaks for itself” and is used to refer to an inference that a person is responsible for an accident or injury because they were in control of the situation. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/liam-connerly/support

Sentio (Latin): 1. Sentience (n.): The ability to perceive and feel things; the capacity to experience sensations. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin root sentio, meaning “to feel”. 2. Sentient (adj.): Capable of perceiving and feeling things; having the capacity to experience sensations. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin root sentio, meaning “to feel”. 3. Sensation (n.): A physical feeling or emotion caused by the stimulation of a sense organ. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin root sentio, meaning “to feel”. 4. Sensory (adj.): Relating to the sense organs; providing or relating to sensation. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin root sentio, meaning “to feel”. 5. Sentiment (n.): An attitude or emotion; a feeling or opinion. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin root sentio, meaning “to feel”. 6. Sentimental (adj.): Relating to or influenced by the emotions; tending to be sentimental. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin root sentio, meaning “to feel”. 7. Sentimentalize (v.): To give a sentimental or emotional character to; to reduce something to melodrama or sentimentality. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin root sentio, meaning “to feel”. 8. Sensibility (n.): The capacity to experience and respond to sensations; keen sensitivity. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin root sentio, meaning “to feel”. 9. Sensitive (adj.): Having a keen awareness of the feelings of others; responsive to the feelings of others. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin root sentio, meaning “to feel”. 10. Sensitize (v.): To make sensitive or responsive to a stimulus. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin root sentio, meaning “to feel”. Video (Latin): 1. Videography: The art or technique of making recordings with a video camera. Etymology: From Latin videō, meaning “I see”. 2. Videotape: Magnetic tape used to record television programs and for other video applications. Etymology: From Latin videō, meaning “I see”. 3. Videocassette: A cassette containing magnetic tape with recorded video images. Etymology: From Latin videō, meaning “I see”. 4. Videodisc: A disc with recorded video images. Etymology: From Latin videō, meaning “I see”. 5. Videophone: A telephone with a video screen. Etymology: From Latin videō, meaning “I see”. 6. Videoconferencing: The transmission of video and audio signals for a meeting between people in different locations. Etymology: From Latin videō, meaning “I see”. Scio (Latin): 1. Sciolism (noun): superficial knowledge of a subject or a narrow range of topics; a display of superficial knowledge; pretentious knowledge; knowing a few facts but not having a deep understanding. Etymologically, this word is derived from the Latin “scio” meaning “I know”. 2. Science (noun): a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Etymologically, this word is derived from the Latin “scio” meaning “I know”. 3. Sciography (noun): the technical description of an object or a process. Etymologically, this word is derived from the Latin “scio” meaning “I know”. 4. Scientism (noun): the belief that science provides the only valid method of understanding and knowledge. Etymologically, this word is derived from the Latin “scio” meaning “I know”. 5. Scientist (noun): a person who is engaged in scientific research. Etymologically, this word is derived from the Latin “scio” meaning “I know”. 6. Sciolist (noun): a person who has a superficial knowledge of a particular subject. Etymologically, this word is derived from the Latin “scio” meaning “I know”. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/liam-connerly/support

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a state-sanctioned practice of deliberately killing a person as a punishment for an actual or supposed crime, usually following an authorized, rule-governed process to conclude that the person is responsible for violating norms that warrant said punishment. The sentence ordering that an offender is to be punished in such a manner is known as a death sentence, and the act of carrying out the sentence is known as an execution. A prisoner who has been sentenced to death and awaits execution is condemned and is commonly referred to as being "on death row". Crimes that are punishable by death are known as capital crimes, capital offences, or capital felonies, and vary depending on the jurisdiction, but commonly include serious crimes against the person, such as murder, mass murder, aggravated cases of rape (often including child sexual abuse), terrorism, aircraft hijacking, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, along with crimes against the state such as attempting to overthrow government, treason, espionage, sedition, and piracy, among other crimes. Also, in some cases, acts of recidivism, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping, in addition to drug trafficking, drug dealing, and drug possession, are capital crimes or enhancements. However, states have also imposed punitive executions, for an expansive range of conduct, for political or religious beliefs and practices, for a status beyond one's control, or without employing any significant due process procedures. Judicial murder is the intentional and premeditated killing of an innocent person by means of capital punishment. For example, the executions following the show trials in Russia during the Great Purge of 1937–1938 were an instrument of political repression. Etymologically, the term capital (literally "of the head", derived via the Latin capitalis from caput, "head") refers to execution by beheading, but executions are carried out by many methods, including hanging, shooting, lethal injection, stoning, electrocution, and gassing. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Gandhi's Great Soul (+ Yours!)   In our last +1, we talked about the fact that YOU are my all-time favorite hero. (It's true.)   We also talked about the fact that, although every hero expresses it in different ways, EVERY (!) hero has the SAME superpower.    We named it… SOUL FORCE   Today I want to share a quick origin story on where I came up with that phrase.   But, first…   In case you're wondering if you qualify to even aspire to be a “hero,” I have another question for you…   Do you happen to know what the word hero means?    As you may have heard me say before (and I promise I'll say it again!)… It's an ancient Greek word. Etymologically, the word hero doesn't mean “killer of bad guys” or “tough guy” or anything like that it. It means “PROTECTOR."    A hero has strength for two. And, very importantly, a hero is willing to do the HARD work to HAVE that strength for two.    And, do you know what the secret weapon of the ancient hero was? LOVE.    It's LOVE that fuels our commitment to DO that hard work to HAVE the strength for two. It's LOVE that gives us the Courage to be willing to act in the presence of fear. It's LOVE that gives us the Self-Mastery to do what needs to get done whether we feel like it or not.   And… If you haven't noticed, our world needs heroes today more than ever before.    We're not just recovering from the effects of COVID-19. We have pandemic levels of anxiety and depression and cancer and diabetes and political polarization and social injustice and environmental degradation.    And the ONLY possible way we are going to meet those *historically significant* challenges and create a more noble and virtuous world for ourselves and for our kids and for their kids is if each of us steps up and starts showing up as the best, most Heroic versions of ourselves.    So…   Back to your Soul Force. It's your superpower.    And…   Activating this superpower is the whole point of EVERYTHING we do together.   As in… E V E R Y T H I N G!!!   Activating your Soul Force is the final Objective (Objective VII) in Basic Training in our Heroic app.   Your Heroic Soul Force score is the first thing you see when you open the Heroic app and it's THE individual metric by which we measure our success in helping you show up as the best, most Heroic version of yourself. It's by getting YOUR Soul Force to 101 then helping enough people ALSO activate their Soul Force that we'll have a shot at LITERALLY (!) changing the world.    Then there's the sub-title to the Heroic book I'm working on. Can you guess what that might be?    Yep…    “A Training Manual to ACTIVATE YOUR SOUL FORCE”!!   So…   Here's the origin story on “Soul Force.”   It involves one of my heroes: Mahatma Gandhi.   (Btw: Did you know that mahatma means “great soul” in Sanskrit? Yep. Aristotle had a word for that in ancient Greek as well: magnanimous.)   We're all familiar with Gandhi's (paraphrased) admonition that, if we want to change the world, we each must be the change we want to see.    What you may not know is just how FIERCELY disciplined Gandhi was. He practiced his philosophy with a relentlessness that I find deeply inspiring. He was the living embodiment of Areté.   Of course, Gandhi liberated India via what we called “nonviolent resistance” in the West. But “nonviolent resistance” is a VERY weak translation of the Sanskrit word he coined to capture the essence of his movement and practice.    The phrase he used was satyagraha. That word comes from two Sanskrit words: sat and graha. Sat means “beingness” or “truth.” Graha means “polite insistence” or “force.”   Gandhi fiercely believed in and fiercely challenged his followers to stand in the power of truth. He knew that Britain's domination of India was morally wrong and that, if he and millions of others could stand in that truth without resorting to violence, he could liberate the country without having to go to war.    Now, like many ancient/foreign words that are difficult to translate into English (see: eudaimonia and areté!), satyagraha can be translated as not just “truth force” but also as “love force” or...   SOUL FORCE.    There's an ineffable and extraordinary power that is palpable in an individual who is standing in their truth—living with fierce integrity to their highest ideals.    THAT is what Gandhi cultivated within himself and was able to help cultivate within enough people to LITERALLY (!) change the world.    It's also what every hero we've ever admired has embodied and what I am so fiercely committed to personally embodying and to helping you and enough people embody in your own idiosyncratic way such that we can LITERALLY (!) change the world.    How do we do that?   By showing up and living in integrity with our highest ideals.   Not someday.    TODAY.

We are taught [limited] to being “open” to new things and to always say yes. As much as this may pain some, that the thought of saying ‘no' may cast them as being seen as a bad person. But, it is probably the most powerful word in language that you can and should use. Etymologically the word No is life, vital force and eternity, it is the holding of your energy and not giving it up because another may feel you should.

This series of podcast episodes will focus on Decolonising Research, and feature talks from the Decolonising Research Festival held at the University of Exeter in June and July 2022. The eighth epsiode of the series will feature Dr. Marq Smith from University College London and his talk 'Whiteness, positionality, allyship and doing the work.'   Music credit: Happy Boy Theme Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/   Transcription   00:09 Hello, and welcome to rd in the in betweens. I'm your host Kelly Preece. And every fortnight I talk to a different guest about researchers development, and everything in between.   00:32 So, hi, everyone. I'm Amy Shakespeare, and this is my colleague, Deborah Ashfield. And we're going to be presenting together today, we're both first year PhD students at the University of Exeter's Penryn campus. And we wanted to do something for the decolonizing Research Festival. And we're originally kind of thinking of doing separate presentations or workshops. But then we realized sort of how much overlap there actually is between our seemingly different research interests. So I'm based in the history department, and Deborah is based in the English department. So I just kind of wanted to caveat today's presentation by saying that it's very much a work in progress. It's very kind of experimental and drawing the two things together and seeing how they sort of work in dialogue with each other. And so we're just trialing some ideas here today. And we're really grateful that you're kind of here to join us for that. And we'd very much welcome any feedback that you have, or any sort of thoughts that it sparks for yourselves. And we're hoping to leave some time to open up the discussion at the end of the session for us all to think about extraction, and last and absence within our own work. And they'll also be time for questions, but do feel free as we're going through to pop questions in the chat. And then maybe we can kind of have more of a unmute and, and free for all at the end. So   02:16 yeah, so we're going to be talking a little bit over kind of force of the next half an hour, 45 minutes, between jumping between ourselves and then opening out to everyone else to join in, we're going to start off talking about kind of some of the differences between terms like decolonizing, and decolonial. What kind of nuances and politics and differences kind of in between, between those two terms are. Then I'm going to move into talking a little bit about extraction and the refusal extraction. So I'm going to be talking a bit about extractive research practices and how these relate to extractive colonialism, colonialism. And then we're going to be thinking a bit about connections between anti extractivism and anti colonialism and research. Then Amy's gonna be chatting a bit about the role of loss in relation to her research, which looks at repatriation, from UK museums to indigenous communities, and so called Canada. And then she's going to be thing, she's going to be talking a bit about the kind of the potential absence and what the absence is left by spaces might mean and what kind of possibilities that might lie there. Particularly in terms of anticolonial practice and spaces.   03:51 Yeah, so that's kind of, as Deb said, an overview. We wanted to start by just asking whether you sort of can use a reaction or the hands up function. Do you consider your work to be decolonial or decolonizing? So yeah, just do either a thumbs up reaction if you do or the hands up. Okay, so got a couple. Great, so a few people do. Brilliant. And now we wanted to ask, do you consider your work to be anti colonial? And the same thing again? One, two, okay. So fairly even split between decolonial anti colonial, which is really interesting. So, you may be familiar with this article from Turkey. And young decolonization is not a metaphor. But we really wanted to sort of introduce a few key quotes from the article to start today's session off. Both Deborah and I use the term anticolonial, rather than decolonial. And tackling Yanga and a few others have been key to us both separately, I should say, but both coming to that conclusion. And it might seem like semantics, but actually, there's really kind of powerful meaning behind the term decolonization and so as this quote says, decolonization brings about the repatriation of indigenous land and life, it is not a metaphor for other things we want to do to improve our societies and schools. So we can see here that that message is very much about land back and life back. And so thinking about how does can research be decolonial? Or is there another word like anticolonial, that might fill that space better?   06:12 And so yeah, talk to me and go on to talk about this trend noticed, which we'll kind of all be familiar with. And they say when one trend that we've noticed with growing apprehension is the ease with which the language of decolonization has been superficially adopted into education and other social sciences, supplanting prior ways of talking about social justice, critical methodologies, or approaches, which approaches which dissenter, dissenter settler perspectives. And this is, it's like a really kind of key message that runs through their their art article is that decolonization isn't a synonym for diversification or for inclusion, or for kind of the many, like, really, like really important kind of like social justice oriented, anti racist, kind of work, and critical methods. And pedagogies that happened in university spaces. And so they kind of, yeah, they just are, they push on this this term, decolonial and decolonizing, and the ways that it's been adopted into the university, and it's used in university spaces, in kind of really interesting ways that yeah, kind of unsettle some of the ways that kind of, we're trained to think about what decolonize what decolonization is, and means.   07:41 Yeah, and then this final quote, that we've picked out, kind of alludes to what Debs was just talking about, in terms of, even if the work that we're doing is out, you know, outrightly clearly anti racist, even if it's for social justice, or critical of what's gone before, this harm that the term can do in terms of, you know, killing the possibility of decolonization, really centering whiteness, thinking about that sort of white guilt, and that sort of idea of, of the Savior as well. I think that, that adoption of the term decolonization plays into all of those things, and can be quite problematic. So we just really wanted to start with that, as I say, to kind of outline why we'll be talking in terms of anti colonial you know, it's not without its own critiques, which I think Deborah's gonna go on to talk about, but just really outlining that difference, and, and why we're making it. So yeah, I'm gonna hand it over to Deborah now to talk about extraction and extractivism.   08:57 Hi, yeah, so um, I just kind of as a kind of as a little bit of preamble pre blurb, I work kind of between contemporary poetry studies, soundscape studies, critical technology studies bioacoustics, kind of broadly under the Environmental Humanities, umbrella. And I, but today, I'm going to be talking mainly about reading and reading methods more generally. And the place of practicing refusal and retooling in relation to extractive research logics and extractive reading practices. I yeah, I work on poetry mainly. So reading and close reading in particular is fairly central in terms of methods that I use. So what I'm going to be talking about in the next kind of 15 minutes or so it's kind of an experimental live bibliography, or sort of process of walking back through and with some of the texts, thinkers, tools, complications and tensions that are continually structuring and dissolving the structure of my practice. Yeah, so I work on extractivism. And particularly in my research, I think a lot about the ways in which looking out for and paying attention to the tendencies towards extractivism. And extractive logics in research methods and practices can give us information about where the worn habits of colonialism, conquest etcetera, reside and take root in our disciplinary and interdisciplinary methods and practices. So, what do we mean when we talk about extractivism? In these terms? Is it different from extraction? How does it manifest in the modern university in teaching and research? What does it mean to be anti extractive and how does all of this relate to colonialism, colonialism and the practice of carrying out anti colonial research or using anti colonial methodologies and you can get to the next slide. Thank you. So, let's begin with some definitions. Etymologically the verb to extract comes from the Latin extra hearing to draw out the term moved into popular circulation in the late 16th, early 17th centuries, and kind of quickly came to signify the often violent process of getting out the contents of anything by force, taking out anything embedded or firmly fixed, also refers to the process of taking from something of which the thing taken was a part. In early you said and still now it revert it refers to various processes of kind of obtaining constituent elements, juicers, etc, from a thing or substance by suction pressure, distillation, or any chemical or mechanical operation, both personal and material agents. So the employment of these various forms of force as a means for assuming access to so called resources, is an ongoing Pologne act, enactment of colonial and capitalist logics that rely upon self maximization and profit as justification for harm. However, I argue, in my work alongside many others, that the problem of extraction and extractivism doesn't necessarily begin and end with whether or not harm and damage are immediately visible, or perceptible as a result of the process of extraction. My project begins when the position and ethic of obligation and reciprocity must replace an extractive model an extractive knowledge economy, in order for, in order to produce knowledge in ways that stand up outside the logics that govern the colonial academic industrial complex. So I'm, I'm entangled with, obviously, we all are, and working within the parameters of this well established, dominant Western New colonial system of knowledge production. And it's therefore inevitable in my project that I'm inadvertently reproducing some of the assumptions and violence is that it's awesome. But I'm also hoping to kind of diagnose and interrupt and in a third University as possible, which is an amazing text, by the way, thoroughly recommend it. The person puts this split obligation really well in his discussions of the ways in which the first, second and third universities, of which the dynamic between the three he explains really well, and I recommend going and reading it.   13:34 Yeah, he explains this split obligation between the three universities which are all coexisting in a kind of constantly malfunctioning machine or assemblage of knowledge and practices. So he says, regardless of its kind of colonial structure, because school or the university is an assemblage of machines, and not a monolithic institution, its machinery is always being subverted towards decolonizing purposes. The bits of machinery that make up the decolonizing University are driven by decolonial desires with decolonizing dreamers who are subversively part of the machinery and part machine themselves. So I'm talking about in terms of the split obligations. These subversive beings wreak scavenge, retool and reassemble the colonizing university into decolonizing contractions. They're cyborgs with a decolonizing desire, you might choose to be one of them. In the third University, which is also inside of the first and second universities. The tools and methods owned by the first university are susceptible to being co opted to anti colonial abolitionist post disciplinary, creative and laboratory and due to my projects focus on taking and interrogating the extractive and colonial origins, uses and entanglements of various tools. methods between the sciences and the humanities. I work kind of in soundscape study. So I think a lot about hydrophones underwater microphones in relation to kind of close reading methods in the humanities. Le pathosans text here provides powerfully grounding ways in which to envisage how this kind of CO option of tools might be enacted as participation in an ongoing collaborative interdisciplinary transnational and trans historical practice of refusing the extractive logics of the first and second universities. Often though, these logics of extractivism and automatic access might not be immediately or obviously identifiable as such. Often they're veiled by suggestions of environmental goods, benevolence, in essence, care. But care in itself can be violent care can be a violation. Our work as Catherine McKittrick puts it so brilliantly can you go to the next sliding? Thank you. Work as Catherine McKenna, McKittrick puts it so brilliantly in data science and other stories to another key kind of methodological texts for my project is to notice this logic, your recursive logic that depicts our presently Ecocide or in genocide or wild as normal and unalterable and breach it. dislodging by biocentric system of knowledge and showing that the natural sciences the humanities and the social sciences are when thought together generative sites of inquiry. One way in which McKittrick suggests doing this noticings breaching of colonial logics is through attention to the politics of citation are our bibliographies extractive did they reproduce the same colonial logics that structure so much of our learning and teaching in the modern Western University. McKittrick calls out how sometimes citation practices do not take the time to feel and recognize liberation. Sometimes referencing signals illusion rather than study. This image of a work cited page containing references to books chapters, articles have been skim read. For neat confirming quotations. Best was kind of all too familiar when I first came across it. Reading McKittrick, I was reminded of and convicted by the ways in which the academy continues to teach and reward deeply colonial acts of extractivism and reading and the ways in which these practices of extractive reading have real material effects.   18:00 are in the waiting room and I've been steadily picked?   18:03 Go back to the one before. Yeah, perfect. So McKittrick offers an alternative, then a sort of next one. Sorry. McKittrick offers an alternative. She says What if the practice of referencing sourcing and crediting is always bursting with intellectual life and takes us outside ourselves? What if we read outside ourselves not for ourselves but to actively or know ourselves? to unhinge enough to come to know each other intellectually, inside and outside the academy Academy, as collaborators have generous and of collective and generous and capacious stories. So I hope that by refusing the logics of unit directionality in reading, automatic access, consumption, possession, and self maximization that characterize these colonial macho modes of knowledge production, but we're also well acquainted with, we remain accountable to and engage in other kinds of readerly possibilities and intertextual relationships. These relationships Well, I hope, expand already do extend beyond the confines of extractive so called objective academic reading and research economies and towards practices of accountability, specificity, reciprocity, caution and exchange. These four melodics of extractivism and objectivity are characteristic of what Max libera on in their book pollution is colonialism and other texts which has been foundational to establishing my methodological and theoretical frameworks as well as my citation on politics has called Resource relations. We can move on to the next one. That's okay. Thank you. Part of how LeBron theorizes really resource relations doesn't necessarily travel Allow from the island of Newfoundland on the ancestral traditional homelands of the Baytech unseeded ancestral traditional lands of the Baytech in so called Canada, to the UK, where I am liberal unexplained resource relations, as referring to the morality of maximum use of resources, dispossession and property as a way to control both time and space to secure settler and colonial futures. Because the province of Newfoundland and Labrador exists in the broader context of a settler state and Canada, its relationship to colonialism is different to here in the UK at the former heart of empire, though the two places are closely entangled with each other. The ways in which colonialism functions and persist in these spaces is different and bears different consequences. However, the concept of resource relations itself is still extremely useful and instructive here. And particularly for talking about how to read in a different kind of relation that isn't consumptive, violent or extractive. This is especially important when engaging with the work of those whose ideas and knowledge have historically been othered left out CO opted, stolen, or overwritten in time in favor of maintaining the colonial Imperial, gendered and racialized status quo in the academy. Elsewhere Libran discusses continues discussions of resource relations and extractive knowledge economies in specific terms relating to reading practices in academic work and writing. The social into an intellectual stakes surrounding these kinds of obligations they explain are high, they particularly talk about me guess next slide, okay. They particularly talk about the ways in which the norms of value and valuation that underlie how we are taught to read and write are also the ones that force us out of academic pipeline pipelines and into trauma. In addition to the social stakes, there are intellectual stakes. The problem with one way extractive transmission of knowledge is that the way knowledge is transmitted, acutely affects the type of knowledge transmitted, extractive reading can only result in one kind of knowledge transmission acquisition, working simultaneously inside of and and against a system that profits from extractive reading and citation of economies the academy and alternative reading and citation practice that notices and offers clues. On potential methods for working towards an economy of reciprocity is vital. These practices include proper relational debt, generous, citation, annotation, deep engagement, time span, and more.   23:01 Work working within this concept of reading within an ethic of reciprocity, rather than in an economy of extractivism. The reader is required to acknowledge that being in relation with and to a text and its authors, crucially outside of kind of one's own head. These practices of embracing the the refusal of extractive research methods and specifically extractive reading relations have slowed me down considerably in the best ways, and forced me to reckon with the usual pushes towards long, tight, comprehensive bibliographies. Illuminating the colonial capitalist and self maximizing performativity, they'll enter these urges when these bibliographies are constructed on the basis of kind of skim reading, and extractive reading. Embracing this refusal has caused me to pause and refrain when the instinct cuts in to add a reference for a text that I'm not yet well enough acquainted with. This is a practice of refusal in progress in process and constantly under review.   24:16 isn't me? Yes. Yeah. So kind of going on. From Deborah, my work, as I said, at the beginning might seem quite different. But hopefully, as we go through, it'll become clearer why we've linked them. So what happens when we do refuse extraction led me to thinking about what happens when we can't preserve everything in museums, the tendency is, you know, extract, collect, preserve, and even today with kind of contemporary collecting that museums are pushed to do, that is what they will do. You know, for example, in the Black Lives Matters, protests happen And they went out, they took the placards, put them in their collection, what is the next move. So we might not be able to extract because we're using anti colonial methodologies or for sustainability reasons or accepting that consent has not been given or maybe taken away. And this is kind of where our research starts to overlap. So I look at the anti colonial spaces left by the return of cultural items, from youth head museums to indigenous communities a couple of decades ago, and even up until relatively recently, one of the repeated arguments against repatriation was that it might lead it would lead to a so called slippery slope, and UK museums would empty. Now that might tell you how much isn't UK museums that shouldn't be. But it's also plainly not true, both because not everything in museums as stolen. And because communities often don't want or can't accommodate having everything back that has been stolen. And I'm still grappling with the word loss as it has such negative connotations. In most instances, museum teams today are pleased when a repatriation occurs, meaning that an item can be back with its rightful community. But I'm finding that there's still this element of saying goodbye of curators letting go of something that they believe it's their duty to care for, of a loss. And so I'm looking at different ways museums prepare for this loss and how some choose to embrace it. So I'm focusing on these spaces both metaphorical and physical, that would be left by items that had been returned, and what the potential for those spaces are. Some curators are keen on ethically purchasing contemporary art from the community that they have returned items to, however, you can then end up with more extraction, or with contemporary pieces from communities still being poorly interpreted, or like the vast majority of items being hidden inside storage facilities in perpetuity. And museums have continually collected objects to tell more stories about people and events and can now be described as agencies for managing profusion. However, there are often gaps in collections that being museums supposedly do not have the objects to tell the stories that they want to, or that they can avoid telling truthful stories of colonialism. And this can mean that themes or issues are missed out of exhibitions. So essentially, by putting artifacts at the center of exhibition, it limits the issues available for discussion. Equally, objects that the museums know little about tend to remain neglected. And many museums try to rearrange objects around absence or collect or create new objects to fill gaps. So to Sylvie talks about how there is this persistent museological assumption that the meaning if a sense of an artifact can best be sustained by securing its physical permanence, and this idea of conservation and securing permanence, as I've said, is extraction in and of itself, is a colonial idea that harks back to the formation of many museums in the Victorian era, the false idea and justification that indigenous people were dying out, and therefore their items needed to be preserved for future generations. Coupled with this, continuing to collect fuels a fundamental problem with museum practice and conservation, which is the fact that museums have become completely unsustainable, due to their storage facilities bursting full of collections that never see the light of day. But as the Silvie writes, on the flip side of this, museums often feel that loss equals erasure, to syllabi concludes that the act of saving something means we become implicated in its biography, once you have this intrinsic link to lose that item would be to lose our identities to. So I believe that the fear around repatriation is the idea of losing our colonial identities, losing that Imperial nostalgia, and there's anxiety associated with that surrender.   29:18 Many museums like universities are seeking to decolonize but as Deborah has just talked about, what about when this permanence comes at a cost of extraction, when this item was never meant to be permanent, never meant to be preserved? Or when our preservation of something suffocates or kills a living being? What does this mean for anticolonial practice? And Harrison someone's drilling? Harrison wrote that there is an acceptance that new ways of carrying collecting, curating and communicating the values of heritage must be conceived to accept the inevitability of change, that everything cannot be extracted, saved and preserved and to move away From traditional conservation, I'm just going to close my window to see if that helps.   30:11 So I'm really interested in this provocation made last month that a brilliant event, which I believe was recorded and is or will be available online. This was from zooming qu who asked, what is the non colonial word for conservation. And I've changed that as to what is the anti colonial word for conservation. Seeming was talking about scientific and ecological conservation being a means to continue Imperial resource extraction. But I think that you can make an argument that heritage conservation, and indeed resource rate sorry, and indeed, research is also a means to continue Imperial resource extraction. And this idea of ethically conducting contemporary art to fill the space of repatriated items feeds into that. So rather than looking at ways to fill these spaces with more items, I follow the absence, I look at the spaces left by or awaiting the return of cultural items. And I argue that within this absence, anti colonial practice can be found. The problematic nature of the display of objects is becoming clearer as museums seek to decolonize. But absence has usually been viewed as negative and museums faces. The idea that and rightly so if an if a community were absent from an archive they weren't represented. For instance, Tally talks about the act of absence thing, where museums choose not to display or not to act session objects into their collection, showing how the museum instead of documenting heritage actually produces its own heritage. And this has linked to the idea of Imperial nostalgia, where museums are places where colonialism is historicized, and glorified. On top of this, you often find that in the interpretation of indigenous items, still today, those communities are talked about in the past tense. So where there is a presence of objects, there is still an absent thing of the communities and absence that historicize is them, and makes them seem like they did die out. The Silvia however, argues that absence can facilitate the Persistence of Memory and significance. spaces created by communities getting their items back can provide such an absence. And I argue that museums should embrace these new absences created by repatriation so that anti colonial stories can be told, without the need to retain or display cultural items that perpetuate colonial violence and are often poorly interpreted. So this quote from Neil Curtis is about a temporary exhibition he curated in 2003, called going home museums and repatriation. And this was off the back of the Moorish shell museum where he was the curator, returning a sacred headdress to the horned society of the guy nation. The exhibition featured various sections that showed the story of the head dress, handover ceremony, repatriation debates elsewhere in the UK, and a discussion board that invited visitors to have their say, and Curtis reflected how comments by visitors were almost entirely favorable, such as all of humanity is connected to each other. And so glad to see this as a discussion, I knew very little about procedures and cases of repatriation. A more recent example of exhibiting absence is at the Pitt rivers Museum. They decided to move remove all human remains from display, including the sensor from South America, which the museum was famous for. Now, as you can see, in this image, they have purposely kept the case empty, which stands out amongst the profusion of material in the museum, and have used space to add the word racism into their interpretation, talk about how the previous curation was problematic. The decision to remove human remains from view and the repatriation processes that will now take place. So these examples indicate the anti colonial power of absence. And further evidence of this potential can be seen in a slightly different way, and the aftermath of the removal of colonial statues throughout the UK in the US in 2020, and 2021. Following the Black Lives Matter protests. These removals was different to repatriation and led by the public have already shown how the removal of objects that perpetuate for violence create opportunities for more powerful messaging. For example, this image shows a group of artists who have created the people's platform, which uses augmented reality to show alternative suggestions created by the public for what could take the place of Colston statue in Bristol. They've also generated a lot of public attention and debate on the difficult side objects that their removal highlighted. This shows what opportunity for growth change and something new the return of cultural items might have and what the future of museums could look like.   35:13 So embracing loss and exhibiting absence could dismantle and transform museum practice decentering the object would enable and move beyond the colonial gaze, and center the anti racist anti colonial stance in the post Museum. These spaces may be filled by interpretation written by the indigenous community themselves, becoming a space for truth telling and healing. These spaces will be people centered rather than object centered. And this embracing of loss would enable museums to start to move away from their colonial roots and disrupt Imperial nostalgia. So although I've been talking about museums and repatriation, I think that the theories and ideas behind my work are applicable to research in general, particularly within settings such as UK universities. If we cannot gain consent to extract then we cannot analyze, interpret or preserve this knowledge. And perhaps that is one of the most anti colonial approaches we can take as researchers, where we cannot extract and we embrace loss. That's where really exciting new work can happen. Innovation, should we create something new? Should we try to describe loss? Should we change topic or approach? And how can communities themselves utilize and tell their own truths in these spaces?   36:32 And that's it for this episode. Don't forget to like, rate and subscribe. And join me next time where I'll be talking to somebody else about researchers development and everything in between

This series of podcast episodes will focus on Decolonising Research, and feature talks from the Decolonising Research Festival held at the University of Exeter in June and July 2022. The sixth epsiode of the series will feature Amy Shakespeare and Deborah Ashfield from the University of Exeter and their talk 'Refusing extraction embracing loss: Towards an anticolonial politics of absence.'   Music credit: Happy Boy Theme Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/   Transcription   00:09 Hello, and welcome to rd in the in betweens. I'm your host Kelly Preece. And every fortnight I talk to a different guest about researchers development, and everything in between.   00:32 So, hi, everyone. I'm Amy Shakespeare, and this is my colleague, Deborah Ashfield. And we're going to be presenting together today, we're both first year PhD students at the University of Exeter's Penryn campus. And we wanted to do something for the decolonizing Research Festival. And we're originally kind of thinking of doing separate presentations or workshops. But then we realized sort of how much overlap there actually is between our seemingly different research interests. So I'm based in the history department, and Deborah is based in the English department. So I just kind of wanted to caveat today's presentation by saying that it's very much a work in progress. It's very kind of experimental and drawing the two things together and seeing how they sort of work in dialogue with each other. And so we're just trialing some ideas here today. And we're really grateful that you're kind of here to join us for that. And we'd very much welcome any feedback that you have, or any sort of thoughts that it sparks for yourselves. And we're hoping to leave some time to open up the discussion at the end of the session for us all to think about extraction, and last and absence within our own work. And they'll also be time for questions, but do feel free as we're going through to pop questions in the chat. And then maybe we can kind of have more of a unmute and, and free for all at the end. So   02:16 yeah, so we're going to be talking a little bit over kind of force of the next half an hour, 45 minutes, between jumping between ourselves and then opening out to everyone else to join in, we're going to start off talking about kind of some of the differences between terms like decolonizing, and decolonial. What kind of nuances and politics and differences kind of in between, between those two terms are. Then I'm going to move into talking a little bit about extraction and the refusal extraction. So I'm going to be talking a bit about extractive research practices and how these relate to extractive colonialism, colonialism. And then we're going to be thinking a bit about connections between anti extractivism and anti colonialism and research. Then Amy's gonna be chatting a bit about the role of loss in relation to her research, which looks at repatriation, from UK museums to indigenous communities, and so called Canada. And then she's going to be thing, she's going to be talking a bit about the kind of the potential absence and what the absence is left by spaces might mean and what kind of possibilities that might lie there. Particularly in terms of anticolonial practice and spaces.   03:51 Yeah, so that's kind of, as Deb said, an overview. We wanted to start by just asking whether you sort of can use a reaction or the hands up function. Do you consider your work to be decolonial or decolonizing? So yeah, just do either a thumbs up reaction if you do or the hands up. Okay, so got a couple. Great, so a few people do. Brilliant. And now we wanted to ask, do you consider your work to be anti colonial? And the same thing again? One, two, okay. So fairly even split between decolonial anti colonial, which is really interesting. So, you may be familiar with this article from Turkey. And young decolonization is not a metaphor. But we really wanted to sort of introduce a few key quotes from the article to start today's session off. Both Deborah and I use the term anticolonial, rather than decolonial. And tackling Yanga and a few others have been key to us both separately, I should say, but both coming to that conclusion. And it might seem like semantics, but actually, there's really kind of powerful meaning behind the term decolonization and so as this quote says, decolonization brings about the repatriation of indigenous land and life, it is not a metaphor for other things we want to do to improve our societies and schools. So we can see here that that message is very much about land back and life back. And so thinking about how does can research be decolonial? Or is there another word like anticolonial, that might fill that space better?   06:12 And so yeah, talk to me and go on to talk about this trend noticed, which we'll kind of all be familiar with. And they say when one trend that we've noticed with growing apprehension is the ease with which the language of decolonization has been superficially adopted into education and other social sciences, supplanting prior ways of talking about social justice, critical methodologies, or approaches, which approaches which dissenter, dissenter settler perspectives. And this is, it's like a really kind of key message that runs through their their art article is that decolonization isn't a synonym for diversification or for inclusion, or for kind of the many, like, really, like really important kind of like social justice oriented, anti racist, kind of work, and critical methods. And pedagogies that happened in university spaces. And so they kind of, yeah, they just are, they push on this this term, decolonial and decolonizing, and the ways that it's been adopted into the university, and it's used in university spaces, in kind of really interesting ways that yeah, kind of unsettle some of the ways that kind of, we're trained to think about what decolonize what decolonization is, and means.   07:41 Yeah, and then this final quote, that we've picked out, kind of alludes to what Debs was just talking about, in terms of, even if the work that we're doing is out, you know, outrightly clearly anti racist, even if it's for social justice, or critical of what's gone before, this harm that the term can do in terms of, you know, killing the possibility of decolonization, really centering whiteness, thinking about that sort of white guilt, and that sort of idea of, of the Savior as well. I think that, that adoption of the term decolonization plays into all of those things, and can be quite problematic. So we just really wanted to start with that, as I say, to kind of outline why we'll be talking in terms of anti colonial you know, it's not without its own critiques, which I think Deborah's gonna go on to talk about, but just really outlining that difference, and, and why we're making it. So yeah, I'm gonna hand it over to Deborah now to talk about extraction and extractivism.   08:57 Hi, yeah, so um, I just kind of as a kind of as a little bit of preamble pre blurb, I work kind of between contemporary poetry studies, soundscape studies, critical technology studies bioacoustics, kind of broadly under the Environmental Humanities, umbrella. And I, but today, I'm going to be talking mainly about reading and reading methods more generally. And the place of practicing refusal and retooling in relation to extractive research logics and extractive reading practices. I yeah, I work on poetry mainly. So reading and close reading in particular is fairly central in terms of methods that I use. So what I'm going to be talking about in the next kind of 15 minutes or so it's kind of an experimental live bibliography, or sort of process of walking back through and with some of the texts, thinkers, tools, complications and tensions that are continually structuring and dissolving the structure of my practice. Yeah, so I work on extractivism. And particularly in my research, I think a lot about the ways in which looking out for and paying attention to the tendencies towards extractivism. And extractive logics in research methods and practices can give us information about where the worn habits of colonialism, conquest etcetera, reside and take root in our disciplinary and interdisciplinary methods and practices. So, what do we mean when we talk about extractivism? In these terms? Is it different from extraction? How does it manifest in the modern university in teaching and research? What does it mean to be anti extractive and how does all of this relate to colonialism, colonialism and the practice of carrying out anti colonial research or using anti colonial methodologies and you can get to the next slide. Thank you. So, let's begin with some definitions. Etymologically the verb to extract comes from the Latin extra hearing to draw out the term moved into popular circulation in the late 16th, early 17th centuries, and kind of quickly came to signify the often violent process of getting out the contents of anything by force, taking out anything embedded or firmly fixed, also refers to the process of taking from something of which the thing taken was a part. In early you said and still now it revert it refers to various processes of kind of obtaining constituent elements, juicers, etc, from a thing or substance by suction pressure, distillation, or any chemical or mechanical operation, both personal and material agents. So the employment of these various forms of force as a means for assuming access to so called resources, is an ongoing Pologne act, enactment of colonial and capitalist logics that rely upon self maximization and profit as justification for harm. However, I argue, in my work alongside many others, that the problem of extraction and extractivism doesn't necessarily begin and end with whether or not harm and damage are immediately visible, or perceptible as a result of the process of extraction. My project begins when the position and ethic of obligation and reciprocity must replace an extractive model an extractive knowledge economy, in order for, in order to produce knowledge in ways that stand up outside the logics that govern the colonial academic industrial complex. So I'm, I'm entangled with, obviously, we all are, and working within the parameters of this well established, dominant Western New colonial system of knowledge production. And it's therefore inevitable in my project that I'm inadvertently reproducing some of the assumptions and violence is that it's awesome. But I'm also hoping to kind of diagnose and interrupt and in a third University as possible, which is an amazing text, by the way, thoroughly recommend it. The person puts this split obligation really well in his discussions of the ways in which the first, second and third universities, of which the dynamic between the three he explains really well, and I recommend going and reading it.   13:34 Yeah, he explains this split obligation between the three universities which are all coexisting in a kind of constantly malfunctioning machine or assemblage of knowledge and practices. So he says, regardless of its kind of colonial structure, because school or the university is an assemblage of machines, and not a monolithic institution, its machinery is always being subverted towards decolonizing purposes. The bits of machinery that make up the decolonizing University are driven by decolonial desires with decolonizing dreamers who are subversively part of the machinery and part machine themselves. So I'm talking about in terms of the split obligations. These subversive beings wreak scavenge, retool and reassemble the colonizing university into decolonizing contractions. They're cyborgs with a decolonizing desire, you might choose to be one of them. In the third University, which is also inside of the first and second universities. The tools and methods owned by the first university are susceptible to being co opted to anti colonial abolitionist post disciplinary, creative and laboratory and due to my projects focus on taking and interrogating the extractive and colonial origins, uses and entanglements of various tools. methods between the sciences and the humanities. I work kind of in soundscape study. So I think a lot about hydrophones underwater microphones in relation to kind of close reading methods in the humanities. Le pathosans text here provides powerfully grounding ways in which to envisage how this kind of CO option of tools might be enacted as participation in an ongoing collaborative interdisciplinary transnational and trans historical practice of refusing the extractive logics of the first and second universities. Often though, these logics of extractivism and automatic access might not be immediately or obviously identifiable as such. Often they're veiled by suggestions of environmental goods, benevolence, in essence, care. But care in itself can be violent care can be a violation. Our work as Catherine McKittrick puts it so brilliantly can you go to the next sliding? Thank you. Work as Catherine McKenna, McKittrick puts it so brilliantly in data science and other stories to another key kind of methodological texts for my project is to notice this logic, your recursive logic that depicts our presently Ecocide or in genocide or wild as normal and unalterable and breach it. dislodging by biocentric system of knowledge and showing that the natural sciences the humanities and the social sciences are when thought together generative sites of inquiry. One way in which McKittrick suggests doing this noticings breaching of colonial logics is through attention to the politics of citation are our bibliographies extractive did they reproduce the same colonial logics that structure so much of our learning and teaching in the modern Western University. McKittrick calls out how sometimes citation practices do not take the time to feel and recognize liberation. Sometimes referencing signals illusion rather than study. This image of a work cited page containing references to books chapters, articles have been skim read. For neat confirming quotations. Best was kind of all too familiar when I first came across it. Reading McKittrick, I was reminded of and convicted by the ways in which the academy continues to teach and reward deeply colonial acts of extractivism and reading and the ways in which these practices of extractive reading have real material effects.   18:00 are in the waiting room and I've been steadily picked?   18:03 Go back to the one before. Yeah, perfect. So McKittrick offers an alternative, then a sort of next one. Sorry. McKittrick offers an alternative. She says What if the practice of referencing sourcing and crediting is always bursting with intellectual life and takes us outside ourselves? What if we read outside ourselves not for ourselves but to actively or know ourselves? to unhinge enough to come to know each other intellectually, inside and outside the academy Academy, as collaborators have generous and of collective and generous and capacious stories. So I hope that by refusing the logics of unit directionality in reading, automatic access, consumption, possession, and self maximization that characterize these colonial macho modes of knowledge production, but we're also well acquainted with, we remain accountable to and engage in other kinds of readerly possibilities and intertextual relationships. These relationships Well, I hope, expand already do extend beyond the confines of extractive so called objective academic reading and research economies and towards practices of accountability, specificity, reciprocity, caution and exchange. These four melodics of extractivism and objectivity are characteristic of what Max libera on in their book pollution is colonialism and other texts which has been foundational to establishing my methodological and theoretical frameworks as well as my citation on politics has called Resource relations. We can move on to the next one. That's okay. Thank you. Part of how LeBron theorizes really resource relations doesn't necessarily travel Allow from the island of Newfoundland on the ancestral traditional homelands of the Baytech unseeded ancestral traditional lands of the Baytech in so called Canada, to the UK, where I am liberal unexplained resource relations, as referring to the morality of maximum use of resources, dispossession and property as a way to control both time and space to secure settler and colonial futures. Because the province of Newfoundland and Labrador exists in the broader context of a settler state and Canada, its relationship to colonialism is different to here in the UK at the former heart of empire, though the two places are closely entangled with each other. The ways in which colonialism functions and persist in these spaces is different and bears different consequences. However, the concept of resource relations itself is still extremely useful and instructive here. And particularly for talking about how to read in a different kind of relation that isn't consumptive, violent or extractive. This is especially important when engaging with the work of those whose ideas and knowledge have historically been othered left out CO opted, stolen, or overwritten in time in favor of maintaining the colonial Imperial, gendered and racialized status quo in the academy. Elsewhere Libran discusses continues discussions of resource relations and extractive knowledge economies in specific terms relating to reading practices in academic work and writing. The social into an intellectual stakes surrounding these kinds of obligations they explain are high, they particularly talk about me guess next slide, okay. They particularly talk about the ways in which the norms of value and valuation that underlie how we are taught to read and write are also the ones that force us out of academic pipeline pipelines and into trauma. In addition to the social stakes, there are intellectual stakes. The problem with one way extractive transmission of knowledge is that the way knowledge is transmitted, acutely affects the type of knowledge transmitted, extractive reading can only result in one kind of knowledge transmission acquisition, working simultaneously inside of and and against a system that profits from extractive reading and citation of economies the academy and alternative reading and citation practice that notices and offers clues. On potential methods for working towards an economy of reciprocity is vital. These practices include proper relational debt, generous, citation, annotation, deep engagement, time span, and more.   23:01 Work working within this concept of reading within an ethic of reciprocity, rather than in an economy of extractivism. The reader is required to acknowledge that being in relation with and to a text and its authors, crucially outside of kind of one's own head. These practices of embracing the the refusal of extractive research methods and specifically extractive reading relations have slowed me down considerably in the best ways, and forced me to reckon with the usual pushes towards long, tight, comprehensive bibliographies. Illuminating the colonial capitalist and self maximizing performativity, they'll enter these urges when these bibliographies are constructed on the basis of kind of skim reading, and extractive reading. Embracing this refusal has caused me to pause and refrain when the instinct cuts in to add a reference for a text that I'm not yet well enough acquainted with. This is a practice of refusal in progress in process and constantly under review.   24:16 isn't me? Yes. Yeah. So kind of going on. From Deborah, my work, as I said, at the beginning might seem quite different. But hopefully, as we go through, it'll become clearer why we've linked them. So what happens when we do refuse extraction led me to thinking about what happens when we can't preserve everything in museums, the tendency is, you know, extract, collect, preserve, and even today with kind of contemporary collecting that museums are pushed to do, that is what they will do. You know, for example, in the Black Lives Matters, protests happen And they went out, they took the placards, put them in their collection, what is the next move. So we might not be able to extract because we're using anti colonial methodologies or for sustainability reasons or accepting that consent has not been given or maybe taken away. And this is kind of where our research starts to overlap. So I look at the anti colonial spaces left by the return of cultural items, from youth head museums to indigenous communities a couple of decades ago, and even up until relatively recently, one of the repeated arguments against repatriation was that it might lead it would lead to a so called slippery slope, and UK museums would empty. Now that might tell you how much isn't UK museums that shouldn't be. But it's also plainly not true, both because not everything in museums as stolen. And because communities often don't want or can't accommodate having everything back that has been stolen. And I'm still grappling with the word loss as it has such negative connotations. In most instances, museum teams today are pleased when a repatriation occurs, meaning that an item can be back with its rightful community. But I'm finding that there's still this element of saying goodbye of curators letting go of something that they believe it's their duty to care for, of a loss. And so I'm looking at different ways museums prepare for this loss and how some choose to embrace it. So I'm focusing on these spaces both metaphorical and physical, that would be left by items that had been returned, and what the potential for those spaces are. Some curators are keen on ethically purchasing contemporary art from the community that they have returned items to, however, you can then end up with more extraction, or with contemporary pieces from communities still being poorly interpreted, or like the vast majority of items being hidden inside storage facilities in perpetuity. And museums have continually collected objects to tell more stories about people and events and can now be described as agencies for managing profusion. However, there are often gaps in collections that being museums supposedly do not have the objects to tell the stories that they want to, or that they can avoid telling truthful stories of colonialism. And this can mean that themes or issues are missed out of exhibitions. So essentially, by putting artifacts at the center of exhibition, it limits the issues available for discussion. Equally, objects that the museums know little about tend to remain neglected. And many museums try to rearrange objects around absence or collect or create new objects to fill gaps. So to Sylvie talks about how there is this persistent museological assumption that the meaning if a sense of an artifact can best be sustained by securing its physical permanence, and this idea of conservation and securing permanence, as I've said, is extraction in and of itself, is a colonial idea that harks back to the formation of many museums in the Victorian era, the false idea and justification that indigenous people were dying out, and therefore their items needed to be preserved for future generations. Coupled with this, continuing to collect fuels a fundamental problem with museum practice and conservation, which is the fact that museums have become completely unsustainable, due to their storage facilities bursting full of collections that never see the light of day. But as the Silvie writes, on the flip side of this, museums often feel that loss equals erasure, to syllabi concludes that the act of saving something means we become implicated in its biography, once you have this intrinsic link to lose that item would be to lose our identities to. So I believe that the fear around repatriation is the idea of losing our colonial identities, losing that Imperial nostalgia, and there's anxiety associated with that surrender.   29:18 Many museums like universities are seeking to decolonize but as Deborah has just talked about, what about when this permanence comes at a cost of extraction, when this item was never meant to be permanent, never meant to be preserved? Or when our preservation of something suffocates or kills a living being? What does this mean for anticolonial practice? And Harrison someone's drilling? Harrison wrote that there is an acceptance that new ways of carrying collecting, curating and communicating the values of heritage must be conceived to accept the inevitability of change, that everything cannot be extracted, saved and preserved and to move away From traditional conservation, I'm just going to close my window to see if that helps.   30:11 So I'm really interested in this provocation made last month that a brilliant event, which I believe was recorded and is or will be available online. This was from zooming qu who asked, what is the non colonial word for conservation. And I've changed that as to what is the anti colonial word for conservation. Seeming was talking about scientific and ecological conservation being a means to continue Imperial resource extraction. But I think that you can make an argument that heritage conservation, and indeed resource rate sorry, and indeed, research is also a means to continue Imperial resource extraction. And this idea of ethically conducting contemporary art to fill the space of repatriated items feeds into that. So rather than looking at ways to fill these spaces with more items, I follow the absence, I look at the spaces left by or awaiting the return of cultural items. And I argue that within this absence, anti colonial practice can be found. The problematic nature of the display of objects is becoming clearer as museums seek to decolonize. But absence has usually been viewed as negative and museums faces. The idea that and rightly so if an if a community were absent from an archive they weren't represented. For instance, Tally talks about the act of absence thing, where museums choose not to display or not to act session objects into their collection, showing how the museum instead of documenting heritage actually produces its own heritage. And this has linked to the idea of Imperial nostalgia, where museums are places where colonialism is historicized, and glorified. On top of this, you often find that in the interpretation of indigenous items, still today, those communities are talked about in the past tense. So where there is a presence of objects, there is still an absent thing of the communities and absence that historicize is them, and makes them seem like they did die out. The Silvia however, argues that absence can facilitate the Persistence of Memory and significance. spaces created by communities getting their items back can provide such an absence. And I argue that museums should embrace these new absences created by repatriation so that anti colonial stories can be told, without the need to retain or display cultural items that perpetuate colonial violence and are often poorly interpreted. So this quote from Neil Curtis is about a temporary exhibition he curated in 2003, called going home museums and repatriation. And this was off the back of the Moorish shell museum where he was the curator, returning a sacred headdress to the horned society of the guy nation. The exhibition featured various sections that showed the story of the head dress, handover ceremony, repatriation debates elsewhere in the UK, and a discussion board that invited visitors to have their say, and Curtis reflected how comments by visitors were almost entirely favorable, such as all of humanity is connected to each other. And so glad to see this as a discussion, I knew very little about procedures and cases of repatriation. A more recent example of exhibiting absence is at the Pitt rivers Museum. They decided to move remove all human remains from display, including the sensor from South America, which the museum was famous for. Now, as you can see, in this image, they have purposely kept the case empty, which stands out amongst the profusion of material in the museum, and have used space to add the word racism into their interpretation, talk about how the previous curation was problematic. The decision to remove human remains from view and the repatriation processes that will now take place. So these examples indicate the anti colonial power of absence. And further evidence of this potential can be seen in a slightly different way, and the aftermath of the removal of colonial statues throughout the UK in the US in 2020, and 2021. Following the Black Lives Matter protests. These removals was different to repatriation and led by the public have already shown how the removal of objects that perpetuate for violence create opportunities for more powerful messaging. For example, this image shows a group of artists who have created the people's platform, which uses augmented reality to show alternative suggestions created by the public for what could take the place of Colston statue in Bristol. They've also generated a lot of public attention and debate on the difficult side objects that their removal highlighted. This shows what opportunity for growth change and something new the return of cultural items might have and what the future of museums could look like.   35:13 So embracing loss and exhibiting absence could dismantle and transform museum practice decentering the object would enable and move beyond the colonial gaze, and center the anti racist anti colonial stance in the post Museum. These spaces may be filled by interpretation written by the indigenous community themselves, becoming a space for truth telling and healing. These spaces will be people centered rather than object centered. And this embracing of loss would enable museums to start to move away from their colonial roots and disrupt Imperial nostalgia. So although I've been talking about museums and repatriation, I think that the theories and ideas behind my work are applicable to research in general, particularly within settings such as UK universities. If we cannot gain consent to extract then we cannot analyze, interpret or preserve this knowledge. And perhaps that is one of the most anti colonial approaches we can take as researchers, where we cannot extract and we embrace loss. That's where really exciting new work can happen. Innovation, should we create something new? Should we try to describe loss? Should we change topic or approach? And how can communities themselves utilize and tell their own truths in these spaces?   36:32 And that's it for this episode. Don't forget to like, rate and subscribe. And join me next time where I'll be talking to somebody else about researchers development and everything in between  

EPISODE 13, SEASON 3: Etymologically, ‘literature' derives from an equivalent Latin word that means "learning, a writing, formed with letters, grammar". Culturally, literature is how we humans have shared stories, entertained and educated ourselves through the ages. Yet as the world changes, so does literature. Hear all about it from a wonderful author, poet, and teacher whose latest novel has just been released.ABOUT THE SERIES: Future of XYZ is a weekly interview series dedicated to fostering forward-thinking discussions about where we are as a world and where we want to go. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Visit future-of.xyz and follow on social media... LinkedIn: @lisagralnek, @lvg-co-strategy | Twitter: @lgralnek | IG: @futureofxyz

We all love to feel glamorous, but did you know that when you use your wardrobe to cast a spell, you're also being grammatically correct? Etymologically speaking, that is. IN THIS CONVERSATION Angie and I dive into the surprising history behind the word "glamour," channel the power and grit of Aragorn from LOTR, and bemoan the frustrating way our society ascribes so much meaning to the clothing we wear. Follow Angie on Instagram Follow Nick on Instagram Support this podcast on Patreon In Search of Tarot theme music written and recorded by AJ Ackleson

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dhana Yoga in astrology is one of the most coveted planetary combinations that everyone is interested to hear. Etymologically, the Dhan means wealth and Yoga means combinations or addition.

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the state-sanctioned killing of a person as punishment for a crime. The sentence ordering that someone is punished with the death penalty is called a death sentence, and the act of carrying out such a sentence is known as an execution. A prisoner awaiting their execution is condemned and is "on death row". Crimes that are punishable by death are known as capital crimes, capital offences or capital felonies, and vary depending on the jurisdiction, but commonly include serious crimes against the person such as murder, mass murder, aggravated cases of rape, child rape, child sexual abuse, terrorism, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, along with crimes against the state such as attempting to overthrow government, treason, espionage, sedition, piracy, and aircraft hijacking. Also, in some cases, acts of recidivism, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping, in addition to drug trafficking, drug dealing, and drug possession, are capital crimes or enhancements. Etymologically, the term capital (lit. "of the head", derived via the Latin capitalis from caput, "head") describes execution by beheading, but executions are carried out by many methods including hanging, shooting, lethal injection, stoning, electrocution, and gassing. Fifty-four countries retain capital punishment, 107 countries have completely abolished it de jure for all crimes, seven have abolished it for ordinary crimes (while maintaining it for special circumstances such as war crimes), and 27 are abolitionist in practice. Although most nations have abolished capital punishment, over 60% of the world's population live in countries where the death penalty is retained, such as China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, as well as in Japan and Taiwan. Capital punishment is controversial in several countries and states, and positions can vary within a single political ideology or cultural region. In the European Union (EU), Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibits the use of capital punishment. The Council of Europe, which has 47 member states, has sought to abolish the use of the death penalty by its members absolutely, through Protocol 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, this only affects those member states which have signed and ratified it, and they do not include Armenia, Russia, and Azerbaijan. The United Nations General Assembly has adopted, throughout the years from 2007 to 2020, eight non-binding resolutions calling for a global moratorium on executions, with a view to eventual abolition. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Why are we suspect of this mRNA programmed to manufacture the spike protein on the Covid Virus, and injected into the human body- Well. . . it's new. It was released in just 11 months in a rather extended fit of social panic. Etymologically speaking, this COVID-19 shot isn't a vaccine. A better word for it would be a -GenPro--a genetic programming for protein production and immune system response. But really, we wish the inventors would give God the glory, and demonstrate a modicum of the fear of God. How long does it take to really understand the long-term effects of a GenPro-----This program includes-----1. The World View in 5 Minutes with Adam McManus -Porn publisher Larry Flynt met his Maker, Mark Cuban- Stop playing national anthem, Don't forget Leah Sharibu- Nigerian Christian teen entering her third year in captivity-----2. Generations with Kevin Swanson

We explore prajna as understanding with this passage from Norman Fischer's "The World Could be Otherwise": The Sanskrit word prajna is usually translated as “wisdom,” but I have decided to render it as understanding. Let me tell you why.Wisdom is an old-fashioned word. We hardly use it these days. We think of people as quick, clever, intelligent, creative, innovative, knowledgeable, maybe as having good judgment, but seldom do we call them wise... Today’s world seems too fast and shifty for wisdom. The word wisdom suggests probity, character, the discernment that comes from long experience. A wise person is sober and careful, stodgy almost—and usually older. Synonyms for wisdom include sanity, caution, prudence.Understanding, however, is an interesting double-sided word. It includes much of what the word wisdom does. If you understand, you see things clearly and from all sides, which will give you discernment. But the word understanding hides within it something more. Etymologically, to understand is “to stand with.” The “under” part of the word doesn’t mean under. It comes from a proto-Indo-European root that means “among, or between,” not “beneath.” So understanding means to be close to, to be with... The perfection of understanding includes both sides of what is meant by the English word understanding: to understand deeply how things are—to know, to see, how elusive and shimmering this life is and, at the same time, with and through this seeing, to be understanding of life, to care for it, to stand with it in empathy, love, and compassion.Today’s talk comes from a year-long exploration of the paramitas, the perfecting qualities that lead to liberation, offered by HaiAn during the Thursday Meditations. Email haian@dharmapathways for the link to join these sessions on Zoom.This session explores aspects of the sixth paramita, prajna or wisdom.  If you’re unfamiliar with the paramitas, Chapter 25 in Thich Nhat Hanh’s “The Heart fo the Buddha’s Teaching” offers an introduction and Norman Fischer’s “The World Could be Otherwise” gives a deeper dive. The paramitas are related to the parami, in Pali, for the Theravada tradition.We are happy to offer these teachings to you. If you would like to support us to continue to make these teachings available, go to https://www.dharmapathways.org/donate

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for January 9, 2021 is: baksheesh • BAK-sheesh • noun : payment (such as a tip or bribe) to expedite service Examples: "Penn noted that from 2014 until May, the state's largest utilities pumped some $57 million in campaign contributions to members of the Florida Legislature.… And just to make sure that investment in turning the state House and Senate into a buffet line of legalized baksheesh was protected, the utilities also spent $6 million on lobbying…." — Daniel Ruth, The Tampa Bay (Florida) Times, 12 July 2019 "Guides are often well-trained Egyptologists whose function is not only to educate but also to divert the many locals who will have their hands out for baksheesh, whether they've earned it or not." — Tim Murphy et al., Condé Nast Traveler, 26 Mar. 2015 Did you know? British subjects traveling abroad in the 17th century likely picked up baksheesh in Asia, where they would have heard the term used to mean "gratuity, a present of money, tip"—a meaning they directly adopted. Etymologically speaking, baksheesh is from Persian bakhshīsh, which is also the source of the word buckshee, meaning "something extra obtained free," "extra rations," or "windfall, gratuity." Buckshee never made it across the pond to the U.S., and is strictly used in British English.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods. A tort of negligent interference occurs when one party's negligence damages the contractual or business relationship between others, causing economic harm, such as, by blocking a waterway or causing a blackout that prevents the utility company from being able to uphold its existing contracts with consumers. ***** A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective. A conspiracy may also refer to a group of people who make an agreement to form a partnership in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member and engage in planning or agreeing to commit some act. It is not necessary that the conspirators be involved in all stages of planning or be aware of all details. Any voluntary agreement and some overt act by one conspirator in furtherance of the plan are the main elements necessary to prove a conspiracy. A conspiracy may exist whether legal means are used to accomplish illegal results, or illegal means used to accomplish something legal. "Even when no crime is involved, a civil action for conspiracy may be brought by the persons who were damaged." In the law of tort, the legal elements necessary to establish a civil conspiracy are substantially the same as for establishing a criminal conspiracy, i.e. there is an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future or to achieve a lawful aim by unlawful means. The criminal law often requires one of the conspirators to take an overt step to accomplish the illegal act to demonstrate the reality of their intention to break the law, whereas in a civil conspiracy, an overt act towards accomplishing the wrongful goal may not be required. Etymologically, the term comes from Latin con- "with, together", and spirare "to breathe". ***** Restraints of trade is a common law doctrine relating to the enforceability of contractual restrictions on freedom to conduct business. It is a precursor of modern competition law. In an old leading case of Mitchel v Reynolds (1711) Lord Smith LC said, it is the privilege of a trader in a free country, in all matters not contrary to law, to regulate his own mode of carrying it on according to his own discretion and choice. If the law has regulated or restrained his mode of doing this, the law must be obeyed. But no power short of the general law ought to restrain his free discretion. A contractual undertaking not to trade is void and unenforceable against the promisor as contrary to the public policy of promoting trade, unless the restraint of trade is reasonable to protect the interest of the purchaser of a business. Restraints of trade can also appear in post-termination restrictive covenants in employment contracts. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Brian Johnston continually reminds us that the battle for the right to life is actually rooted in the battle of ideas. And in this battle of ideas they must be expressed through language, ideas must be embodied by words.  Because of that, there is an ongoing battle over words and their meanings. It is a battle reaching a crescendo, an ongoing battle in which our entire culture is now immersed.  Disinformation is the intentional relaying, retelling and re-emphasis of false information: false facts, false ‘truths’ and principles. We are currently witnessing a concerted attempt at a culture-wide disinformation campaign aimed at abandoning the foundational principles of our laws, culture, and society. Brian examines, in-depth, the recent appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court. He examines the actual facts surrounding US Supreme Court appointments and the deliberate disinformation that has not only been inserted into the public debate, but is being re-emphasized and reenforced as somehow true. Those who have been given the fiduciary trust to inform the public, not only news outlets and social media providers (who declare they offer a public service to the community of mutual communications (perhaps akin to the telephone system), but now these same public utilities of communications closely monitor and control what is said on this public communication system, social media.  Most evident is the disinformation and redefinition of terms regarding language and knowledge which is so common now in the academic community.  The academic community and other factual information gathering agencies that have historically been focused on objective facts, were politically disinterested and moored in avoiding specific ideological battles.  Alarmingly, even the most historically pristine outlet of communication, the dictionary, and other educational tools, are currently involved in this contorted effort to silence dissenting thought.  We are seeing outright disinformation and intentional manipulation of the words and subsequent thoughts in which the public engages.  Nowhere is that clearer than the recent alacrity with which the English language itself was intentionally assaulted with great vigor and animus.  During the Amy Coney Barrett Senate Judiciary hearings, Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii declared that Mrs. Barrett was a bigot and an unworthy justice due to her use of the term, “sexual preference” in describing homosexuals. She asserted this as a disqualifying matter of her nomination. Mrs. Barrett responded that she was sorry as she was completely unaware that the use of this term was somehow judgmental or bigoted. Yet Mrs. Barrett reflected the cultural norm, such that even pro-homosexual and gay publications had used the term earlier in the month. It was not used as a prejudicial or slanderous term, but a self-described term.  The very night of Senator Hirono’s accusation, the online version of the Miriam-Webster dictionary changed the meaning of the term “sexual preference,” and delineated that it was a bigoted and prejudice slander of LBGTQ individuals. The dictionary was changed seemingly in concert with Sen. Hirono’s political attack! The English language reflected in the Miriam-Webster dictionary itself was intentionally altered and declared outdated and bigoted - with the click of a mouse.   A widely respected and heretofore accurate, politically disinterested compiler of English usage was intentionally and immediately used for the creation of political newspeak. George Orwell‘s description of a dystopic cultures language patterns was employed before the eyes of the world.  Disinformation - intentional confusion, emotional punishment, slander and cultural banishment have become extremely common tools of the pro-death, anti-life culture which seeks to destroy our foundational ways of even thinking and reasoning.  Brian reminds us that the war of ideas is very real and one of the principle tools is to create linguistic confusion, to twist the meaning of words and force cultural assent to these newly twisted terms.  Etymologically speaking, the word “war” is an English word derived from Indo-European languages and specifically German Gothic. The word “war” in Gothic-German literally means “confusion.”  It is vitally important that advocates for life and objective truth understand this tool of language and confusion in this war of ideas.  The Goths themselves were the only nation to have defeated the Roman empire in battle. They used confusion. That is their meaning of “war.”  The Roman empire and its impact on civilization is built on order and principles. This was reflected in the Roman legionaries method of war - working as a cohesive unit marching in phalanxes,  locking shields and repelling all comers.  This could not be used in the forest of Germany and specifically at the battle of the Teutoburg forest in 9AD.  Three legions of Roman soldiers were completely destroyed as the Goth warriors used the confusion of forest warfare and “concerted disorder” to overwhelm those in the habit of thinking and operating logically and in an orderly fashion. This loss of so many Roman legions was the starting point of Rome’s decline as an imperial power although the implications were to be felt over centuries.  Confusion and disordered thinking, lack of clarity in the use of words and language, and charged emotional exchanges are the methods regularly used by those who seek to overcome objective facts and self-evident truths. In the right to live is the first and foundational premise of the self-evident truths. It must be fought for and defended in this battle of ideas.

In this episode, we explore the etymology of the most culturally ubiquitous fruit, the apple. Etymologically, the ubiquity of the apple is fitting, since it originally used to refer equally to "apples" as we know them and to "fruits" in general. We also explore the Latin and Greek words for "apple," the derivatives of which are hiding in plain sight in a handful of modern English fruit and vegetable words. 

We humans started out as wild animals, although how much time we spent being wild is anyone's guess. After being wild, we became domesticated, but from there we lose the trail. We cannot see where we are going. That's where computers come in. Currently, humanity is experiencing a love affair with computers. We are downloading all of memories, knowledge and connections into the computer and we think we will benefit from this action. But the computer is cutting all of our memories, knowledge and connections into tiny pieces. The computer calls these tiny pieces bits. Etymologically, the bit is related to the bite. Think of computers as eating us up, because that is what is happening. The bit is becoming monetized. Human beings are for sale, just in tiny little bits so it is hard for us to recognize it as such. By coincidence, we are being called to deal with slavery. We are being called to end slavery, but some of us are resisting. This resistance has no meaning. Let go of resisting the end of slavery. We have so much to do and we're sitting around fighting. Link to Animal Communicator website s

Sermon Notes; Persevere Today is the final service in 2019. The next time we meet will be 2020. At this time of year we evaluate what the previous year brought and what the next year will bring. Many of you have had times of lose during 2019. Marriages have broken. Family and friends have passed from this life into the next. Some have had positive changes in your life. New Friendships have developed. New positions at current employer or even complete changes of position and employer have occurred. Regardless of weather 2019 has been a year highlighted by positive events or a year remembered for heartache, we, you , I have had to persevere. The key word that i keep hearing over and over again persevere. Press on.A: Interestingly i found that the English word persevere is not found one time in the King James Bible. Perseverance is only found one time, in Ephesians 6:18 "With all prayer at all time in the Spirit with this view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints."B: The verb means to continue steadfastly in a thing and give unremitting care to it. Etymologically it means to be intensely strong toward. In Romans 13:6 it is used of rulers in the discharge of their functions.C: When I looked up "Steadfast" I found three different adjectives and two separate nouns that express that idea.BebaiosHedraiosStereosStereomaSterigmosD: The idea of the persevere or to be steadfast is clearly a Biblical principle. Yet one can not simply ignore the elephant in the room. There is a problem.Paul referred to himself as the prisoner Jesus Christ in Eph 3:1 and the prisoner of the Lord in Eph. 4:1Paul who is a example of perseverance and being steadfast recognized the problem.The Fifth Seal Revelation 6:9-11 Even the Mytre ar told to rest a little longer until the number would be completed of their fellow slaves and their brothers, who were going to be killed just as they had been.Taking the mark of the beast demands the perseverance of the saints, who keep God's commands and their faith in Jesus. Rev 14:12E Perspective: Christ will build His churchThat is a promiseLook at how it is and will be fulfilled in FBCNotice promise is that Christ will build His church, no promise that He will build this church. Thus we need to concentrate on building His church not this church. Christ is building His church through this church.F: Prevail Mathew 16When we are part of building His church, not this church, then the gates of hell will not prevail.As a church when we lose members it hurts,that is looking at the problem in the face. But the perspective that we are building His church means we prevail. We Persever. We are steadfast.Here is how going into 2020 FBC is going to prevail and persevere while looking at problems squarely in the face.The Dragon thrown out of heaven Revelations 12:7-13All those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name was not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the lamb who was slaughtered. If anyone has an ear, he should listen. If anyone is destined for captivity, into captivity he goes.If anyone is to be killed with a sword, with a sword he will be killed.This demands the perseverance and faith of the saints. Revelations 13:8-10G: Persevere like the seven churches of RevelationH: Maltble Babcock 1858-1901As we close out 2019 and enter 2020 do not grow weary in well doing. If 2019 has been a discouraging year in your personal life or you are discouraged in your church life, be steadfast, unmovable for James 1:12 reads "Blessed is the person who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him."

SRVD's WHY: Epic Episode 7Not just to be in Service, but to be OF ServiceRaf is given a new name: SERVO"Servo" comes from the Latin verb “servare” meaning to serve. “Servo” is the first person singular which means “I serve.” As it is, the present tense of “servare” is:servo =I serve.servas = you serve (singular).servat = he /she serves.servamus =we serve.servatis = you serve (plural).servant =they serve.Etymologically, some English words which come from Latin are: serve; service; servant; servitude; server; servile; servitor; and servility.(Jaigobin Shivcharran, Ph.D. Secondary and Tertiary Education & Linguistics, Summit University of Louisiana (1998), https://www.quora.com/What-does-servo-mean-in-Latin)"I'll see you on the line...Onward!!!" - Servo 9414https://www.srvd.vetDrop me a line via email or snail-mail at:raf@srvd.vetSRVD | 145 Fleet Street | #256 | National Harbor | MD | 20745

In its purest form, philosophy signifies the love (philos) of wisdom (sophia), a Greek term denominating the experience of the truth within the innermost depths of the soul. Etymologically, this term points towards the relationship of the consciousness with the divine, a distinction ignored by modern philosophical systems. Genuine philosophy is the soul's ardent inspiration, knowledge of and connection to the Innermost, the Being, the spirit, a feat achieved through transcending and transforming the mind, placing it at the service of the divine. This methodology contrasts with mere scholasticism, theories, concepts, and the sophistries of universities, which only use the intellect to be clever and theorize. Rather than seeking to play with the intellect, it is better to go beyond the mind in order to know the spiritual realities beyond the limitations of matter. Learn how the fourth and final pillar expresses the mystical science, wisdom, and art of the complete human being: an individual who is fully aware and manifesting the spiritual truths contained within the universe.  Through loving the divine and placing the intellect at the service of the spirit, we can in turn gain genuine philosophical knowledge based on our own experience.

PODCAST SATELLITETHE VOICE OF ISRAEL Tishri 15, 5779 Succot Day 1 Prince HandleyPresident / Regent University of Excellence ISRAEL'S FUTURE WEALTHMORE RESOURCES FOR ZION~ A MIRACLE PODCAST PRODUCTION ~ You can listen to this message NOW. Click on the pod circle at top left. (Allow images to display.)Or, Listen NOW >>> LISTEN HERE Email this message to a friend. Subscribe to this Ezine teaching by Email: princehandley@gmail.com24/7 release of Prince Handley teachings, BLOGS and podcasts > STREAMText: “follow princehandley” to 40404 (in USA) Or, Twitter: princehandley ___________________________________________ ISRAEL'S FUTURE WEALTHMORE RESOURCES FOR ZION Israel—whether realizing it or not—is going to win a major conquest over Muslim nations in the Middle East. And not just win … but plunder them, reaping great resources! No, I am NOT talking about the Ezekiel 38 ‒ 39 victory. I am talking about a conquest possibly before that: one that could happen at any time. Actually, there will be at least three (3) major Middle East conflicts that involve Israel in the future: Conquest over Muslim forces in Middle East; Ezekiel 38 ‒ 39 victory; and, Battle of Armageddon. NOTE: It is possible that the above two [#2 and #3] may be incorporated in one war; but two different conflicts (battles) when the Mashiach appears. That is, Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39 could be the same event combination as Armageddon. They both include eartquakes and hail. However, I believe they will be separate conflicts for the reasons I present below. CONQUEST OVER MUSLIM ENTITIES Most people familiar with Bible prophecy realize there will be a conflict in the Middle East—fought in Israel—where G-d Himself will be “set apart” in the eyes of the goyim: the nations. When it is over, the whole world will realize that the conflict has been won by the LORD G-d. And, probably many of the people familiar with this prophecy in Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39 realize that it is NOT the same conflict as the Battle of Armageddon. This fact is very clear in that:   THE WEAPONS USED ARE DIFFERENT In Ezekiel 38, G-d sends earthquake(s), overflowing rain, hailstones and fire … plus disease and blood … upon Israel's enemies. Also, Israel's enemy goes into confusion and fights with each other. In Ezekiel 39, 83% [five-sixths] of Israel's enemies are either destroyed or overcome. And [one-sixth] 17% of the enemy forces are sent back to their home lands. In the Battle of Armageddon (Revelation Chapter 16) we read of a great earthquake affecting the whole earth and hailstones the size of 100 pounds. However, there is NO mention of disease (pestilence) and blood; nor of fire and burning sulphur like in Ezekiel 38. THE ENEMIES INVOLVED ARE DIFFERENT In Ezekiel 38 and 39, we see that the focus of the conflict is while Israel is at peace in their land … “Brought back out of the nations dwelling safely.” [Ezekiel 38:8] Also, the commanding enemy forces who attack Israel are from the North: parts of Russia, Turkey, Iran (all North of Jerusalem) with some allies in the North-East African region. In the Battle of Armageddon (Revelation 16) Israel is NOT at peace … and we read that the whole world is involved as Israel's enemies. It appears that this fits the time frame of “Jacob's Trouble” during the last 42 months of the Great Tribulation: the last half of Daniel the Prophet's heptad of seven years. [Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15] “Then I saw three impure spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. They are demonic spirits that perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty. Then they gathered the kings [of the whole world] together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.” [Brit Chadashah / Revelation 16:13-14,16] OTHER CONSIDERATIONS In addition, when the conflict of Ezekiel 38 and 39 happens, Israel is at peace in the land with great resources. Even a casual reading of Ezekiel Chapter 38 shows that Israel’s great wealth will be what draws the powers from the North to come down against her. This brings to light another question: Where—and when—did Israel come by this great wealth?! The Middle East conflict … the Israeli-Arab dispute … is at its essence thousands of years old. It is a spiritual conflict: the political aspects of which are merely the symptoms. The scriptures do show us that there will be a final Israeli-Arab war. ISAIAH CHAPTER 11 "Then it will happen on that day that the Lord will again acquire with His hand a second time the remnant of His people, who will remain, from Assyria, from Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt, from Ethiopia, from Iran, from Babylonia, from Syria, and from the coastlands bordering the [Mediterranean] Sea. And He will lift up a signal for the nations. And He will assemble the scattered ones of Israel, and will gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." [Isaiah 11:11-12] NOTICE: After the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the Versailles Treaty of 1919 … but especially after 1948 when Israel was declared as a nation … many Jews emigrated to Israel -- to their homeland -- as a Nation of People: this was their FIRST regathering from their dispersion among the Gentile nations (the Goyim). However, in Isaiah Chapter 11 we see that G-d will regather His People a second time. Could this "second regathering" be when Messiah appears? Or, before? In Isaiah Chapter 11, verses 13 through 16, we see that: Israel will spoil the Islamic nations from the West to the East: from the Philistines in the West to Ammon and Moab in Jordan in the East. Again, direction is from Jerusalem. [Isaiah 11:14] The mouth of the Egyptian sea will be dried up. This has never happened. [Isaiah 11:15] See also Isaiah Chapter 19:5-8. There will be a highway of travel from Iraq through Syria and extending to Egypt. [Isaiah 11:16] See also Isaiah Chapter 19:23. In Isaiah Chapter 11, verses 12-16, we read a description of a war that will happen BEFORE Messiah comes to earth again (the second time). The first 11 verses tell us about Messiah's return and his rule of peace on earth. Verses 12-16 (the description of war) cannot happen during this time because Messiah's reign is characterized by peace. Another distinctive feature of the prophecy in verses 12-16 is that the war therein described has NOT happened historically. It has not happened yet! A war between Israel and much of the Middle East will happen, not just bordering Arab states like Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. They (that is, the children of Israel ... both Ephraim and Judah) will "fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines (Palestinians) to the west." In context Israel will strike against Egypt and Iraq (Assyria) and "plunder the sons of the East." Israel will control these nations, and evidently, their wealth as a result of the plundering. Etymologically, the "people of the East" MAY include other Arab nations. It is very evident here in this passage ... see verse 14 ... that Israel will control the East Bank of Jordan (Ammon, Moab, and Edom). This happened in Joshua's time and it has NOT happened SINCE the days of Isaiah. This is a future prophecy that WILL happen! It is quite probable that the devastation of terrorist groups like Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hamas, Fatah, Al-Qaeda and ISIS will be accomplished during this conflict. It may be one of the factors—if not the primary factor—that actually precipitates the conflict. Actually, many of the citizens in these Muslim nations may be glad Israel wins this conflict to deliver them from the hands of terrorist groups and leadership. So now we know what the “hook” is that God uses to draw the powers from the North: it is Israel's great wealth! The LORD says to the Northern powers: “I will turn you back, and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you forth …” ‒ Ezekiel 38:4 The Northern powers' leader will say: “I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates, To take a spoil, and to take a prey ... upon the desolate places that are now inhabited, and upon the people that are gathered out of the nations.” – Ezekiel 38:11-12 The Northern powers described in Ezekiel 38-39 are parts of Russia, Turkey, Iran (the North of Jerusalem) with allies in the North-East African region. Where—and when—does Israel achieve the great wealth that God will use to draw the powers from the North against her? Remember, Isaiah Chapter Eleven verse 14 tells us, “Israel will strike against Egypt and Assyria (Iraq and Syria) and "plunder the sons of the East." Israel will control these nations, and evidently, their wealth as a result of the plundering. Notice, also, that these entities that are conquered by Israel are ALL presently Muslim nations. PSALM 83 In Psalm 83 we see what MAY BE a parallel description of Isaiah Chapter Eleven—possibly—in more detail as it pertains to the parties involved. Remember, the Book of Isaiah was written more recently, around 750 B.C.E … while Psalm 83 was written about 1,000 B.C.E. However, the Spirit of G-d can use writers, including prophets, at different times of writing to make declarations concerning the same events: even future. “Keep not silence, O G-d: hold not your peace, and be not still, O G-d. For, behold, your enemies make a tumult: and they that hate you have lifted up the head. They have taken crafty counsel against your people (Israel) and consulted against your hidden ones. They have said, ‘Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.’ For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against you: The tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes; Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre; Assur also is joined with them: they have helped the children of Lot. Selah.” [Psalm 83:1-8] For a description of the cognate terms listed in the above passage and their current identity, the following will help: The tabernacles, or tents, of Edom are Israel’s traditional enemies: the Palestinians and other political Arab allies: Gaza, the West Bank and Golan Heights. Also, part(s) of Jordan. Esau represents Mount Seir (in Jordan) from the Dead Sea south to the Red Sea (Eilat and Gulf of Aqaba). The Ishmaelites were not confined to the descendants of the son of Abraham and Hagar, but refer to the desert tribes east of the Jordan River, in general, like "the children of the east" (Judges 7:12) … but also in the Arabian Desert. The Gebalites were predominantly in or near the area of Lebanon. (Joshua 13:15) The Hagarenes: Hagar was Abraham’s Egyptian maid who gave birth to his first child, Ishmael (the son of the ‘flesh,’ not the ‘promise.’). Hagar gave her son, Ishmael, to an Egyptian wife so that the Ishmaelites,or Hagarenes, of Gilead and Moab were three-quarters (75%) Egyptian. Asshur represents the ancient confines of Assyria (present day Syria and Iraq). NOTICE #1: The people groups and nations listed in Psalm 83 who want Israel’s destruction are ALL Muslim entities. NOTICE #2: Some of the inhabitants of these geopolitical areas are Jewish and some are real Christians. G-d knows WHO are His People and HOW to deliver them. This is obvious when He knew HOW to separate Lot from the destruction of Sodom. (Torah: Genesis Chapter 19) In Isaiah 11:14 we read that Israel is going to experience a major conquest over Muslim nations in the Middle East and plunder them... and not just win, but plunder their resources. “But they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the west; Together they shall plunder the people of the East; They shall lay their hand on Edom and Moab; And the people of Ammon shall obey them.” [Isaiah 11:14] Will this happen before the battle described in Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39? Is this where Israel gathers great wealth that is the “hook” which G-d uses to draw down the military forces from the North to attack Israel … which battle Israel wins hands down because the LORD G-d fights for her? Ezekiel Chapter 38 tells us that when the power forces from the North invade Israel … “Israel is at peace in their land ...” Brought back out of the nations dwelling safely." Notice again … Israel will be at peace in their land. Brought back out of the nations [after 1948] ...AND ... dwelling safely! With great wealth and resources. [Ezekiel 38:13] ADDENDUM: If there is NOT a conflict BEFORE the battle described in Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39 where Israel defeats and plunders Muslim entities in the Middle East—if Isaiah 11:14 happens at a different time—we still know that Israel will have great wealth that G-d uses as a “hook” to draw the forces from the North against her. This wealth could derive from oil, technological innovation, or mineral discoveries. Read (or listen to) my teaching on G-d, Geopolitics and Gold. I am connected with the most innovative leaders in Artificial Intelligence, technology and startup companies in Israel. They are the most brilliant, creative, and productive leaders in the world and are already helping Israel to become one of the leading economic power nations in the world. So now you know about Israel's future wealth … more resources for Zion! Baruch haba b'Shem Adonai. Your friend, Prince Handley President / Regent University of Excellence Podcast time: 16 minutes, 15 seconds NOTE: Scroll down for ALL previous podcasts last 10 years. _________________________________ Rabbinical & Biblical Studies[Scroll down past English, Spanish and French] The Believers’ Intelligentsia _________________________________  

PODCAST SATELLITETHE VOICE OF ISRAEL Tishri 15, 5779 Succot Day 1 Prince HandleyPresident / Regent University of Excellence ISRAEL'S FUTURE WEALTHMORE RESOURCES FOR ZION~ A MIRACLE PODCAST PRODUCTION ~ You can listen to this message NOW. Click on the pod circle at top left. (Allow images to display.)Or, Listen NOW >>> LISTEN HERE Email this message to a friend. Subscribe to this Ezine teaching by Email: princehandley@gmail.com24/7 release of Prince Handley teachings, BLOGS and podcasts > STREAMText: “follow princehandley” to 40404 (in USA) Or, Twitter: princehandley ___________________________________________ ISRAEL'S FUTURE WEALTHMORE RESOURCES FOR ZION Israel—whether realizing it or not—is going to win a major conquest over Muslim nations in the Middle East. And not just win … but plunder them, reaping great resources! No, I am NOT talking about the Ezekiel 38 ‒ 39 victory. I am talking about a conquest possibly before that: one that could happen at any time. Actually, there will be at least three (3) major Middle East conflicts that involve Israel in the future: Conquest over Muslim forces in Middle East; Ezekiel 38 ‒ 39 victory; and, Battle of Armageddon. NOTE: It is possible that the above two [#2 and #3] may be incorporated in one war; but two different conflicts (battles) when the Mashiach appears. That is, Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39 could be the same event combination as Armageddon. They both include eartquakes and hail. However, I believe they will be separate conflicts for the reasons I present below. CONQUEST OVER MUSLIM ENTITIES Most people familiar with Bible prophecy realize there will be a conflict in the Middle East—fought in Israel—where G-d Himself will be “set apart” in the eyes of the goyim: the nations. When it is over, the whole world will realize that the conflict has been won by the LORD G-d. And, probably many of the people familiar with this prophecy in Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39 realize that it is NOT the same conflict as the Battle of Armageddon. This fact is very clear in that:   THE WEAPONS USED ARE DIFFERENT In Ezekiel 38, G-d sends earthquake(s), overflowing rain, hailstones and fire … plus disease and blood … upon Israel's enemies. Also, Israel's enemy goes into confusion and fights with each other. In Ezekiel 39, 83% [five-sixths] of Israel's enemies are either destroyed or overcome. And [one-sixth] 17% of the enemy forces are sent back to their home lands. In the Battle of Armageddon (Revelation Chapter 16) we read of a great earthquake affecting the whole earth and hailstones the size of 100 pounds. However, there is NO mention of disease (pestilence) and blood; nor of fire and burning sulphur like in Ezekiel 38. THE ENEMIES INVOLVED ARE DIFFERENT In Ezekiel 38 and 39, we see that the focus of the conflict is while Israel is at peace in their land … “Brought back out of the nations dwelling safely.” [Ezekiel 38:8] Also, the commanding enemy forces who attack Israel are from the North: parts of Russia, Turkey, Iran (all North of Jerusalem) with some allies in the North-East African region. In the Battle of Armageddon (Revelation 16) Israel is NOT at peace … and we read that the whole world is involved as Israel's enemies. It appears that this fits the time frame of “Jacob's Trouble” during the last 42 months of the Great Tribulation: the last half of Daniel the Prophet's heptad of seven years. [Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15] “Then I saw three impure spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. They are demonic spirits that perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty. Then they gathered the kings [of the whole world] together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.” [Brit Chadashah / Revelation 16:13-14,16] OTHER CONSIDERATIONS In addition, when the conflict of Ezekiel 38 and 39 happens, Israel is at peace in the land with great resources. Even a casual reading of Ezekiel Chapter 38 shows that Israel’s great wealth will be what draws the powers from the North to come down against her. This brings to light another question: Where—and when—did Israel come by this great wealth?! The Middle East conflict … the Israeli-Arab dispute … is at its essence thousands of years old. It is a spiritual conflict: the political aspects of which are merely the symptoms. The scriptures do show us that there will be a final Israeli-Arab war. ISAIAH CHAPTER 11 "Then it will happen on that day that the Lord will again acquire with His hand a second time the remnant of His people, who will remain, from Assyria, from Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt, from Ethiopia, from Iran, from Babylonia, from Syria, and from the coastlands bordering the [Mediterranean] Sea. And He will lift up a signal for the nations. And He will assemble the scattered ones of Israel, and will gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." [Isaiah 11:11-12] NOTICE: After the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the Versailles Treaty of 1919 … but especially after 1948 when Israel was declared as a nation … many Jews emigrated to Israel -- to their homeland -- as a Nation of People: this was their FIRST regathering from their dispersion among the Gentile nations (the Goyim). However, in Isaiah Chapter 11 we see that G-d will regather His People a second time. Could this "second regathering" be when Messiah appears? Or, before? In Isaiah Chapter 11, verses 13 through 16, we see that: Israel will spoil the Islamic nations from the West to the East: from the Philistines in the West to Ammon and Moab in Jordan in the East. Again, direction is from Jerusalem. [Isaiah 11:14] The mouth of the Egyptian sea will be dried up. This has never happened. [Isaiah 11:15] See also Isaiah Chapter 19:5-8. There will be a highway of travel from Iraq through Syria and extending to Egypt. [Isaiah 11:16] See also Isaiah Chapter 19:23. In Isaiah Chapter 11, verses 12-16, we read a description of a war that will happen BEFORE Messiah comes to earth again (the second time). The first 11 verses tell us about Messiah's return and his rule of peace on earth. Verses 12-16 (the description of war) cannot happen during this time because Messiah's reign is characterized by peace. Another distinctive feature of the prophecy in verses 12-16 is that the war therein described has NOT happened historically. It has not happened yet! A war between Israel and much of the Middle East will happen, not just bordering Arab states like Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. They (that is, the children of Israel ... both Ephraim and Judah) will "fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines (Palestinians) to the west." In context Israel will strike against Egypt and Iraq (Assyria) and "plunder the sons of the East." Israel will control these nations, and evidently, their wealth as a result of the plundering. Etymologically, the "people of the East" MAY include other Arab nations. It is very evident here in this passage ... see verse 14 ... that Israel will control the East Bank of Jordan (Ammon, Moab, and Edom). This happened in Joshua's time and it has NOT happened SINCE the days of Isaiah. This is a future prophecy that WILL happen! It is quite probable that the devastation of terrorist groups like Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hamas, Fatah, Al-Qaeda and ISIS will be accomplished during this conflict. It may be one of the factors—if not the primary factor—that actually precipitates the conflict. Actually, many of the citizens in these Muslim nations may be glad Israel wins this conflict to deliver them from the hands of terrorist groups and leadership. So now we know what the “hook” is that God uses to draw the powers from the North: it is Israel's great wealth! The LORD says to the Northern powers: “I will turn you back, and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you forth …” ‒ Ezekiel 38:4 The Northern powers' leader will say: “I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates, To take a spoil, and to take a prey ... upon the desolate places that are now inhabited, and upon the people that are gathered out of the nations.” – Ezekiel 38:11-12 The Northern powers described in Ezekiel 38-39 are parts of Russia, Turkey, Iran (the North of Jerusalem) with allies in the North-East African region. Where—and when—does Israel achieve the great wealth that God will use to draw the powers from the North against her? Remember, Isaiah Chapter Eleven verse 14 tells us, “Israel will strike against Egypt and Assyria (Iraq and Syria) and "plunder the sons of the East." Israel will control these nations, and evidently, their wealth as a result of the plundering. Notice, also, that these entities that are conquered by Israel are ALL presently Muslim nations. PSALM 83 In Psalm 83 we see what MAY BE a parallel description of Isaiah Chapter Eleven—possibly—in more detail as it pertains to the parties involved. Remember, the Book of Isaiah was written more recently, around 750 B.C.E … while Psalm 83 was written about 1,000 B.C.E. However, the Spirit of G-d can use writers, including prophets, at different times of writing to make declarations concerning the same events: even future. “Keep not silence, O G-d: hold not your peace, and be not still, O G-d. For, behold, your enemies make a tumult: and they that hate you have lifted up the head. They have taken crafty counsel against your people (Israel) and consulted against your hidden ones. They have said, ‘Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.’ For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against you: The tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes; Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre; Assur also is joined with them: they have helped the children of Lot. Selah.” [Psalm 83:1-8] For a description of the cognate terms listed in the above passage and their current identity, the following will help: The tabernacles, or tents, of Edom are Israel’s traditional enemies: the Palestinians and other political Arab allies: Gaza, the West Bank and Golan Heights. Also, part(s) of Jordan. Esau represents Mount Seir (in Jordan) from the Dead Sea south to the Red Sea (Eilat and Gulf of Aqaba). The Ishmaelites were not confined to the descendants of the son of Abraham and Hagar, but refer to the desert tribes east of the Jordan River, in general, like "the children of the east" (Judges 7:12) … but also in the Arabian Desert. The Gebalites were predominantly in or near the area of Lebanon. (Joshua 13:15) The Hagarenes: Hagar was Abraham’s Egyptian maid who gave birth to his first child, Ishmael (the son of the ‘flesh,’ not the ‘promise.’). Hagar gave her son, Ishmael, to an Egyptian wife so that the Ishmaelites,or Hagarenes, of Gilead and Moab were three-quarters (75%) Egyptian. Asshur represents the ancient confines of Assyria (present day Syria and Iraq). NOTICE #1: The people groups and nations listed in Psalm 83 who want Israel’s destruction are ALL Muslim entities. NOTICE #2: Some of the inhabitants of these geopolitical areas are Jewish and some are real Christians. G-d knows WHO are His People and HOW to deliver them. This is obvious when He knew HOW to separate Lot from the destruction of Sodom. (Torah: Genesis Chapter 19) In Isaiah 11:14 we read that Israel is going to experience a major conquest over Muslim nations in the Middle East and plunder them... and not just win, but plunder their resources. “But they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the west; Together they shall plunder the people of the East; They shall lay their hand on Edom and Moab; And the people of Ammon shall obey them.” [Isaiah 11:14] Will this happen before the battle described in Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39? Is this where Israel gathers great wealth that is the “hook” which G-d uses to draw down the military forces from the North to attack Israel … which battle Israel wins hands down because the LORD G-d fights for her? Ezekiel Chapter 38 tells us that when the power forces from the North invade Israel … “Israel is at peace in their land ...” Brought back out of the nations dwelling safely." Notice again … Israel will be at peace in their land. Brought back out of the nations [after 1948] ...AND ... dwelling safely! With great wealth and resources. [Ezekiel 38:13] ADDENDUM: If there is NOT a conflict BEFORE the battle described in Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39 where Israel defeats and plunders Muslim entities in the Middle East—if Isaiah 11:14 happens at a different time—we still know that Israel will have great wealth that G-d uses as a “hook” to draw the forces from the North against her. This wealth could derive from oil, technological innovation, or mineral discoveries. Read (or listen to) my teaching on G-d, Geopolitics and Gold. I am connected with the most innovative leaders in Artificial Intelligence, technology and startup companies in Israel. They are the most brilliant, creative, and productive leaders in the world and are already helping Israel to become one of the leading economic power nations in the world. So now you know about Israel's future wealth … more resources for Zion! Baruch haba b'Shem Adonai. Your friend, Prince Handley President / Regent University of Excellence Podcast time: 16 minutes, 15 seconds NOTE: Scroll down for ALL previous podcasts last 10 years. _________________________________ Rabbinical & Biblical Studies[Scroll down past English, Spanish and French] The Believers’ Intelligentsia _________________________________  

Explore the physicality in corporate worship. Daniel I. Block states, "Many evangelical churches resist physical prostration as an expression of homage and submission to God. This resistance represents both an unfortunate overreaction to Roman Catholic abuses and the arrogance of our culture." Why is the physicality of worship in a variety of traditions such a touchy subject? Students discuss coming from a Catholic background and from a Charismatic or Pentecostal background. Consider the stigma of bowing down in worship and the influence of a parent bowing down regularly. Everyone reacts from something in our past either positively or negatively. When we look at the Scriptures, we see a lot of bodily actions. View a wall painting from the early catacombs from 4th century Rome. Consider that our songs of worship are intoned prayers. Explore another word in Hebrew: (עָבַד) or 'ābad or in Greek, douleuō or δουλεύω which means to serve. We see it in Exodus 3:12. Another example is found in Numbers 16:19. In Matthew 6:24 we read, "No one can serve (δουλεύειν) two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve (δουλεύειν) God and money." Other words are šārat or (שָׁרַת)in Hebrew, and Latreuō or λατρεύω used in 1 Chronicles 6:32. Steven also uses these terms as he quotes God in Acts 7:7. Consider Romans 12:1. Block prefers "reasonable service" over "spiritual worship". Another word for "serve" is leitourgeō orλειτουργέω. Nicholas Wolterstorff, “The Reformed Liturgy,” in Major Themes in the Reformed Tradition, states, "Etymologically the word leitourgia comes from two Greek words, leitos and ergon, meaning, respectively, “of the people” and “action.” In numerous books on liturgy it is said, accordingly, that the word originally meant action of the people. And often nowadays an argument for more participation of the people in the church’s liturgy is based on this claim. It is said that for something to be liturgy, it must be action of the people and not action of a few priests or pastors. But the word leitourgia never did mean action of the people. It meant action for the benefit of the people. A liturgy was a type of public service." A German word is Gottesdienst, which means "divine service". Explore Romans 15:16 and Hebrews 8:2.

PODCAST SATELLITE  /  The Voice of IsraelWWW.PODCASTSATELLITE.COMwith Prince Handley A MESSAGE TO ISRAEL, BIBI, IDF AND MOSSAD ISRAEL'S INITIATION OF THE END TIME PREPARATION You can listen to this message NOW.Click on the LibSyn pod circle at top left. (Allow images to display.)Listen NOW or download for later. After you listen to this message, you can scroll down for all messagespreviously in the Archives (with Show Notes). There are several music beds in this podcast.The podcast is not over just because you hear music. Please email this message to a friend. RSS PODCAST 24/7 release of Prince Handley blogs, teachings, and podcasts >>> STREAM Text:  "follow princehandley"  to 40404 (in USA) Or, Twitter: princehandley ___________________________________________________________________________________ A MESSAGE TO ISRAEL, BIBI, IDF AND MOSSAD ISRAEL'S INITIATION OF THE END TIME PREPARATION “Unto Whom the ends of the earth shall come.” (Tanakh: Jeremiah 16:19) A picture of the Gentile nations (goyim) coming to Israel to worship G-d … but NOT just yet. The covering must be penetrated at the juncture of End Time Preparation when Israel becomes the Lion that roars, awakened after the centuries, the pogroms, and the Holocaust. I suggest as a foundation that you study the following teachings: Israel and the Triumvirate of Testing: Turkey, Iran, and Russia. Confidential: Intel for Israel Bibi, Babylon, and 'Bama: Land for Peace, Petra, and Prophecy If you follow my BLOG / podcasts, you will know that since 2006 I have instructed Israel and her leaders to “Attack Iran NOW … before it's too late.” Many of the Gentile nations and governments that are going to – or say they are going to – help Israel actually have opposite goals to each other (while purporting, NOT assuming, unity with each other). The reason for this is that Almighty G-d is aligning those nations and governments within their own “purpose structures” to ultimately serve His purpose. By reason of the influence of uncertainty they will be undefineable in their actions, and leading up to the the KEY moment of intercept, Israeli military and Mossad leadership will receive intel from KEY sources letting them know that initiation must be determined with or without combined military collusion, anologous to the breakdown of an oligarchy leading to market penetration. What I call the “Uncertainty of the Dichotomous Key.” Even more of a paradox … may comprise an economic coalition of business men, economists, and bankers who may help finance the NEXT GREAT WAR between Israel and her enemies. They come to see that Israel is the only viable alternative in the Middle East (other than Turkey) for a sound and secure economic environment. Turkey is not the market of choice to them because Israel is a FREE society, whereas Turkey being comprised of majority Muslim adherents is NOT a FREE society. This loosely knit coalition, I call the Trading Complex, sees the abuses and dangers that have resulted from “Arab Spring” with the rise into power of the Muslim Brotherhood. NOTE: This will NOT be the last war Israel will be involved in. There will be TWO great wars: 1. The Ezekiel 38-39 conflict; and 2. Later – of course – the Armageddon (Harmegiddo) conflict. During the period from NOW until the Ezekiel 38-39 conflict, I predict there will be discovery of GREAT oil and gas resources in Israel. If Iran is NOT stopped – which it will be slowed down at this phase (until Russia steps in as “associate attacker” in the future) – the Tradng Complex believes that the potential economic windfall of the Middle East will be stifled. Study “Uncertainty of the Dichotomous Key” above again. With or without help, Israel will have to initiate the action that Prince Handley has advised her since 2006. NOTICE: With or without the help of the US, EU, NATO, or UN, Israel will be forced into a conflict that will place her ultimately in a position of extreme wealth. Israel will be ushered into the NEXT GREAT MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT with the POTENTIAL result being that Israel could control the wealth of the Middle East. One possible alternative to notice, also, is in Isaiah Chapter 11, verses 12-16, where we read a description of a war that will happen – seemingly - BEFORE Messiah comes to earth again (the second time). The first 11 verses tell us about Messiah's return and his rule of peace on earth. Verses 12-16 (the description of war) cannot happen during this time because Messiah's reign is characterized by peace. Another distinctive feature of the prophecy in verses 12-16 is that the war therein described has NOT happened historically. It has not happened yet! PROPHECY BY PRINCE HANDLEY: “There will be discovery of GREAT oil and gas resources in Israel.” ISRAEL'S FUTURE WEALTH – ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO Israel will be positioned into a force of prosperity and power: a "sign" to the nations! A war between Israel and probably ALL of the Middle East will happen, not just bordering Arab states like Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. They (that is, the children of Israel ... both Ephraim and Judah) will "fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines (Palestinians) to the west". In context Israel will strike against Egypt and Iraq (Assyria) and "plunder the sons of the East". Israel will control these nations, and evidently, their wealth as a result of the plundering. Etymologically, the "people of the East" include the Arab nations of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, and others. This passage of Scripture is often alluded to as Millennial, or happening furing Messiah's 1,000 year rule on Earth. However, it is probable – as mentioned previously – that verses 12 through 16 are NOT during Messiah's rule on earth as His reign is characterized by peace. The only seemingly other alternative is that this verse 12 – 16 happens at the time of His coming in the Battle of Armageddon. However, this seems unlikely as the LORD – as Scripture shows – does NOT need Israel helping Him in that final conflict. It is very evident here in this passage ... see verse 14 ... that Israel will control the East Bank of Jordan (Ammon, Moab, and Edom). This happened in Joshua's time and it has NOT happened SINCE the days of Isaiah. This is a future prophecy that WILL happen! Israel's future wealth plus her strategic land position will draw the powers from the North: Russia, her allies from Europe, Iran, and two North African regions to fight against Israel. Russia and her allies, incuding Iran, will be sorely defeated on the hills of Israel by fire, disease, and earthquakes. Confusion will cause them to fight against each other. This is what the conflict in Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39 is about. NOTE: The conflict in Ezekiel 38-39 is NOT the Battle of Armageddon. We know this because the nations and people involved are different in Ezekiel 38 versus Armageddon; and, the instruments of war utilized are different in Ezekiel 38-39 versus Armageddon (Revelation 16 and 19). Also, Mashiach does NOT need nuclear help (as in the Ezekiel conflict) when He comes to attack with the sharp sword out of His Mouth in the battle at Armageddon (Rev. 19:11-16). Also, the "Armies in Heaven on white horses" will NOT be in the Ezekiel conflict. However, the LORD, will be noticed (set apart) in the eyes of many nations of the world in the Ezekiel conflict as He was in the days of the Passover from Egypt (Tanakh: Ezekiel 38:23). This conflict in Ezekiel 38 will NOT happen until AFTER Israel controls the Middle East … or at least has GREAT resources. Israel's wealth will be the “spoil” that draws the enemy forces from the North. Let me summarize: there may be three (3) conflicts in which Israel will be involved in the last days scenario: Isaiah Chapter 11:12-16 Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39 Revelation 16 and 19 (Armageddon) At least we know there will be TWO: the Ezekiel conflict AND the Battle of Armageddon. And … Israel will have great wealth and resources which will draw the power(s) from the North to come to TRY to plunder and “take a spoil.” (Tanakh: Ezekiel 38:12) WHAT ISRAEL MUST DO NOW! The attack from Russia and her allies (including Iran) spoken of in Ezekiel Chapter 38 will NOT happen until Israel controls the Middle East. However, in the meantime, Israel must deal with Iran and terrorism. Israel must attack Iran NOW ... before it's too late. In the battle with Iran and Russia and associates (Ezekiel 38 and 39) the LORD will provide a MIRACLE win. But before that time ... RIGHT NOW ... the enemy of Israel, Satan, does NOT want Israel controlling the Middle East. Like a woman carrying a child in her womb with a prophetic promise has to maintain and care for the life of the child before it is born, so Israel MUST maintain her place in destiny. Israel MUST attack Iran NOW! Right now, End Time Prepation is at critical mass AND Israel will be the divine catalyst to initiate Phase 1. My advice to Bibi, Knesset, leaders of Israel, the IDF and Mossad is as follows: Plan as though no one – except G-d – is going to help you. Hope for the best, but expect the worst. Do NOT lean on the US, EU, UN or NATO. Lean alone on the LORD your G-d. Israel, go forward on all fronts … this is YOUR time in the sun … UNTIL the “Time of Jacob's Trouble.” Then (by that time) … I hope you have listened to me (or to the 144,000 Jewish evangelist-prophets who will be operating then) ... because it will be every person for himself until Mashiach appears to provide your final, permanent “time in the sun” … or “time in The Son!” Baruch haba b'Shem Adonai. Your friend,Prince HandleyPresdent / RegentUniversity of Excellence Podcast time: 13 minutes, 31 seconds. _______________    24/7 Prince Handley BLOGS, teachings, and podcasts Click the Dove above _______________ World Services Box A Downey, California 90241 USA Follow Prince Handley on Twitter Subscribe to The Voice of Israel Podcast here: SUBSCRIBE Listen to The Voice of Israel Podcast: www.podcastsatellite.libsyn.com Israel News and Prophecy: www.podcastsatellite.com Rabbinical Studies: www.realmiracles.com/rabbinical.htm If you need a MIRACLE, email to: princehandley@gmail.com ___________________________________________________________________________

PODCAST SATELLITE  /  The Voice of IsraelWWW.PODCASTSATELLITE.COMwith Prince Handley A MESSAGE TO ISRAEL, BIBI, IDF AND MOSSAD ISRAEL'S INITIATION OF THE END TIME PREPARATION You can listen to this message NOW.Click on the LibSyn pod circle at top left. (Allow images to display.)Listen NOW or download for later. After you listen to this message, you can scroll down for all messagespreviously in the Archives (with Show Notes). There are several music beds in this podcast.The podcast is not over just because you hear music. Please email this message to a friend. RSS PODCAST 24/7 release of Prince Handley blogs, teachings, and podcasts >>> STREAM Text:  "follow princehandley"  to 40404 (in USA) Or, Twitter: princehandley ___________________________________________________________________________________ A MESSAGE TO ISRAEL, BIBI, IDF AND MOSSAD ISRAEL'S INITIATION OF THE END TIME PREPARATION “Unto Whom the ends of the earth shall come.” (Tanakh: Jeremiah 16:19) A picture of the Gentile nations (goyim) coming to Israel to worship G-d … but NOT just yet. The covering must be penetrated at the juncture of End Time Preparation when Israel becomes the Lion that roars, awakened after the centuries, the pogroms, and the Holocaust. I suggest as a foundation that you study the following teachings: Israel and the Triumvirate of Testing: Turkey, Iran, and Russia. Confidential: Intel for Israel Bibi, Babylon, and 'Bama: Land for Peace, Petra, and Prophecy If you follow my BLOG / podcasts, you will know that since 2006 I have instructed Israel and her leaders to “Attack Iran NOW … before it's too late.” Many of the Gentile nations and governments that are going to – or say they are going to – help Israel actually have opposite goals to each other (while purporting, NOT assuming, unity with each other). The reason for this is that Almighty G-d is aligning those nations and governments within their own “purpose structures” to ultimately serve His purpose. By reason of the influence of uncertainty they will be undefineable in their actions, and leading up to the the KEY moment of intercept, Israeli military and Mossad leadership will receive intel from KEY sources letting them know that initiation must be determined with or without combined military collusion, anologous to the breakdown of an oligarchy leading to market penetration. What I call the “Uncertainty of the Dichotomous Key.” Even more of a paradox … may comprise an economic coalition of business men, economists, and bankers who may help finance the NEXT GREAT WAR between Israel and her enemies. They come to see that Israel is the only viable alternative in the Middle East (other than Turkey) for a sound and secure economic environment. Turkey is not the market of choice to them because Israel is a FREE society, whereas Turkey being comprised of majority Muslim adherents is NOT a FREE society. This loosely knit coalition, I call the Trading Complex, sees the abuses and dangers that have resulted from “Arab Spring” with the rise into power of the Muslim Brotherhood. NOTE: This will NOT be the last war Israel will be involved in. There will be TWO great wars: 1. The Ezekiel 38-39 conflict; and 2. Later – of course – the Armageddon (Harmegiddo) conflict. During the period from NOW until the Ezekiel 38-39 conflict, I predict there will be discovery of GREAT oil and gas resources in Israel. If Iran is NOT stopped – which it will be slowed down at this phase (until Russia steps in as “associate attacker” in the future) – the Tradng Complex believes that the potential economic windfall of the Middle East will be stifled. Study “Uncertainty of the Dichotomous Key” above again. With or without help, Israel will have to initiate the action that Prince Handley has advised her since 2006. NOTICE: With or without the help of the US, EU, NATO, or UN, Israel will be forced into a conflict that will place her ultimately in a position of extreme wealth. Israel will be ushered into the NEXT GREAT MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT with the POTENTIAL result being that Israel could control the wealth of the Middle East. One possible alternative to notice, also, is in Isaiah Chapter 11, verses 12-16, where we read a description of a war that will happen – seemingly - BEFORE Messiah comes to earth again (the second time). The first 11 verses tell us about Messiah's return and his rule of peace on earth. Verses 12-16 (the description of war) cannot happen during this time because Messiah's reign is characterized by peace. Another distinctive feature of the prophecy in verses 12-16 is that the war therein described has NOT happened historically. It has not happened yet! PROPHECY BY PRINCE HANDLEY: “There will be discovery of GREAT oil and gas resources in Israel.” ISRAEL'S FUTURE WEALTH – ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO Israel will be positioned into a force of prosperity and power: a "sign" to the nations! A war between Israel and probably ALL of the Middle East will happen, not just bordering Arab states like Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. They (that is, the children of Israel ... both Ephraim and Judah) will "fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines (Palestinians) to the west". In context Israel will strike against Egypt and Iraq (Assyria) and "plunder the sons of the East". Israel will control these nations, and evidently, their wealth as a result of the plundering. Etymologically, the "people of the East" include the Arab nations of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, and others. This passage of Scripture is often alluded to as Millennial, or happening furing Messiah's 1,000 year rule on Earth. However, it is probable – as mentioned previously – that verses 12 through 16 are NOT during Messiah's rule on earth as His reign is characterized by peace. The only seemingly other alternative is that this verse 12 – 16 happens at the time of His coming in the Battle of Armageddon. However, this seems unlikely as the LORD – as Scripture shows – does NOT need Israel helping Him in that final conflict. It is very evident here in this passage ... see verse 14 ... that Israel will control the East Bank of Jordan (Ammon, Moab, and Edom). This happened in Joshua's time and it has NOT happened SINCE the days of Isaiah. This is a future prophecy that WILL happen! Israel's future wealth plus her strategic land position will draw the powers from the North: Russia, her allies from Europe, Iran, and two North African regions to fight against Israel. Russia and her allies, incuding Iran, will be sorely defeated on the hills of Israel by fire, disease, and earthquakes. Confusion will cause them to fight against each other. This is what the conflict in Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39 is about. NOTE: The conflict in Ezekiel 38-39 is NOT the Battle of Armageddon. We know this because the nations and people involved are different in Ezekiel 38 versus Armageddon; and, the instruments of war utilized are different in Ezekiel 38-39 versus Armageddon (Revelation 16 and 19). Also, Mashiach does NOT need nuclear help (as in the Ezekiel conflict) when He comes to attack with the sharp sword out of His Mouth in the battle at Armageddon (Rev. 19:11-16). Also, the "Armies in Heaven on white horses" will NOT be in the Ezekiel conflict. However, the LORD, will be noticed (set apart) in the eyes of many nations of the world in the Ezekiel conflict as He was in the days of the Passover from Egypt (Tanakh: Ezekiel 38:23). This conflict in Ezekiel 38 will NOT happen until AFTER Israel controls the Middle East … or at least has GREAT resources. Israel's wealth will be the “spoil” that draws the enemy forces from the North. Let me summarize: there may be three (3) conflicts in which Israel will be involved in the last days scenario: Isaiah Chapter 11:12-16 Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39 Revelation 16 and 19 (Armageddon) At least we know there will be TWO: the Ezekiel conflict AND the Battle of Armageddon. And … Israel will have great wealth and resources which will draw the power(s) from the North to come to TRY to plunder and “take a spoil.” (Tanakh: Ezekiel 38:12) WHAT ISRAEL MUST DO NOW! The attack from Russia and her allies (including Iran) spoken of in Ezekiel Chapter 38 will NOT happen until Israel controls the Middle East. However, in the meantime, Israel must deal with Iran and terrorism. Israel must attack Iran NOW ... before it's too late. In the battle with Iran and Russia and associates (Ezekiel 38 and 39) the LORD will provide a MIRACLE win. But before that time ... RIGHT NOW ... the enemy of Israel, Satan, does NOT want Israel controlling the Middle East. Like a woman carrying a child in her womb with a prophetic promise has to maintain and care for the life of the child before it is born, so Israel MUST maintain her place in destiny. Israel MUST attack Iran NOW! Right now, End Time Prepation is at critical mass AND Israel will be the divine catalyst to initiate Phase 1. My advice to Bibi, Knesset, leaders of Israel, the IDF and Mossad is as follows: Plan as though no one – except G-d – is going to help you. Hope for the best, but expect the worst. Do NOT lean on the US, EU, UN or NATO. Lean alone on the LORD your G-d. Israel, go forward on all fronts … this is YOUR time in the sun … UNTIL the “Time of Jacob's Trouble.” Then (by that time) … I hope you have listened to me (or to the 144,000 Jewish evangelist-prophets who will be operating then) ... because it will be every person for himself until Mashiach appears to provide your final, permanent “time in the sun” … or “time in The Son!” Baruch haba b'Shem Adonai. Your friend,Prince HandleyPresdent / RegentUniversity of Excellence Podcast time: 13 minutes, 31 seconds. _______________    24/7 Prince Handley BLOGS, teachings, and podcasts Click the Dove above _______________ World Services Box A Downey, California 90241 USA Follow Prince Handley on Twitter Subscribe to The Voice of Israel Podcast here: SUBSCRIBE Listen to The Voice of Israel Podcast: www.podcastsatellite.libsyn.com Israel News and Prophecy: www.podcastsatellite.com Rabbinical Studies: www.realmiracles.com/rabbinical.htm If you need a MIRACLE, email to: princehandley@gmail.com ___________________________________________________________________________

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these actions resulted in mass death. In total, Stalin is responsible for the murder of roughly 10 million Soviet citizens. Again, this is well established. What is not well established is what to call Stalin's crimes. As Norman Naimark points out in his thought-provoking Stalin's Genocides (Princeton UP, 2010), historians and others have been peculiarly conflicted about this issue. Everyone agrees it's mass murder. But is it “genocide,” with all that term entails? Etymologically, it doesn't seem so: gens is Latin for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. The Kulaks were not a gens. Historically, genocide doesn't fit well either: after World War II, the UN decided that it would mean “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial religious group, as such.” Again, the Kulaks are none of these things. Naimark, however, argues Stalin's crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First, he demonstrates that some of Stalin's attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, he demonstrates that international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition. Some might ask “What does it matter what we call it?” I think it matters a lot. Words are not only an interpretation of the world, but they are also a reflection of who we are. The words the Nazis used to describe their crimes–“final solution,” “transport to the East,” “special handling”–tell us much about them. The words the Stalinists used to describe their crimes–“purge,” “evacuation,” “re-education”–tell us much about them as well. And so we have to ask: What does our persistent failure to call Stalin's crimes “genocide” say about us? Nothing very good, I think. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven't already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these actions resulted in mass death. In total, Stalin is responsible for the murder of roughly 10 million Soviet citizens. Again, this is well established. What is not well established is what to call Stalin’s crimes. As Norman Naimark points out in his thought-provoking Stalin’s Genocides (Princeton UP, 2010), historians and others have been peculiarly conflicted about this issue. Everyone agrees it’s mass murder. But is it “genocide,” with all that term entails? Etymologically, it doesn’t seem so: gens is Latin for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. The Kulaks were not a gens. Historically, genocide doesn’t fit well either: after World War II, the UN decided that it would mean “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial religious group, as such.” Again, the Kulaks are none of these things. Naimark, however, argues Stalin’s crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First, he demonstrates that some of Stalin’s attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, he demonstrates that international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition. Some might ask “What does it matter what we call it?” I think it matters a lot. Words are not only an interpretation of the world, but they are also a reflection of who we are. The words the Nazis used to describe their crimes–“final solution,” “transport to the East,” “special handling”–tell us much about them. The words the Stalinists used to describe their crimes–“purge,” “evacuation,” “re-education”–tell us much about them as well. And so we have to ask: What does our persistent failure to call Stalin’s crimes “genocide” say about us? Nothing very good, I think. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these actions resulted in mass death. In total, Stalin is responsible for the murder of roughly 10 million Soviet citizens. Again, this is well established. What is not well established is what to call Stalin’s crimes. As Norman Naimark points out in his thought-provoking Stalin’s Genocides (Princeton UP, 2010), historians and others have been peculiarly conflicted about this issue. Everyone agrees it’s mass murder. But is it “genocide,” with all that term entails? Etymologically, it doesn’t seem so: gens is Latin for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. The Kulaks were not a gens. Historically, genocide doesn’t fit well either: after World War II, the UN decided that it would mean “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial religious group, as such.” Again, the Kulaks are none of these things. Naimark, however, argues Stalin’s crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First, he demonstrates that some of Stalin’s attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, he demonstrates that international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition. Some might ask “What does it matter what we call it?” I think it matters a lot. Words are not only an interpretation of the world, but they are also a reflection of who we are. The words the Nazis used to describe their crimes–“final solution,” “transport to the East,” “special handling”–tell us much about them. The words the Stalinists used to describe their crimes–“purge,” “evacuation,” “re-education”–tell us much about them as well. And so we have to ask: What does our persistent failure to call Stalin’s crimes “genocide” say about us? Nothing very good, I think. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these actions resulted in mass death. In total, Stalin is responsible for the murder of roughly 10 million Soviet citizens. Again, this is well established. What is not well established is what to call Stalin’s crimes. As Norman Naimark points out in his thought-provoking Stalin’s Genocides (Princeton UP, 2010), historians and others have been peculiarly conflicted about this issue. Everyone agrees it’s mass murder. But is it “genocide,” with all that term entails? Etymologically, it doesn’t seem so: gens is Latin for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. The Kulaks were not a gens. Historically, genocide doesn’t fit well either: after World War II, the UN decided that it would mean “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial religious group, as such.” Again, the Kulaks are none of these things. Naimark, however, argues Stalin’s crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First, he demonstrates that some of Stalin’s attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, he demonstrates that international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition. Some might ask “What does it matter what we call it?” I think it matters a lot. Words are not only an interpretation of the world, but they are also a reflection of who we are. The words the Nazis used to describe their crimes–“final solution,” “transport to the East,” “special handling”–tell us much about them. The words the Stalinists used to describe their crimes–“purge,” “evacuation,” “re-education”–tell us much about them as well. And so we have to ask: What does our persistent failure to call Stalin’s crimes “genocide” say about us? Nothing very good, I think. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices