Podcasts about illegitimacy

Alain Goudey est directeur de l’innovation numérique à Neoma Business School et co-auteur d’une étude académique à comité de lecture sur l’IA générative dans l’enseignement supérieur. Cette enquête porte sur la façon dont les étudiants, les enseignants et les doyens perçoivent la légitimité de l’IA générative dans les établissements français de formation au management. Ses conclusions sont à la fois rassurantes et dérangeantes. Enseignement supérieur et IA générative : légitimité, paresse intellectuelle et la fin de l’examen traditionnel Le portrait qui se dégage d’une étude sur l’IA générative dans l’enseignement supérieur évoque ces attractions foraines qu’on appelle palais des glaces, où chaque partie prenante voit un problème différent et cherche une solution qui lui est propre. Toutes les illustrations de cet article ont été réalisées avec Midjourney. Lorsqu’Alain Goudey et ses collègues ont commencé à enquêter sur l’enseignement supérieur français début 2024, ils ne cherchaient pas à trancher le débat sur l’IA générative bonne ou mauvaise. Ils voulaient comprendre quelque chose de plus précis : comment le même outil pouvait être simultanément valorisé, redouté, accepté et dénoncé, parfois par la même personne. Leur étude, publiée dans Communications of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS), s’appuie sur des enquêtes menées auprès de 668 étudiants, 204 enseignants et 29 directeurs d’établissement (les « deans » du système anglo-saxon), complétées par 22 entretiens approfondis avec des enseignants ayant adopté l’IA en avance de phase. Ce qui en ressort évoque ces attractions foraines qu’on appelle palais des glaces : chaque partie prenante voit un problème différent et cherche une solution qui lui est propre. Le point de départ est un chiffre qui aurait dû clore le débat. Entre 80 et 92 % des étudiants, selon l’établissement, utilisent déjà des outils d’IA générative dans leur travail universitaire. Ce chiffre a été atteint en à peine dix-huit mois après le lancement public de ChatGPT. L’outil n’a pas attendu l’autorisation des institutions. Il s’est déployé de lui-même. Et dans bien des cas, l’enseignement supérieur est encore en train de rédiger sa note de cadrage. Le piège de la productivité Alain met le doigt sur le fond du sujet d’emblée. Les étudiants apprécient l’IA générative pour sa rapidité, sa capacité à générer des idées et son rôle d’appui à l’apprentissage. Mais ils craignent aussi, et leurs établissements avec eux, ce que les chercheurs appellent la « paresse métacognitive » : l’érosion progressive de l’effort cognitif qui produit un apprentissage réel. Pour lui, ce n’est pas une contradiction à résoudre, c’est un défi de conception pédagogique. « La résolution de ce problème passe par la conception des cours, où il faut réintroduire délibérément l’effort cognitif et la réflexion dans l’usage de l’IA générative en tant qu’outil, et non en tant que substitut à la cognition humaine ». Un problème de posture Le problème n’est pas la technologie, mais la posture que l’utilisateur adopte face à elle. Celui qui formule ce qu’Alain appelle une « requête naïve » obtient une réponse naïve : bien mise en forme, parfaitement médiocre. L’outil est capable de bien davantage, à condition que l’utilisateur apporte suffisamment de connaissances métier et d’esprit critique à l’échange. « Il faut cultiver sa propre réflexion plutôt que de déléguer l’ensemble du processus à la machine ». C’est, je l’ai souligné durant notre entretien, moins une question de prompt engineering que de discipline intellectuelle de base : savoir interroger la question avant de la poser. Les départements de philosophie enseignent cela depuis des siècles, sans se soucier de la mode. IA générative dans l’enseignement supérieur : les enseignants doivent former les étudiants aux outils d’IA générative et à leurs limites. Ils enseignent aussi l’Odyssée d’Homère et Frankenstein de Shelley dans le cadre du cursus de management. Image réalisée avec Midjourney. Une autre vision de la culture numérique Cette observation a conduit Alain à formuler une vision de la culture numérique qui tranche avec ce qu’on entend généralement. Le débat ne porte pas seulement sur la maîtrise technique des outils, il porte autant sur la connaissance suffisante du sujet pour juger si le résultat produit a une quelconque valeur. L’IA générative ne remplace pas l’expertise : elle amplifie celle que l’utilisateur porte déjà en lui. Ce qui soulève une question dérangeante pour les établissements qui forment des diplômés sans leur donner l’occasion de développer cette expertise. À Neoma, la réponse est délibérément double. Les enseignants forment les étudiants aux outils d’IA générative et à leurs limites. Ils enseignent aussi l’Odyssée d’Homère et Frankenstein de Shelley dans le cadre du cursus de management. L’objectif n’est pas l’enrichissement culturel pour lui-même : il s’agit de donner aux étudiants des modèles mentaux pour se représenter ce que peut être le leadership, ou ce qui arrive quand une création échappe aux intentions de son créateur. Alain appelle cela « construire une infrastructure cognitive » : « Nous devons permettre aux étudiants d’appréhender le monde à travers différents modèles, différents types de processus et cadres théoriques, afin de développer une véritable pensée critique sur ce que produit l’IA ». Une école de management qui fait l’impasse sur ces fondements produit des diplômés capables de manier l’outil, mais incapables d’en évaluer les résultats. Des examens qui mesuraient la mauvaise chose C’est dans le domaine de l’évaluation que le problème apparaît le plus clairement. Un enseignant capable de produire un examen de deux heures en trois minutes fait face à des étudiants qui peuvent y répondre en un temps tout aussi court. La valeur de diagnostic de l’exercice s’est ainsi évaporée. « Si ChatGPT ou n’importe quel outil d’IA générative peut réussir un examen, il faut repenser cet examen ». La réponse d’Alain n’est pas un retour au papier-crayon, même s’il reconnaît que l’évaluation écrite en présentiel reste la solution la plus simple à portée de main. Si un outil d’IA générative peut réussir un examen, il faut repenser cet examen. La valeur diagnostique de l’exercice traditionnel a disparu. Image réalisée avec Midjourney. Sa réponse est structurelle : évaluer les compétences tout au long du cours plutôt que de mesurer l’acquisition de contenus en fin de parcours, via des évaluations plus fréquentes et à moindres enjeux. Une solution ? La résolution de problèmes en situation réelle, l’évaluation par le processus et les examens oraux en présentiel préservent une partie de ce que l’examen traditionnel était censé mesurer. Mais Alain est honnête sur les limites : aucun format n’est totalement à l’abri. Les modèles d’IA évoluent trop vite pour qu’une solution unique reste valable durablement. La bonne réponse n’est pas de trouver une formule définitive, mais de considérer la refonte des évaluations comme un travail permanent. La conclusion de l’article va plus loin : ce que l’enseignement supérieur vend réellement devra peut-être changer. Si des contenus peuvent être récupérés, synthétisés et restitués à coût quasi nul par un outil accessible à quiconque dispose d’un navigateur, un diplôme qui certifie la maîtrise de ces contenus certifie quelque chose dont la valeur s’érode. Ce qui résiste à cette érosion, ce sont les compétences que l’IA ne peut pas encore reproduire de façon crédible : le jugement contextuel, le raisonnement éthique, la capacité à construire des cadres d’analyse et à les confronter à la réalité. C’est aussi, en substance, la manière dont j’aborde l’enseignement de l’IA, que ce soit avec des étudiants d’écoles d’ingénieurs ou de commerce, notamment dans le cadre de mon cours à Omnes Education (qui en est désormais à sa quatrième année consécutive). IA générative dans l’enseignement supérieur : une institution fragmentée La réponse institutionnelle de l’enseignement supérieur à l’IA générative a été, pour le dire avec ménagement, inégale. Sciences Po a interdit ChatGPT en janvier 2023, avant de changer d’avis. Trente-cinq universités publiques françaises se sont associées à Mistral AI. Les établissements élaborent une charte nationale. Neoma, où Alain est directeur de l’innovation numérique, a été l’une des premières écoles de commerce françaises à formaliser son approche, en lançant un programme de formation des enseignants, du personnel et des étudiants autour d’un socle commun initial, avant de passer à des ateliers spécialisés sur la conception des cursus, l’évaluation et la refonte des expériences d’apprentissage. Ce que la recherche révèle, c’est que cette activité institutionnelle ne résout pas un problème unique. Trois groupes de parties prenantes tentent chacun de résoudre leur propre version du problème sous le même intitulé. Les étudiants veulent des règles et une formation à la culture de l’IA. De leur côté, les enseignants développent leurs propres approches pédagogiques via des ateliers entre pairs. Les doyens définissent les politiques et négocient les infrastructures souveraines. Les préoccupations s’échelonnent dans une direction prévisible : la performance académique individuelle pour les étudiants, l’intégrité des évaluations pour les enseignants, la réputation institutionnelle pour les doyens. Ces trois groupes ne sont pas toujours en dialogue. L’objectif, tel que Neoma l’a mis en pratique, est de réunir les trois publics autour de la technologie sous un cadrage partagé, suffisamment tôt pour qu’aucun groupe ne puisse s’enfermer dans une position rendant toute coordination ultérieure impossible. La question de l’équité La question de l’équité traverse ces trois niveaux. L’accès aux modèles d’IA haut de gamme n’est pas gratuit. Lorsque j’ai soulevé la question de l’écart entre les abonnements de base et les offres professionnelles, la réponse d’Alain est révélatrice : le problème d’infrastructure est réel, mais secondaire. « La plus grande inégalité ne porte pas sur l’accès à l’outil, mais sur la capacité à l’utiliser correctement ». À Neoma, le partenariat institutionnel avec Mistral donne à tous les étudiants accès à un outil de niveau professionnel. Ce que montrent les données, même à accès égal, c’est un fossé important entre les étudiants qui utilisent l’IA générative pour obtenir la réponse la plus rapide possible et ceux qui s’en servent pour approfondir leur réflexion. Ce fossé ne se comble pas par l’égalisation des abonnements. Même si je partage l’essentiel de ce qu’Alain avance, je pense que la hausse des prix des modèles haut de gamme est prévisible. Elle tient à l’écart entre les investissements consentis et les retours commerciaux obtenus. Cela conduira quasi inévitablement à une fracture économique entre ceux qui ont les moyens et ceux qui ne les ont pas. Il suffit de regarder la grille tarifaire de Claude d’Anthropic pour s’en convaincre. Au-delà du modèle Pro, très limité en termes d’usage de tokens, notamment si l’on utilise le modèle Opus 4.6 plus sophistiqué, les tarifs atteignent déjà 1 200 € par an. Ce n’est pas une somme négligeable, d’autant plus préoccupante à l’heure où Claude s’impose rapidement comme la référence pour les utilisateurs soucieux de qualité. Quel sera l’impact des prix vertigineux de l’IA générative sur l’enseignement supérieur ? Le problème des « héros de l’IA » L’une des formulations les plus frappantes qui ressort des travaux d’Alain est ce qu’il appelle le phénomène des « héros de l’IA ». Dans les établissements d’enseignement supérieur français, certains enseignants font un travail pédagogique excellent et innovant avec l’IA générative : ils conçoivent de nouveaux formats d’évaluation, animent des ateliers, repensent des modules entiers autour de l’apprentissage augmenté par l’IA. Ils produisent des résultats. Et ils le font en grande partie seuls, sans reconnaissance institutionnelle, sans incitations de carrière, sans aucun mécanisme pour partager ce qu’ils ont appris. Les incitations sont mal calibrées. Dans l’enseignement supérieur, c’est la production de recherche qui est récompensée, pas la conception pédagogique, du moins pas de la même façon. Un enseignant pionnier qui repense entièrement un programme autour des compétences liées à l’IA générative recevra peut-être moins de reconnaissance professionnelle qu’un collègue qui publie un seul article dans une revue. « Nous devons aider tous ces héros de l’IA à obtenir davantage de considération pour l’innovation pédagogique, ce qui n’est pas nécessairement le cas par défaut dans l’enseignement supérieur ». Le risque, si rien n’est fait, est l’émergence d’un système à deux vitesses : une minorité d’enseignants à l’aise avec le numérique qui tirent leurs étudiants vers l’avant, tandis que la majorité reste à la traîne, ni formée ni encouragée à s’engager. L’innovation de terrain est réelle et précieuse. Sans structures institutionnelles pour la reconnaître, la valoriser et la reproduire, elle reste une exception plutôt qu’un modèle. IA générative dans l’enseignement supérieur : quand la légitimité s’effrite L’armature théorique de l’étude repose sur le modèle triadique de légitimité de Suchman, qui distingue la légitimité pragmatique (l’outil sert-il mes intérêts ?), la légitimité morale (est-il conforme à mes valeurs ?) et la légitimité cognitive (est-il tenu pour acquis dans la façon dont les choses fonctionnent ?). Ce modèle a été conçu pour des technologies adoptées progressivement. L’IA générative l’a mis à l’épreuve dans des conditions d’adoption massive quasi instantanée. Alain et ses co-auteurs n’y voient pas une raison de rejeter le cadre, mais une occasion de l’enrichir : ils introduisent un continuum légitimité-illégitimité plutôt qu’une simple alternative binaire. Ce que révèlent les étudiants Le résultat qu’Alain décrit comme l’asymétrie la plus notable dans les données concerne la dimension morale chez les étudiants. Les plus grands utilisateurs d’IA générative n’accordent aucune légitimité morale à ces outils dans un contexte académique. Ils les associent, avec une forte fréquence, à la triche, au plagiat, à la dévaluation des diplômes et à l’injustice. Ils utilisent un outil qu’ils considèrent comme éthiquement compromis. Ce n’est manifestement pas tenable. Sur ce point, Alain a une opinion très différente. « Utiliser l’IA générative ne constitue pas nécessairement de la triche. Cela dépend entièrement de la façon dont on l’utilise et à quelle fin ». L’échec institutionnel, selon lui, tient au fait que les établissements n’ont pas fait suffisamment pour modifier la perception que les étudiants ont de la technologie. Ce que révèlent les enseignants Les enseignants offrent un tableau plus complet. Les six dimensions de légitimité et d’illégitimité sont présentes dans leurs réponses. Ils reconnaissent l’utilité de ces outils tout en mettant en doute leur fiabilité, les jugent professionnellement nécessaires tout en trouvant leur architecture opaque, et invoquent leur potentiel inclusif tout en signalant la paresse intellectuelle et l’érosion de la pensée critique comme leur préoccupation la plus fréquemment citée : 58 occurrences dans le corpus qualitatif. Ce que révèlent les directions pédagogiques Pour les directions de ces institutions, le thème dominant est stratégique. La pression concurrentielle, la crainte de se laisser distancer et les gains d’efficacité dans les flux administratifs génèrent une légitimité pragmatique et cognitive. Ce qui introduit de l’illégitimité, ce sont les risques liés à la gouvernance : protection des données, surconfiance dans les résultats produits par l’IA, menace pour l’intégrité des évaluations à l’échelle institutionnelle. Le mouvement théorique le plus significatif de l’article consiste à traiter l’illégitimité comme une catégorie analytique à part entière, et non comme la simple absence de légitimité. L’argument, emprunté à la théorie du changement, est que les signaux d’illégitimité doivent être lus comme des signaux d’alerte qui appellent une réaction rapide. Un établissement qui interprète le malaise moral des étudiants vis-à-vis de l’IA générative comme un simple problème de communication passe à côté du signal. Ce malaise dit quelque chose sur ce que le cursus enseigne réellement, et sur ce que l’évaluation mesure effectivement. Lorsque les étudiants associent l’IA générative à la triche, à l’injustice et à la dévaluation des diplômes, ils ne sont pas irrationnels. Ils se trouvent dans les phases de déni et de résistance du modèle de changement de Scott et Jaffe. Les établissements ne peuvent pas se contenter d’étouffer ce signal : ils doivent traiter ce qu’il révèle. Source : adapté de Scott & Jaffe, « Survive and Thrive in Times of Change », tracé avec Claude. Voir : expertprogrammanagement.com/2018/05/scott-and-jaffe-change-model/ France, souveraineté et course mondiale Le contexte français ajoute une couche de complexité que la recherche saisit avec précision statistique et nuance qualitative. Sur le plan quantitatif, l’analyse n’a révélé aucune différence statistiquement significative dans la dynamique d’adoption de l’IA générative entre les universités publiques et les écoles de commerce. Sur le plan qualitatif, les choses diffèrent. Les écoles de commerce évoluant dans un marché très concurrentiel, ont avancé plus vite. Les universités publiques se sont mobilisées de façon plus systématique autour de la gouvernance, de la souveraineté et des infrastructures collectives, comme en témoigne l’alliance de 35 établissements avec Mistral AI et EdTech France. Alain n’y voit pas une contradiction, mais une division du travail qui, bien gérée, pourrait constituer un véritable atout. « Nous devons jouer collectif, parce que la compétition est mondiale ». La question de l’infrastructure d’IA souveraine, notamment la fédération ILaaS et le partenariat du ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur avec Mistral, déployé dans 26 universités pilotes depuis septembre 2025, n’est pas simplement symbolique. Il s’agit de permettre aux établissements français d’exploiter, de gouverner et d’adapter leurs outils d’IA sans dépendance envers des fournisseurs dont la tarification, les conditions et les capacités peuvent évoluer à tout moment. Encore faut-il que l’effet d’entraînement vers tel ou tel outil ne devienne pas trop fort. En ce moment, il est difficile de résister à l’envie d’utiliser Claude d’Anthropic quand tout le monde loue la qualité de son code et de ses résultats. Et le reste du monde ? La comparaison internationale est difficile à ignorer. Singapour, la Corée du Sud et les Émirats arabes unis intègrent la maîtrise de l’IA comme compétence nationale fondamentale dès le secondaire. Le regard d’Alain est direct : les décideurs publics français ne sont pas encore suffisamment préparés à l’ampleur de ce qui vient. « Avoir moins de personnes compétentes en IA que dans d’autres parties du monde est très dangereux pour notre économie et pour l’ensemble de nos organisations ». Le réflexe réglementaire, profondément ancré dans la culture politique européenne, n’est pas sans fondement. Prendre le temps de réguler de façon responsable a de la valeur. Mais cela ne peut pas se substituer à la rapidité d’adoption au niveau des compétences et des cursus. La question qui encadre la recherche L’entretien se termine, comme il se doit, par la méta-question : qu’est-ce que cela signifie d’étudier la légitimité de l’IA générative en utilisant l’IA générative ? L’équipe d’Alain a utilisé ChatGPT, Perplexity, NotebookLM et OpenAI O3 dans le processus de recherche, et l’a indiqué explicitement dans la déclaration d’utilisation de l’article. Sa réponse à la question des biais est prudente. Chaque étape de l’analyse a impliqué un codeur humain. L’équipe a confronté le codage assisté par IA à une analyse indépendante préalable des mêmes données, réalisée pour un rapport institutionnel français, puis comparé les deux séries. « Il faut être transparent sur l’usage que l’on fait de ces outils, pour quel objectif, à chaque étape ». Cette déclaration était un choix délibéré, précisément parce que le sujet de l’article rendait toute autre approche intenable. Utiliser l’IA pour améliorer la qualité d’un texte et l’utiliser pour en générer un que l’on présente ensuite comme le sien sont deux choses différentes. Techniquement, c’est une question de degré. Dans les faits, c’est la différence entre un travail assumé et une abdication. L’équipe d’Alain a su naviguer entre les deux pour publier. La plupart des étudiants de son corpus cherchent encore à tracer cette ligne, dans un environnement où personne ne l’a clairement expliquée et où les outils d’évaluation n’ont pas encore été reconstruits pour lui donner du sens. Trois recommandations, une par partie prenante Lorsqu’on lui a demandé une recommandation concrète par groupe de parties prenantes, les réponses d’Alain ont été sans ambiguïté. Pour les étudiants : associer la culture technique de l’IA, comprendre le fonctionnement des outils et connaître leurs modes de défaillance, à une réflexion critique et éthique authentique sur les résultats produits. Ni l’une ni l’autre de ces dimensions ne suffit seule. Un étudiant capable de formuler des requêtes avec fluidité mais incapable d’évaluer le résultat n’a rien appris d’utile. Pour les enseignants : ces enseignants pionniers, que lui-même appelle les « héros de l’IA », ne peuvent pas être laissés à opérer seuls. Les établissements doivent créer les conditions du partage des bonnes pratiques au sein de la communauté enseignante, et accorder à l’innovation pédagogique la reconnaissance professionnelle qui lui fait actuellement défaut. Un enseignant qui repense de fond en comble son dispositif d’évaluation mérite au moins autant de crédit institutionnel qu’un collègue qui soumet une communication à un colloque. Pour les dirigeants institutionnels : un cadre politique à plusieurs niveaux n’est pas une option. Les étudiants, les enseignants et le personnel administratif n’abordent pas l’IA générative depuis le même angle, et une politique unique imposée de haut en bas ne satisfera aucun d’eux. La direction doit gérer ces trois dimensions en même temps, et ouvrir un dialogue véritable entre les groupes avant qu’une crise ne force la main. « Les doyens doivent penser à toutes ces dimensions en même temps, et c’est là la partie difficile de l’histoire autour de l’intelligence artificielle ». Des trois niveaux, Alain identifie le niveau institutionnel comme le plus urgent. Les étudiants et les enseignants s’adaptent déjà, imparfaitement, en temps réel. Les cadres institutionnels qui permettraient de donner un sens et une direction à ces adaptations restent, dans la plupart des cas, à construire. L’urgence n’est pas exagérée. La complexité non plus. Le défi d’intégrer l’IA générative de façon responsable dans l’enseignement supérieur est un défi qu’aucun établissement ne peut se permettre d’ignorer, ni de relever seul. LIRE LE DOCUMENT DE RECHERCHE SUR LE SITE CAIS Alain Goudey est professeur et directeur de l’innovation numérique à Neoma Business School. Il est co-auteur de « Legitimacy and Illegitimacy of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Perceptions from the French Management Context », publié dans les Communications of the Association for Information Systems. The post IA générative dans l’enseignement supérieur, état des lieux appeared first on Marketing and Innovation.

Alain Goudey is Associate Dean for Digital Innovation at Neoma Business School and co-author of a peer-reviewed study on GenAI in Higher Education. The survey focused on how students, faculty, and deans perceive the legitimacy of generative AI in French management education. His findings are both reassuring and unsettling. GenAI in Higher Education, Legitimacy and Laziness, and the Exam That No Longer Makes Sense The picture that emerges from a study on GenAI in Higher Education is less a battlefield than a hall of mirrors, where every stakeholder sees a different problem and reaches for a different solution. All illustrations in text made with Midjourney When Alain Goudey and his colleagues began surveying French higher education in early 2024, they were not trying to settle the question of whether generative AI was good or bad. They were trying to understand something more precise: why the same tool could be simultaneously valued, feared, accepted, and denounced, sometimes by the same person in the same breath. Their study sits at the heart of what makes GenAI in higher education such a contested terrain. The resulting study, published in the Communications of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS), drew on surveys of 668 students, 204 faculty members, and 29 deans, completed by 22 in-depth interviews with early-adopter professors. The picture that emerges is less a battlefield than a hall of mirrors, where every stakeholder sees a different problem and reaches for a different solution. The starting point is a number that should have settled the debate. Between 80 and 92 per cent of students, depending on the institution surveyed, are already using GenAI tools in their academic work. ChatGPT's public release produced that figure within roughly 18 months. The tool did not wait for institutional permission. It deployed itself. And higher education is still, in many places, writing the policy. The productivity trap Alain identifies the central tension plainly. Students value GenAI for speed, idea generation, and study support. They also fear, and their institutions fear with them, what the research calls “metacognitive laziness”: the gradual erosion of the cognitive effort that produces real learning. He believes this is not a contradiction to resolve but a course architecture challenge. “The resolution of this problem lies in course design, where we need to deliberately reintroduce cognitive effort and reflection into GenAI as a tool, not as a replacement for human cognition.” The issue, as he puts it, is not the technology but the posture the user brings to it. Someone who submits what he calls a “naive prompt” receives a naive answer, smoothly formatted and perfectly mediocre. The tool is capable of something far more useful, if the user brings enough domain knowledge and critical intent to the conversation. “You have to nurture your own thinking process instead of delegating the whole process to the machine.” This is, as I noted during our conversation, less a matter of prompt engineering than of basic intellectual discipline: the capacity to question the question before asking it, something philosophy departments have been teaching for centuries under less fashionable names. GenAI in Higher Education: faculty should train students in GenAI tools and their limitations. They also teach Homer's Odyssey and Shelley's Frankenstein as part of the management curriculum. Image made with Midjourney That observation prompted Alain to make a point about AI literacy that differs from what is generally proffered. The debate is not simply about knowing how the tools work technically. It is, equally, about knowing enough about the subject matter to judge whether the output is any good. The observation that AI is most powerful in the hands of people who already know the business resonates here. GenAI does not replace expertise. It amplifies whatever expertise the user already brings. Which raises an uncomfortable question for institutions producing graduates who may never have had the chance to develop that expertise in the first place. At Neoma, the response has been deliberately dual. Faculty train students in GenAI tools and their limitations. They also teach Homer's Odyssey and Shelley's Frankenstein as part of the management curriculum. The goal is not cultural enrichment for its own sake. It is to give students mental models for envisioning what leadership looks like, or what happens when creation escapes the intentions of its creator. Alain describes this as “building cognitive infrastructure”: “We need students to be able to envision the world through different models, different kinds of processes and theoretical frameworks, in order to develop genuine critical thinking about what AI generates.” A degree in management that skips that foundation produces graduates who can operate the tool but cannot judge its output. Exams that assessed the wrong thing The structural challenge shows up most sharply when it comes to assessments. A professor who can produce a two-hour exam in three minutes is facing students who can answer that exam in equally little time. The diagnostic value of the exercise has vanished. “If ChatGPT or any GenAI tool can pass an exam, you need to redesign the exam.” Alain's prescription is not a retreat to pen and paper, though he acknowledges that supervised handwritten assessment is the simplest available defence. The structural challenge shows up most sharply when it comes to assessments. A professor in Higher Education who can produce a two-hour exam in three minutes with GenAI is facing students who can answer that exam in equally little time. The diagnostic value of the exercise has vanished. Image made with Midjourney His more substantive response is a structural shift. He believes one should refrain from just assessing content acquisition at the end of a course, favouring the assessment of competencies as the course progresses. This implies more frequent, lower-stakes evaluations embedded in the process itself. Live problem-solving, process-based assessment, and in-person oral examinations all preserve some of what the traditional exam was supposed to measure. The caveat he adds is honest: no format is fully immune. AI models are evolving too quickly for any single solution to remain adequate for any length of time. The appropriate response is not to find a permanent answer but to treat redesign as an ongoing practice. The deeper implication, which runs through the paper's conclusion, is that what higher education is actually selling may need to change. If content can be retrieved, synthesised, and presented at negligible cost by a tool available to anyone with a browser, the degree that certifies mastery of content is certifying something of diminishing value. What retains value are the competencies that AI cannot yet credibly replicate: contextual judgement, ethical reasoning, the ability to construct and test frameworks against reality. This, in essence, is also how I tend to approach AI teaching, be it with engineering or business school students, especially within the framework of my course at Omnes Education (now in its fourth consecutive year). GenAI in Higher Education: The Fragmented Institution Higher education's institutional response to GenAI in higher education has been, to put it gently, uneven. Sciences Po banned ChatGPT in January 2023, then changed its mind. Thirty-five French public universities have partnered with Mistral AI. Institutions are drafting a national charter. Neoma, where Alain is Associate Dean for Digital Innovation, was among the first French business schools to formalise its approach, launching a programme to train faculty, staff, and students with a shared initial curriculum before moving to dedicated workshops on curriculum design, assessment, and the redesign of learning experiences. What the research reveals is that this institutional activity is not solving a single problem. There are three different stakeholder groups each attempting to solve their own version of the problem under the same label. Students want rules and AI literacy training. Faculty are developing their own teaching approaches through peer-led workshops. Deans are setting policy and negotiating sovereign infrastructure. The concerns escalate in a predictable direction: individual academic performance for students, assessment integrity for faculty, institutional reputation for deans. They are not always in conversation with each other. Alain's framework for addressing this fragmentation involves working simultaneously at three levels: infrastructure, course design, and governance. What he advocates for, and what he argues Neoma attempted, is to bring all three audiences into contact with the technology under a shared framing, early enough that no single group can entrench itself in a position that makes later coordination impossible. The equity question The question of equity cuts across all three levels. Access to premium AI models is not free. When I raised the issue about the gap between basic and professional subscription tiers, Alain's response was characteristic: the infrastructure problem is real but secondary. “The biggest inequity is not about accessing the tool, but being able to use it in the right way.” At Neoma, the institutional partnership with Mistral provides all students with access to a professional-grade tool. What the data shows, even with equal access, is a large gap between students who use GenAI to get the fastest possible answer and those who use it to deepen their thinking, and that gap is not closed by equalising subscriptions. Even if I tend to agree with most of what Alain is stating, I do think that the rise of prices for premium models is predictable. This is due to the gap between investments and business returns. This will almost inevitably lead to an economic divide between the haves and the have-nots. Looking at Anthropic's Claude pricing structure is indeed revealing in that sense. Beyond the Pro model, which is very limited in token usage, especially if you use the more sophisticated Opus 4.6 model, prices already amount to €1,200 per annum. That is not a negligible sum, which is especially worrying at a time when Claude is rapidly becoming the norm for users who care about quality. What will be the impact of towering prices of GenAI on Higher Education? God only knows… The “AI heroes” problem One of the most striking formulations to emerge from Alain’s research is what he calls the “AI hero” phenomenon. Across French higher education institutions, there are faculty members doing excellent, innovative instructional work with GenAI, designing new assessment formats, running workshops, rethinking entire modules around AI-augmented learning. They produce results. And they do it largely alone, without institutional recognition, without career incentives, and without any mechanism for sharing what they have learned. The incentives are wrong. In higher education, research output is rewarded. Course design is not, or at least not in the same way. An “AI hero” who redesigns an entire programme around GenAI competencies may receive less professional recognition than a colleague who publishes a single journal article. “We need to help all these AI heroes to gain more consideration for educational innovation, which is not necessarily by design the case within higher education.” The risk, if this is not addressed, is a two-tier system: a minority of digitally confident faculty pulling their students forward, while the majority are left behind, neither trained nor incentivised to engage. The grassroots innovation is real and valuable. Without institutional structures to recognise, reward, and replicate it, it remains an exception rather than a model. GenAI in Higher Education, Where legitimacy breaks down The theoretical backbone of the study is Suchman's triadic model of legitimacy, which distinguishes between pragmatic legitimacy (does the tool serve my interests?), moral legitimacy (does it align with values I hold?), and cognitive legitimacy (is it taken for granted as part of how things work?). The model was built for technologies adopted gradually. GenAI tested it under conditions of near-instantaneous mass adoption, which Alain and his co-authors treat not as a reason to discard the framework but as an opportunity to extend it, introducing a legitimacy-illegitimacy continuum rather than treating it as a simple either/or. What students reveal The finding he describes as the most noticeable asymmetry in the dataset concerns the moral dimension among students. Students who are among the heaviest users of GenAI express no moral legitimacy for those tools in academic contexts. They associate them, at high frequency, with cheating, plagiarism, degree devaluation, and unfairness. They are using a tool they consider ethically compromised. This is plainly not sustainable. However, Alain's opinion diverges greatly. “Using GenAI is not necessarily cheating. It depends entirely on how it is used and for what purpose.” The institutional failure, in his view, is that institutions have not done enough to reframe how the technology is perceived by students. What faculty reveal Faculty present a more complete picture. All six dimensions of legitimacy and illegitimacy are present in their responses. Faculty recognise these tools as useful yet question their reliability, consider them professionally necessary while finding their black box architecture suspicious at best, and invoke their inclusive potential even as they flag intellectual laziness and the erosion of critical thinking as their highest-coded concern, at 58 occurrences in the qualitative dataset. What deans reveal For deans, the dominant theme is strategic. Competitive pressure, the fear of falling behind, and practical efficiency gains in administrative workflow all generate pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy. What introduces illegitimacy is governance risk: data protection, overconfidence in AI-generated results, and the threat to assessment integrity at institutional scale. The paper's most significant theoretical move is the treatment of illegitimacy as an analytic category in its own right, rather than simply the absence of legitimacy. The argument, borrowed from change management theory, is that illegitimacy signals should be read as early warnings requiring proactive response. An institution that treats student moral unease about GenAI as a communication failure misses the signal entirely. That unease is telling something about what its curriculum actually teaches, and what its assessment actually measures. When students associate GenAI with cheating, unfairness, and degree devaluation, they are not being irrational. They are in the Denial and Resistance phases of the Scott and Jaffe change model. These are illegitimacy signals in Suchman's sense: early warnings that the technology lacks moral legitimacy. Institutions must act on them, not suppress the signal, but address what it reveals. Source: adapted from Scott & Jaffe, “Survive and Thrive in Times of Change”, plotted with Claude. See: expertprogrammanagement.com/2018/05/scott-and-jaffe-change-model/ France, sovereignty, and the global race The French context adds a layer of complexity that the research captures with statistical precision and qualitative nuance. Quantitatively, the analysis found no statistically significant differences in GenAI adoption patterns between public universities and business schools. Qualitatively, the dynamic differs. Business schools, operating in a highly competitive market, have moved faster. Public universities have engaged more systematically around governance, sovereignty, and collective infrastructure, reflected in the alliance of 35 institutions with Mistral AI and EdTech France. Alain reads this not as a contradiction but as a division of labour that, if managed well, could represent a genuine asset. “We need to play collectively, because the competition is worldwide.” The sovereign AI infrastructure question, including the ILaaS federation and the French Ministry of Higher Education's partnership with Mistral rolling out across 26 pilot universities from September 2025, is not merely symbolic. It is an attempt to ensure that French institutions can operate, govern, and adapt their AI tools without dependency on providers whose pricing, terms, and capabilities are subject to change. This is only sustainable, however, as long as the peer pressure to use this or that tool, based on model performance, is not too strong. At the moment, it is hard to resist the urge to use Anthropic's Claude when everybody else is praising the quality of its code and results. The global comparison is difficult to ignore. Singapore, South Korea, and the UAE are embedding AI fluency as a core national competency from secondary education upward. Alain's view is direct: French public decision-makers are not yet adequately prepared for the scale of what is coming. “Having less AI-competent people than in other parts of the world is very dangerous for our economy and for all our organisations.” The regulatory instinct, which runs deep in European policy culture, is not wrong. Taking time to regulate responsibly has value. But it cannot be a substitute for speed of adoption at the level of skills and curriculum. The question that frames the research The interview ends, as it probably should, with the meta-question: what does it mean to study the legitimacy of GenAI using GenAI? Alain's team used ChatGPT, Perplexity, NotebookLM, and OpenAI O3 in the research process, and said so explicitly in the paper's disclosure statement. His answer to the bias question is careful. Every step of the analysis involved a human coder. Alain's team checked the AI-assisted coding against a prior independent analysis of the same data, conducted for a French institutional report. The team compared the two rounds. “You have to be transparent about your use of these tools, for what purpose, at each step.” The disclosure was a deliberate choice, precisely because the paper's subject made any other approach untenable. The line between using AI to improve the quality of writing and using it to generate writing you then present as your own is, technically, a matter of degree. In practice, it is the difference between a craft and an abdication. Alain's team navigated it carefully enough to publish. Most of the students in his dataset are still trying to locate that line, in an environment where nobody has explained it clearly and assessment instruments have not yet been rebuilt to make it matter. Three recommendations: one for each stakeholder When pressed for a concrete policy recommendation per stakeholder group, Alain’s answers were unambiguous. For students: combine technical AI literacy, understanding how the tools work and knowing their failure modes, with genuine critical and ethical thinking about the outputs they produce. Neither dimension alone is sufficient. A student who can prompt fluently but cannot evaluate the result has learned nothing useful. For faculty: the “AI heroes” cannot be left to operate alone. Institutions need to create the conditions for sharing best practices across the teaching community, and to give educational innovation the professional recognition it currently lacks. A faculty member redesigning assessment from the ground up deserves at least as much institutional credit as a colleague submitting a conference paper. For institutional leaders: a multi-level policy framework is not optional. Students, faculty, and administrative staff are not thinking about GenAI from the same vantage point, and a single top-down policy will satisfy none of them adequately. The task of leadership is to hold all three dimensions simultaneously, and to open genuine dialogue between groups before a crisis forces the issue. “Deans have to think about all these dimensions at the same time, and that’s the hard part of the story around artificial intelligence.” Of the three, Alain singles out the institutional level as the most urgent. Students and faculty are already adapting, imperfectly, in real time. The institutional frameworks that would give those adaptations coherence and direction are still, in most places, a work in progress. The urgency is not overstated. Neither is the complexity. The challenge of integrating GenAI in higher education responsibly is one that no institution can afford to ignore, or to solve alone. Alain Goudey is Professor and Associate Dean for Digital Innovation at Neoma Business School. He is co-author of “Legitimacy and Illegitimacy of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Perceptions from the French Management Context,” published in the Communications of the Association for Information Systems. The post GenAI in Higher Education, Legitimacy and Laziness appeared first on Marketing and Innovation.

So friends, can I ask you a question? Does it feel like it might be time to start talking about a constitutional do-over?We have a corrupt and criminal president who feels completely unconstrained by the United States Constitution. As but one example: he has abused the constitutional pardon power beyond anybody's wildest imagination. We have a majority on the Supreme Court that feels completely unconstrained by the expressed language of the Constitution. As but one example, the Constitution provides that the president shall take care that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed. Yet the Supreme Court - a majority of the justices - interpreted that very language, that solemn duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, as indicating that a president has complete leeway to violate all the laws of our nation, victimizing wide swaths of the American population, and he has complete immunity from prosecutionThen we have Congress - one political party that has just laid down and let a tyrant in the oval office walk all over them - completely abandoning their status as a coequal branch of government.So let me ask you again friends: do you think it's time we talked about a constitutional do-over? Well, that's what I just talked about with my friend, law professor, and constitutional scholar Kim Wehle. Kim authored a great new piece - you can find it on Substack appropriately titled, "Is it time to start thinking about a constitutional do-over". And given that our Constitution is plainly not up to the task of governing in these dangerous and lawless times, I think the answer to that question is not just yes but hell yes! Link to Kim's piece: https://open.substack.com/pub/kimwehl...Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

So friends, can I ask you a question? Does it feel like it might be time to start talking about a constitutional do-over?We have a corrupt and criminal president who feels completely unconstrained by the United States Constitution. As but one example: he has abused the constitutional pardon power beyond anybody's wildest imagination. We have a majority on the Supreme Court that feels completely unconstrained by the expressed language of the Constitution. As but one example, the Constitution provides that the president shall take care that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed. Yet the Supreme Court - a majority of the justices - interpreted that very language, that solemn duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, as indicating that a president has complete leeway to violate all the laws of our nation, victimizing wide swaths of the American population, and he has complete immunity from prosecutionThen we have Congress - one political party that has just laid down and let a tyrant in the oval office walk all over them - completely abandoning their status as a coequal branch of government.So let me ask you again friends: do you think it's time we talked about a constitutional do-over? Well, that's what I just talked about with my friend, law professor, and constitutional scholar Kim Wehle. Kim authored a great new piece - you can find it on Substack appropriately titled, "Is it time to start thinking about a constitutional do-over". And given that our Constitution is plainly not up to the task of governing in these dangerous and lawless times, I think the answer to that question is not just yes but hell yes! Link to Kim's piece: https://open.substack.com/pub/kimwehl...Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

2022

EV gamble has impacted food security and exports,Canada is filling in for USAID funding that is now gone,US debt clock weirdness,Mark Carney's weird win and liberal party collapse,Lametti and Medinichino are back in the fold,Trudeau in bed with Chinese crime lord,Doug Ford's Tariffs,Sign Up for the Full ShowLocals (daily video)Sample Showshttps://canadapoli2.locals.com/ Spotify https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/canadapoli/subscribePrivate Full podcast audio https://canadapoli.com/feed/canadapoliblue/Buy subscriptions here (daily video and audio podcast):https://canadapoli.cm/canadapoli-subscriptions/Me on Telegramhttps://t.me/realCanadaPoliMe on Rumblehttps://rumble.com/user/CanadaPoli Me on Odysseyhttps://odysee.com/@CanadaPoli:f Me on Bitchutehttps://www.bitchute.com/channel/l55JBxrgT3Hf/ Podcast RSShttps://anchor.fm/s/e57706d8/podcast/rsso

Episode 4112: The Illegitimacy Of The Elite Regime Is Revealed; Transparency For The American People

My special guest tonight is author Mike Rothmiller returning to discuss his book called  True Crime Chronicles.K-=TRUE CRIME CHRONICLES, Volume One, includes stories about Belle Gunness, who had a penchant for killing men and feeding them to her hogs, Dr. Holmes and his “murder castle,” The Bloody Benders, and Amelia Dyer, the “baby farmer,” the darker side of Wyatt Earp, and the forerunners of the American Mafia, “The Black Hand.” Imagine yourself accompanying these reporters visiting the crime scenes, interviewing witnesses, and penning the stories of murder, lynchings, evil, and swift frontier justice.     More History on Baby Farming: Baby farming is the historical practice of accepting custody of an infant or child in exchange for payment in late-Victorian Britain and, less commonly, in Australia and the United States. If the infant was young, this usually included wet-nursing (breast-feeding by a woman not the mother). Some baby farmers "adopted" children for lump-sum payments, while others cared for infants for periodic payments.   Though baby farmers were paid in the understanding that care would be provided, the term "baby farmer" was used as an insult, and improper treatment was usually implied. Illegitimacy and its attendant social stigma were usually the impetus for a mother's decision to put her children "out to nurse" with a baby farmer, but baby farming also encompassed foster care and adoption in the period before they were regulated by British law. Wealthier women would also put their infants out to be cared for in the homes of villagers. Claire Tomalin gives a detailed account of this in her biography of Jane Austen, who was fostered in this manner, as were all her siblings, from a few months old until they were toddlers.[1] Tomalin emphasizes the emotional distance this created. Particularly in the case of lump-sum adoptions, it was more profitable for the baby farmer if the infant or child she adopted died, since the small payment could not cover the care of the child for long. Some baby farmers adopted numerous children and then neglected them or murdered them outright (see infanticide). Several were tried for murder, manslaughter, or criminal neglect and were hanged. Margaret Waters (executed 1870) and Amelia Dyer(executed 1896) were two infamous British baby farmers, as were Amelia Sach and Annie Walters (executed 1903).[2] The last baby farmer to be executed in Britain was Rhoda Willis, who was hanged in Wales in 1907. The only woman to be executed in New Zealand, Minnie Dean, was a baby farmer. In Australia, baby-farmer Frances Knorr was executed for infanticide in 1894.[3] In Scandinavia there was a euphemism for this activity: "änglamakerska" (Swedish, including Hilda Nilsson) and "englemagerske" (Danish), both literally meaning a female "angel maker".   An undercover investigation of baby-farming, reported in 1870 in a letter to The Times, concluded that "My conviction is that children are murdered in scores by these women, that adoption is only a fine phrase for slow or sudden death".[4] Spurred by a series of articles that appeared in the  British Medical Journal in 1867, the Parliament of the United Kingdom began to regulate baby farming in 1872 with the passage of the  Infant Life Protection Act 1872.Follow Our Other ShowsFollow UFO WitnessesFollow Crime Watch WeeklyFollow Paranormal FearsFollow Seven: Disturbing Chronicle StoriesJoin our Patreon for ad-free listening and more bonus content.Follow us on Instagram @mysteriousradioFollow us on TikTok mysteriousradioTikTok Follow us on Twitter @mysteriousradio Follow us on Pinterest pinterest.com/mysteriousradio Like us on Facebook Facebook.com/mysteriousradio]

In today's episode, we are exploring the historical and theatrical context for bastard characters in Shakespeare's plays and other plays of the early modern period. We'll explore the cultural norms that existed for illegitimate children during the Elizabethan and Jacobean and the legal, financial, and social prejudices they and their parents experienced. We will also discuss how the experience of illegitimacy intersects with class in early modern England. Then, we will explore how the early modern theatre mirrored the experience of illegitimate children and how bastard characters were used as a tool by dramatists for the early modern theatre.   Shakespeare Anyone? is created and produced by Kourtney Smith and Elyse Sharp. Music is "Neverending Minute" by Sounds Like Sander. Follow us on Instagram at @shakespeareanyonepod for updates or visit our website at shakespeareanyone.com You can support the podcast by becoming a patron at patreon.com/shakespeareanyone, sending us a virtual tip via our tipjar, or by shopping our bookshelves at bookshop.org/shop/shakespeareanyonepod. Works referenced: Findlay, Alison. Illegitimate Power: Bastards in Renaissance Drama. United Kingdom, Manchester University Press, 2009.

Why were children punished for illegitimacy in the 18th century? And what does the word even mean?The truth is quite shocking, and probably still affects a lot of the people you know today.Joining Kate today is Kate Gibson, historian and author of Illegitimacy, Family, and Stigma in England, 1660-1834, to explore the ways that female sexuality played a part in the stigma of illegitimacy, and how attitudes evolved, from the Victorians up until the modern day.This episode was edited by Tom Delargy. The producer was Stuart Beckwith. The senior producer is Charlotte Long.Enjoy unlimited access to award-winning original documentaries that are released weekly and AD-FREE podcasts. Sign here for up to 50% for 3 months using code BETWIXTYou can take part in our listener survey here.Betwixt the Sheets: History of Sex, Scandal & Society is a History Hit podcast.

In this bonus episode, we interview Dr. David VanDrunen. We consider his reply on several points to Pastor Taylor Drummond's critical article that we discuss in episode 17. The title of that article is "Fool's Gold?: A libertarian analysis of VanDrunen's account of state legitimacy" and it examines particular arguments in David VanDrunen's book Politics After Christendom.VanDrunen expresses his appreciation for Drummond's article and our episode discussing it, raises questions concerning immoral complicity if the state is taken to be illegitimate, offers some clarification about his (up to this point) not having differentiated monopoly states from non-monopolistic civil governance in his writing, raises questions concerning what sort of consent is normative for the customary legal order's own legitimacy and its authorizing function, raises the question of when abuse or injustice might categorically disqualify one from rightfully possessing authoritative office and its relation to political resistance, and, at the end, responds to our proposal how a fuller, non-aggressionist view of proportionality in the lex talionis of the Noahic Covenant entails a conclusive argument in favor of the exclusively "protectionist" purpose of civil governance law. https://reformedlibertarians.com/bonusCMain Points of Discussion00:00 Introduction00:09 Episode description02:15 Prefatory statements05:37 The question of immoral complicity16:30 Clarifying matters of complicity21:13 The question of civil governance vs. monopoly state27:55 Distinguishing normativity from de facto (non-)conformity to norms31:00 The question of legitimizing consent35:56 Distinguishing compliance under duress (by aggression)40:45 The question of abuse/tyranny and de-legitimization45:20 The question of a conclusive protectionist-only view49:32 Remaining uncertainty about Scriptural “regulative principle” for civil governance52:29 Closing remarksAdditional ResourcesAbout David VanDrunenhttps://www.wscal.edu/faculty-member/david-vandrunen/   – author page at Mongerismhttps://www.monergism.com/authorsspeakers/david-vandrunen   – bib at ResearchGatehttps://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/David-VanDrunen-2115184386 Episode 17: David VanDrunen's View Of Civil Government, with Taylor Drummondhttps://reformedlibertarians.com/017 “Fool's Gold?: A libertarian analysis of VanDrunen's account of state legitimacy,” by Taylor Drummondhttps://libertarianchristians.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/CLR-5-Drummond.pdfPolitics After Christendom by David VanDrunenhttps://www.amazon.com/dp/0310108845/ “The Protectionist Purpose of Law: A Moral Case from the Biblical Covenant with Noah,” by David VanDrunenhttps://www.pdcnet.org/jsce/content/jsce_2015_0035_0002_0101_0117 Episode 2: What Does Romans 13 Say About Civil Government?https://reformedlibertarians.com/002 Episode 8: The Boetie Option - the peaceful underthrow of the statehttps://reformedlibertarians.com/008 Episode 14: Does Political Representation Make Sense?, with Gerard Caseyhttps://reformedlibertarians.com/014 Episode 15: Can Christian Civil Government Be Theocratic?https://reformedlibertarians.com/015 Episode 18: Politics And The Church's Mission: What Should The Church Teach About Civil Government? https://reformedlibertarians.com/018 Audio of Answering 10 Objections to Libertarian Anarchism by Roderick Longhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsUjJ7TOhgk&list=PLwrDNUO5MDu8WYU5oB7l037lvAEjSoPBr&index=13  The Reformed Libertarians Podcast is a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute: https://libertarianchristians.com and a member of the Christians for Liberty Network: https://christiansforliberty.netAudio Production by Podsworth Media - https://podsworth.com

“Paul Kamenar, National Legal And Policy Center, The Illegitimacy Of Jack Smith” “The Fake Arlington Cemetery Scuffle Story” “The End Of The American Dream” “Environmental Alarmists Are Wrong Again”

Make a Donation to Forbidden Knowledge News http://supportfkn.comhttps://www.paypal.me/forbiddenknowledgeneBook a free consultation with Jennifer Halcame Emailjenniferhalcame@gmail.comFacebook pagehttps://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61561665957079&mibextid=ZbWKwLListen new showIt Happened May The 4thPodcast:https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/it-happened-may-the-4th--6170987YouTube channelhttps://youtube.com/@ItHappenedMayThe4th?si=GGwEwLxbmXjnp56eSick of having mediocre health? Transform your health and vitality with Christian Yordanov's program. Learn more and book a free intro call here (mention FKN at time of booking and he will have a special gift for youhttps://christianyordanov.com/fkn/Watch The Forbidden Documentary: Occult Louisiana on Tubi: https://link.tubi.tv/pGXW6chxCJbC60 PurplePowerhttps://go.shopc60.com/FORBIDDEN10/or use coupon code knowledge10FKN Link Treehttps://linktr.ee/FKNlinksForbidden Knowledge Network https://forbiddenknowledge.news/Sign up on Rokfin!https://rokfin.com/fknplusPodcastshttps://www.spreaker.com/show/forbiddenAvailable on all platforms Support FKN on Spreaker https://spreaker.page.link/KoPgfbEq8kcsR5oj9FKN ON Rumblehttps://rumble.com/c/FKNpGet Cory Hughes Book!https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jfkbookhttps://www.amazon.com/Warning-History-Cory-Hughes/dp/B0CL14VQY6/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=72HEFZQA7TAP&keywords=a+warning+from+history+cory+hughes&qid=1698861279&sprefix=a+warning+fro%2Caps%2C121&sr=8-1https://coryhughes.org/Johnny Larson's artworkhttps://www.patreon.com/JohnnyLarsonYouTube https://youtube.com/@fknclipspBecome Self-Sufficient With A Food Forest!!https://foodforestabundance.com/get-started/?ref=CHRISTOPHERMATHUse coupon code: FORBIDDEN for discountsThe FKN Store!https://www.fknstore.net/Our Facebook pageshttps://www.facebook.com/forbiddenknowledgenewsconspiracy/https://www.facebook.com/FKNNetwork/Instagram @forbiddenknowledgenews1@forbiddenknowledgenetworkXhttps://x.com/ForbiddenKnow10?t=uO5AqEtDuHdF9fXYtCUtfw&s=09Email meforbiddenknowledgenews@gmail.comsome music thanks to:https://www.bensound.com/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/forbidden-knowledge-news--3589233/support.

Kingdoms (governments) of the world; America vs United States; Republics; Sanhedrin vs Sanhedrin; "libera res publica"; Davey Crockett story; Legal charity (bad thing); Making people dependent on government; Shining light on slavery; We the People?; Oregon General Jural Assembly; Guaranteeing a republic; "citizen"; Deciding fact and law; Whiskey; "of, for and by the people"; Assembly; Social welfare?; by Taxation?; Social security; Owning up to your faults; Hearing the cries of your brother; Illegitimacy for peacefulness?; Desiring benefits at expense of neighbor; Intervention spending; National debt = your debt; Due to your covetousness; Weak borders; Threat of invasion; Bankrupting America; Taking care of your roads; Following Christ's ways; Future prophecy; No majority needed; Living by faith; Recognizing benefits by force; Gal 5:15 biting one another; Homeless; Nukes?; Kingdom of God - what does it look like?; Early Church groups of Ten; Jesus' commands; Banking system collapse; Who can you trust?; Network of trust; "sit down" organization; Spiritual guidance; God's gift of faith; Courage; Greek "logos" = right reason; Facing danger for neighbor; Bonds of a free society; Minister authority?; Guest: Corruption; Leaving judgment to God; County commissioner; Countrymen not wanting freedom; Seeking help labels you?; People reclaiming responsibility; Taxation; Oregon bill on land use; Private property?; States giving authority to Federal; County oversight of federal land; Legal bribery; Illustrating insanity; False reporting by press; Ignorance-driven strategy; Importance of understanding; Campaign financing; Doing basic research; Money for bill support; Holding officers accountable; Immorality; Campaign finance reform?; No freedom for the slothful; Finding truth; People of character; Your reaction to truth; Justice; Overwhelming fear; Real Christians; Persecution; Righteousness takes sacrifice; Keep your eyes open.

News

In this episode, we read chapters 27 to 31 of Emma. We talk about the entwined group of people who visit one another, how so many scenes read differently the second time through, Miss Bates's monologues, Jane and the piano, reactions to the plan of having a ball, and Emma encouraging Harriet to stop thinking about Mr Elton. The character we discuss is Harriet Smith, and Ellen talks about illegitimacy. In the popular culture section, Harriet talks about the 1995 modernisation Clueless.Also, we are now on Instagram, at reading_jane_austen.Things we mention:General discussion:John Mullan, What Matters in Jane Austen?: Twenty Crucial Puzzles Solved (2012)Character discussion:Edith Lank, ‘“The word was blunder”: Who was Harriet Smith's Mother?‘ Persuasions 7, 1985: 14-15Helena Kelly, Jane Austen, the Secret Radical (2016)Historical discussion:Max Weber (1864-1920)Claire Tomalin, Charles Dickens (2011)Christine Kenyon Jones, ‘Ambiguous Cousinship: Mansfield Park and the Mansfield Family‘ Persuasions On-line 31 (1), 2010BBC, Olivia Colman episode of Who Do You Think You Are (2018), Season 15, Episode 2Popular culture discussion:Main version considered:Paramount Pictures, Clueless (1995) – starring Alicia Silverstone and Paul RuddOther 1990s/2000s high school films based on classic literature10 Things I Hate About You (1999), based on The Taming of the ShrewCruel Intentions(1999), based on Les Liaisons dangereusesShe's All That (1999), based on Pygmalion / My Fair LadyO (2001), based on OthelloShe's the Man(2006), based on Twelfth NightEasy A (2010), based on The Scarlet Letter For a list of music used, see this episode on our website.   

Self Talk With Dr. Ray Self How the Spirit of Illegitimacy Affects You  (Ep 142) Dr. Ray Self  Dr. Ray Self discusses the diabolical scheme of illegitimacy and how to know when it is in operation and how to defeat it. If you are a leader with a call of God on your life, the chances are that the evil spirit of illegitimacy has attacked you. Knowledge and discernment are the keys to your freedom.    Find show notes at https://www.podpage.com/self-talk-with-dr-ray-self-2/blog/defeat-the-spirit-of-illegitimacy/    Follow and subscribe to Self Talk With Dr. Ray Self at our podcast website  - https://www.icmcollege.org/selftalk.    Help Dr. Self continue this show - partner at www.icmcollege.org/donate  For show topic suggestions, email Dr. Ray Self at drrayself@gmail.com International College of Ministry is now enrolling at www.icmcollege.org/enroll Enjoy free courses offered by the International College of Ministry Free Courses Check out our new store at – www.icmcollege.org/merch  Show host bio - Dr. Ray Self founded Spirit Wind Ministries Inc. and the International College of Ministry. He holds a Doctorate in Christian Psychology and a Doctorate in Theology. He currently resides in Winter Park, Florida. He is married to Dr. Christie Self and has three sons and a daughter.

Mohammed AlMassari is a physicist, mathematician, scholar, and writer who has spent his life in activism against the illegitimacy of the Saudi Monarchy. All Arabic Socials https://linktr.ee/Tajdeed  0:00 - INTRO  3:01 - Who is Dr. AlMassari 26:35 - Illegitimacy of the governments in the Muslim World 29:30 - Saudi Arabia's appearance of an Islamic government 32:49 - Are activists doing more harm than good 42:05 - The addiction to power 52:14 - Kitab al Tawheed Book 1:06:40 - Failure of the movements 1:17:20 - Task of bringing Islam back politically  1:39:01 - Our objective in the west.  

Discover how the enemy has been working against the purpose and destiny of sons and daughters with a spirit of illegitimacy, which works to destroy your ability to understand who you are through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The enemy is unable to create anything but can manipulate and pervert everything that God has established. It's because of sonship that the enemy has worked diligently for many generations with an attack plan to destroy your identity. If the enemy can get the upper hand on your identity, he will maintain a level of success in keeping you from your created purpose. Learn how to overcome the spirit of illegitimacy with the revelation of how this battle works against you and how you are able to overcome this tactic from the enemy.   To learn more, please visit: https://ryanjohnson.us/resources/   LISTEN NOW AT: Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-blacksmith-chronicles-podcast/id1485445641   Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4OmhF96FBZ7wz6umnfiMnT   Destiny Image:  https://destinyimagepodcastnetwork.squarespace.com/#/the-blacksmith-chronicles/   Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/84241b46-96c3-4aed-a483-a003fd5ea74c/the-blacksmith-chronicles-podcast Ryan Johnson — www.ryanjohnson.us RJM YouTube Channel — https://bit.ly/34Vxbgl Ryan Johnson Ministries Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/officialryanjohnsonministries The Blacksmith Chronicles Podcast Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/RJMinistries Instagram — ryanjohnsonministries EMAIL — info@ryanjohnson.us TikTok — @officialrjm

Join Jim and Greg as they wrap up the week. After Jim's choice comments on tomorrow's coronation of King Charles III, they welcome the news that the seven most vulnerable Senate seats in 2024 are all held by Democrats. They also unload on former Clinton campaign figure Brian Fallon for hyperventilating that Justice Clarence Thomas needs to be removed from the Supreme Court and that the entire conservative majority is illegitimate. And they give the real reason the left is so upset about the high court. Finally, they wonder why the FBI still hasn't released the manifesto from the Covenant School shooting in March and apparently has no plans to do so "anytime soon."Please visit our great sponsors:4Patriothttps://4Patriots.comUse code MARTINI to get 10% off your purchase.

Join Jim and Greg as they wrap up the week. After Jim’s choice comments on tomorrow’s coronation of King Charles III, they welcome the news that the seven most vulnerable Senate seats in 2024 are all held by Democrats. They also unload on former Clinton campaign figure Brian Fallon for hyperventilating that Justice Clarence Thomas […]

4.19.23 Kevin opens the show reacting to the statements Brian Davis made earlier in the morning on the Sports Junkies. It is clear to Kevin that Josh Harris is the only serious bidder for the team at the moment. 

The "A Few Forgotten Women" project comemorates women who might otherwise never be known. In this panel interview with Janet Few, Mandy Geary, Margaret Roberts and Ann Simcock we discuss some of the women they have researched and the issues they faced such as alcoholism, poverty, criminality, illegitimacy, mental health problems and more. There is also a blog post with lots of the resources suggested for anyone who wants to find out more about women such as these in their family. The blog post is available at https://emmacox.co.uk/a-few-forgotten-women

The similar challenges facing America and Brazil, including concerns about the state of their democracies, is worthy of exploration, as is the global response to the protest and what that response means for those opposed to the current “neoliberal” international order. Original Article: "America, Brazil, and the Illegitimacy of Weaponized Democracy" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon.

The similar challenges facing America and Brazil, including concerns about the state of their democracies, is worthy of exploration, as is the global response to the protest and what that response means for those opposed to the current “neoliberal” international order. Original Article: "America, Brazil, and the Illegitimacy of Weaponized Democracy" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon.

In today's episode:It's the two-year anniversary of the illegitimate regimeWe got here through election fraudJoe Biden says he has "no regrets" about his document situationMedia turns on the fake presidentThe duly elected President, Donald J Trump, has not left the battlefield.Connect with Be Reasonable: https://linktr.ee/imyourmoderatorHear the show when it's released. Become a paid subscriber at imyourmoderator.substack.comOther ways to support the work:ko-fi.com/imyourmoderatorbtc via coinbase: 3MEh9J5sRvMfkWd4EWczrFr1iP3DBMcKk5Merch site: https://cancelcouture.myspreadshop.com/Follow the podcast info stream: t.me/imyourmoderatorOther social platforms: Twitter, Truth Social, Gab, Rumble, or Gettr - @imyourmoderator Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/be-reasonable-with-your-moderator-chris-paul. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In today's episode:It's the two-year anniversary of the illegitimate regimeWe got here through election fraudJoe Biden says he has "no regrets" about his document situationMedia turns on the fake presidentThe duly elected President, Donald J Trump, has not left the battlefield.Connect with Be Reasonable: https://linktr.ee/imyourmoderatorHear the show when it's released. Become a paid subscriber at imyourmoderator.substack.comOther ways to support the work:ko-fi.com/imyourmoderatorbtc via coinbase: 3MEh9J5sRvMfkWd4EWczrFr1iP3DBMcKk5Merch site: https://cancelcouture.myspreadshop.com/Follow the podcast info stream: t.me/imyourmoderatorOther social platforms: Twitter, Truth Social, Gab, Rumble, or Gettr - @imyourmoderator Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/be-reasonable-with-your-moderator-chris-paul. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For the #29 episode of We Belong, we met Nesrine Slaoui, a Franco-Moroccan independent journalist and author. After graduating from Sciences Po in 2018, she has worked for national TV channels such as reporter for ITélé (Canal+) and as host for France Télévisions. She was also the face of the online media Loopsider, carrying out several investigations on domestic violence, police violence and student precariousness. In January 2021, Nesrine published her first novel "Illegitimate" to tell her story and her family immigration journey coming from Morocco and to growing up in a small rural city in France. A book committed to equal opportunities and against all forms of sexist or racist discrimination. Ahead of her upcoming second book “Seule” (Alone), out on January 4, we discussed with her about the struggles she faced at school, her experience in journalism and how she found a way to express herself through writing.

Illegitimate children come up a lot in historical fiction, but how common was illegitimate birth, and what was life really like for these people? This week, we talk to Dr Kate Gibson about her new book: Illegitimacy, Family, and Stigma in England, 1660-1834.

When Walter Macken dedicated his first novel to his Mammy, Agnes, he did not expect the censors to declare it ‘obscene'. How does a social-problem novel by a good Catholic offend the official arbiters of taste? Illegitimacy and pre martial sex are central themes and key plot devices. It's not as full throated an exploration of the relationship between man and sheep as you might expect. Macken went deep into our souls without us really noticing. Fancy supporting the show? Do so here https://www.patreon.com/censoredpod Or buy stickers here: https://censoredpod.bigcartel.com/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Working it out as the Apex Timeline for your Cosmic Self; the inversion of ancestry; the root energies of shame and embarrassment; impacts on provider energy, acceptance and flow of money and resource ::: If you have not yet accessed the https://melaniegillespie.thrivecart.com/foundercodescomplete/ (Founder Codes library), which I've made available w a pay what you choose option, DO SO NOW.

Dr. David Wurmser who is Al Qaeda and what do they believe. Who are the Wahabi and what is their relationship to the Saudi Royals? How did Khashoggi play a role in the conflict? Muslim Brotherhood role in Sunni and their conflicts. Illegitimacy of Palestinian claims and their Russian connection. Iran and its nuclear ambitions and plan to attack New York.

Dr. David Wurmser who is Al Qaeda and what do they believe. Who are the Wahabi and what is their relationship to the Saudi Royals? How did Khashoggi play a role in the conflict? Muslim Brotherhood role in Sunni and their conflicts. Illegitimacy of Palestinian claims and their Russian connection. Iran and its nuclear ambitions and plan to attack New York.

For show notes, links and complete description, visit www.HagmannReport.com/videosThe Hagmann Report is brought to you by EMP Shield - www.EMPshield.com/hagmannUse Promo Code HAGMANN for $50 OFF!IMPORTANT LINKS:DONATE: (www.HagmannReport.com/fundraiser)HAGMANN COFFEE: (www.HagmannStore.com)The Hagmann Report provides news and information based on a combination of exclusive investigative work, proprietary sources, contacts, qualified guests, open-source material. The Hagmann Report will never be encumbered by political correctness or held hostage to an agenda of revisionist history.Join Doug Hagmann, host of the Hagmann Report, Weekdays @ 7 PM ET.ON THE GO? SUBSCRIBE TO HAGMANN'S PODCASTiTunes: (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hagmann-report/id631558915?uo=4)Spotify: (https://open.spotify.com/show/376mkckQHCPYTJssQN794g)iHeart: (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hagmann-report-30926499/)Spreaker: (https://www.spreaker.com/show/hagmann-report)Email: studio@hagmannreport.comFOLLOW HAGMANN AT:Parler: (www.parler.com/profile/DouglasHagmann)Gab: @DougHagmannTwitter: Twitter is garbage

For show notes, links and complete description, visit www.HagmannReport.com/videosThe Hagmann Report is brought to you by EMP Shield - www.EMPshield.com/hagmannUse Promo Code HAGMANN for $50 OFF!IMPORTANT LINKS:DONATE: (www.HagmannReport.com/fundraiser)HAGMANN COFFEE: (www.HagmannStore.com)The Hagmann Report provides news and information based on a combination of exclusive investigative work, proprietary sources, contacts, qualified guests, open-source material. The Hagmann Report will never be encumbered by political correctness or held hostage to an agenda of revisionist history.Join Doug Hagmann, host of the Hagmann Report, Weekdays @ 7 PM ET.ON THE GO? SUBSCRIBE TO HAGMANN'S PODCASTiTunes: (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hagmann-report/id631558915?uo=4)Spotify: (https://open.spotify.com/show/376mkckQHCPYTJssQN794g)iHeart: (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hagmann-report-30926499/)Spreaker: (https://www.spreaker.com/show/hagmann-report)Email: studio@hagmannreport.comFOLLOW HAGMANN AT:Parler: (www.parler.com/profile/DouglasHagmann)Gab: @DougHagmannTwitter: Twitter is garbage

Happy Friday, my friends!Today:-- Shinzo Abe assassination; media and political reaction-- Gun debate; safety vs. defense-- Raskin J6 and SCOTUS illegitimacy-- Tucker vs. NYT interview -- *Programming note: May not be a live tonight*--*Apologies for the mispronunciation of Shinzo Abe.*Tucker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWVRh7HLJ1c#japan #tucker #j6

After Dobbs, the Supreme Court can lay claim to a lot of pejorative: “extreme,” “unsafe,” “unfair,” “unkind” …but what about “illegitimate?” Also, how Chief Justice Roberts' lonely status is entirely unsurprising. Plus Mike interviews Kim Masters of The Hollywood Reporter and host of KCRW's The Business about the massive Netflix sell off, and how it changes what we, and Wall Street, thought about streaming. Produced by Joel Patterson and Corey Wara Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com To advertise on the show, visit: https://advertisecast.com/TheGist Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Self-worth and value come from having intimate connections. But what happens when connections fail or never happen? In this episode Dr. Ray Self discusses this enormous problem and gives answers that will heal and affirm you. Would you please download and follow this podcast to help us reach as many people as possible with the healing messages from Self Talk with Dr. Ray Self? Partner with Dr. Self at www.icmcollege.org/donate Enroll in Dr. Self's college at www.icmcollege.org/enroll You can purchase Dr. Self's books - Redeeming Your Past and Finding Your Promised Land and Hear His Voice, Be His Voice at Amazon.com

February 4, 2022 JASON WALLACE, pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church of Magna, Utah (OPC), & producer of LDS.Video who will discuss: "The ILLEGITIMACY of HOMOSEXUAL CHRISTIANS" Subscribe: iTunes  TuneIn Android RSS Feed Listen:

Mike Isaacson: I assure you World War II had little to do with it. [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Welcome to another episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast. You can join our Discord and get fun show merch by subscribing to our Patreon. Get access to our book club, calendar, advance episodes, and show notes, all at tiers starting as low as $2. Today we are lucky enough to have Daniel Kevles, Stanley Woodward Professor Emeritus of History, History of Medicine & American Studies at Yale University. For those who don't know, Dr. Kevles literally wrote the book on eugenics. His highly influential 1985 book, In the Name of Eugenics, remains a central point of reference for anyone studying the history or present of the eugenics movement. Thank you so much for joining us Dr. Kevles. Daniel Kevles: It's a pleasure to be with you, Michael. Mike: So before we talk about the eugenics movement proper, there were a lot of early scientific and medical research areas that influenced eugenics. Can you talk a bit about what biological and social science looked like in the Victorian era that led to the emergence of the eugenics movement? Daniel: Sure. The dominant trend or scientific movement, or knock off of science, was social Darwinism. It was a derivative of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, which he advanced in his famous and influential Origin of Species, which was published in 1859. As your listeners will know, Darwin argued that evolutionary success selected the most fit organisms for survival. And the social Darwinist, in a perverse fashion which I'll explain in a moment, borrowed or extracted from his theory the idea that social evolution put the most fit people at the top of society, both economically and socially, and relegated the least fit to the bottom. I say that it was a perversion of Darwinism in many ways, but not least because what Darwin meant by fitness was fitness for reproduction. That meant that the more offspring you reproduced, the more fit you were. And the fewer you reproduce, the less fit you are. The social Darwinists turned this idea on its head because they noticed that people at the top of society like themselves tended to have smaller families and people at the bottom of society had larger families. But that was a major impetus. Social Darwinism was a major impetus to the eugenics movement. In addition, there were also widespread theories of racial differences, where race meant not just what we understand it to be today, say principally black-white, or yellow-white or brown-white, but ace meant differences between groups that we understand to be nowadays just ethnic groups or national groups like Poles or Italians, or Hungarians, and Jews. There are theories around that characterized these different groups and attributed to them various characteristics, many of them socially deleterious. And then finally, there were studies of different people that were quantitative as in the case of craniometry, the measurement of the size of the head or of facial types in the 19th century, that attributed differences in character and intelligence to people of different, say, head sizes. So that's a Victorian background, but we shouldn't forget that right at the very end of the Victorian era, the rediscovery of Mendel's papers on heredity in peas which gave rise to the new discipline of genetics. And genetics had its roots in 19th century. Mendel did his work and then published in the mid-1860s, and was buried for a long time but then rediscovered in 1900 in three different places, and then burst upon the scene of science and was appropriated by eugenicists along with social Darwinism, racism, and the study of intelligence. Mike: One other thing that was kind of floating around there too was the the kind of enthusiasm for the sterilization of what they call the feeble minded, right? Daniel: Well, we're getting ahead of the story. It's not floating around very much at all. In the later 19th century, people did– physicians did sterilize, but they had some weird theories about sexual drive and so on, arising from over-development of the gonads especially in males. And of course there was also always the issue of prostitution, or prostitutes and easy women. But there was no movement for sterilization at all in the Victorian era, that came with the eugenics movement in the early 20th century. Mike: Okay. Now we can actually get into the actual eugenics movement then. First of all, let's talk about its founder, Francis Galton. Who is Galton and what kind of things did he believe? Daniel: Well, Galton was a remarkable man. He was a cousin of Charles Darwin. He was influenced by the Origin of Species. And he was curious about lots of things. He had gone to Cambridge, he was a failed medical student. He couldn't stand blood. Then he went to Cambridge where he studied mathematics and didn't do very well. And he was at sixes and sevens but very well to do, and so he took himself in the 1840s and 50s to the Middle East and then to Africa where he established a reputation of considerable authority as a geographer. And he came back to London and became a figure in geographical circles. But then in the mid-1860s, he got interested in following the publication of his cousin Charlie's book in differences in the quality of human beings. And he started with analysis of heredity and talent and did some biographical analyses connecting the genealogies of people who succeeded in Victorian society. His notions of success did not extend to the business very much at all, or indeed even much to, the arts. His notion of success was fundamentally scholastic and scientific, and to a certain degree, in the practices of state; that is politics and government. And so he mapped the relationship between people in different generations who succeeded in these areas and were prominent in British life and found that there was a very strong hereditary connection. They were all in some small cluster of families. And so he came to believe that there were powerful hereditary forces that shaped human beings and their ability to succeed at least in the areas that he studied. He decided that he wanted to figure out the laws of heredity because he convinced himself that heredity in human beings is very important for qualities of not only physical characteristics like blue eyes but also of talent and character. And so he couldn't experiment with human beings, but he did figure out that he could experiment with peas. And he was devoted to quantifying everything. He said, "Whenever you can, count!" While he was in Africa, for example, he was interested in the size of the female bodies and their shapes among the African natives, especially their tendency to have large back sides. And so he couldn't go and ask them to allow him to measure them, so he measured them at a distance through a telescope, and quantified and analyzed the results. He applied the same quantitative techniques to peas and discovered what we call now the law of regression, and then he wanted to see if law of regression worked in human beings. And I say he couldn't experiment with human beings, but he could take their measurements. He invited human beings, people in London, to an exhibition in 1884 where he measured the, say, height and the distance between the nose and the fingertips of parents and children, you know, such things. And he found that there were correlations, mathematically, in how they grouped themselves. They were not one-to-one correlations, but there were correlations in the sense that there was a strong statistical propensity for children to be like their parents, and so he devised from this the law of statistical correlation. And regression and correlation have proved to be ever since two of the most profoundly important statistical tools for analyzing a whole bunch of different things. The point I want to make here is that he was not only eccentric in his interest and devoted to the study of heredity of a certain kind, but also that he established a research programme as part of eugenics. And right all the way through the heyday of the eugenics movement, we have eugenics as a social movement and also as a research programme. For example, one more thing about Galton is that in his later years, he wanted to institutionalize the study of heredity for eugenic purposes, and he gave University College London a lot of money to establish the Galton Eugenics Laboratory, which became a major center for research in eugenics and then ultimately, in human heredity. And then today, it's one of the leading centers of research in human heredity and human genetics that we have. Mike: So let's talk a little about what eugenics says. When most people think of eugenics they think of selective breeding or maybe the Holocaust, but that really discounts kind of the breadth of the theory and its popularity and influence. What kind of people became eugenicists and what kinds of things did they say? Daniel: Well first, it's important to recognise that eugenics was a worldwide movement. It wasn't confined to England or to the United States or to Germany. It expressed itself in all of the major countries of Europe and had corollary movements in Latin America and in Asia, and to some degree in the Middle East. It's a kind of universal phenomenon among people who were of a certain class. We would recognise them as middle to upper middle class and also people who were educated and scholastically interested. They also tended to be, in this country and in England, to be White, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant. They were, how shall I put it? They were distressed in this country by the negative sides of urbanizing and industrializing society, with its sharp distinctions and deep distinctions of class and economic standing. They were apprehensive that the lower income groups were out-reproducing upper income groups and thus leading to the degeneration of the population, they thought. And they responded to this with a eugenics movement, drawing on the new biology of genetics and the cultural context of social Darwinism. So what they did was to invent two different kinds of eugenics, one which they called positive eugenics, and the other was negative eugenics. And the positive eugenics was aimed at people over the middle and upper classes, mainly white Anglo Saxon Protestants, with the idea that they should reproduce more. And they devised various means to incentivize that reproduction. Then they invented negative eugenics, which was to discourage lower income groups from reproducing as much as they were. That's basically how it all started and what the outlines of their commitments and programmes were. Mike: And there were kind of some camps of eugenicists, right? I mean, there was like socialists, there was conservative people who were eugenicists... Daniel: Right. There were– Eugenics was not by any means a uniform movement. For example, here in the United States there were African-American eugenicists; there were Jewish eugenicists; there were no Catholic eugenicists of any standing to speak up because the church, the Roman Catholic Church, strongly opposed any kind of interference with human reproduction, ranging on one side to contraception and abortion, and on the other side to sterilisation. So, you have disparate groups. And eugenics was embraced by a number of people on the left, socialists in England and the United States, and what they shared with people on the right was the tantalizing faith that the new science of genetics could be deployed to improve the human race. Now, they were encouraged in this regard because in the early 20th century, late 19 to early 20th century, science commanded enormous authority. It was changing the world manifestly every day in ways that people experienced, in telephones, in movies, in automobiles, in aircraft, and in radio. These were forms of physical technologies, and so people thought, "Well, now that we have genetics, why can't we do this in biology as well?" And people were doing it on the farm by improving a corn or pigs or what have you, farm animals and farm plants. And so the idea that you could extend it to a human being was seemed perfectly natural. The socialists and the conservatives, however, had much different attitudes towards one particular element in the eugenics movement, and that was the role and rights of women. Conservatives wanted to devote women to the reproduction of– You know, the “good women” to the reproduction of more children, and only in the context of marriage. Whereas the Socialists were much more inclined to embrace free love and new ways of women taking their place in society. So they were at loggerheads on those two things, and for that reason they also disagreed about birth control at least for some years. So, it was a coalition of ideologically different groups and religiously different groups. Mike: Now eugenics is kind of unique among scientific theories in that it was popularized largely outside of the academy. In a way, it also kind of pioneered modern grant funding. Talk about how eugenics became popular. Daniel: Well, it became popular in the way that lots of things were becoming popular in the early 20th century. There are mass circulation magazines, for example, by the 1920s–magazines like Collier's and The Saturday Evening Post. There were many books published on eugenics, many articles and magazines by popular lectures. There were some films on eugenics. There were also lectures and exhibitions. We have, for example, many state fairs, agricultural fairs in the South and Midwest, and in these places the American Eugenics Society mounted exhibits. And also things that were called the Fitter family contest where people could enter as individuals or families, and they would be judged. And these contests occurred in what were called the human stock section that is distinct from the agricultural stock. And many families entered these contests. If you entered as an individual you could win a Capper medal in the state of Kansas. It's hard to tell exactly what made these families fitter, but one indicator is that they all had to take the Wassermann test for syphilis. So there's a certain middle class morality that suffused the eugenics movement as well. What also made it popular was that the eugenics literature allowed you, or the eugenics ideal allowed people, in middle classes to discuss issues that were not comfortably discussed publicly for the most part. And I have in mind issues of sex, of pregnancy, and of child rearing, but especially sex and pregnancy. Since if you're interested in the improvement of the race biologically, inevitably, you have to talk about sex; who's having sex with whom? And talk about contraception and so on. Eugenics enabled people to talk about those things publicly or attend lectures on them publicly. Mike: Okay. Let's talk about what the eugenicists were advocating for. What was their agenda politically? Daniel: Well as I said, in this country and in England, eugenicists were mainly White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. They were distressed by the increasing number of lower-income poor people in the cities. They were also even more distressed by the behavioural characteristics that they attributed to these people, notably alcoholism, criminality, poverty, and prostitution. They attributed these characteristics to bad biology. They were also, in an overlapping way with what I just said, disturbed by the enormous wave of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe that flooded into the United States from the 1880s to the late teens or the early 20s. They thought that these people were biologically inferior and disproportionately responsible for the social sins that I've mentioned, such as alcoholism, etc. So what they wanted to do then– And in addition, they also began to have access to quantitative demonstrations or evidence, allegedly, that these people were mentally inferior, that they had lower intelligence. And where that came from was World War I and the administration of an IQ tests to the 1.7 million American men who were drafted into the US Army. The tests were developed and so widely administered in the army because the army had the unprecedented task of trying to place all these people in suitable tasks, whether they were going to be in infantry or drive jeeps--not jeeps, that's an anachronism--but drive cars or be in the medical service or whatever; Quartermaster Corps, Signal Corps, etc. They had to find out if they were mentally capable– what task they were mentally suited for. So way after the war the results of the IQ tests were published by the National Research Council, and differentiated in terms of country of national origin, region of the United States, and so on, and also by race-- black or white, etc. And it didn't take too much of a high intelligence to figure out--that is, you didn't have to be a rocket scientist--to take this data and conclude that the recent immigrants had lower IQs as compared with native Whites, and to conclude even further that Blacks were simply inferior to everybody. So all of these trends together--the social behaviors, the disproportionate representation of lower income groups especially recent immigrants among the impoverished and the imprisoned, and the IQ tests that reinforced the idea that they were really not very smart–led to a series of legislative proposals. Nationally, eugenicists provided a scientific rationale for the immigration restriction movement that culminated in the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, which grossly discriminated against immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. Secondly, at the State level, the eugenicists deploying their data were strong advocates of eugenic sterilization laws, and they were passed in several dozen-- well, not several dozen-- but a dozen or more states before World War I. They were declared unconstitutional by state courts and appeals courts in the States on grounds that they were cruel and unusual punishment because some of these laws required castration, or that they provided unequal protection of the laws. I mean, they didn't conform to equal protection because the only people eligible for eugenic sterilization were those who were incarcerated in homes with the so called feeble-minded, and an unequal protection of the laws, and that they violated the 14th Amendment due process. So in the early 1920s these laws were revised, and a model sterilization law was developed by a guy named Harry Laughlin at the Cold Spring Harbor Eugenics Record Office and taken up in the state of Virginia as a model law. It provided for due process with a hearing, it did not provide for castration, and so on. And they proposed to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck under this new law in the early 1920s, and they intended this as a model case–a test of the law and its constitutionality. And eventually it made its way through the state courts, appeals courts and into the Supreme Court. Mike: Can you talk a bit about who Carrie Buck was and kind of what her situation was? Daniel: Sure. Carrie Buck was not an immigrant, she was a native Virginian. She was lower income, not well educated, and she was living in a foster home when she was a high teenager, I forget her exact age. The later research showed that she was raped by the son in the house. The authorities at the time didn't know that, but it was sufficient for them that she became pregnant with an illegitimate child. So she had this child and–I'm blocking on the name, I'll come to it. It'll pop up in my head in a minute–and she was consigned, because she had an illegitimate child, to the Virginia Colony for the Feebleminded. Illegitimacy was enough to tag a woman as feeble minded. She was put in the institution, her mother was there as well, and they were given IQ tests, and they scored in the feebleminded range. Oh, Vivian. Vivian was the name of the little girl, Carrie's child. And a nurse was assigned to test her at the age of eight months and came back, of course she couldn't give her an IQ test, but she came back and said she had a "odd look" about her and therefore cataloged her as feebleminded as well. So there you had it, you see, with Carrie's mother Emma, and Carrie, and then Vivian, all of them found to be feebleminded in the Virginia colony. And so their feeblemindedness was putatively taken to be strongly hereditary in character. And this was introduced as evidence in the Supreme court hearing in the case of the Buck v. Bell in 1927. So the court-- have I told you enough about Carrie Buck? Mike: Yeah, yeah. Sure. Daniel: I mean, and she was characterized as quote "poor White trash" by this same fellow Laughlin, who didn't go to Virginia to examine her, but was given a case record about her, and he characterized her that way. So his evidence was introduced, and the evidence of three generations of imbeciles, in Carrie Buck and her mother and Vivian, were all introduced as evidence. And the Court ruled by a majority of eight to one to uphold the constitutionality of the Eugenic Sterilization Law in Virginia. The majority decision was delivered by a very progressive jurist, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. And the decision was in a perverse way, a progressive decision. What do I mean by that? Well, the courts before the 1920s, were involved in litigation concerning the legitimacy or the constitutionality of laws passed to regulate business. Businesses, corporations, claim that they were individuals and that these laws were unconstitutional because they were being deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law. Well, they had due process in this procedural sense, but they were claiming due process in what came to be called a substantive sense. That is, the substance and the right that was being taken away. Their substantive claim was that they had a right to do with their corporations as they saw fit, to charge whatever prices, for example, they wanted. And Holmes was in the school of progressive jurists who said that substantive due process can also be limited, and the substantive right is not absolute and you can take away a substantive right for the public good–the public good being a more economically equitable society. So he applied that same kind of reasoning and Buck v. Bell. The claim was that the Carrie Bucks of the world threatened the public good by reproducing because they were biologically degenerate in character. And so it was legitimate, according to Holmes, to sterilize Carrie even though it took away her substantive right to reproduce. And what trumped her substantive right to reproduce was precisely the service of the public good trumping that right produced. Which is to say that by sterilizing the the Carrie Bucks of the world, the United States would be safeguarded from the degeneration of its population. So it's a progressive decision in that that Holmes, in character of his beliefs, said that the public good dominates Carrie's right to reproduce. It puts Carrie in the same substantive relationship to the public good as a corporation, and they were claiming that they had the right to charge whatever prices they want, for example. And Holmes took for granted the evidence introduced by people like Harry Laughlin that feeblemindedness was hereditary in the Buck line, and a dictum that as part of Holmes' decision, is rung infamously down the annals of courts jurisprudence, Holmes wrote that, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough," meaning Emma, Carrie and her daughter Vivian.  Mike: And so– Daniel: By the way, that decision has never been flatly repudiated, Buck v. Bell. It has been undermined enormously by later jurisprudence on the 14th Amendment and so on, so that you cannot forcibly sterilize a woman nowadays legally by invoking some kind of eugenic law. But it might interest your listeners to know that Buck v. Bell was invoked by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade in service of the following point: does the state have a right to interfere with the human reproductive process? And as we know now, as a matter of high public interest, the Court in Roe v Wade says the State has no right to interfere with reproduction to the point of quickening. But then once quickening occurs, and the fetus acquires the ability to live outside the womb, then it does have the right to interfere, and the Court invoked Buck v. Bell in saying that. Mike: So between the Immigration Control Act and the sterilization laws, how long are these policies in effect? Daniel: Well, the Immigration Restriction Act was in place until the mid 1960s. It was then revised, and the national origins criteria that discriminated against people from Eastern and Southern Europe was abolished. That produced the wave of immigration that we've known heavily from the Middle East and Asia and Latin America since the mid '60s. The sterilization laws, as I say, were never frontally struck down, but they have been undermined since the expansion of the reach of the 14th Amendment beginning in the 1940s and since. But this is not to say that eugenic sterilization did not persist after World War II. It did until probably the very early 1970s. The reasons for it were different, you know, state sterilization were different after World War II. For example, North Carolina which had hardly done any eugenic sterilization before the War, got into it in a big way after the War because the people who were winding up in the hospital, which is where the sterilizations were conducted, tended to be lower income African American women. And it's not a state policy, but it was sort of on the initiative of the doctors in the hospitals. But there is a kind of sympathetic support of it on the part of the State because the New Deal measure of Aid to Families with Dependent Children gave rise to so-called welfare mothers who were in North Carolina disproportionately Black. And so, North Carolina sterilized a lot of Black women in the hospitals, not by state law but by apprehension on the cost of welfare. I should add, though, that there's an excellent study of North Carolina sterilization, which reminds us once again that it is all kind of complicated insofar as women in the relationship to eugenics are concerned.A number of the women who wound up as a candidate for sterilization in North Carolina, as I say, were Black. They were also already the mothers of multiple children. And they did not have access to birth control, and they asked to be sterilized. They volunteered for it because it was the only way open to them of limiting their births after having a number of children. So it was liberating for some fraction of the African-American women who were sterilized in North Carolina. But anyway, the process of sterilization continued until the early 70s when it was widely exposed and condemned. And it's pretty much ceased since then. Mike: You also discuss in the book a distinction between mainline and reform eugenics. Was this terminology used among eugenicists themselves? Daniel: Not at all. I invented the terms in the book– Mike: Okay. Can you explain the distinction then? Daniel: –to distinguish between the early eugenicists, whom I called mainline, and the eugenicists, or the people who embraced the idea of eugenics, that is improving the human race and improving the human family as well beginning in the 1930s. They were reformers in the sense that they wanted to use biological knowledge to improve the race on the whole, but also they were much more focused on the family than were the earlier eugenicists. What mainly differentiated them also from the so called mainline eugenicists was that they recognised the degree of racism that pervaded the American Eugenics Movement, and they were staunchly opposed to any kind of racist eugenics. They just wanted a eugenics that was based purely on human talents and character, including medical features of human beings with regard to, say, deleterious diseases like Huntington's and Tay–Sachs and so on, and wanted to deploy human genetics to good familial and social ends. And so part of their programme was not only to try to get rid of racism in American eugenics, but also to establish eugenics on a sound scientific basis. Their efforts played a significant role in emancipating the study of human heredity from eugenics, and setting and establishing it as a field that we call human genetics rather than eugenics. Mike: Okay. Now, neo-eugenicists, nazis, and people who don't know better like to say that eugenics declined because the end of the Second World War made it unpopular because of the Nazis, but that isn't quite true. How did eugenics really die? Daniel: Well, the idea of eugenics, I should add, hasn't fully died. Mike: Right. Daniel: People are still eager, even more so than ever, to have healthy children. Now that is taken by some to be a kind of neo-eugenics. I disagree with that point of view. If you just want to have a healthy child, or don't want to have a child that is doomed to die at the age of three as Tay-Sachs children are, then that seems to me a legitimate reason for a) developing knowledge of human genetics, and b) deploying it in reproduction, conception, and pregnancy. And millions of people make use of that kind of knowledge nowadays through prenatal diagnosis and abortion. So it's not eugenics in the sense that it's trying to make a better society or a better human race, but it's simply a means of having a healthy, happy family. In that sense, the ideal of controlling human reproduction in a genetic way for improvement is about the family rather than the human race. But eugenics as a social movement did die off. First, a key feature, a central feature of what I call mainline eugenics was precisely that the State was invoked in its advancement. You can't have it, you know, immigration restriction without the US government. And you can't have state eugenic sterilization laws without state governments. What died away was the willingness of people to invoke the state, deploy the state, enlist it if you will, in the control of human reproduction in a eugenic fashion. The reason for that was partly because of the response to the Holocaust and the Nazis, because there was the invocation of the state for these nefarious purposes in human reproduction to an extreme degree. Secondly, there were all these extensions of the 14th Amendment that made it dicey, or in many respects, impossible for the state to interfere in human reproduction in the way of the mainline eugenicists. But then also, there was a whole congerie of scientific developments in social sciences and in genetics itself that undercut the scientific doctrine of mainline eugenics. So the recognition, for example, that human characteristics are shaped to a significant degree by environment as well as by genes, that is by nurture as well as by nature. Secondly, the idea that the characteristics that people admire so much, like ability to do well in a scholastic test or get good grades or be a doctor or lawyer or what have you, that those are not genetically simple to a degree that they are genetic at all. They are undoubtedly, to some degree genetic, but they involve clusters of many genes. And no one to this day knows how to figure out what goes into the human characteristics and behaviors that we admire as well as deplore. I say deplore by criminality, the quest for genetic accounts of criminality go on, but they rise up and then they are slapped down by further research repeatedly. Then there are the characteristics that we admire and willing to pay a lot for such as the ability to put a basketball through a hoop at 30 feet. Nobody knows what role genes play in that either, and it's gonna be a long time if ever before they figure it out. So, the complexity of the human organism, if you will, has also helped to undercut either both positive eugenics and negative eugenics, each in its own somewhat different way but in very similar ways. So those certainly helped undercut eugenics and basically destroy it as a social movement. Then there's also the rise to power and advancement in society of precisely the groups who were the targets of eugenicists in the early 20th century, that is the then new immigrants coming from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe–Italians, Poles, Hungary, Hungarian and so on. They have done very well in American society, in all branches of it. And so that in and of itself, they are kind of a living repudiation of the early doctrines of eugenics, and they provide a kind of strong caution for us in embracing the temptation of any kind of new eugenics of social nature. So all of those things together had a lot to do with corroding the foundations of eugenics and removing it basically as a social movement. I go back to in the contemporary scene in these kinds of analyses and say that, when we talk about the new reproductive technologies or CRISPR or what have you, and say that they're giving rise, or can give rise, to a new eugenics, I just think that's counterproductive and it doesn't get us anywhere. And for my money, I think we should–[laughs] What I'm saying is putting myself out of business, if you will-- just get rid of the idea of eugenics in discussing what goes on in contemporary molecular biology and reproductive technologies, and talk about them in and of themselves, rather than try to tie them to any kind of eugenics. Mike: Yeah, I'd actually kind of agree with that. Because looking at what eugenicists who are still around do now, none of them are doing genetic or molecular biological research, right? They're all psychologists doing twin studies– Daniel: Well, I can't say. I can't say. I mean, there are some biologists who are neo-eugenicists, but I just don't see any widespread support for them in the scientific community or elsewhere. Mike: Okay so I asked this same question to my last guest when we were talking about the science of sex differences in the brain, but I think it works equally well here. So what can we learn from the story of eugenics both as scientists and as people who listen to scientists? Daniel: Well, that's a very good question Michael. It's hard to provide any kind of blanket answer. And any answer might lead to counter examples that are not very attractive. So let me illustrate what I just said. I think what we need to do in responding to these things, or these kind of dreams, is to be cautious when claims are made in the name of science, especially those of long term consequence that border on the utopian, for example that we can engineer human beings, etc. I just don't think that's in the offing. But even when more modest claims are made, I think we just have to be cautious. It's good idea to raise an eyebrow whenever you hear them and whenever people are asked to turn them into social, economic political movements. An advantageous way of threading this needle is to encourage people to be as scientifically literate as possible. That itself is a utopian quest. But I think that it behooves us all to do that. Now we also need to pay attention as to whether any scientific claims, as in the case of sex differences between men and women, need to be treated with particular caution when they imply anything about human rights. And that is, you know, that we ought to curtail human rights of any kind or in any group because of alleged biological claims, or privilege others because of biological claims. I think we need to be very cautious about that. I say this can be hazardous and cut more than one way, one of these points I'm making, because I automatically right away think about the the claims of the anti-vaxxers nowadays. They say we shouldn't pay attention to scientific authority, that they're interfering with human rights and liberty etc. So you have to be judicious in the way you think about this degree of skepticism. Skepticism of the kind I'm talking about does not extend to the anti-vaxxers because virtually the entire scientific community is of one voice and one mind in saying that vaccines work, and that they're socially important, and medically important, etc. Whereas, I think in other claims about sex differences between men and women, you will find sharp divisions in the scientific community. So we need to pay attention to how the scientific community is thinking about these things as well. Mike: Okay well, Dr. Kevles, it has been an honor to have you on The Nazi Lies Podcast to talk about eugenics. Again, the book is In the Name of Eugenics out from Harvard University Press, an absolute classic in the history of science. Thanks again for coming on the podcast. Daniel: Thank you, Michael. Pleasure to chat with you. Mike: If you liked this episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast and want more, consider subscribing to our Patreon. Patrons get exclusive access to early episodes, even earlier access to show notes, access to the calendar, and a membership slot in our book club on Discord. Come join us weekly as we read and discuss the books of our upcoming guests. Go to patreon.com/nazilies to sign up. [Theme song]

The word “bastard” hasn’t always been meant to offend. Used simply as an indication of illegitimate birth at first, the label “bastard” didn’t bring with it shame or stigma until long after it first appeared in the Middle Ages. Today, while its original meaning has not been forgotten, its use is largely reserved for insult. Yet, ironically, the underdog status once associated with a person of illegitimate birth is now something our modern culture celebrates. From Alexander Hamilton to Game of Thrones’s Jon Snow, the bastard’s ability to rise above his or her unfortunate circumstances to achieve greatness has become something to root for. This hour, a look at the origin, evolution, and pop culture triumph of the bastard! GUESTS: Scott Andrews - Science fiction reviewer for The Philadelphia Inquirer, columnist for Winter Is Coming, and the author of The Guild Leader’s Handbook Joanne Freeman - Professor of history and American studies at Yale University and the editor of The Essential Hamilton: Letters & Other Writings Sara McDougall - Associate professor of history at John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York and the author of Royal Bastards: The Birth of Illegitimacy, 800–1230 Join the conversation on Facebook and Twitter. Colin McEnroe, Betsy Kaplan, Jonathan McNicol, and Chion Wolf contributed to this show, which originally aired July 18, 2017.Support the show: http://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mark Crego and I met around eight years ago, fellow sojourners in the quest to understand our shared faith in the LDS church.  We had a similar curiosity about the spiritual life and consequently we both completed a Masters degree:  He in theology and me in ministry.   Having taken a Christian formation path we find ourselves similarly interested in the necessity of the divinity of Jesus.  Was he literally, biologically the Son of God?  Neither of us think so. This conversation is not new.  Jane Schaberg  is one scholar who tackled the question front on, and she paid dearly for it.  Mark and I come to similar conclusions, that the divinity of Jesus has more to do with claims of power,  authority and Empire than it has to do with biology.  For Mark and I, the illegitimate, fatherless Jesus who God chose as his son is a far more spiritually enlivening and plausible alternative.

Art and fashion historian Laura Beltrán-Rubio joins us to share her expertise on the sartorial practices and symbolisms in Spain's Imperio de la Moda or Empire of Fashion, beginning in the sixteenth century. More on Laura's work http://imperiodemoda.com, https://laurabelru.com, https://fashionandrace.org/database/author/llbeltranrubio/, http://culturasdemoda.com. Recommended Reading: Maya Stanfield-Mazzi's Clothing the New World Church: Liturgical Textiles of Spanish America, 1520–1820 (2021) Ann Twinam's Public Lives, Private Secrets: Gender, Honor, Sexuality, and Illegitimacy in Colonial Spanish America (1999) Charles Walker's “Controlar los cuerpos femeninos y aplacar la ira de Dios: la reforma de la moral,” "El colonialismo en ruinas: Lima frente al terremoto y tsunami de 1746" Tamara Walker's Exquisite Slaves: Race, Clothing, and Status in Colonial Lima (2017) Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Sign up on Rokfin!https://rokfin.com/fknplusHelp keep FKN with a Donationhttps://www.paypal.me/forbiddenknowledgeneGet your free Helium miner!forbiddenknowledgenews@gmail.com Our websitehttps://forbiddenknowledge.news/Discord chathttps://discord.gg/6SahA24jForbidden Knowledge News on LBRY.comhttps://open.lbry.com/@forbiddenknowledgenews:d?r=FUthiKVP5o28WaY1Tc3bbfxzF9ymiwwm#c60 #c60purplepower #Carbon60Take back control of your health and begin your C60 Purple Power Journey today! Receive 10% off your order, plus free shipping in the US when you order your C60 at https://go.c60purplepower.com/knowledge10/ or use coupon code knowledge10. ⚡

The word "bastard" hasn't always been meant to offend. Used simply as an indication of illegitimate birth at first, the label "bastard" didn't bring with it shame or stigma until long after it first appeared in the Middle Ages. Today, while its original meaning has not been forgotten, its use is largely reserved for insult. Yet, ironically, the underdog status once associated with a person of illegitimate birth is now something our modern culture celebrates. From Alexander Hamilton to Game of Thrones's Jon Snow, the bastard's ability to rise above his or her unfortunate circumstances to achieve greatness has become something to root for. This hour, a look at the origin, evolution, and pop culture triumph of the bastard! GUESTS: Scott Andrews - Science fiction reviewer for The Philadelphia Enquirer, columnist for Winter Is Coming, and the author of The Guild Leader's Handbook Joanne Freeman - Professor of history and American studies at Yale University and the editor of The Essential Hamilton: Letters & Other Writings Sara McDougall - Associate professor of history at John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York and the author of Royal Bastards: The Birth of Illegitimacy, 800-1230 Join the conversation on Facebook and Twitter. Colin McEnroe, Betsy Kaplan, Jonathan McNicol, and Chion Wolf contributed to this show, which originally aired July 18, 2017.Support the show: http://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What does illegitimacy mean and how does it play into the book? Find out here! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Episode Notes Sara McDougall discusses her monograph, Royal Bastards: The Birth of Illegitimacy, 800-1230, with interviewer Miriam Shadis, an Associate Professor of History at Ohio University. You can watch the YouTube video for this interview, here. You can read a book review for Royal Bastards on the SHCY website, here. Support Society for the History of Children and Youth Podcast by donating to their Tip Jar: https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/shcy Find out more at https://shcy.pinecast.co This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

301 -13 Curse of Illegitimacy A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. (Deuteronomy 23:2 AKJV) The Hebrew word mamzēr (mam-zare' ) is translated “bastard” in the King James Versions of the Bible, but is sometimes translated to mean “illegitimacy.” It not only means those who are born outside of wedlock or in incest, but the root of the word means to contemn (regard with contempt), to despise, or be ashamed of. If a pregnancy happens outside of marriage and the parents speak words of rejection, shame, or are regarded with contempt because of it, the same curse comes to that family line. When a child is born outside of wedlock, there is a curse that goes on to the tenth generation. Ten generations means that it can be passed on from any one of our 1024 ancestors. With so many people able to affect us in this way, this curse applies to most people. To remove a curse you must be willing to confess for yourself and your ancestors. Confess means to see it the way the other person does, in this case, God. It is easy to confess for our ancestors. We know it is God's will for sex and the product of sex to happen inside of a marriage, otherwise it is called fornication. We simply state this fact, knowing that what our ancestors did was wrong. It can be much more challenging to confess for ourselves. To remove the curse of illegitimacy, you must know how you have responded to it and what actions you have committed that are in agreement with that curse. There are two categories of this curse revealed by the Hebrew word mam-zare' and the root “to contemn.” Those born outside of wedlock or through incest Those whose conception was greeted with shame, rejection, or brought condemnation This podcast is part of the Courts of Heaven Academy: A FREE school because of the instructions and principles of Matthew 10. https://www.agape-cf.org/academy The classes at the Courts of Heaven Academy should be done in order because the information builds upon the prior classes. Look for the oldest podcast first: 101 - Foundations 201 - Remaining Free 301 - Receiving Charges 401 - Removing Charges Download the free workbook at our website or Kindle: Agape Christian Fellowship: https://www.agape-cf.org/books Amazon Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/Courts-Heaven-Foundations-Workbook-Academy-ebook/dp/B08JJQ4B9X --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/agapecf/support

What You Need to Know is it’s up to our Republican leaders! Tuesday the Electoral College voted and Biden received the majority of electoral votes, BUT seven of the states have disputed electors. The next step will happen on January 6th when the U.S. Congress will meet in a joint session to accept the results of the Electoral College or reject them. They can reject them if they think they are problematic. Already, Rep. Mo Brooks has said he will reject them and if there are enough rejections then each chamber will go into 2 hours of debate. If the Senate Republicans do nothing it’s better that they just quit if they can’t stand up and fight! The three front battle is still very active — 1) The legal battle, 2) the battle for the Constitution and 3) the propaganda/information battle. The Republican Senate needs to step up and fight! Dr. Ravneet Singh, “Campaign Guru” and social media expert, discusses #BigTechCensorship in light of YouTube's announcement of removing 'misleading' election oriented videos. Dr. Singh explains the purposes of different social media platforms. Check out his website RaviSingh.com. Dr. Ted Malloch, frequent contributor for American Greatness, talks about his recent article Pride and Illegitimacy. The information is overwhelming that this isn’t just a contested election, it’s one that should be recalled. Senate Republicans, except a few notable ones, have caved in and are choosing not to fight for truth and freedom! What You Need to Do is 1) Go to StopTheSteal.us to find the list of Senators and contact each one to encourage them to join Representative Mo Brooks. 2) Share the Stop the Steal press conference with everyone you know!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“This isn't just illegitimate; it's a caricature of illegitimacy,” tweeted Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy during the confirmation process of President Trump's US Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, who is expected to be confirmed just days before the 2020 presidential election. Leahy says that Barrett's appointment “diminishes [the Supreme Court's] moral authority.” Leahy also discusses his views on court packing and the rising threat to abortion rights. Leahy is the last of the Senate's “Watergate babies,” the Democrats who were elected in November 1974, just months after Pres. Richard Nixon resigned in scandal. Despite current challenges, Leahy remains hopeful about the future. “I really do believe in our better angels,” he muses. “We can do better and get over this.”

From SCOTUS nominees to my own testimony of the left's alignment with evil to create doubt in the hearts and minds of an otherwise apathetic voting base, will never end- keep standing. Who will speak for Joe tonight? Strong pointers to guard the heart of our nation.

Some of the U.S. Senate recently commissioned a report on “The demise of the happy two parent home”, and the findings weren’t surprising. The foundation of a strong society is strong families. Illegitimacy is the number one cause of poverty in America. A child without a father is more likely to be incarcerated, act up […] The post Heidi Harris Show Podcast #218: Senate report on “The demise of the happy two parent home” appeared first on Heidi Harris Show.

Fox News Commentator (and Ricochet alum) Mollie Hemingway took a break from the hectic pace of events to sit down with our own Dave Carter for a fairly comprehensive survey of the political and cultural landscape today.  The conversation ranges from Joe Biden’s selection of Senator Kamala Harris for his Vice Presidential candidate, to the media’s mischaracterization of the riots and carnage in major cities across the country.  Along the way, Mollie and Dave discuss the general reluctance of politicians and commentators to honestly address the “root causes” of much of the crime, death, and destruction that afflicts inner city life across the nation (their conclusions may surprise you). Dave laments the media’s apparent role as the public relations arm of the DNC, at which point Mollie takes a different view.  How different?  You’ll have to listen in for that one. Then Dave talks with Ricochet Charter Member Duane Oyen, who has been with us since before this site launched.  Duane has some thoughts on the state of politics today, the Never Trump phenomenon, and various distinctions and divisions on the Right. “But when Duane weighs in on the things that unite us all,” writes Dave, “he sounds as wise as Solomon.” If you like discussions of policy, political philosophy, and a dose of history, this is the podcast for you. you. Finally, if you're listening to Dave's show, but you're not a Ricochet member, there is a way you can get a 30 day free trial membership . Tune in to learn more!

Thoughts on the imbalanced ideologies that birthed this and many other nations

DESCARGAR AQUÍ EL EPISODIO EN ESPAÑOL Has normality returned to Chile? NO! Social peace? Neither! The people don't want peace without dignity. To borrow a phrase from the situationists, the people don't want the peace of the graveyard. The revolt has been going on for over a month now. In this episode we have two reports about the day-to-day reality of the demonstrations in downtown Santiago, two interview with anarchists in Santiago and Valparaiso, an analysis on the April 2020 constitutional plebiscite, and a couple of strange, surprise interviews too. If you can help us with Spanish translation or transcription, please write us at podcast@crimethinc.com. {November 29th, 2019}   -------SHOW NOTES------   Table of Contents: Introduction {0:00} November 25 report {00:02:55} November 12: A view from the streets {00:27:40} Not Falling for It: How the Uprising in Chile Has Outlasted State Repression And the Questions for Movements to Come {00:49:35} Rara Señal interview {01:01:45} Santiago anarchist interview {01:22:35} Faced with the constitutional assembly and the government's repressive agenda: What is the anarchist proposal in the Chilean revolt? {02:06:55} Joker interview {02:15:20} Total Chaos interview {02:17:50} Trusted fundraiser to support protesters in Chile Our previous coverage/Nuestra cobertura previa: The Ex-Worker #71: Radio Evasión—dispatches from Chile Part 2 En español también! Week 2: neighborhood assemblies & daily rioting downtown The Ex-Worker #70: Radio Evasión—dispatches from Chile Part 1 Reports from fare-dodging to a week of full-blown revolt, en español también Chile: Resisting under Martial Law A Report, Interview, and Call to Action Chile: Resistiendo bajo la Ley Marcial Un reporte, una entrevista y una llamada a la acción On the Front Lines in Chile Six Accounts from the Uprising Texts included in this episode/textos y comunicados que se mencionan en este episodio: Not Falling for It: How the Uprising in Chile Has Outlasted State Repression, and the Questions for Movements to Come No nos engañarán: Como la revuelta en Chile ha sobrevivido y burlado la represión del estado y unas preguntas para los movimientos por venir La Ilegitimidad de la Violencia, la Violencia de la Legitimidad: Que quiere decir Piñera cuando habla de “la violencia” The Illegitimacy of Violence, the Violence of Legitimacy A Qué se Refieren Cuando Hablan de Paz? What They Mean when They Say Peace Frente a la asamblea constituyente y la agenda represiva del gobierno: ¿cuál es la propuesta anarquista en la revuelta de la región chilena? Pojects interviewed and mentioned in this episode/iniciativas que incluimos en este episodio: Rara Señal: Reportes del caos desde el accidente geográfico costero de Valparaíso ¡No hay vuelta atrás! LaPeste.org Anarquia.info Contra Info Keep on the look out for the full interview with Rara Señal via Anarchist Radio Berlin Movement art inspired by Negro Matapacos Documental Matapacos Galería CIMA, daily livestream of Plaza Italia Wikipedia: Camilo Catrillanca The case of Macarena Valdés Encapuchados toss a teargas canister into a police vehicle In defense of the Black Bloc: Disproving certain accusations and conspiracy theories against those who wear masks Applause for the “first line” demonstrators The case of Abel Acuña, who fell from the statue in Plaza de la Dignidad. If it hadn't been for the police he could have lived Motorcycle demonstration rolling in to Plaza Italia the evening of November 25 The first game of professional soccer since the revolt began was cancelled due to demonstrators, and players covered their eyes in recognition of the more than 200 eyes that have been lost due to the pellets that police are shooting at demonstrators Protests fill the luxury malls of bourgeois neighborhoods When they toppled that enormous highway sign in Antofagasta The best flyer ever Washington Post story on the gringo piece of shit who shot at protesters in Reñaca/Viña del Mar. Fuck this fool. A Chilean cop confuses a videoactivist for an undercover Skaters critical mass Demonstrators in Concepción topple a statue of Spanish colonizer Pedro de Valdivida Demonstrators in Plaza de la Dignidad, Santiago, ground a police drone using lasers UPDATED Datadump de Carabineros de Chile (Pacos inculiables) A MASSIVE repository of police and military brutality recorded from individual phones and cameras Instagrams: FunaMetro Piensa Prensa - Instagram Iniciativa Pasaje Justo Evasión Masiva Chile Memes Politiqueros Ongoing movement media from around Chile: Radio Villa Francia - Instagram Radio Kurruf (Concepción) - Instagram Diario Venceremos - Instagram Radio Placeres (Valparaíso) Radio 19 de Abril (Cobertura Colectiva) Radio Humedales (Concepción) Prensa Opal Periódico Resumen (Concepción) Radio Manque (Rancagua) Rara Señal Medio Libre La Zarzamora  Radio JGM Kiwicha Comunicaciones Radio Última Frecuencia Waiwen Tv (Osorno)  RadioWilliche Mül'ütu (Melipulli – Puerto Montt) Radio Latue (Coyhaique) Revista Caminando (Temuco-Valdivia)  

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 278. I was a guest on Episode 79 of The Bob Murphy Show, entitled "Stephan Kinsella and Bob Murphy Debate Hans Hoppe's “Argumentation Ethics”. Back in June we discussed IP and related issues [KOL268 | Bob Murphy Show: Law Without the State, and the Illegitimacy of IP]. We had intended to discuss argumentation ethics but ran out of time. So we did it in this episode. I think it turned out very well. [Update: Ep. 86 Further Thoughts on Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics and Essays on Praxeology ] From Bob's show notes: By popular demand, Bob brings Stephan back on the podcast, this time to debate Hans Hoppe's famous “argumentation ethics” case for libertarianism. Stephan defends Hoppe's claim that any attempt to justify a NON-libertarian system would result in a performative contradiction, while Bob clarifies the argument and raises concerns about it. Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest: The YouTube video for this interview. Hans Hoppe's talk on argumentation ethics at his Property & Freedom Society. The 1988 Liberty symposium on Hoppe's argumentation ethics. Stephan Kinsella's concise guide to Hoppe's argument and its critics. Bob Murphy and Gene Callahan's critique of argumentation ethics in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, and Stephan Kinsella's response. Stephan's earlier appearance on ep. 39 of the Bob Murphy Show, talking about private law and Intellectual Property. Help support the Bob Murphy Show. See also: “Dialogical Arguments for Libertarian Rights,” in The Dialectics of Liberty (Lexington Books, 2019) Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics and Its Critics, StephanKinsella.com (Aug. 11, 2015) Lecture 3 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “The Social Theory of Hoppe” (slides here) Lecture 2 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society” (slides here) The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory, StephanKinsella.com (March 22, 2016) Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan, Anti-state.com (Sept. 19, 2002) “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide,” Mises Daily (May 27, 2011)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 278. I was a guest on Episode 79 of The Bob Murphy Show, entitled "Stephan Kinsella and Bob Murphy Debate Hans Hoppe’s “Argumentation Ethics”. Back in June we discussed IP and related issues [KOL268 | Bob Murphy Show: Law Without the State, and the Illegitimacy of IP]. We had intended to discuss argumentation ethics but ran out of time. So we did it in this episode. I think it turned out very well. [Update: Ep. 86 Further Thoughts on Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics and Essays on Praxeology ] From Bob's show notes: By popular demand, Bob brings Stephan back on the podcast, this time to debate Hans Hoppe’s famous “argumentation ethics” case for libertarianism. Stephan defends Hoppe’s claim that any attempt to justify a NON-libertarian system would result in a performative contradiction, while Bob clarifies the argument and raises concerns about it. Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest: The YouTube video for this interview. Hans Hoppe’s talk on argumentation ethics at his Property & Freedom Society. The 1988 Liberty symposium on Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. Stephan Kinsella’s concise guide to Hoppe’s argument and its critics. Bob Murphy and Gene Callahan’s critique of argumentation ethics in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, and Stephan Kinsella’s response. Stephan’s earlier appearance on ep. 39 of the Bob Murphy Show, talking about private law and Intellectual Property. Help support the Bob Murphy Show. See also: “Dialogical Arguments for Libertarian Rights,” in The Dialectics of Liberty (Lexington Books, 2019) Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics and Its Critics, StephanKinsella.com (Aug. 11, 2015) Lecture 3 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “The Social Theory of Hoppe” (slides here) Lecture 2 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society” (slides here) The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory, StephanKinsella.com (March 22, 2016) Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan, Anti-state.com (Sept. 19, 2002) “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide,” Mises Daily (May 27, 2011)

Two weeks of revolt in Chile and there are no signs of it slowing down! In this Radio Evasión dispatch, we bring you up to speed on all the developments in the past week: the president's attempts to quell the protests with reforms, the lifting of Martial Law, and the cancellation of the upcoming APEC trade summit. We have two communiqués translated into English from Chile, and eight interviews! This episode we tried to focus on not just the combative protests at Plaza Italia downtown, but also represent a little bit of how the neighborhoods on the periphery of the city are getting organized with cacerolazos, cultural events, barricades, and people's assemblies.For feedback, ideas for interview questions, or to contribute material, send us an e-mail at podcast@crimethinc.com. {November 1st, 2019}   -------SHOW NOTES------   Table of Contents: Introduction {0:00} Update since last episode {1:54} From Civil Disobedience to Popular Insurrection: A Reflection on Revolt and State Repression in the Chilean Region {10:05} Interview 26 October: Cacerolazo in Puente Alto {16:00} Interview 28 October: Downtown in the teargas with an anti-authoritarian legal worker {19:30} Interview 28 October: Coordinating Assembly of High School Students, ACES {30:35} Interview 28 October: Villa Olímpica festival of resistance with Kassandra Romanini {36:40} Interview 29 October: Colegio Paulo Freire in San Miguel {40:55} Interview 29 October: Middle school students' anti-police demonstration {1:01:26} Interview 30 October: The People's Assembly in Plaza Bogota {1:03:40} Report from the Olla Común at Plaza Italia {1:07:40} The Right to Live Is Not to be Begged For, It Is to Be Taken! {1:13:18} Outro {1:18:10} En Español {1:19:12} Our previous coverage/Nuestra cobertura previa: The Ex-Worker #70: Radio Evasión—dispatches from Chile Part 1 Reports from fare-dodging to a week of full-blown revolt, en español también Chile: Resisting under Martial Law A Report, Interview, and Call to Action Chile: Resistiendo bajo la Ley Marcial Un reporte, una entrevista y una llamada a la acción On the Front Lines in Chile Six Accounts from the Uprising Texts included in this episode/textos y comunicados en este episodio: The Illegitimacy of Violence, the Violence of Legitimacy De la desobediencia civil a la insurrección popular: una reflexión en torno a la revuelta y el terrorismo de estado en la región chilena Pojects interviewed in this episode/iniciativas que incluimos en este episodio: Fundraiser to support Chilean protestors  Olla Común Plaza Italia Radio Colegio Paulo Freire Radio Comunitaria Villa Olímpica Directory of Ollas Comunes in Chile La Asamblea Coordinadora de Estudiantes Secundarios de Chile - ACES Anonymous Chile hacked the police and leaked their private chats: [#PacoLeaks ~ Datadump de Carabineros de Chile (Pacos culiaos)](https://pacoleaks.rebelside.pw/) A MASSIVE repository of police and military brutality recorded from individual phones and cameras Virtual cacerola machine! Check out these texts from Seattle 1999 and Barcelona 2001, for more context on the mobilizations in the so-called “anti-globalization” movement that we compare the ongoing uprising in Chile with. FunaMetro Piensa Prensa - Instagram Iniciativa Pasaje Justo Evasión Masiva Chile Ongoing movement media from around Chile: Radio Villa Francia - Instagram Radio Kurruf (Concepción) - Instagram Diario Venceremos - Instagram Radio Placeres (Valparaíso) Radio 19 de Abril (Cobertura Colectiva) Radio Humedales (Concepción) Prensa Opal Periódico Resumen (Concepción) Radio Manque (Rancagua) Rara Señal Medio Libre La Zarzamora  Radio JGM Kiwicha Comunicaciones Radio Última Frecuencia Waiwen Tv (Osorno)  RadioWilliche Mül'ütu (Melipulli – Puerto Montt) Radio Latue (Coyhaique) Revista Caminando (Temuco-Valdivia)    

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 268. I was a guest on Episode 39 of the excellent podcast The Bob Murphy Show, discussing "Law Without the State, and the Illegitimacy of IP (Intellectual Property)". A few people have told me this particular discussion of IP was one of my best--thorough and systematic. No doubt aided by Bob's excellent prompting, questions, and guidance. Bob and I had planned to also discuss argumentation ethics, but the discussion of IP ran longer than we expected so we'll save AE for next time. [Update: KOL278 | Bob Murphy Show: Debating Hans Hoppe's “Argumentation Ethics”.] From Bob's show notes: Bob talks with Stephan Kinsella about the basis of libertarian law, and how we could have justice without a coercive State. They then discuss Stephan's pathbreaking work making the case that property must be in tangible things, rendering “intellectual property” an incoherent and dangerous concept.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 268. I was a guest on Episode 39 of the excellent podcast The Bob Murphy Show, discussing "Law Without the State, and the Illegitimacy of IP (Intellectual Property)". A few people have told me this particular discussion of IP was one of my best--thorough and systematic. No doubt aided by Bob's excellent prompting, questions, and guidance. Bob and I had planned to also discuss argumentation ethics, but the discussion of IP ran longer than we expected so we'll save AE for next time. [Update: KOL278 | Bob Murphy Show: Debating Hans Hoppe’s “Argumentation Ethics”.] From Bob's show notes: Bob talks with Stephan Kinsella about the basis of libertarian law, and how we could have justice without a coercive State. They then discuss Stephan’s pathbreaking work making the case that property must be in tangible things, rendering “intellectual property” an incoherent and dangerous concept.

(https://www.bobmurphyshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/kinsella.jpg) Bob talks with Stephan Kinsella about the basis of libertarian law, and how we could have justice without a coercive State. They then discuss Stephan’s pathbreaking work making the case that property must be in tangible things, rendering “intellectual property” an incoherent and dangerous concept. Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest: Stephan’s website (http://www.stephankinsella.com/) . Stephan’s classic monograph, “ Against Intellectual Property. (https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0) “ Stephan’s article, “ What It Means to Be an Anarcho-Capitalist. (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/01/stephan-kinsella/what-it-means-to-be-an-anarcho-capitalist/) “ Stephan’s article, “ How I Became a Libertarian. (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/12/stephan-kinsella/up-from-objectivism/) “ Bob’s pamphlet journal article (http://libertarianpapers.org/murphy-libertarian-law-military-defense/) on private law and military defense. Bob (with Gene Callahan) Stephan defends Hoppe (http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications/defending-argumentation-ethics/) . How you can contribute (http://bobmurphyshow.com/contribute) to the Bob Murphy Show. The audio production for this episode was provided by Podsworth Media (https://www.podsworth.com/) .

Video: What On Earth Is Happening - Episode #208 Date: 2019-05-05 Topics: Call-In follow-up show for Least Harm Possible: Plant-Based Nutrition vs Carnism Revisited, Nascent Iodine, Ancient Grains vs. Genetically Hybridized Grains, Gliadin, Adaptogens, Eating healthy is a form of Self Respect, Cognitive dissonance, the Spirituality of Plant-Based Nutrition, Facing change vs. rejecting change, Polarizing factors preventing change, Suffering of animals, Militant Veganism as a Religion, Being honest with ourselves, Will Power, Balanced approach to nutrition, Guidance of Psychedelics/Entheogens, Animals don’t belong to people, Self-Loathing, Struggling not to hate people who are already self-loathing, Parental Abandonment Issues, Stop Lying to Yourself as the First Step of Occult Initiation, the Wrongness of Domination, Animals want to live, Moral Relativism, Heart-Based Intelligence, Bodily Energy on a plant-based diet, Vegan athletes, Documentaries about plant-based nutrition, Animal Slaughter as Satanic Duality and Satanic Ritual, Most people would eat plant-based if they had to kill animals themselves, Transitioning the correct way to a plant-based diet over time, Learning lessons from suffering, Personal journey toward becoming a vegetarian/vegan, Normalizing of meat-eating through familial behavior, Understanding Plat-Based Nutrition from a perspective of First Principles and Morality, Unification as a community, Reducing meat consumption incrementally, Occulted Knowledge regarding Natural Law, Justifications for meat-eating include health fallacies, Lowering inflammation by eating plant-based, Turmeric as an inflammatory, the Law of Correspondence, the Law of Assimilation, Relationship between Veganism and Anarchy, the Earthlings documentary, ALL beings should be Free, the Illegitimacy of Animal Slavery, the Illegitimacy of Government, Government subsidization of meat and dairy industries, a Quantum Shift involves large numbers, Real-World Change is created by the Majority, Nature’s Tipping Point, Mutually respectful conversations between Vegans and Carnists, Gardening, Therapeutic aspects of Gardening, Juicing, Fermented foods, Mark's annoyance with traveling due to Road Pirates called Police, 2nd Amendment Reciprocity and Constitutional Carry, Human Beings and their Rights are Inalienable, Generosity and Gratitude as foundations of the Great Work, Generosity of the Earth, Nation/State vs Country as Land and People, False Patriotism vs. True Patriotism, "You are what you eat" is literally true, Frequency fields, Geomancy, Etheric Energy, Half of the Human population lives without running water or electricity, Plants adapting to Humans' nutrient needs, Being conditioned to eat meat, Understanding Carnism as a child. Related Images: Download (zip archive) Related Documents: Natural Cures (Epub Format) | Natural Cures (PDF Format) | Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception | You Don't Need Meat (Epub Format) | You Don't Need Meat (PDF Format) Related Videos: Earthlings Related Links: Jay Kordich Youtube Channel | John Kohler Youtube Channel | Dan MacDonald Youtube Channel

Join Jennifer LeClaire as she interviews authors, speakers and others who have a powerful message for the hour. These shows will encourage you to walk in God's best for your life.

Air Date: 10/26/2018 Today we take a look at the crumbling trust in the Supreme Court in the wake of the Kavanaugh confirmation, not to mention the undemocratic electoral college, undemocratic Senate and a whole slew of anti-democracy GOP dirty tricks that have been used to acquire and intrench power for a conservative minority Be part of the show! Leave a message at 202-999-3991   Episode Sponsors: Madison-Reed.com (Promo Code: Left)| MustTriumph.com Amazon USA| Amazon CA| Amazon UK| Clean Choice Energy Get AD FREE Shows & Bonus Content: Support our show on Patreon!   SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: Finding the path forward in a rigged system - Bradcast from @TheBradBlog - Air Date 10-8-18 Alleged sexual assaulter and perjurer Judge Brett Kavanaugh is now Justice Kavanaugh on the U.S. Supreme Court, meaning all five serving Republican appointees on the nine-person Court serve under one cloud of illegitimacy or another. Ch. 2: Senator Jeff Merkley on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court - Amicus from @Slate - Air Date 10-12-18 Dahlia Lithwick talks with Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon about the “deep wounds” in the Senate following Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Ch. 3: THE MIDTERMS MINUTE- Help Flip Toss Up Battleground House Races in OH, UT, WA! (Part 3) - Best of the Left Activism Take action! Click the title and/or scroll down for quick links and resources from this segment. Ch. 4: Brett Kavanaugh's banal, reactionary mind - Jacobin Radio (@jacobinmag) - Air Date 10-8-18 Meagan Day reflects on the toxicity — and banality — of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation to the Supreme Court. We look at the way the contentious, emotional hearings exposed the fault lines between gender, privilege, class, and politics in the US. Ch. 5: John Nichols on impeaching Kavanaugh - Start Making Sense from @TheNation - Air Date 10-9-18 John Nichols talks about investigations that could lead to the filing of articles of impeachment against Brett Kavanaugh. Ch. 6: Republicans Want To Regulate The Supreme Court ... And Democrats Could Have Done It! - @Thom_Hartmann - Air Date: 01-06-17 There is bipartisan agreement that Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the Supreme Court, so why don't Democrats use this tactic to fight Citizens United? Ch. 7: How Obama Paved the Way for the Kavanaugh Appointment - @TheRealNews - Air Date 10-14-18 Eoin Higgins of The Intercept argues that had Obama investigated and prosecuted Bush administration officials, Brett Kavanaugh would probably never have made it to the Supreme Court.   VOICEMAILS Ch. 8: A Response To Matthew On Abortion - Ani from Alabama Ch. 9: Reproductive justice and the ambiguity of life - Elizabeth from Virginia   Ch. 10: Final comments on the choice litmus test   THE MIDTERMS MINUTE REGISTER TO VOTE: RocktheVote.org/register-to-vote/ CONFIRM VOTER REGISTRATION: HeadCount.org/verify-voter-registration/ CHECK VOTING DATES & POLICIES: RocktheVote.org/voting-information/ VOTER ID INFO/HELP: VoteRiders & 866ourvote.org All Battleground Info/Resources: THE MIDTERMS MINUTE H.Q. Early Voting Information by State TOSS UP BATTLEGROUND HOUSE SEATS (part 3) Ohio OH-01: Aftab Pureval Red to Blue OH-01 Utah UT-04: Ben McAdams Red to Blue UT-04 Washington WA-08: Kim Schrier Red to Blue WA-08 Written by BOTL Communications Director Amanda Hoffman    MUSIC: Opening Theme: Loving Acoustic Instrumental by John Douglas Orr  Chrome and Wax - Ray Catcher (Blue Dot Sessions) Heather - Migration (Blue Dot Sessions) Tar and Spackle - Plaster (Blue Dot Sessions) Entrap - Darby (Blue Dot Sessions) Cases to Rest - Bodytonic (Blue Dot Sessions) Gusty Hollow - Migration (Blue Dot Sessions) Voicemail Music: Low Key Lost Feeling Electro by Alex Stinnent Closing Music: Upbeat Laid Back Indie Rock by Alex Stinnent   Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Thanks for listening! Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Support the show via Patreon Listen on iTunes | Stitcher| Spotify| Alexa Devices| +more Check out the BotL iOS/AndroidApp in the App Stores! Follow at Twitter.com/BestOfTheLeft Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Review the show on iTunesand Stitcher!

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are glad to see Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn expanding her lead over Democrat Phil Bredesen in the tight Tennessee Senate race.  They also cringe as UN Ambassador Nikki Haley announces she is resigning at the end of the year, ending two years of clear, principled service on behalf of the U.S.  And Jim unloads on Democrats for suggesting the Kavanaugh confirmation was illegitimate by pointing out that Democrats have declared almost every good election result for conservatives over the past 40 years to be illegitimate for one reason or another.

The word bastard hasn't always been meant to offend. Used simply as an indication of illegitimate birth at first, the label bastard didn't bring with it shame or stigmatization until long after it first appeared in the Middle Ages.Support the show: http://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Illegitimacy once meant you were a 'bastard'. The MP Caroline Flint wants to know what the word 'illegitimate' means now. Caroline has always been open about her unmarried Mum having her when she was 17 years old and that she had her first son before she got married. Caroline describes her own family's story as a Catherine Cookson novel. There are suspicions that her widowed great-grandmother had an illegitimate child. Her grandmother's older sister had an illegitimate child during WW1 with an American soldier who was brought up as though his mother was his sister. She explores the archives to find out if the stigma has died out with social historian Jane Robinson and discusses the issue with best-selling crime author Martina Cole and fellow MP Jess Phillips. Martina, who is also an ambassador for the single parent families' charity Gingerbread, became a single parent by choice when she was 18 and then again 20 years later. Jess conceived her son when she was 22 and had been with her boyfriend for barely a month. Is the biggest deal today not whether a child is illegitimate but whether she bears her father's surname? Has the cloak of illegitimacy really fallen because daddy is willing to say publicly: she's mine? This programme contains archive clips of the stories of Betty, Ada and Gina from 'The Secret World of Sex: In Disgrace' (1991), sourced from Domino Films, copyright of Testimony Films - http://www.testimonyfilms.com/

Co-authors Oliver Hahl and Minjae Kim discuss their article, "The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue: Proclaiming the Deeper Truth about Political Illegitimacy," co-authored with Ezra W. Zuckerman Sivan. This article is published in the February 2018 issue of American Sociological Review.

The Illegitimacy of Violence, the Violence of Legitimacy – by CrimethInc. – MP3 – Read – Print – Torrent – Archive – YouTube Coming out of the context of the debates within Occupy Wall Street as it spread across the United States, The Illegitimacy of Violence, the Violence of Legitimacy is an essay by Crimethinc … Continue reading The Illegitimacy of Violence, the Violence of Legitimacy – AudioZine

TALK, TEACH, AND TESTIFY RADIO: FRIDAY MORNING, SPECIAL EDITION (THE END TIME MESSAGES AND PROPHECIES WITHIN THE NATION OF YASHARAL THROUGH TORAH/THURAH) On Friday morning, January 12th, 2018 (the 25th day of the 10th Month) @ 10AM EST (9AM CST), Talk, Teach, and Testify Radio© will present sound doctrine and teaching the spiritual meaning and revelation of the Thurah/Torah (teachings and instructions) of YAHUAH and the true importance of understanding end time prophecies in the TaNaKh (Scriptures). We shall discuss through Scripture the true revelation of the illegitimate 13th tribe who have manipulated and seduced the masses through religion, banking, education, history, politics, entertainment, and how it relates to the seven assemblies and covenants unto the Nation of Yasharal (Part 2). Please join us either by calling in at the new number of (515) 605-9874 or just click on the link below. May Abba/Ab baruk you and keep you. Shalum. Shabath Shalum

The word bastard hasn't always been meant to offend. Used simply as an indication of illegitimate birth at first, the label bastard didn't bring with it shame or stigmatization until long after it first appeared in the Middle Ages.Support the show: http://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Gregg

#34 - Part I of II Created to protect the nation against both incompetence and foreign manipulation, the Electoral College is exploding on the national scene right now as a troublesome invention of the US, and this could very well be the beginning of the end of it. Setting aside for the moment any discussion of (delusional) accusations of voter fraud, (valid) concerns over election fraud (uncounted/missing ballots, voter suppression, tampered machines, etc.), or (yet-to-be-substantiated) Russian electoral intervention, the argument stands strong enough alone on Trump himself and the decisions he has made to-date. That is more than enough to end Trump before he can begin. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/09/donald-trump-administration-cabinet-picks-so-far http://qz.com/862412/trumps-16-cabinet-level-picks-have-more-money-than-a-third-of-american-households-combined/

Illegitimacy, successful marriage, and what to eat at funerals, conversations from London, Scotland and Devon, introduced by Fi Glover.

As the new BBC TV series Back in Time for Dinner is due to air, we talk to food writer Mary Gwynn about how our mealtime tastes have changed over the past 70 years. Meanwhile, historian Jane Robinson discusses her new book In the Family Way, which looks at the stigma that often used to be faced by unmarried mothers and their children. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Date: 2015-01-17 Topics: Mark Receives Tesla Spirit Award, Solutions, The Great Work, Alchemy, Critical Mass in Consciousness, Epigenetic Eugenics, Belief vs Gnosis, the Illegitimacy of ALL Government and "Authority," the Importance of Gun Ownership, the Disarming of Slaves, Goetia "Demons" and Self-Knowledge, the Socially-Engineered War between the Sexes, Mind Control Techniques that specifically target Women, the Deliberate Breakdown of the Familial Dynamic in Society, Waking the Unconscious Masses, "Maven-Targeting," How Police and Military Constitute Cults, the REAL Male and Female vs. The Artificial "Male" and "Female," Doing The Great Work to influence others to change, Order-Followers need to walk away from their "Jobs," ALL Order-Followers are Cowards, the State's Glorification of Order-Follwers as "God-men," Order-Followers are always bear MORE Morally Culpability than Order-Givers, How Order-Following Institutions loathe individual thought and Conscience, Believers in "Authority" are Religious Extremists, Alcoholics Anonymous and other "12-Step" Programs. Related Images: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Date: 2014-10-11 Guest: Jay Parker Topics: Wealth disparity throughout the world, Dark Occultism, Illegitimacy of ALL forms of Government, the dangers of Gun Control, the importance of Gun Ownership, the Healing Properties of Cannabis and Cannabis Oil, School System Indoctrination, Ether-based Occulted Physics, Media Mind Control, 9-11, Occult Symbolism, Dark Occult Ideology, Occult/Government Infiltration, Gass-roots efforts and outreaches, Dark Occult presence in all countries and institutions, Divide & Conquer methodology, Spiritual Symbolism in Dreams. Related Images: 1 Jay's Images: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14

Date: 2014-09-27 Topics: “New” Age Deception, Solipsism, the insidious “New” Age Belief that Property is “an illusion,” Understanding of Property and Understanding of Rights are inseparable, Release from Attachment does not mean the abandonment of the Understanding of Property, Music as a reflection of Elemental Forces, the Illegitimacy of ALL forms of Taxation, Refusing ALL Taxation as a means of Rebellion, Humanity as a Child Species that refuses to accept Personal Responsibility, Deliberate interruptions to the WOEIH Radio Show and what they say about the people who are paid to cause them, How such interruptions only serve to validate Mark’s entire message, the indestructible nature of the Human Spirit, Mark’s own personal UFO encounter, Goddess Symbolism, False Flag Attacks, Occult Numerology, Moral Relativism, “Arbiter Of Truth” Syndrome, the failure of the so-called “Greatest Generation” and the “Baby Boomers,” the Cyclical Quality within Time, Choice-Points within Time to help us learn and grow in Consciousness, Self-Respect, Self-Love, Standing Together in Persistence, Carnism, Theories regarding Humanity’s dietary changes over time. Related Images: 1 | 2

Marriage is honorable and fornication and adultery are grounds for judgment. It is the plan of God that husband and wife cooperate with one another in the raising of children. One of the reasons that these young adults see fornication as the norm and feel sanguine in marginalizing the relationships of a father in the life of their children is that they do not recognize this truth.

The Enemy of God has sought diligently to corrupt the dignity of Messiah's lineage through the false charge of an illegitimate birth. Yet God's mercy toward Mary, particularly in the persons of Elizabeth and Joseph, triumphed over the Enemy's attack.

The Enemy of God has sought diligently to corrupt the dignity of Messiah's lineage through the false charge of an illegitimate birth. Yet God's mercy toward Mary, particularly in the persons of Elizabeth and Joseph, triumphed over the Enemy's attack.

The Enemy of God has sought diligently to corrupt the dignity of Messiah's lineage through the false charge of an illegitimate birth. Yet God's mercy toward Mary, particularly in the persons of Elizabeth and Joseph, triumphed over the Enemy's attack.

The Enemy of God has sought diligently to corrupt the dignity of Messiah's lineage through the false charge of an illegitimate birth. Yet God's mercy toward Mary, particularly in the persons of Elizabeth and Joseph, triumphed over the Enemy's attack.