POPULARITY
Categories
205 episodes with Intellectual
174 episodes with Intellectual
312 episodes with Intellectual
235 episodes with Intellectual
97 episodes with Intellectual
112 episodes with Intellectual
50 episodes with Intellectual
43 episodes with Intellectual
93 episodes with Intellectual
101 episodes with Intellectual
39 episodes with Intellectual
81 episodes with Intellectual
45 episodes with Intellectual
31 episodes with Intellectual
53 episodes with Intellectual
37 episodes with Intellectual
29 episodes with Intellectual
31 episodes with Intellectual
15 episodes with Intellectual
25 episodes with Intellectual
25 episodes with Intellectual
46 episodes with Intellectual
47 episodes with Intellectual
34 episodes with Intellectual
35 episodes with Intellectual
19 episodes with Intellectual
32 episodes with Intellectual
36 episodes with Intellectual
35 episodes with Intellectual
17 episodes with Intellectual
16 episodes with Intellectual
17 episodes with Intellectual
9 episodes with Intellectual
37 episodes with Intellectual
5 episodes with Intellectual
9 episodes with Intellectual
21 episodes with Intellectual
7 episodes with Intellectual
43 episodes with Intellectual
42 episodes with Intellectual
10 episodes with Intellectual
19 episodes with Intellectual
12 episodes with Intellectual
7 episodes with Intellectual
12 episodes with Intellectual
8 episodes with Intellectual
5 episodes with Intellectual
10 episodes with Intellectual
5 episodes with Intellectual
5 episodes with Intellectual
11 episodes with Intellectual
5 episodes with Intellectual
6 episodes with Intellectual
13 episodes with Intellectual
13 episodes with Intellectual
8 episodes with Intellectual
19 episodes with Intellectual
9 episodes with Intellectual
8 episodes with Intellectual
34 episodes with Intellectual
11 episodes with Intellectual
8 episodes with Intellectual
4 episodes with Intellectual
8 episodes with Intellectual
10 episodes with Intellectual
7 episodes with Intellectual
7 episodes with Intellectual
7 episodes with Intellectual
6 episodes with Intellectual
4 episodes with Intellectual
7 episodes with Intellectual
8 episodes with Intellectual
2 episodes with Intellectual
7 episodes with Intellectual
4 episodes with Intellectual
10 episodes with Intellectual
6 episodes with Intellectual
10 episodes with Intellectual
16 episodes with Intellectual
5 episodes with Intellectual
4 episodes with Intellectual
7 episodes with Intellectual
13 episodes with Intellectual
3 episodes with Intellectual
4 episodes with Intellectual
7 episodes with Intellectual
4 episodes with Intellectual
6 episodes with Intellectual
8 episodes with Intellectual
4 episodes with Intellectual
3 episodes with Intellectual
3 episodes with Intellectual
4 episodes with Intellectual
6 episodes with Intellectual
3 episodes with Intellectual
13 episodes with Intellectual
2 episodes with Intellectual
5 episodes with Intellectual
5 episodes with Intellectual
7 episodes with Intellectual
11 episodes with Intellectual
2 episodes with Intellectual
4 episodes with Intellectual
12 episodes with Intellectual
4 episodes with Intellectual
7 episodes with Intellectual
5 episodes with Intellectual
6 episodes with Intellectual
5 episodes with Intellectual
5 episodes with Intellectual
3 episodes with Intellectual
5 episodes with Intellectual
3 episodes with Intellectual
4 episodes with Intellectual
4 episodes with Intellectual
3 episodes with Intellectual
3 episodes with Intellectual
5 episodes with Intellectual
3 episodes with Intellectual
4 episodes with Intellectual
3 episodes with Intellectual
3 episodes with Intellectual
8 episodes with Intellectual
7 episodes with Intellectual
2 episodes with Intellectual
3 episodes with Intellectual
3 episodes with Intellectual
4 episodes with Intellectual
7 episodes with Intellectual
4 episodes with Intellectual
5 episodes with Intellectual
2 episodes with Intellectual
8 episodes with Intellectual
6 episodes with Intellectual
10 episodes with Intellectual
5 episodes with Intellectual
5 episodes with Intellectual
8 episodes with Intellectual
9 episodes with Intellectual
4 episodes with Intellectual
2 episodes with Intellectual
3 episodes with Intellectual
5 episodes with Intellectual
2 episodes with Intellectual
Dear Friends, In this episode of Gateways to Awakening, I sit down with my new friend, David Lorimer, writer, poet, philosopher, Programme Director of the Scientific and Medical Network, and Chair of the Galileo Commission. We recently met in the South of France, while I was on Dr. Nicola Amadora's Mary Magdalene tour. For decades, David has been at the forefront of conversations exploring consciousness, science, spirituality, near-death experiences, and the deeper nature of reality.We begin with David's lifelong “quest for wisdom” and why true wisdom cannot be separated from love, compassion, discernment, and direct experience. We also dive into the research surrounding near-death experiences, survival of consciousness, and the possibility that death is not an ending, but a transition into another mode of consciousness. David shares decades of experience studying these phenomena and the recurring patterns reported by people who have come close to death.“We have to wake up, and we have to try to use our lives to contribute to the larger common good, and to grow in love and wisdom.”— David LorimerKey Takeaways- Wisdom is more than knowledge. True wisdom integrates discernment and deeper understanding with love and compassion.- Intuition is fundamental to discovery. Major scientific breakthroughs often begin with intuitive insight before the analytical mind works out the science.- Our current scientific understanding of consciousness may be incomplete, opening the door to a much larger exploration of the nature of mind and reality.- Death may be a transition rather than an ending. Near-death experiences show striking recurring patterns, including peace, out-of-body experiences, beings of light, and life reviews.- We may be expressions of one consciousness, raising profound questions about interconnectedness and the nature of the self.- The mind and heart need to develop together. Intellectual or spiritual knowledge alone does not necessarily create an integrated human being.- Mary Magdalene offers another lens on the Divine Feminine and the integration of sacred masculine and feminine principles.Our lives can serve something larger. The invitation is to wake up, expand our consciousness, contribute to the common good, and continue growing in love and wisdom.Thank you for listening! We're now opening a private Community membership for those interested in processing the podcast and joining live monthly calls to discuss the content. Learn more here. If this episode resonates with you, you may also enjoy Yasmeen's work through the Inner Knowing School, where she teaches intuition, energetic mastery, multidimensional awareness, and nervous system regulation through private immersions and executive cohorts. You can also explore Yasmeen's latest book, A Glitch in the Matrix: 10 Energy Codes to Become the Main Character of Your Life, available on Audible, Kindle, and in print. The book explores intuition, consciousness, timelines, emotional regulation, and how to manage your energy instead of your time.For all resoures, check here: https://linktr.ee/gatewaystoawakening
Become a Patron - https://www.patreon.com/thecomicspals?fan_landing=true Subscribe on YouTube - youtube.com/thecomicspals?sub_confirm... Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/6RAX3sT [00:00:00] Opening [00:07:50] Robert Kirkman Calls "Intellectual" Comics Boring [00:32:08] @comicsaredope 's defense of Kirkman's underlying point [01:21:22] Highlight a Book: Marco [01:33:34] Batman Month: Favorite Villains #2 [01:43:47] Jean Grey Miniseries Announced [01:52:24] Marvel Incursions Announced [02:03:18] Ram V's New Gods Returning [02:07:30] Community announcements and channel updates [02:12:06] Highlight a Book: Tyler with DIE: Reloaded [02:20:37] Listener call-in session [03:04:41] Closing Watch us LIVE on YouTube every: Monday at 1PM EST for Pals Previews Thursday at 8 PM EST for Pals Pulls Saturday at 10:15 AM EST for The Comics Pals Podcast Grab some merch here: https://streamlabs.com/thecomicspals/merch ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PodBean: https://thecomicspals.podbean.com/ X: https://twitter.com/thecomicspals Bluesky: @thecomicspals.bsky.social Instagram: https://instagram.com/thecomicspals ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Pals: Sean: @SeansSoapbox Tyler: @TheTylerOlson Marco: @mrmarcoanimoto
Peter Berkowitz reflects on the 30th anniversary of Alan Sokal's famous academic hoax, which exposed the intellectual decline within higher education humanities. Berkowitz critiques contemporary humanities departments for their ideological hypocrisy: professors claim objective truth is subjective while simultaneously insisting that their own political claims are absolute truths. He references a report from Vanderbilt and Washington University confirming that significant contingents of humanities faculty in core disciplines subordinate scholarship to political activism. Finally, Berkowitz notes that this progressive ideological capture is concentrated among college-educated voters in elite university towns, warning that treating education as political indoctrination severely perverts liberal education. (2)
Superforecaster and conservative writer Stevie Miller (@zagrebbi) explains who the Groypers are and why they are campaigning against Vivek Ramaswamy. Timestamps 0:25: Groypers 1:22: Disclaimer 3:58: Interview begins 4:40: How Miller and Chougule met 5:04: Curtis Yarvin 10:57: Intellectual influence in Washington 11:39: Manifest conference 12:32: Miller's involvement with forecasting 14:02: Public intellectuals 16:39: Miller transfer to Columbia 17:24: Ramaswamy's primary win 19:16: Casey Putsch 21:46: Groypers 21:55: Streaming 23:16: Alleged cancellation of Fuentes 24:57: Fuentes at Boston University 31:09: Chris Brunet 31:31: narrative of persecution 31:53: Fuentes as self-made outsider 34:46: Fuentes-Dinesh D'Souza debate 37:30: Ben Shapiro 39:58: Changing conservative audiences 40:12: Tucker Carlson 41:29: Fuentes mentions of Miller 42:46: Bronze Age Pervert 43:17: Fuentes's anti-semitism 45:00: Ben Shapiro in college 45:58: The Right Stuff 47:29: Fuentes's anti-Zionism 49:14: Fuentes's opposition to GOP 50:33: Fuentes's on Newsom 54:05: Fuentes's anti-Indianism 55:09: Fuentes's Catholic worldview 57:28: Fuentes's social conservatism 58:27: Fuentes's populism 1:01:23: Fuentes's working class worldview 1:01:59: Fuentes's views on economic policy 1:04:38: Fuentes's opposition to Trump 1:14:08: Ohio governor race 1:15:23: Why Groypers are upset with Ramaswamy 1:17:27: High-skilled immigration 1:22:59: Groyper impact on Ohio governor race Follow Star Spangled Gamblers on Twitter/X: @ssgamblers Trade on the Ohio Governor Race at Polymarket.com, the world's largest prediction market. https://polymarket.com/event/ohio-governor-winner-2026#sRoyoIW
Support the podcast! Http://tappingqanda.com/support Subscribe in: Apple Podcast | iPhone | Spotify | Pandora | Amazon Music | iHeartRadio | YouTube Limiting beliefs are one of the most common obstacles I hear about from people in the tapping community, and they are also one of the things tapping is best equipped to address. In nearly two decades of working with clients and students, tapping for limiting beliefs has become one of my favorite applications of EFT, because the results are direct, fast, and felt immediately in daily life. TL;DR / Key Takeaways A limiting belief is a subconscious affirmation about how the world works that exists to keep you safe, not to hold you back. It only becomes a problem when it is disproportionate to actual risk or based on inaccurate information. Intellectual understanding alone cannot clear a limiting belief. Transformation requires working at the subconscious level, which is exactly where EFT tapping operates through a process called memory reconsolidation. The five-step tapping process for limiting beliefs takes under three minutes and can be used immediately on any belief that is getting in your way. Fighting or dismissing a limiting belief makes it dig in harder. The key is to first acknowledge the belief's protective intention, then show it how it is working against you. Replacing a limiting belief requires a statement the subconscious can actually accept. Overclaiming ("everything will be perfect") creates resistance. A grounded permission statement creates movement. Why Limiting Beliefs Are So Hard to Shake Limiting beliefs are hard to shake because they are not flaws in your thinking. They are features of your protective system doing exactly what they were designed to do. Your subconscious mind holds on to these beliefs precisely because it believes they are keeping you safe. Think about it this way: I do not jump into the tiger cage at the zoo. That is a limiting belief. But I do not experience it as one because it is proportionate to real danger. The limiting beliefs that cause us problems work the same way on the inside. They generate resistance to protect us from what they perceive as threat, whether that threat is rejection, failure, judgment, or loss. This is why willpower and positive thinking rarely work on their own. If you try to override a protective belief by force, the subconscious mind digs its heels in. The resistance is not an enemy. It is a misguided guardian. What Is a Limiting Belief, Really? A limiting belief is a subconscious affirmation about how the world works that is either inaccurate, disproportionate, or based on outdated information. It exists to create protective resistance, not to punish you. This definition matters because it completely changes how you approach the work. Most people treat their limiting beliefs as character defects or signs that something is fundamentally broken in them. But a limiting belief is just a story your subconscious mind wrote, probably a long time ago, with the information it had available at the time. The story made sense once. It just has not been updated. Key insight: "Limiting beliefs are always going to get the best of us. They keep us safe. What we're really frustrated by is the fact that the limiting belief has gotten in the way of us doing the thing we want because it's not doing it in a way that's proportionate or that is well informed." Every limiting belief you carry is trying to protect you from something. The question is never whether the protection is well-intentioned. It always is. The question is whether it is accurate and proportionate to the actual situation in front of you right now. Why Tapping for Limiting Beliefs Works When Willpower Doesn't Tapping works on limiting beliefs because it targets the subconscious level where those beliefs actually live, through a neurological process called memory reconsolidation. Willpower operates at the conscious level and cannot reach them. Memory reconsolidation is the process by which stored memories and the emotional responses attached to them are retrieved, modified, and re-saved. When you tap while focusing on a limiting belief, you are not just thinking differently about a problem. You are creating the conditions for the subconscious story to be rewritten and stored again in a new form. This is what makes tapping categorically different from affirmations, journaling, or talk therapy alone, all of which are enormously valuable but operate primarily at the conscious level. Key insight: "It is not enough to simply intellectually understand that the limiting belief you are carrying is not true. If all it required for you to transform a limiting belief was to know that it was not true, then the only thing we would need for healing and transformation are bumper stickers and posters of kitty cats hanging in there." This is why knowing better is not enough. You can know, with full certainty, that your fear of rejection is irrational, and still feel the brakes go on every time you try to put yourself out there. Tapping is one of the few tools that reaches both the conscious and subconscious levels simultaneously. If you want to understand more about why the subconscious mind resists change even when you consciously want it, this episode on the subconscious tug of war goes deep on that dynamic. The 5-Step Tapping Process for Limiting Beliefs The five-step tapping process for limiting beliefs takes under three minutes and can be applied immediately to any belief that is currently getting in your way. You do not need to have all the steps memorized. A reasonable guess at each one is enough to get results. To illustrate each step, I will use a concrete example: the belief that says "I can't ask this person to partner with me because they're going to reject me and I'll feel foolish." Step 1: Wordless Tapping Start with one full minute of tapping with no words at all. Move from point to point at your own pace, taking a deep breath as you begin. If you do not want to set a timer, three or four rounds of six to seven taps per point will cover it. Wordless tapping does two things: it settles your nervous system and brings you into your body before you begin the heavier cognitive work. Starting a limiting belief session already activated makes every subsequent step harder. This first step is short, but skipping it costs you. For a deeper look at how content-free tapping works and when to use it, see this episode on eight ways to use content-free tapping. Step 2: Name the Belief and Its Impact Tap through the points while saying out loud what the belief is and what it is causing you to do (or not do). Something like: "I recognize that I am carrying this belief, and the belief is [your belief here], and this limiting belief is preventing me from taking action, making me hesitant, and stopping me from doing what I want." Naming the belief out loud does something important: it moves it from a vague background feeling into a specific, examinable object. You cannot address what you cannot clearly see. Step 3: Honor the Belief's Protective Intent Still tapping, shift to acknowledging what the belief is trying to do for you: "I recognize that this limiting belief exists because it is simply trying to keep me safe. It does not want me to rush in, be judged, be rejected, or do something foolish. And I appreciate the fact that it is holding me back in an effort to keep me safe." This step is not about agreeing that the belief is correct. It is about getting your subconscious mind on board with the process. Key insight: "It's kind of like a handshake with the subconscious mind saying we're on the same team. If I say, subconscious mind, you're wrong, it's going to dig its heels in." Skipping this step is one of the most common reasons tapping on limiting beliefs stalls. The subconscious mind will not release a belief it thinks you are attacking. This episode on turning intellectual pushback into tapping progress explores this pattern in more detail. Step 4: Show the Belief How It's Backfiring Now, still tapping, let the belief know that its protective strategy is producing the opposite of what it intends: "Even though you are trying to keep me safe, you are actually doing the exact opposite. You are making the world more dangerous because you are preventing me from doing the things that will help me grow, evolve, and move forward." This step works because it speaks the subconscious mind's language. You are not telling it it is wrong. You are showing it that its own goal, your safety and wellbeing, is better served by loosening its grip. Step 5: Replace It with a Credible Truth Finally, tap while offering a realistic replacement: "I appreciate the fact that it is possible for me, in thoughtful and deliberate ways, to move forward safely. This does not mean I am going to be thoughtless or reckless. I am engaging with this in thoughtful and deliberate ways, and I give myself permission to trust that I can move forward safely." Notice what this step does not say. It does not say "everything will work out perfectly" or "there is nothing to worry about." Those statements are not believable to the subconscious mind, and an unbelievable affirmation creates resistance rather than releasing it. The goal is a truth the subconscious can accept, a permission statement that says: I can move, and moving does not mean abandoning care. Why You Can't Just Think Your Way Out of a Limiting Belief Thinking alone cannot clear a limiting belief because the belief does not live in your thinking mind. It lives in the subconscious, and the subconscious does not respond to logic. Reading the right book, understanding why a belief is irrational, or receiving encouragement can all be genuinely useful. But none of them reach the level where the belief is actually stored. They inform the conscious mind without rewriting the subconscious story. Tapping works at both levels simultaneously. You hold the belief in conscious focus while the physical act of tapping sends a calming signal to the amygdala, the brain's threat-detection center. That combination allows the memory to be accessed, modified, and re-stored. The belief does not just get quieter. It gets rewritten. If intellectual understanding has been your primary tool and you keep hitting the same walls, this episode on why you resist taking healthy action is a useful companion read. How to Use This Process for Any Limiting Belief Tapping for limiting beliefs is effective on any belief that is disproportionate to actual risk or based on outdated information. The example used throughout this post was the fear of rejection in a partnership conversation, but the same five steps apply to beliefs about money, visibility, worthiness, health, creative work, or any other domain where you feel stuck. Key insight: "The only way I can create a life that I love is if I actually take action. Nothing happens until we move. Limiting beliefs prevent us from taking action and moving. Therefore, when a limiting belief is disproportionate or misinformed, it prevents us from creating the life that is meant for us." You do not need to have the belief perfectly identified before you start. Begin with what you know. If you feel the resistance but cannot fully name what is driving it, start with wordless tapping and let the clarity come as you move through the steps. If you want to track your tapping practice and build consistency with this kind of work, Tapping Tracker is a simple tool designed to help you do exactly that. For more on how tapping and affirmations work together once a belief has been cleared, see this episode on tapping and affirmations as a transformation duo. Frequently Asked Questions What is a limiting belief in EFT tapping? In EFT, a limiting belief is a subconscious story about how the world works that creates resistance to action. It is not a character flaw. It is a protective mechanism that becomes problematic when it is disproportionate to actual risk or based on outdated information. Tapping works on limiting beliefs by accessing the subconscious level where they are stored. Can tapping really clear a limiting belief in a few minutes? Yes, particularly for beliefs that are clearly defined and moderately activated. The five-step process described here takes under three minutes and is designed to produce immediate relief from the resistance the belief generates. Deeper or more complex beliefs, especially those rooted in significant past experiences, may benefit from multiple sessions or work with a practitioner. Why do limiting beliefs come back after tapping? A limiting belief can resurface if it has multiple layers, if the root experience has not been fully addressed, or if the replacement truth offered in step five was not fully believable to the subconscious mind. When a belief returns, that is useful information. It points to a deeper layer or a related belief that is also worth tapping on. What is memory reconsolidation and how does it relate to tapping? Memory reconsolidation is the neurological process by which stored memories are retrieved, modified, and re-saved with new emotional content. EFT tapping leverages this process by pairing focused attention on a belief with the calming input of tapping on acupressure points, creating conditions for the subconscious story to be rewritten rather than suppressed. Do I have to know exactly what my limiting belief is before I start tapping? No. You can begin with wordless tapping and a general sense of where the resistance is. Clarity often emerges during the tapping process itself, particularly after step one settles the nervous system. Start with what you know, even if it is just "I feel stuck about this." How is tapping for limiting beliefs different from affirmations? Affirmations work at the conscious level and are most effective after a limiting belief has already been cleared or softened. Tapping works at the subconscious level, where the belief is actually stored, through the physical act of stimulating acupressure points while holding the belief in focus. Used together, after tapping clears the resistance, affirmations can reinforce the new story. This episode on tapping and affirmations explains how to sequence them effectively. What is the fear of rejection example in this episode about? The fear of rejection example illustrates a belief that says "If I ask this person to partner with me, they will reject me and I will feel foolish." Gene uses this example to walk through each of the five tapping steps in real time, demonstrating how the process addresses both the specific fear and the underlying protective mechanism driving it. For a deeper dive into tapping for rejection specifically, see this post on breaking free from the fear of rejection.
Angela Sealana and Dr. Jason King discuss the Catholic Intellectual Tradition and how St. Mary's University's Wayfinders program encourages young people to engage with philosophy, service, and community. In this episode, you will: Learn about the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, and how education helps us grow in hope Hear about what research has discovered about graduates from Catholic institutions of higher learning Discover programs and events for the greater San Antonio community to apply the Catholic Intellectual Tradition into our daily lives Continue Your Journey: Visit the official episode page and explore guest information and resources mentioned in this conversation. Jewel for the Journey: "Education is a participation in the work of Mary. She is the great teacher of (all people). Her mission has been, and still is, to give birth to Jesus Christ." - Fr. Emile Neubert, S.M. Do you like what you hear? Become a Missionary of Hope by sponsoring a week of Journeys of Hope. Click here to get started. Learn more at https://pilgrimcenterofhope.org/media-and-resources/all-media-series/journeys-of-hope.html Help us spread hope! https://pilgrimcenterofhope.org/support
Built on the grounds of a former cotton plantation, the Tuskegee Institute, founded by Booker T. Washington, offered agricultural and industrial education as a strategy for Black self-determination. There―and in many other communities in the U.S. South, the Caribbean, and Central America―Black people repurposed and regenerated what had been a place of enslavement into a site for imagining alternative futures. Jarvis C. McInnis charts a new account of Black modernity by centering Tuskegee'svision of agrarian worldmaking. He traces the diasporic ties and networks of exchange that linked Black communities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Although Washington is often regarded as an accommodationist, McInnis shows how artists, intellectuals, and political leaders―including George Washington Carver, Jean Price-Mars, Zora Neale Hurston, Claude McKay, and Marcus Garvey―adapted Tuskegee's methods into dynamic strategies for liberation in places like Cuba, Puerto Rico, Haiti, and Jamaica. Even as the legacy of the plantation continued to circumscribe Black life, these thinkers found resources in its ruins to forge new theories and practices of progress, aesthetic innovation, and freedom that contributed to the New Negro Movement of the 1920s and 1930s. In contrast to traditional understandings of Black modernity as urban and premised on northward migration, McInnis foregrounds rural settings and practices of place making, rootedness, and liberatory agriculture. Shedding new light on the transnational influence of a historically Black institution in the U.S. South, Afterlives of the Plantation remaps Black cultural, intellectual, and political histories down to the very soil. Afterlives of the Plantation: Plotting Agrarian Futures in the Global Black South (Columbia University Press, 2025) is an award-winning monograph earning recognition as a winner of the 2026 S-USIH Annual Book Prize by the Society for U.S. Intellectual History, 2026 Pauli Murray Book Prize in Black Intellectual History by the African American Intellectual History Society, and the 2026 ASALH Book Prize by the Association for the Study of African American Life and History Kishauna Soljour is an Assistant Professor of Public Humanities at San Diego State University. Her most recent writing appears in the edited collection: From Rights to Lives: The Evolution of the Black Freedom Struggle. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies
Built on the grounds of a former cotton plantation, the Tuskegee Institute, founded by Booker T. Washington, offered agricultural and industrial education as a strategy for Black self-determination. There―and in many other communities in the U.S. South, the Caribbean, and Central America―Black people repurposed and regenerated what had been a place of enslavement into a site for imagining alternative futures. Jarvis C. McInnis charts a new account of Black modernity by centering Tuskegee'svision of agrarian worldmaking. He traces the diasporic ties and networks of exchange that linked Black communities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Although Washington is often regarded as an accommodationist, McInnis shows how artists, intellectuals, and political leaders―including George Washington Carver, Jean Price-Mars, Zora Neale Hurston, Claude McKay, and Marcus Garvey―adapted Tuskegee's methods into dynamic strategies for liberation in places like Cuba, Puerto Rico, Haiti, and Jamaica. Even as the legacy of the plantation continued to circumscribe Black life, these thinkers found resources in its ruins to forge new theories and practices of progress, aesthetic innovation, and freedom that contributed to the New Negro Movement of the 1920s and 1930s. In contrast to traditional understandings of Black modernity as urban and premised on northward migration, McInnis foregrounds rural settings and practices of place making, rootedness, and liberatory agriculture. Shedding new light on the transnational influence of a historically Black institution in the U.S. South, Afterlives of the Plantation remaps Black cultural, intellectual, and political histories down to the very soil. Afterlives of the Plantation: Plotting Agrarian Futures in the Global Black South (Columbia University Press, 2025) is an award-winning monograph earning recognition as a winner of the 2026 S-USIH Annual Book Prize by the Society for U.S. Intellectual History, 2026 Pauli Murray Book Prize in Black Intellectual History by the African American Intellectual History Society, and the 2026 ASALH Book Prize by the Association for the Study of African American Life and History Kishauna Soljour is an Assistant Professor of Public Humanities at San Diego State University. Her most recent writing appears in the edited collection: From Rights to Lives: The Evolution of the Black Freedom Struggle. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
Built on the grounds of a former cotton plantation, the Tuskegee Institute, founded by Booker T. Washington, offered agricultural and industrial education as a strategy for Black self-determination. There―and in many other communities in the U.S. South, the Caribbean, and Central America―Black people repurposed and regenerated what had been a place of enslavement into a site for imagining alternative futures. Jarvis C. McInnis charts a new account of Black modernity by centering Tuskegee'svision of agrarian worldmaking. He traces the diasporic ties and networks of exchange that linked Black communities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Although Washington is often regarded as an accommodationist, McInnis shows how artists, intellectuals, and political leaders―including George Washington Carver, Jean Price-Mars, Zora Neale Hurston, Claude McKay, and Marcus Garvey―adapted Tuskegee's methods into dynamic strategies for liberation in places like Cuba, Puerto Rico, Haiti, and Jamaica. Even as the legacy of the plantation continued to circumscribe Black life, these thinkers found resources in its ruins to forge new theories and practices of progress, aesthetic innovation, and freedom that contributed to the New Negro Movement of the 1920s and 1930s. In contrast to traditional understandings of Black modernity as urban and premised on northward migration, McInnis foregrounds rural settings and practices of place making, rootedness, and liberatory agriculture. Shedding new light on the transnational influence of a historically Black institution in the U.S. South, Afterlives of the Plantation remaps Black cultural, intellectual, and political histories down to the very soil. Afterlives of the Plantation: Plotting Agrarian Futures in the Global Black South (Columbia University Press, 2025) is an award-winning monograph earning recognition as a winner of the 2026 S-USIH Annual Book Prize by the Society for U.S. Intellectual History, 2026 Pauli Murray Book Prize in Black Intellectual History by the African American Intellectual History Society, and the 2026 ASALH Book Prize by the Association for the Study of African American Life and History Kishauna Soljour is an Assistant Professor of Public Humanities at San Diego State University. Her most recent writing appears in the edited collection: From Rights to Lives: The Evolution of the Black Freedom Struggle. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies
Built on the grounds of a former cotton plantation, the Tuskegee Institute, founded by Booker T. Washington, offered agricultural and industrial education as a strategy for Black self-determination. There―and in many other communities in the U.S. South, the Caribbean, and Central America―Black people repurposed and regenerated what had been a place of enslavement into a site for imagining alternative futures. Jarvis C. McInnis charts a new account of Black modernity by centering Tuskegee'svision of agrarian worldmaking. He traces the diasporic ties and networks of exchange that linked Black communities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Although Washington is often regarded as an accommodationist, McInnis shows how artists, intellectuals, and political leaders―including George Washington Carver, Jean Price-Mars, Zora Neale Hurston, Claude McKay, and Marcus Garvey―adapted Tuskegee's methods into dynamic strategies for liberation in places like Cuba, Puerto Rico, Haiti, and Jamaica. Even as the legacy of the plantation continued to circumscribe Black life, these thinkers found resources in its ruins to forge new theories and practices of progress, aesthetic innovation, and freedom that contributed to the New Negro Movement of the 1920s and 1930s. In contrast to traditional understandings of Black modernity as urban and premised on northward migration, McInnis foregrounds rural settings and practices of place making, rootedness, and liberatory agriculture. Shedding new light on the transnational influence of a historically Black institution in the U.S. South, Afterlives of the Plantation remaps Black cultural, intellectual, and political histories down to the very soil. Afterlives of the Plantation: Plotting Agrarian Futures in the Global Black South (Columbia University Press, 2025) is an award-winning monograph earning recognition as a winner of the 2026 S-USIH Annual Book Prize by the Society for U.S. Intellectual History, 2026 Pauli Murray Book Prize in Black Intellectual History by the African American Intellectual History Society, and the 2026 ASALH Book Prize by the Association for the Study of African American Life and History Kishauna Soljour is an Assistant Professor of Public Humanities at San Diego State University. Her most recent writing appears in the edited collection: From Rights to Lives: The Evolution of the Black Freedom Struggle. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/environmental-studies
Built on the grounds of a former cotton plantation, the Tuskegee Institute, founded by Booker T. Washington, offered agricultural and industrial education as a strategy for Black self-determination. There―and in many other communities in the U.S. South, the Caribbean, and Central America―Black people repurposed and regenerated what had been a place of enslavement into a site for imagining alternative futures. Jarvis C. McInnis charts a new account of Black modernity by centering Tuskegee'svision of agrarian worldmaking. He traces the diasporic ties and networks of exchange that linked Black communities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Although Washington is often regarded as an accommodationist, McInnis shows how artists, intellectuals, and political leaders―including George Washington Carver, Jean Price-Mars, Zora Neale Hurston, Claude McKay, and Marcus Garvey―adapted Tuskegee's methods into dynamic strategies for liberation in places like Cuba, Puerto Rico, Haiti, and Jamaica. Even as the legacy of the plantation continued to circumscribe Black life, these thinkers found resources in its ruins to forge new theories and practices of progress, aesthetic innovation, and freedom that contributed to the New Negro Movement of the 1920s and 1930s. In contrast to traditional understandings of Black modernity as urban and premised on northward migration, McInnis foregrounds rural settings and practices of place making, rootedness, and liberatory agriculture. Shedding new light on the transnational influence of a historically Black institution in the U.S. South, Afterlives of the Plantation remaps Black cultural, intellectual, and political histories down to the very soil. Afterlives of the Plantation: Plotting Agrarian Futures in the Global Black South (Columbia University Press, 2025) is an award-winning monograph earning recognition as a winner of the 2026 S-USIH Annual Book Prize by the Society for U.S. Intellectual History, 2026 Pauli Murray Book Prize in Black Intellectual History by the African American Intellectual History Society, and the 2026 ASALH Book Prize by the Association for the Study of African American Life and History Kishauna Soljour is an Assistant Professor of Public Humanities at San Diego State University. Her most recent writing appears in the edited collection: From Rights to Lives: The Evolution of the Black Freedom Struggle. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history
Built on the grounds of a former cotton plantation, the Tuskegee Institute, founded by Booker T. Washington, offered agricultural and industrial education as a strategy for Black self-determination. There―and in many other communities in the U.S. South, the Caribbean, and Central America―Black people repurposed and regenerated what had been a place of enslavement into a site for imagining alternative futures. Jarvis C. McInnis charts a new account of Black modernity by centering Tuskegee'svision of agrarian worldmaking. He traces the diasporic ties and networks of exchange that linked Black communities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Although Washington is often regarded as an accommodationist, McInnis shows how artists, intellectuals, and political leaders―including George Washington Carver, Jean Price-Mars, Zora Neale Hurston, Claude McKay, and Marcus Garvey―adapted Tuskegee's methods into dynamic strategies for liberation in places like Cuba, Puerto Rico, Haiti, and Jamaica. Even as the legacy of the plantation continued to circumscribe Black life, these thinkers found resources in its ruins to forge new theories and practices of progress, aesthetic innovation, and freedom that contributed to the New Negro Movement of the 1920s and 1930s. In contrast to traditional understandings of Black modernity as urban and premised on northward migration, McInnis foregrounds rural settings and practices of place making, rootedness, and liberatory agriculture. Shedding new light on the transnational influence of a historically Black institution in the U.S. South, Afterlives of the Plantation remaps Black cultural, intellectual, and political histories down to the very soil. Afterlives of the Plantation: Plotting Agrarian Futures in the Global Black South (Columbia University Press, 2025) is an award-winning monograph earning recognition as a winner of the 2026 S-USIH Annual Book Prize by the Society for U.S. Intellectual History, 2026 Pauli Murray Book Prize in Black Intellectual History by the African American Intellectual History Society, and the 2026 ASALH Book Prize by the Association for the Study of African American Life and History Kishauna Soljour is an Assistant Professor of Public Humanities at San Diego State University. Her most recent writing appears in the edited collection: From Rights to Lives: The Evolution of the Black Freedom Struggle.
Built on the grounds of a former cotton plantation, the Tuskegee Institute, founded by Booker T. Washington, offered agricultural and industrial education as a strategy for Black self-determination. There―and in many other communities in the U.S. South, the Caribbean, and Central America―Black people repurposed and regenerated what had been a place of enslavement into a site for imagining alternative futures. Jarvis C. McInnis charts a new account of Black modernity by centering Tuskegee'svision of agrarian worldmaking. He traces the diasporic ties and networks of exchange that linked Black communities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Although Washington is often regarded as an accommodationist, McInnis shows how artists, intellectuals, and political leaders―including George Washington Carver, Jean Price-Mars, Zora Neale Hurston, Claude McKay, and Marcus Garvey―adapted Tuskegee's methods into dynamic strategies for liberation in places like Cuba, Puerto Rico, Haiti, and Jamaica. Even as the legacy of the plantation continued to circumscribe Black life, these thinkers found resources in its ruins to forge new theories and practices of progress, aesthetic innovation, and freedom that contributed to the New Negro Movement of the 1920s and 1930s. In contrast to traditional understandings of Black modernity as urban and premised on northward migration, McInnis foregrounds rural settings and practices of place making, rootedness, and liberatory agriculture. Shedding new light on the transnational influence of a historically Black institution in the U.S. South, Afterlives of the Plantation remaps Black cultural, intellectual, and political histories down to the very soil. Afterlives of the Plantation: Plotting Agrarian Futures in the Global Black South (Columbia University Press, 2025) is an award-winning monograph earning recognition as a winner of the 2026 S-USIH Annual Book Prize by the Society for U.S. Intellectual History, 2026 Pauli Murray Book Prize in Black Intellectual History by the African American Intellectual History Society, and the 2026 ASALH Book Prize by the Association for the Study of African American Life and History Kishauna Soljour is an Assistant Professor of Public Humanities at San Diego State University. Her most recent writing appears in the edited collection: From Rights to Lives: The Evolution of the Black Freedom Struggle. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-south
Today, Mike and Tim talk with Alex Wolf, director and content developer at Hope Heals, about her journey from pastor's kid and missionary to one of the key theological voices shaping Hope Heals' work. The conversation centers on how proximity to disability reorients faith, why disability is not a niche category but a universal human story, and what the church misses when it treats accessibility as a program instead of a posture.How does something like Hope Heals embody a kind of disruption to normal church life? How does belonging differ from hospitality, and how does co-creation matter more than merely making room for people?Timestamps:00:00 - Intro07:30 - Introducing Alex Wolf and her connection to Hope Heals12:00 - Growing up in a pastor's home and early faith formation13:00 - Missionary work overseas and the questions that started to surface14:00 - Family, trusted guides, and the freedom to question15:35 - Intellectual and existential wrestling in her 20s17:33 - How Alex first said yes to Hope Heals20:46 - Space to doubt inside a faith-centered parachurch organization20:46 - Space to doubt inside a faith-centered parachurch organization23:00 - Proximity to disability and a new understanding of the Beatitudes25:00 - Why Alex began writing theology of disability31:36 - Invisible wheelchairs and the many forms of hidden limitation39:00 - Why disability should not be treated as a program49:35 - Alex names the lack of ego as the secret ingredient at Hope Heals54:00 - Closing gratitude and final remarksPraxis Thesis: Valuing People With Disabilities as a Gift to SocietyHope Heals WebsiteHope Heals on Instagram: @hopehealsHope Heals Camp WebsiteThe GoodHard Story Podcast on Apple Podcasts and SpotifyTreasures in the Dark: 90 Reflections for Finding Bright Hope Hidden in the Hurting by Katherine Wolf and Alex WolfAs always, we encourage and would love discussion as we pursue. Feel free to email in questions to hello@voxpodcast.com, and to engage the conversation on Facebook and Instagram.We're on YouTube (if you're into that kinda thing): VOXOLOGY TV.Our Merch Store! EtsyLearn more about the Voxology PodcastSubscribe on iTunes or SpotifySupport the Voxology Podcast on PatreonThe Voxology Spotify channel can be found here: Voxology RadioFollow us on Instagram: @voxologypodcast and "like" us on FacebookFollow Mike on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mikeerreMusic in this episode by Timothy John StaffordInstagram & Twitter: @GoneTimothy
This is the first episode of our second Deep Dive series, in which we explore the rise and fall of liberal political ideology in the West. Over four episodes published throughout August, we trace how ideas, and the intellectual cultures that produced them, built the world we live in today, and why the abandonment of that tradition is at the heart of the crisis the West now finds itself in.We begin in the 18th century. Europe was gearing up to unshackle itself from centuries of despotic monarchy. The printing press had created an educated, knowledge-hungry middle class that was no longer under the control of traditional religious or aristocratic hierarchies. Philosophers and political thinkers, drawing on foundations laid during the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution, began applying empiricism and reason not just to the natural world but to the political one. The result was a flowering of ideas, from Rousseau, Voltaire and Montesquieu in France to Locke and Hume in Britain, that would transform how the West understood itself and what it believed government was for.In our discussion, Balder and Dario examine why the 18th century matters so much, how intellectualism only becomes politically transformative when it connects with a sufficiently educated and literate mass population, and what the difference is between the ideological debates of that era and the tribal noise that passes for political conversation today. We are, as Balder puts it, more tribal but less ideological than at any point in the past two centuries. The 21st century is not short of opinions. It is short of ideas.This podcast is an individual project between us, Dario Hasenstab and Balder Hageraats. We are supported by our producer Stefani Obradovic from Western Bubble Insights & Strategy. If you would like to get in touch with us, write us an email at thewesternbubble@gmail.com.
What if aging is not a process of inevitable decline, but a lifelong invitation to transformation?Inspired by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's Seven Stages of Suffering, the ancient wisdoms of Kabbalah, and the SPIES model of well-centered fitness, Dr. Jeff Armstrong introduces The Seven Stages of Aging Well. Rather than viewing the challenges of aging as obstacles to overcome, this episode explores how they become catalysts for Spiritual, Physical, Intellectual, Emotional, and Social growth.Each stage—from Outer Resistance to Collective Spiritual Growth—reveals how the realities of aging can shape resilience, Purpose, wisdom, and ultimately a life of deeper meaning. The conversation offers a hopeful vision of aging as ascension: an ongoing process of becoming more fully who we are created to be while contributing to the flourishing of others.Please, support The Aging Well Podcast by hitting the ‘like' button, subscribing/following the podcast, sharing with a friend, and….Tip Jar! All donations support this podcast to keep it going. https://paypal.me/theagingwellpodcastBUY the products you need to… age well from our trusted affiliates and support the mission of The Aging Well Podcast. (We receive commission on these purchases. Thank you.)The Aging Well Podcast merchandise | Show how you are aging well | Use the promo code AGING WELL for free shipping on orders over $75 | https://theagingwellpodcast-shop.fourthwall.com/promo/AGINGWELLAuro Wellness | Glutaryl—Antioxidant spray that delivers high doses of glutathione (“Master Antioxidant”) and the new Copper Tripeptide (GHK-Cu) | 10% off Code: AGINGWELL at https://aurowellness.com/agingwellpodcastNutritional Biochemical Inc. (NBI) | Trusted supplement. NBI stands 100% behind the quality of their formulations and the science on which they're based. | Click the following link and use the discount code AGINGWELL for 10% off: https://shop.nbihealth.com/agingwellJigsaw Health | Trusted supplements. “It's fun to feel good.” | Click the following link and use the discount code AGINGWELL for 10% off: https://bit.ly/4ks3Y0OBerkeley Life | Optimize nitric oxide levels | Purchase your starter kit at a 15% discount | Use the promo code: AGINGWELL15 | https://berkeleylife.pxf.io/c/6475525/3226696/31118Oxford Healthspan | Primeadine®, a plant-derived spermidine supplement | 10% off code: AGINGWELL | https://www.oxfordhealthspan.com/AGINGWELLKneeMo | A smart device programmed to reduce your knee pain and keep you moving. | Click the following link and use the discount code AGINGWELL15 for 15% off: https://thekneemo.com/ref/agingwellProlon | The Fasting Mimicking Diet (FMD) is a revolutionary five-day nutrition program scientifically formulated to mimic the effects of a prolonged water fast while still allowing nourishment - supporting the benefits of fasting without the challenges and risks that come from water-only fasts. | For the best available discount always use this link: https://prolonlife.com/theagingwellpodcastL-Nutra Health | The medical division of L-Nutra, focused on helping people manage and potentially reverse chronic health conditions, like type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, insulin resistance, and obesity, using personalized, lifestyle-based programs grounded in evidence, not prescriptions. | Use this link: https://l-nutrahealth.com/theagingwellpodcastThrive25 | Your personal longevity advisor | https://www.thrive25.com/early-access?via=william-jeffreyFusionary Formulas | Combining Ayurvedic wisdom with Western science for optimal health support. | 15% off Code: AGINGWELL | https://fusionaryformulas.com?sca_ref=9678325.IHg5xYhdOzzke8ZrDr Lewis Nutrition | Fight neurodegeneration and cognitive decline with Daily Brain Care by Dr Lewis Nutrition—a proven daily formula designed to protect and restore brain function. | 10% off code: AGINGWELL or use the link: https://drlewisnutrition.com/AGINGWELL
Steve Hayes is joined by Jonah Goldberg and Kevin Williamson to discuss Ross Douthat's departure from the New York Times to CBS News and reflect on the times in their careers where they got an issue wrong.The Agenda:—Who Will Replace Ross Douthat?—MAGA representation in media—Intellectual honesty vs. partisan loyalty—Dangers of political journalism—What Kevin's got wrong—What Jonah's got wrong—What Steve's got wrong—NWYT: Good adviceShow notes:—George Will: Defeating Trump should be top priority of conservatives—Kevin: Why I Was Wrong About Head Start—Steve's Florida piece—Nick Catoggio: Which Republicans are deserting Trump? And why? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode April Miller Boise, with stints as Chief Legal Officer at Intel and managing partner at Thompson Hine, shares insights from her career. The conversation explores the shifting dynamics between corporate legal departments and outside counsel and the necessity of embracing legal technology. April also provides advice for junior lawyers on developing long-term expertise and trusted relationships in an AI-driven environment. Things we Talk About in this Episode Career progression: From Wall Street M&A partner and law firm managing partner to Chief Legal Officer. The fundamental differences between driving P&L at a law firm versus serving on an executive leadership team in-house. Addressing the widening gap between corporate expectations and traditional law firm service delivery models. Experience navigating global manufacturing, innovation, and supply chain transformations at Eaton and Intel. Practical approaches to generative and agentic AI adoption in legal departments and outside counsel. Key attributes for modern legal talent: Intellectual curiosity, agility, and comfort with calculated risks. Career advice for young lawyers: Balancing AI efficiency tools with the 10,000-hour principle of skill-building. Why historical legal tech struggled to scale and how current enterprise AI investments are fundamentally altering the legal landscape.
Civic friendship is not a nicety. For self-governing people, it is a necessity. What happens to a democracy when citizens stop seeing each other as citizens at all? Robert P. George is Princeton's McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions (and known for his enduring friendship with Cornel West) argues that “the collapse of civic friendship is a catastrophic threat to public life.” In this bonus segment from his November 2020 conversation with Evan Rosa, Robert George presents the difference between civility and mere ‘politesse; the habit of wrapping our emotions so tightly around our convictions that we assume a posture of infallibility; and the intellectual humility it takes to consider that a political enemy might have something to teach us as a civic friend. They also discuss the courage required to break ranks—George recounts how he and West, from opposite political poles, each found themselves treated as heretics in 2016 for declining to back their respective party's nominee—and why he urges his students and his own children to cultivate humility, open-mindedness, and courage, knowing exactly what it can cost to stand by a conscientious belief. Episode Highlights ”Civic friendship is actually important for all sorts of policies, but for a self-governing people, for a democratic people, civic friendship is really critically important.” ”But if we do, as we are prone to do, wrap our emotions too tightly around our convictions, then we become dogmatists. Then we become unwilling to consider the possibility that we might be wrong and that a critic might be right.” ”This is hard, but it takes humility to recognize that I might be wrong, not merely about the less important superficial and more trivial things of life, but I might be wrong even about the most important things.” ”Civic friendship, civility is not just politesse … Civility is something deeper. It is genuinely listening to the guy who disagrees with you … listening with an openness to learning, considering whether in fact he might be right.” ”You can't have an open mind unless you have intellectual humility.” ”You can become a heretic very fast by breaking ranks, even on a single issue, if the issue was even moderately important.” ”So I really encourage my young people … to try to develop the virtues of intellectual humility, open-mindedness, and courage, because sometimes courage is going to be needed.” About Robert P. George Robert P. George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. A legal philosopher and public intellectual, he has chaired the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and served on the President's Council on Bioethics and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. His books include ”Making Men Moral,” ”In Defense of Natural Law,” and ”Seeking Truth and Speaking Truth,” and, with Cornel West, ”Truth Matters,” a dialogue on fruitful disagreement. A West Virginia native, he plays bluegrass banjo and guitar. Helpful Links and Resources Civic Friendship, Courageous Humility, and Seeking Truth Together, Episode 38 and the full interview for this clip: https://faith.yale.edu/media/civic-friendship-courageous-humility-and-seeking-truth-together Robert P. George's website: https://robertpgeorge.com/ Robert P. George on X: https://twitter.com/McCormickProf Seeking Truth and Speaking Truth: Law and Morality in Our Cultural Moment, George's most recent book: https://www.encounterbooks.com/books/seeking-truth-speaking-truth/ Truth Matters: A Dialogue on Fruitful Disagreement in an Age of Division, by Robert P. George and Cornel West: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Truth-Matters/Robert-P-George/9798888451700 Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality, George's best-known scholarly book: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/making-men-moral-9780198260240 Election of 1800, from the Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia at Monticello: https://www.monticello.org/encyclopedia/election-1800 Show Notes Civic friendship: indispensable and necessary for a self-governing people Fellow citizens recast as enemies to be defeated and destroyed Are elections as existential contests?—with the losing side expecting retaliation, the winning side claiming the norms Breakdown near the founding of the Republic The election of 1800, incumbent John Adams against Thomas Jefferson: https://www.monticello.org/encyclopedia/election-1800 Federalists seeing Jeffersonians as carriers of the French Revolution; Jeffersonians seeing Federalists as would-be British monarchists Antebellum America: North and South unable to imagine sharing one republic Is our identity constructed around belief? Emotional investment in conviction as a good thing in itself Wrapping emotions too tightly, and the slide into dogmatism A practical posture of infallibility Disagreement recoded as moral defect, and friendship ruled out Intellectual humility as the missing virtue Being wrong about the most important things, not just the trivial ones Civility as more than politesse Listening with an openness to learning, not waiting for a turn to speak Honoring the other as a rational creature with something to teach Open-mindedness without paralysis A conservative and a democratic socialist as frequent interlocutors: https://www.cornelwest.com/about/ Courage as a civic virtue Tribalism in formal institutions and informal friend circles alike Becoming a heretic by breaking ranks on a single issue Excommunication, suspicion, and the social cost of independent thought Two friends at opposite poles, both out of step in 2016 Counsel to students and to his own children: humility, open-mindedness, courage #CivicFriendship #IntellectualHumility #Civility #Polarization #RobertPGeorge #CornelWest #FaithAndCulture #ForTheLifeOfTheWorld Production Notes This podcast featured Robert George Hosted and Produced by Evan Rosa Production assistance and editing by Noah Senthil A Production of the Yale Center for Faith & Culture at Yale Divinity School https://faith.yale.edu/about Support For the Life of the World podcast by giving to the Yale Center for Faith & Culture: https://faith.yale.edu/give
Dr. Kirk Honda answers listener questions about psychotherapy and the therapeutic relationship. Topics include whether intellectual clients are harder to treat, the principles of person-centered therapy and phenomenological listening, how therapists answer: ‘what is therapy', and the benefits and risks of individual sessions within couple therapy. July 31, 2026This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/KIRK to get 10% off your first month.Support us by... Become a member: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOUZWV1DRtHtpP2H48S7iiw/joinBecome a patron: https://www.patreon.com/PsychologyInSeattleContact us/more info... Email: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com/contactAbout Dr. Kirk: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com/about-dr-kirk-hondaWebsite: https://www.psychologyinseattle.comGet stuff... Merch: https://psychologyinseattle-shop.fourthwall.com/KIRKgram (like Cameo): https://www.psychologyinseattle.com/kirkgramThe Psychology In Seattle Podcast ®Trigger Warning: This episode may include topics such as assault, trauma, and discrimination. If necessary, listeners are encouraged to refrain from listening and care for their safety and well-being. Disclaimer: The content provided is for educational, informational, and entertainment purposes only. Nothing here constitutes personal or professional consultation, therapy, diagnosis, or creates a counselor-client relationship. Topics discussed may generate differing points of view. If you participate (by being a guest, submitting a question, or commenting) you must do so with the knowledge that we cannot control reactions or responses from others, which may not agree with you or feel unfair. Your participation on this site is at your own risk, accepting full responsibility for any liability or harm that may result. Anything you write here may be used for discussion or endorsement of the podcast. Opinions and views expressed by the host and guest hosts are personal views. Although we take precautions and fact check, they should not be considered facts and the opinions may change. Opinions posted by participants (such as comments) are not those of the hosts. Readers should not rely on any information found here and should perform due diligence before taking any action. For a more extensive description of factors for you to consider, please see www.psychologyinseattle.com
Get your free training from First In Nutrition: https://www.firstinnutrition.com/jppod More from JP Dinnell: https://www.jpdinnell.com/ Therapeutic Recreation Group: https://www.therapeuticrg.org Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/therapeutic_rec_group/ Echelon Front Leadership Assessment: https://tinyurl.com/y3v22car Join the conversation on instagram JP Dinnell: http://instagram.com/jpdinnell/ Lucas Pinckard: https://www.instagram.com/lucaspinckard Bruiser Arms: https://www.instagram.com/bruiserarms Echelon Front: https://echelonfront.com/ Little Cattle Co: http://littlecattle.co On The Path Printing: https://www.instagram.com/onthepathprinting What do you do when no one is watching? That's the question at the heart of this episode of the JP Dinnell Podcast. In this Q&A episode, JP Dinnell and Lucas answer listener questions that range from fitness and career growth to leadership, recognition, workplace relationships, and intellectual property. While the questions seem unrelated at first, they all point to one central principle: character is revealed by the decisions you make when taking the shortcut would be easier. JP explains why chasing recognition can quietly become an ego problem, why comparing yourself to others steals both joy and progress, and why the strongest leaders focus on serving others instead of seeking credit. Whether you're leading a business, managing a team, raising a family, or pursuing personal growth, this episode offers practical wisdom for making decisions rooted in integrity rather than convenience. One of the most compelling conversations centers around a listener who created valuable intellectual property while employed by a company. Instead of asking, "What can I legally take?" JP reframes the question: "What is the right thing to do?" His answer highlights the difference between legal rights and ethical leadership, encouraging listeners to think beyond short-term gain and consider reputation, trust, and long-term relationships. JP also discusses: Why recognition shouldn't be your motivation. How to avoid the comparison trap. The importance of building relationships with everyone—not just people who can advance your career. Taking care of your physical health with consistency rather than chasing trends. Choosing integrity even when nobody would know otherwise. This episode is a reminder that leadership begins long before someone gives you a title. It begins with everyday choices, humility, and the willingness to do what is right even when it's difficult. Whether you're a business owner, manager, entrepreneur, military veteran, coach, or someone striving to become a better husband, father, teammate, or leader, this conversation will challenge you to think differently about success, reputation, and character. In this episode: Leadership through integrity Why ego holds people back Building lasting relationships Fitness and longevity Career growth and humility Intellectual property and ethics Making decisions with long-term perspective Character under pressure If this episode encouraged you, consider subscribing to the JP Dinnell Podcast and sharing it with someone who values leadership, ownership, and living with integrity. 00:00 Introduction and Personal Updates 02:47 The Importance of Community Support 06:07 Preparing for Physical Challenges 09:01 Injury Prevention and Recovery Strategies 14:57 The Role of Nutrition and Rest 22:02 Overcoming Comparison and Celebrating Others 25:01 Navigating Personal Growth and Adversity 25:52 Navigating Workplace Recognition and Ego 29:48 The Importance of Building Relationships 30:33 Performance vs. Relationship in the Workplace 34:10 Ethics in Intellectual Property 42:11 Choosing Integrity Over Temptation
IP Fridays - your intellectual property podcast about trademarks, patents, designs and much more
I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 177 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, who is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. He is the mastermind behind the BSH v. Electrolux decision of the European Court of Justice about long-arm jurisdiction in Europe that has the whole patent world stirring in Europe at the moment! But before we jump into this fascinating interview, I have news for you! Emboline v. AorticLab (UPC Court of Appeal) The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified for the first time how a conditional revocation counterclaim should be handled, in a dispute over Emboline’s embolic protection patent EP 2 129 425 against AorticLab. A defendant can validly make its revocation counterclaim conditional on infringement being found first, meaning no ruling on the counterclaim is needed if the infringement claim fails, as the Munich Local Division had held. The Court of Appeal also closed a related gap: if the claimant appeals a non-infringement finding, the counterclaimant may conditionally appeal the unresolved counterclaim too. AorticLab missed its own appeal deadline and can now at best seek re-establishment of rights, while Emboline has already appealed the non-infringement finding. FujiFilm v. Kodak (UPC Court of Appeal) Following the closely watched long-arm jurisdiction ruling of June 2, the UPC Court of Appeal, chaired by Rian Kalden, has now granted FujiFilm an injunction against Kodak in a second proceeding. The Court upheld the limited printing plate patent and found that Kodak’s Sonora XTRA 3 plate infringes it. Kodak can no longer sell or use that plate in Germany. OpenAI v. EUIPO (General Court of the EU, T-555/25) The General Court’s Eighth Chamber dismissed OpenAI’s action against the EUIPO decision to partially cancel the OPENAI trademark. The partial refusal for classes 9, 42, and 45 rests decisively on Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, the descriptiveness ground. For a significant part of the English-speaking public, “OPENAI” directly conveys that the goods or services are provided using freely accessible artificial intelligence. Dental Monitoring v. Align Technology (CAFC) On July 7, 2026, the Federal Circuit confirmed that AI and deep-learning patent claims covering dental image analysis are not patent-eligible under Section 101. Simply training a “deep learning device” on a specific dataset does not amount to a patent-eligible technical solution. Publisher v. Google (Munich I Regional Court) The Munich I Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction barring Google from spreading false factual claims about a publishing company in its AI Overviews. A search query combining the company’s name with the German term for “fraud scheme” had triggered an AI-generated summary containing entirely fabricated accusations of subscription traps. KPN v. Oppo (Federal Court of Justice, X ZR 103/24) On July 1, the Federal Court of Justice dismissed KPN’s appeal against the revocation of a central claim of its LTE patent EP 2 291 033. Oppo had successfully challenged the claim, leaving KPN’s infringement action against Oppo’s German distribution entity without a legal basis for now. BSH v. Electrolux: What the ECJ Ruling Means for Your Company’s Patent Enforcement Strategy A vacuum cleaner from 2001 has reshaped the European patent landscape. That sounds like an overstatement. It isn’t. For IP Fridays, I spoke with Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, founder of HEILEIN IP LAW and long-time Senior IP Leader at BSH Home Appliances. He guided the case BSH v. Electrolux from its first strategic idea all the way to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice, a case that earned the 2025 Managing IP Award as “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” For managing directors, IP heads, and R&D leaders at German Mittelstand companies, this case is not a legal footnote. It changes where you can enforce your patents, and it changes where you yourself can be sued if your company operates across several European markets. That is what this article is about. Background: How a Patent Dispute Became an ECJ Case The invention dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, BSH identified what it believed was an unauthorized use of that invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. Nobody, Heilein says, could have imagined at the time that this matter would eventually reach the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. In late 2018, BSH successfully defended the patent through opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office. In 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. A classic milestone win, the kind that occurs regularly in patent practice. Except the patent had been validated in many countries. Winning in Germany did not solve the enforcement problem everywhere else. Heilein describes the starting point in very concrete terms: how do you enforce a patent that exists in many countries without filing a separate lawsuit in every single one? And how do you prevent claims from becoming time-barred while you work that out? Running parallel proceedings in multiple countries is not just legally complex. It consumes time, personnel, and money that a mid-sized company rarely has in that quantity to spare. This is exactly where the real value of this case for you begins. From the outset, this was never an academic debate about jurisdiction. It was a question that every company holding rights in more than one country eventually faces: how do you enforce your rights efficiently without burning your budget on ten parallel proceedings? Brussels Ia Regulation: The Underrated Article 4 While searching for a solution, the BSH team came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The underlying idea is simple: a person can generally be sued in the country where that person is based. In the BSH case, that pointed toward the Swedish home court, because Electrolux is headquartered in Stockholm. For a long time, this rule played no real role in patent practice. The widely held view was that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead the moment a defendant challenged the validity of the patent. Anyone wanting to enforce a patent across several countries appeared to have no choice but to litigate country by country. Heilein and his team questioned that assumption instead of simply accepting it. This is the point I find most instructive: challenging accepted assumptions in your own field is often the difference between a standard solution and a strategic one. In 2020, the team decided to file the action in Sweden, aware that they were looking at a possibility, not a guarantee. Cross-Border Enforcement: The Three Questions Referred to Luxembourg After Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents, the Swedish home court declared itself not competent to hear the case. BSH appealed, and the Swedish Court of Appeal agreed to refer three questions to the European Court of Justice. The first question addressed the core problem: does a home court that would otherwise have jurisdiction over an infringement claim lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid? The second question concerned a feature common to many legal systems, including Germany’s, where infringement and validity are decided in separate proceedings. The third question originally concerned Turkey. Today, most people immediately think of the United Kingdom, and some even think of US patents. Originally, the question was simpler: do the same jurisdiction rules apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? The fact that the ECJ first assigned the case to a Chamber of seven judges and later referred it to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges already signaled how much weight the Court placed on these questions. The Judgment: What the ECJ Actually Decided A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid. For many years, the opposite was widely assumed to be settled law. The ECJ made clear that this reading was too narrow. The court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. One point matters for how you read this ruling: questions concerning the validity of a European patent still fall to the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new is that the infringement case does not automatically collapse the moment validity is challenged. The home court keeps control of the overall proceeding. For patents from EU Member States, the home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction. It assesses the validity challenge. If it looks strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it looks weak, the home court may proceed. For patents from non-EU countries, the home court may stay the case if a validity proceeding is already pending there, drawing on Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The result is a considerably more flexible system than most observers expected . Patents from Outside the EU: Long-Arm Jurisdiction The part of the judgment with the greatest international reach concerns patents from countries outside the EU. The ECJ ruled that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity generally does not apply to non-European patents. That means the general rule can apply instead, opening the door for infringement claims based on non-European patents to be brought before a home court where the defendant is based in the EU. Commentators quickly started calling this “long-arm jurisdiction.” One clarification matters here, because it tends to get lost in the public discussion: the ECJ did not say that a European home court can revoke or invalidate a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and courts of the country that granted it. What the ECJ said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties. That distinction is essential to how you should read this ruling. Consequences in Practice: Fujifilm, Regeneron, and Onesta Three recent cases show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm v. Kodak: the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the ECJ delivered its judgment, building on reasoning the Advocate General had already signaled in the BSH case. In June 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach based on the principles confirmed in BSH. Regeneron v. Formycon: the Munich home court applied the BSH framework and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent, one of the first examples of a national home court putting the BSH logic into practice. Onesta v. BMW: this case shows the debate has moved well beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two US patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that US patents should generally be decided by US courts. The injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich court, and Onesta has appealed the Texas decision. The Munich home court stayed the proceeding but did not reject its own jurisdiction. Whether a European home court can ultimately decide infringement claims based on US patents remains an open question, one that has turned from a European jurisdiction issue into an international jurisdiction conflict. What This Means for Your Company Heilein sums up twenty years of litigation in three lessons, and I share this assessment without reservation when advising my Mittelstand clients. First: patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation still matters, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning, not only once the first cease-and-desist letter has been sent. Second: choice of forum now carries real strategic weight. Where you bring a case can matter just as much as the legal arguments themselves. Third: long-term commitment pays off. Major developments rarely result from a single filing or a single hearing. They come from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. For you as a managing director, R&D lead, or Head of IP at an innovative Mittelstand company, this translates into two concrete points. First, if you hold rights in several European countries and a competitor infringes them, you no longer necessarily have to fund five or six parallel national proceedings. A single action at the infringer’s home base can be the economically smarter option. Second, and this side of the ruling gets less attention in public discussion, if your company is based in Germany and operates across several countries, you can now be sued at your own home base over patent infringement claims tied to activities in other countries. That risk belongs in every freedom-to-operate analysis and in every assessment tied to acquisitions or market entry. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Host Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein. If you don't know Ernst-Peter, he is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. Thank you for being on IP Fridays. Answer Yeah, great to be here! BLOCK 1 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE CASE Host When looking at your career, one thing stands out: you never really followed the traditional path of either private practice or industry. Er, how did your professional journey begin, actually? Answer My professional roots are actually in private practice. After qualifying as a Patent Attorney, I worked in private practice and fairly early founded my own law firm, which later became HEILEIN IP LAW. Host So you never completely left private practice behind? Answer Exactly. In 2005, I had the opportunity to take on additional responsibilities on the BSH side. There, I was able to build and lead a new unit within the IP organization. The team was responsible for patents in the small appliances business, as well as global design and trademark protection. At the same time, I helped build an international network of internal and external IP counsel and coordinated their work. Host That still sounds fairly like traditional IP work. When did international disputes become part of your career? Answer Over time, my focus gradually shifted from traditional IP protection to strategic enforcement. That included anti-counterfeiting activities, global trademark and design matters, and cross-border patent disputes. Host So your work became more about enforcing rights rather than simply obtaining and managing them, right? Answer Exactly. And that development eventually led me to play a strategic role in the case BSH Home Appliances versus Electrolux, a case that still accompanies me today. Host Looking back now — from private practice, to building an international IP organization, and eventually becoming involved in a case before the European Court of Justice — did you ever imagine that path? Answer No, not at all. Looking back, this combination of private practice, responsibilities on the business side, and international enforcement experience turned out to be very useful when our case eventually reached the European Court of Justice. BLOCK 2 – HOW IT ALL STARTED Host Yeah, talking about this case. The case BSH versus Electrolux started long before it reached the European Court of Justice. When did the story actually begin? Answer The story actually begins much earlier than most people would expect. The invention itself dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, we identified what we believed to be an unauthorized use of the invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent in suit was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. At the time, nobody could have imagined that this would eventually lead to a decision of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. Host Wow, 20 years! That's a long time. So, at first this was simply a normal patent dispute? Answer Yes, absolutely! After many years of opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office, we were finally able to defend the patent successfully in late 2018. Less than one year later, in the summer of 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. Host Er, at that point, one might think, that the patent owner had achieved its goal, right? Answer That is what many people would think. But that judgment did not bring the dispute to an end. A new challenge emerged. The patent had been validated in many European countries. Winning in one country, like Germany, did not automatically solve the enforcement issue in all the other countries. Host What was the practical problem then? Answer We were facing a very simple question: How do we enforce a patent that exists in many countries? And how do we prevent claims from becoming time-barred without filing separate infringement actions in every single country? Doing that would not only be legally complex. It would also require a huge amount of time, effort, and money. Host That sounds less like a major legal question and more like a business problem. Answer Exactly. At the beginning, this was not an academic discussion about jurisdiction. It was a very practical business question. How can we enforce our rights efficiently without running parallel lawsuits all over Europe? That was the real challenge we were trying to solve. BLOCK 3 – THE IDEA OF A CENTRAL ACTION Host So, how did the idea of one central action emerge? Answer While looking for possible solutions, we came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The idea behind that rule is very simple. In general, a person can be sued in the country where that person is based. In our case, that pointed us toward the Swedish home court because Electrolux is based in Stockholm. Host That sounds like a fairly ordinary jurisdiction rule. Answer Yes. And that was exactly what made it interesting. Article 4 is the general rule. The question was whether that rule could also be used for patent infringement claims covering several countries. Host Was that a common approach at the time? Answer No. Quite the opposite. Many people believed that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead. Host That sounds rather dramatic. Why did people think that? Answer Because there was a widely held view that a central patent case could be stopped as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. As a result, many companies assumed they had no real choice but to litigate country by country. Host Yet you decided to look at the issue differently. Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth taking a fresh look at accepted assumptions. We felt that Article 4 might play a much more important role than many people believed. Host So at that point, you already saw an opportunity, right? Answer Yes, we saw a possibility! Not a guarantee. But we believed there was a strong legal basis for bringing all claims before the Swedish home court. Host And that eventually led to the lawsuit being filed in Sweden, right? Answer Exactly. In 2020, we decided to file the action in Sweden. That followed our success before the European Patent Office in late 2018 and in the Düsseldorf infringement proceedings in 2019. At that stage, our objective was very practical. We were simply trying to find an efficient way to enforce rights that exist in many countries. Host At that point, you already think the case might end up before the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. We were focused on solving a business problem. The idea that the case would eventually reach the European Court of Justice came much later. BLOCK 4 – THE OBSTACLE: GAT v. LuK Host You mentioned that, er, many people believed cross-border patent litigation in Europe was no longer a realistic option. Why was that? Answer The main reason was an earlier decision of the European Court of Justice known as GAT versus LuK, decided in 2006. For many years, that decision was understood to mean that a home court could lose its ability to hear a patent infringement case as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. In practice, that understanding made many cross-border patent cases extremely difficult. As a result, many people believed that cross-border patent litigation was not effective. Host And yet you decided to follow exactly that path, right? Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth questioning assumptions that have been accepted for many years. We believed that Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation played a more important role than many people thought. That is why, in 2020, we decided to file the case in Sweden. Host And at that point, did you already realize that the case might eventually reach the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. Our goal was simply to find a practical solution to a real enforcement problem. The idea that this would eventually become a case before the European Court of Justice was far from our minds. BLOCK 5 – THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host So, how did the case eventually reach the European Court of Justice then? Answer After we filed the lawsuit in Sweden in 2020, Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents. The Swedish home court then concluded that it could not hear the case and declared itself not competent to proceed. We appealed that decision, because the issues were important and affected far more than just our case. We suggested that several questions should be referred to the European Court of Justice. The Swedish Court of Appeal agreed and sent those questions to Luxembourg. Host So, what were these main questions? Answer At the heart of the case, there were three questions: First: if a home court has jurisdiction over a patent infringement case, does it lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid? Second: Does it make a difference if the national legal system requires validity issues to be decided in a separate proceeding? And third: Do this jurisdiction rules also apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? Host The third question sounds particularly interesting. Answer Yes, at the time, the discussion in our case focused on Turkey. Today, many people immediately think about the United Kingdom, and some even think about US patents. But originally, the question was much simpler. We wanted to know, whether the same jurisdiction rules also apply when patents from non-European countries are involved. Host And, did you realize how important that third question might become? Answer No, certainly not to that extent. At the beginning, most of the discussion focused on the relationship between the different jurisdiction rules within Europe. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the European Union. Host So, how did the European Court of Justice react then? Answer That was actually quite interesting. The European Court of Justice first heard the case before a Chamber of seven judges. Later, it referred the case to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges. That already showed that the European Court of Justice considered the issues to be important. And when the judgment finally came out, some of the answers were very different from what many observers had expected. BLOCK 6 – THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host Let’s talk about the European Court of Justice’s answers. What was, in your view, the most important part of the decision? Answer The most important point was this: A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction just because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid. For many years, many people believed exactly the opposite. The European Court of Justice made it clear that this understanding was too narrow. The home court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. That is really the key message of the decision. Host Why is that so important? Answer Because it gives new momentum to cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. Before this decision, many people assumed that a defendant could effectively stop a central infringement case simply by challenging the validity of the patent. The European Court of Justice made clear that this is not automatically the case. Host Does that mean the home court hearing the infringement case will now also decide whether the patent is valid? Answer No, and that is a very important point. The European Court of Justice confirmed that questions about the validity of a European patent should still be decided by the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided for in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new, is that the infringement case does not automatically fall apart because of a validity challenge. The home court can keep control of the overall case. Host So, how does that work in practice? Answer The European Court of Justice gives the home court some flexibility. For patents from Member States of the European Union, the home court does not automatically lose its power if the defendant says the patent is invalid. The home court can look at the validity challenge. If it seems strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it seems weak, the home court may continue the infringement case. For patents from countries outside the European Union, the home court may also stay the case if there is already a validity case pending in that country. In such situations, Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation may apply. That creates a much more flexible system than many people expected. Host Er, we have discussed the implications for patents from Member States of the European Union, but a lot of attention has been given to another part of the decision, that we already talked about briefly, namely patents from countries outside the European Union. Answer Absolutely, and that may be the part of the judgment with the biggest international impact. Host Why? Answer Because the European Court of Justice decided that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity does not generally apply to patents from non-European countries. In simple terms, that means the general rule can still apply. And that opens the possibility of bringing infringement cases based on non-European patents before the home court where the defendant is based in the European Union. Host That sounds like a very far-reaching statement. Answer It is. That is why many commentators started talking about what is often called “long-arm jurisdiction.” In other words, a European home court may, under certain circumstances, deal with infringement claims relating to patents from countries outside the European Union. Host So, many listeners may now wonder: Can a Swedish or a German home court really decide a dispute involving a British or Turkish patent? Answer Ah, we need to be careful here. The European Court of Justice did not say that a European home court can cancel or revoke a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and national courts of the country that granted the patent. What the European Court of Justice said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties in a dispute. That is an important distinction. Host Did you realize during the proceedings how important this part of the decision might become? Answer Not to this extent. We started with a very practical enforcement problem. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the original case. Today, the decision is discussed not only in connection with Turkish patents, but also British patents and even possible claims involving US patents. Host If you had to summarize the decision in one sentence, and I know, this is a very difficult task, what would that sentence be? Answer The European Court of Justice did not re-invent cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. But after many years, it clearly gave it much more room to develop. BLOCK 7 – THE REACTION OF THE IP COMMUNITY Host So, how was the decision received after it was published? Answer Ah, the reaction was very strong. It quickly became clear that many people saw the decision as much more than just another patent case. Many articles and commentaries described it as an important development in European patent litigation. Host Did that surprise you? Answer To some extent, yes. Of course, we knew that the questions referred to the European Court of Justice were important. But I was surprised by how quickly the decision became a major topic of discussion across the European patent community. Host Er, you later presented the decision at several conferences yourself, right? Answer Yes. The discussion started right away. I had the opportunity to discuss and present the case at several conferences and events, including the annual VPP conference in Germany and the Ingolstadt Patent Symposium. I recently received an invitation to serve as a panel speaker on cross-border litigation at the AIPPI World Congress 2026 in Hamburg. What struck me most was that both internal and external IP counsel were trying to understand the practice consequences of the decision. Host So, what was the question you were asked most often? Answer Almost always the same one: How far does this decision really go? People wanted to know whether this was simply a correction of earlier case law or whether it marked the beginning of a new phase in cross-border patent enforcement. Host And what did you say? Answer I would describe it as: neither a revolution nor a minor adjustment. The European Court of Justice did not rewrite the system. But it clearly changed the balance between the different jurisdiction rules. That is why I believe the decision will continue to be discussed for many years, both in practice and in academia. Host Er, one year later, the case received the Managing IP Award as the “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” What did that recognition mean to you? Answer First of all, it was a great honor for everyone involved. But for me, the most important thing was the message behind the award. The award showed that the decision affects much more than the parties involved in the case. It has an impact on European patent practice as a whole. And it also shows that the underlying jurisdiction questions reach far beyond patent law. They are relevant whenever companies have to enforce rights across borders in an increasing international world. That is what makes this case special. Host You often describe this case as a team effort. Answer Absolutely. A case of this size is never the work of one person. Many people contributed over many years. On the BSH side, team members from different functions played an important role throughout the proceedings. And we worked closely with external advisors in several countries. So I see the award as recognition of a shared achievement rather than an individual success. Host Looking at the discussions today, would you say the debate is over? Answer Not at all. I actually think we are only at the beginning. There are still many practical questions that home courts will have to answer in the coming years. That is exactly why the decision remains so interesting. BLOCK 8 – WHAT DOES THE DECISION MEAN IN PRACTICE? Host Let’s move from legal theory to practical business implications. What does this decision mean for patent owners and companies? Answer In my view, the biggest change is strategic. Patent owners now have better opportunities to bring cross-border disputes together in one central proceeding. At the same time, companies need to be aware that they may face claims at their European headquarters covering activities in several countries. So the decision creates opportunities, but it also creates new risks. Host That sounds really like a significant shift; right? Answer I would call it a rebalancing rather than a revolution. The European Court of Justice did not create a completely new system. But it made clear that the general rule — suing a defendant where it is based — plays a much bigger role than many people had assumed. As a result, the court at the defendant’s home base becomes much more important strategically. Host In the patent community, people often talk about cases such as Fujifilm v. Kodak, or Regeneron v. Formycon or Onesta v. BMW. Why are those cases attracting so much attention now? Answer Because they show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm was important because it was one of the first UPC cases to test the logic that was later confirmed in BSH. At that time, the BSH case was already pending before the European Court of Justice, and the Advocate General had expressed a view that pointed in that direction. Against that background, the Düsseldorf Local Division accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment. In June 2026, based on the principles confirmed in BSH, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach. Host And what happened in Regeneron v. Formycon ? Answer In the Regeneron case, the Munich home court applied the approach confirmed in BSH and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent. That was one of the first examples of a national home court using the BSH framework in practice. That demonstrates that the decision is not just an academic discussion. It already has practical consequences. Host And what about the Onesta case? Answer The Onesta case shows that the debate has moved beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two U.S. patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that U.S. patents should generally be decided by U.S. courts. The Onesta case therefore illustrates that the limits of the BSH logic are now being tested internationally. Host Did that end the proceedings in Munich? Answer Not necessarily. What makes the case interesting is that the Texas injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich home court. At the same time, Onesta appealed Judge Albright’s decision in the United States. The Munich home court therefore decided to stay the case for the time being. Importantly, however, the Munich home court did not reject its own jurisdiction. So, at least for the moment, the underlying question remains open. Host Can a European home court ultimately decide infringement claims based on U.S. patents? Answer That question has not yet been answered. But the case has already shown that such an attempt can trigger strong reactions outside Europe. In that sense, the debate has moved from a European jurisdiction question to an international jurisdiction conflict. Host For our audience of internal and external IP counsel, what are the main lessons from this decision? Answer For me, there are three key takeaways. First: Patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation remains important, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning. Second: The choice of forum is becoming more important. Where you bring a case may be just as important as the legal arguments themselves. And third: Long-term commitment matters. This case shows that major developments rarely happen because of a single filing or a single hearing. They usually result from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. Host Do you think this decision will also influence the Unified Patent Court, the UPC? Answer Yes, I believe so. The decision fits into a broader trend toward more centralized patent litigation. Both, the UPC and the BSH decision are driven by the same idea: Handling cross-border disputes more efficiently and more consistently. What is interesting is that many of the questions were faced in BSH versus Electrolux are now reappearing in a new form before the UPC. Cases like Fujifilm versus Kodak show that the discussion about jurisdiction, scope, and cross-border effects is far from over. Institutions may be new. But the underlying challenge remains the same: How do we enforce patents effectively across borders? Host Some commentators even see this as a step toward a more independent European patent judiciary. Do you agree? Answer To some extent, yes. Professor Hanns Ullrich, who supervised my doctoral studies on the legal protection of a then new semiconductor technology many years ago, recently observed that the UPC is gradually developing its own European case law.[DH1] I think that is — again — a very accurate observation. If you look at the developments since BSH and the first UPC decisions, you can see that European patent litigation is becoming more connected. National courts will remain important. But at the same time, we are seeing a more integrated European patent system taking shape. How far that development will go remains to be seen. Host Looking back on the entire journey — from a vacuum cleaner patent, through litigation in several countries, all the way to the European Court of Justice and an award-winning decision — what is your personal conclusion? Answer My main conclusion is that innovation needs effective legal protection. But it also requires the willingness to challenge established assumptions and explore new approaches. For me, the BSH versus Electrolux case shows that persistence, teamwork, a willingness to challenge accepted assumptions, and a long-term strategic view can sometimes lead to developments that go far beyond the original dispute. BLOCK 9 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE DECISION Host Ernst-Peter, today we have talked a lot about jurisdiction, patent enforcement, and European case law. When you look back at this journey, which has lasted almost twenty years, what impressed you most? Answer Probably the realization that major developments rarely follow a straight line. When we started thinking about the case, we were dealing with a very practical problem. Nobody said: Let’s create a landmark decision of the European Court of Justice. We were simply looking for a reasonable and practical solution for a company. The fact that this would eventually lead to a decision with Europe-wide impact was something nobody could foresee at the time. Host Were there moments when you thought the case might fail? Answer Of course. Whenever a case lasts many years, there will be setbacks, new questions, and unexpected developments. That is exactly why persistence is so important. In the end, success is often not about one filing or one hearing. It is about staying focused on a clear objective over a long period of time. Host You often talk about teamwork. Is that one of the main lessons from this case? Answer Absolutely. A case of this size requires commitment from many people and institutes over many years. On the BSH side, my role was to help maintain the strategic direction and long-term commitment that such a case requires. At the same time, experts from different functions within BSH contributed technical expertise, testing, documentation, and practical support throughout the proceedings. On the legal side, Roman Sedlmaier and his team at IP-Counsels Gigerich & Sedlmaier (IPCGS) helped develop the cross-border litigation strategy and the overall case architecture. Our Swedish litigation team then carried the arguments through all stages of the proceedings. Looking back, it was the combination of institutional commitment, technical expertise, strategic leadership, well-designed case architecture, and consistent execution that made the difference. Host One final question. What advice would you give to young internal or external IP counsel? Answer Stay curious: Don’t be afraid to question accepted assumptions. Be patient: Intellectual property is usually a marathon, not a sprint. And never forget that every patent dispute involves an invention, a business, and many people who have worked hard to bring that innovation to market. For me, that connection between technology, law, and strategy is what still makes this profession so fascinating today. Host Ernst-Peter, thank you very much for joining us today on IP Fridays. Answer Thank you. It was a pleasure to be here.
0000019f-b325-db2d-adff-f3ed06260000https://www.wvik.org/podcast/good-morning-from-wvik-news/2026-07-30/iowa-board-of-regents-expands-oversight-of-uis-center-for-intellectual-freedom-with-new-committeeJoseph Leahy Iowa Board of Regents expands oversight of UI's Center for Intellectual
New Zealand fashion brands are fed up with fast-fashion giants copying their designs. Local labels say sites like AliExpress and Shein are using their images and replicating their clothing. Intellectual property lawyer Clive Elliott KC says the biggest challenge is scale, with global retailers competing against much smaller New Zealand designers. He told Mike Hosking it's happening often and takes a lot of time and resource to stand up against it. Elliot says his suggestion would be for all the local designers to come together and set up a system where they have every design on record and a spokesperson to represent them all. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Send us Fan MailFor this episode, we return to a 2021 interview with Zahir Zaydani, the penname of a grassroots Palestinian intellectual from the West Bank.As the news cycle escalates, returning to deeper, historical lines of analytical frameworks closer to the source ensures that we don't let the headlines obscure the forest for the trees. But first, some news...Story 1:When Ferran Torres scored in the 106th minute to seal Spain's 1–0 World Cup victory over Argentina, the street celebrations and reactions from Madrid to Buenos Aires—and across Gaza's displaced tent camps—played out as a direct geopolitical clash.The match followed a complete rupture between Madrid and Tel Aviv. After Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez recognized Palestinian statehood, imposed an arms embargo, and banned Israel-bound military cargo from Spanish ports, Benjamin Netanyahu issued a video statement in Hebrew accusing Spain of "waging a diplomatic war" and warning that Madrid "will pay an immediate price". Netanyahu's office accused Sánchez of issuing a "genocidal threat," escalating diplomatic hostility to an unprecedented peak.On the pitch, 19-year-old prodigy Lamine Yamal carried that political weight; his waving of the Palestinian flag during Barcelona's title parade had drawn public condemnation from Israeli officials. Opposing him was Lionel Messi's Argentina, aligned with Javier Milei's pro-Israel stance. Messi's commercial ties to Tel Aviv AI firm OrCam—founded by Israeli military intelligence veterans—and his reliance on Israeli private security details gave Argentina's team a distinct perceived Israeli alignment.For some global audiences, Spain's victory served as a public assertion of Palestinian rights and international law over state-backed & corporatized military intelligence powers of persecution and intimidation.Story 2: Capitol Hill is currently locked in legislative standoff over the future of binational U.S.-Israel security ties.At issue is Section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act—derived from the U.S.-Israel FUTURES Act—which creates a Department of War executive agent to hardwire cyber-military intelligence integration between Washington and Tel Aviv. The provision authorizes joint operations in AI target processing, autonomous systems, quantum computing, missile defense and real-time data fusion. The bill has now triggered severe deadlock. House leadership blocked a bipartisan amendment by Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie to strip the measure. Shortly after, Senate leadership brought the broader NDAA to a procedural vote, where a 50–46 majority blocked the bill. Opposing lawmakers cite warnings from former intelligence officials that structural integration risks installing surveillance backdoors and bypassing congressional oversight. The legislative battle now moves to conference committee negotiations. -----You can find the Understanding Israel Palestine archives at its show page at https://kkfi.org/program/understanding-israel-palestine/and the Beyond the Walls newsletter on Substack at https://beyondthewalls.substack.com
Laura Field, author of Furious Minds, on the highbrow side of Trumpism—with a brief comment from David Austin Walsh on how similar the highbrows are to the deplorables The post Fundraising special: a look at the right, intellectual side mostly but not all appeared first on KPFA.
The Israeli destruction of Gaza has returned the idea of genocide to the center of world politics, with sharp conflicts between the protesters and lawyers who invoke it and the governments and media that deny it. The New Age of Genocide: Intellectual and Political Challenges After Gaza (Agenda Publishing, 2025), by the foremost sociological theorist of genocide, Martin Shaw, defends the idea against thinkers who have questioned it, and argues that it is essential to the understanding of mass atrocities. It maintains that Gaza has opened a new age in which the West not only fails to prevent, but also participates in genocide. As well as discussing the genocide idea, the book analyses the Gaza genocide in the context of the longer histories of the problem, both globally and in Palestine. Further chapters deal with "forgotten genocides," the attempted Russian elimination of Ukraine, and the history of British complicity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
The Israeli destruction of Gaza has returned the idea of genocide to the center of world politics, with sharp conflicts between the protesters and lawyers who invoke it and the governments and media that deny it. The New Age of Genocide: Intellectual and Political Challenges After Gaza (Agenda Publishing, 2025), by the foremost sociological theorist of genocide, Martin Shaw, defends the idea against thinkers who have questioned it, and argues that it is essential to the understanding of mass atrocities. It maintains that Gaza has opened a new age in which the West not only fails to prevent, but also participates in genocide. As well as discussing the genocide idea, the book analyses the Gaza genocide in the context of the longer histories of the problem, both globally and in Palestine. Further chapters deal with "forgotten genocides," the attempted Russian elimination of Ukraine, and the history of British complicity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies
The Israeli destruction of Gaza has returned the idea of genocide to the center of world politics, with sharp conflicts between the protesters and lawyers who invoke it and the governments and media that deny it. The New Age of Genocide: Intellectual and Political Challenges After Gaza (Agenda Publishing, 2025), by the foremost sociological theorist of genocide, Martin Shaw, defends the idea against thinkers who have questioned it, and argues that it is essential to the understanding of mass atrocities. It maintains that Gaza has opened a new age in which the West not only fails to prevent, but also participates in genocide. As well as discussing the genocide idea, the book analyses the Gaza genocide in the context of the longer histories of the problem, both globally and in Palestine. Further chapters deal with "forgotten genocides," the attempted Russian elimination of Ukraine, and the history of British complicity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/genocide-studies
The Israeli destruction of Gaza has returned the idea of genocide to the center of world politics, with sharp conflicts between the protesters and lawyers who invoke it and the governments and media that deny it. The New Age of Genocide: Intellectual and Political Challenges After Gaza (Agenda Publishing, 2025), by the foremost sociological theorist of genocide, Martin Shaw, defends the idea against thinkers who have questioned it, and argues that it is essential to the understanding of mass atrocities. It maintains that Gaza has opened a new age in which the West not only fails to prevent, but also participates in genocide. As well as discussing the genocide idea, the book analyses the Gaza genocide in the context of the longer histories of the problem, both globally and in Palestine. Further chapters deal with "forgotten genocides," the attempted Russian elimination of Ukraine, and the history of British complicity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies
The Israeli destruction of Gaza has returned the idea of genocide to the center of world politics, with sharp conflicts between the protesters and lawyers who invoke it and the governments and media that deny it. The New Age of Genocide: Intellectual and Political Challenges After Gaza (Agenda Publishing, 2025), by the foremost sociological theorist of genocide, Martin Shaw, defends the idea against thinkers who have questioned it, and argues that it is essential to the understanding of mass atrocities. It maintains that Gaza has opened a new age in which the West not only fails to prevent, but also participates in genocide. As well as discussing the genocide idea, the book analyses the Gaza genocide in the context of the longer histories of the problem, both globally and in Palestine. Further chapters deal with "forgotten genocides," the attempted Russian elimination of Ukraine, and the history of British complicity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology
The Israeli destruction of Gaza has returned the idea of genocide to the center of world politics, with sharp conflicts between the protesters and lawyers who invoke it and the governments and media that deny it. The New Age of Genocide: Intellectual and Political Challenges After Gaza (Agenda Publishing, 2025), by the foremost sociological theorist of genocide, Martin Shaw, defends the idea against thinkers who have questioned it, and argues that it is essential to the understanding of mass atrocities. It maintains that Gaza has opened a new age in which the West not only fails to prevent, but also participates in genocide. As well as discussing the genocide idea, the book analyses the Gaza genocide in the context of the longer histories of the problem, both globally and in Palestine. Further chapters deal with "forgotten genocides," the attempted Russian elimination of Ukraine, and the history of British complicity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies
Scholar, distinguished professor, author, leading public intellectual, and special contributor Dr. Cornel West offers his insights on Democrats' divide over aid to Israel, the Democratic Socialists' new political platform, and other major issues shaping the national conversation.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tavis-smiley--6286410/support.
What Is Emunah? Faith and Reason -- Three ApproachesThis is the fourth class in series on the Maamar (discourse) "Keitz Sam Lachoshech -- there is an end to the darkness," presented by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, on Shabbos Tisha B'Av, 5724, July 18, 1964, based on a Maamar said by the Rebbe Rashab 50 years earlier, on Shabbos Tisha B'Av 5614, July 29, 1914, the day World War I Began. This class, exploring the relationship between faith and reason and three different approaches to the question, was presented by Rabbi YY Jacobson on Friday, Parshas Devarim, 3 Av, 5786, July 17, 2026, at Bais Medrash Ohr Chaim in Monsey, NY.
Send us Fan MailIntro:Welcome to Rational Black Thought, the podcast where we examine politics, religion, culture, and power without superstition, without respectability politics, and without pretending that polite lies become truth because they are repeated on television.I am your host, Michael, your Neo Griot, and this is Episode 291 of Rational Black Thought the Podcast, where we examine politics, religion and culture from a Black, progressive, secular and unapologetically rational perspective.This week's episode is titled "Let Go My Hand," taken from the J. Cole song of the same name.There is a line in that song where Cole says, “Today my son said, "Dad, let go my hand"Reminded me one day he's gonna be his own man.” And that line has stayed with me because it captures something deeper than growing up. It captures the moment when a person realizes that dependence—whether on God, on institutions, on political leaders, or on tradition—has become a barrier to development.Children need someone to hold their hands. That is not a moral failing; it is a biological necessity. We need parents and teachers and guardians to keep us from walking into traffic, from touching hot stoves, from making decisions we do not yet have the experience to understand. But childhood is supposed to end.At some point, you have to learn to walk without somebody else deciding where your feet go.That is true physically, and it is also true intellectually, politically, and spiritually. Human beings are uncomfortable with uncertainty. We want somebody to tell us what is true, what is right, what the future holds, and what we are supposed to do with our lives. Religion gives that authority to God. Authoritarian politics gives it to a strongman. Political parties give it to institutions. Tradition gives it to the dead. And sometimes we just give it to whoever seems confident enough to pretend they have all the answers.The problem is not that we accept help. Nobody becomes fully human alone. We depend on families, teachers, scientists, doctors, neighbors, institutions, and generations of accumulated knowledge. The problem begins when assistance becomes submission. When leadership becomes obedience. When trust becomes faith. When community becomes conformity. When you stop asking whether something is true and start asking whether the person saying it has enough authority to command your belief.Intellectual adulthood requires a different relationship with authority. I can respect expertise without worshipping the expert. I can belong to a community without surrendering my conscience. I can learn from tradition without becoming trapped by it. And I can admit that I do not know something without feeling the need to fill the empty space with God.The title of this episode is not an argument for radical individualism. It is an argument for responsibility. It is an argument that human beings must stop outsourcing our thinking, our morality, and our political agency to invisible gods and visible strongmen. Because at some point, you have to decide whether you are prepared to walk on your own principles—and, more importantly, whether you can keep walking when those principles come with a cost.Let us get into it.Quote of the Week: Frederick Douglass Unmasking the News: Democracy Watch: Lindsey Graham, or How a Man Surrenders His PrinciplesTrump's Iran War, or the Difference Between Unpredictability and Strategy The Christian Persecution Narrative, or When Privilege Puts on a Victim's Costume Good News: Black Boys Building the Future, One Layer at a Time Bible Study with an Atheist: Let Go My Hand: What the Bible Says About Human Autonomy Reflections and Call to Action:Closing/Outro: Power Concedes Nothing without a Demand...
Why do so many Muslims feel intellectually insecure today?In this episode, we are joined again by Ustadh Saad Yacoob to explore how the history of debate in the Muslim world, from the influence of Aristotle to the impact of colonialism, has shaped the way Muslims think, argue, and understand their faith today.Together, we discuss righteousness, justice, revelation, the thought of Muhammad Iqbal, and why the modern culture of debate may reveal a deeper crisis: many Muslims have come to defend Islam on someone else's terms rather than their own.Has modern debate brought Muslims closer to the truth? … or further away from it?JOIN OUR WEBSITE MEMBERSHIP! @ https://ansaripodcast.comThe Debt Clinic: https://www.mydebtclinic.com/ansariProvision Capital: https://www.provisioncapital.com00:00 Intro00:44 The History of Muslim Debates05:44 Ad07:15 Importance of Aristotle in Muslim Debates14:07 Why are Modern Debates So Bad?31:36 Ad32:28 The Source of Muslim Insecurities38:46 European Insecurities41:12 The Struggles of Muslims in Recent History46:00 Muhammad Iqbal's Thought57:10 What is the Point of Revelation?01:00:44 What are We Doing With the World?01:03:07 What Makes Islam Different that Every Other Religion01:10:57 How to Raise a Generation of Muslims that aren't Insecure?01:14:54 Mamdani's Significant Role01:23:49 23. Does the Future of the Ummah Include Shia?01:29:07 Final Thoughts01:29:52 Outro#debate #history #dawah #philosophy #civilizationListen on All Audio Platforms: https://tr.ee/JeX-ILYSyjFollow The Ansari PodcastInstagram: https://instagram.com/ansaripodcastTikTok: https://tiktok.com/@theansaripodcastTwitter/X: https://twitter.com/ansaripodcast
Yascha Mounk and John Harpham examine how early modern thinkers justified slavery long before modern theories of race took hold. John Samuel Harpham is Assistant Professor in the Department of Classics and Letters and Wick Cary Assistant Professor at the Institute for the American Constitutional Heritage at the University of Oklahoma. He is the author of The Intellectual Origins of American Slavery. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and John Harpham discuss why the standard racial account of slavery's origins misses the earliest justifications for the practice, how Aristotelian and Roman conceptions of freedom and slavery shaped the intellectual world of the first English colonists, and what this history means for our understanding of slavery today. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.community Podcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! Spotify | Apple X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The most profitable agencies do more than deliver great work. In this episode, Sharon Toerek, Owner and Founder of Legal+Creative | Toerek Law, shares how legal foundations, intellectual property, agency contracts, AI risk management, marketing compliance, data privacy, value-based pricing, agency profitability, and business growth work together to strengthen your agency. You'll learn why legal should be viewed as a profit generator, how agencies can manage AI-related risks, and what business owners need to do to protect and grow their firms in a rapidly changing market.Key takeaways:Legal foundation is a profit generator, not a cost center. Stop treating it as an expense.AI introduces new legal risks for agencies. Intellectual property ownership and data privacy require careful attention. Data privacy compliance is becoming more complex. Agencies must navigate varying state regulations. Contracts remain one of your most important business tools. Regular contract reviews help protect profitability.AI works best when paired with human expertise. Professional judgment still drives results.Learn how to turn legal strategy and smarter business decisions into a stronger, more profitable future. Tune in to the full episode of Legal Foundations That Actually Drive Agency Profit with Sharon Toerek.Find more podcast episodes on our website: anderscpa.com/learn/podcasts/ Episode resources:● Anders Virtual CFO website: anderscpa.com ● Love our content? Sign up for our newsletter: https://anderscpa.com/learn/ ● Check out the Virtual CFO Playbook Course: https://anderscpa.com/virtual-cfo-services/vcfo-playbook/ Quotes-Sharon Toerek: “Legal foundation for marketing service firms should be a profit generator, not a cost center.”-Jamie Nau: “The safest compliance strategy is often to follow the most conservative regulations.”-John C. Scott: “AI should handle repeatable tasks so professionals can focus on higher-value work.”Sharon Toerek is the Owner and Founder of Legal+Creative | Toerek Law, a law firm built exclusively for independent marketing and creative agencies. She specializes in intellectual property law, contract development and negotiation, marketing regulation compliance, and AI risk management for agency clients. Sharon is also the host of the Innovative Agency Podcast, a forward-looking resource for independent agency owners navigating innovation, business model evolution, and the future of the industry.Website: https://legalandcreative.com/ LI: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sharontoerek/?isSelfProfile=false https://www.linkedin.com/company/legal-creative/ The Creative Agency Success Show helps service-based business owners master the financial side of growth. Hosted by Jamie Nau, Director of Virtual CFO Services/ Virtual CFO, and Jody Grunden, Partner and Virtual CFO Practice Leader at Anders, the podcast dives into essential financial strategies for scaling creative agencies. Website: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2458889 FB: https://www.facebook.com/vcfobyanders LI: https://www.linkedin.com/company/vcfobyanders/ IG: https://www.instagram.com/vcfobyanders YT: https://www.youtube.com/@vcfobyanders Jamie Nau, CPA, Director of Virtual CFO Services/ Virtual CFO, is a seasoned financial expert with a deep understanding of business growth stages. Jamie has worked extensively with middle-market and large companies, providing key financial insights. Website: https://anderscpa.com/ FB: https://www.facebook.com/vcfobyanders LI: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamienau/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/vcfobyanders/ IG: https://www.instagram.com/vcfobyanders/ YT: https://www.youtube.com/@vcfobyanders John C. Scott, CPA, AEP, is a Partner in Tax and a leader in legal industry financial strategy by Anders. He helps law firms win high-stakes cases with smart strategy by delivering clear financial insights, identifying key performance indicators, and strengthening decision-making at every level. With deep expertise in estate planning and financial analysis, John works closely with attorneys and firm leaders to align financial goals with long-term business success and case readiness. His approach brings scalability, flexibility, and data-driven clarity to complex legal environments, helping firms stay focused, prepared, and competitive.Connect with John C. Scott:LI: https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-c-scott-cpa/ X: https://x.com/JohnScottCPA
Republican Opposition: The Intellectual Force of Robert Taft and the Rise of McCarthy GUEST: Nick BunkerSenator Robert Taft, known as "Mr. Conservative," was a dominant intellectual force in the Republican Party, preparing for a potential 1952 presidential run. Moving away from pre-war isolationism, Taft became a staunch "Asia first" advocate, pushing for the defense of Taiwan with the U.S. Navy. This stance created a sharp divide with Dean Acheson, who feared being branded an "imperialist power." While Taft provided the intellectual foundation for Republican policy, Joe McCarthy emerged as the "wild side" of this movement. Driven by pure ambition, McCarthy hijacked the Republican agenda by shifting the focus from domestic "socialism" to communist subversion within the State Department. Meanwhile, Dwight D. Eisenhower, then president of Columbia University, watched from the sidelines with despair. He worried about the "chaos and confusion" in Washington, the demoralization of the military due to budget cuts, and the lack of a clear strategy for Asia. (3)
It turns out that every corner of progressive culture has a price of admission, and Jews are finding it progressively more difficult to pick up that tab. Add feminism to the list. That's the case Kara Jesella makes in her new book, "Feminist Antisemitism: An Intellectual History," which I discussed with her on my podcast. Jesella majored in women's studies at Vassar College, where her real education in Jewish feminism came from her college rabbi, she told me. She spent years as a journalist before going back to school for a Ph.D. in performance studies at New York University. She finished that doctorate in 2021 — the same day that she watched former classmates post infographics calling Jews colonizers. And Oct. 7, 2023, she says, is when she stopped being patient about any of it. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Professor William Taubman, guest author, explains that McNamara's intellectual journey began at Berkeley and Harvard Business School, where he was consistently recognized as the "smartest guy" in his class, excelling in economics and mathematics. During a 1939 trip to Europe, he notably failed to realize that WWII was imminent even after hearing Hitler speak in Berlin, an admission that contrasts sharply with his later role as a global military strategist. He eventually married Margie, whose cheerful disposition complemented his analytical rigidity. His expertise in "statistical control" led him to teach military officers at Harvard, a role that eventually brought him to the attention of the defense establishment. McNamara at War: A New History (2)1920 HANOI
Daniel Rood, author of In the Shadow of the Great House, explains that enslaved people like Suki provided the essential "intellectual labor" and agricultural expertise required for successful plantations. Despite this, the domestic slave trade treated two million people as speculative property between 1820 and 1860. Charles Dickens famously witnessed the heartbreak of families being separated on trains for the sake of "short-term profits." This human trafficking machine was fueled by planters chasing high-margin crops like cotton while maintaining a delusion of lifelong stability. (13)1806
Is God real? According to Lee Strobel, that question is Googled more than 200 times per second, making it one of the most pressing questions of our time. In this Summer Reset episode of the Jesus Over Everything podcast, Lisa Whittle sits down with atheist-turned-teaching-pastor and New York Times bestselling author, Lee Strobel, for a conversation rooted in his book, Is God Real? Strobel shares his own journey from unbelief to faith, tackles the question of suffering head-on, and addresses how to talk with children or teens who are walking away from faith. Intellectual honesty and genuine belief are not enemies, so if you've ever been asked the question, “Is God Real?” – by a teenager, a spouse, a friend, or your own heart – you'll want this episode in your back pocket. Listen in to learn more: Is God real? Why this question matters more now than ever Lee's story: from atheism to faith through honest investigation How a simple prayer changed everything If God is real, why is there suffering? Is it okay (or even biblical) to question God? How to talk with a child or teenager who no longer believes What the evidence actually shows about the existence of God A word for the believer who quietly wrestles with doubt Mentioned in the Episode: Book - Is God Real? by Lee Strobel: https://a.co/d/08flb4f5 Book - The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel: https://a.co/d/00Kp1JMq Invite Lisa to Speak: https://www.lisawhittle.com/speaking Connect with Lee Strobel: Website: https://leestrobel.com/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lee_strobel/ X: https://x.com/leestrobel Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LeeStrobel/ Connect with Lisa:Website: https://www.lisawhittle.comSubstack: https://letsbeclear.substack.comYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@lisawhittleofficialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/lisawhittleFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lisawhittleofficial
Scripture ReferencedGenesis 1:26-28; Genesis 3:15; Psalm 8; 2 Corinthians 4:5; Colossians 1:13QuotationsOntological or Structural Views of Image of GodAugustine (354-430) located the image in the rational soul, finding a trinitarian structure in memory, understanding, and will (De Trinitate, Books IX–XIV). “The mind is the image of God, in that it is capable of Him and can be partaker of Him.” —De Trinitate 14.8.11 (NPNF trans.)Anselm (1033-1109) follows a similar line of thinking, treating the image as the capacity to remember, understand, and love God:“I acknowledge, Lord, and give thanks that you have created in me this your image, so that I may remember you, think of you, love you. But this image is so worn away by vices, so smudged by the smoke of sins, that it cannot do what it was created to do unless you renew and refashion it.” — Proslogion, ch. 1Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) grounds the image in intellect and freedom:“Man is said to be made to God's image, in so far as the image implies an intelligent being endowed with free-will and self-movement.” — Summa Theologiae I-II, prologue“Intellectual creatures alone, properly speaking, are made to God's image.” — ST I, q. 93, a. 2Aquinas also distinguishes a threefold image: by nature (all men), by grace (in those justified), by glorification (in the blessed) — ST I, q. 93, a. 4Functional View of the Image of GodFunctional - The image of God means to have dominion, that human beings were made to rule and reign as representatives or vice regents of God on the earth. Anthony Hoekema brings together the structural and functional views: The image of God in man must therefore be seen as involving both the structure of man and the functioning of man— Hoekema, Created in God's Image, 1986Relationally as central to understanding Image of GodKarth Barth (1886-1968) is the key theologian here - he saw "male and female he created them" to indicate relationality as key to understanding the image of God. Summary God created us with certain capacities (intellect, understanding, emotions, will), to do what he created human beings to do (rule and reign and represent God on the earth) in covenantal relationship with God and other people. Other Quotations Cited“The image of God carries with it the right not to be mistreated or harmed.... Regardless of their record or character, all human beings have an irreducible glory and significance to them, because God loves them.... So we must treasure each and every human being as a way of showing due respect for the majesty of their owner and Creator.” — Timothy Keller, Generous Justice “We are not to consider what men merit of themselves but to look upon the image of God in all men, to which we owe all honor and love.” — Institutes IV.1.7
Plato's Intellectual Roots and First Visit. Guest Author: Professor James Romm. Plato's early life was shaped by the reign of the 30 Tyrants in Athens, including his relative Critias. The execution of his teacher, Socrates, further disillusioned him with traditional democracy. He developed a philosophy centered on an unseen world of perfect "forms." Influenced by Pythagorean mathematics, he viewed numbers as a way to understand the universe's abstract essences. Invited by Dion, Plato visited Syracuse in 385 BCE to explore potential autocratic reforms. This visit failed when Dionysius the Elder dismissed his ethical teachings. Plato then returned to Athens to found the Academy. 2
AI in Education and the Necessity of Liberal Learning. Guest: Peter Berkowitz. The rise of AI in academia tempts students to bypass the essential struggle of thinking, leading to intellectual atrophy. Educators argue that liberal education is now more vital than ever to help students cultivate a flourishing mind and recognize the limitations of technological shortcuts. 141910 VALENCIA
Listen and subscribe to Money Making Conversations on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, www.moneymakingconversations.com/subscribe/ or wherever you listen to podcasts. New Money Making Conversations episodes drop daily. I want to alert you, so you don’t miss out on expert analysis and insider perspectives from my guests who provide tips that can help you uplift the community, improve your financial planning, motivation, or advice on how to be a successful entrepreneur. Keep winning! Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Dr. Willie Jolley.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
