Podcasts about majoritarian

In just a few years, India has been transformed from a vibrant liberal democracy to a majoritarian autocracy under Narendra Modi. Under his Hindu majority rule, Muslims and Christians are subjected to extrajudicial killings and mosques and churches are burnt to the ground. Dr. Ashok Swain, a Hindu and Professor of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University, joins Dr. Isaksen and Noor Jahan Khan, who has a Master's degree in Mass Communication from Bangalore University and grew up as a Muslim in India, to talk about how this change came about and what can be done to save Indian democracy.

Since 2020 many states have passed legislation, making it more difficult to vote. Fears of voter suppression in the disenfranchisement of marginalized communities proliferated the 2022 midterms. But were these fears realized? [ dur: 42mins. ] Bertrall Ross is Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Karsh Center for Law and … Continue reading Scholars' Circle – Voter Suppression acts on marginalized communities ; In the name of Majoritarian democracy – November 13, 2022 →

Dr. Pradyumna Jairam's research is placed within the broader domain of how the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party constructs its idea of Indian history through an identity-centric rubric. Using history textbooks, the party prescribed in the north-western state of Rajasthan in 2017. His research uncovers how in order to branch out its national ideology of Hindutva to suit a regional context, the party regionalises the history of the nation, in order to satisfy a state-oriented narrative. Dr. Pradyumna Jairam completed his PhD in Politics and Education from King's College, London in 2022. His research examines how the Bharatiya Janata Party constructs a particular narrative of Indian Identity, centred around Hindu majoritarianism in the school history textbooks of Rajasthan. He is at present a Teaching Fellow at the Department of Politics, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. He is also a yearly Visiting Lecturer at City, University of London. He was a Graduate Teaching Assistant at the Department of War Studies, King's College from 2017 to 2021, and prior to his PhD was a school history and political science teacher in New Delhi, India from 2012 to 2016. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/suren-ladd/message

Host: Ann Luther, League of Women Voters of Maine Democracy Forum: Participatory Democracy, encouraging citizens to take an active role in government and politics Issue: Participatory Democracy, encouraging citizens to take an active role in government and politics Key Discussion Points: The courts as protectors of democracy Judicial philosophy and constitutional interpretation The authority and power of the court The peril of the court being political or even perceived as such Guests: Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law Maron Sorenson, Assistant Professor of Government, Dept. Government and Legal Studies, Bowdoin College To learn more about this topic: Decade-long study shows Supreme Court is now further to the ideological right than most Americans | Ash Center, June, 2022 The Supreme Court Is on the Verge of Expanding Second Amendment Gun Rights | Brennan Center for Justice May, 2022 5 justices, all confirmed by senators representing a minority of voters, appear willing to overturn Roe v. Wade | The Conversation, May 2022 The Court and Its Procedures – Supreme Court of the United States The Supreme Court (2020) : Throughline : NPR, September, 2021 The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics, Stephen Breyer, 2021 Nine Reasons that “Originalism” Isn't Really a Thing for Supreme Court Justices, October, 2020 The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process. Samuel Issacharoff, Pamela S. Karlan, Richard H. Pildes, Nathaniel Persily. ” 5th Edition, 2016. Is the Supreme Court a ‘Majoritarian’ Institution?, Richard Pildes, December, 2010 The mostly volunteer team at the League of Women Voters – Downeast who plan and coordinate this series includes: Martha Dickinson, Laurie Fogleman, Starr Gilmartin, Maggie Harling, Ann Luther, Judith Lyles, Wendilee O'Brien, Maryann Ogonowski, Pam Person, Lane Sturtevant, Leah Taylor, Linda Washburn About the host: Ann currently serves as Treasurer of the League of Women Voters of Maine and leads the LWVME Advocacy Team. She served as President of LWVME from 2003 to 2007 and as co-president from 2007-2009. In her work for the League, Ann has worked for greater public understanding of public policy issues and for the League's priority issues in Clean Elections & Campaign Finance Reform, Voting Rights, Ethics in Government, Ranked Choice Voting, and Repeal of Term Limits. Representing LWVME at Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, she served that coalition as co-president from 2006 to 2011. She remains on the board of MCCE and serves as Treasurer. She is active in the LWV-Downeast and hosts their monthly radio show, The Democracy Forum, on WERU FM Community Radio -which started out in 2004 as an recurring special, and became a regular monthly program in 2012. She was the 2013 recipient of the Baldwin Award from the ACLU of Maine for her work on voting rights and elections. She joined the League in 1998 when she retired as Senior Vice President at SEI Investments. Ann was a founder of the MDI Restorative Justice Program, 1999 – 2000, and served on its Executive Board. The post Democracy Forum 6/17/22: The Supreme Court and Democracy first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

Host: Ann Luther, League of Women Voters of Maine Democracy Forum: Participatory Democracy, encouraging citizens to take an active role in government and politics Issue: Participatory Democracy, encouraging citizens to take an active role in government and politics Key Discussion Points: The courts as protectors of democracy Judicial philosophy and constitutional interpretation The authority and power of the court The peril of the court being political or even perceived as such Guests: Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law Maron Sorenson, Assistant Professor of Government, Dept. Government and Legal Studies, Bowdoin College To learn more about this topic: Decade-long study shows Supreme Court is now further to the ideological right than most Americans | Ash Center, June, 2022 The Supreme Court Is on the Verge of Expanding Second Amendment Gun Rights | Brennan Center for Justice May, 2022 5 justices, all confirmed by senators representing a minority of voters, appear willing to overturn Roe v. Wade | The Conversation, May 2022 The Court and Its Procedures – Supreme Court of the United States The Supreme Court (2020) : Throughline : NPR, September, 2021 The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics, Stephen Breyer, 2021 Nine Reasons that “Originalism” Isn't Really a Thing for Supreme Court Justices, October, 2020 The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process. Samuel Issacharoff, Pamela S. Karlan, Richard H. Pildes, Nathaniel Persily. ” 5th Edition, 2016. Is the Supreme Court a ‘Majoritarian’ Institution?, Richard Pildes, December, 2010 The mostly volunteer team at the League of Women Voters – Downeast who plan and coordinate this series includes: Martha Dickinson, Laurie Fogleman, Starr Gilmartin, Maggie Harling, Ann Luther, Judith Lyles, Wendilee O'Brien, Maryann Ogonowski, Pam Person, Lane Sturtevant, Leah Taylor, Linda Washburn About the host: Ann currently serves as Treasurer of the League of Women Voters of Maine and leads the LWVME Advocacy Team. She served as President of LWVME from 2003 to 2007 and as co-president from 2007-2009. In her work for the League, Ann has worked for greater public understanding of public policy issues and for the League's priority issues in Clean Elections & Campaign Finance Reform, Voting Rights, Ethics in Government, Ranked Choice Voting, and Repeal of Term Limits. Representing LWVME at Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, she served that coalition as co-president from 2006 to 2011. She remains on the board of MCCE and serves as Treasurer. She is active in the LWV-Downeast and hosts their monthly radio show, The Democracy Forum, on WERU FM Community Radio -which started out in 2004 as an recurring special, and became a regular monthly program in 2012. She was the 2013 recipient of the Baldwin Award from the ACLU of Maine for her work on voting rights and elections. She joined the League in 1998 when she retired as Senior Vice President at SEI Investments. Ann was a founder of the MDI Restorative Justice Program, 1999 – 2000, and served on its Executive Board. The post Democracy Forum 6/17/22: The Supreme Court and Democracy first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

Dr. Dan talks with Richard Rahn, an American economist, syndicated columnist, and entrepreneur. He is chairman of Improbable Success Productions and the Institute for Global Economic Growth. Rahn writes a syndicated weekly economic column which is published in The Washington Times, Real Clear Markets, and elsewhere. He was the vice president and chief economist of the United States Chamber of Commerce during the Reagan administration and remains a staunch advocate of supply-side economics, small government, and classical liberalism.Discussions will include private property ownership and individual rights.

Welcome back to the Peaceful Political Revolution in America PodcastI thought I'd jump ahead a little and discuss some of the basic changes we could make to our constitution which would actually make it a more democratic system of government.  In this episode, I have the genuine pleasure to interview one of the leading experts on democratic forms of government. His seminal book, Patterns of Democracy is probably the best analysis in comparative democracies available today. We all need to know why.Arend Lijphart's research focuses on comparative politics, elections and voting systems, institutions, and ethnicity and politics. His work has had a profound impact on the study of democracy and he is widely considered the leading authority on consociationalism. He is the author or editor of more than a dozen books, including Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration (1977), Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries (1984), Power-Sharing in South Africa (1985), Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences (1986), Parliamentary versus Presidential Government (1992), Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies (1994), and Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries (1999; 2nd ed., 2012). Lijphart has received numerous awards throughout his prestigious career in recognition of his groundbreaking research, including the Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science, AaronWildavsky Book Award, and honorary doctorates by the University of Leiden, Queen's University Belfast, and the University of Ghent. He was elected to serve as president of the American Political Science Association in 1995 and is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the British Academy, and the Netherlands Academy of Sciences. Most recently, in 2010, he received the Constantine Panunzio Distinguished Emeritus Award in recognition of his unique and extensive contributions to the University of California, the discipline, and the world. He is also an acquaintance and I am especially happy to be having our first official Zoom meeting since we began exchanging emails almost 3 years ago.  Welcome, Arend to the Peaceful Political Revolution in America Podcast. It's so wonderful to have you here.Top Fixes to Our Constitution, in order of discussion:Change Presidential System for Parliamentary System Proportional Representation or Mixed Member Proportional ElectionsGerrymanderingStatehood for D.C. and Puerto RicoMandatory VotingConsensus vs Majoritarian DemocraciesThe KeyReverence of the ConstitutionAbolish the Electoral CollegeNational Popular Vote PlanUniform National Voting StandardsExpand the Court to 17 Justices, Term LimitsAbolish PrimariesFewer ElectionsTerm limits for JudgesAbolish the Senate

Lo scorso 26 ottobre 2021 Stroncature ha ospitato la presentazione di “Rule of Law vs Majoritarian Democracy” di Giuliano Amato, Cesare Pinelli e Benedetta Barbisan.

This editorial is taken from the 'The Hindu 'newspaper based on the relationship between minority and majority population in many ways.

The SHOW NOTES

Look… an Article V Convention of the States is absolutely doomed to fail. Even IF you managed to actually get such a convention convened and even IF you managed to get a consensus for proposed amendments, you’ll never get 3/4’s of the rest of the States to approve them. Why do I say this? Because those who call for such a thing are assuming a fact not in evidence. Put aside that nobody actually knows what such an Article V Convention would even look like or what the precise sequence of it would be, or how you could get an agreed upon agenda. There is one last major fact that cannot be overcome. And we find that same problem when it comes to other arguments. The position of some is that “we taxpayers” have the final say about what a School system must do because we are the taxpayers. We don’t like an idea, we want it banned, and they must listen to us because we are the taxpayers. And yet you can’t get around the fact that the same reason that an Article V Convention won’t work is the same point that is missing from the argument over banning CRT by shouting “We are the Taxpayers…!”

Did Pratap Bhanu Mehta jump from Ashoka University? Or was he pushed? This seems to be the Hamlet-esque “to-be-or-not-to-be” question of the day in the Indian media. The simple answer is that it is very good if he was pushed. And it’s even better if he jumped.That of course needs an explanation. The push option is if the Government of India made an offer to the trustees of Ashoka that they couldn’t refuse: get rid of the fellow, or else! That, of course, would be Godfather-esque, and it would mark a welcome change from the pusillanimity that India has traditionally exhibited. Soft States don’t work, which should have been abundantly clear to us all along.If it wasn’t clear, the antics of Xi Jinping’s minions in Alaska just a few days ago should have been enough to convince the most obtuse among us. They calculate that Biden is soft (we can speculate as to why they are so confident about that), so they humiliated the US side as is their wolf-warrior habit. Xi is broadcasting loudly that Biden’s US is a Soft State and that he pwns Biden. Whether this is true remains to be seen, but it is a good opening gambit.India has been the ultimate Soft State, mouthing meaningless platitudes and cringe-inducing homilies while spectators roll their eyes and silently pray: “Just kill me now!”. Hark back to V K Krishna Menon delivering marathon lectures at the UN General Assembly or J Nehru turning down the offer of the Security Council Seat “because China deserves it more”. (By the way, I can quote chapter and verse: no, it is not an urban myth).So if there is — finally — a change of heart, and India does stand up for its interests, then it would be welcome news. Doing tejovadham to undesirables is part of what governments are supposed to do. This was visible in the case of yesterday’s cause celebre as well, the mop-haired Disha Ravi. The fact that she was arrested is important. She herself is unimportant, but it sends a message to other wannabe Urban Naxals: “Your ass is on the line, kid!”, pardon the French.For a long time, secessionists have labored under the illusion that they were immune to the power of the State. They have seen overground and underground purveyors of sedition treated with kid gloves, and they got used to thinking that this is the natural order of things. Not quite. They should look up Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden. The human rights of outlaws or insurgents or their middle-class supporters are not — and they cannot be — greater than those of the average, law-abiding citizen. That is an axiom, and all the billions of the Open Society Foundation and #DeepState are not going to change that very easily. The alternative in Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s case, the jump option, is even better because it means he had no option but to fall on the sword. In other words, the Government didn’t do anything, but out of enlightened self-interest, the trustees of Ashoka informed him that he should resign, or else they would have to fire him: Because he was causing real damage to the Ashoka brand. Of course, Mehta has friends, powerful and shadowy friends. Within 24 hours, there was a letter written by 150 professors from “Harvard, MIT, Yale, Columbia, Oxford, Cambridge” and so on, in his support. Commendably swift. The Ecosystem has its act together to protect its own. The letter also means… exactly nothing. It is precisely like the letter signed by 22 (or was it 35?) Nobel laureates supporting a Naxalite doctor some years ago. I would wager that none of these worthies could even spell that man’s name, or pick him out in a police lineup of suspects. They just blindly signed a piece of paper somebody put in front of their noses. There was also the petition signed by 47.5 “ancient India scholars” some years ago regarding the Aryan Invasion Mythology and related stories in the California Textbook Case. I wrote an unpublished piece then where I pointed out that these alleged “scholars” included people who can’t read Sanskrit or Tamil, urban planners, astrophysicists, economists, sociologists, linguists in unrelated languages, deconstructionists, etc. The one person who had the requisite background in both ancient history and languages retracted her support.In other words, these letters are part of a “toolkit”, a term immortalized by Disha Ravi in her 15 minutes of fame. The same worthies crying about Mehta’s “freedom of expression” or whatever chose to ignore the fact that a young, brown, foreign, racial/religious minority Hindu woman, Rashmi Samant, was cyber-bullied, trolled, terrorized, and forced to resign from her post as elected president of the Oxford Student Union, just days ago. Why? That was a rhetorical question. We know the answer. The same worthies have also ignored a vile campaign by a foul-mouthed assistant professor at Rutgers University to demonize a small racial and religious minority, Hindus, mostly Asian Americans. Tulsi Gabbard, a Hindu though not Asian (she’s a Pacific Islander), has been attacked directly for her faith. Although the hate campaign against her was utterly horrifying, not a single academic bothered to condemn it. Here is an actual campaign poster against Gabbard. (Hat tip to Sheenie Ambardar for this).No, none of this bothers the 150 letter writers. That means they have no moral leg to stand on: they are hypocrites. But they make it sound like Mehta was subjected to something akin to what Hypatia, the foremost woman scholar of her time, and a philosopher and mathematician of repute, experienced in Rome around 300CE. They dragged her out of her chariot and into a church, stripped her naked, gouged out her eyeballs while she was still alive, slashed her to pieces with broken tiles, then cut her body up, dragged the pieces through the streets, and burned them: all because newly-ascendant Christians hated pagans. In fact, it was Rashmi Sawant who was treated a bit like Hypatia, not Pratap Bhanu Mehta; and explicitly for the same reason: she is a Hindu. Abrahamics have a serious problem with Hindus and others of the Old Religions. As described in the fascinating book The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World, majoritarian rule by Christians meant the total destruction of the old Roman religion around 400-500 CE.Majoritarian rule by Abrahamics almost inevitably means religious minorities are oppressed, and frequently they are wiped out, exterminated. So there is good reason to fear majoritarian Abrahamic rule, as freedoms will be curtailed.However, by sleight of hand, this Abrahamic technique is ascribed to Hindus, and the likes of Mehta talk up a storm about ‘fascistic’, ‘majoritarian Hindu nationalist’ rule! This sells well to the Deep State and Christian fundamentalists and regime-change enthusiasts in the West, but is entirely without basis. It is a gigantic fraud that ordinary Indians have also been gaslighted into. Hindu rule is demonstrably benign and liberal. Look at the classical Chanakya niti: he advocates sama, dana, bheda and only when other avenues are explored and fruitless, danda. The Pandavas give the Kauravas innumerable opportunities to negotiate a settlement without bloodshed, even willing to accept merely five villages for themselves, while the empire went to the Kauravas.Then there’s the Sisupala story, where Lord Krishna forgives 99 transgressions before slaying him. And look at India today. It may have a large numerical majority of Hindus, but it is a Minoritarian State, as interpreted by the Executive and Judiciary and enshrined in the Constitution. Religious minorities get all sorts of privileges not available to Hindus, most distressingly the fact that Hindu temples are captured by the State. Just two days ago, government bureaucrats were selling off 35,000 acres of land belonging to the Lord Jagannath temple. The vast holdings of churches (the #2 land-owner in the country, after the government), much of it expired 99-year-leases that they squat on illegally as though they were land grants, are never touched. Waqf properties, that is Muslim community properties, are also left alone.There are special provisions for all sorts of things for minorities. Kerala’s government has posted employment advertisements that are reserved for converts to Christianity! There are schemes to pay Muslim priests salaries and Christian priests pensions and to greatly subsidize Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca and Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem, while Hindus have to pay for their pilgrimages out of their own pockets. And the Modi government, accused of ‘majoritarianism’ has itself rolled out goodies like scholarship schemes, even entire universities and schemes for women, explicitly for non-Hindus! In other words, extreme liberalism is being painted as fascism! How very predictable! How very Orwellian!All the breast-beating by Mehta and friends about ‘majoritarianism’ boils down to a concern that Hindus will get equality. That’s right: any attempt by Hindus to merely demand equality under the law is treated as ‘fascism’. This is the kind of extreme rhetoric that the malcontents in India espouse.For instance, they made a godawful fuss about the badly-named Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which merely provides non-Muslim minorities being genocided in Pakistan and Afghanistan fast-track access to Indian citizenship. This was portrayed as a grave offense: why? Because the Pak and Afghan Muslims doing the genocide would not gain Indian citizenship! That is utterly absurd!The genocide is not theoretical, either. Just two days ago, there was news of Ajay Lalwani, a Hindu journalist in Pakistan, being shot dead by a gunman. His crime: he had reported on how underage Hindu girls in Pakistan suffer regular kidnap, rape, conversion to Islam, and forced marriage to Muslims. This happens on average to three teenage girls a day, every day. That is explicit Abrahamic majoritarianism. And that is precisely why CAA is an utterly liberal law, protecting the victims of religious apartheid and genocide. Nevertheless, here is Pratap Bhanu Mehta fulminating against the CAA, passed into law by the elected Indian parliament, and suggesting in so many words that the way to challenge it was not to use the Judiciary, but to riot in the streets. But we should recognise that this direction is not going to be set through the nice formalisms of law, or the contrived conventions we can adhere to in normal times. The direction is going to be set by the mob, by brute power, by mobilisation.This is outrageous. Some might call it seditious. If there were McCarthyites in India, they would nail Mehta. There aren’t, so he gets cushy sinecures, while spearheading a reverse-McCarthyite movement to blackball anybody who is not part of his cohort’s Big Brother thought control!What explains this strange power Mehta has to keep an entire country in thrall to his views? It couldn’t possibly be his regular op-eds in the Indian Express. I have been surprised by the drivel he churns out. It is verbose and prolix, full of the turgid and impenetrable vocabulary of the cultural Marxist. He writes 3,000-word essays that say… exactly nothing. That is, of course, when he’s not inciting people to riot, as above. On second thoughts, maybe it is better that he not use many verbs, unlike this famous Doonesbury strip from 1980 lampooning Ted Kennedy.Pratap Bhanu Mehta remains an enigma; nay, a mystery wrapped in a conundrum. What is the source of his influence? How does he regularly end up in prestigious positions for which he may or may not be qualified or competent? Is he an outstanding scholar who has produced great work? Why is he the darling of the Ecosystem? The blurb on Mehta says this:His areas of research include political theory, constitutional law, society and politics in India, governance and political economy, and international affairs.Not being in that business, I have no idea what his contribution is. I used to think he must be a globally-renowned scholar. But so far as I can tell, he has not done any path-breaking, seminal work. The only awards on his blurb are from India. So why is there such a fuss about him from Anglosphere friends? Mehta sounds rather like Yogendra Yadav, who is famous only for being famous. It would also be interesting to see if any of those worthies from Columbia, Yale, Harvard, MIT, Oxford, etc. actually invites Mehta to a position in their home institutions. Somehow I doubt that, because they have their own bailiwicks to protect, and anyway he’s probably more useful to them if he is in India. But it is not unknown for washed-up Ecosystem journalists (I can name at least two) to be given cushy slots in the Deep State newspapers of the West. There was also a journalist who said she was an Associate Professor at Harvard, until it crashed and burned and she made (hard to believe) excuses about mail fraud. So I for one would not be surprised if Mehta were to turn up at some university that is friendly to the Deep State and Atlanticism. Don’t cry for Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Argentina. Or Lutyens, or Khan Market. I am pretty sure he’ll pop up somewhere, being hailed as the new Solzhenitsyn. The real Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, poor guy, will turn over in his grave. POSTSCRIPT: Gurcharan Das confirms that Mehta jumped, and was not pushed. Somehow that is a little disappointing. So we are still a Soft State? Sigh. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/a-tale-of-two-heroes-tragedy-at-ashoka-university-shows-the-difficulty-of-doing-good-in-todays-world/ This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com

This is segment of episode #265 of Last Born In The Wilderness “Art & The Void: Majoritarian Reality & The Infinite Sea Of Possibility w/ Margaret Killjoy.” Listen to the full episode: http://bit.ly/LBWkilljoy Read Margaret’s essay ‘Art and the Void’: https://bit.ly/2Yg1xXO In this excerpt of my interview with anarchist author, musician, and crafter Margaret Killjoy, we discuss a recent essay published on her website ‘Art and the Void,’ in which she explores creativity and artistic exploration, using the metaphor of an "ice floe, floating in an infinite sea" to examine our mutually expressed and shared reality and our contributions to it. “We, more or less all of us, live on the ice floe. We, more or less all of us, are constantly in the process of making and fixing and expanding it. Without our continued work, the ice would break apart, or it would melt, and we would be swallowed by the sea, by the void, by the infinite possibility. That is to say, we are constantly in the process of making and remaking reality. We do not do this alone. We do this collectively.” (https://bit.ly/2Yg1xXO) Within this framing, we then discuss not only creative expression as such, but also gender roles and other potentially constricting categories our society imposes on us. Margaret Killjoy is the author of numerous novels, including ‘The Lamb Will Slaughter the Lion’ and ‘The Barrow Will Send What it May,’ and has contributed to such books as ‘We Are Many.’ She is currently a part several music projects, including Vulgarite, Feminazgul, Alsarath, and Nomadic War Machine. WEBSITE: https://www.lastborninthewilderness.com BOOK: http://bit.ly/ORBITgr PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/lastborninthewilderness DONATE: https://www.paypal.me/lastbornpodcast DROP ME A LINE: Call (208) 918-2837 or http://bit.ly/LBWfiledrop EVERYTHING ELSE: https://linktr.ee/patterns.of.behavior

[Intro: 11:36] In this episode I speak with Margaret Killjoy — anarchist author, musician, and crafter. In the wake of the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests and uprisings since the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, "anarchists" have been in the news. Whether it's President Trump calling for the arrest of "radical-left anarchists" and "Antifa," or Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden stating that “arsonists and anarchists should be prosecuted,” there is a long history of anarchists being scapegoated by the political elite in times of civil unrest. I ask Margaret to provide some historical context to these statements by Trump and Biden, pointing to the Russian Revolution in 1917 and the Haymarket Affair of 1886 in the United States, and the role anarchists played in each of these respective events. From there, we move into discussing a recent essay published on her website ‘Art and the Void,’ in which she explores creativity and artistic exploration, using the metaphor of an "ice floe, floating in an infinite sea" to examine our mutually expressed and shared reality and our contributions to it. “We, more or less all of us, live on the ice floe. We, more or less all of us, are constantly in the process of making and fixing and expanding it. Without our continued work, the ice would break apart, or it would melt, and we would be swallowed by the sea, by the void, by the infinite possibility. That is to say, we are constantly in the process of making and remaking reality. We do not do this alone. We do this collectively.” (https://bit.ly/2Yg1xXO) Within this framing, we then discuss not only creative expression as such, but also gender roles and other potentially constricting categories our society imposes on us. We also discuss her focus on writing mostly fiction versus nonfiction, and how both forms of writing can help us explore the sea the infinite possibility. Margaret Killjoy is the author of numerous novels, including ‘The Lamb Will Slaughter the Lion’ and ‘The Barrow Will Send What it May,’ and has contributed to such books as ‘We Are Many.’ She is currently a part several music projects, including Vulgarite, Feminazgul, Alsarath, and Nomadic War Machine. As she states in her bio:  “I’ve spent most of my adult life on the road, but am currently nestled into the Appalachian mountains. Politically, I’m an anarchist: I believe society would be better off without systems of hierarchy and oppression such as the state, capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and the like. I’m a trans woman and my preferred pronouns are she/her, but I also believe in the abolition of gendered language and have no problem with people using the singular “they” to refer to me.” Episode Notes: - Learn more about Margaret and her work: http://birdsbeforethestorm.net - Read her essay ‘Art and the Void’: https://bit.ly/2Yg1xXO - Follow her on Twitter: https://twitter.com/magpiekilljoy - Check out her various music projects: https://vulgarite.bandcamp.com / https://feminazgul.bandcamp.com / https://alsarath.bandcamp.com / https://nomadicwarmachine.bandcamp.com - The songs featured in this episode are “Witch of Hemlock, Witch of Pine” by Alsarath from the album Come To Daggers and “I Know You're Wrong For Me” by Nomadic War Machine from the album We Are Not Monsters. WEBSITE: https://www.lastborninthewilderness.com BOOK: http://bit.ly/ORBITgr PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/lastborninthewilderness DONATE: https://www.paypal.me/lastbornpodcast DROP ME A LINE: Call (208) 918-2837 or http://bit.ly/LBWfiledrop EVERYTHING ELSE: https://linktr.ee/patterns.of.behavior

Ajay Chaudhary & Maurice Mitchell analyze the racist right wing surge & how to fight for a real democracy built on racial, social and economic justice

Was listening to Matt Yglesias talk about how the American System of Government is failed because it isn't Majoritarian enough... of course this frustrated me and I had say a few words. Learn more at Libertarian101.com --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/alexmerced/support

Was listening to Matt Yglesias talk about how the American System of Government is failed because it isn't Majoritarian enough……

Was listening to Matt Yglesias talk about how the American System of Government is failed because it isn't Majoritarian enough……

Was listening to Matt Yglesias talk about how the American System of Government is failed because it isn’t Majoritarian enough……

Was listening to Matt Yglesias talk about how the American System of Government is failed because it isn’t Majoritarian enough……

Was listening to Matt Yglesias talk about how the American System of Government is failed because it isn’t Majoritarian enough……

Was listening to Matt Yglesias talk about how the American System of Government is failed because it isn’t Majoritarian enough……

Was listening to Matt Yglesias talk about how the American System of Government is failed because it isn’t Majoritarian enough……

Was listening to Matt Yglesias talk about how the American System of Government is failed because it isn’t Majoritarian enough……

Was listening to Matt Yglesias talk about how the American System of Government is failed because it isn’t Majoritarian enough……

Was listening to Matt Yglesias talk about how the American System of Government is failed because it isn’t Majoritarian enough……

Was listening to Matt Yglesias talk about how the American System of Government is failed because it isn’t Majoritarian enough……

First, Milan sits down with Sadanand Dhume of the American Enterprise Institute and Wall Street Journal. In a recent column, Sadanand writes that “an outcome that appeared uncertain a few months ago looks exceedingly likely: Prime Minister Narendra Modi, leader of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, is poised to win a second term.” Milan speaks with Sadanand about his recent trip to western Uttar Pradesh and the on-the-ground pro-Modi sentiment he found there. The two also discuss a recent column Sadanand penned on the BJP’s worrying majoritarian rhetoric and Milan’s recent Washington Post op-ed on why voters are searching for an excuse to back Modi. Then, Milan speaks with Snigdha Poonam, national affairs reporter for the Hindustan Times, on her series on first-time voters. Each week, Snigdha and her colleagues profile a first-time voter across India and documenting their perspective on the 2019 race and what influences their vote. Milan and Snigdha talk about how young voters view Modi, Rahul Gandhi, and India’s economic travails. They also speak about Snigdha’s acclaimed book, Dreamers: How Young Indians Are Changing Their World, and the aspirations and anxieties that animate India’s youth.

Cato's annual Constitution Day symposium marks the day in 1787 that the Constitutional Convention finished drafting the U.S. Constitution. We celebrate that event each year with the release of the new issue of the Cato Supreme Court Review and with a day-long symposium featuring noted scholars discussing the recently concluded Supreme Court term and the important cases coming up. Past speakers have included Judges Alex Kozinski, Diane Sykes, and Douglas Ginsburg, Professors Richard Epstein, Michael McConnell, and Nadine Strossen, and Supreme Court litigators Paul Clement, Neal Katyal, and Walter Dellinger. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dr. Rick Patrick, Executive Director of Connect316 and local Pastor, joins Dr. Flowers on the program today to discuss the article below and how the Conservative Resurgence relates and affects today's conflict over Soteriology:   The Rise of Soteriological Traditionalism By: Rick Patrick , PastorFirst Baptist Church Sylacauga, AL This article was originally posted in Theological Matters and is used by permission. In 2012, hundreds of pastors, professors and laypersons affixed their signatures to the most attested confession of faith Southern Baptists have ever produced with the exception of The Baptist Faith and Message. Since that time, hundreds more have signed this document, which is available for signing today at the Connect 316 website. A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvationwas written by Eric Hankins, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Oxford, Miss. This document generated significant discussion, prompting the formation of a Southern Baptist task force on soteriology, the branch of theology focusing on salvation doctrine. Today, looking back, we are better able to assess the significance of these efforts. What are the historic roots of Soteriological Traditionalism?First, we find theological similarities with the Anabaptists in Switzerland during the 16th century. Later, we trace our theological stream from the General Baptists in England in the 17th century to the Sandy Creek tradition in the American South during the 18th and 19th centuries. Ultimately, in the 20th century, the primary confessor of each version of The Baptist Faith and Message (E.Y. Mullins in 1925, Herschel Hobbs in 1963, and Adrian Rogers in 2000) uniformly held to the view of salvation doctrine that is described in the Traditional Statement. Where did Soteriological Traditionalism get its name?In 2001, Fisher Humphreys and Paul Robertson, who both served as professors at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote God So Loved the World: Traditional Baptists and Calvinism. They used the term “traditional” for the basic view of salvation doctrine held by Herschel Hobbs, Adrian Rogers and Billy Graham. Eleven years later, this very same word was included in the title of the statement. Can we not find a better term for our position than “Traditionalism”?First, we must rule out partial terms or combinations of views we disaffirm. Thus, we are not “Moderate Calvinists,” “Calminians” or “Semi-Arminians.” Who really wants to be half-something? Second, we resist terms that negate. Thus, labels like “Anti-Calvinist” or “Non-Arminian” are off-limits. No Dallas Cowboy fan prefers the moniker “Anti-Redskin.” Third, the term must actually distinguish. Many claim for themselves the Baptist or Biblicist or Majoritarian position. Some who object to the term “Traditionalist” believe it must refer to the earliest days of the SBC in 1845. But the term is not “Originalist.” Many churches offer a Traditional Worship Service featuring music that was popular in the mid-20th century. Theology popular in that period can also be called “Traditional.” While other options exist, such as “Savabilist,” “Extensivist,” “Decisionist,” “Conversionist” and “Volitionist,” no term has yet emerged that is as widely accepted as “Traditionalist.” What are the doctrinal beliefs affirmed in the statement?The statement affirms Traditionalism while disaffirming Calvinism, Arminianism, Semipelagianism and Amyraldism. To better understand these terms and your own view of salvation doctrine, consider completing this brief Soteriological Assessment.  In general, Traditionalists accept a small amount of Calvinism and a fair amount of Arminianism, while also disagreeing in important ways with both views. We also disagree with the Semipelagians and the Amyraldists. We are basically staking a position for Southern Baptist Traditionalists residing at a point that lies between the Arminianism of the Methodists and the Calvinism of the Presbyterians. What did we learn from the reaction to the Traditional statement?The initial reaction was unnecessarily polemical, as the signers (including many of our leading theologians and pastors) were charged variously with Semipelagian heresy or remedial reading comprehension skills. Looking back, I am amused by these charges. At the time, however, I was distraught that the Southern Baptist views I had learned, believed and preached all my life were suddenly suspect. This fact only served to establish the absolute necessity of the statement’s publication, for if one group of Southern Baptists could look at the convictions of another group and conclude they were practically heretical, we obviously had some important wrinkles to iron out. How was this a theologically defining moment for Southern Baptists?When the statement came out, an assumption had begun to take root that all Southern Baptists should be viewed as Calvinists to a certain degree. It was as though the course setting for our denominational ship was due Calvinist and the default Southern Baptist position was going to be theologically reformed. For many of us, our consciences would simply not allow us to be pulled in this direction any further. It was time for us to stand up and say, “We do not believe Calvinism should be seen as the optimal SBC position.” Is the goal of Connect 316 and Traditionalism to eradicate Calvinism in the SBC?Our aim is not to drive Calvinism from the convention, but rather to establish our own place at the denominational table. A few years ago, we counted six different Calvinist organizations influencing the SBC. We thought there should be at least one organization promoting our own theology. Why should one theological wing of our denomination sponsor all the conferences and give away all the t-shirts and invite all the speakers and publish all the books? Southern Baptists will fly much higher with two healthy wings. How does Connect 316 endeavor to promote Traditionalism in a positive manner?We sponsor an annual banquet at the Southern Baptist Convention. In Baltimore, we had 100 in attendance. In Columbus, we had 200. In St. Louis, we had 300. As our attendance grows, we will be better equipped to promote a more Traditionalist-friendly convention. We also sponsor a news blog, SBC Today, with more than 1,000 hits per day and readers from more than 170 countries. On social media, we have the 316 Roundtable, an open discussion forum on Facebook. Our Connect 316 website offers many helpful resources. We also assist ministries hosting regional conferences. What is the greatest challenge in promoting Soteriological Traditionalism?Most Southern Baptists probably identify with our understanding of salvation. They simply do not call it by the lofty term “Soteriological Traditionalism.” Believing it to be commonly held, they may see no need for the label or the movement. Frankly, they must first be apprised of the growing influence of Calvinism in order to explain how Traditionalism differs from it and why these differences matter. It is a rather complex assignment to teach people that what they have always believed is being seriously challenged today. They must first learn about the Calvinism they reject in order to fully appreciate the Traditionalism they affirm. How can Southern Baptists get involved in this growing movement?I often hear from young people who disaffirm Calvinism but are nevertheless assumed to wear such a label simply due to their youthfulness. They feel disconnected as their Calvinist friends attend conferences and events. They wonder where they can find a theological home offering like-minded fellowship and resources. I hear from former Calvinists who have converted to Traditionalism only to experience a loss of fellowship. Connect 316 is beginning to fill this void. You can get involved by attending our annual banquet this summer in Phoenix, by reading or writing at sbctoday.com, by checking out our website atconnect316.net, by hosting a regional conference, or by simply signing the Traditional Statement. The movement of Soteriological Traditionalism packages an old theology with a new label. Southern Baptists disenfranchised by New Calvinism will find a welcoming theological home among the like-minded Christians at Connect 316.   Show NOTES: Here is the link from the Disciple 6 Resource page: http://disciple6.com/ And here is the pdf for Dr. Lemke’s article on our Southern Baptist soteriological roots: http://swbts.edu/sites/default/files/images/content/docs/journal/57_2/57.2%20History%20or%20Revisionist%20History%20Lemke.pdf

This episode went in the general direction of the new flag promotion of the government, some conversations about religion and political religiosity, some stuff about cinema and its pandering to turbo nationalism. Overall, a good session.