#Illegitimate

[brinaarcadia]

In BioShock 2, Jack has seemingly become a man of legend among the Splicers left in Rapture. Even Sofia Lamb looks upon him positively, seeing his lack of free will as a boon and inspiration for her to begin her Utopian Experiments. Simon Wales believes Jack to be a god, mentioning how he killed Andrew Ryan. In Siren Alley, paintings of Jack's activities in Rapture can be seen, with subjects such as the plane crash, Dr. Steinman, and Jack's wrist about to be injected with a Plasmid. In one of Frank Fontaine's Audio Diaries, set directly before the beginning of BioShock, he mentions "I've got a hell of a surprise for Andrew Ryan. Long time comin'. And right about now, I expect the prodigal son is bookin' his flight…"

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

This Monster is a threat to the World. Art by Wefail.art

* * * * *

Toward a Theory of Civic Sede Vacantism

March 4, 2025 1:50 p.m.

For almost a year I’ve been thinking through an idea that now seems especially timely and relevant in the last six weeks. I think of it as a form of civic sede vacantism. The reference is, ironically, to a strain of hyper-traditionalist Catholic thought which held (still holds) that none of Vatican II canons or the successive Popes counted because they were heretical and heretics. A bit more complicated than that. But details of that really aren’t relevant for us. I just found the defining metaphor or concept helpful. The key is their idea that the papal throne was empty. That’s the meaning of the Latin phrase, sede vacante. My interest and concern with this grew out of my belief that civic democrats in the US have far too great an essentialism about the law and constitutional jurisprudence, especially under the corrupted federal judiciary as it now exists. It breeds a kind of fatalism and passivity which casts a pall over thought and political action.

I know I’ve thrown around a lot of big and perhaps obscure ideas. So let me get down to concrete specifics. In Trump v. United States last year the Supreme Court claimed that Presidents have wide immunity from criminal law after they leave the presidency. For many people this was an ‘everything changed’ moment. It did in effect end Trump’s prosecution. But now that’s the law, as so many people I know put it. Only it’s not. This isn’t a decision I disagree with. It’s simply wrong. I’m not going to rehearse all the arguments. To me, among all the other areas of flawed and disingenuous reasoning, we have the simple fact that the authors of the constitution knew precisely how to confer immunity on public officials. They did it with Congress. But again, I’m not trying to rehearse the specific arguments. Others have already made them on the particulars better than I can. I’m saying that we must disengage from the idea that this is what the law is. It’s not. These are fraudulent decisions.

Now, as a practical matter we are in a situation in which I think we comply with them. The alternative is the abyss. But it’s a practical decision.

Now, here is the point where people ask me, what’s the difference? You’re saying this isn’t actually the law or the constitution. But we still comply with it as though it were the law. What’s the point of that? Whatever this distinction is, who cares? That doesn’t matter.

But I think it does matter. We are living in a moment in which the system of legal, interpretive legitimacy has fatally broken down. It’s been in its death throes for a decade. Now it’s no longer operating at all. That throne is empty of anything that commands our allegiance or claims to legitimacy. If the Supreme Court decides in a few months that people born on American soil are not citizens it will have disastrous and immediate effects on many of our fellow citizens. It won’t mean that the plain and always understood meaning of the 14th Amendment changed. It will mean that the people who currently hold power have opted to rule outside the Constitution.

If the court says the President can, in fact, dismantle Department after Department, which Congress created, because the President holds some kind of indivisible sovereign power cribbed from an inter-war German far-right ideologue, that won’t make it so. It will remind us that we are in this period of interregnum in which we are grappling with a renegade, corrupt court operating outside the constitutional order as well as a renegade and lawless president.

Again, you may say this is some weird semantic distinction that has no real meaning. We’ve got bigger fish to fry. I respect that response. It’s a subtle distinction. But some semantic distinctions are important. We only understand the world through language. That is a profound reality about human cognition. The language we use in the present shapes how we understand the present reality and what possibilities we can see within it. We need to open up the cognitive space to understand the situation we are in and which our country is in. Fundamentally, it means grappling with the corruption rather than living within it, living within its ideas and ground assumptions and perforce being softly governed by them.

As I said, I’ve been mulling this for months. But I decided to write it out after I heard an account of a townhall meeting with Maryland’s senators, Van Hollen and Alsobrooks. As it was recounted to me they said many of the right things. But a key part of their message was we need to let the legal cases play out.

This is precisely the wrong message, the wrong understanding of the situation we’re in.

As we’ve seen over the last few weeks, the courts — even in their current degraded state — play a key, important role. But they’re just a tool in a larger contest that is fundamentally about public opinion. There are good odds the final decisions in the courts will themselves be corrupt and unconstitutional, at least in part. So it’s not that courts don’t matter. They do. A lot. But we shouldn’t be thinking we’re going to wait on what any court decides. That’s only a half step from waiting to hear what Donald Trump decides. I keep hearing right minded or semi-right minded people say, well we’re going to see if this stuff is constitutional. I reject the assumption. At the margins there are questions about what’s constitutional. We’re way past the margins. The fact that we’re operating way outside the express text and logic of the Constitution, and no president in history has thought any of this stuff was possible, is plenty to answer the question. We’re waiting to see if the courts will follow the Constitution. And there’s a good chance they won’t.

I’ve said this a number of times. We’re embarked on a vast battle over the future of the American Republic, in which the executive and much of the judiciary is acting outside the constitutional order. That battle is fundamentally over public opinion. We’re in a constitutional interregnum and we are trying to restore constitutional government. The courts are a tool. Federalism is a big, big tool, the significance and importance of which is getting too little discussion. But it’s really about public opinion. And that means it’s about politics. The American people will decide this. That’s what this is all about. Waiting on the courts is just a basic misunderstanding of the whole situation.

[Send comments and tips to talk at talkingpointsmemo dot com. To share confidential information by secure channels contact me on Signal at joshtpm dot 99 or via encrypted mail at joshtpm (at) protonmail dot com.]

[gregor-samsung]

Ilegitim [Illegitimate] (Adrian Sitaru, 2016)

[aurianneor]

Illegitimate authorities

The European Commission, religious leaders, consultancy firms (Accentur, Mac Kinsey, Ernst and Young, PWC), crowds, senates and social networks are all examples of illegitimate authorities in countries where the people are self-determining as a democracy. Big business like Coca-Cola or Total is powerful; what is illegitimate is the representative of the people who puts the interests of big business before those of the people. Scientists with the title of doctor of science, who are therefore authorities who sell their souls to the multinationals, these sellers of doubt are illegitimate, as the documentary The World According to Monsanto shows.

For example, the European Commission is made up of people appointed by the member countries; they are not elected. The European Parliament, which is elected and therefore legitimate, has no authority because it is only consultative.

The crowd is illegitimate. The angry people in the street are not the ones who have to decide. Citizens are legitimate. They have to decide by referendum to become a legitimate authority.

Religious people have power, but they are not legitimate authorities. Politicians have no business consulting them.

Consultancy firms, including the Fab Four, have no business advising our elected representatives and public authorities. The administration is the arm that implements what has been voted. If the people have decided on such and such a programme for such and such an elected official, that’s what they want. The abuse of these consultancy firms is causing the population of experts in the administration to decline because these posts are being abolished. These consultancy firms serve their most powerful clients, not the people. Civil servants are servants of the people. For example, the entire COVID reaction was steered by Mac Kinsey, even though we have a Ministry of Health.

Senates or upper houses are assemblies of unelected people, often appointed for life, who have the power to block any political change in a country even if the people want it. They can nullify the work of the people’s representatives. They are major obstacles to the will of the people.

Social networks, unlike journalists, have not been to school and do not have a journalist’s card; the protection of their sources is not governed by law. They have no authority to guarantee their information. Social networks are replacing journalism. There is no transparency or ethics. They are commercial companies that sell their influence to private companies, political parties or governments. 73% of 16-30 year-olds get their information solely from social networks, according to the newspaper L’Etudiant.

The police and the army are illegitimate when they serve power rather than the people. They are legitimate when they defend the people. For example, General de Gaulle was legitimate in his appeal of 18 June. General Lafayette sided with the French revolutionaries against the nobility. Napoleon was legitimate when he overthrew parliament.

Courts of exception are illegitimate. Justice is accountable to the people, so why are our elected representatives judged by parliamentary commissions of enquiry, high courts of justice or military tribunals? Industrial tribunals are an aberration. The administrative courts are a form of justice where people judge each other and are not accountable to the people. The arbitration tribunal set up by the European Union judges economic disputes by economic players, not by judges.

The European Central Bank is independent, not subject to the power of elected representatives.

To find out more, read Illegitimate Authority: Facing the Challenges of Our Timeby Noam Chomsky.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Les autorités illégitimes: https://www.aurianneor.org/les-autorites-illegitimes/

The Senate, the power to piss people off: https://www.aurianneor.org/the-senate-the-power-to-piss-people-off/

Ecoterrorism: https://www.aurianneor.org/ecoterrorism/

Fed up with strikes? Ask for referendums!: https://www.aurianneor.org/fed-up-with-strikes-ask-for-referendums/

Le référendum est une arme qui tue la violence: https://www.aurianneor.org/le-referendum-est-une-arme-qui-tue-la-violence-oui/

Oui au Référendum d’initiative populaire: https://www.aurianneor.org/oui-au-referendum-dinitiative-populaire-petition/

Police and justice for the people: https://www.aurianneor.org/police-and-justice-for-the-people/

Police, Armée: https://www.aurianneor.org/police-armee-manif-des-policiers-je-suis-gilet/

Banca: https://www.aurianneor.org/banca-the-merchant-of-venice-william/

[primepaginequotidiani]

PRIMA PAGINA The Jerusalem Post di Oggi martedì, 15 aprile 2025

[bompabella]

Question to all Rolling Stones fans interested in Brian Jones and his children.

In Paul Trynka's (great) book he mentions that Brian had a child before Simon (Barry David) with Valerie. The child was put up for adoption by the mother (called by the pseudonym "Hope" in the book) and Trynka doesn't mention if they were a boy or a girl.

Does anyone know anything about this child?

Brian never knew about his children Belinda and Barbara, but he knew of "Barry", Mark, Julian, and "Paul" (later John), and must surely have known of this first baby.

When Brian started with the Stones he mentioned to the other guys that he had "illegitimate sons" (I think), so maybe that's a clue towards them being a boy? Does anyone know of he ever mentioned how many sons he had when he met the band? They started in 1962 and by then Brian would only have known of the first baby, Valerie's son and his son Mark with Pat Andrews. So he'd know of three at that time.

By July 1964 Linda had her boy Julian with him. So if he mentioned sons then they would be four. Dawn Molloy's son "Paul"/John was born in either late 1964 or early 1965. So after 1965 he would know of five sons if the first baby was male.

If he ever mentioned a daughter before he passed then it's likely to be this baby or another completely unknown child since he never seems to have known of Belinda or Barbara.

Maybe one of the other Stones their partners mentioned something, I've been trying to look for interviews with Anita and Marianne for clues. Anita spoke A LOT about Brian over the years.

[akaanmo]

thought about what a robin to the absolute!batman would look like. conclusion: small

[mighty-morphin-theatre-nerd]

Fuck that entire decision. They just upheld systemic racism. The Supreme Court is barely legitimate at this point.

What's really horrific is the same 14th Ammendment designed to protect Blacks from white racism is being used today by 6-fake SCOTUS justices to deny Blacks protection from white racism/supremacy.

Beyond pathetic!

[spoken-memories]

Harami!

Urdu ↑ English ↓

B*st*rd!

[sabertoothwalrus]

don't ask him about that it's private

[tenth-sentence]

What's the difference between legitimate and illegitimate means of political influence?

"Going Dark: The Secret Social Lives of Extremists" - Julia Ebner

[dcxdpdabbles]

Alfred: May I help you?

Danny: Yes, you can. I need to talk to the master of the house. I'm Bruce Wayne's illegitimate son.

Alfred: Oh?

Danny: Normally, I wouldn't bother him, but my mom recently passed away, and I have nowhere to go. Here is a letter she wrote to him.

Alfred after reading glowing green paper: I'm afraid Master Bruce is out at the moment, but you may come in and wait for him in the main sitting room. I'll make you some tea in the meantime.

Danny: Trying to gather a DNA sample, I see. That's fine. I wouldn't believe a random kid that showed up on the doorstep either.

Alfred mildly suprise: I assure you, I merely wanted to offer you a warm drink after being caught in the rain.

Danny: Right, and the firearm you have tucked up your left sleeve has nothing to do with me breaking through the front gate security to get to the door.

Alfred smiling:*cocking gun* You may be Master's Bruce's after all.

Danny smiling: *Powering up ray gun* And you may earn your place at a Fenton dinner table. So....Tea?

Alfred: Is Earl Grey alright with you?

Danny: Of course. It's the only tea that is worth drinking.

Alfred: Wise words. Right this way and do remember, I'll put a bullet between your eyes if you're a threat.

Danny: I'll fry you alive before you can even pull the trigger. *Ray gun crackling with electricity*

Alfred mentally: If this lad isn't Master Bruce's, I'll adopt him myself.

[howwelldoyouknowyourmoon]

Sexual rites, concubines, and the secret son of Sun Myung Moon

[miss-bubles]

you would think that the Rhaenyra stan’s would be crying for Mya Stone to sit the Iron throne but crickets

Targ stans are famously bad at both media literacy and critical thinking. If a war between five kings broke out over the Lannister bastards, then why wouldn’t ppl be upset by rhaenyra’s? They really thought that in this backwards ass world that is Westeros ppl would just be fine with rhaenyra’s kids clearly not being laenor’s. It’s kinda nice to once again say I told you so lol

It truly is a sight to behold. I get that the modern perspective means it doesn’t matter, but it doesn’t take the most galaxy brain in existence to realize Westeros is not taking place in the modern perspective.

Key point? Rhaenys and Rhaenyra. They are supposed to represent modern feminist ideology. (They don’t.) However, Rhaenyra believes she’s the exception to the rule of inheritance and it should only be sons after her. And Rhaenys had no problem marrying off her 12 year old to an old man so that her daughter could birth heirs and usurp Rhaenyra.

Stannis and Renly Baratheon declared war against Joffrey because he was a very clear bastard. “But they weren’t related to the king!” I hear antis crying. Yes. But none of Robert’s bastards that were related to him took the throne either nor did any of them have a claim.

Bastardy is a hot topic in Westeros. No matter how you try to construe it, bastards don’t have a claim to the throne. Therefore, Rhaenyra pushing them on the throne is treason. If it wasn’t a big deal that they were born bastards, Rhaenyra would’ve cried to daddy that her kids aren’t legitimate and asked him to legitimize them by royal decree. But she doesn’t do that. She hides it. Because it is a big deal and she knows she fucked up.

It takes the smallest amount of critical thinking to understand that Rhaenyra’s kids being illegitimate is a big deal that hurts her claim to the throne. But what can I expect from people that watched a white woman crowd surf brown people calling her mother and thought “Yes. This is clearly a good person.”

[the-shy-lonely-weirdo]

Everyone keeps saying Ford is Bill’s baby mama, but Stan’s mind was the last one he was in. He birthed him from his mind womb!

Anyway, Happy Mother’s Day to Stan!